The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

The Josephan TF has been worked over many times and yet every suggested reconstruction is faulted; Josephus wrote the core of the TF minus the Christian sounding words. Versions of this view being accepted more readily than the TF being a wholesale interpolation by Eusebius. From someone who does not know Greek - this simply looks to be a never-ending argument over the interpretation and the meaning of Greek words. The historicists seek reassurances that the TF supports their historical gospel Jesus figure and the mythicists seek to deny the TF's authenticity altogether - as though accepting a partial TF would negate their ahistoricist position. It seems obvious that Greek words can't settle the issue involved in the TF for the historicists or the ahistoricists.

So, debates and arguing over Greek words has proved to be an inadequate approach to the Josephan TF. A much simpler approach is to consider history. In this case the history surrounding 19 c.e. That's the context in which the TF is found.

Pursuing these avenues of research will contribute to our certainty as to when Pilate became governor of Judea. Some will care about this, other might not. What is clear, however, is that even those who don’t want ‘merely’ to ‘mine’ Josephus for ‘facts’ should realize that it was only the external pressure, of Tactius, that forced scholars to read Josephus with eyes that allowed them to see all there is to see. Those who read Josephus all by himself will never know, for example, that Germanicus died in 19 CE (a point that is quite clear in Tactius’ annalistic narrative but not at all indicated by Josephus), hence never have the occasion to wonder why Josephus juxtaposed that death with the beginning of Pilate’s tenure, something that apparently contradicts Josephus’ dating of that tenure - a point which we may pursue as we like, whether to learn more about Pilate, or, rather, more about Josephus.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century. On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History
of the First Century.
Page 144.

Roman history also relates that Tiberius expelled some Jews from Rome around that year. The more interesting Roman history for 19 c.e. is mentioned by Josephus at the end of the previous chapter - the death of Germancius. The TF is placed between two historical Roman events in the year 19 ce. While the expelling of Jews from Rome is interesting the far bigger - and would have been the most talked about event in Rome - was the death of Germancius and it's talk of poison. Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso who was to go on trial, re Wikipedia, committed suicide in 20 c.e.

Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso

What has this history got to do with the Josephan TF dating to 19 c.e. ? A death, albeit one that is a suspected poisoning, and a suicide of a man suspected to have been involved. Earlier history, 49 years earlier, details the suicide in 30 b.c. of the Roman Marc Antony who was responsible for the execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews. That I would suggest is the basic history involved in the Josephan TF being placed in 19 c.e. Josephus, via his placing of the TF is bringing to mind, is remembering the suicide of the man responsible for the killing of the Jewish King.

Antiquities with it's TF placing in 19 c.e. has used this dating to move the JC crucifixion dating away from the 7th year of Tiberius i.e. the Acts of Pilate crucifixion story. Suggesting that Acts of Pilate was a pre Antiquities story. The 7th year of Tiberius is 21 c.e - 49 years to the 70 c.e. Jewish/Rome war.. Interesting, however, 21 c.e. is 70 years from 49 b.c. That year is when Caesar freed Aristobulus from prison in Rome only for him to be poisoned on his way to Judaea.

Thus, both dates, 19 c.e. and 21 c.e. are dates that have been used to focus on Hasmonean history. The same is the case with gLuke's dating structure from the 15th year of Tiberius. A JC crucifixion in 30 c.e. would be 70 years from 40 b.c. when Herod became King in Rome and Antigonus became King in Jerusalem. A 33 c.e. crucifixion is 70 years from the Roman execution, crucifixion, of Antigonus in 37 b.c. A 36/37 c.e. crucifixion would be 100 years from 63 b.c. and the loss of Hasmonean sovereign to Rome, via Pompey.

All of it - all the JC crucifixion dating, from the Acts of Pilate to the TF, to gLuke - are dates that look back, as it were, to events that are relevant to Hasmonean history. What these dates also do is suggest that the figure of Jesus is not a historical but a literary figure. A literary figure that reflects or represents, via a crucifixion story, the loss of Hasmonean sovereignty in 63 b.c. and the loss of it's last King and High Priest, Antigonus, in 37 b.c. That is the history that was relevant to the writers of the gospel crucifixion story - that is the history that was also relevant to a historian who claimed Hasmonean descent - Josephus and his TF.

Yes, Eusebius wanted a Jewish messiah figure - but failed to realize that a Jewish messiah figure brings along a lot of historical baggage.

