spamandham

As I try to weight the relative strengths and weaknesses of various propositions (HJ, MJ, FJ, etc.), the question keeps coming up, is there any significance to setting the timeframe for the story during Pilate's time? I can think of a few possibilities:

1) There was a general expectation of a Messiah at that time due to Daniel's 70 weeks
2) The Gospel author wished to show the Messiah arriving exactly 1 generation prior to the destruction of the temple (I'm not sure why he would want that)
3) Pilate's cruelty was legendary, so why not place the story at that time
4) It coincided with the end of the dominance of Julio-Claudian dynasty and the rise of the Flavians
5) It coincided with the new age of Pisces

Thoughts on the relative strengths or weaknesses of any of these? Under the presumption of a non-HJ, is there some other more compelling argument?

bacht

One answer could be that early believers appeared around this time. If there were Judean "pillars" like Cephas, James and John, maybe their revelation of the Christ occured in Pilate's time. Or their public identification with the Christ sect occured then, maybe doing baptisms or eucharistic meals.

dog-on

Maybe it was due to Mark's use of Josephus.

bacht

Does Josephus consider Pilate's term to have been pivotal? (sorry I really should pick up a copy)

spamandham

Probably not Pilate per se, but Tiberius...possibly (a Claudian by birth, a Julian by adoption). Tiberius may have been seen as an archtype for the Julio-Claudians?

Clivedurdle

http://www.talkrational.org/showthre...?t=5671&page=2

Why would Pilate have been important in relation to Caesar's Messiah?

spamandham

heh, that's the question... :huh:

mountainman

And the answer to this question is elementary. Whoever were those wicked men who decided to write a fiction narrative, decided to set it back in the past an appropriate time so that there would be no living witnesses, and that whoever was in control of the technology of writing (ie: the preservation of hand-preserved literature) could write what they so wished and not have anyone standing up and saying something different.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

In addition spamandham, if we are to entertain the notion of a fictional historical jesus then those who were ultimately responsible for the fabrication, guided by the commonn sense of good liars, stay reasonably close to the truth. So a certain amount of known history needed to be cited in the fabrication, such as Eusebius tendering the writings of some wayward christian apologist from the early centuries claiming that the inscription on the statue on one of the bridges across the River Tiber had been erected by the Roman senate to Simon Magus. Utter bullshit. Yet a monument with a very similar inscription, at this location is today known to be a shrine to a pagan god.

Mani the Iranian sage was executed and his disciples persecuted all over the empire less than 30 years before the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea. The persecution of the Manichaeans has far more historicity than any Eusebian purported persecution of pre-Nicene christians.

Best wishes,


Pete

boneyard bill

The destruction of the temple inspired a re-working of the Christian myth to show that that destruction was caused by the Jews rejection of Jesus. Hence, the crucifixion had to have been recent and earthly.