Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-13-2012, 05:11 PM

For what it's worth, here is the narrative of Philo about Pontius Pilate. It should be noted that there is not a single reference to Pilate in any Talmudic source although Vespasian, Titus, Nero are mentioned.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html

Pilate was an official who had been appointed prefect of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honoring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honor the dedication was made.
But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's [Herod the Great] four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike.
When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted: 'Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honor to the emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy.'
This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity.
So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius' firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could.
What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself.
For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea [...], to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honor of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved.

maryhelena · 05-13-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

For what it's worth, here is the narrative of Philo about Pontius Pilate. It should be noted that there is not a single reference to Pilate in any Talmudic source although Vespasian, Titus, Nero are mentioned.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html

Pilate was an official who had been appointed prefect of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honoring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honor the dedication was made.
But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's [Herod the Great] four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike.
When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted: 'Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honor to the emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy.'
This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity.
So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius' firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could.
What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself.
For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea [...], to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honor of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved.

Thanks for the quote from Philo.

Yes, I know we have the Pilate Stone - but, for me at least, a question mark remains over Pilate....

maryhelena · 05-13-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

For maryhelena to be able to make an effective case, then, she would have to find another historian, perhaps one contemporary with or predating josephus, like Justinus of Tiberias.

What's that??? His works are no longer extant??? That Photius in the 9th Century said that Justinus' works didn't contain ANY mention of Jesus Christ???

And then his works were "conveniently" "lost!"

Looks like all maryhelena has to go by then is the game of telephone called Oral Tradition.

In other words, Chinese Whispers.

Prior to Josephus? What we have is Philo and his story re the mocking of the madman Carabbas - Carabbas being a 'substitute' for King Agrippa - a Herodian King carrying Hasmonean blood. So, the gMark writer is using Philo and Josephus for his JC story - looks to me these two writers, Philo and Josephus, have played a very big role in the development of gMark's JC story....

And you know what - one could develop a Jesus story without the gospel story.

1, the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, 37 b.c.
2, the Toldot Yeshu story. A story set from the time of Alexander Janneaus (103-76 b.c.) The identity of Queen Helena being debatable - hence the date for the death of Yeshu is questionable.
3, the mocking of Carabbas as a substitute for the Herodian King Agrippa, a king carrying Hasmonean blood. Philo's Flaccus.
4, Slavonic Josephus and it's wonder-doer story.
5, Josephus War and it's references to Antigonus; plus its Jesus ben Ananas story.
6. Josephus Antiquites and its TF story.
7. Cassius Dio and his Antigonus reference.

If one is looking for non-christian sources for the gospel JC story - look no further...

Sure, the gospel JC Passion Narrative is a polished version - but that story is following an oral tradition that developed from real flesh and blood history.

Why bring Cassius Dio into it??? Cassius Dio wrote in 225 CE, long after stories about Jesus began circulating in the Second Century CE. Remember, the fragment of gJohn 18 (no. P52) is dated to 125 CE by paleographers.

Why not? He made a statement re Antigonus. The question is where did he get his information from?

Did Cassius Dio has use the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?...

Quote:

And still, you have no source of evidence that Josephus used the history of Antigonus to, in a paraphrase of what you said previously, fabricate First Century Jewish History.

I would not expect Josephus, writing with Rome in mind, to have spelled out his true feelings, thinking and actions, regarding the Roman dishonorable killing of Antigonus.

Quote:

And what motive would he have to make things up???? :huh:

What motivation did any of the OT Jewish prophets have in making things up?
As one writer put it: Josephus - "....he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography...."

Quote:

Josephus’ prophetic role as historian merits special attention.....In War 1.18-19 he declares that he will begin writing his history where the prophets ended theirs, so he is continuing this part of their prophetic function. According to Ap.1.29 the priests were custodians of the nation’s historical records, and in Ap.1.37 inspired prophets wrote that history. As a priest Josephus is a custodian of his people’s traditions, and by continuing that history in the Jewish War and subsequently by rewriting it in his Antiquities, he is a prophet. For Josephus prophets and historians preserve the past and predict the future, and he has picked up the mantle of creating prophetic writings. Perhaps, in his own mind he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography....

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

my bolding

Vorkosigan · 05-14-2012, 04:17 AM

Quote:

It should be noted that there is not a single reference to Pilate in any Talmudic source although Vespasian, Titus, Nero are mentioned.

Are any pre-70 governors of Judea mentioned in the Talmud?

