maryhelena

I know what Schwartz says. What Schwartz has shown is a different interpretation of the Josephan writing - i.e. the Josephan writing in regard to Pilate is ambiguous. Therefore, it can be interpreted for an early or a later date for Pilate in Judea.

Another scholar will interpret Josephus differently.


my bolding

Forgery and conspiracy theories are the easy way out of difficulties that the sources contain.

stephan huller

Convincing enough for Craig Evans in light of numismatic evidence

DCHindley

I suppose there is the possibility that Dio is conflating the banishment of Herod Antipas (to Vienna in Gaul around 36-39 CE) with the banishment of Archelaeus (to Lugdunum in Gaiul in 6 CE). Lugdunim and Vienna are relatively close to one another.

The circumstances of Herod of Palestine's fall from Grace suggests Dio was thinkling of Archelaeus, but used the name of his brother Herod Antipas.

stephan huller

If we look at Luke's account it presumes Jesus was sent to "Herod" by Pilate. Clearly the relation between prefect and client king would allow for whatever relationship the Ep. Apost. envisioned for its pairing of "Pilate and Archelaus"

Luke 23.7 When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.

stephan huller

And I guess I must be missing something but how do we assume Dio's "Herod of Palestine" is Archelaus outside of Josephus?

6*These were the events in the city that year. In Achaia the governor died in the middle of his term and instructions were given to his quaestor and to his assessor (whom, as I*have stated, we call envoy) for the former to administer the province as far as the Isthmus and the other the remainder. Herod of Palestine, who was accused by his brothers of some wrongdoing or other, was banished beyond the*

stephan huller

I am boarding my plane but note that despite including the same banishment narrative the Slavonic text includes an anonymous reference to John the Baptist as being active in Archelaus's reign

http://books.google.com/books?id=gu5...tput=html_text

stephan huller

Also notice that the account of Archelaus's banishment appears at the very end of book 17 (the place where additional material could be tacked on easily) and the author clearly read Dio because (a) the acvount closely resembles Dio and (b) Dio's account Archelaus of Cappadocia is used repeatedly

stephan huller

And notice that in the Jewish War tradition "Herod" changes his name to Antipas immediately following the alleged banishment

he leadership of the tribe which belonged to Archelaus was changed into the name of a province by which term the Romans, when they drove back into their power by conquering, named regions located at a great distance. There remained however*[p. 136]*the tetrarchs Philippus and Herodes, the last who was previously called Antipas with a changed name. For Salome dying had left the regions which she had held and the rule over her people to Livia the wife of Caesar. This was the status of Judaea when Caesar died, leaving Tiberius, his stepson, the son of his wife Livia by her previous husband, the succes

DCHindley

Your own cited source seems to say the opposite of what you just asserted.

YOU: "Herod" changes his name to Antipas immediately following the alleged banishment

JOSEPHUS: the tetrarch[...] Herodes, [...] who was previously called Antipas with a changed name

Your mind is racing way ahead of what you have demonstrated.

stephan huller

No my mind has not raced ahead of what I have demonstrated. I was at an airport typing on my smart phone while my plane to Seattle was boarding.

The OP was about whether or not I had found another example of an earlier date for the crucifixion which I have. There is no way to accept the standard dates for Archelaus and make them fit a date around 30 CE.

Then, the subject shifted to the question of whether 'Archelaus' must necessarily be a 'mistake.' It was at that point that the ===== limitations of many of the people at the forum were made manifest. For I noted that the same interest in Archelaus manifests itself in the Christian Acts of Pilate tradition and then I questioned whether or not this might be a sign that the traditions (i.e. pagan and Christian Acts of Pilate) might have originally agreed about at a 21 CE crucifixion and that Josephus was developed to counter this actual historical understanding.

Yes if Josephus is reliable source then Archelaus cannot be moved from this stupid date of 6 CE. But what is really grounding a 6 CE date? An 'agreement' between a reference in Dio Cassius and Josephus? The reality is that there are coins which say 'Archelaus' on them as far as I can see from my Roman Provincial Coinage book put out by the British Museum. All the coins simply say 'Herod' and 'Tetrarch.'

The reality is that this only confirms Dio Cassius's story - namely that there was a tetrarch named Herod who ruled. I don't understand how people can argue that we aren't getting this information about a ruler named 'Archelaus' from anyone but Josephus. But we go round and round and in the course of keeping the spark of interest in the discussion I find myself adding 'things of interest' to the discussion like the fact that Josephus changes the name 'Antipas' to 'Herod' at this exact point in the discussion.

The fact that I am standing at an airport doing this causes me to write 'Herod' for 'Antipas' instead of 'Antipas' 'Herod' or something like that. Who fucking cares. It is only because I am dealing with --------------- in the first place that I have to go over and over the same fucking points.

If I wasn't dealing with ======= people, it would be plainly obvious that the ultimate trump card is the fact that 20 CE is a sabbatical year and all that goes along with that concept. But I'm dealing with =========. So I have to go on trudging along attempting to disprove Josephus, the same fucking idiot source who claimed that Pilate's reign started in 26 CE (and which apparently has been sufficiently disproved by the evidence according to Craig Evans).

So as I am only engaging in a conversation with myself I will continue with the sabbatical year argument. There's no point pitching arguments to ======.

As I was flying from Las Vegas to Seattle I happened to have a copy of Adamantius's Dialogue in my son's Spiderman carry on bag and I noticed the following discussion:

Now I expect the ===== in this group to see that no specific year is mentioned in the Marcionite gospel. I don't expect however that people will be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide and certainly not expect that ------- will be able to see the significance of such math.

For the year 6000 was clearly a sabbatical year. 5999 divided by 7 = 857 and then you add 1 because there was no year zero. This is again a clear sign that the Marcionite year of descent for Jesus fell on a sabbatical year.

I know that you David have spent time thinking of this because you made the connection at a post at crosstalk2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/757. Your post there concludes:

19/20 CE is the date for Jesus' trial as found in the supposedly genuine Acts
of Pilate published by the co-emperor Maximin Daia in 311 CE as anti-Christian
propaganda. Eusebius, of course, called it a forgery, citing Josephus as proof
that Pilate was not yet assumed control of Judea at this date. However,
Josephus includes an account of an event that occurred in 19 CE interspersed
with his accounts of tumults that occurred in Pilate's prefecture, suggesting
Pilate could have been governor as early as 19/20 CE. R Eisler (_Messiah
Jesus …_, 1931) had proposed an emendation to the text of Joseph to allow for
this, since there is a lack of other evidence that would absolutely rule out a
start date for Pilate before 26 CE.

Yet it should be noted that Young - Rodger C. Young, "Seder Olam and the Sabbaticals Associated With the Two Destructions of Jerusalem: Part I," Jewish Bible Quarterly 34 (2006) 173-179;[1] Part II, JBQ 34 252-259 - has I believe settled the issue with his 2006 article noting that the Sabbatical years began, respectively, in 588 BCE and 69 CE.

Now again I know it takes imagination but the argument for 21 and 70 CE being Jubilee years follows from the context of the gospel. But I have to go my dog wants my attention. I just got back.