Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to MaryHelena,

a 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion as in the Acts of Pilate.

Where did you find that? I read in the Acts of Pilate: "In the fifteenth (al. nineteenth) year of the governance of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the Romans, and of Herod, king of Galilee, in the nineteenth year of his rule, on the eighth of the Calends of April, which is the 25th of March, in the consulate of Rufus and Rubellio, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, Joseph who is Caiaphas being high priest of the Jews:"
Nothing as 7th year of Tiberius. Also the dates do not match:
- "Herod, king of Galilee, in the nineteenth year of his rule" would be around 13 AD.
- "the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad" would indicate around 31 AD.
- "the fifteenth (al. nineteenth) year of the governance of Tiberius Caesar" leads to around 28 AD (al. 32 AD).

to DCH,

This association of events in his governorship with Mundus & Paulina and the Fulvia scandals only bolsters the idea that Pilate actually started his governorship in 19 CE.

How did you get to that?

The best I will do is suspect that the text of Antiquities 18 was monkeyed around with to make Pilate's governorship start in 26 CE rather than 19 CE,

Josephus has Gratus as governor before Pilate took over. Gratus lasted 11 years and was chosen by Tiberius (ruled from 14 AD).
That would be monkeyed around?
"After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor." (Ant. 18, 2, 2)

As also "So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead [March 37 AD] ." (Ant. 18, 4, 2)

Cordially, Bernard

PhilosopherJay wrote:Also, I came upon this quote by Jesus Christ in chapter 46, that I never noticed before: "Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said:

"Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continues.

Apparently, Jesus Christ had spoken about the division in the Church of Corinth to the Corinthians. I guess the gospel writers just forgot about Jesus' sojourn to Corinth.

Jay-

I tend to follow mentions of "Better that a millstone..." being used as seen above because I believe that this is a Herod Story and if it is being used early in the Church History, it "very likely" was known as such.
Ask: "Did anyone ever throw a giant millstone into the sea?" Even as you think of the answer, one can see the development of the passage: An Aramaic has "The millstone of a donkey..." which becomes "a great millstone..." and is here simply a "Millstone..."

Herod threw the Millstone of a Donkey - in fact, lots of them - into the sea as he was building a Safe Harbor in Caesarea. This is at the height of a fierce Drought and Famine throughout Judaea. Herod hocks everything of value and buys grain from Petronius, Procurator of Egypt.

Now, it IS possible that Clement, writing early in the 2nd, did not know of this. Matthew has the "Donkey's Millstone" AND the "Enter through the Narrow Gate" which references the Joke on Egypt:

Mattew 7: 7 - 14 (RSV):

[7] "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
[8] For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
[9] Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
[10] Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
[11] If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
[12] So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
[13] "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Does Matthew know that the "Donkey's Millstone" and the "Narrow Gate" refer to the same Story? If he asks for Egyptian grain and fish, will he be given a serpent? Alas, Matthew doesn't appear to know. Maybe Clement doesn't know but if we are early in the 2nd Century and we have ignorant Church Fathers, then something is BAD wrong with our understanding of what happened and when...And WHY.

All the Best to you, Jay,

CW

maryhelena wrote:Is Eusebius really going to place a whole cloth TF within a time-frame that he is questioning as being problematic? Eusebius had other choices for a time-frame for a whole cloth TF - choices that would not compromise his labeling the Acts of Pilate a forgery. It makes no sense at all to propose that Eusebius forged a whole cloth TF and placed it within a time-frame that he is questioning - and a time-frame, to boot, that supports the very thing that he is rejecting - the Acts of Pilate and a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius.

How do you know where Eusebius placed the TF? We do know that he placed the TF in a later context than it appears in modern copies (viz., Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3.3). Specifically, he locates it somewhere AFTER the John the Baptist passage (which currently resides in Book 18, Chapter 5.2):

After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
(Eusebius - History, Book 1, Chapter 11.7)

So we can reasonably conjecture that Eusebius's copy of Antiquities contained the TF somewhere in the latter half of Book 18 (whether he or someone else put in there). Beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

DCHindley wrote:mh,

Are you suuuure?



"Eusebius, Church History I.ix.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"

You have to consult a list of consuls who served each year:

19 CE M. Iunius Silanus Torquatus (January -December ) and L. Norbanus Balbus (January -April )/P. Petronius (May–December )
21 CE Tiberius Caesar Augustus 4th time and Drusus Iulius Caesar 2nd time

So ... I guess his 7th year was not counted from his co-regency with Augustus, but by his sole rule.

