Dave Allen: an analysis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:14 am
He raises an objection against your argument that Tacitus didn't read Josephus by quoting Octavius of Minucius Felix:

Carefully read over their Scriptures, or if you are better pleased with the Roman writings, inquire concerning the Jews in the books (to say nothing of ancient documents) of Flavius Josephus or Antoninus Julianus, and you shall know that by their wickedness they deserved this fortune, and that nothing happened which had not before been predicted to them, if they should persevere in their obstinacy.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0410.htm

Hence the position of default is that any Roman would have preferred to read Josephus rather than other sources as Jewish scriptures. If the Josephus's fame was not declined in the time of Octavius (surely not for Christian attention about it), then even more so Josephus had to be useful in Tacitus's time, for a historian who would have liked a rapid resume on the Jewish affairs.
In addition to Ken's argument, if you can get access to Secord's Christian Intellectuals and the Roman Empire: From Justin Martyr to Origen, the opening chapter sets out the evidence that Greco-Roman "historians" at the time of Josephus had very little interest in any historical writings that were from "barbarian" sources. Josephus in particular would have been marginalized (as his own work indirectly indicates) as a barbarian and not quite up to the standard required for acceptance as a genuine intellectual or historian. I find it difficult to imagine Tacitus bothering to read anything by Josephus given the prevailing bias of the time that the only history worth the name was written from a Greco-Roman perspective.

Even more so Jewish Scriptures would have been dismissed out of hand as mythology.

Carlson's argument, from what I have read of it in this thread, reads more like an ad hoc rationalization rather than an evidence-based hypothesis.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »

maryhelena wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:05 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:16 am Schwartz is clear that the current form of the text of the Antiquities requires the 26 CE dating:

The usual reconstruction of Pilate’s
term of office as running 26–37 CE is based on three explicit Josephan data:
at Antiquities 18.33a he reports Tiberius’ accession to the imperial throne,
at § 33b we read that Valerius Gratus was appointed governor of Judea,
and § 35 reports that after eleven years in the governorship Gratus was
replaced by Pontius Pilate
. Given Tiberius’ accession to office in August
14, this would bring us down to 25 or 26 CE, depending upon how long we
imagine it took Tiberius to remove Gratus and appoint his replacement, and
how long it took the latter, Pilate, to arrive in Judea. Correspondingly, in
Antiquities 18.89 we read that Pilate served ten years, then (after suspension
from office) hurried to Rome but by the time he arrived Tiberius had died.
Tiberius died in March 37, which means that Pilate began to serve around
26 or 27 CE
. These two data, in § 35 and § 89, which fit one another well
insofar as they fill up Tiberius’ years as emperor (as is pointed out explicitly
in Ant. 18.177 as well76), are quite clear and unambiguous, but they are also
the only explicit evidence for dating Pilate’s entry into office as Gratus’
successor [Schwartz, Reading, 140].

Mary Helena,

When do you think the data that Valerius Gratus governed Judea for eleven years and was replaced by Pilate (Ant. 18.35) and that Pilate served ten years (Ant. 18.89) became part of the text of the Antiquities and who do you think put it there?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:05 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:05 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:16 am Schwartz is clear that the current form of the text of the Antiquities requires the 26 CE dating:

The usual reconstruction of Pilate’s
term of office as running 26–37 CE is based on three explicit Josephan data:
at Antiquities 18.33a he reports Tiberius’ accession to the imperial throne,
at § 33b we read that Valerius Gratus was appointed governor of Judea,
and § 35 reports that after eleven years in the governorship Gratus was
replaced by Pontius Pilate
. Given Tiberius’ accession to office in August
14, this would bring us down to 25 or 26 CE, depending upon how long we
imagine it took Tiberius to remove Gratus and appoint his replacement, and
how long it took the latter, Pilate, to arrive in Judea. Correspondingly, in
Antiquities 18.89 we read that Pilate served ten years, then (after suspension
from office) hurried to Rome but by the time he arrived Tiberius had died.
Tiberius died in March 37, which means that Pilate began to serve around
26 or 27 CE
. These two data, in § 35 and § 89, which fit one another well
insofar as they fill up Tiberius’ years as emperor (as is pointed out explicitly
in Ant. 18.177 as well76), are quite clear and unambiguous, but they are also
the only explicit evidence for dating Pilate’s entry into office as Gratus’
successor [Schwartz, Reading, 140].

Mary Helena,

When do you think the data that Valerius Gratus governed Judea for eleven years and was replaced by Pilate (Ant. 18.35) and that Pilate served ten years (Ant. 18.89) became part of the text of the Antiquities and who do you think put it there?
This is what I wrote earlier:

Follow the money as they say......the writer who had everything to gain by having Pilate's career begin later is the writer of gLuke. Without Pilate dated to 26 c.e. gLuke could not be written. Did Luke interpolate Josephus with the 26 c.e. chronology - or did Josephus accommodate gLuke's chronology by moving Pilate to 26 c.e. That's the question that should be on the table.
-----
The writer of gLuke needed to move away from the chronology in the Acts of Pilate - hence required Pilate to be moved to 26 c.e. - and Josephus enabled that to be accomplished.

Josephus published Antiquities around 93 c.e. The Lukan writer could not write his gospel Jesus story until Antiquities dating Pilate to 26 c.e. was published. (Antiquiites leaving well alone the 19 c.e. dating for Pilate in Judea...resulting in the Pilate 'problem' we have today and which scholars such as Daniel Schwartz have addressed.)

(Yes, for what it's worth, I have considered the possibility that Josephus has had a hand in supporting gLuke - and find the idea well worth further investigation. It does, at the very least, suggest a reason why Pilate's time in Judaea has been 'tampered' with.)

While Daniel Schwartz has used Tacitus in his argument for 19 c.e. Pilate in Judea - his argument has been supported by Kenneth Lönnqvist study of the relevant coins.

The Chronology and Tenure of Pontius Pilate, New Evidence for Re-dating the Period of Office. Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 BCE - 135 CE. The Numismatic Circular, pp. 1-7. Kenneth Lönnqvist. here

As I wrote earlier I don't think Eusebius was the originator of the TF core material or that he, or a scribe, interpolated it into Antiquities. (in fact it would be the most illogical thing for him to do in view of his position on Acts of Pilate. That Eusebius dressed up the TF I have no problem with at all.

Let me be very clear about one thing: I have no interest in any shape or form of helping the Jesus historicists. I've been an ahistoricists/mythicst for 40 plus years and have no interest whatsoever in the arguments the Jesus historicists produce. Searching for the Jewish roots to early christianity is my interest - hence interest in Josephus is primary. The TF dated to 19 c.e. is ignored by Jesus historicists (Josephus makes mistakes after all...) Carrier mythicists take no interest in 19 c.e. (Eusebius interpolated the TF so why bother...). So deadlock between the historicists and the ahistoricists.....I think that a consideration of 19 c.e. has the potential to break that deadlock. Break it not to the advantage of either side but offer an alternative way forward in the search for early christian origins.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:05 am
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:05 am Mary Helena,

When do you think the data that Valerius Gratus governed Judea for eleven years and was replaced by Pilate (Ant. 18.35) and that Pilate served ten years (Ant. 18.89) became part of the text of the Antiquities and who do you think put it there?
This is what I wrote earlier:

Follow the money as they say......the writer who had everything to gain by having Pilate's career begin later is the writer of gLuke. Without Pilate dated to 26 c.e. gLuke could not be written. Did Luke interpolate Josephus with the 26 c.e. chronology - or did Josephus accommodate gLuke's chronology by moving Pilate to 26 c.e. That's the question that should be on the table.
-----
The writer of gLuke needed to move away from the chronology in the Acts of Pilate - hence required Pilate to be moved to 26 c.e. - and Josephus enabled that to be accomplished.

Josephus published Antiquities around 93 c.e. The Lukan writer could not write his gospel Jesus story until Antiquities dating Pilate to 26 c.e. was published. (Antiquiites leaving well alone the 19 c.e. dating for Pilate in Judea...resulting in the Pilate 'problem' we have today and which scholars such as Daniel Schwartz have addressed.)


So Antiquities dating Pilate to 26 C.E. had to be published before the Gospel of Luke - when was that and who was that and who was responsible for it?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:53 am
maryhelena wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:05 am
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:05 am Mary Helena,

When do you think the data that Valerius Gratus governed Judea for eleven years and was replaced by Pilate (Ant. 18.35) and that Pilate served ten years (Ant. 18.89) became part of the text of the Antiquities and who do you think put it there?
This is what I wrote earlier:

Follow the money as they say......the writer who had everything to gain by having Pilate's career begin later is the writer of gLuke. Without Pilate dated to 26 c.e. gLuke could not be written. Did Luke interpolate Josephus with the 26 c.e. chronology - or did Josephus accommodate gLuke's chronology by moving Pilate to 26 c.e. That's the question that should be on the table.
-----
The writer of gLuke needed to move away from the chronology in the Acts of Pilate - hence required Pilate to be moved to 26 c.e. - and Josephus enabled that to be accomplished.

Josephus published Antiquities around 93 c.e. The Lukan writer could not write his gospel Jesus story until Antiquities dating Pilate to 26 c.e. was published. (Antiquiites leaving well alone the 19 c.e. dating for Pilate in Judea...resulting in the Pilate 'problem' we have today and which scholars such as Daniel Schwartz have addressed.)


So Antiquities dating Pilate to 26 C.E. had to be published before the Gospel of Luke - when was that and who was that and who was responsible for it?
Josephus published Antiquities in 93/94 c.e. (which I know you know....)
Josephus died - maybe 100 c.e. (which I know you know..)

Gospel of Luke

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[7] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[17] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[9]

(which I know you know...)

How soon after Antiquities was gLuke written - maybe prior to the death of Josephus - who, one would imagine, would want to see the results of his handiwork in enabling the gLuke writer to produce his gospel.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »


The usual reconstruction of Pilate’s
term of office as running 26–37 CE is based on three explicit Josephan data:
at Antiquities 18.33a he reports Tiberius’ accession to the imperial throne,
at § 33b we read that Valerius Gratus was appointed governor of Judea,
and § 35 reports that after eleven years in the governorship Gratus was
replaced by Pontius Pilate. Given Tiberius’ accession to office in August
14, this would bring us down to 25 or 26 CE, depending upon how long we
imagine it took Tiberius to remove Gratus and appoint his replacement, and
how long it took the latter, Pilate, to arrive in Judea. Correspondingly, in
Antiquities 18.89 we read that Pilate served ten years, then (after suspension
from office) hurried to Rome but by the time he arrived Tiberius had died.
Tiberius died in March 37, which means that Pilate began to serve around
26 or 27 CE. These two data, in § 35 and § 89, which fit one another well
insofar as they fill up Tiberius’ years as emperor (as is pointed out explicitly
in Ant. 18.177 as well76), are quite clear and unambiguous, but they are also
the only explicit evidence for dating Pilate’s entry into office as Gratus’
successor [Schwartz, Reading, 140].

Mary Helena,

So the version of the text of the Antiquities which dates the beginning of Pilate's tenure to c. 26 CE, based on both the accession of Tiberius in 14 CE and his appointment of Valerius Gratus as governor who served 11 years before being replaced by Pilate and the statement that Pilate served as governor for 10 years, ending around the time of the death of Tiberius in 37 CE, had, according to you, been in circulation for roughly two hundred years before Eusebius wrote the HE and was presumably the version of the text Eusebius would have used.

We find the Testimonium in the text of the Antiquities in 18.63-164, after the first pericope describing the events of Pilate's governorship (which according to the extant version of the text, as we've just discussed above, began c. 26 CE).

Why do you say that the Testimonium is placed in the context of 19 CE, and that this would be a problem for the theory that Eusebius or a later Christian interpolated the text at its present location? Didn't the text of the Antiquities which we have, and which they probably had, put the beginning of Pilate's governorship c. 26 CE?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:09 am
The usual reconstruction of Pilate’s
term of office as running 26–37 CE is based on three explicit Josephan data:
at Antiquities 18.33a he reports Tiberius’ accession to the imperial throne,
at § 33b we read that Valerius Gratus was appointed governor of Judea,
and § 35 reports that after eleven years in the governorship Gratus was
replaced by Pontius Pilate. Given Tiberius’ accession to office in August
14, this would bring us down to 25 or 26 CE, depending upon how long we
imagine it took Tiberius to remove Gratus and appoint his replacement, and
how long it took the latter, Pilate, to arrive in Judea. Correspondingly, in
Antiquities 18.89 we read that Pilate served ten years, then (after suspension
from office) hurried to Rome but by the time he arrived Tiberius had died.
Tiberius died in March 37, which means that Pilate began to serve around
26 or 27 CE. These two data, in § 35 and § 89, which fit one another well
insofar as they fill up Tiberius’ years as emperor (as is pointed out explicitly
in Ant. 18.177 as well76), are quite clear and unambiguous, but they are also
the only explicit evidence for dating Pilate’s entry into office as Gratus’
successor [Schwartz, Reading, 140].

Mary Helena,

So the version of the text of the Antiquities which dates the beginning of Pilate's tenure to c. 26 CE, based on both the accession of Tiberius in 14 CE and his appointment of Valerius Gratus as governor who served 11 years before being replaced by Pilate and the statement that Pilate served as governor for 10 years, ending around the time of the death of Tiberius in 37 CE, had, according to you, been in circulation for roughly two hundred years before Eusebius wrote the HE and was presumably the version of the text Eusebius would have used.

We find the Testimonium in the text of the Antiquities in 18.63-164, after the first pericope describing the events of Pilate's governorship (which according to the extant version of the text, as we've just discussed above, began c. 26 CE).

Why do you say that the Testimonium is placed in the context of 19 CE, and that this would be a problem for the theory that Eusebius or a later Christian interpolated the text at its present location? Didn't the text of the Antiquities which we have, and which they probably had, put the beginning of Pilate's governorship c. 26 CE?
The existence of Acts of Pilate in the time of Eusebius - with it's 21 c.e. crucifixion date - indicates that sources were available to support a crucifixion prior to a Pilate 26 c.e. date. Which in turn indicates that Antiquities had a pre 26 c.e. Pilate crucifixion date.

(That the writers of Acts of Pilate favoured a 21 c.e. date rather than the Josephan 19 c.e. date is probably from a christian group, or Jewish christian group, deciding that 21 c.e., being 49 years (7/7 Jubilee years) from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. would be an appropriate crucifixion date. Also, the 21 c.e. dating might well suggest an attempt to move away from 19 c.e. - as the 19 c.e. dating might be viewed as having some relevance to Hasmonean history re Josephus linking Pilate to 19 c.e. and the death of Germanicus...)

19 c.e. is a problem for a theory about Eusebius, or his scribe, re an interpolation of the TF into Josephus Antiquities at that time slot. Why? Because Eusebius, and or his scribe, would be out of their mind to interpolate the TF in a pre 26 c.e. context. They want to negate the Acts of Pilate pre 26 c.e. crucifixion story - and then they go and insert a TF interpolation into a time slot that supports the Acts of Pilate pre 26 c.e. crucifixion dating. That is crazy stuff.

How many scholars now support a 19 c.e. dating for Pilate in Judea ? I don't know. Perhaps there are scholars who are holding out in accepting this date. As of now, I've not seen a refutation of Daniel Schwarts or Steve Mason - two very prominent Josephan scholars.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
VOLUME 1B
JUDEAN WAR 2

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
BY
STEVE MASON

Pilate’s dates in office are usually given as 26-36 CE,
on the strength of Ant. 18.35, which has his predecessor
Valerius Gratus in Judea for 11 years, and 18.89, which
gives Pilate 10 years in office, a calculation that accounts
for Eusebius’ claim that Pilate began to govern in the
12th year of Tiberius (= 26 CE; Hist. eccl. 1.9). D. R.
Schwartz (1992: 182-217), however, makes a compelling
argument for the years ca. 19 to 37 as Pilate’s term.
His case includes these points: (a) Valerius Gratus is
reported to have left Judea after deposing 4 high priests
in rapid succession (after about a year each from 15 CE)
and then leaving Caiaphas in office; (b) the extremely
brief account of Gratus’ tenure, which is only in Antiquities (18.34-35),
contrasts with an expansive treatment of
Pilate’s term in both works (Ant. 18.35-89); (c) the long
term of Caiaphas as high priest (18-36 CE) is most easily
explained by a change of governor and therefore of
policy with respect to high priests; (d) most important,
the surrounding events in the Antiquities narrative—the
founding of Tiberias in about 19 CE (18.36-38), the rule
of Orodes as king of Armenia (16-18 CE; Ant. 18.52),
the death of Germanicus in 19 CE (Ant. 18.53-54), an
the expulsion of Judeans and Egyptians from Rome in 19
(so Tacitus, Ann. 2.85; Ant. 18.65-84)—would normally
suggest that Pilate arrived at roughly the same time. As
Schwartz observes (1992: 184), it seems more economical
to explain the unsupported year counts for Gratus’
and Pilate’s terms in office, even as textual corruptions,
than to overturn this complex of accidental narrative
evidence.

Schwartz’s arguments are independently supported by
K. Lönnquist (2000). His “archaeometallurgical” analysis
of Judean provincial coinage in the period 6-66 CE
shows that in coins dated from 17/18 CE to 31/32 the
lead content dropped from about 11% to virtually nil
(2000: 465), then returned to its previous levels under
Claudius and Nero. Although lead (a common material
in Roman aqueduct construction) has not yet been found
in the Jerusalem aqueducts, its discovery in the contemporary
system at Panias leads Lönnquist to concluded
that it was also used at crucial points in the Jerusalem
system (though now lost through subsequent ravages)
and that Pilate’s removal of lead from his coins was for
this purpose. Although he allows that Pilate’s predecessor
Valerius Gratus may have begun construction or
planning (to account for the 17/18 CE), he thinks that
the appearance of a new coin type—with upright palm,
representing good luck—matches a type otherwise used
only for the arrival of new governors. And so he dates
Pilate’s arrival to 17/18 (2000: 467-68).

If Schwartz and Lönnquist are correct (but cf. Bernett
2007: 199 n. 111), Josephus’ quick movement here from
Tiberius’ accession 14 CE to the appointment of Pilate
in 18/19 CE would be more easily intelligible than it
is on the customary dating: his passing over the brief
term of Gratus would match his treatment of the other
2/3-year terms, of Coponius (barely mentioned at 2.117),
Ambivulus, and Rufus, to focus understandably on the
governor who spent some 18/19 years in the region and
left a decisive mark. It would not, then, be the enormity of
Pilate’s measures alone that attracted Josephus’
interest (note his apparent difficulty in characterizing
the aqueduct episode as a catastrophe), but much more
Pilate’s impressively long term in office. Such a long
term would match Tiberius’ known policy of leaving
provincial governors in office as long as possible (Ant.
18.170; Tacitus, Ann. 1.80; Suetonius, Tib. 41), assuming
only that there was some defect with Tiberius’ first
choice of prefect, Gratus.

here
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by Ken Olson »

maryhelena wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:23 am 19 c.e. is a problem for a theory about Eusebius, or his scribe, re an interpolation of the TF into Josephus Antiquities at that time slot. Why? Because Eusebius, and or his scribe, would be out of their mind to interpolate the TF in a pre 26 c.e. context. They want to negate the Acts of Pilate pre 26 c.e. crucifixion story - and then they go and insert a TF interpolation into a time slot that supports the Acts of Pilate pre 26 c.e. crucifixion dating. That is crazy stuff.

How many scholars now support a 19 c.e. dating for Pilate in Judea ? I don't know. Perhaps there are scholars who are holding out in accepting this date. As of now, I've not seen a refutation of Daniel Schwartz or Steve Mason - two very prominent Josephan scholars.
Eusebius (or the later scribe) did not have access to the works of Schwartz or Mason or Lönnqvist and probably did not carry out a source-critical investigation of Josephus by comparing the events in the Antiquities to the events in Tacitus, nor a numismatic investigation of the dates of the coinage from Valerius Gratus' and Pilate's governorships.

What he had (besides the Gospel of Luke, of course) was probably a manuscript of the Antiquities like the ones we have which date the beginning of Pilate's governorship to c. 26 CE, based on the time of the accession and death of Tiberius and the 11 year governorship of Gratus and the ten year governorship of Pilate. Unless, of course, he interpolated the manuscript himself. But you've rejected that theory and postulated that the version of the Antiquities dating the beginning of Pilate's governorship to 26 CE had circulated since c. 100 CE. Why would Eusebius (or the later scribe) have rejected what was in his manuscript of the Antiquities? How would he have known that the dates in his manuscript of the Antiquities were wrong and the date of 19 CE was right?

One of the two of us is spouting crazy stuff. (Hint: It's not me).
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:52 am
maryhelena wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:23 am 19 c.e. is a problem for a theory about Eusebius, or his scribe, re an interpolation of the TF into Josephus Antiquities at that time slot. Why? Because Eusebius, and or his scribe, would be out of their mind to interpolate the TF in a pre 26 c.e. context. They want to negate the Acts of Pilate pre 26 c.e. crucifixion story - and then they go and insert a TF interpolation into a time slot that supports the Acts of Pilate pre 26 c.e. crucifixion dating. That is crazy stuff.

How many scholars now support a 19 c.e. dating for Pilate in Judea ? I don't know. Perhaps there are scholars who are holding out in accepting this date. As of now, I've not seen a refutation of Daniel Schwartz or Steve Mason - two very prominent Josephan scholars.
Eusebius (or the later scribe) did not have access to the works of Schwartz or Mason or Lönnqvist and probably did not carry out a source-critical investigation of Josephus by comparing the events in the Antiquities to the events in Tacitus, nor a numismatic investigation of the dates of the coinage from Valerius Gratus' and Pilate's governorships.
So - Eusebius, and or his scribe, acted without doing any historical research - just found a mention of Pilate and Bobs your uncle placed the TF there - without any awareness of the context they were using for their stated purpose of negating the Acts of Pilate. They had no historical knowledge re the death of Germanicus, heir to Tiberius - and what that death would bring to mind for Hasmonean Jews. While Eusebius and his scribe were lacking in historical awareness - it seems that the writer of Acts of Pilate was fully aware that the Josephan context in Antiquities - the death of Germanicus, Pilate in Judea, and the expelling of Jews from Rome - allowed for an early Pilate, pre 26 c.e. crucifixion date.

Eusebius and or his scribe, either made a serious mistake - thus making themselves look foolish - or - they attempted to dress up a core TF in the hope it's Antiquities placing (19 c.e.) would somehow or another be overlooked by the fancy new clothes they dressed it in. Your theory, that the fancy clothes of the TF were of Eusebius design - does indicate that that is all Eusebius could do - he could not move the TF from it's 19 c.e. Antiquities position.

What he had (besides the Gospel of Luke, of course) was probably a manuscript of the Antiquities like the ones we have which date the beginning of Pilate's governorship to c. 26 CE, based on the time of the accession and death of Tiberius and the 11 year governorship of Gratus and the ten year governorship of Pilate. Unless, of course, he interpolated the manuscript himself. But you've rejected that theory and postulated that the version of the Antiquities dating the beginning of Pilate's governorship to 26 CE had circulated since c. 100 CE. Why would Eusebius (or the later scribe) have rejected what was in his manuscript of the Antiquities? How would have have known that the dates in his manuscript of the Antiquities were wrong and the date of 19 CE was right?
Eusebius had a choice - 19 c.e the Josephan crucifixion date or follow gLuke with a crucifixion date post the 15th year of Tiberius - a date which the Lukan writer was able to utilize because Josephus had offered a helping hand re dating Pilate later than 19 c.e.
One of the two of us is spouting crazy stuff. (Hint: It's not me).
oh dear - do a detect a tinge of condescension here...

Ken - a 19 c.e. Pilate crucifixion date is in our copies of Josephus. Josephan scholars, Schwartz and Mason support this dating for Pilate in Judea. This dating questions your Eusebius theory - perhaps evident by your reluctance to accept modern scholarship on dating Pilate in Judea in 19 c.e.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Dave Allen: an analysis

Post by andrewcriddle »

Roger Pearse wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:49 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:15 am
Roger Pearse wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 6:18 am I am deeply dubious that any text of the TF survives that has *not* been influenced by the Eusebian version (with the obvious exception of Jerome's Latin version). All very flaky.
Why do you make an exception of Jerome's Latin version of the Testimonium in De Viris Illustribus 13?
Late Greek versions of the TF are likely taken from the text as Eusebius has it. This is a powerful text - very common, known to all, and other versions are therefore liable to be harmonised to it, or derived from it. Indeed the Greek translation of Jerome's On famous men shows the TF in the Eusebian version. There's no real reason to suppose any independent source by that date.

But Jerome is early, and not Greek, and perceptibly different. So it's what Jerome wrote, not a harmonised version. So I don't feel it can be treated in the same way as the later Greek versions. It could be independent.

Jerome certainly knew, and translated extensively, the works of Eusebius.

Best wishes,

Roger Pearse
Hi Roger

Pseudo-Hegesippus' Latin paraphrase of the TF surely has a stronger claim to independence from Eusebius than Jerome's translation. (Ken would argue both were influenced by Eusebius but if one is independent it is surely PH.)

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply