Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-10-2012, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Indeed, but even if achieved, would not be giving a date for the original ms.

First some notes on the ms tradition.

Version B is a late and diffuse working-over of the same matter:

Version A looks the oldest ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by notes on the Documentary Tradition for "Acts of Pilate"

(1.1) M.R. James - 1924
THE GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS, OR ACTS OF PILATE
From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
Introduction

We have as yet no true critical edition of this book: one is in preparation, by E. von Dobschutz,
to be included in the Berlin corpus of Greek Ante-Nicene Christian writers. A short statement of
the authorities available at this moment is therefore necessary.

Tischendorf in his Evangelia Apocrypha divides the whole writing into two parts:

(1) the story of the Passion;
(2) the Descent into hell;

and prints the following forms of each: six in all:

1. Part I, Recession A in Greek from eight manuscripts,
and a Latin translation of the Coptic version in the notes.

2. Part I, Recession B in Greek from three late manuscripts.

3. Part II (Descent into Hell) in Greek from three manuscripts.

4. Part I in Latin, using twelve manuscripts, and some old editions.

5. Part II in Latin (A) from four manuscripts.

6. Part II in Latin (B) from three manuscripts.

Tischendorf's must be described as an eclectic text not representing probably, any one
single line of transmission: but it presents the book in a readable, and doubtless, on
the whole, correct form.

There are, besides the Latin, three ancient versions of Part I
of considerable importance, viz.:

Coptic, preserved in an early papyrus at Turin, and in some fragments at Paris.
Last edited by Revillout in Patrologia orientalis, ix. 2.

Syriac, edited by Rahmaui in Studia Syriaca, II.

Armenian, edited by F. C. Conybeara in Studia Biblica, IV (Oxford, 1896):
he gives a Greek rendering of one manuscript and a Latin one of another.

[Also extant is a 5th-century palimpsest from Vienna (Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek MS 563; Izydorczyk 1997:44–45)]
.

All of these conform to Tischelldorf's Recession A of Part I: and this must be regarded as the
most original form of the Acta which we have. Recession B is a late and diffuse working-over
of the same matter: it will not be translated here in full.

The first part of the book, containing the story of the Passion and Resurrection, is not earlier
than the fourth century. Its object in the main is to furnish irrefragable testimony to the
resurrection. Attempts have been made to show that it is of early date-that it is, for instance,
the writing which Justin Martyr meant when in his Apology he referred his heathen readers to the
'Acts' of Christ's trial preserved among the archives of Rome. The truth of that matter is that
he simply assumed that such records must exist. False 'acts' of the trial were written in the
Pagan interest under Maximin, and introduced into schools early in the fourth century. It is
imagined by some that our book was a counterblast to these.

The account of the Descent into Hell (Part II) is an addition to the Acta. It does not appear
in any Oriental version, and the Greek copies are rare. It is in Latin that it has chiefly
flourished, and has been the parent of versions in every European language.

The central idea, the delivery of the righteous fathers from Hades is exceedingly ancient.
Second-century writers are full of it. The embellishments, the dialogues of Satan with Hades,
which are so dramatic, come in later, perhaps with the development of pulpit oratory among
Christians. We find them in fourth-century homilies attributed to Eusebius of Emesa.

This second part used to be called Gnostic, but there is nothing unorthodox about it save the
choice of the names of the two men who are supposed to tell the story, viz. Leucius and Karinus.

Leucius Charinus is the name given by church writers to the supposed author of the Apocryphal
Acts of John, Paul, Peter, Andrew, and Thomas. In reality Leucius was the soi-disant author
of the Acts of John only. His name was transferred to the other Acts in process of time, and
also (sometimes disguised as Seleucus) to Gospels of the Infancy and narratives of the
Assumption of the Virgin, With all these the original Leucius had nothing to do. When his name
came to be attached to the Descent into Hell we do not yet know: nor do we know when the Descent
was first appended to the Acts of Pilate. Not, I should conjecture, before the fifth century.

(1.2) F C Conybeare - 1907?
The Acts of Pilate

by F C Conybeare
Conybeare begins by noting that two main recensions of the Acts of Pilate exist, with recension A being earlier than B. The base version in this essay is recension A. Also using Armenian versions of the text, Conybeare translates these versions into Greek and Latin for comparison with the Greek original. With these resources, a critical edition of the Acts of Pilate is produced. This apocryphal document in sixteen chapters provides insight into views of Jesus and Christianity perhaps as early as the fourth century. 74p (Analecta Gorgiana 11, Gorgias Press 2007).

