Pilate and Josephus

[Secret Alias]

Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictae, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse: Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos: sapientiam autem non mundi hujus. Et hanc sapientiam unusquisque eorum esse dicit, quam a semetipso adinvenit, fictionem videlicet, ut digne sucundum eos sit veritas, aliquando quidem in Valentino, aliquando autem in Marcione, aliquando in Cerintho, postea deinde in Basilide, fuit aut et in illo qui contra disputat, qui nihil salutare loqui potuit. Unusquisque enim ipsorum omnimodo perversus, semitipsum regulam veritatis depravans praedicare non confunditur.

Indeed, when they are exposed by means of the Scriptures, they turn round and make accusations against the Scriptures themselves, as if these were not correct or were not authentic and stated things variously,8 and that the truth cannot be found in them by those who are ignorant of tradition. They claim the truth was not handed down by writings, but by a living voice, of which matter Paul said, Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom— although it is not the wisdom of this world. And each one of them claims as this wisdom that which he discovers by himself, which is really a fiction, so that their truth may fittingly be in Valentinus at one time, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, finally in Basilides, or even in one who disputes against these and would not be able to say anything pertaining to salvation.10 For each one of them, being totally corrupt, is not ashamed to deprave the rule of truth and preach himself.

It curious that Irenaeus should deny the accusation that the four gospels 'say things variously' (quia varie sint dictae) when they plainly do. It is also interesting that the heretics speak of a 'traditio' in the same way Paul does - literally a handing down. Paul repeatedly speaks to something that he hands down or received. Does this necessarily have to be something oral or could it refer to a secret written gospel?

[maryhelena]

It curious that Irenaeus should deny the accusation that the four gospels 'say things variously' (quia varie sint dictae) when they plainly do. It is also interesting that the heretics speak of a 'traditio' in the same way Paul does - literally a handing down. Paul repeatedly speaks to something that he hands down or received. Does this necessarily have to be something oral or could it refer to a secret written gospel?

A secret written gospel....for those initiates of the higher mysteries while we poor sinners have to do with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John....oh well, at least the poor sinners have meat on their plates. Gnostics type thinking might entertain those of an imaginative disposition; the realists among us will be getting our hands dirty from digging up the blood and sweat of history. Boots on the ground is the way forward.

[Paul the Uncertain]

On the issue of interpreting Irenaeus' robust view of the written gospels in the light of something handed down:

The "persuasive force" of a system of "apostolic succession" is that it comes with a tradition of interpretation that supplements the core writing. This is not an "esoteric" tradition, in the sense that these interpretations are openly preached, but it's not simply "exoteric" either, in the sense that only a specialist (and so a full-time professional) likely knows the whole tradition.

Modern example: The First Amendment to the written American Constitution requires that the federal government respect the people's free expression of religion and also refrain from establishing any religion. This is as impossible as Shylock getting a pound of flesh without shedding a drop of blood. There are also many other situations in which written rights, permissions and obligations conflict.

How can we live "under the rule of law," then? There is a body of judicial opinion that preserves how the balance has been struck between free expression and no establishment in past cases. Anybody who cares to can read as much of this interpretive literature as they please. Some may even become experts without joining the legal profession (e.g., in many prisons, there are a few "jailhouse lawyers," lay inmates who draft successful court documents for their fellows).

In addition to that written daunting-but-exoteric body of lore, there is the unwritten "thinking like a lawyer." If some current problem exactly matches an earlier case, then fine, see how that earlier case was decided and do likewise now. But what if the current problem "matches" more than one incompatible earlier case, or is "first impression" (doesn't match any earlier case)? Then you "think like a lawyer." This is a skill, rather than a lore. It is transmitted face-to-face (maybe with written support materials to supplement oral teaching). It is exoteric, but mastery is difficult enough to be confined to an "elite."

Results of "thinking like a lawyer" are mixed. Two lawyers, each thinking like a lawyer, often manage to disagree. Other times, it does work (radio transmissions, despite being unknown to the writers of the constitution, were designated as "interstate commerce," something which the constitution does address, without much felt need to alter the fundamental law to "keep up with the times").

This is, of course, not so terribly different than the Talmudic system of rabbinical interpretation. So, even though the example is "modern" for the convenience of studying what's going on, the underlying approach isn't out of place or anachronistic for early Christian use.

[maryhelena]

On the issue of interpreting Irenaeus' robust view of the written gospels in the light of something handed down:

The "persuasive force" of a system of "apostolic succession" is that it comes with a tradition of interpretation that supplements the core writing. This is not an "esoteric" tradition, in the sense that these interpretations are openly preached, but it's not simply "exoteric" either, in the sense that only a specialist (and so a full-time professional) likely knows the whole tradition.

''apostolic succession' and its ''tradition of interpretation that supplements the core writing' might have had, at one time, some relevance. The interpretations of the core writing were, obviously, context bound. I'll admit to finding it difficult to understand why such context bound interpretations are given so much attention in this the modern age; an age of the printing press and internet. The tradition of value is the gospel story itself not what some ancient church father, with knowledge tied to context of time and place, interpreted that story to mean. A literal interpretation of the gospel Jesus story might well have helped ensure it's survival - but does not, cannot, ensure the story's historicity. Consequently, it's back to the Jesus story itself not the byways and highways that brought the story to the 21st century.

Thus, with the printed page and the internet, we can all become our own Jesus lawyers today - and say thanks but no thanks to those ancient church fathers who mistakenly and unwittingly fell under the spell of a literal interpretation of the Jesus story.....

[Paul the Uncertain]

''apostolic succession' and its ''tradition of interpretation that supplements the core writing' might have had, at one time, some relevance...

I think you and I might agree that the uses of apostolic succession claims would change with time. For Irenaeus and his contemporaries, I think it might have been simple brand differentiation. "Those Simonians do have a lot of fun at their love feasts, but ours are the real thing, because ours have been handed down to us without interruption from the very first Christians."

By the time of the Protestants and Trent, yes, "we can all become our own Jesus lawyers," but the Catholics would say that Protestants (with exceptions, like the Anglican Communion) might at best become their own "jailhouse lawyers," but not the real thing.

So, the Protestant free-readers come up with some quasi-historical proposition like "Jesus had full brothers and sisters," based on a straightforward reading of canonical scripture. "No, no, no," say the Catholics, "our predecessors in the chain of consecrated hands transmit the tradition that those were cousins or half-sibs or whatever else, not natural children of Mary."

At that point, the "chain" is hardly a credible reason to think that that interpretation is correct. The basis is not oral anymore, anyway: this or that "doctor of the church" wrote something about the question very long ago, and anybody (in principle, and today, in practice) can read that. The "chain," however, grounds the claim that that doctor's writing is reliable, even though it isn't canon, and despite there possibly having been contemporary or earlier (even canonical) writers who disagreed with him.

Anyway, I was just pointing to a "middle way" between the esoteric and exoteric approaches: something formally exoteric, but with enough practical impediments hampering the would-be adept as to give rise to a de facto esotericism. Within that framework, surface discrepancies within the canon could meet tradition-based deep reconciliations, and that might explain what Ireanaeus wrote.

[maryhelena]

''apostolic succession' and its ''tradition of interpretation that supplements the core writing' might have had, at one time, some relevance...

I think you and I might agree that the uses of apostolic succession claims would change with time. For Irenaeus and his contemporaries, I think it might have been simple brand differentiation. "Those Simonians do have a lot of fun at their love feasts, but ours are the real thing, because ours have been handed down to us without interruption from the very first Christians."

By the time of the Protestants and Trent, yes, "we can all become our own Jesus lawyers," but the Catholics would say that Protestants (with exceptions, like the Anglican Communion) might at best become their own "jailhouse lawyers," but not the real thing.

So, the Protestant free-readers come up with some quasi-historical proposition like "Jesus had full brothers and sisters," based on a straightforward reading of canonical scripture. "No, no, no," say the Catholics, "our predecessors in the chain of consecrated hands transmit the tradition that those were cousins or half-sibs or whatever else, not natural children of Mary."

At that point, the "chain" is hardly a credible reason to think that that interpretation is correct. The basis is not oral anymore, anyway: this or that "doctor of the church" wrote something about the question very long ago, and anybody (in principle, and today, in practice) can read that. The "chain," however, grounds the claim that that doctor's writing is reliable, even though it isn't canon, and despite there possibly having been contemporary or earlier (even canonical) writers who disagreed with him.

Anyway, I was just pointing to a "middle way" between the esoteric and exoteric approaches: something formally exoteric, but with enough practical impediments hampering the would-be adept as to give rise to a de facto esotericism. Within that framework, surface discrepancies within the canon could meet tradition-based deep reconciliations, and that might explain what Ireanaeus wrote.

Indeed, it all boils down to which interpretation one fancies. That is one reason I prefer, as far as possible, to give interpretation a wide birth. My interpretation is better than your interpretation only paves the way for discord. One can never know what meaning a gospel writer was trying to convey. Words often fail us even in speech. That is why I seek to keep focus on the basic, the core of the Jesus story. Jesus crucified under Pilate says the christian creed. The cross hangs around the neck of the faithful. The cross is raised on every christian altar. It is theology that hangs on that gospel cross not a physical flesh and blood man. Attributing human salvation to human sacrifice must be the most depraved theology ever to cross the mind of man. One way, perhaps the only way, to rid christianity of its immoral premise is to confine its outrageous theology to the museum of historical curiosities...and that requires that history be allowed to triumph over interpretations.

Theology can be built upon imagination it does not need a physical man crucified on a cross. Such would be an abomination not a 'salvation' scenario. Viewing the Jesus crucifixion under Pilate as historical is to deny the gospel story, the allegory, any rational interpretation. What could be viewed, interpreted, as having value, of having some relevance for living a rational and moral life, becomes the vehicle of debasement and demoralization. The only way that a story about a man crucified on a cross can have value is to by rejecting historicity and viewing the crucifixion story as allegory - that way avenues can open up in which to find value in the story.

And for those historicists who just want to have a flesh and blood Jesus crucified under Pilate but without any theology or allegory - a man crucified on a cross has no value - not even historical value. Such a man blows in the wind like the thousands before him who suffered at the hands of oppressors. In other words; a flesh and blood Jesus crucified under Pilate is useless for history - can never be historically identified - and useless and unnecessary for theology or allegory.

A literary gospel Jesus - well now - such a Jesus can become all things to all people.....

[Secret Alias]

I am very interested by the fact that 'traditio' (= παράδοσις) is so strongly associated with the heretical Pauline tradition. I think also when we pay close attention to this word part of the passage becomes clearer:

Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictae, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse: Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos: sapientiam autem non mundi hujus. Et hanc sapientiam unusquisque eorum esse dicit, quam a semetipso adinvenit, fictionem videlicet, ut digne sucundum eos sit veritas, aliquando quidem in Valentino, aliquando autem in Marcione, aliquando in Cerintho, postea deinde in Basilide, fuit aut et in illo qui contra disputat, qui nihil salutare loqui potuit. Unusquisque enim ipsorum omnimodo perversus, semitipsum regulam veritatis depravans praedicare non confunditur.

Indeed, when they are exposed by means of the Scriptures, they turn round and make accusations against the Scriptures themselves, as if these were not correct or were not authentic and stated things variously,8 and that the truth cannot be found in them by those who are ignorant of tradition. They claim the truth was not by those handed-down writings, but by a living voice, of which matter Paul said, Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom— although it is not the wisdom of this world. And each one of them claims as this wisdom that which he discovers by himself, which is really a fiction, so that their truth may fittingly be in Valentinus at one time, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, finally in Basilides, or even in one who disputes against these and would not be able to say anything pertaining to salvation.10 For each one of them, being totally corrupt, is not ashamed to deprave the rule of truth and preach himself.

I think the sense here - in the context of what immediately precedes it - is that the Catholics have one 'traditio' of handed down writings and the heretics another. It is not that the heretics hate or eschew written texts but the context is wholly those handed down texts of the orthodox. All of which raises questions about the 'living voice' which I at least always understood in terms of an oral tradition - an assumption which I think is incorrect. What if the distinction wasn't a stark one - between 'writing' and 'speaking' but a certain kind of writing based on the Holy Spirit?

This is particularly useful:

In relatively few places the written word is referred to as a book (βίβλος): of Moses (Mark 12:26), of the prophet(s) (Luke 3:4; Acts 7:42), of the psalms (Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20). In these instances the emphasis is less on the physical aspect of the written word than on the kind of composition it represents.17 Although the references to “book” would seem to describe the text as a whole, in these examples particular verses are singled out for quotation in a verbal exchange or discourse, drawing attention to the "voice" of the text. This dimension of written text is highlighted particularly in Luke 20:42, where the writer states “as David says [λέγει, present tense] in the book of Psalms.” Thus “books” may contain written words that speak as a living voice.18 This dimension of “voice” is picked up in references to “oracles” or “sayings.”

In Acts 7:38, Stephen speaks of the “living oracles” (λόγια ζῶντα) received by Moses in order to give them “to us,” while Paul speaks of the Jews having been entrusted with the “oracles of God” (λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ [Rom 3:2; see also Heb 5:12; 1 Pet 4:11]). In each instance, the expression assumes that what is written is encountered as an active voice, speaking in and to the present. Thus the written word transcends time and space; but more than that, it is represented not so much as a written word as a “living voice.” Since these examples do not single out specific passages or words as “living oracles” (in contrast to the examples in the preceding paragraph), the phrase (perhaps in contrast to βίβλος) is shown to connote the nature of the written word as a whole. In this respect, it speaks to how the written word is perceived and encountered broadly as spoken word rather than to the function of specific words. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+ ... 07&bih=827

I think it is clear that Stephen is saying the ten utterances represent the 'word of the living God' in essence. A similar idea is present in the earliest use of bat kol:

א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

In some sense then there was the distinction between 'the living voice' of God and the ordinary human voice or the voices of human beings.

[Secret Alias]

I think Mark 7:8 epitomizes the original understanding associated with Stephen:

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Clearly traditionem = παράδοσιν. For both Mark and Stephen there is a "παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων" and then presumably a handed down 'living voice.' I am not so sure that a book can't contain 'the living voice.'

[arnoldo]

''apostolic succession' and its ''tradition of interpretation that supplements the core writing' might have had, at one time, some relevance...

I think you and I might agree that the uses of apostolic succession claims would change with time. For Irenaeus and his contemporaries, I think it might have been simple brand differentiation. "Those Simonians do have a lot of fun at their love feasts, but ours are the real thing, because ours have been handed down to us without interruption from the very first Christians."

By the time of the Protestants and Trent, yes, "we can all become our own Jesus lawyers," but the Catholics would say that Protestants (with exceptions, like the Anglican Communion) might at best become their own "jailhouse lawyers," but not the real thing.

So, the Protestant free-readers come up with some quasi-historical proposition like "Jesus had full brothers and sisters," based on a straightforward reading of canonical scripture. "No, no, no," say the Catholics, "our predecessors in the chain of consecrated hands transmit the tradition that those were cousins or half-sibs or whatever else, not natural children of Mary."

At that point, the "chain" is hardly a credible reason to think that that interpretation is correct. The basis is not oral anymore, anyway: this or that "doctor of the church" wrote something about the question very long ago, and anybody (in principle, and today, in practice) can read that. The "chain," however, grounds the claim that that doctor's writing is reliable, even though it isn't canon, and despite there possibly having been contemporary or earlier (even canonical) writers who disagreed with him.

Anyway, I was just pointing to a "middle way" between the esoteric and exoteric approaches: something formally exoteric, but with enough practical impediments hampering the would-be adept as to give rise to a de facto esotericism. Within that framework, surface discrepancies within the canon could meet tradition-based deep reconciliations, and that might explain what Ireanaeus wrote.

Indeed, it all boils down to which interpretation one fancies. That is one reason I prefer, as far as possible, to give interpretation a wide birth. My interpretation is better than your interpretation only paves the way for discord. One can never know what meaning a gospel writer was trying to convey. Words often fail us even in speech. That is why I seek to keep focus on the basic, the core of the Jesus story. Jesus crucified under Pilate says the christian creed. The cross hangs around the neck of the faithful. The cross is raised on every christian altar. It is theology that hangs on that gospel cross not a physical flesh and blood man. Attributing human salvation to human sacrifice must be the most depraved theology ever to cross the mind of man. One way, perhaps the only way, to rid christianity of its immoral premise is to confine its outrageous theology to the museum of historical curiosities...and that requires that history be allowed to triumph over interpretations.

Theology can be built upon imagination it does not need a physical man crucified on a cross. Such would be an abomination not a 'salvation' scenario. Viewing the Jesus crucifixion under Pilate as historical is to deny the gospel story, the allegory, any rational interpretation. What could be viewed, interpreted, as having value, of having some relevance for living a rational and moral life, becomes the vehicle of debasement and demoralization. The only way that a story about a man crucified on a cross can have value is to by rejecting historicity and viewing the crucifixion story as allegory - that way avenues can open up in which to find value in the story.

And for those historicists who just want to have a flesh and blood Jesus crucified under Pilate but without any theology or allegory - a man crucified on a cross has no value - not even historical value. Such a man blows in the wind like the thousands before him who suffered at the hands of oppressors. In other words; a flesh and blood Jesus crucified under Pilate is useless for history - can never be historically identified - and useless and unnecessary for theology or allegory.