Duvduv · 05-14-2012, 04:41 AM

As far as I can tell none before the rebellion are mentioned. And there is no mention of Massada either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

It should be noted that there is not a single reference to Pilate in any Talmudic source although Vespasian, Titus, Nero are mentioned.

Are any pre-70 governors of Judea mentioned in the Talmud?

aa5874 · 05-14-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I would not expect Josephus, writing with Rome in mind, to have spelled out his true feelings, thinking and actions, regarding the Roman dishonorable killing of Antigonus...

Your seriously flawed claim is destroyed in "Antiquities of the Jews" 15.1.2

Quote:

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet.

And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod."

It is most remarkable that Josephus claimed that Antigonus was beheaded for the very OPPOSITE reason why Jesus was crucified.

Jesus was crucified because he was REJECTED by the Jews.

Antigonus was beheaded because he was greatly LOVED by the Jews as their former KING.

gMark's Passion story was NOT based on Antigonus

Mark 15

Quote:

12 And Pilate again answered and said to them: What then will you that I shall do with him whom you call King of the Jews?

13 They again cried out: Crucify him.

14 But Pilate said to them: Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out vehemently: Crucify him.

la70119 · 05-14-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Why bring Cassius Dio into it??? Cassius Dio wrote in 225 CE, long after stories about Jesus began circulating in the Second Century CE. Remember, the fragment of gJohn 18 (no. P52) is dated to 125 CE by paleographers.

Why not? He made a statement re Antigonus. The question is where did he get his information from?

Did Cassius Dio has use the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?...

Cassius Dio also said Mark Anthony shamefully exposed Julius Caesar's body in the Forum. Where did he get his information from?

Cassius Dio Roman History 44.35.4

Quote:

And Anthony aroused them still more by bringing the body most inconsiderately into the Forum, exposing it all covered with blood as it was and with gaping wounds, and then delivering over it a speech, which was very ornate and brilliant, to be sure, but out of place for that occasion.

Previous historians know something about this.

Appian Civil Wars 2.146-147

Quote:

146 having spoken thus, he gathered up his garments like one inspired, girded himself so that he might have the free use of his hands, and took his position in fronnt of the bier... ...Carried away by extreme passion he uncovered the body of Cæsar, lifted his robe on the point of a spear and shook it aloft, pierced with dagger-thrusts and red with the dictator's blood. Whereupon the people, like a chorus, mourned with him in the most lugubrious manner, and from sorrow became again filled with anger... ...Somewhere from the midst of these lamentations Cæsar himself was supposed to speak, recounting the benefits he had conferred on his enemies by name, and speaking of the murderers themselves, exclaiming, as it were, " Oh that I should have spared these men to slay me!" The people could endure it no longer....

147 While they were in this temper and were already near to violence, somebody raised above the bier an image of Cæsar himself made of wax. The body itself, as it lay on its back on the couch, could not be seen. The image was turned round and round by a mechanical device, showing the twenty-three wounds in all parts of the body and on the face, which gave him a shocking appearance. The people could no longer bear the pitiful sight presented to them.

Suetonius Divus Iulius 84.1

Quote:

Notice of his funeral having been solemnly proclaimed, a pile was erected in the Campus Martius, near the tomb of his daughter Julia; and before the Rostra was placed a gilded tabernacle, on the model of the temple of Venus Genitrix; within which was an ivory bed, covered with purple and cloth of gold. At the head was a trophy, with the [blood-stained] robe in which he was slain. It being considered that the whole day would not suffice for carrying the funeral oblations in solemn procession before the corpse, directions were given for every one, without regard to order, to carry them from the city into the Campus Martius, by what way they pleased.

Now where did Cassius Dio get his idea that Antigonus was bound to a cross or post? Show me what historian previous had said Antigonus was bound to a cross?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I would not expect Josephus, writing with Rome in mind, to have spelled out his true feelings, thinking and actions, regarding the Roman dishonorable killing of Antigonus.

Oh? aa has put paid to that little fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your seriously flawed claim is destroyed in "Antiquities of the Jews" 15.1.2

Quote:

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet.

And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod."

Besides, it was Mark Anthony who ordered the killing, and he fell out of favor with the Roman establishment and therefore was fair game, and himself was forced to suicide.

And as far as Cassius Dio getting his source for the execution of Antigonus from gMark? Well aa has handed your hat back to you on that, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most remarkable that Josephus claimed that Antigonus was beheaded for the very OPPOSITE reason why Jesus was crucified.

Jesus was crucified because he was REJECTED by the Jews.

