Vorkosigan

Why Pilate? Possibilities...

1. AMark's reading of the Daniel prophecies put Jesus in Pilate's time.

2. AMark could only remember Pilate, whose term was the longest of the prewar period.

3. AMark used Pilate because he had rep for cruelty.

4. AMark was writing very late ~150 and incorporated Pilate because it was already in Jesus tales in his source.


Perhaps, more importantly, one might also ask why AMark had Pilate's name there, but not Caiaphus'. Why not just call Pilate "the procurator" and avoid all the business about using a real name? After all, AMark's geography is symbolic and Jesus' movements are bullshit.

To answer that, I suspect that level of detail is necessary for the parallel that AMark constructed between Pilate and Herod.

Michael

yalla

Well I'm not sure about Josephus' alleged lack of knowledge of the philosophy of Philo.
Both VanderKam and the quote from Josephus [which seems to be the basis for Vanderkam's comment] indicate that he, Josephus, had an opinion on the philosophy of Philo.
Citing James C VanderKam:
"Josephus considered him prominent in every way and skilled in philosophy." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 138)"
Citing Josephus.
"But Philo,............................ one not unskillful in philosophy,..."
Now I reckon the J quote is definitely a comment on Philo as a writer. It is indirect but it is there. It might be based on Philo's reputation rather than an actual reading of his works , I don't know. But it would seem to be a fairly strong indicator that Josephus is familiar with the works of Philo in some way.
No idea about interpolation.
And I don't consider any historian perfect. At least he seems to know about elements of Philo's embassy and quotes him indirectly. Accurately?
I'm not fussy.

At least I found out that he was aware of Philo and whether directly by reading or not was also aware in some way of his works.

What I did find interesting was his probable [certain?] association with the nephew of Philo, Tiberius Julius Alexander, a fellow who was in the thick of things relating to alleged Christian events and persons.
A man in the know.
About Claudius, Herod, Nero, Pilate and Judea.
Now just on the basis of this connection I reckon it's possible that Joe would have heard some rumours, gossip, maybe even facts, about the alleged persons and events claimed to be happening by the conventional Christian version.
TJA is the right man in the right places at the right times to have, possibly, informed Joe about alleged Christian events, maybe even the gospels themselves and piqued joe's interest.
If such existed.
So just on this relationship alone, about which I knew nothing a day or 2 ago, I reckon my humble suggestion that Joe, with his area of interest and political connections could be expected to have had more knowledge of those works, persons and events claimed by conventional Christian version than he does reveal.
I'll keep looking.
cheers
yalla

Malachi151

But Pilate is not presented as cruel, the Jews are, while Pilate is presented as reasonable...

Vorkosigan

The difference being, of course, that scholars argue that the gospels were already in circulation by the time Josephus got around to defending his people and his faith. Did the DSS circulate around the Med?


Yes. Matt 27:25 is pretty specific -- "his blood be upon us."

That is a possible context, but it is difficult to see a concrete link in the Christian context. How would you make a link between the intramural Jewish attacks, and the gospels' attacks on the Jews?

You'll get no argument from me on this score.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

I think the strong historical association with Paul and the Pillars has to be taken into account. Whoever the Pillars really were and whatever the nature of Jesus' "appearances" to them, they are at least grounded in the historical period concurrent with Pilate. Any need to make Jesus contemporaneous with Peter and James would necessitate (or at least facilitate) making him contemporaneous with Pilate, would it not?

Of course, there's also the possibility that an HJ really was crucified under Pilate.

Malachi151

I doubt this, and I further doubt that there ever was a Peter or a James. These too seem to by mythical constructs to me.

The main real characters seem to be:

"Paul" (whoever that is)
John the Baptist
Pilate
Herod

As for the 12 apostles, Peter, James, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Barnabas, Judas, etc. these all seem to be fictional.

Diogenes the Cynic

But there is primary evidence in the Pauline corpus for the existence of the Pillars as some kind of historical figures. Paul claims to have met them. That's not to say it proves they were followers of an HJ but Paul seems to have been talking about somebody who existed at a time and place contemperaneous with Pilate and for whom Paul claims "appearances" by Jesus. All that really matters anyway is that Mark thought they were real people at a real time and place.

Malachi151

Yes, I've often wondered about this, and how much to trust "Paul". He obviously was a liar IMO. He clearly makes up many things in "his" letters, his visions of Jesus for one.

Didymus

If Mark put Jesus' execution under Pilate in order to discourage fact checking, he would have been engaged in a deliberate deception. That's what I was getting at, but I don't think he was doing that. If there are any historical facts to be found in Mark, they are, IMHO, the crucifixion of a holy man in Jerusalem ca 33 and the subsequent reports of sightings. Seems to be that those constitute the core events that led to the belief that the crucified man was the messiah, and the armature upon which Mark constructed the rest of the story.

Some biblegeeks think Mark's gospel was written entirely as - and understood by his readers as - a fable. Perhaps, but it's presented as a historical biography, and that's certainly how it was read by Matthew and Luke, both of whom fleshed it out by adding more ersatz biographical and historical detail.

Didymus

Didymus

Not necessarily an HJ, but a mystic of some sort whose biography was wholly fabricated by Mark, using the OT as his primary source. Whether such an individual could be called a "historical Jesus" is, IMO, doubtful.

(Seems to me that the HJ-MJ dichotomy is a dead end. There are other possible origins for the Christ myth.)

Didymus