Maximinus Daia's Acts of Pilate

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:58 am If this is at the same time as the other senate action in Annals 2.85, which was in "the same year" as the death of Germanicus, it was in the year 19. See here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D85
I consider it worth remarking upon that this hypothesis would vindicate maryhelena:
maryhelena wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:34 pm
2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.


The 7th year of Tiberius = 19 c.e., from a co-regency or 21 c.e. from sole rule.
Eusebius provides witness to a tradition that Chrestus / Jesus was crucified under Tiberius but earlier (19 CE).
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Maximinus Daia's Acts of Pilate

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Eusebius provides witness to a tradition that Chrestus / Jesus was crucified under Tiberius but earlier (19 CE).
The quote block in maryhelena's post is from Church History, Book I, Chapter 9, paragraphs 2 and 3

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

The context is rebuttal to a forged "Acts of Pilate" circulated by Maximinus II in a last-gasp revival of the early 4th Century persecution against Christians. Eusebius objects here because the dating of Jesus's death is incorrect, in his opinion as supported by his reading of Josephus's Antiquities and ultimately based (it would seem from the discussion that follows in the next chapter) on Luke's "Fifteenth year of Tiberius" as the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry.

Eusebius makes no claim that the forgery is based on any "tradition," Christian or otherwise, but rather treats it as a mistake.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:20 am Eusebius makes no claim that the forgery is based on any "tradition," Christian or otherwise, but rather treats it as a mistake.
That's correct. Eusebius views it as a mistake.

Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

That's correct. Eusebius views it as a mistake.
Eusebius views the date not only as a mistake in the sense of an incorrect fact claim, but a mistake in the sense of a lapse in the forgers' craftmanship.

In other words, there is nothing in Eusebius that offers witness to any tradition that Jesus died in the year of Tiberius's fourth consulship. My apologies for choosing an English word that failed to make that clear.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:29 am
That's correct. Eusebius views it as a mistake.
Eusebius views the date not only as a mistake in the sense of an incorrect fact claim, but a mistake in the sense of a lapse in the forgers' craftmanship.

In other words, there is nothing in Eusebius that offers witness to any tradition that Jesus died in the year of Tiberius's fourth consulship. My apologies for choosing an English word that failed to make that clear.
Noted.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Peter Kirby »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:34 pm
2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.


The 7th year of Tiberius = 19 c.e., from a co-regency or 21 c.e. from sole rule.
Correction:

I don't think we get to have flexibility on the dating of the fourth consulship of Tiberius. It was in 21.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius

We seem to have fairly detailed knowledge of the consuls in each year.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2879
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by maryhelena »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:34 pm
2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. 3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.


The 7th year of Tiberius = 19 c.e., from a co-regency or 21 c.e. from sole rule.
Correction:

I don't think we get to have flexibility on the dating of the fourth consulship of Tiberius. It was in 21.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_consuls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius

We seem to have fairly detailed knowledge of the consuls in each year.
Perhaps too much unnecessary emphasis is being placed upon the fourth consulship of Tiberius in 21 c.e. Placing the emphasis upon the 7th year of Tiberius's co-rulership with Augustus in 12 c.e. allows the Acts of Pilate story (re Eusebius) to be viewed as an earlier version of the Jesus story. (i.e. prior to gLuke).


Tiberius
Thus, when in AD 13, the powers held by Tiberius were made equal, rather than second, to Augustus' 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.[33]

However, according to Suetonius, after a two-year stint in Germania, which lasted from 10–12 AD,[34] "Tiberius returned and celebrated the triumph which he had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia. And before turning to enter the Capitol, he dismounted from his chariot and fell at the knees of his father, who was presiding over the ceremonies.”[35] "Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him, he set out for Illyricum on the conclusion of the lustral ceremonies."[36]

Thus, according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-Princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius' return from Germania.

Eusebius worked with a reading of Josephus (if he, Josephus is to be believed...) that on face value reads as Pilate being in Judea after 11 years of Gratas. This reading of Josephus has been questioned by modern day Josephan scholars. Daniel Schwartz having Pilate in Judea in 19 c.e. This date, 19 c.e. is the 7th year of the co-regency of Tiberius with Augustus.

This date, 19 c.e., works with the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 19 c.e. and the Josephan dating of the TF crucifixion story.