So, gentlemen, I would suggest that you lay down your Greek 'guns' and pick up a history book.... ;)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

The TF is dated via placement between the death of Germanius in 19 c.e. and the Jews expelled from Rome under Tiberius in 19 c.e.

Ant. 18. 2.5 . So the senate made a decree, that Germanicus should be sent to settle the affairs of the east. Fortune hereby taking a proper opportunity for depriving him of his life. For when he had been in the east, and settled all affairs there, his life was taken away by the poison which Piso gave him: as hath been related elsewhere.

Ant. 18. 3. 3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man;

At. 18. 3.4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder: and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. ................Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it; ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome.

Questions arise as to why Josephus would place the TF in a context of 19 c.e. One reason could be that an earlier version of the wonder-doer, wise man story, required a 19 c.e. crucifixion dating. That earlier version of the Jesus story is found in the Slavonic Josephus. The version of the TF in Slavonic Josephus and in Antiquities is basically the same core story.

Slavonic Josephus: Wonder-doer story. Josephus Antiquities: Testimonium Flavianum.
(Minus the Christian interpolations.)
At that time also a man came forward,
if even it is fitting to call him a man.
About this time there lived a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.
His works, that is to say, were godly, and
he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power.
For he was one who performed surprising deeds
And many from the folk followed him
and received his teachings.
and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews.
The teachers of the Law were [therefore]
envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death.
And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us,
And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law. Pilate had condemned him to a cross,

What is different of course is the dating structure compared to that in gLuke - gLuke's crucifixion's can't be based on the TF of 19 c.e. Eusebius went with the updated gLuke version of the crucifixion story - as do the Jesus historicists today. However, the ahistoricists, having opted for a literary gospel Jesus construct, have every reason to utilize the Slavonic Josephus material. If nothing else this material demonstrates that the Jesus story was never static, that it developed along the way - thus confirming their ahistoricist position on the gospel Jesus crucifixion story.

So - what lies behind the chronology of the Slavonic Josephus ? It seems what lay behind the Slavonic Josephus dating structure was an interpretation of Daniel. ch.9 and it's 70 weeks.
Page 72.

In reply the priest Ananus told them:
“I know all the Writings. When Herod was
fighting in front of the city,
I never imagined that God would allow him
to reign over us. But I now understand
that our devastation is <already> at hand.
And consider Daniel’s prophecy. For he
writes that after the Return, the city of
Jerusalem will stand for 70 weeks of
years, that is 400 years and 90, and will
lie waste after those years”.
And they calculated the years and it was so.

--------
They, being scribes, began to seek the time
when the Holy (One) would appear,

Page 179/180/181

.......

And they answered him: ”It is written:
“A star shall shine forth from Jacob
and a man shall arise from Judah’.
And Daniel writes that a priest is to come,
but we do not know who this is. We reckon
that he will be born without a father.”

(Then) Herod said: “How can we discover him?”
and Levi said: Send throughout the whole land of
Judaea (asking)how many male infants have
been born since the Persians saw the star
right up to the present day, kill them all, and
that (child) will also be killed. And your
kingdom will be secure for you and your sons
and even for your great-grandsons”.

It is written that the
Anointed One is (to be)born in Bethlehem.
Even if you have no mercy on your servants,
kill those infants of Bethlehem and let the
others go”. And he gave the order and they
killed all the infants of Bethlehem.”

In the fifteenth year of his reign
he (re)built the temple
and renovated its walls

The nativity of the anointed one is thus around or prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. Counting from 40 b.c. and the nativity is placed around 25 b.c. Interestingly, that year is 490 years from 515 b.c. - the year in which the Jerusalem temple was rebuilt. (seemingly Herod had his own plans for that year.....)

The next time frame in Slavonic Josephus is for the John the baptizer figure. This figure is connected to Archelaus - Archelaus ruled from 4 b.c. to 6 c.e. Hence, 6 c.e is the cut off date - not for John's death but his appearance. Slavonic Josephus does not connect the wonder-doer with John. However, the Infancy gospel of James does - indicating a short time between their births. If John, re the storyline, is active in 6 c.e. then Jesus is also active at that time. Both would be about 30/31 years old. Slavonic Josephus has it's wonder-worker crucified under Pilate. This crucifixion is placed early in Pilate's rule - between the standards and the water issue. Prior to Antiquities - where Josephus has two dating structures for Pilate - the TF in 19 c.e. and chronology of Roman governors in 26 c.e. - it becomes apparent the Slavonic Josephus dating structure leads to a crucifixion of its wonder-doer figure in 19 c.e. That would make this figure around 44/45 years old. (gJohn having Jews tell Jesus he is not yet 50 years old..)