(1.3) Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)
Gospel of Nicodemus

This title is first met with in the 13th century.
This work gives an account of the Passion (i. - xi.),
the Resurrection (xii. - xvi.), and
the Descensus ad Inferos (xvii. - xxvii.).

Chapters i. - xvi. are extant in the Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian versions.
The two Latin versions and a Byzantine recension of the Greek contain i. - xxvii.
(see Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha', pp. 210-458). All known texts go back to A. D. 425,
if one may trust the reference to Theodosius. But this was only a revision,
for as early as 3 76 Epiphanius (Haer. i. I.) presupposes the existence of a like text.

In 325 Eusebius (H.E. ii. 2) was acquainted only with the heathen Acts of Pilate, and knew nothing
of a Christian work. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin's
reference to the "Aura HtXaTou (Apol. i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian's mention of the Acta Pilati
(Apol. 21), and on this evidence attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century.

But these references have been denied by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot. Recently Schubert
has sought to derive the elements which are found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical
gospels, from the original Ada Pilati, while Zahn exactly reverses the relation of these two works.
Rendel Harris (1899) advocated the view that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess it, is merely
a prose version of the Gospel of Nicodemus written originally in Homeric centones as early as the
2nd century. Lipsius and Dobschiitz relegate the book to the 4th century. The question is not
settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Biography, ii. 708-709, and Dobschiitz in
Hastings' Bible Dictionary, iii. 544-547).

Quote:

What is interesting in both the present versions of Acts of Pilate - is that both are intent upon moving away from the version known to Eusebius i.e. that 7th year of Tiberius is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps, bits and pieces of earlier version of Acts of Pilate are included in these two present versions - but the important issue is missing - the 7th year of Tiberius that was relevant to Eusebius labeling his known version a 'forgery'.

I can see that this dating issue is a serious exception but the question in my mind is whether a dating issue can be seen as "blasphemous".

It may be that because of this dating exception within the texts that at some stage scholarship has concluded that the version known to Eusebius is not the version known to us. But this conclusion can be questioned.

Quote:

a date for the original ms

At the moment the conclusion is that there was an original antichristian pagan Acts of Pilate that appeared during the lifetime of Eusebius, c.312 CE if we are to believe this source. We must then conjecture that this ms was destroyed and another AoP was authored (by Christians according to the consensus) later in the 4th century.

Therefore the date for the original ms is either early or late 4th century.

Because it is known that the emperor Constantine ordered that the network of temples to Asclepius was to be destroyed (by the army) we might suspect that the ploy of having Jesus heal in the name of Asclepius may have been a reaction to Constantine's religious agenda by those (many) followers of Asclepius who had just been shafted. (This suspicion conjectures that Eusebius - or his continuators - lied about the appearance of the AoP under Maximinus).

maryhelena · 07-10-2012, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Indeed, but even if achieved, would not be giving a date for the original ms.

First some notes on the ms tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by notes on the Documentary Tradition for "Acts of Pilate"

(1.1) M.R. James - 1924
THE GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS, OR ACTS OF PILATE
From "The Apocryphal New Testament"
M.R. James-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
Introduction

We have as yet no true critical edition of this book: one is in preparation, by E. von Dobschutz,
to be included in the Berlin corpus of Greek Ante-Nicene Christian writers. A short statement of
the authorities available at this moment is therefore necessary.

Tischendorf in his Evangelia Apocrypha divides the whole writing into two parts:

(1) the story of the Passion;
(2) the Descent into hell;

and prints the following forms of each: six in all:

1. Part I, Recession A in Greek from eight manuscripts,
and a Latin translation of the Coptic version in the notes.

2. Part I, Recession B in Greek from three late manuscripts.

3. Part II (Descent into Hell) in Greek from three manuscripts.

4. Part I in Latin, using twelve manuscripts, and some old editions.

5. Part II in Latin (A) from four manuscripts.

6. Part II in Latin (B) from three manuscripts.

Tischendorf's must be described as an eclectic text not representing probably, any one
single line of transmission: but it presents the book in a readable, and doubtless, on
the whole, correct form.

