Page 20 of 20

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:49 pm
by arnoldo
FYI, James Tabor has an interesting article examining whether the the picture below are the remains of Antigonus.
AbbaNailJaw.jpg
AbbaNailJaw.jpg (28.26 KiB) Viewed 7528 times
https://jamestabor.com/the-abba-cave-cr ... nean-king/

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:38 pm
by maryhelena
arnoldo wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:49 pm FYI, James Tabor has an interesting article examining whether the the picture below are the remains of Antigonus.
AbbaNailJaw.jpg
https://jamestabor.com/the-abba-cave-cr ... nean-king/
Lots of controversy over the Abba Cave....

I have a copy of the article mentioned by Tabor: Yoel Elitzur: The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal Regarding Abba's Identity.

A more recent look at the Abba Cave controversy is by Nadav Sharon in his book: Judea under Roman Domination: The First Generation of Statelessness and Its Legacy. Unfortunatly google books runs out before the end of the argument...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kII ... al&f=false

Joe Zias had a negative article on the Bible and Interpretation website......with Greg Douda putting in his viewpoint in a number of comments.....

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8008.shtml

So......interesting but still controversial...

=================

On the loss of Hasmonean sovereignty in Judea:

Nadav Sharon

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

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Posted: Thu May 10, 2018 11:46 am
by perseusomega9
Reading Eisler's John the Baptist and Messiah Jesus, while making a case for the Acts of Pilate to be real and Eusebius' response via doctoring Josephus he writes :
The Christian apologists could then do nothing else than
fabricate a chronological argument by converting-a trifling change
indeed !-the figure sixteen (IS) for the number of years of Pilate's
administration (Ant., xviii. 4. I, 9 89) into ten (I), and the corresponding
number A (four years) for his predecessor Gratus (Ant.,
xviii. 2. 2, $ 35) into IA (eleven years), thus making Pilate's administration
begin in A.D. 26 instead of in A.D. 19.

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 12:17 am
by maryhelena
perseusomega9 wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 11:46 am Reading Eisler's John the Baptist and Messiah Jesus, while making a case for the Acts of Pilate to be real and Eusebius' response via doctoring Josephus he writes :
The Christian apologists could then do nothing else than
fabricate a chronological argument by converting-a trifling change
indeed !-the figure sixteen (IS) for the number of years of Pilate's
administration (Ant., xviii. 4. I, 9 89) into ten (I), and the corresponding
number A (four years) for his predecessor Gratus (Ant.,
xviii. 2. 2, $ 35) into IA (eleven years), thus making Pilate's administration
begin in A.D. 26 instead of in A.D. 19.
For Christian apologists to tamper with Josephus years for Gratus and Pilate, as an attempt to overcome the problem of an early JC crucifixion in Acts of Pilate, would be an unnecessary thing to be doing. The gospel of Luke had already addressed that problem with it's 15th year of Tiberius story. i.e. Pilate, even if he was in office in Judah in 19/18 c.e. would still be in office 11 years later during the 15th year of Tiberius. (29/30 c.e.) Thus, the consensus dating for a JC crucifixion, around 30 c.e., is not compromised by an early dating for Pilate and an 11 year rule in Judah.

However, Josephus does not just give Pilate 11 years in Judea. Josephus has Pilate in Judea up until 36/37 c.e. Thereby giving Pilate around an 18 year rule and leaving Gratus just 4 years. (during the 23 year rule of Tiberius) Yes, some JC crucifixion arguments benefit from this late date for Pilate. In other words, it is not the Acts of Pilate and it's early crucifixion story that is being 'debunked' by the Gratus and Pilate dating - it is the gospel of Luke and it's possibility for a very late JC crucifixion that is being supported. It is gLuke and it's updating of the JC story that results in the Acts of Pilate story being sidelined - not any Christian apologist tampering with Josephus.

Yes, of course, the Pilate and JC story in gLuke needs 'official, or 'historical' support. It is Josephus that supplies that support not any Christian apologists hell-bent on discrediting an earlier version of the JC crucifixion story.

Apart from Josephus supporting gLuke with his ambiguous dating for Pilate (and consequently for Gratus) - what was in it for Josephus? What benefit would Josephus have gained by playing fast and loose with dating Pilate? Methinks it's time to turn the screws on Josephus and Pilate...well at least do some thinking.... ;)