mountainman

Tangential comments on the 4th century "Acts of Pilate" moved to this thread.

Nice thread MH. Eusebius piously forged the TF. He knew what had to be done,

maryhelena

OK - here, all in one place, are the relevant sources that suggest that Pontius Pilate was in office, in Judea, in 19 c.e. Tiberius had a "co-princeps" with Augustus from 12 c.e. Thus, 7 years from that date is 19 c.e. A time where Josephus has placed the TF and it's reference to Pilate. As regards the 'forgery' referenced by Eusebius (which placed the "passion" of JC in the 7th year of Tiberius) the available sources cannot be used to reject that dating. That the Acts of Pilate referenced by Eusebuis are 'forged' is neither here nor there - it's the content, a content that corresponds with the Josephan TF that is relevant to this discussion. It is only if one is handcuffed to an assumed historical gospel JC that one would seek to discredit the 7th year of Tiberius as being relevant both to the Josephan TF - and to the problem faced by Eusebius regarding that dating.

The Testimonium Flavianum

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” (Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3, 3.)

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs

5............................ ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men. Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3, 4,5.

Tiberius (Wikipedia)

Thus according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius return from Germania. "But he was at once recalled, and finding Augustus in his last illness but still alive, he spent an entire day with him in private."Augustus died in AD 14, at the age of 75. He was buried with all due ceremony and, as had been arranged beforehand, deified, his will read, and Tiberius confirmed as his sole surviving heir.

Expelled under Tiberius

The reign of Tiberius (until the removal of his minister Sejanus) was fraught with misfortune for the Jews. When the cult of Isis was driven out of Rome (19 C.E.) the Jews also were expelled, because a Roman lady who inclined toward Judaism had been deceived by Jewish swindlers. The synagogues were closed, the vessels burned, and 4,000 Jewish youths were sent upon military service to Sardinia. After the death of Sejanus (31) the emperor allowed the Jews to return.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...6-rome#anchor2


Eusebius: Chapter IX.—The Times of Pilate.

1.The historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to the fact that Archelaus succeeded to the government after Herod. He records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews by the will of his father Herod and by the decree of Cæsar Augustus, and how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers Philip and Herod the younger,with Lysanias, still ruled their own tetrarchies. The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, 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 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 that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.
--------------------------------------

What all of the above demonstrates is that there was an earlier JC story with a "passion" in the 7th year of Tiberius. (19 c.e. from 12 c.e.) And that story brings into question the reliance of the JC historicists upon the Josephan TF as proof of their assumed historical JC doing the rounds of 'ministry' in the 15th year of Tiberius in 29 c.e.

maryhelena

No, mountainman - Eusebius did nothing at all! Josephus has added 7 years to the time of Gratus - thereby pushing Pilate to around 26 c.e. Thereby, negating, contradicting, his placing of the TF in the context of 19 c.e. i.e. JC is crucified under Pilate in 19 c.e. Why did Josephus do it? I'm suggesting he did it to accommodate and support the gLuke JC storyline re a birth in 6 c.e. and a ministry/crucifixion around the 15th year of Tiberius. i.e. the gLuke storyline has moved the earlier Slavonic Josephus storyline from around the 15th year of Herod the Great to the 15th year of Tiberius. JC is a moving, a fluid story.....

tanya

I think that your fluidity notion has merit. Thanks.

I am much less confident in the idea of using "the earlier Slavonic" version, to correct or revise other manuscript data.

To the best of my knowledge, very minimal at best, we only have a single example of this "Slavonic Josephus", and the text has been both damaged, and is fraught with interpolations.

Please correct me, if I err here.

aa5874

You are PRESUMING that Josephus wrote the "TF". Please, please, please, there is NO support for such a presumption.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all ATTEST that Vespaian was believed to be the Prophesied Messianic ruler found in Hebrew Scripture.

Your position is hopelessly flawed and is based on known late corrupted sources with FAKE authors.

maryhelena

The Slavonic Josephus account of the anointed one/wonder-doer is rejected because it does not fit with how the JC historicists read the gospel story. If that storyline is read with its very specific date of the 15 th year of Tiberius, around 29 c.e. - then, from that perspective, any written source that puts an anointed one/wonder-doer figure, crucified under Pilate, within a different time frame, as does the Slavonic Josephus - then, automatically, that source is denied any credibility.

gLuke is generally given a late dating, i.e gMark and gMatthew are the earlier synoptic gospels. Both these gospel stories have JC crucified under Pilate. gMatthew has mention of JC being a young child under the rule of Archelaus (4 b.c. - 6.c.e.). That I would suggest is a later edition - a first step in moving away from the timeline of Slavonic Josephus - the 15th year of Herod the Great. (either 25 or 22 b.c. - depending on counting from when HG was made King in Rome, 40 b.c. , or when he laid siege to Jerusalem in 37 b.c.)

The Josephan TF is dated to around 19 c.e. That dating for Pilate works with a JC figure being born early, not late, in the time of Herod the Great. Just, for the sake of argument, taking 25 b.c. to 19 c.e. and one has a 44 year old JC figure (literary figure.......). That number of years works with gJohn and his JC being not yet 50 years old.

Dating Pilate is fundamental to how we read the gospel JC crucifixion story. We can work with the TF dating, 19 c.e., or we can work with the Josephan contradictions re that dating, placing Pilate in 26 c.e. The argument for 26 c.e. is an argument put forward by the JC historicists, i.e. JC was a flesh and blood figure, therefore, only one timeline is possible. The ahistoricists/mythicists can counter that argument by demonstrating that there are other sources that suggest that the JC timeline , the JC story, is fluid. It never was confined to the 15th year of Tiberius. That dating is the end of the JC story - not it's beginning.

The Josephan TF supports the Slavonic Josephus story re the anointed one/wonder-doer. In order to move the older Slavonic Josephus story forward - dating Pilate had to be changed. Pilate had to move with the moving JC storyboard.

Other sources that suggest that the JC story is older than a story set in the 15 th year of Tiberius:
-----------------------
(Tertullian Ad Nations: 160 -225 C.E.)

"This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor.

Melito of Sardis: From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. (c.e 160-170-177.)

“For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire.

Epiphanius: (310/230 – 403 c.e.)

3,3 For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ’s
arrival. Until he came < the > rulers < were anointed priests >, but after
his birth in Bethlehem of Judaea the order ended and was altered in
the time of Alexander, a ruler of priestly and kingly stock. This position
died out with this Alexander from the time of Salina also known as
Alexandra, in the time of King Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus.

-------------------------

Eusebius and his forgery that contains mention of a "passion" for JC in the 7th year of Tiberius, is simply referencing an alternative JC storybord. An alternative storyboard that has been updated by gLuke with his 15th year of Tiberius storyline. Obviously, once the gospel JC is viewed as being a historical figure - then all previous versions of the JC storyboard are rejected as forgeries...No longer a moving JC story, a fluid story that is able to pick up new ideas etc as it winds it's way through Jewish history - but now a fixed, end of series story. That's great of course - except that the danger is there that the end of the story is all there ever was - which all available sources are shouting out loud and clear - this story was long in the making....

The JC storyboard was up and running prior to the death of Augustus in 14 c.e. That means that the JC birth story is set early in the rule of Herod the Great. That story is what is now contained within Slavonic Josephus - and supported by the Josephan TF, dated to 19 c.e. for a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius.

Rather than rejecting some of the JC sources that are available - all sources have to be put on the table and allowed to tell their own story...

LegionOnomaMoi

I'm not. I'm dealing with this statement:
The issue is what the "forgery" Eusebius is referring to here actually is. Maryhelena is under what must now be considered either a delusional or just plain stubborn impression that this "forgery" is a passion:
Only it isn't a passion. At all. Here is the greek:

οὐκοῦν σαφῶς ἀπελήλεγκται τὸ πλάσμα τῶν κατὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὑπομνήματα χθὲς καὶ πρῴην διαδεδωκότων

Transliterated (without diacritics): oukoun saphos apelegktai to plasma ton kata tou soteros hemon hypomnemata chthes kai proen diadedokoton

Translated (my own and a fairly literal translation): "Thus clearly the counterfeit [or forgery] of those recently and formerly distributing official acts against our saviour is convicted [or exposed as a forgery]

Note: The word translated in various English editions as "report" or "acts" is (again) ὑπομνήματα. In Lampe's A Patristic Greek Lexicon in the entry for this word we find: "of Acts of Pilate τὸ πλάσμα τῶν κατὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος...ὑπομνήματα...διαδ εδωκότων Eus.h.e.I.9.3"

In other words, like all the other works I've referenced, in the lexicon (in English) designed specifically for the Patristic writings, the word which Maryhelena's translation renders as "acts" is specifically equated with the document I've been talking about this whole time.