This reconstruction of the dating structure of Slavonic Josephus indicates that it is tied to the Antiquities TF of 19 c.e. Josephus, so it seems, thought to leave well alone. Helping out gLuke with shifting Pilate to 26 c.e. in no way was to sanction gLuke's chronology as the only chronology that related to the wonder-doer, wise man, Jesus, story. The gLuke story update did not invalidate earlier history of the Jesus story. Indicating, of course, that the gospel Jesus figure is not a historical figure but a literary figure. A literary figure that served to preserve, or was an avenue into, the Jewish/Hasmonean underlay to what became early christianity.

The Slavonic Josephus storyline is one thing - history is another.

All the crucifixion dates, 19 c.e., 21 c.e., 30 c.e., 33 c.e., 36/37 c.e. all link back to elements of Hasmonean history. Whether, it's 63 b.c., 49 b.c., 40 b.c., 37 b.c., 30 b.c.

19 c.e. back 49 years to 30 b.c. and the killing of Hyrancus II and the suicide of Marc Antony - the executioner of Antigonus.
21 c.e. back 70 years to 49 b.c. and the killing of Aristobulus II - Caesar and the Rubicon.
30 c.e. back 70 years to 40 b.c. and Herod the Great in Rome and Antigonus in Jerusalem.
33 c.e. back 70 years to 37 b.c. and the execution, crucifixion, of Antigonus by Marc Antony.
36/37 c.e. back 100 years to 63 b.c. and the loss of Hasmonean sovereignty.

Conclusion: the gospel Jesus crucifixion story is a story, an allegory, related to the downfall of the Hasmonean kingdom. In effect, it had it's head cut off, it was crucified by the agents of Rome.

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

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison: by H. Leeming (Author), K. Leeming (Author)

here
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

I've been wondering, in considering the TF dating for the crucifixion of the wise man under Pilate, dated to around 19 c.e., that maybe gLuke's later chronology has been misunderstood. All of the dates scholars propose for the Lukan crucifixion story, 30 c.e., 33 c.e., and 36/37 c., are dates with relevance to Hasmonean history:

30 c.e. back 70 years to 40 b.c. and Herod the Great in Rome and Antigonus in Jerusalem.
33 c.e. back 70 years to 37 b.c. and the execution, crucifixion, of Antigonus by Marc Antony.
36/37 c.e. back 100 years to 63 b.c. and the loss of Hasmonean sovereignty.

Apart from the proposed scholarly dating there is no historical confirmation of these gLuke dates i.e. these crucifixion dates based on gLuke are simply assumptions. The Jewish historian Josephus provides the only 'historical' date for the wise man crucifixion story under Pilate - dated 19 c.e. As set out in the above post - this crucifixion date works well with the chronology of the 'anointed one' in Slavonic Josephus. The Slavonic Josephus nativity chronology - and hence an early crucifixion under Pilate - rests upon an interpretation of Daniel ch.9 and it's 70 weeks. (as detailed in the above post)

The gospel of Mark and John give no dating for the Pilate crucifixion story. The gospel of Matthew - minus it's mention of Herod's death and the rule of his son Archelaus - can also be read as referencing an early crucifixion in Pilate's rule. (the mention of Herod and Archelaus could be an update to move the story from early in Pilate's rule to late in Pilate's rule in Judaea - a move only possible when Antiquities dated Pilate to 26 c.e. - hence an update after 93 c.e.) Consequently, prior to Antiquities the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John and their crucifixion under Pilate story related to a crucifixion early in the rule of Pilate.

What then was the gospel of Luke doing with it's 15th year of Tiberius storyline ? Was it really attempting to move the 19 c.e. crucifixion dating past the 15th year of Tiberius ? Perhaps not. Particularly so when it becomes evident that the three crucifixion dates proposed by scholars lead to dates that can be viewed as being dates relevant to Hasmonean history.

Luke's nativity narrative is linked to Quirinius re taxation after the removal of Archelaus in 6.c.e. (Slavonic Josephus also shows an interest in Archelaus re it's John the baptizer figure). The end of Archelaus rule comes 100 years after the loss of Hasmonean sovereignty in 63 b.c.

Luke 3.1 mentions, in is listing for the 15th year of Tiberius, Lysanias of Abilene who who ruled from 40 - 36 b.c.