There are, besides the Latin, three ancient versions of Part I
of considerable importance, viz.:

Coptic, preserved in an early papyrus at Turin, and in some fragments at Paris.
Last edited by Revillout in Patrologia orientalis, ix. 2.

Syriac, edited by Rahmaui in Studia Syriaca, II.

Armenian, edited by F. C. Conybeara in Studia Biblica, IV (Oxford, 1896):
he gives a Greek rendering of one manuscript and a Latin one of another.

[Also extant is a 5th-century palimpsest from Vienna (Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek MS 563; Izydorczyk 1997:44–45)]
.

All of these conform to Tischelldorf's Recession A of Part I: and this must be regarded as the
most original form of the Acta which we have. Recession B is a late and diffuse working-over
of the same matter: it will not be translated here in full.

The first part of the book, containing the story of the Passion and Resurrection, is not earlier
than the fourth century. Its object in the main is to furnish irrefragable testimony to the
resurrection. Attempts have been made to show that it is of early date-that it is, for instance,
the writing which Justin Martyr meant when in his Apology he referred his heathen readers to the
'Acts' of Christ's trial preserved among the archives of Rome. The truth of that matter is that
he simply assumed that such records must exist. False 'acts' of the trial were written in the
Pagan interest under Maximin, and introduced into schools early in the fourth century. It is
imagined by some that our book was a counterblast to these.

The account of the Descent into Hell (Part II) is an addition to the Acta. It does not appear
in any Oriental version, and the Greek copies are rare. It is in Latin that it has chiefly
flourished, and has been the parent of versions in every European language.

The central idea, the delivery of the righteous fathers from Hades is exceedingly ancient.
Second-century writers are full of it. The embellishments, the dialogues of Satan with Hades,
which are so dramatic, come in later, perhaps with the development of pulpit oratory among
Christians. We find them in fourth-century homilies attributed to Eusebius of Emesa.

This second part used to be called Gnostic, but there is nothing unorthodox about it save the
choice of the names of the two men who are supposed to tell the story, viz. Leucius and Karinus.

Leucius Charinus is the name given by church writers to the supposed author of the Apocryphal
Acts of John, Paul, Peter, Andrew, and Thomas. In reality Leucius was the soi-disant author
of the Acts of John only. His name was transferred to the other Acts in process of time, and
also (sometimes disguised as Seleucus) to Gospels of the Infancy and narratives of the
Assumption of the Virgin, With all these the original Leucius had nothing to do. When his name
came to be attached to the Descent into Hell we do not yet know: nor do we know when the Descent
was first appended to the Acts of Pilate. Not, I should conjecture, before the fifth century.

(1.2) F C Conybeare - 1907?
The Acts of Pilate

by F C Conybeare
Conybeare begins by noting that two main recensions of the Acts of Pilate exist, with recension A being earlier than B. The base version in this essay is recension A. Also using Armenian versions of the text, Conybeare translates these versions into Greek and Latin for comparison with the Greek original. With these resources, a critical edition of the Acts of Pilate is produced. This apocryphal document in sixteen chapters provides insight into views of Jesus and Christianity perhaps as early as the fourth century. 74p (Analecta Gorgiana 11, Gorgias Press 2007).

(1.3) Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)
Gospel of Nicodemus

This title is first met with in the 13th century.
This work gives an account of the Passion (i. - xi.),
the Resurrection (xii. - xvi.), and
the Descensus ad Inferos (xvii. - xxvii.).

Chapters i. - xvi. are extant in the Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian versions.
The two Latin versions and a Byzantine recension of the Greek contain i. - xxvii.
(see Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha', pp. 210-458). All known texts go back to A. D. 425,
if one may trust the reference to Theodosius. But this was only a revision,
for as early as 3 76 Epiphanius (Haer. i. I.) presupposes the existence of a like text.

In 325 Eusebius (H.E. ii. 2) was acquainted only with the heathen Acts of Pilate, and knew nothing
of a Christian work. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin's
reference to the "Aura HtXaTou (Apol. i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian's mention of the Acta Pilati
(Apol. 21), and on this evidence attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century.

