Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:17 pmpossibly I may be wrong also on that, since, possibly, Allen may interpret the incipit of the passage immediately following "After another disgrace put the Jews in trouble" as meaning rather: "After another disgrace put the Jews in revolt".Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:09 pmand, as you later correct Allen rightly, the passage immediately following isn't a "rebel passage," being a calamity of another sort
As I have possibly made it a bit transparent, I would like the general conclusions of Allen (especially, the possibility that the enemies of Christians appealed en masse to the original negative TF).
Just as a matter of interest - the Slavonic Josephus version of the TF places it between the incident of the Roman standard and the water works. Whereas in Antiquities the TF is placed after the water works incident.
rather than transgress the Law."
Pilate was amazed
at their fear of God and their purity.
And he ordered the scmaia
to be removed from Jerusalem.
°At that time there appeared a man,
if it is proper to call him a man
............
And then
<the Jews> raised a second disturbance
.............
Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison: by H. Leeming (Author), K. Leeming (Author) Page 261-262
here
This account of the TF seems to place it around the time of Pilate's arrival in Judaea. Hence dating Pilate becomes an issue - an issue that Eusebius questioned with 'if Josephus is to be believed' (or words to that effect). re the Acts of Pilate dating to the 7th year of Tiberius. In recent years scholarship, especially from Daniel Schwartz, has suggested Pilate was in Judaea from around 18 c.e. Antiquities settles the question of dating the TF - and Pilate - by placing the TF prior to or around the expelling of Jews from Rome by Tiberius in 19 c.e.
(yes, Josephus dating of Pilate re his listing of the Roman governors is later than 18/19 c.e. - but viewed re his dating of the TF - questions arise regarding his dating of Roman governors of Judaea - re Daniel Schwartz. Seems to me that efforts were afoot to move Pilate later to fit the gospel timeline - as the JC story itself was developing - and as seems evident that the TF itself was also in a process of development. That the TF stayed in place (around 19 c.e. in Antiquities and early in Pilate's rule in Slavonic Josephus) while Pilate was moved along in Josephus's chronology to 26 c.e. is perhaps an indication that all is not straightforward with Josephus.......or the TF.)
-----------
added later
Perhaps the Acts of Pilate and it's 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story was written prior to Antiquities i.e. Antiquities with its 'new' chronology for Roman governors in Judea and it's 26 c.e. dating for Pilate. If so - then the question becomes was there an earlier TF in Josephus 'War' - as we now have in the Slavonic Josephus version of 'War'. ?
.............
added later....
The problem Eusebius had with the Acts of Pilate is that it does not work with gLuke and it's Quirinius birth narrative and the 15th year of Tiberius. Unable, or unwilling to resolve this problem he simple relied on Antiquities 'new' chronology for Pilate. However, if one views the Jesus story as a developing story then discrepancies like gLuke are not problematic but enlightening. Putting gLuke aside - the crucifixion dating in Acts of Pilate, 7th year of Tiberius - around 22/21 c.e. works very well with the nativity story in Slavonic Josephus. i.e. a nativity story set prior to the 15th year of Herod. Counting from 37 b.c. one gets to around 22 b.c. plus 19 c.e. Antiquities TF dating and gospel Jesus is around 40 years old in the 7th year of Tiberius.
Thus, a shifting or developing Jesus story. gMatthew works well with Slavonic Josephus birth narrative if the mention of Herod's death and Archelaus is viewed as an update, a development away from earlier in Herod 's rule to late in Herod's rule. The slaughter of the innocents story is more fitting to the events surrounding Herod and Jerusalem in 37 b.c.
One could maybe argue that by leaving the TF in a timeslot of 19 ce. that Josephus was acknowledging an earlier version of the Jesus story. By moving Pilate to 26 c.e. Josephus is accommodating the newer gluke version and its Quirinius and 15th year of Tiberius timeline.
Bottom line - a developing Jesus story indicates not a historical Jesus but a literary Jesus. Hence, there is no reason at all for Jesus ahistoricsts to continue to argue over Eusebius being the one who originated and interpolated the TF into Josephus Antiquities. Time to move on and deal with why Josephus was so accommodating for gLuke....