maryhelena wrote:DCHindley wrote:Eusebius, Church History I.ix.3 "For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius (21 CE), which occurred in the seventh year of his reign;"
It's the fourth consulship that dates the event, not whether it was the seventh year by co regency or sole rule. Look it up ... the fourth consulship of Tiberius is everywhere agreed to have occurred 21 CE. If it's 21 CE, then 7th year of sole rule must be what Eusebius meant, not 7th year of co-regency.
Really? You can read the mind of Eusebius?
Since, as far as I'm aware, we don't have the exact copy of the Acts of Pilate that Eusebius is referencing regarding the 7th year of Tiberius - can we really be so sure that it said 4th consulate of Tiberius and not simply the 7th year of Tiberius? Particularly so as Eusebius is making reference to Antiquites book 18 regarding the appointment of Pilate. A book that includes the TF as well as the banishment of Jews from Rome - an event dated to 19 c.e. (or would you suggest that there was no TF at the time Eusebius wrote his history and that he therefore had no knowledge of it's placement of the Jesus crucifixion prior to or around 19 c.e.? A year that would be the 7th year since a co-regency for Tiberius)
No, I can merely read what Eusebius wrote, which says 4th consulship if Tiberius, which is known to have been in 21 CE. No ingenious mental effort need be extended.
Are you saying, mh, that Eusebius just made up that factoid about the equation of Tiberius' 4th consulship with his 7th year of reign? Or are you saying that inconvenient factoids can be safely scrubbed from the histerical record questioning whether he actually saw what he said he saw? It doesn't matter that Eusebius resided in an area under Maximinus' control, and that these
Acta were posted publically everywhere, city and village, with Maximinus even mandating that tutors have their pupils learn them by heart, between 311 (or possibly 305) and 313 CE?
I think it is most likely that the documents were dated to Tiberius' fourth consulship, which BTW was the normal Roman custom in the 1st century CE, and Eusebius elaborated by translating that into year of the emperor's rule, which he preferred to use and was perhaps fashionable in his time, when the emperors of the tetrarchy were no longer closely connected with events in Rome, such as who were consuls in any particular year.
If you want to examine Eusebius' rhetorical intent, it is in his effort to present evidence to challenge the authenticity of the dates in the
Acta Pilati, and cites Josephus, apparently the best (or only) source that he could employ to so. However, he prefaces this citation with the disclaimer "
if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed". Why this disclaimer? It is because
only in the descriptions of the governorships of Gratus and Pilate does he say how many years they each officiated. In factoid, Josephus'
Ant 18:32-35, 89 does NOT say that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius "in the twelfth year of his reign (26 CE)" but that "When Gratus had done those things [appointed four HPs that each served a year only] he went back to Rome,
after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor" (
Antiquities of the Jews 18.35). The 12th year of Tiberius, or 26 CE, is inferred from this statement by commentators. As for the length of Pilate's governorship, "So Pilate, when
he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome ..." (
Antiquities of the Jews 18:89).
How many governors were appointed to administer Judea/Galilee/Idumea/Samaria until the breakout of the Judean war in 66CE? The super secret answer, if I have counted correctly, is "Sixteen". All the other 14 were dated by association with events in the rules of the Emperors. This is Josephus' propensity: to date governorships of the province by means of a year of rule of an emperor, and not by simply saying "X governed for Y years".
Since the
deviation from this pattern in the cases of Gratus and Pilate
just coincidentally affects the potential date of Jesus' death, and the point that Eusebius is making is to discredit the
Acta Pilati of Maximinus Daia, and he acknowledges that not everyone was willing to accept Eusebius' reading of Josephus in this case, does suggest that the text in these cases could have been altered simply in order to invalidate Maximinus'
Acta Pilati, which had presented Jesus' death in an unsympathetic manner. What Eusebius wanted to believe, was his version of what Pilate MUST have communicated to Tiberius, that Jesus was of a divine nature, and that Tiberius had even tried unsuccessfully to get the Roman Senate to formally recognize his divinity.*
Nobody goes through that kind of trouble (introducing altered manuscripts of Josephus, whether by imperial decree or just by an authority figure like Eusebius) unless something about the dating of Jesus' execution in Maximinus'
Acta Pilati posed a threat to (proto-)orthodoxy. Eusebius was employing a "smoke screen". The old adage is true: "Where there is smoke ... there is fire".
Why do you keep trying to leave the 19th year open as a possibility? Is there something about it that is near and dear to you?
I could turn that around and ask why 21 c.e. is so 'near and dear' to you....
Whether an original Jesus crucifixion story was dated 19 or 21 c.e. or a later Jesus crucifixion story is dated 30 - 33 - 36 c.e., is, for me, only of academic interest since it's a story and not history. What is of interest is how early christian writers were having a hard time trying to make chronological sense out of the conflicting dating systems.
Because that is what the text says: "the fourth consulship of Tiberius", which was in 21 CE.
So, take your pick on what dating system one takes a liking to - I'm happy with all of them....
19 c.e. = 7th year of Tiberius from a co-regency in 12 c.e. Antiquities book 18 and the TF placed around or prior to 19 c.e.
21 c.e. = 7th year of Tiberius sole rule from 14 c.e. 49 years prior to 70 c.e. 7 x 7 prophetic or Jubilee years.
30 c.e. = a 1 year ministry from the 15th year of Tiberius.
33 c.e. = a 3 year ministry from the 15th year of Tiberius.
36/37 c.e. = last year of Pilate from a late dating. Questionable as to whether Herodias was married to Antipas prior to 34 c.e. John the Baptist, re Josephus, still alive to this date.
Ohhhh-K.
DCH
*
Church History, II.ii. AND when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.
They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate, but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.
