Jesus, Paul and Josephus

[lclapshaw]

BTW, I agree that Antigonus probably really was the model for the IC "Passion" story.

• Interesting

---

But, imo, this just means that "Mark" used Josephus, or knew him personally. Probably both.

... What was the connection, and how relevant was that connection, between the gospel writers and Josephus ... Or the Josephan writers.

I doubt the author of Mark knew Josephus personally (though it's not impossible)

The notion of Josephean writers raises an interesting prospects about (a) why Josephus' works were so well preserved (it's said they preserved b/c Christians valued them) and (b) if they were edit-redacted and to what extent (beyond the TF (and possibly beyond Antiquities 20.200 and the John-the-Baptist passages)).

I doubt Flavians or their contemporaries wrote the gospels as others such as Joe Atwill and James Valiant propose (I think we'd have seen more of a flurry of reference-activity to them in and shortly after their time ie. during Trajan's time; and less of a need for later heresiologists to have to [re]assert orthodoxy)

I do wonder if Josephus himself - through the accounts about him - his accounts - was a model or template for some of the accounts of Jesus or other characters in the NT, including Paul. The change from being a Jewish military figure to being a chronicler of the period and a Roman patsy is interesting (including his intervening imprisonment and his interesting escape from that) ...

• it is possible Josephus is a fictitious character [too]

I have no doubt that parts of Josephus accounts about himself are tall tales but see no reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Simple fact is that we have written material that someone named Josephus claims to have written and without any primary sources to the contrary I don't see how we can discount it.

One thing that makes me suspect that Josephus is a real person is that his second history is of inferior quality in the Greek language than the one written and published through the Royale house of the Flavians. If "Josephus" were a construction of a group of writers I would expect a more consistent level of Greek.
This isn't a given of course but it's absence needs to be explained.

"Mark" personally knowing Josephus seems reasonable to me based on the fact that both are obviously educated and therefore part of the upper crust of Roman society at that time. It would also help explain why "Mark" has differing accounts of things like the death of JtB than that found in Josephus. He may be working off of what he thought Josephus has said at some point rather than working with a text right in front of him.

Pure speculation of course.

Lane

[lclapshaw]

But, imo, this just means that "Mark" used Josephus, or knew him personally.

Probably both.

And that is what I hope to focus on in this thread..... What was the connection, and how relevant was that connection, between the gospel writers and Josephus..... Or the Josephan writers.

Sure, but how? I personally don't see any way of determining anything like that beyond the possibility that "Mark" used parts of Josephus in his story.

How ? Well.... as you wrote earlier....."..the TF is way too good to be true". So...it's too good to be historical evidence for a historical gospel related Jesus.....so an alternative would be that the TF is supporting a literary gospel Jesus. A Josephus TF supporting a literary Jesus whose crucifixion is modelled upon, reflecting, Hasmonean history.

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e. That is 49 years after Herod killed a previous Hasmonean King in 30 b.c. Hyrancus II. An event Josephus places 7 years after the Roman execution of Antigonus. Both Josephus and Luke are utilizing Hasmonean history in their Jesus stories ... both turning to Daniel and playing with variations on Daniel's 70 weeks of years i.e using Daniel's numbers as a template into which to place their Jesus stories.

Coincidence?....perhaps too good to be true...

Work in progress.....

I think that you are quoting rgprice, but no matter. I still feel that the Gospel writers using Josephus as a source is the more plausible option until we have something to counter it.

[MrMacSon]

... A Josephus TF supporting a literary Jesus whose crucifixion is modelled upon, reflecting, Hasmonean history.

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e. That is 49 years after Herod killed a previous Hasmonean King in 30 b.c. Hyrancus II. An event Josephus places 7 years after the Roman execution of Antigonus. Both Josephus and Luke are utilizing Hasmonean history in their Jesus stories ... both turning to Daniel and playing with variations on Daniel's 70 weeks of years i.e using Daniel's numbers as a template into which to place their Jesus stories.

