A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8248
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:58 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:45 am
to maryhelena,
Jews expelled from Rome the year Germanicus died i.e. 19 c.e.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... apter%3D85
I still do not see the connection between the event of 19 c.e. and Pilate's ruling over Judah as early as 17/18 c.e.
I am not here to get into a debate about this, but I hate to watch people speaking past each other; you can read pages 13-20 of Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, for a classic treatment of the issue. One of the most direct pieces of evidence is that Tacitus appears to date the fiasco involving Mundus and Paulina, narrated immediately after the Testimonium in Josephus, to the year that Germanicus died (AD 19, Annals 2.85: actum de sacris Aegyptiis et Judaicis pellendis).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

maryhelena
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:26 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:45 am
to maryhelena,
Jews expelled from Rome the year Germanicus died i.e. 19 c.e.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... apter%3D85
I still do not see the connection between the event of 19 c.e. and Pilate's ruling over Judah as early as 17/18 c.e.

The connection? If Pilate is ruling over Judaea in 18 c.e. then there is no way for historicists to date the TF to some other date than 19 ce. - the date for the expelling of Jews from Rome. Also, re Josephus, the date for a number of crucifixions in Rome.

Antiquities book 18 ch.3
Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their perdition,

Antiquities has a Jesus crucifixion story set within a context of 19 c.e. A year, re Josephus, that crucifixions were carried out in Rome.

The only way to get the TF to apply to a later Jesus crucifixion is to read gLuke's 15h year of Tiberius into the Antiquities account.

And lets keep in mind that gLuke is a later gospel than Mark and Matthew - gospels that would have no difficulty in accepting a TF placed within a context of 19 c.e.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:45 pm

to maryhelena,
The connection? If Pilate is ruling over Judaea in 18 c.e. then there is no way for historicists to date the TF to some other date than 19 ce. - the date for the expelling of Jews from Rome. Also, re Josephus, the date for a number of crucifixions in Rome.
I might be called a historicist, but I certainly did not see the TF of Ant. XVIII, 3, as written by Josephus, but during Eusebius' times, even by Eusebius himself.
See that web page where I explained in details my many reasons for the aforementioned conclusion: http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html
And Pilate ruling Judaea in 18 c.e. is rather not backed up by solid evidence.
Antiquities book 18 ch.3
Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their perdition,
Antiquities has a Jesus crucifixion story set within a context of 19 c.e. A year, re Josephus, that crucifixions were carried out in Rome.
The crucifixions are about the priests of the Isis temple in Rome. I don't see any connection here with Jesus' crucifixion.
However, Tacitus with his 4000 (Egyptians & Jews?) exiled to Sardinia (Annals 2, 85, 3) is most likely related to Josephus Ant. XVIII, 3, 5.
Everything is introduced by "about the same time" (of Pilate's early tenure on Judaea). Josephus might have thought that some 8/9 years, writing the passage some 7 decades afterward, still could be considered as "about the same time".
The only way to get the TF to apply to a later Jesus crucifixion is to read gLuke's 15h year of Tiberius into the Antiquities account.

And lets keep in mind that gLuke is a later gospel than Mark and Matthew - gospels that would have no difficulty in accepting a TF placed within a context of 19 c.e.

First, I do not think that GLuke was written that late (but rather at about the same time that GMatthew). See http://historical-jesus.info/58.html and
http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html and
http://historical-jesus.info/q.html for Q not extracted from GMatthew.

Josephus in Ant. XVIII, 2, 2, put Pilate starting his tenure of Judaea around 25/26 c.e.:
upon whose death [of Ausgustus in 14 c.e.] Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

davidmartin
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by davidmartin » Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:50 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:30 am
It seems that Doudna thinks that there existed two John the Baptist:
  • John Hyrcanus II, referred by Josephus (and the synoptics based on Josephus)
  • a Christian John from Ephesus, referred by the Fourth Gospel
A concrete possibility, considered also by Stahl, is that the first "John the Baptist" was used to eclipse the disturbing legacy of the Christian "John the Baptist".