So? Have a crucifixion story in 21 c.e. by all means. Or run with the 15th year of Tiberius - take your pick......

The fact of the matter is that Josephus has placed the TF prior to, or around, the expelling of Jews from Rome. That year is given as 19 c.e.

The reign of Tiberius (until the removal of his minister Sejanus) was fraught with misfortune for the Jews. When the cult of Isis was driven out of Rome (19 C.E.) the Jews also were expelled, because a Roman lady who inclined toward Judaism had been deceived by Jewish swindlers. The synagogues were closed, the vessels burned, and 4,000 Jewish youths were sent upon military service to Sardinia. After the death of Sejanus (31) the emperor allowed the Jews to return.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12816-rome

You can, of course, argue that the TF is in the wrong time-slot - I don't see any point in doing so other than attempting to support a crucifixion somewhere past the 15th year of Tiberius...and a historical gospel Jesus of some variety. Thus, why any ahistoricist/mythicist would argue along those lines beats me....

--------------------------------------
added later.

Prior to gLuke and it's 15th of Tiberius time-table, the placing of the TF (minus the Eusebius Christianizing of the core text) was in it's proper place re the gospel story.


1) gMark has it's crucifixion story in the time of Pilate.

2) gMatthew has it's crucifixion story in the time of Pilate (it's exact birth narrative dating in the time of Herod I could be question. ie Archelaus could be an interpolation or update that allows that birth narrative to be late in the time of Herod I - without that interpolation/update gMatthew's birth narrative could be much earlier in the time of Herod I - as in the Slavonic Josephus.)

3) gJohn has it's crucifixion story in the time of Pilate.

Dating Pilate to 19 c.e. accommodates all three of these gospel stories about the Jesus crucifixion. Hence, a TF, placed by Josephus prior to the exile of Jews from Rome would be a correct placing. Only after gLuke and it's 15th year of Tiberius story would the TF placing be in a wrong time-frame.


--------------------------------------
Oh, please let me know what the picture has to do with my previous post.......

Bernard Muller wrote:to MaryHelena,

a 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion as in the Acts of Pilate.

Where did you find that?

I read in the Acts of Pilate: "In the fifteenth (al. nineteenth) year of the governance of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the Romans, and of Herod, king of Galilee, in the nineteenth year of his rule, on the eighth of the Calends of April, which is the 25th of March, in the consulate of Rufus and Rubellio, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, Joseph who is Caiaphas being high priest of the Jews:"
Nothing as 7th year of Tiberius. Also the dates do not match:
- "Herod, king of Galilee, in the nineteenth year of his rule" would be around 13 AD.
- "the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad" would indicate around 31 AD.
- "the fifteenth (al. nineteenth) year of the governance of Tiberius Caesar" leads to around 28 AD (al. 32 AD).


Cordially, Bernard

The contents of the Acts of Pilate that Eusebius had are not detailed by him - apart from his reference to the 7th year of Tiberius. He does, however, give a copy of a document that was given in answer by Maximinus and was posted on pillars.
---------------------------------------------
A "Trinity" of "The Acts of Pilate"

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/t ... pilate.htm

theomise wrote:

maryhelena wrote:Is Eusebius really going to place a whole cloth TF within a time-frame that he is questioning as being problematic? Eusebius had other choices for a time-frame for a whole cloth TF - choices that would not compromise his labeling the Acts of Pilate a forgery. It makes no sense at all to propose that Eusebius forged a whole cloth TF and placed it within a time-frame that he is questioning - and a time-frame, to boot, that supports the very thing that he is rejecting - the Acts of Pilate and a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius.

How do you know where Eusebius placed the TF? We do know that he placed the TF in a later context than it appears in modern copies (viz., Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3.3). Specifically, he locates it somewhere AFTER the John the Baptist passage (which currently resides in Book 18, Chapter 5.2):

After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
(Eusebius - History, Book 1, Chapter 11.7)

Yes, Josephus makes mention of the TF and the John the Baptist story in the same work - Antiquities. However, Josephus puts many years between the two figures. John the Baptist is executed prior to the war between Aretas and Antipas, around 36 c.e. The TF is placed prior to, or around the time the Jews were expelled from Rome, 19 c.e. Josephus has no immediate follow on between these two figures. It's not John the Baptist then the TF/Jesus - it's the TF/Jesus and then the John the Baptist story.

So we can reasonably conjecture that Eusebius's copy of Antiquities contained the TF somewhere in the latter half of Book 18 (whether he or someone else put in there). Beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

One can conjecture whatever - fact of the matter is that the TF is placed in Antiquites prior to, or around, the 19 c.e. expelling of Jews from Rome. That dating hamstrung Eusebius - as it seems to have hamstrung some people to this day...The best that any Jesus historicist can do is argue that the TF has been placed in the wrong historical time-slot. Arguing that it's not where it actually is, 19 c.e., betrays motivation to uphold previously conceived positions. In this case - the 15th year of Tiberius as the gold standard for the Jesus story.....not a road, surely, for the ahistoricists/mythicist to be treading....

Stephan Huller wrote:She's always trying to avoid 21 CE for some reason. It's really annoying. The year is 21 CE.

'She' has a name Stephan.....

Trying to avoid a crucifixion in 21 c.e.? Come now - how about supporting that statement.

There are many dates for a Jesus crucifixion story. 19 c.e., 21 c.e., 29/30 c.e., 33 c.e., 36/37 c.e. Take your pick - I'm easy. I'll have them all.....after all, I'm an ahistoricits/mythicist and I don't have to reject any of the dates.....

All the dates tell their own story - and it's the development of the Jesus story that I'm interested in.

maryhelena wrote:

DCHindley wrote:21 CE Tiberius Caesar Augustus 4th time and Drusus Iulius Caesar 2nd time

So ... I guess his 7th year was not counted from his co-regency with Augustus, but by his sole rule.

So? Have a crucifixion story in 21 c.e. by all means. Or run with the 15th year of Tiberius - take your pick......

The fact of the matter is that Josephus has placed the TF prior to, or around, the expelling of Jews from Rome. That year is given as 19 c.e.

You can, of course, argue that the TF is in the wrong time-slot - I don't see any point in doing so other than attempting to support a crucifixion somewhere past the 15th year of Tiberius...and a historical gospel Jesus of some variety. Thus, why any ahistoricist/mythicist would argue along those lines beats me....

The fact is this: the events recounted as occurring from the beginning of Pilate's governorship - without considering the relevance of the TF - are not presented in chronological order. That means the TF, being where it is, was an absolutely arbitrary choice by the author (whether by Josephus or an interpolator).

Whether the Acts of Pilate published by Caesar Maximunus Daia around 311-315 places his death in 19 CE or 21 CE, or the traditional date (after the "15th year" of Tiberius) is to be trusted, makes no difference, as the relative placement of the event in the narrative is absolutely irrelevant!

Oh, please let me know what the picture has to do with my previous post.......

Mona Lisa Vito, a character in the movie My Cousin Vinnie. Marissa Tomei won an Oscar for her role as an out of work beautician who is called to the witness stand of a capital crime trial by her aspiring barrister boyfriend Vinnie as an "expert witness" on "general automotive knowledge," given that she grew up in her dad's car repair shop. She is hostile when put on the stand, as they had just had a big fight the night before.

Vinnie had realized that she had made an observation in a fight they had the night before that would help his case, and so he asks her to look at a crime scene photo of tire marks left by a getaway car as it sped from a crime scene. She coldly says she doesn't see anything significant, but Vinnie asks "Are you suuuure?" She realizes it had to do with their argument (which was over her ability to offer anything of value to the defense), and she explains that the tire marks must have been made by a model of car with a Positraction limited-slip differential and independent front suspension, while the defendants were driving a car with a similar body style but a straight rear axel and regular suspension. When Vinnie asks "Are you suuuure?" he was teasing her, because she should have known the answer all along but was letting their fight prevent her from seeing the solution.

What this has to do with the issue at hand is nothing at all, but so does your objection ...

Basically, you should have checked your source (Eusebius) and realized that the only year in which Tiberius held his 4th consulship which was also the 7th year of his reign by one of the common reckonings, was 21, not 19 CE. You insist on the odd-ball dating by selectively choosing what info to use (the 7th year of his reign, which can refer to several dates depending in the event signaling its starting point and the era of the calendar used) and not to use (the 4th consulship, which is datable by independent sources to precisely Jan 1 to Dec 31, 21 CE).

"Do not argue the matter."

DCH

In Book 18, Josephus is not chronologically consistent.

DCHindley wrote:

maryhelena wrote:

DCHindley wrote:21 CE Tiberius Caesar Augustus 4th time and Drusus Iulius Caesar 2nd time

So ... I guess his 7th year was not counted from his co-regency with Augustus, but by his sole rule.

