LegionOnomaMoi

So, you're saying that Pilate actually did write something about Jesus' crucifixion? That's what this document Eusebius talks about is supposed to be: an offical report written by Pilate about Jesus' trial and execution.

PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley et al.,

Note this from the OP:
Notice that this sentence is extremely close to Josephus' TF:
Notice that both sentences contain the ideas of resurrection, miracles/wonders, and many believers. This can hardly be a coincidence that these three ideas appear so closely together in two different texts. Notice how close the syntax is: "He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him," and "the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." What explains this amazingly close connection between the TF and the Acts of Pilate?

Either Eusebius is reading this from the Acts of Pilate or he is making up this sentence because it does not appear in Tertullian.

We may conclude that Josephus got his information from the Acts of Pilate and actually wrote the TF. That is if we believe Eusebius to be an honest recorder of facts. On the other hand, if we are less trustful of Eusebius, we may suggest that Eusebius wrote or considered writing his own version of the Acts of Pilate, but elected not to publish his Acts of Pilate, afraid it would be revealed as a fraud, and just put bits into Justin and Tertullian's "Apologies." The mention that Tertullian had written in Latin was meant to throw suspicion away from himself. Eusebius knew that Pilate would have written in Latin and he did not speak Latin. This would have presented an obstacle to Eusebius simply inventing it and trying to pass it off as legitimate.
Presenting the real (i.e. Christian Acts of Pilate) would have been the best counter for Eusebius in combating the Roman's anti-Jesus "Acts of PIlate." The fact that he didn't do that was related to his inability to fake a Latin document from two centuries earlier. Doing the TF and inserting it into Josephus was "Plan B."

J'accuse Eusebius of the forgery of both the TF and inventing the idea for the Christian Acts of Pilate he talks about.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

DCHindley

I'll admit that I had only read somewhere that specific years of governance are only attributed to these two governors of Judea (Gratus and Pilate). However, I have looked over the 14 governors of Judea mentioned in Josephus*, and none have a stated length of rule except for Gratus and Pilate. They are both phrased in the same way:

18:35 ἕνδεκα ἔτη διατρίψας ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ
after [Gratus] had tarried in Judea eleven years

18:89 καὶ Πιλᾶτος δέκα ἔτεσιν διατρίψας ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίας
Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea

Josephus does otherwise attribute years of reign to specific kings, as this was the norm for recording annals of kings in general.

My brief scan of this data (including a search on the verb διατρίβω (spend time, stay, linger) and the noun ἔτος (year) also did not suggest that a length of governance was even provided for any of the legates of Syria.

DCH

*

Emperor:	Governor of Syria:	Prefect (Governor) of Judea, Samaria and Idumea:
Octavian (Augustus) 31 BC - AD14	P. Sulpicius Quirinius, AD 6 - ??	Coponius AD 6 - 9
*	Uncertain	M. Ambivius AD 9 - 12 (?)
*	Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silannus, AD 12 - 14	Annius Rufus AD 12 - 14
Tiberius AD 14 - 37	Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silannus, AD 14 - 17	Annius Rufus AD 14 - 15 (?)
*	*	Valerius Gratus AD 15 - 17
*	Cn Calpurnius Piso, AD 17 - 19	Valerius Gratus AD 17 - 19
*	Cn Sentius Saturninus, AD 19 - 21	Valerius Gratus AD 19 - 21
*	Unsure	Valerius Gratus AD 22 - 26
*	Unsure	Pontius Pilate AD 26 - ??
*	L. Aelius Lamia, ?? - AD 32	Pontius Pilate AD ?? - 32
*	L. Pomponius Flaccus, AD 32 - 35?	Pontius Pilate AD 32 - 35
*	L. Vitellius, AD 35 - 37	Pontius Pilate AD 35 - 36
*	*	Marcellus AD 36 - 37
Gaius (Caligula) AD 37 - 41	L. Vitellius, AD 37 - 39?	Marullus AD 37 - 39?
*	P. Petronius, AD 39? - 41	Marullus AD 39? - 41 (?)
Claudius AD 41 - 54	P. Petronius, AD 41 - 42?	Not Sure, AD 41 - 42?
*	C. Vibius Marsus, AD 41? or 42 - 44	None (Judea-Samaria-Idumea given to King Agrippa I) AD 41 - 44
--------------	--------------	Procurator (Governor) of Judea, Samaria and Idumea:
*	Either C. Vibius Marsus or C. Cassius Longinus, AD 45	C. Cuspius Fadus AD 44 - 45
*	C. Cassius Longinus, AD 45 - c. 50	C. Cuspius Fadus AD 45 - 46
*	*	Tiberius Julius Alexander, AD 46 - 48
*	*	Ventidius Cumanus, AD 48 - c. 50
*	Ummidius Durmius Quadratus, AD 50 - 54	Ventidius Cumanus, AD 50 - 52
*	*	M. Antonius Felix, AD 52 - 54
Nero AD 54 - 68	Ummidius Durmius Quadratus, AD 54 - 60	M. Antonius Felix, AD 54 - 60
*	Cn Domitius Corbulo, AD 60 - 63	Porcius Festus, AD 60-62 (?)
		Lucceius Albinus, AD 62 (?) - 63
*	C. Cestius Gallus, AD 63? - 66	Lucceius Albinus, AD 63 - 64
*	*	Gessius Florus, AD 64 - 66

maryhelena

:thumbs:

And if the original Acts of Pilate was written prior to gLuke and the 15 th year of Tiberius storyline - then the original Acts of Pilate would have been able to have an earlier crucifixion date - that 7th year of Pilate.