Coincidence?....perhaps too good to be true...

Work in progress.....

• In what way does "Josephus 'place' his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e." ??

• Which Jesus ?? | Which passage are you referring to with that statement ?? | The TF ??

[MrMacSon]

I have no doubt that parts of Josephus accounts about himself are tall tales but see no reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Simple fact is that we have written material that someone named Josephus claims to have written and without any primary sources to the contrary I don't see how we can discount it.

In this case throwing out the baby wouldn't involve throwing out the bathwater; though doing so may make the bathwater more suspect quality-wise

One thing that makes me suspect that Josephus is a real person is that his second history is of inferior quality in the Greek language than the one written and published through the Royale house of the Flavians. If "Josephus" were a construction of a group of writers, I would expect a more consistent level of Greek. | This isn't a given of course but it's absence needs to be explained.

I presume the one "written and published through the Royale House of the Flavians" is Bellum Judaicum ie. War

What makes you think Antiquities is more independent?

"Mark" personally knowing Josephus seems reasonable to me based on the fact that both are obviously educated and therefore part of the upper crust of Roman society at that time. It would also help explain why "Mark" has differing accounts of things like the death of JtB than that found in Josephus. He may be working off of what he thought Josephus has said at some point rather than working with a text right in front of him.

Pure speculation of course.
Lane

Sure ie. possible. And Robyn Faith Walsh & her recent book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, has increased consideration that an educated Roman wrote Mark using Jewish sources

[lclapshaw]

I have no doubt that parts of Josephus accounts about himself are tall tales but see no reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Simple fact is that we have written material that someone named Josephus claims to have written and without any primary sources to the contrary I don't see how we can discount it.

In this case throwing out the baby wouldn't involve throwing out the bathwater; though doing so may make the bathwater more suspect quality-wise

One thing that makes me suspect that Josephus is a real person is that his second history is of inferior quality in the Greek language than the one written and published through the Royale house of the Flavians. If "Josephus" were a construction of a group of writers, I would expect a more consistent level of Greek. | This isn't a given of course but it's absence needs to be explained.

I presume the one "written and published through the Royale House of the Flavians" is Bellum Judaicum ie. War

What makes you think Antiquities is more independent?

"Mark" personally knowing Josephus seems reasonable to me based on the fact that both are obviously educated and therefore part of the upper crust of Roman society at that time. It would also help explain why "Mark" has differing accounts of things like the death of JtB than that found in Josephus. He may be working off of what he thought Josephus has said at some point rather than working with a text right in front of him.

Pure speculation of course.
Lane

Sure ie. possible. And Robyn Faith Walsh & her recent book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, has increased consideration that an educated Roman wrote Mark using Jewish sources

Judean War, yes.

Antiquities is not as refined Greek (as I understand it) and addressed to a Theophylist (whoever or whatever that might be).

[maryhelena]

But, imo, this just means that "Mark" used Josephus, or knew him personally.

Probably both.

And that is what I hope to focus on in this thread..... What was the connection, and how relevant was that connection, between the gospel writers and Josephus..... Or the Josephan writers.

Sure, but how? I personally don't see any way of determining anything like that beyond the possibility that "Mark" used parts of Josephus in his story.

How ? Well.... as you wrote earlier....."..the TF is way too good to be true". So...it's too good to be historical evidence for a historical gospel related Jesus.....so an alternative would be that the TF is supporting a literary gospel Jesus. A Josephus TF supporting a literary Jesus whose crucifixion is modelled upon, reflecting, Hasmonean history.

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e. That is 49 years after Herod killed a previous Hasmonean King in 30 b.c. Hyrancus II. An event Josephus places 7 years after the Roman execution of Antigonus. Both Josephus and Luke are utilizing Hasmonean history in their Jesus stories ... both turning to Daniel and playing with variations on Daniel's 70 weeks of years i.e using Daniel's numbers as a template into which to place their Jesus stories.

Coincidence?....perhaps too good to be true...

Work in progress.....

I think that you are quoting rgprice, but no matter. I still feel that the Gospel writers using Josephus as a source is the more plausible option until we have something to counter it.

My mistake. The quote is actually from mlinssen.....who was responding to rgprice. Not you nor rgprice. Careless of me.

Great quote though... "...the TF is way too good to be true".....

[maryhelena]

... A Josephus TF supporting a literary Jesus whose crucifixion is modelled upon, reflecting, Hasmonean history.

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e. That is 49 years after Herod killed a previous Hasmonean King in 30 b.c. Hyrancus II. An event Josephus places 7 years after the Roman execution of Antigonus. Both Josephus and Luke are utilizing Hasmonean history in their Jesus stories ... both turning to Daniel and playing with variations on Daniel's 70 weeks of years i.e using Daniel's numbers as a template into which to place their Jesus stories.

Coincidence?....perhaps too good to be true...

Work in progress.....

• In what way does "Josephus 'place' his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e." ??

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - an event dated around 19 c.e. I'm happy to change 'prior' to 'around' or 'about' 19 c.e. - since we have no actually month of 19 c.e. for Jews expelled from Rome.

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.

That is the historical context in which Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story. One can suggest that Josephus placed events in the wrong places. However, the only reason to argue that Josephus placed his TF in the wrong historical context is gLuke (who has his crucifixion story placed after the 15th year of Tiberius) Without gLuke there is no reason to doubt the Josephan placing of the TF in the context in which it is found - around 19 c.e. And of course - neither Mark, Matthew or John have any mention of a post 15th year of Tiberius Jesus crucifixion story. So......for these gospel writers dating their Jesus crucifixion stories only related to Pilate - hence the time of Tiberius.

From a position that views the gospel Jesus as a literary figure there is no contradiction between the Josephan placing of the TF around 19 c.e. and gLuke placing his crucifixion story post the 15th year of Tiberius. The Jesus crucifixion story is a vehicle, a moving symbol, that reflects the Roman execution of Hasmonean Kings - it reflects Roman 'execution' of the Hasmonean kingdom. Consequently, using that Jesus crucifixion story is to mark, to remember, important dates connected with the end of the Hasmonean kingdom.

(A Hasmonean 'resurrection' ? The earthly kingdom was no more - but a spiritual kingdom without end was there for the taking....theology/philosophy it's handmaiden.. Why was a Hasmonean reflection in the TF and the gospel crucifixion stories side-lined - simply answer - Hasmonean nationalism had to be side-steped for a spiritual kingdom of neither Jew nor Greek. )

• Which Jesus ?? | Which passage are you referring to with that statement ?? | The TF ??

The only Jesus under discussion is the TF Jesus and the gospel Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

..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:

1. 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;
2. 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);
3. the long term of Caiaphas as high priest (18-36 CE) is [also] most easily explained by a change of governor and therefore of policy with respect to high priests;
4. 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.

• Cheers. I don't recall seeing that before.

---

• In what way does "Josephus 'place' his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e." ??

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - an event dated around 19 c.e ...

... the only reason to argue that Josephus placed his TF in the wrong historical context is gLuke (who has his crucifixion story placed after the 15th year of Tiberius). Without gLuke, there is no reason to doubt the Josephan placing of the TF in the context in which it is found - around 19 c.e.

• I presume you're referring to the expulsion of Jews story in Antiquities 18.3.4-5 :
  
  Does that *before-after placement* have to confirm a strict "before-after chronology" ??
  
  Ant 18.3.4 starts
  
  
  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. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs ... https://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
  
  "another" in "another sad calamity" might also have to be another interpolation if the TF is an complete interpolation ...
  
  • i.e., Josephus may well not be the person who placed the TF in Antiquities 18 ...
  Though "another sad calamity" may be referring to the accounts in
  
  1. Ant 18.3.1 in which Pilate is said to have (a.i) moved the army to Jerusalem (a.ii) "in order to abolish the Jewish laws"; (b) introduced Caesar's effigies; (c) threatened protesting Jews with death; and/or
     .
  2. Ant 18.3.2 in which (a) Pilate used sacred money to bring water to Jerusalem, resulting (b) in another protest, and (c) Pilate ordering his soldier to beat and slay Jews https://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
  
  Ant 18.3.4-5:
  
  
  
  ... I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.
  