So? Have a crucifixion story in 21 c.e. by all means. Or run with the 15th year of Tiberius - take your pick......

The fact of the matter is that Josephus has placed the TF prior to, or around, the expelling of Jews from Rome. That year is given as 19 c.e.

You can, of course, argue that the TF is in the wrong time-slot - I don't see any point in doing so other than attempting to support a crucifixion somewhere past the 15th year of Tiberius...and a historical gospel Jesus of some variety. Thus, why any ahistoricist/mythicist would argue along those lines beats me....

The fact is this: the events recounted as occurring from the beginning of Pilate's governorship - without considering the relevance of the TF - are not presented in chronological order. That means the TF, being where it is, was an absolutely arbitrary choice by the author (whether by Josephus or an interpolator).

Josephus may have, or may not have, made an 'arbitrary choice' (prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 19 c.e.) of where to put the core statement of the TF. That Eusebius made such an 'arbitrary choice' when seeking to insert a whole cloth TF - a TF with the purpose of refuting the Acts of Pilate - does not make any sense at all. Eusebius was on a mission not blindfolded and playing 'stick the tail on the donkey'.

Whether the Acts of Pilate published by Caesar Maximunus Daia around 311-315 places his death in 19 CE or 21 CE, or the traditional date (after the "15th year" of Tiberius) is to be trusted, makes no difference, as the relative placement of the event in the narrative is absolutely irrelevant!

Why? Because it conflicts with the 15th year of Tiberius story.... That is the only reason for anyone to say the Josephan dating for the TF, prior to the expelling of Jews from Rome in 19 c.e., is "absolutely irrelevant". Without gLuke and that 15th year of Tiberius the dating in Josephus for the TF would not be viewed as being 'absolutely irrelevant'.

And the Josephus dating for the execution of John the Baptist to around 36 c.e. is also 'absolutely irrelevant' as well? Methinks one should not be reading ones interpretation of the gospel story into Josephus. Those gospel eyeglasses have their own distortions, their own share of contradictions, to be of very limited use when reading Josephus...

<snip>
Basically, you should have checked your source (Eusebius) and realized that the only year in which Tiberius held his 4th consulship which was also the 7th year of his reign by one of the common reckonings, was 21, not 19 CE. You insist on the odd-ball dating by selectively choosing what info to use (the 7th year of his reign, which can refer to several dates depending in the event signaling its starting point and the era of the calendar used) and not to use (the 4th consulship, which is datable by independent sources to precisely Jan 1 to Dec 31, 21 CE).

"Do not argue the matter."

DCH

The odd ball dating? I'm using the dating Josephus places the core TF - prior to the expulsion of Jews from Rome - that dating is 19 c.e. A year that is also considered, by Daniel Schwartz, to be the first year of Pilate's rule in Judea. As to the 7th year of Tiberius. Either dating is possible. Either from his "co-princeps" in 12 c.e. or his sole rule in 14 c.e. Why 'run' with 19 c.e.? Because that is the dating around which Josephus places the core TF.
Further to your "an absolutely arbitrary choice" for Josephus to place the TF around 19 c.e.

Consider counting back 483 years from 19 c.e. The year is 465/464 b.c. The first year of Artaxerxes I. An "absolutely arbitrary choice' of dating for Josephus and his wonder-doer/wise man story? Add on another 7 years and one can have that crucifixion in the middle of the week, 21 c.e. Josephus can 'run the numbers' - and re-run the numbers - any which way for his prophetic interests. As I have referenced many a time, Josephus is viewed by two scholars as a prophetic historian. (Robert Karl Gnuse in Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis; Rebecca Gray in Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus) Methinks, it's going to take much more than arguments over Josephus getting his chronology wrong in Antiquites book 18 to challenge his placing the core of the TF prior to, or around, 19 c.e.

From an ahistoricist/mythicist perspective, there was no historical gospel Jesus of any variant its proponents assume. Josephus, in the core of the TF, is not supporting such assertions. What Josephus is supporting is a prophetic template, a version of Daniel ch.9, a version that he is running from the 19 c.e. start of Pilate's rule in Judea to the removal of Pilate from office in 36 c.e. What is historical and what is prophetic history (prophetic interpretations of history) within that time-frame - that's for history to establish - not the writings of Josephus or the gospel writings.

"Do not argue the matter."

haha, David - surely your not suggesting that your the only one allowed to 'argue the matter'. Naughty David, very naughty....