It's the same story with the Toledot Yeshu - why would anyone, after gLuke was written, place a Jesus type storyline in the time of Alexander Jannaeus...

maryhelena

One reason would be to suggest that the JC story is not about a historical JC. Moving the birth date - resulting in moving the crucifixion date - demonstrates that the JC story is not dealing with a flesh and blood figure. A flesh and blood figure requires fixed data.

Another reason, perhaps the primary reason, would be that history, Jewish history, past the 7th year of Tiberius, was relevant to the JC story. It was not all over by the 7th year of Tiberius., i.e. the prophetic interpretation of Jewish history was not over. New history required further interpretation. New history was relevant to the pseudo-historical JC storyboard. Hence a new ‘birth’, a new beginning became necessary.

PhilosopherJay

Agreed,

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

DCHindley

If Pilate followed protocol, yes he would have recorded the facts of the trial, and this would be forwarded up the bureaucracy if it was noteworthy.

Executing someone who was charged with claiming to be "king of the Judeans" would, I think, be noteworthy, and make Pilate look as though he was diligantly doing his job of keeping nationalistic ambitions in check.

As I thought I had indicated, the Christian tradition assumed that the deeds attributed to Jesus in the Gospels would have been reported solely on the basis that the deeds would have been miraculous, requiring a report. Such a report would have been a good one, not a bad one, and squarely blamed the Jews for having him killed through envy. This comes across, to me at least, as anachronistic and wishful thinking.

That is not to say, though, that such a report ever saw the light of day outside of some storage room. Just as Christians were wishful in their thinking about the things such a repoort might say, so may have been the imaginations of Maximinus' subjects who sought to garner his favor by circulating these reports.

That being said, the next step in the bureaucracy above Pilate may have been the legate of Syria, and if so there could have been a copy still in storage, although I'd be surprised if it was kept 250 years.

DCH

DCHindley

If you check Jack Finnegan's Handbook of of Biblical Chronology and look up the table of consuls, you will see that the year when Tiberius was consul for the 4th time was 21 CE in the Julian calendar, which Eusebius relates to the 7th year of Tiberius (counted from his sole rule).

It is by counting 4 years from the appointment of Gratus (when he seems to stop appointing high priests every year) that we get 19 CE as the possible start of Pilate's governorship if it is assumed that the account has been tampered with to extend Gratus' governorship beyond the date that Maximianus' Acts of Pilate had indicated.

DCH

maryhelena

Yes, of course. If Gratus only has 4 years from 14 c.e. then Pilate was in office from 18/19 c.e. Dating the 7th year of Tiberius from his co-regency with Augustus, from 12 c.e. - comes to the same year - 19 c.e. Either way, the TF, is dated to around 19 c.e. - placed as it is prior to the expelling of Jews from Rome, by Tiberius, in 19 c.e.

And just to add a bit of colour to all this..........

19 c.e.
21 c.e.
26 c.e.

A 7 year period, JC executed in 21 c.e - middle of the week. And 26 c.e. is 490 years from the l st year of Artaxerxes in 465 b.c......

Gospels writers are playing musical chairs with Dan.ch.9...

29/30 c.e.
33 c.e.
36 c.e.

33 c.e. is 490 years from the 7th year of Artaxerxes in 458/7 b.c.

LegionOnomaMoi

What "protocol"?

According to Josephus and Philo, Pilate wasn't the sort to care about killing and executing those under his rule (limited though it was supposed to be), and in any event he was answerable not to rome but Syria. Finally, as he was the last of his kind (Marullus was more or less an intermediary whose actual status is unclear, and after him Agrippa I was made ruler of Judea), he likely had more power than the procurators who followed Agrippa I. Not only did none of these last anywhere near as long as Gratus or Pilate, they were responsible for a now quite troublesome place. If Josephus and Philo are to be trusted at all, then it seems that one good reason for the trouble was Pilate himself. I have a hard time imagining a guy who was so ruthless Rome replaced him so quickly they didn't even send more than an intermediary, followed by a King for the first time since Herod, filed regular reports or even reports of his executions.


Again, why? Why would it "require" a report?


Only Eusebius knows about it. And roman record keeping wasn't exactly the kind of thing that lasted for decades if it lasted at all.

I'm confused. Is this a forgery or not? If not, then we have a record from Pilate about Jesus.

I would be suprised if it was ever written, and far more that it kept for so long.