Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »


In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

The answer is easy: while «no one has seen or can see» God, by contrast the his Son was seen officially by Pilate in the full light of History.

One wonders why Paul didn't mention Pilate to a similar goal, at least to make it clear that the deity has shown himself in the recent times.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:20 am One wonders why Paul didn't mention Pilate to a similar goal, at least to make it clear that the deity has shown himself in the recent times.
Certainly one does!

IMO the one passage that has bothered me the most, though, is this one (1 Cor 11):

"23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

I've never fully de-riddled how this would make sense in Paul, or fully convinced myself that it was interpolated.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Jax »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:26 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:20 am One wonders why Paul didn't mention Pilate to a similar goal, at least to make it clear that the deity has shown himself in the recent times.
Certainly one does!

IMO the one passage that has bothered me the most, though, is this one (1 Cor 11):

"23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

I've never fully de-riddled how this would make sense in Paul, or fully convinced myself that it was interpolated.
Hey Peter, OT but if you have a moment could you respond to this post? posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=101775

Thanks

Lane
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:26 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:20 am One wonders why Paul didn't mention Pilate to a similar goal, at least to make it clear that the deity has shown himself in the recent times.
Certainly one does!

IMO the one passage that has bothered me the most, though, is this one (1 Cor 11):

"23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

I've never fully de-riddled how this would make sense in Paul, or fully convinced myself that it was interpolated.
A reason to consider it an interpolation is the fact that the his function is to give order to the previous descriptions of the orgiastic «sacred» banquets.

At any case, I think that you are escaping the my point. The author of 1 Tim. mentioned Pilate to make it evident the fact that the son of God, at contrary of the his invisible (forever invisible) Father (mentioned just some row later), was shown in the eyes of a not-Christian and hence in the full light of history.

In the case of Paul, he doesn't show Jesus in connection with a historical personage (as Pilate) being able to work as independent witness of the appearance of Jesus, as a not-Christian. The fact that Paul says that Jesus appeared to him and to other Christians is not evidence of the his historicity, because we are questioning precisely the ability of the Christians to see really. Not with the eyes of the hallucinations, I mean.


Surely you don't think that Pilate hallucinated Jesus. :?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Peter Kirby »

Jax wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:54 pm Hey Peter, OT but if you have a moment could you respond to this post? posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=101775
What's the question? I feel as though the thread has already excavated my past thoughts better than I remember them myself. :D
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Jax »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:18 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:54 pm Hey Peter, OT but if you have a moment could you respond to this post? posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=101775
What's the question? I feel as though the thread has already excavated my past thoughts better than I remember them myself. :D
Just this snip from an article [P. Kirby once listed arguments for dating it (1 Clement) to Nero's time] from
III Proscription Against Christians Under Domitian

The epistle starts mentioning recent suddenly emerging troubles for the church in Rome. Conservative exegets interprete these as proscriptions by the current emperor. The earliest one recorded by the patrists were under Nero, then Domitian, Traian, and Hadrian. Usually that under Domitian is chosen, as it confirms most with the list of earliest popes. [P. Kirby once listed arguments for dating it to Nero's time]

We have to study the historical reports about proscriptions by Domitian, the main sources being Dio Cassius and Suetonius. Both know a relative of Domitian named Flavius Clemens who found no mercy by his cousin and was executed, while his wife Domitilla, also reported as a member of the imperial bloodline, was exiled.

Kuiper does not identify Flavius Clemens with pope Clement of Rome, but nonetheless holds that Flavius and his wife were Christian martyrs. The sources don't mention Christians explicitly, so it is to be reasoned why this should be implied.

Dio Cassius mentions 'atheotes' as the charge Domitian brought against his relative. Another charge often used was 'asebeia'. Nerva found no mercy for either of these. Suetonius says that Domitian's fatal verdict against his relative, out of mere rumour, was for 'contemptissimae inertiae'. We find, much later, Mark Aurel equating barbarian peoples with 'inertores'. Jews seem to have been called the worst of all barbarians, an obstacle to (Roman) civilisation and progress. This is especially seen from Tacitus who blames Jews for godless, asocial behaviour. So it is reasonable to conclude that Flavius Clemens was sentenced for being sympathetic with Jews and their diet, Ioudaikos Bios. Making him and many others executed under Domitian into christians is too much of a stretch, so already Dr. Hartman. Kuiper is sure that Domitilla was a christian, and uses this in order to show that Flavius Clemens also was one.

Alas, christian sources are silent about Domitilla as a wife of Clement. We here about a holy virgin Domitilla who was a niece of Clement. Eusebius calls Domitilla the daughter of Clement's sister. The style of Eysebius' statement makes in unlikely that he used a pagan source for that claim, plus there's none extant that could confirm his claim. That's too much pseudo-incidence to consider e.g. the existence of two Domitillas, one the niece of bishop Clemens, theo other the wife of Flavius Clemens. Evidently the notes about the illoyal relatives of Domitian just served after several generations as a backgroiund for christian 'martyristory' [term coined by discussion group member Jay Raskin].

Hegesip is the first, before some Bruttius or Brettius who gave an extensive list of christian martyrs under Domitian, to mention these proscriptions. But we see the parallel to the mass infanticide by Herod, out of fear of messianic oracles, which is such a haltless fiction that serious historical critics can't consider it. It's safe to assume that Hegesip tried to give historical reports about Domitian's brute policy a christian martyrist face. Hegesip already declared Judah the Galilean as Jesus' brother, making him uncle of various seditioneers (Menahem, ben Yair) against Roman occupation who still in Domitian's times may have caused trouble to the emperor.

Hegesip, Tertullian, Melitos, and Eusebius all depend on a tradition that declares Domitian as a bloody proscriber against christianity. Hartman notes that Domitiuan has been made intentionally into the summit of all perversions and evils, including proscription against christianity. Christian tradition distinguihed two types of evil emperors: the insaner type of Nero, and the coldblooded despotic type of Tiberius, and subsequently Domitian. Hartman also recognises the proscription under Nero as a lie, and its Tacitan witness as a mystification.

After mentioning all the stretches and speculations, vdBvE turns to listening to what the text of the epistle properly has to say.
http://www.egodeath.com/eysingaclementcorinth.htm

Just wonder what your thoughts are on this.

Thanks

Lane
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Peter Kirby »

Jax wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:12 am Just wonder what your thoughts are on this.
Re: 1 Clement, I still think the ideas in "A Study in 1 Clement" are sound.

The Christian text might have been written in the 90s, or possibly later.

The editor may have combined it with a Jewish text in the mid second century.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Why 1 Timothy 6:13 was moved to mention Pilate

Post by Jax »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:37 am
Jax wrote: Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:12 am Just wonder what your thoughts are on this.
Re: 1 Clement, I still think the ideas in "A Study in 1 Clement" are sound.

The Christian text might have been written in the 90s, or possibly later.

The editor may have combined it with a Jewish text in the mid second century.
OK. Cool. But let's not derail this thread any more and take it over to the other thread if you would like to continue.

Lane
Post Reply