Judas the Galilean of Nazareth

[outhouse]

review by Ken Humphreys at his website:.

Worthless.

Using a clown to review another clown.

[outhouse]

However, in the world of biblical criticism, where there are so much "special pleading" to dilute genuine historical method so as not to disturb the faiths of the laypeople, reading the take of an outsider who has done some good homework can be a breath of fresh air.

DCH

It can.

It can also be another conspiracy minded methodology that reduces credible evidence to the inane.

[DCHindley]

If Unterbrink is correct that Judas was the revolutionary upon whom the Christian faith was based, who was crucified in 19 CE (or whatever), and the text of Josephus was fiddled with in Constantine's time to make this association impossible, I can see it as possible but for a variety of reasons it is less likely than he thinks.

I agree that the text of Josephus may have been tinkered with to move the beginning of Pilate's governorship from 19 CE to 26 CE, but I would base it upon the fact that the co-emperor Maximunus Daia (who ruled the SE quadrant of the empire, that is, Asia Minor, upper Mesopotamia and Syria-Judea) had published excerpts from what he claimed were Pilate's "acta" (Pilate's personal commentaries, a kind of official diary kept by Roman officials the proceedings of which were generally posted publically for a few days, but as a whole were not considered "public" records, but kept by the official to defend them if called to task for some legal charge). These "acta" described the trial of a man called Jesus who was executed in 21 CE.

Eusebius, who lived in territory governed by Maximinus Daia (a man who hated Christians with a vengeance), but rooted for Constantine (a man who was tolerant of Christians because several women in his family were of that persuasion), later became an advisor for Constantine when he defeated all of his competitors and became sole emperor. When trying to tear down the validity of the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus, he makes much of the fact that Josephus puts the start of his governorship at 26 CE, making a date of 21 CE for the trial and execution of Jesus Christ impossible.

However, Eusebius admitted that not everyone accepted the text of Josephus as he read it. That would mean the naysayers either did not accept the accuracy of Josephus on this matter i.e., he was just plain wrong), or were aware of other versions of Antiquities where the year of the start of Pilate's governorship was such that a date of 21 CE for Jesus' trial/execution was possible.

I would think, though, that Eusebius, looking for other reasons for denigrating the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus Daia, assuming they were genuine and Unterbrink was correct, would have jumped on an inconsistency like the man being named "Judas" rather than "Jesus." However, if the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus were indeed faked, like Eusebius' asserted, they may well have said "Jesus" rather than "Judas."

Even so, it appears from internal literary evidence that only the accounts of the governorships of Pilate and his predecessor Valerius Gratus are given specific lengths, whereas all the other governors mentioned are not given lengths of rule. Since Pilate's predecessor was appointing a new High Priest every year (a fact which Josephus even comments on) only appoints four of them, and the appointment of the next HP we are told of is Joseph Caiaphas, a man who was known to have been appointed by Pilate and continued in that job until Pilate was replaced in 36/37 CE, this naturally suggests that the predecessor only governed four years, making Pilate's appointment 19 CE.

There is the problem of the existence of a single bronze coin of a style previously issued every year for the first four years of Gratus, but dated to 24 CE. Pilate (whether he governed 10 or 17 years) was not a big issuer of coins, making it possible that the coin is a fake (faked coins, especially ones with religious significance, are exceedingly common in numismatics) or Pilate just used Gratus' existing design to make a limited number of bronze coins to fill a need. Pilate did NOT issue bronze coins every year.

Minted	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31
Tiberius			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Gratus				LΒ	LΓ	LΔ	LΕ						LΙΑ
Pilate																		LΙϚ	LΙΖ	LΙΗ

The "L" in the date is an ancient numismatic convention that means "Year number." That's all there is for Pilate, nothing before 29 CE or after 31 CE. Same for Gratus, four in the first four years of governorship, nothing again until 6 years after. The coin of 24 CE is a "lonesome dove".

So I'd suggest that Gratus issued coins every year (perhaps for propaganda purposes, as issuing new coins requires taking out of circulation those already issued by Herod, Archaelus, or Hasmonean rulers and claimants), as well as appointed a HP every year (Josephus says it was for the bribes), like clockwork, for a four year period of governorship.

