Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

To add.....

My interest in this is partly due to having read Daniel Unterbrink's idea that 'someone' was crucified in 21CE (his someone is Judas the Galilean) and that the TF is an overwritten account.

I do have reservations, but I think it is correct to say that Josephus does not elsewhere record the death of Judas the Galilean.

Unterbrink also cites the 'memoirs' that Eusebius later counters, which apparently had described someone (Jesus?) being executed in 21CE.

archibald

would the current order not still work if Pilate's time in office started at 19CE?

What got me interested was the argument against the received TF, that it "interrupts the flow" of the Pilate block. On length grounds alone, TF couldn't possibly interrupt the flow as much as "Paulina and Mundus" does.

Moving P&M 600 words improves the textual flow. The real sticker, however, is that the expulsion tale must be immediately preceded by a sad calamity. Germanicus' death seems sadder than that a celebrated Jew cheated a Roman death sentence (something Josephus could relate to).

The discrepancy of accepted dates was helpful diagnostically, but the flow improvement persists, IMO, even if Pilate was serving in Judea during 19 CE.

By the way, you don't, by any chance, know of a similar table showing the chronology of Josephus' works?

I don't, but others here would know.

Also, I have heard it said that Josephus is not strictly chronological, that he not unusually hops about in time.

Sure. The order is "roughly" chronological, but not a strict chronology. Josephus generally tells stories as coherent units. Sometimes events from different stories overlapped, and backtracking is needed to keep each story as a unit.

Some events wouldn't be worth mentioning except in the context of earlier or later events. Example: John the Baptist's life isn't very interesting on a broad canvas except that it got him killed, and his getting killed isn't very interesting except that "people said" that Antipas' later military misfortunes were related to John's death, but none of that would have happened except that Antipas had long before divorced to marry his sister-in-law, while John was still busy doing his thing. So, some "hopping" is needed, just to get the convoluted thought out and onto the page.

it might mean that we are kidding ourselves when reconstructing or rearranging Josephus.

It's possible.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:03 am What got me interested was the argument against the received TF, that it "interrupts the flow" of the Pilate block. On length grounds alone, TF couldn't possibly interrupt the flow as much as "Paulina and Mundus" does.

'Paulina and Mundus' is indeed copious, and an arguably odd topic, not much Jewish interest at all.

I have heard it mooted that 'our Paul' was the unnamed Jew in the succeeding passage (deliberately unnamed apparently). I would suggest that 'Paulina' is a sort of allusion if it weren't such a completely ropey assertion.

I only hold the idea that it might have been 'our Paul' in the back of my mind. I wouldn't make a case myself.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:03 amMoving P&M 600 words improves the textual flow. The real sticker, however, is that the expulsion tale must be immediately preceded by a sad calamity. Germanicus' death seems sadder than that a celebrated Jew cheated a Roman death sentence (something Josephus could relate to).

The discrepancy of accepted dates was helpful diagnostically, but the flow improvement persists, IMO, even if Pilate was serving in Judea during 19 CE.

Sure. As I said, I have reasons for wondering if Pilate was there in 19CE. As ever, I refrain from making a strong case. I try to keep as open a mind as I can.

I might add that there are times when I suspect that there is too much suspicion.

By which I mean that in my mind, the broadly mainstream bible scholar accounts (if I may group them together temporarily) of both Jesus and early Christianity are still contenders for best explanations.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:03 amSome events wouldn't be worth mentioning except in the context of earlier or later events. Example: John the Baptist's life isn't very interesting on a broad canvas except that it got him killed, and his getting killed isn't very interesting except that "people said" that Antipas' later military misfortunes were related to John's death, but none of that would have happened except that Antipas had long before divorced to marry his sister-in-law, while John was still busy doing his thing. So, some "hopping" is needed, just to get the convoluted thought out and onto the page.

Is this your way of explaining the timeline discrepancy between Josephus' account of J the B's death and the Christian one?

archibald

Is this your way of explaining the timeline discrepancy between Josephus' account of J the B's death and the Christian one?

No, just illustrating the difficulty of holding the reader when telling a tale featuring wheels within wheels, with the resulting near-inevitability of "hops."

Those discrepancies help to sustain my hope that Josephus wrote that piece .

delete