mountainman

Hi Jay,

Eusebius had before him the "Pagan Acts of Pilate" which he describes as "full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ". It was an utter embarrassment to Eusebius and the canonical books. In his church history, Eusebius claims that it appeared c.311 CE, but in "Vita Constantini" he claims c.324/325 CE that:

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers."

There is little doubt that the accounts of Pilate referred to by Tertullian and Justin and then Eusebius is simply a pious forgery. Pilate did not convert to the Christian cult. Howeve the 4th century pagan writing, which Eusebius reacts to as "blasphemy against Christ" was in circulation, but what I think Eusebius did was to conceal and lie about its appearance in the empire. It makes perfect sense that such a "blasphemy against Christ" would appear in response to Nicaea 324/325 CE, as part of the controversy.



What I do not understand is the repeated assertion that this "Pagan Acts of Pilate" described by Eusebius was destroyed, and that the copy we have in the 21st century, in which the characters of Leucius and Karinus are presented as the zombie scribes, is NOT the pagan acts described by Eusebius, but another "Christian Acts of Pilate" authored later in the 4th century.

Why does scholarship insist that the Pagan version was destroyed, and that another later Christian version is the surviving text? I have never yet received a satisfactory answer to this question. Any ideas?

My personal opinion is that scholarship operates under the assumption that the "Acts of Pilate" as we have it MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS and no other reason. That is, that the "Pagan Acts of Pilate" is LOST because Pagans could not have written the version that we have before us. Scholarship appears to have therefore CONJECTURED that although this pagan version was LOST, another Christian version was authored later in the 4th century, and this is the one we are looking at. This conjecture severely goes against Occam's razor.

I think we are all looking at the blasphemous "Pagan version", contraversially authored in Alexandria c.324/325 CE in reaction to the Nicaean agenda. The educated academic pagans who were supported by the vast Asclepian temple networks at that time witnessed the utter destruction of their culture. It is such people who might be reasonably expected to have Pilate contraversially declare to the Jews that Jesus healed by Asclepius.


Best wishes


Pete

Toto

Please stop reposting this quote as if it proves anything. The Roman theater was full of mockery and ridicule. That doesn't prove anything about any written document.

mountainman

The Christian Bible is ridiculed today. This quote substantiates that the Christian Bible was ridiculed when it first appeared on the wings of war in the eastern empire. What problem do you have with such a reasonable position?




We are not discussing the ROman theatre, but the Greek theatres of Alexandria at the time when they were being invaded by Constantine's Christian Army, and at the same time being primed for a new imperially proscribed monotheistic state religion. Political satire was very much at home in these Greek theatres of Alexandria.

Please stop using the word "prove" or "proof". In all my discussions here I have never made any claims that use these terms.

Toto

My problem is that you keep spamming this board with unconnected and irrelevant quotes. Yes, pagans ridiculed Christianity and everything connected to it. Lucian did it. Anonymous Greco-Roman mimes probably did it. What does this have to do with the Acts of Pilate?

mountainman

The highly relevant and connected quote demonstrates that this pagan ridicule was closely associated with the massive controversy which ensued 324/325 CE and at Nicaea. I object to your classifying this as spam.

The claim is that the Acts of Pilate (gNicodemus) that we have before us is a pagan ridicule of Christianity, and not a Christian ridicule of Christianity. It describes itself as being written by two zombies.

Toto

You have not connected it to Nicaea.

I call it spam because you keep reposting it without making a point, as if you were trying to sell something.

Zombie is a modern term. Christians and pagans at the time did not think it ridiculous that people could rise from the dead out of their graves and write books.

mountainman

It is sourced from Vita Contantini at Chapter LX1, which is entitled " How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius."



The major claim above (following from your BOLDED COMMENT) is that the Acts of Pilate (gNicodemus) that we have before us is - more reasonably - a pagan ridicule of Christianity, and not a Christian ridicule of Christianity.

Toto

I don't see the Acts of Pilate as ridiculing Christianity.

There are several online versions - such as this. Please point out the ridicule.

mountainman

We can start with the name - not the Acts of the Apostles, but the Acts of a Roman Prefect called Pontius Pilate. How are we to understand that a "Christian Act" would be dedicated to a Roman Prefect? Pilate may certainly be perceived to be an apostle of Caesar. The object of ridicule was not Christianity, as I see it, rather the fundamental "Christian Story" found in the canonical books.


The story books of the new testament canon were being mimicked by authors that the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to as "enterprizing spirits".

This imitation and mimicry of the canonical books was (IMO) considered ridicule (by the canonical book followers).




Ridicule via imitation seen as "blasphemy" by canon followers

This ridicule in turn was seen by the canon followers as blasphemy, and Eusebius indicates it was widespread in the year 311 CE but I think he just made another one of his chronological mistakes, and the Acts of Pilate was a reaction to the Constantine Bible 24 years later in 325 CE......

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I must agree that it is not an impossibility that Eusebius forged the references of pre-4th century events into pre-4th century sources. However if we now turn to the 4th century Roman Acta of Pilate itself, we are presented with additional claims stated as conclusions:

(1) The Roman Acta of Pilate mentioned by Eusebius was destroyed.
(2) (Perhaps unknown to Eusebius) a later 4th century Christian Acta of Pilate was forged and this is the text we have before us.

My insistence in discussion of the Acts of Pilate in part relate to these two additional claims (which are treated as conclusions) AFAIK by all academics and scholars and other commentators I have read in the field.

My question is simply whether the so-called (2) A later 4th century Christian Acta of Pilate is a "Russel's Teapot" object? Was the original pagan version actually destroyed (after being taken around the empire) and in fact was a separate 4th century authored (forged) "Christian" - as distinct from "Pagan" - Acta of Pilate authored, and transmitted to 2012?

I do not know of either the EVIDENCE or the logic by which the above two claims are held to be true by everyone. If anyone can point out the evidence or the logic behind the claims (1) and (2) I would be very appreciative.

The answer to this question, I would suggest is that after having been taken around the empire as described by Eusebius and given great exposure, the "Pagan" AoP is the text that survives to 2012, and that the "Christian" AoP of the later 4th century is a totally unnecessary conjecture. I would also argue that the Pagan AoP was the product of 325 and not 311 CE as reported by Eusebius.



Best wishes



Pete