A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I have touched upon Hebrews 8.3 already in connection with my discussion of Hebrews 8.4. However, in this post I intend to use the verse as a springboard for discussing the most commonly used sacrificial term used in the epistle to the Hebrews: the verb προσφέρω, to offer forth:

For every high priest is appointed to offer forth [εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν] both gifts and sacrifices [δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας]; whence the necessity for this high priest also to have something which he might offer forth [ὃ προσενέγκῃ].

In addition to this verb, which appears twice in the verse, I have also given the Greek for two other sacrificial words, gifts and sacrifices, which appear in our epistle; these and still other terms will be brought to bear as we go along.

The term προσφέρω itself, however, appears often in the LXX in sacrificial contexts, as I pointed out in my note on Leviticus 1.1-17 & Exodus 24.4-6. I demonstrated in that post that this verb may apply to several different steps of the sacrificial process: the offering forth of the animal at the door of the tabernacle, the offering forth of the blood at the altar, and the offering forth of the flesh on the altar. (The prefix προσ-, which means toward, seems to imply in these cases the act of bringing a sacrificial animal toward the altar.) Also, it may apply to the entire sacrificial process at once, including all relevant steps.

It is in this latter, general sense that the epistle appears to use the term every single time it appears with any sacrificial meaning at all, for the context never seems to limit its use to any one of the steps. To demonstrate this, I will cite all the verses in which the term appears with a sacrificial meaning. I will also include all verses which use other sacrificial language, such as gifts and sacrifices, as quoted above; I will even include Hebrews 7.26-27, already discussed in connection with the sacrificial verb ἀναφέρω. Furthermore, in order to highlight something that I consider to be somewhat revealing about the sacrificial language used in the epistle, I will divide the instances into three categories according to who is offering the sacrifice:
  1. The patriarchs and the Levites and/or Aaronids.
  2. Jesus.
  3. Both Jesus and the Levites and/or Aaronids (by way of comparison or contrast).
Because the word προσφέρω is no more an exclusive technical term than ἀναφέρω, let me point out that it also appears in Hebrews 5.7 and 12.7 in nonsacrificial senses. Let me also point out that the term θυσία appears in Hebrews 13.16 as a metaphor for doing good and sharing. These instances, as well as the instance of ἀναφέρω applied metaphorically to believers in Hebrews 13.15, will be excluded from the inventory.

1. The patriarchs and the Levites and/or Aaronids:

[Hebrews 11.4:] By faith Abel offered forth [προσήνεγχεν] to God a greater sacrifice [πλείονα θυσίαν] than Cain, through which it was testified that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through it, though having died, he still speaks.

[Hebrews 11.17:] By faith Abraham, being tested, has offered forth [προσενήνοχεν] Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering forth [προσέφερεν] his only begotten.

[Hebrews 5.1-3:] For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men with respect to things pertaining to God, in order to offer forth both gifts and sacrifices [προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας] on behalf of sins, able to moderate his passions with the ignorant and the wandering, since he himself also is surrounded by weakness, and on account of it he must offer forth [προσφέρειν] on behalf of sins, just as concerning the people, so also concerning himself.

[Hebrews 9.6-7:] And these things having been thus prepared, the priests are through it all going into the first (chamber of the) tabernacle, performing the ministry, but into the second the high priest alone (goes), once per year, not without blood, which he offers forth [ὃ προσφέρει] on behalf of himself and of the ignorances of the people.

[Hebrews 9.9b:] Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered [δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται] which cannot perfect the worshiper according to conscience....

[Hebrews 10.1-2:] For the law, having only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of things, can never by the same sacrifices [ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις] year by year, which they offer forth [προσφέρουσιν] in perpetuity, perfect those who come near, since would they not have ceased to be offered forth [προσφερόμεναι], on account that the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

[Hebrews 10.5-6:] Thus, when he comes into the world, he says: Sacrifice and offering forth [θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν] you did not desire, but a body you fitted for me. In holocausts and (things) concerning sin you took no pleasure.

