Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-20-2013, 02:58 PM

All in all I think this stupid sounding theory had quite a bit going for it. More than I would have expected.

outhouse · 06-20-2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

All in all I think this stupid sounding theory had quite a bit going for it. More than I would have expected.

Only if your running with dated sources far removed from the actual events.

I think your finding the confusion in later church fathers as they muddle through the limited view they had. Much more so then dealing with actual history.

I still think you know more then half the church fathers ever did, just by the way you dig into questions and hold on.

stephan huller · 06-20-2013, 09:03 PM

Craig Evans of all people cautiously accepts a 19 CE start date to Pilate's rule

Quote:

However, his term of office may have begun as early as 19 A.D. (among other reasons, there are some coins that appear to have been struck by*Pilate, and they date to 20-21 A.D.). The traditional inception date of 26 is based on Josephus. http://books.google.com/books?id=iZC...ed=0CDEQ6AEwAA

It is well worth clicking on the link. Truly an eclectic mix of experts who accept a 19 CE start to Pilate's rule

stephan huller · 06-20-2013, 09:14 PM

I think the coins which Evans says confirm Pilate's rule at 20/21 CE are listed here http://books.google.com/books?id=j_8...=0CF8Q6AEwCDge

outhouse · 06-20-2013, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think the coins which Evans says confirm Pilate's rule at 20/21 CE are listed here http://books.google.com/books?id=j_8...=0CF8Q6AEwCDge

page 55 states its not Pilate, but Gratus

stephan huller · 06-20-2013, 10:18 PM

I can only get a partial page view but it must be the same coin. Evans book is the more recent and there must be substantive evidence for someone like Evans to take this unusual position

maryhelena · 06-20-2013, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I just finished saying (a) I am vacation (b) I am happy to look at any date from any source. I just keep seeing 18 CE on the internet

Being on vacation has nothing to do with the OP!

Yes, you keep seeing 18 c.e. - but you don't seem to have researched this date re evidence or re Josephus. - and yet this date is fundamental to the theory/ideas of your OP...So, I'm still waiting for you to support your 18 c.e. dating for Archelaus....

maryhelena · 06-20-2013, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Apparently there is some supporting scholarship for this theory. From Bond's book on Pilate:

The suggestion of D. R. Schwartz*(following Eisler, Messiah, pp. 13-20) that Pilate actually took up his post in 19 CE is unconvincing.*He maintains that all the references in Josephus' Antiquities given above which point to a date of 26 are Christian forgeries*designed to refute the Acta Pilati*circulated during the principate of Maximin Daia in 311. In this work Jesus' execution occurred in 21 CE;*if Josephus' records*could be tampered with*to show that Pilate had only appeared in the province in 26 CE then thework could*be proved to be a hoax. (p. 1)

Danny Schwartz's argument is here http://books.google.com/books?id=rd5...ed=0CCsQ6AEwAQ and it is based on a "jump" in the chronology in Josephus from 19 CE to 37 CE

Yes, I've referenced the book by Schwartz a number of times in threads on this forum - unfortunately, old threads are not now available.....so I can't give links....

Stephan, your problem re your OP is not dating Pilate - your problem is dating Archelaus ruling during the rule of Pilate.

maryhelena · 06-20-2013, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

All in all I think this stupid sounding theory had quite a bit going for it. More than I would have expected.

Your theory re Archelaus and Pilate being involved in the JC crucifixion story has nothing going for it until you support your dating of 18 c.e. for Archelaus:

Quote:

Herod Archelaus only governed until 18 CE a historical framework which agrees with the pagan Acts of Archelaus

Yes, an early crucifixion date has "quite a bit going for it" - I have argued this in a number of threads - which are no longer available to link to. Your problem is linking that early crucifixion date with a 18 c.e. date for Archelaus.

In post #24 of this thread I suggest a way to link the rule of Archelaus with the rule of Pilate. Even if, for the sake of argument, the 18 c.e. date is correct for the death of Archelaus - that would not be enough to support your wanting to link Archelaus with Pilate. The conventional date for the end of the rule of Archelaus is 6 c.e. - long before the time of Pilate. While in exile Archelaus would have had no power in Judea. But seeing that you have supplied no evidence for the 18 c.e. death of Archelaus - the point is moot anyway....

maryhelena · 06-20-2013, 11:43 PM

OK, Stephan. Here are two references. One from the Jewish Encyclopedia and the other from Cassius Dio. Neither mention the death of Archelaus in 18 c.e.

Quote:

In the year 6 of the common era, a deputation of the Jewish and Samaritan aristocracy waited upon Augustus in Rome, to prefer charges against Archelaus, with the result that he was immediately summoned to Rome, deprived of his crown, and banished to Vienne in Gaul, where—according to Dion Cassius Cocceianus, "Hist. Roma," lv. 27—he lived for the remainder of his days.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...1729-archelaus

Quote:

DIO'S ROME

BOOK 55.

Herod [17] of Palestine, who was accused by his brothers of some wrongdoing, was banished beyond the Alps and his portion of the Palestinian domain reverted to the State.

[Footnote 17: His true name was Archelaus.]

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10883/pg10883.html

That source seems to indicate that Archelaus was banished during the rule of Augustus i.e. prior to the time of Pilate.

Quote:

[Augustus suffered from old age and infirmity, so that he could not transact business for all that needed his aid: some cases he reviewed and tried with his counselors, sitting upon the tribunal on the Palatine; the embassies which came from the various nations and princes he put in charge of three ex-consuls, under the arrangement that any one of them individually might listen to such an embassy and return an answer, except in cases where it was necessary for himself and the senate to render a decision besides.]

It's probable that Cassius Dio got info from Josephus re Archelaus - so - back to Josephus for Herodian history. The only way, that I can see, to get Archelaus linked with Pilate - is to challenge the assumed Josephus dating for the death of Herod the Great.

The Wikipedia dating for the death of Archelaus - 18 c.e. - does not seem to reference any support for this dating.

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

06-20-2013, 02:58 PM	#51
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	All in all I think this stupid sounding theory had quite a bit going for it. More than I would have expected.

06-20-2013, 09:14 PM	#54
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think the coins which Evans says confirm Pilate's rule at 20/21 CE are listed here http://books.google.com/books?id=j_8...=0CF8Q6AEwCDge

06-20-2013, 10:18 PM	#56
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I can only get a partial page view but it must be the same coin. Evans book is the more recent and there must be substantive evidence for someone like Evans to take this unusual position

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.