PIlate, on the other hand, perhaps not so concerned with propaganda value of recycling fractional bronze currency (maybe Gratus had successfully already taken the bulk of the non-Roman coins out of circulation) or the income to be gained from high priestly bribes (Josephus and the NT gospels do not present him as so motivated, although Philo did), was content with one HP and dispensing with the expense of recycling (melting and re-minting) coins. The three he did issue in 29, 30 & 31 CE, commemorated the cult of Julia Caesar or Tiberius' good fortune, both breaking from previous traditions of using harmless agricultural symbols, and was perhaps issued to pay homage to his patrons in Rome, nothing more.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

I have Unterbrink's book before me; I can scarcely recommend it as a well-written work, mainly because the organization of his ideas is atrocious. However, I find the ideas themselves extremely plausible, explaining many of the political and religious questions raised by the Christ story, and providing a framework to understand the extant writings of that era.

It's true that Unterbrink places great weight on the works of Josephus, and some of those works contradict U.'s theory and hypothetical timeline, as maryhelena points out above. However, we know for a fact that Josephus has been diddled with by Christian scribes, viz. the Testimonium Flavium.

Right after I read Judas the Galilean I started a thread on it at the Secular Cafe; http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p ... post490679. Another contradiction from within Josephus is mentioned there-

• In his hypothesis, Judas is crucified in 19 AD- under Pontius Pilate. Of course, the knowledgeable here will protest that Pilate did not become procurator until 26 AD. But that date is based upon one line from Josephus; in context-

Your problem, Underbrink's problem, is that there is no historical evidence for Judas the Galilean. Josephus can tell stories as well as any gospel writer...

Even so, it's possible Josephus's writings then, or soon after (in the 2nd C), were taken as 'gospel-truth'; as many do today.

ie. people might have believed there was a Judas the Gallilean based on Josephus's writings, whether there was or not.

Moreover, Josephus's writings may have inspired a scripture writer or two.
.

[MrMacSon]

.
... I agree that the text of Josephus may have been tinkered with to move the beginning of Pilate's governorship from 19 CE to 26 CE, but I would base it upon the fact that the co-emperor Maximunus Daia (who ruled the SE quadrant of the empire, that is, Asia Minor, upper Mesopotamia and Syria-Judea) had published excerpts from what he claimed were Pilate's "acta" (Pilate's personal commentaries, a kind of official diary kept by Roman officials the proceedings of which were generally posted publicly for a few days, but as a whole were not considered "public" records, but kept by the official to defend them if called to task for some legal charge). These "acta" described the trial of a man called Jesus who was executed in 21 CE.

... When trying to tear down the validity of the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus, [Eusebus] makes much of the fact that Josephus puts the start of his governorship at 26 CE, making a date of 21 CE for the trial and execution of Jesus Christ impossible.

However, Eusebius admitted that not everyone accepted the text of Josephus as he read it. That would mean the naysayers either did not accept the accuracy of Josephus on this matter ie. he was just plain wrong), or were aware of other versions of Antiquities where the year of the start of Pilate's governorship was such that a date of 21 CE for Jesus' trial/execution was possible.

I would think, though, that Eusebius, looking for other reasons for denigrating the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus Daia, assuming they were genuine and Unterbrink was correct, would have jumped on an inconsistency like the man being named "Judas" rather than "Jesus." However, if the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus were indeed faked, like Eusebius' asserted, they may well have said "Jesus" rather than "Judas."

DCH

Interesting.

Re "the naysayers either did not accept the accuracy of Josephus on this matter " - besides the 'naysaysers' thinking Josephus was wrong, or were aware of other versions of Antiquities, there are other possibilities eg. some naysayers only had one different version of Antiquities; some were prepared to only recognize one version, or were prepared to alter a version, etc

[maryhelena]

If Unterbrink is correct that Judas was the revolutionary upon whom the Christian faith was based, who was crucified in 19 CE (or whatever), and the text of Josephus was fiddled with in Constantine's time to make this association impossible, I can see it as possible but for a variety of reasons it is less likely than he thinks.

I agree that the text of Josephus may have been tinkered with to move the beginning of Pilate's governorship from 19 CE to 26 CE, but I would base it upon the fact that the co-emperor Maximunus Daia (who ruled the SE quadrant of the empire, that is, Asia Minor, upper Mesopotamia and Syria-Judea) had published excerpts from what he claimed were Pilate's "acta" (Pilate's personal commentaries, a kind of official diary kept by Roman officials the proceedings of which were generally posted publically for a few days, but as a whole were not considered "public" records, but kept by the official to defend them if called to task for some legal charge). These "acta" described the trial of a man called Jesus who was executed in 21 CE.

Eusebius, who lived in territory governed by Maximinus Daia (a man who hated Christians with a vengeance), but rooted for Constantine (a man who was tolerant of Christians because several women in his family were of that persuasion), later became an advisor for Constantine when he defeated all of his competitors and became sole emperor. When trying to tear down the validity of the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus, he makes much of the fact that Josephus puts the start of his governorship at 26 CE, making a date of 21 CE for the trial and execution of Jesus Christ impossible.

However, Eusebius admitted that not everyone accepted the text of Josephus as he read it. That would mean the naysayers either did not accept the accuracy of Josephus on this matter i.e., he was just plain wrong), or were aware of other versions of Antiquities where the year of the start of Pilate's governorship was such that a date of 21 CE for Jesus' trial/execution was possible.

I would think, though, that Eusebius, looking for other reasons for denigrating the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus Daia, assuming they were genuine and Unterbrink was correct, would have jumped on an inconsistency like the man being named "Judas" rather than "Jesus." However, if the "acta" of Pilate published by Maximinus were indeed faked, like Eusebius' asserted, they may well have said "Jesus" rather than "Judas."

Even so, it appears from internal literary evidence that only the accounts of the governorships of Pilate and his predecessor Valerius Gratus are given specific lengths, whereas all the other governors mentioned are not given lengths of rule. Since Pilate's predecessor was appointing a new High Priest every year (a fact which Josephus even comments on) only appoints four of them, and the appointment of the next HP we are told of is Joseph Caiaphas, a man who was known to have been appointed by Pilate and continued in that job until Pilate was replaced in 36/37 CE, this naturally suggests that the predecessor only governed four years, making Pilate's appointment 19 CE.

There is the problem of the existence of a single bronze coin of a style previously issued every year for the first four years of Gratus, but dated to 24 CE. Pilate (whether he governed 10 or 17 years) was not a big issuer of coins, making it possible that the coin is a fake (faked coins, especially ones with religious significance, are exceedingly common in numismatics) or Pilate just used Gratus' existing design to make a limited number of bronze coins to fill a need. Pilate did NOT issue bronze coins every year.

Minted	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31
Tiberius			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Gratus				LΒ	LΓ	LΔ	LΕ						LΙΑ
Pilate																		LΙϚ	LΙΖ	LΙΗ

The "L" in the date is an ancient numismatic convention that means "Year number." That's all there is for Pilate, nothing before 29 CE or after 31 CE. Same for Gratus, four in the first four years of governorship, nothing again until 6 years after. The coin of 24 CE is a "lonesome dove".

So I'd suggest that Gratus issued coins every year (perhaps for propaganda purposes, as issuing new coins requires taking out of circulation those already issued by Herod, Archaelus, or Hasmonean rulers and claimants), as well as appointed a HP every year (Josephus says it was for the bribes), like clockwork, for a four year period of governorship.

PIlate, on the other hand, perhaps not so concerned with propaganda value of recycling fractional bronze currency (maybe Gratus had successfully already taken the bulk of the non-Roman coins out of circulation) or the income to be gained from high priestly bribes (Josephus and the NT gospels do not present him as so motivated, although Philo did), was content with one HP and dispensing with the expense of recycling (melting and re-minting) coins. The three he did issue in 29, 30 & 31 CE, commemorated the cult of Julia Caesar or Tiberius' good fortune, both breaking from previous traditions of using harmless agricultural symbols, and was perhaps issued to pay homage to his patrons in Rome, nothing more.

DCH

I noticed that you failed to supply evidence to support Underbrink's assertion that Judas the Galilean was a historical figure....

[maryhelena]

I have Unterbrink's book before me; I can scarcely recommend it as a well-written work, mainly because the organization of his ideas is atrocious. However, I find the ideas themselves extremely plausible, explaining many of the political and religious questions raised by the Christ story, and providing a framework to understand the extant writings of that era.

It's true that Unterbrink places great weight on the works of Josephus, and some of those works contradict U.'s theory and hypothetical timeline, as maryhelena points out above. However, we know for a fact that Josephus has been diddled with by Christian scribes, viz. the Testimonium Flavium.

Right after I read Judas the Galilean I started a thread on it at the Secular Cafe; http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p ... post490679. Another contradiction from within Josephus is mentioned there-

• In his hypothesis, Judas is crucified in 19 AD- under Pontius Pilate. Of course, the knowledgeable here will protest that Pilate did not become procurator until 26 AD. But that date is based upon one line from Josephus; in context-

Your problem, Underbrink's problem, is that there is no historical evidence for Judas the Galilean. Josephus can tell stories as well as any gospel writer...

Even so, it's possible Josephus's writings then, or soon after (in the 2nd C), were taken as 'gospel-truth'; as many do today.

So? Many people take the gospel Jesus to be a historical figure.. .

ie. people might have believed there was a Judas the Gallilean based on Josephus's writings, whether there was or not.

The point is that if one is striving to understand early christian origins one has to start with a sure, as is possible, historical footing. Judas the Galilean is not a sure historical footing. The Josephan writings need to be put to the same historical testing as any NT story.

Rachel Elior questions the historicity of the Josephan Essenes.
Richard Carrier raised the question of historicity for Jesus ben Ananis.
Stephan Huller raises the question of Agrippa: Josephus have two Agrippas and, re Huller, Jewish tradition only has one Agrippa.

Moreover, Josephus's writings may have inspired a scripture writer or two.
.

Indeed.....

[MrMacSon]

My main points were -

... Josephus's writings may have inspired a scripture writer or two.

... it's possible Josephus's writings then, or soon after (in the 2nd C), were taken as 'gospel-truth'; as many do today.

people might have believed there was a Judas the Gallilean based on Josephus's writings, whether there was or not.

The point is that if one is striving to understand early christian origins one has to start with a sure, as is possible, historical footing. Judas the Galilean is not a sure historical footing. The Josephan writings need to be put to the same historical testing as any NT story.

Sure. But there is

• absolute truth,
• what early-christians & early christian writers thought was true; and
• what people today believe is true

some things fit in all three categories; some don't.

[maryhelena]

My main points were -

... Josephus's writings may have inspired a scripture writer or two.

... it's possible Josephus's writings then, or soon after (in the 2nd C), were taken as 'gospel-truth'; as many do today.

people might have believed there was a Judas the Gallilean based on Josephus's writings, whether there was or not.

The point is that if one is striving to understand early christian origins one has to start with a sure, as is possible, historical footing. Judas the Galilean is not a sure historical footing. The Josephan writings need to be put to the same historical testing as any NT story.

Sure. But there is

• absolute truth,
• what early-christians & early christian writers thought was true; and
• what people today believe is true

some things fit in all three categories; some don't.

Regarding the OP on Judas the Galilean - there is only one 'truth'. Either he was a historical figure or he was a figure of the Josephan imagination, i.e. a created literary figure to suit whatever purpose Josephus had in mind. Since the historicity of this figure cannot be established - the alternative position, that Judas the Galilean was a Josephan literary creation, cannot be ruled out.

Even if, for the sake of argument, one wants to maintain a link between the gospel figure of Jesus and Judas the Galilean, all one is doing is upholding a link between two literary figures. Just as, with the gospel literary Jesus, this figure can be viewed as reflecting historical figures, so too, with the Josephan literary figure of Judas the Galilean. In the case of the story of Judas the Galilean these historical figures are: 1) Aristobulus II as Judas the Galilean. 2) His sons Alexander and Antigonus, as the two sons of Judas the Galilean, James and Simon.

Thus, in effect, if one is saying that Judas the Galilean is reflected in the gospel literary Jesus figure - one is actually admitting that the Jesus figure is reflecting Hasmonean history....

Josephus can create literary figures just as easily as any gospel writer. The ahistoricists/mythicists don't accept the gospel story on face value - why then should the Josephan writer get a free pass? Especially so when these writings fall within the time-frame of the gospel writings...

[DCHindley]

If Unterbrink is correct that Judas was the revolutionary upon whom the Christian faith was based, who was crucified in 19 CE (or whatever), and the text of Josephus was fiddled with in Constantine's time to make this association impossible, I can see it as possible but for a variety of reasons it is less likely than he thinks. ...

I noticed that you failed to supply evidence to support Underbrink's assertion that Judas the Galilean was a historical figure....

I didn't say I supported that identification, hence the liberal use of "if." Somewhere around I have a photocopy of Cecil Roth's book on his proposed identifications for the key figures noted in the DSS peshers. I seem to recall that Roth dealt with Judas the Galilean, but my memory is faded.

The Dead Sea scrolls; a new historical approach.
New York: W.W. Norton [1965]
Contents The texts -- The question of the canon -- The age of the texts -- The story of the discoveries -- The excavations in the monastery ruins of Khirbet Qumrân -- The origin of the Essene community of Khirbet Qumrân and its relationship to the Pharisees and Sadducees -- The Essene community of Khirbet Qumrân -- The community theology and the eschatological expectation of the Qumrân Essenes -- The Teacher of Righteousness and the two Messiahs -- The rise of Christianity and the Qumrân texts -- The Qumrân community and rabbinism.

Originally published as:
The historical background of the Dead Sea scrolls
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958

However, I have just now found a trove of articles written by Roth on his identifications of persons in the peshers (in Commentary Magazine 1957 & 1964 - before it became a Jewish neo-conservative flagship, as they now call themselves, in the 1970s). Hopefully I can use them to summarize who he thought Judas the Galilean might be related to.

DCH