[Hebrews 10.8-9:] After saying above: Sacrifices and offerings forth and holocausts [θυσίας καὶ προσφορὰς καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα] and (things) concerning sin you did not desire, nor did you take pleasure in them, which are offered forth [προσφέρονται] according to the law, then he said: Behold, I have come to do your will. He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

2. Jesus:

[Hebrews 1.3b:] Having made a cleansing [καθαρισμὸν] of sins, he sat down at the right hand [ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ] of the majesty in the heights....

[Hebrews 2.17:] Whence he was obligated to be made like his brethren according to all things, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest with respect to things pertaining to God, to make propitiation [εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι] for the sins of the people.

[Possibly also Hebrews 10.26, listed below.]

3. Both Jesus and the Levites and/or Aaronids (by way of comparison or contrast):

[Hebrews 7.26-27:] For such a high priest was fitting for us, holy, guileless, undefiled, having been separated from sinners and become higher than the heavens, who does not have need day by day, just as the high priests, to offer up sacrifices [θυσίας ἀναφέρειν], first on behalf of his own sins, then on behalf of (the sins of) the people, for this he did once for all having offered himself up [ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας].

[Hebrews 8.3-4:] For every high priest is appointed to offer forth [εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν] both gifts and sacrifices [δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας]; whence the necessity for this high priest also to have something which he might offer forth [ὃ προσενέγκῃ]. If, therefore, he were on earth, he would not be a priest, there being those who offer forth the gifts according to law [ὄντων τῶν προσφερόντων κατὰ νόμον τὰ δῶρα].

[Hebrews 9.11-14:] But Christ, having come along [παραγενόμενος] as a high priest of the good things that have come [τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν], went in [εἰσῆλθεν] through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation [οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως], and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, once for all [ἐφάπαξ] into the holies [εἰς τὰ ἅγια], having found eternal redemption [αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος]. For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been made common, sanctify toward the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself forth [ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν] blemishless [ἄμωμον] to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to worship the living God?

[Hebrews 9.23-28:] Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices [κρείττοσιν θυσίαις] than these. For Christ did not go into holies made with hands, antitypes of the true ones, but into heaven itself [εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν], now to appear [νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι] in the presence of God on our behalf, not in order that he should offer himself forth [προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν] often, just as the high priest goes into the holies every year with blood not his own, since (in that case) it would be inevitable for him to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages he has been manifested for the setting aside of sin through the sacrifice of himself [διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ]. And inasmuch as it is laid up for men to die once, and after this judgment, so Christ also, having been offered forth [προσενεχθεὶς] once to bear up [ἀνενεγκεῖν] the sins of many, will appear a second time unto salvation without sin to the ones eagerly awaiting him.

[Hebrews 10.10-14:] In which will we have been sanctified through the offering forth of the body [διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος] of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering forth [προσφέρων] the same sacrifices [θυσίας] often, which are never able to take away sins; but he himself, having offered forth one sacrifice [μίαν... προσενέγκας θυσίαν] on behalf of sins in perpetuity, sat down at the right hand of God [ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ], waiting for the remainder until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering forth [μιᾷ... προσφορᾷ] he has perfected in perpetuity those who are sanctified.

[Hebrews 10.26:] For if we are sinning voluntarily after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer left a sacrifice [θυσία] concerning sins....

[Hebrews 13.11-13:] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest, as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hence, let us go out to him outside the camp, bearing his reproach.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the only references, two of them, to sacrifice amongst the patriarchs (before the Levites were even on the scene, let alone constituted as the priestly tribe) occur in chapter 11, the review of the faithful from Israelite history.

What is noteworthy is how many references there are to the Levitical priests and to Jesus in comparison or contrast with the Levitical priests, yet how few to Jesus on his own. Of these, Hebrews 1.3b and 2.17do not even refer to sacrifice per se, but rather to the result of sacrifice, the cleansing of or propitiation for sins. The other possible reference, in Hebrews 10.26, though it refers most directly to the sacrifice of Jesus, is actually also comparing his sacrifice with those of the Hebrew scriptures, to wit, passages such as Numbers 15.29-31, which distinguish between intentional and unintentional sins, only the latter of which are actually covered by the atoning sacrifices; there are really no sacrifices for the former. When (pseudo-)David in Psalm 51.16 (50.18 LXX) avers that he would offer a sacrifice for the business with Bathsheba and Uriah if God wished it, this is more than mere rhetoric; there is no sacrifice for killing a man in order to wed his wife, and by rights David ought to be, as Numbers 15.30 phrases it, cut off from his people.

