Pilate and Josephus

[Secret Alias]

But notice what he says about the year of favor. I think this is the solution from Book 2.21

Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution"(4)), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.

2. That, then, was called the day of retribution on which the Lord will render to every one according to his works--that is, the judgment. The acceptable year of the Lord, again, is this present time, in which those who believe Him are called by Him, and become acceptable to God--that is, the whole time from His advent onwards to the consummation [of all things], during which He acquires to Himself as fruits [of the scheme of mercy] those who are saved. For, according to the phraseology of the prophet, the day of retribution follows the [acceptable] year; and the prophet will be proved guilty of falsehood if the Lord preached only for a year, and if he speaks of it. For where is the day of retribution? For the year has passed, and the day of retribution has not yet come

Clearly this was not the original understanding of any gospel writer. No one before Irenaeus thought that Jesus walked into the synagogue and read Isaiah meaning that the world would end nearer to the time of Irenaeus (= the reign of Severus). The predictions therefore 'began' at the time of the destruction, the end should have followed but didn't because - Irenaeus argued - a long period followed which would ultimately culminate with the awaited 'day of retribution' omitted oddly enough in Jesus's reading of Isaiah.

[maryhelena]

How about starting a new threat about Irenaeus ??

I fail to see how Irenaeus interpretation has anything to offer re Pilate and Josephus....

[Secret Alias]

Of course it has relevance. The dating of Luke is absolutely tied to Irenaeus because the first mention of Luke is Irenaeus. How do you think we should proceed with the dating of Luke. Oh yeah, Luke used information in Josephus so Luke = Josephus. Much better way to proceed.

[maryhelena]

Of course it has relevance. The dating of Luke is absolutely tied to Irenaeus because the first mention of Luke is Irenaeus. How do you think we should proceed with the dating of Luke. Oh yeah, Luke used information in Josephus so Luke = Josephus. Much better way to proceed.

Mention of content from the gospel of Luke by Irenaeus does not date the gospel of Luke. Hence is of no use in a discussion regarding Pilate and Josephus. What is under discussion in this thread is the rule of Pilate in Judea and the history of those years, as far as it can be determine, from Josephus and the Jesus stories. The interest is a short span of years - 18/19 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. It is history that is relevant not what some ancient church father interpreted from whatever sources at his disposal. The relevant sources for the topic of this thread are the Jesus stories regarding Pilate and the Josephan account of Pilate. The writings of Josephus, and Philo, are worth more than a dozen church fathers.....

[Secret Alias]

gospel of Luke by Irenaeus does not date the gospel of Luke

of course he does. Luke was the favorite follower of Paul. Irenaeus says he happens to have a copy of the gospel and says that if the heretics love Paul they have to accept his gospel written by Luke. The heretics are clearly pre-existent so too their unfamiliarity with Luke and his (alleged) gospel which is the only gospel to date the beginning of Jesus ministry to 15 Tiberius. I say beginning because he argues for a crucifixion 19 years later still under Pilate presumably. The point is that is certainly a BAD SOURCE of information. The first guy who introduced Luke and his gospel should be mistrusted because his POV is obviously problematic. Something's wrong. Red flags everywhere. Stori(es) too complicated.

[maryhelena]

gospel of Luke by Irenaeus does not date the gospel of Luke

of course he does. Luke was the favorite follower of Paul. Irenaeus says he happens to have a copy of the gospel and says that if the heretics love Paul they have to accept his gospel written by Luke. The heretics are clearly pre-existent so too their unfamiliarity with Luke.

This is what I wrote: 'Mention of content from the gospel of Luke by Irenaeus does not date the gospel of Luke'.

So...Irenaeus read the gospel of Luke. His reading of the gospel of Luke does not, cannot, date the writing of the gospel of Luke. Irenaeus might well be the first person to record his reading of the gospel of Luke - but that does not mean, cannot mean, that others have not read the gospel of Luke prior to Irenaeus recording his own reading of it.

[Secret Alias]

You're not getting it. in Book Two the 19 year ministry begins and ends with Pilate

It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practising deception upon any, nor taking any reward

[Secret Alias]

And then in his discussion of Luke in the Marcion section of Book 1 he says Jesus came down under Pilate. So at least a nineteen year office of Pilate

[maryhelena]

And then in his discussion of Luke in the Marcion section of Book 1 he says Jesus came down under Pilate. So at least a nineteen year office of Pilate

.... Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting, ] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple.......the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. ..

So...looks like Irenaeus does not care much for a 21 c.e. (Acts of Pilate) Jesus crucifixion story...

[Secret Alias]

In the past I have insulted you because I didn't feel you were able to deal with the complexities of historical research. The question at hand is the value of Irenaeus's Luke which goes beyond the 21 CE issue. The point is because of all these difficulties Irenaeus's gospel of Luke is of dubious historical value. Irenaeus and Luke introduce a date found in no other source and it is found late in the history of Christianity