A literary gospel Jesus - well now - such a Jesus can become all things to all people.....

Why can't there be both a literary gospel Jesus and a historical Jesus crucified under Pilate?

Crucifixus est dei filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est.
Et mortuus est dei filius; credibile prorsus est, quia ineptum est.
Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.

The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed--because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible. (Evans translation).
http://www.tertullian.org/works/de_carne_christi.htm

[maryhelena]

Indeed, it all boils down to which interpretation one fancies. That is one reason I prefer, as far as possible, to give interpretation a wide birth. My interpretation is better than your interpretation only paves the way for discord. One can never know what meaning a gospel writer was trying to convey. Words often fail us even in speech. That is why I seek to keep focus on the basic, the core of the Jesus story. Jesus crucified under Pilate says the christian creed. The cross hangs around the neck of the faithful. The cross is raised on every christian altar. It is theology that hangs on that gospel cross not a physical flesh and blood man. Attributing human salvation to human sacrifice must be the most depraved theology ever to cross the mind of man. One way, perhaps the only way, to rid christianity of its immoral premise is to confine its outrageous theology to the museum of historical curiosities...and that requires that history be allowed to triumph over interpretations.

Theology can be built upon imagination it does not need a physical man crucified on a cross. Such would be an abomination not a 'salvation' scenario. Viewing the Jesus crucifixion under Pilate as historical is to deny the gospel story, the allegory, any rational interpretation. What could be viewed, interpreted, as having value, of having some relevance for living a rational and moral life, becomes the vehicle of debasement and demoralization. The only way that a story about a man crucified on a cross can have value is to by rejecting historicity and viewing the crucifixion story as allegory - that way avenues can open up in which to find value in the story.

And for those historicists who just want to have a flesh and blood Jesus crucified under Pilate but without any theology or allegory - a man crucified on a cross has no value - not even historical value. Such a man blows in the wind like the thousands before him who suffered at the hands of oppressors. In other words; a flesh and blood Jesus crucified under Pilate is useless for history - can never be historically identified - and useless and unnecessary for theology or allegory.

A literary gospel Jesus - well now - such a Jesus can become all things to all people.....

Why can't there be both a literary gospel Jesus and a historical Jesus crucified under Pilate?

A theological or an allegorical moral or philosophical approach to the gospel story does not need, in fact is compromised, by a flesh and blood Jesus crucified under Pilate. It is simply preposterous to, as it were, clothe a flesh and blood man with the attire the gospels use to outfit their literary Jesus figure. Consequently, we do the gospel writers a great disservice to assume that that is what they have done with a flesh and blood crucified figure under Pilate. The gospel story is what it is. A way to short-circuit any such ideas of turning a flesh and blood man into a miracle man is to make the literary figure one is creating into a composite literary figure. (For instance: the literary James Bond figure reflects various historical figures relevant to Ian Fleming). By using such a literary device the gospel writers would immunize themselves against any charge of Euhemerism.

There is no logical way to have ones cake and eat it - there is no logical or rational way to have a literary gospel Jesus and a flesh and blood historical gospel Jesus crucified under Pilate.

If it's flesh and blood that we are after i.e. if it's historical reality that we seek, then it becomes necessary to look beyond the gospel story, to go outside the story. Yes, the gospel story can help in that endeavor if we approach it as a political allegory. All notions of theology, of philosophy, of spirituality, of symbolism and mythology need to be set aside. These are the superstructure, the window-dressing. The foundations of the Jesus story, it's roots, are entwined in the Jewish history from which it has sprung.

Pilate dates the gospel story. Pilate does not date the Jewish history from within which the Jesus story has it's roots. The Jesus story as a political allegory transverses a wide historical canvas.

Yes, of course, we want flesh and blood to be relevant to the gospel Jesus story - after all a story devoid of humanity has cut it's own umbilical cord - it becomes nothing more than a floating abstraction. But if that is our goal for the gospel story i.e. to ascribe some historical relevance to that story - then we have to put aside assumptions of historicity for the gospel Jesus figure. That assumption inhibits historical research into the early origins of christianity. The intellectual superstructure built upon the gospel Jesus story can be blown away tomorrow - ideas are always subject to devaluation. However, the Jewish history from which that Jesus story arose remains a legacy of human endeavor. Consequently, we would be doing the gospel writers a considerable service were we to give this legacy, their historical legacy, it's rightful role in the creation of the gospel Jesus story.