So this: is just plain wrong. It would have been an honest mistake, were it not for the blind religious faith in the interpretation of "acts" maryhelena has demonstrated since the initial post and the misunderstanding of Eusebius therein.

There is no "passion". Eusebius references no passion. It's not no matter how much blind faith one wishes to put into a personal interpretation of an English translation, bereft of all aid from commentaries, scholarship, etc.

Any argument about the TF being an interpolation which is based upon an argument about a non-existant "passion" Eusebius says nothing about is fundamentally flawed.

This doesn't mean that the TF is not an interpolation, or even that it wasn't Eusebius who did it. It just means that the initial post and any similar argument rests not just on shaky foundations, but on imaginary foundations.

stephan huller

That's a very interesting point. I hadn't notice the use of the term here. For the use of hypomnema as a record of a magistrate, POxy.1252r.26 (iii A. D.), etc.; including his decisions, Mitteis Chr.372 iv 20 (ii A. D.), POxy.911.8 (iii A. D.), etc.

As minutes of the proceedings of a public body, public records, “τὰ κατ᾽ ἄρχοντας ὑ.” Plu.2.867a, cf. D.S. 1.4, Luc.Dem.Enc.26, etc.; τὰ τῆς βουλῆς ὑ. the acts of the Senate, D.C.78.22; ἐπὶ τῶν ὑ. τῆς συγκλήτου, = Lat. a commentariis, IG4.588 (Argos, ii A. D.), 5(1).533 (Sparta, ii A. D.); “ἐπὶ τῶν ὑ. καταστῆσαί τινα” J.AJ7.5.4, cf. LXX 2 Ki.8.16 (quoted by J.l. c.)

Clearly then even the Christian forgeries in the name of Pilate might also have taken the form of hypomnemata. Hadn't thought about that before.

LegionOnomaMoi

How long are you going to misunderstand your own sources? Let's look at your "bolded section":
What you seem to have missed is that the "eleven" and "ten" don't refer to the TF at all, and neither does the "report". Schwartz is talking about the forged Acts of Pilate Eusebius refers to. According to Schwartz, it is hard to believe that those who forged this docuement were "really so stupid" that they gave the dates Eusebius claims. Schwartz is not saying that the Testimonium was forged, and he says on page one that it is either an interpolation or was in Josephus but is now too corrupted to be of use. He doesn't say that Eusebius is responsible for the forgery, and the section above doesn't address this at all. In fact, the entire point of these pages is to refute Eisler, who uses the Acts of Pilate which he takes as genuine to establish a date nobody else buys (including Schwartz and Eusebius).

In fact, the line in Josephus about when Pilate took office isn't anywhere near the TF. It's in AJ 18.2.2. You have to go another 30+ lines to get to the start of the TF.

No, according to virtually everybody there never was any official Acts of Pilate. They all agree with Eusebius: it was a forgery. It has nothing to do with mythicist vs. historicist or whatever. Nor does this forgery say anything about the TF, which Eusebius mentions elsewhere first (the Demonstratio.

No, they aren't. They aren't gospels. They are meant to look like something Pilate wrote.

maryhelena

For anyone following this discussion and is perhaps getting side-tracked by the forgery issue - keep in mind that the forgery issue is secondary, not the primary focus of this discussion. The primary focus is upon the story within that forged document - the story about a "passion of the Saviour' in the 7th year of Tiberius.


Eusebius: Chapter IX.—The Times of Pilate.
[T2]
2.Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently 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 that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.[/T2]

Eusebius: The Oration of Eusebius: Chapter XV.

[T2]1. What now remains, but to account for those which are the crowning facts of all; I mean his death, so far and widely known, the manner of his passion, and the mighty miracle of his resurrection after death: and then to establish the truth of these events by the clearest testimonies?[/T2]

The passion of the Saviour, for Eusebius, refers to the manner of the death, the suffering involved in that death of the Saviour. The forgery Eusebius is referencing dates that passion of the Saviour to the 7th year of Tiberius. It is the dating of the passion of the Saviour that is of primary interest. That this story is contained within a document that is believed, by Eusebius, to be a forgery, is of secondary concern. It's the 7th year crucifixion story that is relevant - relevant, in particular, in regard to the Josephan TF which places the JC crucifixion, under Pilate, around 19 c.e. A year which happens to be the 7th year of Tiberius from his "co-princeps" with Augustus in 12 c.e.