  5. There was a man who was a Jew...away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same...all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men ... These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves ... Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia...ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.
  
  https://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
  
  
  
  

Pilate and the Jews sure 'take a beating' in Antiquties 18.3

---

The Jesus crucifixion story is a vehicle, a moving symbol, that reflects the Roman execution of Hasmonean Kings - it reflects Roman 'execution' of the Hasmonean kingdom. Consequently, using that Jesus crucifixion story is to mark, to remember, important dates connected with the end of the Hasmonean kingdom.

(A Hasmonean 'resurrection' ? The earthly kingdom was no more - but a spiritual kingdom without end was there for the taking....theology/philosophy it's handmaiden.. Why was a Hasmonean reflection in the TF and the gospel crucifixion stories side-lined - simply answer - Hasmonean nationalism had to be side-steped for a spiritual kingdom of neither Jew nor Greek. )

• FWIW, I found the following article when searching for the actual Antiquities 18 (I haven't read it yet):
  
  • Antiquities 18 (Jesus Was a Replacement for King Aristobulus, a Prophet)
  eta:
  https://www.academia.edu/44683563/ANTIQ ... FAKE_JESUS

[maryhelena]

..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:

1. 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;
2. 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);
3. the long term of Caiaphas as high priest (18-36 CE) is [also] most easily explained by a change of governor and therefore of policy with respect to high priests;
4. 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.

• Cheers. I don't recall seeing that before.

---

• In what way does "Josephus 'place' his Jesus crucifixion story prior to 19 c.e." ??

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - an event dated around 19 c.e ...

... the only reason to argue that Josephus placed his TF in the wrong historical context is gLuke (who has his crucifixion story placed after the 15th year of Tiberius). Without gLuke, there is no reason to doubt the Josephan placing of the TF in the context in which it is found - around 19 c.e.

• I presume you're referring to the expulsion of Jews story in Antiquities 18.3.4-5 :
  
  Does that *before-after placement* have to confirm a strict "before-after chronology" ??
  
  Ant 18.3.4 starts
  
  
  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. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs ... https://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
  
  "another" in "another sad calamity" might also have to be another interpolation if the TF is an complete interpolation ...
  
  • i.e., Josephus may well not be the person who placed the TF in Antiquities 18 ...
  Though "another sad calamity" may be referring to the accounts in
  
  1. Ant 18.3.1 in which Pilate is said to have (a.i) moved the army to Jerusalem (a.ii) "in order to abolish the Jewish laws"; (b) introduced Caesar's effigies; (c) threatened protesting Jews with death; and/or
     .
  2. Ant 18.3.2 in which (a) Pilate used sacred money to bring water to Jerusalem, resulting (b) in another protest, and (c) Pilate ordering his soldier to beat and slay Jews https://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
  
  Ant 18.3.4-5:
  
  
  
  ... I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.
  
  5. There was a man who was a Jew...away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same...all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men ... These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves ... Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia...ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.
  
  https://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
  
  
  
  

Pilate and the Jews sure 'take a beating' in Antiquties 18.3

---

The Jesus crucifixion story is a vehicle, a moving symbol, that reflects the Roman execution of Hasmonean Kings - it reflects Roman 'execution' of the Hasmonean kingdom. Consequently, using that Jesus crucifixion story is to mark, to remember, important dates connected with the end of the Hasmonean kingdom.