Antigonus was beheaded because he was greatly LOVED by the Jews as their former KING.

gMark's Passion story was NOT based on Antigonus

Mark 15

Quote:

12 And Pilate again answered and said to them: What then will you that I shall do with him whom you call King of the Jews?

13 They again cried out: Crucify him.

14 But Pilate said to them: Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out vehemently: Crucify him.

And Josephus himself tells us where he got this information on the execution of Antigonus. Where did Cassius Dio get his information? It couldn't have beem gMark, obviously, for whereas the Jews were fond of Antigonus as well as Julius Caesar (Suetonius Divus Iulius 84.5). Could it be that Cassius Dio projected certain aspects of the funeral of Julius Caesar onto the death of Antigonus, king of the Jews??? (Nahhh...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What motivation did any of the OT Jewish prophets have in making things up?
As one writer put it: Josephus - "....he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography...."

Quote:

Josephus’ prophetic role as historian merits special attention.....In War 1.18-19 he declares that he will begin writing his history where the prophets ended theirs, so he is continuing this part of their prophetic function. According to Ap.1.29 the priests were custodians of the nation’s historical records, and in Ap.1.37 inspired prophets wrote that history. As a priest Josephus is a custodian of his people’s traditions, and by continuing that history in the Jewish War and subsequently by rewriting it in his Antiquities, he is a prophet. For Josephus prophets and historians preserve the past and predict the future, and he has picked up the mantle of creating prophetic writings. Perhaps, in his own mind he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography....

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

my bolding

Maryhelena, do you know what historiography even means??? It's supposed to be:

Quote:

the writing of history; especially: the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...historiography

In other words, it's not supposed to be plaigarizing, or making stuff up, or basing later histories on earlier histories.

maryhelena · 05-14-2012, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Why bring Cassius Dio into it??? Cassius Dio wrote in 225 CE, long after stories about Jesus began circulating in the Second Century CE. Remember, the fragment of gJohn 18 (no. P52) is dated to 125 CE by paleographers.

Why not? He made a statement re Antigonus. The question is where did he get his information from?

Did Cassius Dio has use the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?...

Cassius Dio also said Mark Anthony shamefully exposed Julius Caesar's body in the Forum. Where did he get his information from?

Cassius Dio Roman History 44.35.4

Quote:

And Anthony aroused them still more by bringing the body most inconsiderately into the Forum, exposing it all covered with blood as it was and with gaping wounds, and then delivering over it a speech, which was very ornate and brilliant, to be sure, but out of place for that occasion.

Previous historians know something about this.

So - maybe he was writing "...inspired historiography", just as my previous quote, from Robert Karl Gnuse, suggested that Josephus had been doing....

Appian Civil Wars 2.146-147

Quote:

146 having spoken thus, he gathered up his garments like one inspired, girded himself so that he might have the free use of his hands, and took his position in fronnt of the bier... ...Carried away by extreme passion he uncovered the body of Cæsar, lifted his robe on the point of a spear and shook it aloft, pierced with dagger-thrusts and red with the dictator's blood. Whereupon the people, like a chorus, mourned with him in the most lugubrious manner, and from sorrow became again filled with anger... ...Somewhere from the midst of these lamentations Cæsar himself was supposed to speak, recounting the benefits he had conferred on his enemies by name, and speaking of the murderers themselves, exclaiming, as it were, " Oh that I should have spared these men to slay me!" The people could endure it no longer....

147 While they were in this temper and were already near to violence, somebody raised above the bier an image of Cæsar himself made of wax. The body itself, as it lay on its back on the couch, could not be seen. The image was turned round and round by a mechanical device, showing the twenty-three wounds in all parts of the body and on the face, which gave him a shocking appearance. The people could no longer bear the pitiful sight presented to them.

Suetonius Divus Iulius 84.1

Quote:

Notice of his funeral having been solemnly proclaimed, a pile was erected in the Campus Martius, near the tomb of his daughter Julia; and before the Rostra was placed a gilded tabernacle, on the model of the temple of Venus Genitrix; within which was an ivory bed, covered with purple and cloth of gold. At the head was a trophy, with the [blood-stained] robe in which he was slain. It being considered that the whole day would not suffice for carrying the funeral oblations in solemn procession before the corpse, directions were given for every one, without regard to order, to carry them from the city into the Campus Martius, by what way they pleased.

Quote:

Now where did Cassius Dio get his idea that Antigonus was bound to a cross or post? Show me what historian previous had said Antigonus was bound to a cross?

I asked you that question - where did Cassius Dio get this idea from? I'm open to suggestions....

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I would not expect Josephus, writing with Rome in mind, to have spelled out his true feelings, thinking and actions, regarding the Roman dishonorable killing of Antigonus.

Oh? aa has put paid to that little fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your seriously flawed claim is destroyed in "Antiquities of the Jews" 15.1.2

Quote:

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet.

And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod."

And you really think these statements are revealing how the Josephan writer really felt about the Romans killing the last King and High Priest of the Jews??

Quote:

Besides, it was Mark Anthony who ordered the killing, and he fell out of favor with the Roman establishment and therefore was fair game, and himself was forced to suicide.

And what has that got to do with Marc Antony being involved with the killing of Antigonus??

Quote:

And as far as Cassius Dio getting his source for the execution of Antigonus from gMark? Well aa has handed your hat back to you on that, too.

The question - where did Cassius Dio get his material from re the binding of Antigonus to a stake/cross and flogging him - remains unanswered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most remarkable that Josephus claimed that Antigonus was beheaded for the very OPPOSITE reason why Jesus was crucified.

Jesus was crucified because he was REJECTED by the Jews.

Antigonus was beheaded because he was greatly LOVED by the Jews as their former KING.

gMark's Passion story was NOT based on Antigonus

Mark 15

Quote:

12 And Pilate again answered and said to them: What then will you that I shall do with him whom you call King of the Jews?

13 They again cried out: Crucify him.

14 But Pilate said to them: Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out vehemently: Crucify him.

And Josephus himself tells us where he got this information on the execution of Antigonus. Where did Cassius Dio get his information? It couldn't have beem gMark, obviously, for whereas the Jews were fond of Antigonus as well as Julius Caesar (Suetonius Divus Iulius 84.5). Could it be that Cassius Dio projected certain aspects of the funeral of Julius Caesar onto the death of Antigonus, king of the Jews??? (Nahhh...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What motivation did any of the OT Jewish prophets have in making things up?
As one writer put it: Josephus - "....he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography...."

Quote:

Josephus’ prophetic role as historian merits special attention.....In War 1.18-19 he declares that he will begin writing his history where the prophets ended theirs, so he is continuing this part of their prophetic function. According to Ap.1.29 the priests were custodians of the nation’s historical records, and in Ap.1.37 inspired prophets wrote that history. As a priest Josephus is a custodian of his people’s traditions, and by continuing that history in the Jewish War and subsequently by rewriting it in his Antiquities, he is a prophet. For Josephus prophets and historians preserve the past and predict the future, and he has picked up the mantle of creating prophetic writings. Perhaps, in his own mind he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography....

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

my bolding

Maryhelena, do you know what historiography even means??? It's supposed to be:

Quote:

the writing of history; especially: the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...historiography

In other words, it's not supposed to be plaigarizing, or making stuff up, or basing later histories on earlier histories.

It's a great pity that the Josephan writer is not around so that he could benefit from modern ideas about writing about history...:huh:

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 08:28 AM

Speaking of Josephus.......since he was writing his books in Rome, and if GMark was the first one to make use of his writings (or at least writings going under the name of Josephus) doesn't that pretty much narrow down the locations of where the gospels could have originated if they needed to rely on him?
Assuming that manuscript scrolls were not everywhere and more than likely only in the largest cities, doesn't that narrow the choices for the gospels to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch?

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 03:21 PM

I am also interested in knowing whether anything definitive from Josephus has been traced in the epistles.
So far I haven't found anything online that goes into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Speaking of Josephus.......since he was writing his books in Rome, and if GMark was the first one to make use of his writings (or at least writings going under the name of Josephus) doesn't that pretty much narrow down the locations of where the gospels could have originated if they needed to rely on him?
Assuming that manuscript scrolls were not everywhere and more than likely only in the largest cities, doesn't that narrow the choices for the gospels to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2012, 05:11 PM	#121
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	For what it's worth, here is the narrative of Philo about Pontius Pilate. It should be noted that there is not a single reference to Pilate in any Talmudic source although Vespasian, Titus, Nero are mentioned. http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html Pilate was an official who had been appointed prefect of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honoring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honor the dedication was made. But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's [Herod the Great] four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike. When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted: 'Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honor to the emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy.' This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius' firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could. What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself. For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea [...], to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honor of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved.

05-15-2012, 08:28 AM	#129
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Speaking of Josephus.......since he was writing his books in Rome, and if GMark was the first one to make use of his writings (or at least writings going under the name of Josephus) doesn't that pretty much narrow down the locations of where the gospels could have originated if they needed to rely on him? Assuming that manuscript scrolls were not everywhere and more than likely only in the largest cities, doesn't that narrow the choices for the gospels to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.