But these references have been denied by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot. Recently Schubert
has sought to derive the elements which are found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical
gospels, from the original Ada Pilati, while Zahn exactly reverses the relation of these two works.
Rendel Harris (1899) advocated the view that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess it, is merely
a prose version of the Gospel of Nicodemus written originally in Homeric centones as early as the
2nd century. Lipsius and Dobschiitz relegate the book to the 4th century. The question is not
settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Biography, ii. 708-709, and Dobschiitz in
Hastings' Bible Dictionary, iii. 544-547).

Quote:

What is interesting in both the present versions of Acts of Pilate - is that both are intent upon moving away from the version known to Eusebius i.e. that 7th year of Tiberius is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps, bits and pieces of earlier version of Acts of Pilate are included in these two present versions - but the important issue is missing - the 7th year of Tiberius that was relevant to Eusebius labeling his known version a 'forgery'.

I can see that this dating issue is a serious exception but the question in my mind is whether a dating issue can be seen as "blasphemous".

Pete, I'm sure there was stuff in the Acts of Pilate, that Eusebius knows about, that contained stuff that he would have considered blasphemous. However, the issue under discussion does relate to his mention of the 7th year of Tiberius as being the year, in that version of Acts of Pilate, that dated the "passion" of JC.

Quote:

It may be that because of this dating exception within the texts that at some stage scholarship has concluded that the version known to Eusebius is not the version known to us. But this conclusion can be questioned.

Scholarship is primarily JC historicist scholarship. From that perspective, and with gLuke in view, anything dating the "passion" to an earlier date is automatically 'forgery'.

Quote:

a date for the original ms

At the moment the conclusion is that there was an original antichristian pagan Acts of Pilate that appeared during the lifetime of Eusebius, c.312 CE if we are to believe this source. We must then conjecture that this ms was destroyed and another AoP was authored (by Christians according to the consensus) later in the 4th century

Therefore the date for the original ms is either early or late 4th century.

The dating of the original negative Acts of Pilate was possibly the dating you are considering. That's the one Eusebius labeled a forgery. And if this one is labeled a forgery - then - there must have been an earlier one...

An original Acts of Pilate , a positive Acts of Pilate, was mentioned by Justin - post #4 above.

mountainman · 07-10-2012, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It may be that because of this dating exception within the texts that at some stage scholarship has concluded that the version known to Eusebius is not the version known to us. But this conclusion can be questioned.

Scholarship is primarily JC historicist scholarship. From that perspective, and with gLuke in view, anything dating the "passion" to an earlier date is automatically 'forgery'.

I'd like to think there was more than just JC historicist scholarship at work in the analysis of the sources from the 4th century. That is not to say you are far from the mark. Much scholarship appears to be HJ-Centric.

Toto · 07-10-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Saying that Jesus was a bastard would be more outrageous and blasphemous,

But would it? ...

Yes.

Quote:

It seems more probable that the parody claimed that Jesus was the bastard son of a prostitute and a Roman soldier; that's why this version has even the Jews denying it.

Let me get this straight. Because Eusebius said the copy of the AoP before him was "blasphemous" this necessarily implies that the text before him is expected to state that Jesus was a bastard. This is pure conjecture and not a very strong argument.

That is not straight. It is contorted and backwards. Where did you study logic?

Quote:

We have a text which basically says Jesus was a priest of Asclepius, the Graeco-Roman God of Healing.

I can't find the exact quote you claim in either of the links, but you seem to say that the text says that Pilate says that Jesus heals through Asclepius. This is not the same as saying that Jesus healed through Asclepius.

Quote:

...
Which still leaves for discussion the alternative and much simpler solution. The text before us is the pagan AoP which would have it known to all the schoolchildren in the empire that Jesus heals by a Gentile God. And the conjectural later Christian AoP is not required. The argument can invoke Occam.

That is not simpler. You have a text that is basically favorable towards Jesus, but your theory requires a parody, so you are looking for someway to call it a parody. :huh:

aa5874 · 07-10-2012, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

In the text before us Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius.

What can be more outrageous and blasphemous than that? ...

Saying that Jesus was a bastard would be more outrageous and blasphemous, but the Gospel of N. goes to great pains to deny that.

It seems more probable that the parody claimed that Jesus was the bastard son of a prostitute and a Roman soldier; that's why this version has even the Jews denying it.

Toto, don't you read the NT??? Whether or not you believe the NT there are statements made that the Sanhedrin considered the claims of Jesus to be Blasphemy and that he was condemned to be guilty of death.

