stephan huller

1.9.2 Ὁ δ' αὐτὸς ἐν ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς Ἀρχαιολογίας κατὰ τὸ δωδέκατον ἔτος τῆς Τιβερίου βασιλείας τοῦτον γὰρ τὴν καθ' ὅλων ἀρχὴν διαδέξασθαι ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ πεντήκοντα ἔτεσιν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἐπικρατήσαντος Αὐγούστου Πόντιον Πιλᾶτον τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἐπιτραπῆναι δηλοῖ, ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἐφ' ὅλοις ἔτεσιν δέκα σχεδὸν

1.9.3 εἰς αὐτὴν παραμεῖναι τὴν Τιβερίου τελευτήν. οὐκοῦν σαφῶς ἀπελήλεγκται τὸ πλάσμα τῶν κατὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὑπομνήματα χθὲς καὶ πρῴην διαδεδωκότων, ἐν οἷς πρῶτος αὐτὸς ὁ τῆς παρασημειώσεως χρόνος τῶν πεπλακότων ἀπελέγχει τὸ ψεῦδος

1.9.4 ἐπὶ τῆς τετάρτης δ' οὖν ὑπατείας Τιβερίου, ἣ γέγονεν ἔτους ἑβδόμου τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, τὰ περὶ τὸ σωτήριον πάθος αὐτοῖς τολμηθέντα περιέχει, καθ' ὃν δείκνυται χρόνον μηδ' ἐπιστάς πω τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ Πιλᾶτος, εἴ γε τῷ Ἰωσήπῳ μάρτυρι χρήσασθαι δέον, σαφῶς οὕτως σημαίνοντι κατὰ τὴν δηλωθεῖσαν αὐτοῦ γραφὴν ὅτι δὴ δωδεκάτῳ ἐνιαυτῷ τῆς Τιβερίου βασιλείας ἐπίτρο1.

stephan huller

I am more intrigued by the statement "if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed.' Is there some doubt about Pilate's time in Judea? I have recently found an inscription which mentions Gaius Julius Agrippa the son of King Alexandria which does not fit in Josephus's chronology. Interesting.

stephan huller

Here is someone explaining the dispute: http://www.biblicalchronology.com/tiberius.htm

Notice that the year called the 7th of Tiberius falls about 2 years after the death of Germanicus. Josephus places the beginning of the Ministry of Christ soon after the death of Germanicus (see above). Germanicus died about 5 years after Augustus died. Thus, The Memoranda contained the correct insight that the Ministry of Christ occurred closer to the deaths of Augustus and Germanicus than Eusebius believed.

Both Eusebius and The Memoranda were working from the assumption that the reign of Tiberius began at the death of Augustus. The Memoranda correctly pointed out that Christ’s Ministry and Crucifixion occurred not long after the deaths of Augustus and Germanicus. Eusebius correctly pointed out that the Ministry and Crucifixion of Christ occurred in the latter part of Tiberius’ reign, not long before the death of Tiberius. The Memoranda made the mistake of counting the start of Tiberius’ reign from the death of Augustus, so that it incorrectly placed the Crucifixion early in Tiberius’ reign. Eusebius objected to this mistake, without realizing that it contained an aspect of the truth, because he too assumed that Tiberius’ reign began at the death of Augustus.

LegionOnomaMoi

Why do you keep claiming it is a "passion of the savior"? It isn't.


The word for "passion" here is πάθος/pathos, meaning (here) suffering. All Eusebius says is that this document, which he refers to as a forgery, has something in it about the death of Jesus. He doesn't need the TF to say anything about the "testimony of Josephus" concerning the date Pilate became procurator, because Josephus doesn't say that that Pilate was the successor of Gratus in the TF, but rather states this 30 lines earlier. In other words, the "testimony of Josephus" about when Pilate became procurator is not in the TF.

Sheshbazzar

Yup, that really clears it all up. :Cheeky:

maryhelena

For those who have been following the discussion on this thread, here is a link to David Hindley's post on his research dealing with the Acts of Pilate

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=316498

The authenticity of Maximinus Daia's Acts of Pilate