(A Hasmonean 'resurrection' ? The earthly kingdom was no more - but a spiritual kingdom without end was there for the taking....theology/philosophy it's handmaiden.. Why was a Hasmonean reflection in the TF and the gospel crucifixion stories side-lined - simply answer - Hasmonean nationalism had to be side-steped for a spiritual kingdom of neither Jew nor Greek. )

• FWIW, I found the following article when searching for the actual Antiquities 18 (I haven't read it yet):
  
  • Antiquities 18 (Jesus Was a Replacement for King Aristobulus, a Prophet)
  eta:
  https://www.academia.edu/44683563/ANTIQ ... FAKE_JESUS

Lots of stories - so take ones pick......

Lena Einhorn: But my point is that this literary-theological aspect is not always — or even most often — the ONLY parallel. What I say is: the New Testament is an incredibly intricately woven web, with multiple layers in the same text. And while one level is literary-theological, another one, I submit, is pure history. But whereas the literary-theological lies on the surface, the history is so cleverly woven into the fabric of the text that one has to marvel at it.

https://vridar.org/2016/05/25/jesus-and ... ment-78209

Methinks the above point is well stated. The gospel Jesus story is not only a literary-theological story - a layer of history is part and parcel of the story. And that is why, I would maintain, that there are many historically based interpretations of the gospel story. Fundamentally, it's a story, a picture, that draws the mind's eye towards finding relevance or meaning in the story. A jumble of otherworldly speculation as in theology - or even the heights of philosophical thought - while being fascinating insights into the human mind - cannot compete with a flesh and blood story. Feet on the ground - stories of a lived human experience - bring more than fascination - they honor those who came before us and assure us that tragedy will be followed by better things.

Yes, we need both - philosophy and history. Unfortunately, many mythicists take that magic carpet ride to outer space with Paul - thus fail to grasp the whole of human experience that is the backbone of the gospel Jesus story.

[maryhelena]

I posted these two links on another thread.

Introduction: Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? Three Stages of Modern Scholarship, and a Renewed Effort

Daniel R. Schwartz

https://www.academia.edu/48999912/Intro ... wed_Effort


Setting the Stage: The Effects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty

Nadav Sharon

https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty

Both these articles reference the events of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. as important dates for Hasmonean/Jewish history.

Both Josephus and the Lukan writer placed elements of their stories in dates that relate to these two historical dates.

Josephus places the death of his John the Baptizer figure around 36/37 c.e. - 100 years after 63 b.c.

Josephus places his Jesus crucifixion story around 19 c.e. - 49 years from the 30 b.c. - a dating Josephus gives for Herod's killing of Hyrcanus II (Hyrancus death being 7 years from the Roman execution of Antigonus in 37 b.c.)

The Lukan writer places the birth of his Jesus figure around 6 c.e. - around 70 years from 63 b.c. (Herod's death normally dated to 4 b.c. and 10 years given to Archelaus - Quirinius, re Wikipedia, governor of Syria until 12 c.e.)

The Lukan writer placing his Jesus crucifixion story post the 15th year of Tiberius - dating this crucifixion story usually viewed as around 30 or 33 c.e. - thus around 70 years from 37 b.c.

It's perhaps well to remember that although gospel writers place their Jesus story in the time of Pilate - that time, the time of Tiberius - is the time of Roman Jewish conflict. Pompey entered the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple in 63 b.c. and the Marc Antony executed a Jewish King and High Priest in 37 b.c.

These dates, 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. are pivotal dates in Hasmonean/Jewish history. The Josephan and the Lukan writer, writers, dating elements of their stories to dates that have anniversary or remembrance significance for earlier Hasmonean history.

The Hasmoneans lost Judaean sovereignty in 63 b.c. (albeit regained for around three years in 40 b.c. - but Rome also appointed their own Judaean King, Herod, in that year). The Hasmoneans had no need to wait until post the war of 70 c.e. to know that any hope of regaining sovereignty was futile against the power of Rome. Their alternative? Perhaps a kingdom with no end - a spiritual kingdom of neither Jew nor Greek. In other words: a philosophical approach to the situation they found themselves in. Necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. A new philosophy that even the power of Rome would capitulate to. (albeit with a vision of a cross in the sky rather than reason and logic....)