(..and if one wants to work with the number 7 - then 19 c.e. is 49 years back to 30 b.c. and Herod's execution of a previous Hasmonean King and High Priest, Hyrancus. ...and going back a further 7 years - then it's back to 37 b.c. and the Roman execution of the last Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus - in Antioch by Marc Antony. Josephus, if nothing else - was remembering Hasmonean history when dating his later historical accounts. Remembered history - as we today do likewise on various anniversaries of important political events. )
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Perhaps too much unnecessary emphasis is being placed upon the fourth consulship of Tiberius in 21 c.e.
Unlike Origen in Against Celsus, Eusebius doesn't quote or closely paraphrase the document he's discussing. The fourth consulship is all that he indicates about the document's timing for the death of Jesus. He then adds that that consulship occurred in 7 Tiberius. There is no support in Eusebius for "7 Tiberius" even to have appeared in the spurious Acts. It's not extant, so we don't know what it said.
allows the Acts of Pilate story (re Eusebius) to be viewed as an earlier version of the Jesus story. (i.e. prior to gLuke).
Nothing in Eusebius points to the spurious Acts being earlier than the 4th Century. Since it sounds unflattering to both John the Baptist and to Jesus, it might not reflect any Christian version of the Jesus story, ever
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2879
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by maryhelena »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:23 am
Perhaps too much unnecessary emphasis is being placed upon the fourth consulship of Tiberius in 21 c.e.
Unlike Origen in Against Celsus, Eusebius doesn't quote or closely paraphrase the document he's discussing. The fourth consulship is all that he indicates about the document's timing for the death of Jesus. He then adds that that consulship occurred in 7 Tiberius. There is no support in Eusebius for "7 Tiberius" even to have appeared in the spurious Acts. It's not extant, so we don't know what it said.
allows the Acts of Pilate story (re Eusebius) to be viewed as an earlier version of the Jesus story. (i.e. prior to gLuke).
Nothing in Eusebius points to the spurious Acts being earlier than the 4th Century. Since it sounds unflattering to both John the Baptist and to Jesus, it might not reflect any Christian version of the Jesus story, ever
Eusebius is referencing a story, current in his day, regarding a JC crucifion prior to 26 c. e. This date, 26 c.e. for Pilate, Eusebius would have got from reading Josephus at face value. That date for Pilate is disputed by some modern day scholars. Consequently, Eusebius viewing a pre 26 c. e. crucifion date as a forgery is mistaken. Pilate was in Judea prior to 26 c. e., prior to the 15th year of Tiberias. One can argue over 19 c. e. and 21 c. e. but that an earlier JC crucifixion story could have existed prior to gLuke is indeed a possibility. That Acts of Pilate is dated late is irrelevant...... the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John do not rule out an earlier than gLuke crucifion story.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The Real Testimonium

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Eusebius is referencing a story, current in his day,
No, Eusebius says that about a year before he died, Maximinus II circulated the story. Eusebius provides no evidence for Max's big plans to circulate the thing to have survived Max. There is no evidence that the story was ever "current," not even in the portion of the empire where Max's writ ran.
That date for Pilate is disputed by some modern day scholars. Consequently, Eusebius viewing a pre 26 c. e. crucifion date as a forgery is mistaken.
What some modern scholars dispute surely doesn't entail that Eusebius was mistaken to recognize Max's Acts as a forgery. Eusebius hedged his first argument, the one about Pilate's inaugural date, with the disclaimer "if the testimony of Josephus is to be beleived" (CH I.9.3). Some scholars think Josephus isn't to be believed. Fine, there are other arguments, and Eusebius offered some.
Pilate was in Judea prior to 26 c. e.
Could be, but this isn't much of an argument for it. There are any number of ways that even a genuine First Century document might confuse Tiberius's fourth consulship with his fifth (the one with Sejanus in 31 CE). What Max produced would be a hastily mass-produced hand copy; maybe some fraction of them had a one-word error, and Eusebius saw one of those. There are even more ways that, for all we know, Eusebius could misread a document we can't see and which he doesn't quote. Maybe he isn't quoting it because he's working from memory, and so that opens even more ways for confusion or error to seep in.

And of course, the document could simply be a low-rent fake.
That Acts of Pilate is dated late is irrelevant...... the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John do not rule out an earlier than gLuke crucifion story.
Obviously so. Paul managed to tell a crucifixion story with no mention of Pilate at all.

The chief problems with Max's Acts as evidence are that we have little indication of its actual content, just a few conclusory statements about it, from a single source who's not everybody's dream witness. There's hardly any there there for a late date to relate to.
Post Reply