Please, there is NO need to IMAGINE the story of Jesus as it is ALREADY documented in the Canon.

Please, there is NO evidence for YOUR parody.

Why are people constantly claiming events probably occurred that are no where documented to have happened and in the 1st century???

mountainman · 07-10-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It seems more probable that the parody claimed that Jesus was the bastard son of a prostitute and a Roman soldier; that's why this version has even the Jews denying it.

Let me get this straight. Because Eusebius said the copy of the AoP before him was "blasphemous" this necessarily implies that the text before him is expected to state that Jesus was a bastard. This is pure conjecture and not a very strong argument.

That is not straight. It is contorted and backwards. Where did you study logic?

The data is as follows:

(1) Eusebius provides an extended mention of a narrative text (not a decree or edict) called the "Acts of Pilate", and classifies it as "blasphemous".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E.

Having forged, to be sure, Memoirs of Pilate [2731] and Our Saviour,
full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ,
with the approval of their chief they sent them round
to every part of his dominions, with edicts
that they should be exhibited openly for everyone to see
in every place, both town and country, and that
the primary teachers should give them to the children,
instead of lessons, for study and committal to memory.

...[and also ...]...

1. The memorials against us and copies of the imperial edicts
issued in reply to them were engraved and set up
on brazen pillars in the midst of the cities, -
a course which had never been followed elsewhere.

The children in the schools had daily in their mouths
the names of Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts
which had been forged in wanton insolence.

2. It appears to me necessary to insert here
this document of Maximinus which was posted on pillars ...

(2) We have a text before us called the "Acts of Pilate".

The logic of the mainstream scholarship appears to be this:

(3) The text before us is not the same one as Eusebius mentions and must have been written as a Christian "counter-blast" to the text mentioned by Eusebius.

I do not understand the logical step (3) drawn from the evidence 1 and 2,

Quote:

We have a text which basically says Jesus was a priest of Asclepius, the Graeco-Roman God of Healing.

I can't find the exact quote you claim in either of the links, but you seem to say that the text says that Pilate says that Jesus heals through Asclepius. This is not the same as saying that Jesus healed through Asclepius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS, OR ACTS OF PILATE From "The Apocryphal New Testament" M.R. James

-Translation and Notes
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

Pilate saith: And what things are they that he doeth, and would destroy the law?
The Jews say: We have a law that we should not heal any man on the sabbath:
but this man of his evil deeds hath healed the lame and the bent,
the withered and the blind and the paralytic, the dumb
and them that were possessed, on the sabbath day!

Pilate saith unto them: By what evil deeds?

They say unto him: He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the prince of the devils
he casteth out devils, and they are all subject unto him.

Pilate saith unto them: This is not to cast out devils by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.

Quote:

...
Which still leaves for discussion the alternative and much simpler solution. The text before us is the pagan AoP which would have it known to all the schoolchildren in the empire that Jesus heals by a Gentile God. And the conjectural later Christian AoP is not required. The argument can invoke Occam.

That is not simpler. You have a text that is basically favorable towards Jesus, but your theory requires a parody, so you are looking for someway to call it a parody. :huh:

Consider the Prologue ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prologue

Opening prologue with specific fifth century date of 425 CE
MEMORIALS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
DONE IN THE TIME OF PONTIUS PILATE
Prologue - (Absent from some manuscripts and versions).

I Ananias (Aeneas Copt., Emaus Lat.), the Protector, of praetorian rank,
learned in the law, did from the divine scriptures recognize our Lord Jesus Christ
and came near to him by faith and was accounted worthy of holy baptism:
and I sought out the memorials that were made at that season
in the time of our master Jesus Christ, which the Jews deposited with Pontius Pilate,
and found the memorials in Hebrew (letters), and by the good pleasure of God
I translated them into Greek (letters) for the informing of all them
that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:
in the reign of our Lord Flavius Theodosius, in the seventeenth year,
and of Flavius Valentinianus the sixth, in the ninth indiction

[corrupt: Lat. has the eighteenth year of Theodosius,
when Valentinian was proclaimed Augustus, i.e. 425 CE].

All ye therefore that read this and translate (or copy) it into other books,
remember me and pray for me that God will be gracious unto me
and be merciful unto my sins which I have sinned against him.

Peace be to them that read and that hear these things and to their servants. Amen.

So essentially we have a Praetorian guard doing a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek.

Are anyone's eyebrows raised?

We also have a date precisely 100 years after Nicaea, which implies someone edited the text after the 4th century, since the text is considered to have been authored before Epiphanius mentions it.

In one sense, this text is an extended and elaborately embellished parody of the One True Canonical collection of books. In it Pontius Pilate lets the Jews know that Jesus is healing by the Healing God of the Roman Empire, not the god of the Hebrew empire. It seems to be a pagan counterblast to the new and strange testament. In any other words, a seditious parody against the Christian Canonical Orthodox heresiology.

I see it as quite a reasonable possibility that Eusebius would also see this as a seditious parody of his One True Canonical Story, and that he would have responded and counter-blasted that this text, the one before us, is a most blasphemous concoction of those vile and pernicious heretics, whom he tells us were devastasting his most holy flock.

FFS the text is supposed to have been written by a pair of zombies, rounded up after the mass resurrection event in downtown Jerusalem, and given writing implements. Leucius and Karinus (the zombies are explicitly named) disappear in a blinding flash leaving perfectly identical manuscripts that are entrusted to Pontius Pilate. This could have been written by Monty Python.

Additionally there is a direct correspondence in this text to the only name of any non canonical author ever mentioned by the orthodox heresiological organisation - "Leucius Charinus", a name that is soundly cursed by Christian Emperors and Christian Bishops for centuries, commencing from the later 4th century. The claim is that these names are NOT coincidental.

The logic I am outlining is Occamish - that therefore that we do not need to ADDITIONALLY hypothecise a,b,c and d:

(a) An The Acts of Pilate is mentioned by Eusebius during his lifetime.

and

(b) Another totally different "Christian" Acts of Pilate was authored in the later 4th century

and

(c) the text (b) does survive

and

(d) the text (a) was destroyed.

Instead I am claiming that it is far more reasonable to believe that:

(a) An The Acts of Pilate is mentioned by Eusebius during his lifetime.

and

(b) the text (a) does survive

Dig the logic O Toto?

Quote:

Where did you study logic?

1971-1972 ......... Sydney University (Maths: Pure, Applied, Stats)
1980-1988 ......... Database manager (Australian Federal Govt)
1988-1998 ......... IT Manager (Australias largest IP Attorneys [>300 ppl])
1999-2007 ......... CEO, Inventor of RDBMS software; database & process engineer

maryhelena · 07-10-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Instead I am claiming that it is far more reasonable to believe that:

(a) An The Acts of Pilate is mentioned by Eusebius during his lifetime.

and

(b) the text (a) does survive

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6748_2037136

There is no mention of the 7th year of Tiberius in the two texts of Acts of Pilate on the Tertullian org site. One text has the 15 th year of Tiberius, the other the 18 th year of Tiberius. It is the setting of the story that is relevant for this thread - Eusebius' version had the 7th year of Tiberius.

From the OP :

Quote:

Eusebius, Church History I.ix.1-3

1. … The same writer [Josephus], in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities [18:32-35, 89], says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently [311-313 CE] given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign;

at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work [Josephus' Ant 18:32-35, 89] that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Toto · 07-10-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The data is as follows:

(1) Eusebius provides an extended mention of a narrative text (not a decree or edict) called the "Acts of Pilate", and classifies it as "blasphemous".

Blasphemous in all ways.

Quote:

(2) We have a text before us called the "Acts of Pilate".

The logic of the mainstream scholarship appears to be this:

(3) The text before us is not the same one as Eusebius mentions and must have been written as a Christian "counter-blast" to the text mentioned by Eusebius.

I do not understand the logical step (3) drawn from the evidence 1 and 2,

Because the text before us is quite favorable to Jesus and is not blasphemous "in all ways." You have only identified one statement by Pilate that might be objectionable if a Christian had uttered it. Otherwise, what problem would anyone have?

Quote:

Consider the Prologue ....

So essentially we have a Praetorian guard doing a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek.

Are anyone's eyebrows raised?

That doesn't make it a parody.

Quote:

...
In one sense, this text is an extended and elaborately embellished parody of the One True Canonical collection of books. In it Pontius Pilate lets the Jews know that Jesus is healing by the Healing God of the Roman Empire, not the god of the Hebrew empire. It seems to be a pagan counterblast to the new and strange testament. In any other words, a seditious parody against the Christian Canonical Orthodox heresiology.

But Pilate is not speaking for Jesus.

Quote:

I see it as quite a reasonable possibility that Eusebius would also see this as a seditious parody of his One True Canonical Story, and that he would have responded and counter-blasted that this text, the one before us, is a most blasphemous concoction of those vile and pernicious heretics, whom he tells us were devastasting his most holy flock.

This is crazy.

Quote:

FFS the text is supposed to have been written by a pair of zombies, rounded up after the mass resurrection event in downtown Jerusalem, and given writing implements. Leucius and Karinus (the zombies are explicitly named) disappear in a blinding flash leaving perfectly identical manuscripts that are entrusted to Pontius Pilate. This could have been written by Monty Python. . .

This only seems strange to modern eyes.

Quote:

The logic I am outlining is Occamish - ..

Dig the logic O Toto?

This is a parody of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor does not allow you to skip over inconvenient items.

Quote:

Where did you study logic?

1971-1972 ......... Sydney University (Maths: Pure, Applied, Stats)
1980-1988 ......... Database manager (Australian Federal Govt)
1988-1998 ......... IT Manager (Australias largest IP Attorneys [>300 ppl])
1999-2007 ......... CEO, Inventor of RDBMS software; database & process engineer

You don't list any formal logic, or any humanities, or any classics. You are an expert in one field, but you can't figure out why that expertise doesn't translate into another field.

LegionOnomaMoi · 07-11-2012, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So:

1) Early JC historicists referred to something called Acts of Pilate.
2) Eusebius mentions Acts of Pilate in a negative light - labels it a forgery. It deals with a "passion"/crucifixion of JC in the 7th year of Tiberius.
3) Later JC historicists have another Acts of Pilate. Now contained within the Gospel of Nicodemus.

We actually don't know what the relationship between our "acts of pilate" (the extant version) and the references to a document like this or by this name in sources earlier than Eusebius. We don't really know if there was only one spurious "christian" Acts of Pilate with different versions, or if there were multiple texts purporting to be documentary evidence of Jesus' trial written by Pilate which were "pro-christian." All we do know is that the document Eusebius calls a forgery is not any of these.

Quote:

I would suggest that the Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin was composed prior to gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius. As gJohn and gMark make no reference to a specific date in regard to Pilate - then an early Acts of Pilate probably did the same.

Based on...?

Quote:

The 'forged' Acts of Pilate, known to Eusebius, has probably used the TF dating of 19 c.e.

There is no TF dating. The TF mentions Pilate's name, but it gives no date. It doesn't even give anything which could be used as a date. Even the much longer Slavonic version doesn't say anything about Tiberius or how when Pilate was in power. So what on earth is your basis for this "TF dating" you keep talking about? Where is it? Why do you appear to have the only TF on earth which has a "19 c.e." date somewhere in it?

stephan huller · 07-11-2012, 12:05 AM

We should allow ourselves to take sides on the question of whether Pilate's original report supports the existence of a historical Jesus. The question is quite separate from whether or not the original report was authentic or not. I tend to think something must have existed. Nevertheless as I just mentioned I think it is possible the historical reality of the crucifixion might actually uphold the substitution myths of various gnostic cultures and currently believed by over a billion Muslims. For instance, the sign which appears on the crucified man in the gospel(s)

“The King, Judah” המלך יהודה in Hebrew or מלכה יהודה in Aramaic.

In other words, the person being crucified was Judas not Jesus. I already assume this is over the heads of most people at this forum but there it is.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2012, 12:05 AM	#40
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	We should allow ourselves to take sides on the question of whether Pilate's original report supports the existence of a historical Jesus. The question is quite separate from whether or not the original report was authentic or not. I tend to think something must have existed. Nevertheless as I just mentioned I think it is possible the historical reality of the crucifixion might actually uphold the substitution myths of various gnostic cultures and currently believed by over a billion Muslims. For instance, the sign which appears on the crucified man in the gospel(s) “The King, Judah” המלך יהודה in Hebrew or מלכה יהודה in Aramaic. In other words, the person being crucified was Judas not Jesus. I already assume this is over the heads of most people at this forum but there it is.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.