DCHindley wrote:maryhelena wrote:DCHindley wrote:21 CE Tiberius Caesar Augustus 4th time and Drusus Iulius Caesar 2nd time
So ... I guess his 7th year was not counted from his co-regency with Augustus, but by his sole rule.
So? Have a crucifixion story in 21 c.e. by all means. Or run with the 15th year of Tiberius - take your pick......
The fact of the matter is that Josephus has placed the TF prior to, or around, the expelling of Jews from Rome. That year is given as 19 c.e.
You can, of course, argue that the TF is in the wrong time-slot - I don't see any point in doing so other than attempting to support a crucifixion somewhere past the 15th year of Tiberius...and a historical gospel Jesus of some variety. Thus, why any ahistoricist/mythicist would argue along those lines beats me....
The fact is this: the events recounted as occurring from the beginning of Pilate's governorship - without considering the relevance of the TF -
are not presented in chronological order. That means the TF, being where it is, was an absolutely arbitrary choice by the author (whether by Josephus or an interpolator).
Josephus may have, or may not have, made an '
arbitrary choice' (prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 19 c.e.) of where to put the core statement of the TF. That Eusebius made such an
'arbitrary choice' when seeking to insert a whole cloth TF - a TF with the purpose of refuting the Acts of Pilate - does not make any sense at all. Eusebius was on a mission not blindfolded and playing 'stick the tail on the donkey'.
Whether the Acts of Pilate published by Caesar Maximunus Daia around 311-315 places his death in 19 CE or 21 CE, or the traditional date (after the "15th year" of Tiberius) is to be trusted, makes no difference, as the relative placement of the event in the narrative is absolutely irrelevant!
Why? Because it conflicts with the 15th year of Tiberius story.... That is the only reason for anyone to say the Josephan dating for the TF, prior to the expelling of Jews from Rome in 19 c.e., is
"absolutely irrelevant". Without gLuke and that 15th year of Tiberius the dating in Josephus for the TF would not be viewed as being
'absolutely irrelevant'.
And the Josephus dating for the execution of John the Baptist to around 36 c.e. is also
'absolutely irrelevant' as well? Methinks one should not be reading ones interpretation of the gospel story into Josephus. Those gospel eyeglasses have their own distortions, their own share of contradictions, to be of very limited use when reading Josephus...
<snip>
Basically, you should have checked your source (Eusebius) and realized that the only year in which Tiberius held his 4th consulship which was also the 7th year of his reign by one of the common reckonings, was 21, not 19 CE. You insist on the odd-ball dating by selectively choosing what info to use (the 7th year of his reign, which can refer to several dates depending in the event signaling its starting point and the era of the calendar used) and not to use (the 4th consulship, which is datable by independent sources to precisely Jan 1 to Dec 31, 21 CE).
"Do not argue the matter."
DCH
The odd ball dating? I'm using the dating Josephus places the core TF - prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - that dating is 19 c.e. A year that is also considered, by Daniel Schwartz, to be the first year of Pilate's rule in Judea. As to the 7th year of Tiberius. Either dating is possible. Either from his "co-princeps" in 12 c.e. or his sole rule in 14 c.e. Why 'run' with 19 c.e.? Because that is the dating around which Josephus places the core TF.
Tiberius
Thus, when in AD 12, the powers held by Tiberius were made equal, rather than second, to Augustus's own powers, he was for all intents and purposes a "co-princeps" with Augustus, and in the event of the latter's passing, would simply continue to rule without an interregnum or possible upheaval.
Further to your
"an absolutely arbitrary choice" for Josephus to place the TF around 19 c.e.
Consider counting back 483 years from 19 c.e. The year is 465/464 b.c. The first year of Artaxerxes I. An
"absolutely arbitrary choice' of dating for Josephus and his wonder-doer/wise man story? Add on another 7 years and one can have that crucifixion in the middle of the week, 21 c.e. Josephus can 'run the numbers' - and re-run the numbers - any which way for his prophetic interests. As I have referenced many a time, Josephus is viewed by two scholars as a prophetic historian. (Robert Karl Gnuse in
Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis; Rebecca Gray in
Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus) Methinks, it's going to take much more than arguments over Josephus getting his chronology wrong in Antiquites book 18 to challenge his placing the core of the TF prior to, or around, 19 c.e.
From an ahistoricist/mythicist perspective, there was no historical gospel Jesus of any variant its proponents assume. Josephus, in the core of the TF, is not supporting such assertions. What Josephus is supporting is a prophetic template, a version of Daniel ch.9, a version that he is running from the 19 c.e. start of Pilate's rule in Judea to the removal of Pilate from office in 36 c.e. What is historical and what is prophetic history (prophetic interpretations of history) within that time-frame - that's for history to establish - not the writings of Josephus or the gospel writings.
"Do not argue the matter."
haha, David - surely your not suggesting that your the only one allowed to 'argue the matter'. Naughty David, very naughty....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats