The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

[maryhelena]

Summation of the Peter Marchant article : The Trouble with Pilate.

Marchant quotes Eusebius:

Eusebius: Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts (Acta) against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabrications. For the things they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the 7th year of his reign {21CE} at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed,

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 85). Kindle Edition.

I find Eusebius’s remarks about the supposed discrepancy in Pilate’s dates suspiciously emphatic (a full ten years) and certainly repetitious; this is arguably a case of the bishop protesting too much. And proving a wrong date for the Passion of the Saviour would not address the substance of the report in the Acta, surely a more proper task for the apologist. Yet the emphasis is entirely on the date of the Passion being incorrect. Maximinus Daia’s pamphlet, according to Eusebius, places the execution of the Messiah in the 4th consulate of Tiberius, that is in the 7th year of his reign, 20/21CE. This is of course in conflict with the traditional dateline computed from Luke’s Gospel. Here the text at 3.1-2 gives the ministry of John the Baptist as starting ‘in the 15th year of Emperor Tiberius’ (28/29). The ministry of Jesus is widely assumed to follow shortly upon John’s appearance, between 30 and 33CE, the time span being predicated on either a one year ministry (the Synoptic Gospels) or two to three years (John). In the Acta however, a document issued on the orders of the emperor, the date given for the Passion could hardly have been arbitrary since it would then be open to ridicule if shown to conflict with official records or the work of historians of the period.

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 86). Kindle Edition.

I have come to the conclusion that Maximinus’s pamphlet probably carried the correct date of the Passion and that chronological fabrications were carried out by Christian scribes to shorten Pilate’s term of office in AJ from 18 years (18-36) to 10 years (26-36). The motives were twofold: a) so that the Lukan date for the Passion could be upheld and b) the apparently unsavory events depicted in the Acta, taking place in 20-21, could be divorced from any association with Pilate, and if with Pilate, also with Christ.

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 87). Kindle Edition.

I take the view that the conflict over the date of the Passion in the Acta is insufficient to explain Eusebius’s sensitivity on the subject of Pilate’s prefecture.

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 96). Kindle Edition.

I therefore think that it was the actual content of the pamphlet, for some pressing reason denied to posterity, which the Christians found most threatening to their faith story. That content appears to have been regarded as so damaging that the questions raised could not even be publically addressed, let alone refuted, criticism being confined to scornful remarks about inaccurate dating.

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 96). Kindle Edition.

I propose that the most plausible reason the pamphlet scandalized church leaders in the time of Eusebius may have been that its subject was not a person with the name Jesus.

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 97). Kindle Edition.

From among the many candidates for that role in the first half of the 1st century the most famous traditional Jewish Messiah figure known to contemporary history was Judas of Galilee.

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 97). Kindle Edition.

(my formatting)

Peter Marchant is not questioning the dating of a crucifixion under Pilate either in the Acta dating of 21 c.e. or the Josephan dating of 19 c.e. He is questioning why Eusebius is so anxious to declare the Acta a forgery - not so much for its dating (if Josephus is to be believed re the late Pilate date) but for the things the Acta has dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour.

Marchant goes on to suggest the problem was related to a rebel inference in the Acta - hence his theory over the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean. i.e. a rebel figure.

The zealot Jesus idea is not new. Which I'm sure Marchant is aware of. Consequently, he has no need, or reason, to suppose that an Acta story that inferred, like the gospel story, a zealot type JC, was a forgery, an unacceptable element of the Jesus story.

In both the Slavonic Josephus story and the story in gLuke - the followers of the 'wise man', and the gospel Jesus, expected a restoration of Israel - free from Roman occupation.

11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. 12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.

But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.

If Eusebius took exception to an Acta story with an inference to a rebel type 'wise man' (as indicated in the above two quotes ) - perhaps he did not find such an inference in the TF i.e. the TF 'wise man' story had already been updated to remove any possible zealot type inference from Slavonic Josephus or gLuke. (a rebel out to overturn the Romans needed an army after all...) (Culprit ? Well - was it not Marcion that did not want a Jewish Jesus - with implications of zealots and nationalism...)

The figure of the gospel JC contains both rebel and pacifist elements. Indeed a tension exists between them; a contradiction. Yes, people change their views at times. But even so - their past is what it was. Obviously, as time went by a Jesus figure with a rebel past carried with it nationalistic elements - elements that could not be reconciled with Pauline theology/philosophy. Hence, at some stage, attempts would be made to cancel out referenced to a rebel past for the gospel JC. The Acta dating, or the Josephan dating, of the crucifixion was a small matter compared to extinguishing a rebel past for the gospel JC.

For Peter Marchant, Judas the Galilean was crucified by Pilate around 20/21 c.e.

Judas of Galilee’s execution on a Roman cross for the crime of sedition, though now almost lost to history, is highly probable: Jesus’s crucifixion, essentially for blasphemy against the Jewish religion (though foisted on the Romans by Jewish chicanery) is, to say the least, improbable as history. Judas the Galilean, in his own time, was known as the Messiah, in Greek ‘Christ’,

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 108). Kindle Edition.

Bottom line - much better for historical research into the Jewish roots of early christian origins is to deal with Hasmonean history - Judas the Galilean, as a historical figure, has nothing to offer that research. Viewed as a literary Josephan figure - the door to Hasmonean history is wide open.

=====================

Aristobulus II

Pompey defeated the Jewish armies in multiple battles, and took the fortresses of Judea. Aristobulus and his sons Alexander and Antigonus were captured in 63 BCE.

Aristobulus II escaped in 57 BCE, instigating rebellion against Rome in Judea, until he was finally holed up by Aulus Gabinius, consul of the Roman province of Syria, in Machaerus. Marc Antony, commander of the cavalry under Gabinius, led several men to scale Aristobulus' fortifications and subdue his forces.

Taken prisoner, Aristobulus was released by Julius Caesar in 49 BCE in order to turn Judea against Pompey. He was on his way to Judaea with his son Alexander, when "he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey's party". His son Alexander was beheaded by the Roman commander Scipio at Antioch.

His son Antigonus led a rebellion against Rome, with help from the Parthians, and became king and high priest in 40 BCE, but was defeated and killed by the Romans in 37 BCE.

70 years later - and Josephus writes a story about Judas the Galilean and his two sons. Where would Josephus's mind be on that 70 year anniversary of the removal of Aristobulus and the tragic Hasmonean history that followed ? On Judas the Galilean - just another upshot rebel against Rome. Or is the Hasmonean historian remembering past history and retelling that history via a story that would keep memory of those years in mind while still living under Roman occupation. ?

Yes, Josephus has Judas the Galilean as the founder of the 4th philosophy. However, if, as suggested, the Josephan story about Judas the Galilean and his two sons is a remembrance of Aristobulus II and his two sons - then what is being suggested by Josephus is that the '4th philosophy' is a philosophy with roots in Hasmonean history. Hence, it's that history, Hasmonean history, that is relevant to an understanding of the Jewish roots of early christianity.

[maryhelena]

Pilate is central to the gospel crucifixion story. Pilate is, in fact, an article of faith - re the Nicene Creed. The gospels place a Jesus crucifixion under Pilate in the time of Tiberius.

However, from an ahistoricists perspective, a perspective that views the gospel JC as a literary figure - Pilate becomes irrelevant. i.e. Pilate did not crucify a human flesh and blood Jesus in 19 c.e. or 21 c.e. or 30 c.e. or 33 c.e. or 35/36 c.e. The fundamental issue is not what date Pilate arrived or left Judea - the fundamental issue is the timeslot, the time of Tiberius. Pilate becomes an incidental element of the ‘wise man’ crucifixion story not it’s core component.

The question then becomes - why have the gospel writers chosen the time of Tiberius for their ‘wise man’ crucifixion story? What is it about the time of Tiberius that made it a suitable timeslot for a ‘wise man’ crucifixion story? Why was the time of Tiberius more suited for a ‘wise man’ crucifixion story than the time of Claudius ?

Luke’s dating suggest a 40 years to 70 c.e. timeframe (70 c.e.back to 30 c.e.)

The Acts of Pilate suggest a 49 year to 70 c.e. timeframe (70 c.e.back to 21 c.e.)

In other words: Working back from 70 c.e. a ‘wise man’ crucifixion can be dated either late or early in the time of Tiberius.

However, the Josephan TF places it’s ‘wise man’ crucifixion story in a timeslot of 19 c.e. What is interesting about the TF dating is that it can move the ‘wise man’ crucifixion story further back in history. 49 years back from 19 c.e. is 30 b.c. No longer in the time of Tiberius but in the time of Herod. It is in the time of Herod that a ‘wise man’ crucifixion, by a Roman agent, can be historically verified.

The table below sets out historical details of Herod’s rule and compares these dates to dates in the time of Tiberius. What can be observed, apart from the 49 years back from 19 c.e. to 30 b.c. is also the 49 years back from 12 c.e. to 37 b.c. Both early crucifixion dates, 19 c.e., the TF, and 21 c.e., the Acts of Pilate, can be observed to correspond with dates in the rule of Herod. (Seemingly, Acts of Pilate is using the 7th year of sole rule of Tiberius while the Josephan TF is using 12 c.e. as a 7th year of co-rule by Tiberius. Either way - both the Josephan TF and the Acts of Pilate dating is reflecting a historical crucifixion in the time of Herod - not a flesh and blood Jesus crucifixion in the time of Tiberius.)

HEROD	TIBERIUS
40 b.c. War.1:14.4. Roman senate appoints Herod King. Antigonus King in Judea.	12 c.e. Roman consuls appoints Tiberius co.ruler with Augustus. Suetonius: Life of Tiberius, 21.
37 b.c. Antigonus crucified/executed by Marc Antony. Herod King of Judea.	14 c.e. Death of Augustus. Tiberius sole ruler.
	19 c.e. Josephan TF. Crucifixion of 'wise man'. 7th year of Tiberius from appointed co.ruler with Augustus. Death of Germanicus
30 c.e. Death of Hyrancus and sucide of Marc Antony. Herod rule 7 years since 37 b.c. and 10 years from 40 b.c.	21/22 c.e. Acts of Pilate. 7th year sole rule of Tiberius from 14 c.e. and 10th year from 12 c.e.

In contrast to the use of a 49 year parallel by the TF and Acts of Pilate - the gospel of Luke has used a 70 year parallel. From the time of 15th year of Tiberius back 70 years to the time of Herod. (Lysanias of Abilene). The Lukan writer is using the 70 year parallel to continue the literary remembrance of the events of 37 b.c.

By all means use 70 c.e. to work backwards either 40 or 49 years to the time of Tiberius. But 70 c.e.is not the only dating of relevance. The siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. was a significant date in Hasmonean history - as was the Roman appointment of Herod in 40 b.c. These dates can be linked, via a 49 year parallel (7x7) to the early years of Tiberius - and to the Antiquities TF. If Eusebius placed a whole cloth TF in a 19 c.e. timeslot he would have been the craziest historicist alive - not only would he be supporting the forged Acts of Pilate - he would be linking the gospel Jesus crucifixion story directly to the historical event of 37 b.c.

The placing of the TF in a context of 19 c.e. is a vital piece of information that can move forward the search for the early Jewish origins of Christianity. Shift the TF wholesale to Eusebius and one is putting a landmine under the gateway to Hasmonean history - the history that is the root from which Christianity sprung.

[maryhelena]

The 19 c.e. dating of the TF in Antiquities is the Achilles Heel within arguments that Eusebius interpolated it whole cloth into Antiquities.
As I wrote above: If Eusebius placed a whole cloth TF in a 19 c.e. timeslot he would have been the craziest historicist alive - not only would he be supporting the forged Acts of Pilate - he would be linking the gospel Jesus crucifixion story directly to the historical event of 37 b.c.


The mythicists have to go back to the drawing board. The Eusebius TF does not, cannot, counter the arguments of the Jesus historicists. However many Eusebius words are found in the TF does not change the story the TF contains. A 'wise man' was crucified under a Roman agent. The bedrock historical claim of the gospel story. The copy of the Acts of Pilate that Eusebius knew retained that story. The problem stated by Eusebius is that it's dating of the 'wise man' crucifixion story was wrong. The Eusebius argument against the Acts of Pilate dating was that Josephus had placed Pilate's rule in Judea later than the 7th year of Tiberius. (a late dating that supports the chronology of gLuke). For Eusebius to place a whole cloth interpolated TF in a 19 c.e. timeslot, a timeslot that would support the Acts of Pilate early dating for Pilate, would be to defeat his own argument. Consequently, it is an illogical assumption that he did so.

Bottom line in all this? Eusebius did not interpolate a whole cloth TF into Josephus Antiquities. Whatever words about a 'wise man' crucifixion he found in Antiquities his only option would be to add christianizing elements to them. What happened to those who upheld a 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story? From the forgery position of Eusebius on this early in Tiberius crucifixion dating - those supporting it were eventually sidelined as the chronology of gLuke became dominant. However, time moves on - Eusebius (and the political power of the orthodox) might have won the battle in his day by championing gLuke's chronology and ignoring the 19 c.e. context of the TF - but for arguments today that involve a whole cloth Eusebius interpolation - the Achilles Heel of 19 c.e. remains.

(Yes of course, those supporting a whole cloth Eusebius interpolation can ignore the Antiquities TF 19 c.e. context in which it is found - but they, like Eusebius - are simply avoiding the issues an early in Tiberius TF dating present - not a good look for those attempting to challenge the orthodox Jesus historicists...denial is no replacement for logical argumentation.)

As for the mythicists - they need to concede - The TF has a Josephan core.

As for the historicists - they need to concede - The TF has a Josephan core but that core does not support a historical gospel Jesus.

End result - time to turn the screws on the Hasmonean/Jewish historian - Josephus.

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena wrote above (and not for the first time) on "the Hasmonean/Jewish historian - Josephus."

I wonder about that collocation.
Many of us agree that there was a homo sapiens named Josephus
and that he was Jewish
and that he, sometimes, wrote as a historian.

In what sense was he a Hasmonean?
Many of us think it probable that one of his female ancestors was a daughter of one of the Hasmonean priests.
Now we might just assume that mh can spot a Hasmonean at 100 paces.
Why do we (some of us) think Josephus had a Hasmonean ancestor?
Because he wrote that.
Josephus was not always reliable, especially about some personal matters.
mary helena has often dismissed passages, including whole characters, in Josephus as invented, false stories.

How, mh, do you separate Josephus reliable history from Josephus unreliable stories?

[maryhelena]

maryhelena wrote above (and not for the first time) on "the Hasmonean/Jewish historian - Josephus."

I wonder about that collocation.
Many of us agree that there was a homo sapiens named Josephus
and that he was Jewish
and that he, sometimes, wrote as a historian.

In what sense was he a Hasmonean?
Many of us think it probable that one of his female ancestors was a daughter of one of the Hasmonean priests.
Now we might just assume that mh can spot a Hasmonean at 100 paces.
Why do we (some of us) think Josephus had a Hasmonean ancestor?
Because he wrote that.
Josephus was not always reliable, especially about some personal matters.
mary helena has often dismissed passages, including whole characters, in Josephus as invented, false stories.

How, mh, do you separate Josephus reliable history from Josephus unreliable stories?

'''....by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together.. '' Life.

That is what Josephus claims. Whether it's a true claim or not - without witnesses to his birth certificate the question remains open.
Yes, I've named Josephus a Hasmonean/Jewish historian - by all means question that - but unless you have his witnessed birth certificate you can't accuse him of telling tall stories. Who knows - maybe the Antiquities writer was a Roman posing as a Hasmonean/Jewish historian..........

As to figures in Josephus - historical evidence required. As I've said many times - 'Josephus says' - is not a historical argument. Propose whatever figure in Josephus as being a historical figure - but without historical evidence for historicity one has no basis, no foundation, upon which to build a viable theory of Christian origins. One may as well stay with the gospel Jesus figure.

[StephenGoranson]

Perhaps you missed my point.
The individual mentioned--in more than one writing by Josephus--female ancestor is a "figure."
As you "said many times - 'Josephus says' - is not a historical argument."

Possibly somewhat related:
You, mh, have declared that Paul was a (Hasmonean originated?) concept (or similar words) rather than an individual homo sapiens.
Yet people interacted with Paul, a person, if (the rather skeptical? late) Gerd Ludemann's book on Paul's many Jewish-Christian opponents has validity.

[maryhelena]

Perhaps you missed my point.
The individual mentioned--in more than one writing by Josephus--female ancestor is a "figure."
As you "said many times - 'Josephus says' - is not a historical argument."

Possibly somewhat related:
You, mh, have declared that Paul was a (Hasmonean originated?) concept (or similar words) rather than an individual homo sapiens.
Yet people interacted with Paul, a person, if (the rather skeptical? late) Gerd Ludemann's book on Paul's many Jewish-Christian opponents has validity.

Goodness - please provide quote from me declaring that Paul was a (Hasmonean originated?) concept......

As for the NT figure of Paul being a literary figure.....check out Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery




Anyway - this thread deals with the TF and crucifixion dates for Jesus - The subject of Paul is not the focus of this thread.