Josephus says in The Jewish War that Lysanias offered the Parthian satrap Barzapharnes a thousand talents and 500 women to bring Antigonus back and raise him to the throne, after deposing Hyrcanus though in his later work, the Jewish Antiquities, he says the offer was made by Antigonus. In 33 BCE Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on his territories.

Lysanias

Evidently, the gospel of Luke is reflecting upon Hasmonean history. This gospel is not referencing a JC nativity in 6 c.e. nor a JC crucifixion past the 15th year of Tiberius. (there being no historical Jesus but a literary creation - freeing Luke to use the literary figure in his overview of the relevant history.) In effect, the gospel of Luke is, as it were, bringing together the different strands of the Jesus story - and linking his summary with it's original Slavonic Josephus version with the inclusion of the Emmaus road TF.

Consequently, it now seems, to my thinking, that gLuke, by running his story from 40 b.c. (Lysanias of Abiline and his connection with Antigonus) is supporting the Slavonic Josephus chronology, a chronology that leads to a crucifixion's around 19 c.e. - the date given by the Hasmonean/Jewish historian Josephus.

Josephus, by moving Pilate's appointment in Judaea to 26 c.e. has enabled the Lukan writer to use the last 7 years of the rule of Tiberius - 30 - 37 c.e. to reflect upon the last 7 years of Hasmonean history. The last 7 years of of Hasmonean history running from 37 b.c. to 30 b.c. From the Roman execution/crucifixion of Antigonus in 37 b.c. to the killing of Hyrancus II by Herod in 30 b.c.

(Josephus, in this case having the killing of John the baptizer, 36/37 c.e. after the wise man crucifixion dated to 19 c.e. - the gospels having there own theological or philosophical reason for reversing the order of deaths...Josephus keeping to the historical record in his reflections.)

The above is the sort of historical reconstruction, a historical reconstruction that is the underlay of the gospel story, that Josephus has enabled by dating the TF to 19 c.e. Reconstructing the TF by debates over it's Greek wording and interpolations miss the point. The 19 c.e. dating requires an historical argument. We are dealing with a concept not individual Greek words. The concept is of a wise man crucified by Pilate - if there is a historical basis to this concept then it will be found in history not in Greek grammar.

(as of now the above is how I'm viewing gLuke and the TF)
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

Sometimes one starts on an investigation and ends up going in a direction not envisaged. In the case of considering the TF I've come to the conclusion that gLuke is rather a summation of what went before and not a new version of the Jesus crucified under Pilate story.

I don't generally have much to say on the Josephan TF as I don't know Greek. However, I've come to realize that debating the Greek words, and possible Eusebius inspired interpolation, is not the way forward in searching for the Jewish roots to early Christian origins. If, for example, Eusebius created a whole cloth TF and he or another person placed it in Antiquities - if that was proved to be true - then, as they say, game over. No historical Jesus at the center of Christian origins. That the Eusebius theory has met with resistance probably has something to do with the fact that people have difficulty in accepting that there was nothing there - no Jesus. Mythicists of course being very happy to settle for a Jesus from outer space.

A core Josephan TF potentially saves the historicists theory but leaves them beholden to Josephus. 'Josephus says so' is not a historical argument. Hence they should be cautious about putting all their eggs in a Josephan basket.

The mythicists need to let go of their fear that a core Josephan TF is the death knoll for their theory. In their case, as in the historicists case - 'Josephus says so' is not a historical argument.

The three instances in Antiquites of gospel related elements - wise man crucified under Pilate, John the baptizer and James the brother of Jesus - can all, via their dating, be viewed as referencing, linking to Hasmonean history. If this is what Josephus has done - it's the gospel story that he is supporting not a historical Jesus. The gospel story is an allegorical story not a historical story. An allegory involving Hasmonean history as the Jewish root from which Christianity arose. A gospel story that reversed the Josephan order of Jesus and John as it's focus is to move away from Hasmonean history (a history with its crucifixion/execution of Antigonus preceding the killing of Hyrancus II.) with it's Christ figure of Jesus. The Hasmoneans history must fall away, stay in the background, in order for the Christian theology/philosophy to become the new focus.

It's not Greek grammar that will, as it were, unravel the TF conundrum. The gospel story is an allegory - words might tell the story but the story is multi-layered. Parables, mythology, prophecy, theology, philosophy - all interwoven with Hasmonean history. The Josephan TF reflects that mix. It weaves in and out of history. Consequently, more is required in unraveling the TF than Greek grammar. This post and the two above have attempted to demonstrate that there is another approach - an historical approach - to dealing with the Josephan TF.
Bibleboy
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:24 am

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by Bibleboy »

Have you considered that Josephus was writing quite a bit about Judas the Galilean and that he may have been the "wise one" crucified in 19 CE?
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by DCHindley »

"IF" there is any truth behind the documents published by partisans of co-emperor Maximinus Daia around 305-310 CE, we have Pilate's commentarii (sp?, a personal notebook to record his daily official activities, something that ALL government appointees with power of life & death were expected to keep, if only to be used in their defense if anyone charged them with wrongdoing). Eusebius says that they also published what they claimed was Jesus' own diary. The only reason he would be keeping one was if he was attempting to establish his own government in opposition to Pilate's governorship.

Considering that the edition of Josephus' Antiquities that was available to Eusebius was edited to cut any such account out of the greater narrative, possibly a "special" edition republished at Constantine's orders to appease Christians who were still being charged with seditious ideas. The revision edited out not only "Jesus" but also Pilate from that same time frame (19-26), making it "impossible" for the "forgery" to be true, "if one accepts" says Eusebius, "the testimony of Josephus." That caveat is Eusebius' way of signaling that not all "accepted" the edition of Josephus he cited. Readable copies of Josephus's works were probably hard to come by 200+ years after the time they were composed.

Whoever Maximinus' partisans chose from Josephus' account to be "Jesus" was likely a rebel or an unauthorized claimant to the Judean throne, not necessarily called "Jesus" in the account that was altered. Yet the gospel accounts all represent Jesus as executed for claiming to be "king of the Jews." This altered text was a gift to the Christians, allowing individual co-Augusti and Ceasars an excuse to lift their approbations against Christians and thus gain their support, It worked for Constantine.

Ahh, I see you already brought up Peter Marchant in another thread.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

Bibleboy wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:30 am Have you considered that Josephus was writing quite a bit about Judas the Galilean and that he may have been the "wise one" crucified in 19 CE?
here

Some thoughts in that thread.

Josephus does not say when, or how, his figure of Judas the Galilean died.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

DCHindley wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:47 am "IF" there is any truth behind the documents published by partisans of co-emperor Maximinus Daia around 305-310 CE, we have Pilate's commentarii (sp?, a personal notebook to record his daily official activities, something that ALL government appointees with power of life & death were expected to keep, if only to be used in their defense if anyone charged them with wrongdoing). Eusebius says that they also published what they claimed was Jesus' own diary. The only reason he would be keeping one was if he was attempting to establish his own government in opposition to Pilate's governorship.

Considering that the edition of Josephus' Antiquities that was available to Eusebius was edited to cut any such account out of the greater narrative, possibly a "special" edition republished at Constantine's orders to appease Christians who were still being charged with seditious ideas. The revision edited out not only "Jesus" but also Pilate from that same time frame (19-26), making it "impossible" for the "forgery" to be true, "if one accepts" says Eusebius, "the testimony of Josephus." That caveat is Eusebius' way of signaling that not all "accepted" the edition of Josephus he cited. Readable copies of Josephus's works were probably hard to come by 200+ years after the time they were composed.

Whoever Maximinus' partisans chose from Josephus' account to be "Jesus" was likely a rebel or an unauthorized claimant to the Judean throne, not necessarily called "Jesus" in the account that was altered. Yet the gospel accounts all represent Jesus as executed for claiming to be "king of the Jews." This altered text was a gift to the Christians, allowing individual co-Augusti and Ceasars an excuse to lift their approbations against Christians and thus gain their support, It worked for Constantine.

Ahh, I see you already brought up Peter Marchant in another thread.
Bottom line: There were two Pilate crucifixion dates prior to gLuke. Acts of Pilate 7th year of Tiberius and Josephus placing the TF in a time slot of 19 c.e. Not forgetting of course - that illusive Queen Helena.

Obviously, for Jesus historicists only one date is true.

For the Jesus ahistoricists - different dates for a JC crucifixion story suggest a story that moves. Thus indicating a literary figure.

OK, one could also say some people just got the dates wrong - hence it really does not matter what date one thinks gospel JC was crucified.(as long as it's under Pilate..)

So - it all boils down to - does it matter?

It does seem, however, that it does matter to some people...

A fascinating story that some would say is the grandest story every told.

As such - many are content to leave well alone

Others, like yours truly, like the challenge of getting to the root of it's all....it's not a case of reaching for the stars or climbing that mountain...it really is a case of digging deep and deeper into Hasmonean history. Yes, reaching for the stars might shine some philosophical light on the digging - but philosophy, or theology, can't help with the dirty work - the tragedy of history, it's intrigues and it's blood and gore, it's passion and it's tears.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by Ken Olson »

DCHindley wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:47 am "IF" there is any truth behind the documents published by partisans of co-emperor Maximinus Daia around 305-310 CE, we have Pilate's commentarii (sp?, a personal notebook to record his daily official activities, something that ALL government appointees with power of life & death were expected to keep, if only to be used in their defense if anyone charged them with wrongdoing). Eusebius says that they also published what they claimed was Jesus' own diary. The only reason he would be keeping one was if he was attempting to establish his own government in opposition to Pilate's governorship.
That is, of course, a very big IF. Also, I would be a bit more cautious about whether there is *any* truth behind the documents. I seriously doubt they had the actual ὑπομνήματα (Acts, Journals, Diaries, Memoirs, Commentaries, or whatever) of Pilate and Jesus, but I can't be sure how much research they might have done into accounts of Christian origins.
Considering that the edition of Josephus' Antiquities that was available to Eusebius was edited to cut any such account out of the greater narrative, possibly a "special" edition republished at Constantine's orders to appease Christians who were still being charged with seditious ideas. The revision edited out not only "Jesus" but also Pilate from that same time frame (19-26), making it "impossible" for the "forgery" to be true, "if one accepts" says Eusebius, "the testimony of Josephus." That caveat is Eusebius' way of signaling that not all "accepted" the edition of Josephus he cited. Readable copies of Josephus's works were probably hard to come by 200+ years after the time they were composed.
What do we know about the edition available to Eusebius? He may have had an edition which had nothing in what is now 18.63-64 and it may not have had the lengths of Gratus' and Pilate's tenures as governors of Judea. That is, those could all be Eusebius' own contributions. Do we have any evidence that Constantine ordered the Antiquities to be republished or even that he was aware of it?
Maximinus' partisans chose from Josephus' account to be "Jesus" was likely a rebel or an unauthorized claimant to the Judean throne, not necessarily called "Jesus" in the account that was altered. Yet the gospel accounts all represent Jesus as executed for claiming to be "king of the Jews." This altered text was a gift to the Christians, allowing individual co-Augusti and Ceasars an excuse to lift their approbations against Christians and thus gain their support, It worked for Constantine.
What evidence do we have that Maximus' partisans were making use of the text of Josephus' Antiquities? Could not Eusebius be the first one to bring Josephus into the discussion?

Best,

Ken
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The TF and Crucifixion dates for Jesus

Post by DCHindley »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:36 am
DCHindley wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:47 am Maximinus' partisans chose from Josephus' account to be "Jesus" was likely a rebel or an unauthorized claimant to the Judean throne, not necessarily called "Jesus" in the account that was altered. Yet the gospel accounts all represent Jesus as executed for claiming to be "king of the Jews." This altered text was a gift to the Christians, allowing individual co-Augusti and Ceasars an excuse to lift their approbations against Christians and thus gain their support, It worked for Constantine.
What evidence do we have that Maximus' partisans were making use of the text of Josephus' Antiquities? Could not Eusebius be the first one to bring Josephus into the discussion?
Well, my assuming that they mined Josephus, at least in part, seemed to be a good starting point. They may not have selected a random rebel from Josephus's Antiquities Bk 18, and could have made it up whole cloth, I do not thionk there is enough surviving evidence to be anywhere close to sure. For the record, though, I'm not necessarily against that possibility (of pure fiction).

I have posted several times in the past what I think the nature was, and the level of access to, the sources claimed (such as Acta/Commentaries). It was theoretically possible for this sort of stuff to be located by private parties in the early 4th century CE.

This was in a period of significant military actions between the generals of various Roman rulers. Theoretically there was no restriction on private trade between the regions these generals controlled. There is also a significant distance between Asia Minor/Syria where the partisans of Maximinus were and wherever Pilate was exiled to (I've heard both Gaul and Hispania mentioned, I think), a region that I believe Constantine was in charge of in the period 300-305 or so. It is a mess.

viewtopic.php?p=37907#p37907

viewtopic.php?p=84209#p84209

viewtopic.php?p=84209#p84209

DCH
Post Reply