Not the contrary, as until now it has been always believed (a Christian John used to eclipse a not-Christian John).
Same with the 'pious' backstory of Peter/James (which the Ebionites taught but is identical to that found in NT) there was a problem - if Jesus wasn't that orthodox himself it made orthodox thinking folk uncomfortable, one doesn't have to be a gnostic to see the tensions that exists here.

maryhelena
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:26 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:45 pm
to maryhelena,
The connection? If Pilate is ruling over Judaea in 18 c.e. then there is no way for historicists to date the TF to some other date than 19 ce. - the date for the expelling of Jews from Rome. Also, re Josephus, the date for a number of crucifixions in Rome.
I might be called a historicist, but I certainly did not see the TF of Ant. XVIII, 3, as written by Josephus, but during Eusebius' times, even by Eusebius himself.
Oh dear back to Eusebius...oh well, if that's your view then I've nothing more to say to you. I'm not here to argue over words in the TF - not interested. I'm interested in Jewish history and what the placing of the TF in it's 19 c.e. context can indicate regarding that history.
And Pilate ruling Judaea in 18 c.e. is rather not backed up by solid evidence.
It seems some scholars are interested in the evidence presented by Kenneth Lonnqvist. Maybe re-read the view of the Josephan scholar Steve Mason:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NH ... &f=false


Interestingly, Lonngvist, was aware that an early date for Pilate might have consequences for dating the TF. His view:

However, accepting a 'low chronology' for Pilate would not compromise the traditional chronology of events of the Gospels and the account of the crucifixion of Jesus as our suggestion mainly deals with the date of accession of Pilate to office.

https://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_C ... B6nnqvist

But as I wrote earlier - a later date than 19 c.e. for the TF crucifixion story, cannot be argued from the context of Antiquities 18.3. It can only be argued by reading gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius into Antiquities 18.3.

And that I would suggest is a big reason that Jesus historicists are reluctant to give up 26 c.e. for the beginning of the rule of Pilate in Judaea.

Bottom line - dating Pilate's rule in Judaea to 18 c.e. - things changed, changed utterly.....

Now and in time to be,
Wherever the TF is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born."

...with apologies to Yeats.... ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

maryhelena
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:39 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:45 pm


Josephus in Ant. XVIII, 2, 2, put Pilate starting his tenure of Judaea around 25/26 c.e.:
upon whose death [of Ausgustus in 14 c.e.] Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.
Cordially, Bernard
Maybe here was a good place for your old friend Eusebius to leave his mark....after all he was the one concerned re the Acts of Pilate - reason enough for Eusebius to take the argument away from those pesky forgers by adding 11 years for Gratus....

However, what Eusebius did or did not do is not of much interest to me.

But Eusebius is not the only one wanting to get away from the placement of the TF within a context of 19 c.e. The gLuke writer is the primary beneficiary of assigning 11 years in Judaea to Gratus.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6322
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:58 pm

maryhelena wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:26 pm
Bottom line - dating Pilate's rule in Judaea to 18 c.e. - things changed, changed utterly ....
things change? rather than changed? If past tense, what exactly changed (your posts tend to be very cryptic making it hard to follow what you're inferring)?

maryhelena
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:39 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:58 pm
maryhelena wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:26 pm
Bottom line - dating Pilate's rule in Judaea to 18 c.e. - things changed, changed utterly ....
things change? rather than changed? If past tense, what exactly changed (your posts tend to be very cryptic making it hard to follow what you're inferring)?
What changed? It is no longer possible to insist that Pilate began his rule in Judea in 26 c.e. Link provided in thread to a list of scholars that accept the 18 c.e. dating

The 'terrible beauty', re Yeats, that was born in 1916 eventually led to the Republic of Ireland. There was no going back after Easter 1916 - onward only. The 18 c.e. dating for Pilate opened a way forward for the ahistoricists - except, unfortunately, they seem hell bent on throwing away what could well be a trump card - the TF. Talk about looking a gift horse in it's mouth...

18 c.e. for Pilate's rule in Judaea - is a date that has the potential to bring the Jesus historicists to their ground zero - or, perhaps better put via Yeats - ''Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold''. ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6322
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:26 am

maryhelena wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:39 pm
18 c.e. for Pilate's rule [commencing] in Judaea - is a date that has the potential to bring the Jesus historicists to their ground zero ...
How? Why? b/c it means
  • Jesus had to have been killed by Pilate earlier than proposed?
  • John can't have been killed before Jesus??, or
  • both ???
??? nothing is clear in any post in this thread other than

.
... at least one of the following three propositions must be false:

1. Jesus died ca. 29–33 CE.
2. John the Baptist died ca. 35–36 CE.
3. John the Baptist died earlier than Jesus.
.

The time of commencement of Pilate's rule in Judea doesn't come into that (and I have seen where it's related to anything)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

maryhelena
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Post by maryhelena » Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:34 am

OK - back to John the Baptist: Tamas Visi, in the article heading this thread, proposes that the Josephan account should stand re dating. i.e. John the baptizer execution is dated to 35 or 36 c.e. Thereby, from his position as a secular historian he cannot but ''conclude that John the Baptist was executed after Jesus was crucified.''

The Chronology of John the Baptist and the
Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth: A New Approach: Tamás Visi


https://www.academia.edu/40137424/_Re ... _Approach

An article proposing that the JtB Josephan passage is an interpolation.
Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian
Interpolation? Rivka Nir


https://www.academia.edu/9556504/Jose ... Christian

Rivka Nir
Conclusion


Josephus, as is well known, remained a faithful Jew. He was neither initiated
into one of the Jewish-Christian sects, nor did he convert to Christianity.
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the description of John’s baptism,
as provided in the passage under review, was not written by Josephus, but
was rather interpolated or adapted by a Christian or Jewish-Christian hand

An article proposing that the Josephan JtB account is authentic.

The Authenticity of John the Baptist in Josephus: Peter Kirby

http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html


Peter Kirby: The passage makes sense in its Josephan context and in its historical context, and the arguments against its authenticity do not hold up. Authorship by anyone other than Josephus (along with his assistants) or a Christian is exceedingly unlikely in any case. The passage has both many indicators against Christian authorship (including 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14 above) and a few indicators in favor of Josephan authorship (including 8, 13, and 15 above). Thus, it seems very likely that this passage on John the Baptist is authentic to the publication of the Antiquities by Josephus.

An article proposing that the Josephan JtB passage is a chronologically dislocated story.

IS JOSEPHUS’S JOHN THE BAPTIST PASSAGE A
CHRONOLOGICALLY DISLOCATED
STORY OF THE DEATH OF HYRCANUS II? Gregory Doudna


https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_ ... rcanus_II_
Greg Doudna: If this analysis is correct—that Josephus misplaced this story to the wrong Herod
in Antiquities—then there is no attestation external to the New Testament of the New
Testament figure of John the Baptist of the first century CE of the time of Jesus. The
implication would seem to be this: either the New Testament John the Baptist has been
generated in the story world of the Gospels, or he is a different figure than Josephus’s
John the Baptist, perhaps a later leader in the same movement bearing the same name,
who was secondarily conflated with Josephus’s John the Baptist. These issues are beyond
the scope of this paper.

If the Josephan JtB passage is authentic, re Peter Kirby, then its dating, re Tamás Visi, has significant impact upon the credibility of the gospel story. i.e. JtB is killed after the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus figure.

If the Josephan JtB passage in inauthentic, re Rivka Nir, then it's a case of check-mate - no further advance for either the Jesus historicists or the ahistoricists.

If the Josephan JtB passage is a chronologically dislocated story, re Greg Doudna, then both the authentic and the inauthentic positions on this Josephan passage fall by the wayside. A new approach to the Josephan JtB passage opens up the debate.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats

Post Reply