However one wishes to view these references, however, it is evident that our author, when speaking of the sacrifice of Jesus, always or very nearly always speaks of it in terms of the Levitical sacrifices (the priests did X, so Jesus also did X), not on its own merits as an independent factoid. It is easy to see why: Jesus offering himself up, or offering himself forth, while more than a metaphor (because it is seen as efficacious and as a true replacement for the Levitical system), is not literal, either; that is, our author does not envision Jesus literally mounting an altar, slitting his own throat, and then with his dying gasp lighting it all on fire. It is only by way of comparison or contrast with the Levitical sacrifices that the death of Jesus is comprehensible in some way as a sacrifice. (In theological terms, we are dealing with types and antitypes.)

Even the cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle with blood in chapter 9 is described solely in terms of the sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement.

When our author describes either the death of Jesus on its own or his entrance into heaven on its own, without reference to the Levitical sacrificial system, the descriptions come out rather differently. In my next post I will discuss those nonsacrificial descriptions. And, in the post after that, unless something untoward comes up, I will tie the threads together and argue for a location for the death of Christ in this epistle.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by Tenorikuma »

Great series of posts.

As an aside, it strikes me as astonishing that the author never correlates any of his theology or symbolism with any concrete fact regarding the historical circumstances of Jesus' death. If the author thinks Jesus was killed by some collusion between the Jewish leaders, Romans, and Herodians (to give the standard view), was absolutely none of this relevant to Jesus' sacrifice? In later centuries, these details take on creedal importance.

One might say the same thing about the author's complete disinterest (or ignorance?) of Jesus' earthly acts and ethical teachings. It's not inconceivable that he simply found them irrelevant, but still, they are very strange. It would be hard to imagine a modern theologian or clergyman discussing the significance of Christ's death without at least some reference to his earthly followers, his ethical teachings (at least that of loving your enemies), and so on.

I feel like this is a subject that the academy does not encourage much discussion on. The mainstream historicist view ought to have a better model for explaining why early Christians seemed to prefer scriptural sources to biographical data about Jesus.
Last edited by Tenorikuma on Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Tenorikuma wrote:Great series of posts.
Thank you very much.
As an aside, it strikes me as astonishing that the author never correlates any of his theology or symbolism with any concrete fact regarding the historical circumstances of Jesus' death. If the author thinks Jesus was killed by some collusion between the Jewish leaders, Romans, and Herodians (to give the standard view), was absolutely none of this relevant to Jesus' sacrifice? ....

One might say the same thing about the author's complete disinterest (or ignorance?) of Jesus' earthly acts and ethical teachings. It's not inconceivable that he simply found them irrelevant, but still, they are very strange. It would be hard to imagine a modern theologian or clergyman discussing the significance of Christ's death without at least some reference to his earthly followers, his ethical teachings (at least that of loving your enemies), and so on.
I agree with your broad strokes here, but with one caveat: I can easily imagine one author or even more than one who might have no interest in the earthly details and want to make everything appear as if it came straight from revelation or from scripture itself. I gave the example long ago on the FRDB of Brother Lawrence, a Carmelite lay brother from century XVII who must have believed in an historical Jesus, to go both by common sense and by comments made by acquaintances of his after his death, yet included far fewer indications of such a belief in his classic devotional text, Practicing the Presence of God, than the extant epistles of Paul contain. I think he himself pretty much tells us, in letter 2, why this may be:

If I were a preacher, I would preach nothing but practicing the presence of God. If I were to be responsible for guiding souls in the right direction, I would urge everyone to be aware of God's constant presence, if for no other reason than because His presence is a delight to our souls and spirits.

And, true to his word, Brother Lawrence writes about little else throughout the book beyond his own personal method of feeling the presence of God with him from moment to moment. His avowed purpose in writing might be compared to what Paul says in various places:

For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to gentiles foolishness.

But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

These are 1 Corinthians 2.2; 1 Corinthians 1.22-23; and Galatians 6.14a. If by Christ crucified we understand Paul to mean his own mystical interpretation of what that crucifixion means for Jewish praxis and gentile salvation, as opposed to an historical analysis of the event, then we might have reason, in the case of Paul, to expect little concerning other matters concerning Christ.

It is when we find multiple authors doing the same thing in multiple epistles (Paul, 1 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, James, Jude, and so forth), though seemingly coming from very different backgrounds or traditions, that things start potentially to look more and more suspicious (to me, at least, ever since I read Wells more than two decades ago), especially since few of them offer the same kind of statement that Brother Lawrence and Paul do to the effect that they are interested only in certain things.
In later centuries, these details take on creedal importance.
It has always seemed weird to me that, of all the people mentioned in the Bible, it is Pilate, Pontius Pilate, that finds his way into the mainstream creeds, starting perhaps as early as 1 Timothy 6.13. One of the reasons I started that thread on alternate times and places for the crucifixion is because it seems to me that specifying Pilate helps to solve both problems. The time is his prefecture, the place Judea and most likely Jerusalem. Perhaps Pilate made it into the creeds precisely in order to quash some of those alternate times and places.
I feel like this is a subject that the academy does not encourage much discussion on.
I agree.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by Tenorikuma »

All good points. It's easy to see why Wells, Mack, and other unconventional scholars want to create some distance between the hellenistic Christ cults and whatever movements may have been devoted to a more human Jesus figure.

You may well be right that the fixation with Pilate in later creeds and writings was to quell competing accounts of when Christ died.
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

I think the fact that it was roughly 40 years between the setting of the Passion in the Gospels and the fall of Jerusalem is at least a striking coincidence given the significance of that number in Judaism.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2929
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by maryhelena »

Tenorikuma wrote:All good points. It's easy to see why Wells, Mack, and other unconventional scholars want to create some distance between the hellenistic Christ cults and whatever movements may have been devoted to a more human Jesus figure.

You may well be right that the fixation with Pilate in later creeds and writings was to quell competing accounts of when Christ died.
Indeed, involving Pilate could be viewed as an attempt to 'quell competing accounts of when Christ died'. (i.e. the gospel Jesus figure as opposed to the celestial Christ of the Pauline epistles.) Granted that competing crucifixion timelines could be problematic, however, perhaps the story writers also, themselves, wanted to move the storyline along, to re-set the story within a new time frame. Perhaps new interpretations of Daniel. ch.9 required a rethink and a resetting to a new Pilate time frame. (as opposed to the Daniel ch.9 interpretation of Slavonic Josephus that relates to Herod I and the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.) Perhaps gLuke, with his Quirinius birth narrative and 15th year of Tiberius, wanted to move his story far away from Herod I and the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

Does the dating of the contradictory birth and crucifixion stories infer that their writers had no concrete evidence for either birth or crucifixion and therefore assumed such dating? Or are we simply dealing with a developing storyline; a storyline that moves with the times with any new additions it's writers found to be relevant from their historical situation? Thus, the 'contradictory' dating is not uninformed but deliberate...Sure, once Christianity become orthodox a final version of the Jesus story was deemed to be scripture - and the old stories became forgeries or heresy....

Regarding an early date for a crucifixion story - a date that is usually not considered - is a date connected to Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu. i.e. there being no Queen Helene as wife of Alexander Jannaeus the identity of Queen Helene is an open question - and thus the dating for a crucifixion, hanging on a tree, of the Yeshu of the Toledot Yeshu.

Who is Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu?
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthread0eb5.html

Two stories set in two completely different time frames.

1) The Yeshu figure is born under Alexander Jannaeus and was executed under a Queen Helene. (Queen Cleopatra Selene II, born in 40 b.c. to Cleopatra and Marc Antony. A Yeshu executed around 40 b.c. and born around 90 b.c. would fit into gJohn's not yet fifty years old at time of ministry....Marc Antony being the Roman who executed the last Hasmonean King and High Priest.)

2) The JC figure was either born under Herod the Great or under Quirinius - and was executed under Pilate.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
It has always seemed weird to me that, of all the people mentioned in the Bible, it is Pilate, Pontius Pilate, that finds his way into the mainstream creeds, starting perhaps as early as 1 Timothy 6.13. One of the reasons I started that thread on alternate times and places for the crucifixion is because it seems to me that specifying Pilate helps to solve both problems. The time is his prefecture, the place Judea and most likely Jerusalem. Perhaps Pilate made it into the creeds precisely in order to quash some of those alternate times and places.
Given the very wide early attestation of Pilate (e.g. Tacitus) I would regard this as a very early tradition.

The interesting point is that it may have provided less chronological clarity than one might expect. Leaving aside alternatives that are late and/or may be based on a corrupt text, the most striking early alternative date is the claim by Irenaeus that Christ died under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Claudius.

Given the apparently very limited access to Josephus in the second century, the dates of Pilate were very uncertain. (Luke's more precise dating of Jesus as beginning his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius is late and may be intended to date the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of Jerusalem). It also seems likely that the Gentile church had no tradition of its history going back before the reign of Claudius. Hence Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18718
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by Secret Alias »

But I think Ben's point is basically right. One would expect IMO something more 'Jewish' - i.e. the identification of a Jewish ruler - if this developed among Jews. Instead the regional Roman authority is mentioned - perhaps because it tacitly acknowledges Roman sovereignty?

Andrew brings up an interesting point about Irenaeus. On the one hand he seems to incorporate credal language in his discussion quite naturally. Then at the same time - oddly - he identifies the wrong dates for Pilate. Perhaps the wrong dates develop out of his claims that Jesus lived to 49. But even still it is weird.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8859
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote: It has always seemed weird to me that, of all the people mentioned in the Bible, it is Pilate, Pontius Pilate, that finds his way into the mainstream creeds, starting perhaps as early as 1 Timothy 6.13. One of the reasons I started that thread on alternate times and places for the crucifixion is because it seems to me that specifying Pilate helps to solve both problems. The time is his prefecture, the place Judea and most likely Jerusalem. Perhaps Pilate made it into the creeds precisely in order to quash some of those alternate times and places.
Given the very wide early attestation of Pilate (e.g. Tacitus) I would regard this as a very early tradition.

The interesting point is that it may have provided less chronological clarity than one might expect. Leaving aside alternatives that are late and/or may be based on a corrupt text, the most striking early alternative date is the claim by Irenaeus that Christ died under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Claudius.

Given the apparently very limited access to Josephus in the second century, the dates of Pilate were very uncertain. (Luke's more precise dating of Jesus as beginning his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius is late and may be intended to date the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of Jerusalem). It also seems likely that the Gentile church had no tradition of its history going back before the reign of Claudius. Hence Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle
Annals 15.44 starts off being about Nero, then there's the much discussed Christ-Tiberius-Pilate passage, then Annals 15.44 finishes being about Nero again.

Jay Raskins has suggested it would be more chronologically consistent if the Annals 15.44 reference to Tiberius (Emperor 14 AD to 37 AD) was actually a substitution for Nero (Emperor 54 to 68 AD) and, by applying other texts such as Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.10, which also refers to Porcius Festus as procurator (as does Antiquities 20.8.9, & 20.8.11; & 20.9.1), one can make a case for interpolation of Tiberius for Nero, and for interpolation of Pilate for Festus. https://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/294/

So, the original relevant passage could very well have been
  • "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus Portius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Such a substitution would account for the reference to agitation in Rome, too.

Maybe someone later had a thing about the Pontius Pilate narrative.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A lengthy note on Hebrews 8.3 (offering forth).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote:Jay Raskins has suggested it would be more chronologically consistent if the Annals 15.44 reference to Tiberius (Emperor 14 AD to 37 AD) was actually a substitution for Nero (Emperor 54 to 68 AD) and, by applying other texts such as Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.10, which also refers to Porcius Festus as procurator (as does Antiquities 20.8.9, & 20.8.11; & 20.9.1), one can make a case for interpolation of Tiberius for Nero, and for interpolation of Pilate for Festus. https://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/294/
So it makes more sense for Tacitus to be backtracking from 64 to 60 to describe the origins of this pernicious superstition than for Tacitus to be backtracking from 64 to 30? Why? Does the past perfect tense have an expiration date?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply