Pilate was not the worse Roman governor over Judea.
Pilate did not provoke an insurrection from Jesus.
Sounds like no one twisted the fingers of gospel writers to make Pilate worse than what he was.
However, Jesus of Galilee stole Vespasian’s horses when Vespasian tried to make peace. Jesus of Galilee led the Battle of Galilee against Vespasian and the Roman soldiers defeated Jesus of Galilee’s followers on land and on water.
Robert
You keep claiming
1 no one is able to understand your views
2 that they are in error
3 you accuse others of what you yourself do in spades.
Express your views politely and stop trying to antagonize or censuring those who don’t agree with you.
Steefen
1) Robert: Of course I understand your view of the gospels as historical fiction.
People are able to understand my views.
2) I am an instructor and an author. Instructors must be able to recognize errors. Education is not about giving a check mark to every opinion, regardless of the content of the opinion. There is no denying I am an expert with an open mind to improve my expertise, if necessary with a second edition of my book.
3) What do I do in spades?
4) It is polite to let people know if they are winning me over or not. If they are, I can share the information with my readers and my students. Interacting with me is a high-quality, highly vetted experience. One reason is because there are so many contrarians, people who do not want to get to Yes.
It is polite to let people know I am processing what they are saying. I care if someone fails to impress me partly because they will fail to impress others. I would like to find other people always dependable in their way of thinking.
What works for forum discussions may not work for writers who are submitting their thoughts for professional reviewers, acquisition editors at major author agencies, newspaper, magazine, and book publishers, and documentary film producers. There is major seed money invested in my career as an influencer/nonfiction writer. I am held to a very high standard to keep me well-funded and well-respected. I command respect and I command funding. I’ve been well trained for servant leadership.
This is a good response, so let’s take it piece by piece.
Robert said
In my opinion the comparison to Philo and Josephus is overly vague and not really on point. Christian attempts to shift blame from Pilate were not motivated by a general reluctance to say anything negative about a Roman official, but to specifically exonerate Jesus by having Pilate proclaim him innocent. Philo and Josephus had no comparable evangelistic desire to demonstrate that the very founder of their religion, condemned to death by this specific Roman official for a crime against Rome, was actually proclaimed innocent by this Roman official presumably responsible for his crucifixion.
This explains some of the possible embellishments ascribed to Pilate (“What crime has he committed?”), but doesn’t really address whether or not Pilate sought execution in the first place. By using the phase “shift the blame,” one would expect that we have some hint at an ancient source that Pilate was somehow the catalyst for the execution. That we do not have.
Robert said
And Josephus’ criticism of Pilate actually functioned within a larger defense of Rome in that he goes on to describe how Pilate was rightly recalled by Rome because of his poor performance. It is also not at all certain that the testimonium of Josephus originally blamed the Jewish leaders for accusations against Jesus. Note this element is missing from some of the more likely authentic versions of the testimonium. And even if this element was original to Josephus, it is not necessarily independent of Christian reports of Jesus’ trial. Finally, the testimonium is explicit in reporting that Pilate condemned Jesus to crucifixion.
So here is the central problem with this argument. You seem to agree that, for both Philo and Josephus, their criticism of Pilate functioned as a defense of the Roman Empire. The problem here is that we have the Christian writers each effectively telling the same story about Pilate, decades apart from each other. John is still seeking to exonerate Pilate (and even more so) two generations after Mark had done the same. To portray this as some systematic narrative invention by Christians — either to shift blame away from Pilate, or to have the appearance of Roman imprimatur over Jesus’s innocence — those motivations don’t really work over generations of time with geographically segregated writing processes.
At bottom, the concept that gospel writers (or early Christians) invented this narrative about Pilate morally exonerating Jesus is at best a hypothesis; and, in that context, that hypothesis must be weighed against all the problems with it. So is the hypothesis possible? Sure. But it’s hard to see why it makes more sense, rather than less, given these problems.
Robert said
It is also not at all certain that the testimonium of Josephus originally blamed the Jewish leaders for accusations against Jesus. Note this element is missing from some of the more likely authentic versions of the testimonium. And even if this element was original to Josephus, it is not necessarily independent of Christian reports of Jesus’ trial. Finally, the testimonium is explicit in reporting that Pilate condemned Jesus to crucifixion.
It is not clear, and the Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan does not include it. But, based on the language of the phrase, most scholars think those words were in the original. Maybe they were not. But I think the better argument is that they were in the original and are not an interpolation.
And, yes, Josephus reports that Pilate condemned Jesus to death. Tacitus says the same. I don’t think any — other than Steefen — is disputing that. JAS’s point was that Jesus was executed at the urging of a mob (or something similar to a mob). Josephus coheres nicely with that.
Was Josephus using biased Christian sources for this information? I suppose anything is possible. But, when a hypothesis has to account for so many claimed biases, while simultaneously having no direct evidence in its support, I think it really needs to be re-examined and questioned.
Robert said
I do not think that John’s account is independent of the synoptic gospels (see ** you do not have permission to see this link ** for more discussion of this issue).
I 100% agree that the author of John was well-familiar with the synoptics. Indeed, I’m shocked that so many biblical scholars used to assume the opposite. But John has unique material in his account, and also purports to place its source (who may or may not be the “author”) at the scene as a witness. Of all the material from the synoptics which John redacts, the gist of his account of Pilate is notably similar to Mark’s.
Robert said
The extended period of time during which the evangelists would use Pilate to serve their evangelistic purposes is also not a good argument against this tendency. Indeed this tendency extended far beyond the period of the composition of the gospels. Pilate would later have forged letters attributed to him, letters to Caesar exonerating Jesus. Some would claim that Pilate himself became a Christian and even describe his martyrdom on account of his unsuccessful attempt to convert the emperor. In some churches, Pilate would eventually be canonized as a Saint with a designated feast day.
That certain Christians at certain points in time used Pilate to evangelistic purposes does not explain why each of Mark, Luke and John — again, each of whom has some unique material about Pilate and the “trial” — uniformly agree on the gist of Pilate’s ambivalence and the role of priestly class in Jerusalem.
Robert said
Since Mark’s account is the first extant version of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, it is impossible to say whether it was already part of a trend to shift responsibility away from Pilate, but note that 1 Cor 2,8 may be an earlier witness to such a tendency. There are indeed reasons to question Mark’s version of Jesus’ trial before Pilate.
Sure. There are reasons to question Mark’s account. But what is the best evidence that Jesus was not executed at the urging of the priestly class and Pilate was not relatively disinterested.
For what it’s worth ….
The version of the story told in the gospels, which effectively has Pilate agreeing to execute at the urging of the priests, but then mocking him and the Jews as being their “king,” adheres very nicely with the portrait of Pilate we see from Philo and Josephus. He has a difficult relationship with the Jewish population of Judea and Galilee, and with the high priests, and seems to hold them in very low regard.
I will also add here that the evidence for Jesus being executed as “an enemy of the state” is lacking from all of our sources, Christian or otherwise. That Pilate labeled him the “King of the Jews” — very likely historical — does not in any way render Jesus an enemy of the state of the Roman Empire.
vergari
It is not clear, and the Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan does not include it. But, based on the language of the phrase, most scholars think those words were in the original. Maybe they were not. But I think the better argument is that they were in the original and are not an interpolation.
And, yes, Josephus reports that Pilate condemned Jesus to death. Tacitus says the same. I don’t think any — other than Steefen — is disputing that.
Steefen
I googled: Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan
Result: Agapius son of Constantine (died 941/2), 10th century Arabic Christian writer and historian … his history contains a version of the Testimonium Flavianum that lacks many of the most clearly Christian elements of the text in surviving Josephus manuscripts.
= = =
You are correct, vergari, the Testimonium Flavianum is a narrative section unlike other historical narratives in Antiquities.
1) There is the Testimonium Flavianum passage, the first passage of the TF three-part set.
2) There is the Temple of Isis passage which follows it, the second passage of the TF three-part set.
3) There is the Jewish Affairs Passage, the third passage of the TF three-part set.
First, Josephus gives us a doctrinal narrative, not an historical narrative.
Then he says this doctrinal narrative is a sad calamity.
In the second passage, he criticizes the Christian doctrine by explaining the Christian doctrine is exploiting gullible believers in religion.
He even goes as far to make a connection between Jesus who sacrifices his life to be the savior of the world in the first passage to Decius Mus and his son Decius Mus who sacrificed their lives to save their military units or armies. Having established the motif of saviors sacrificing their lives to save others. He elevates the salvific scope of Decius Mus from army to world by changing Deius Mus to Decius Mundus (Decius/Savior of the world).
In the third passage, he again criticizes those who exploit gullible believers. First, he introduces a Paul figure, then he criticizes this Paul figure for exploiting gullible believers.
Jesus is Decius Mus who exploits religion. Paul is Decius Mus who exploits religion, therefore Paul is Decius Mus, who is Jesus, and the conclusion is Paul is Jesus. The Jesus doctrine is a sad calamity because Decius Mundus sadly exploited a gullible religious woman. He repeats this in passage three with Paul exploiting a gullible woman. The exploited woman’s name in passage 2 is Paulina. The exploited woman’s name in passage 3 is Fulvia. Their exploitation are each sad calamities, therefore the doctrinal narrative of the TF is the first sad calamity, as he specifically says, the second incident was “another sad calamity.”
Furthermore, this is certainly not de riguer historical narrative because there is an error in history in the second passage: Tiberius did not demolish the Temple of Isis because it was still standing after the time of Jesus (passage two: “about the same time [of Jesus in passage 1], another sad calamity…).
Steefen said
vergariIt is not clear, and the Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan does not include it. But, based on the language of the phrase, most scholars think those words were in the original. Maybe they were not. But I think the better argument is that they were in the original and are not an interpolation.
And, yes, Josephus reports that Pilate condemned Jesus to death. Tacitus says the same. I don’t think any — other than Steefen — is disputing that.
Steefen
I googled: Agapios’ Kitab al-‘Unwan
Result: Agapius son of Constantine (died 941/2), 10th century Arabic Christian writer and historian … his history contains a version of the Testimonium Flavianum that lacks many of the most clearly Christian elements of the text in surviving Josephus manuscripts.
= = =
You are correct, vergari, the Testimonium Flavianum is a narrative section unlike other historical narratives in Antiquities.
1) There is the Testimonium Flavianum passage, the first passage of the TF three-part set.
2) There is the Temple of Isis passage which follows it, the second passage of the TF three-part set.
3) There is the Jewish Affairs Passage, the third passage of the TF three-part set.
First, Josephus gives us a doctrinal narrative, not an historical narrative.
Then he says this doctrinal narrative is a sad calamity.
In the second passage, he criticizes the Christian doctrine by explaining the Christian doctrine is exploiting gullible believers in religion.
He even goes as far to make a connection between Jesus who sacrifices his life to be the savior of the world in the first passage to Decius Mus and his son Decius Mus who sacrificed their lives to save their military units or armies. Having established the motif of saviors sacrificing their lives to save others. He elevates the salvific scope of Decius Mus from army to world by changing Deius Mus to Decius Mundus (Decius/Savior of the world).
In the third passage, he again criticizes those who exploit gullible believers. First, he introduces a Paul figure, then he criticizes this Paul figure for exploiting gullible believers.
Jesus is Decius Mus who exploits religion. Paul is Decius Mus who exploits religion, therefore Paul is Decius Mus, who is Jesus, and the conclusion is Paul is Jesus. The Jesus doctrine is a sad calamity because Decius Mundus sadly exploited a gullible religious woman. He repeats this in passage three with Paul exploiting a gullible woman. The exploited woman’s name in passage 2 is Paulina. The exploited woman’s name in passage 3 is Fulvia. Their exploitation are each sad calamities, therefore the doctrinal narrative of the TF is the first sad calamity, as he specifically says, the second incident was “another sad calamity.”
Furthermore, this is certainly not de riguer historical narrative because there is an error in history in the second passage: Tiberius did not demolish the Temple of Isis because it was still standing after the time of Jesus (passage two: “about the same time [of Jesus in passage 1], another sad calamity…).
This sounds very interesting.
I sincerely wish I knew what you were talking about.
vergari
This sounds very interesting.
I sincerely wish I knew what you were talking about.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I will attempt to help you know what I am talking about.
There is no doubt you do know the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) passage in Antiquities.
It appears after a passage about Pontius Pilate.
Now, read a bit further, after the TF. There is what can be called the Temple of Isis passage, then, after that, there is what can be called the Jewish Affairs passage.
When you read the Temple of Isis passage, ask was Decius a historical person?
Your question will bring up two men named Decius Mus.
Then ask, Josephus is referring to the father and son named Decius Mus, why did he change the last name to Mundus?
Answer: Mundus is a reference to the world.
Why did Decius Mus pass himself off as Anubis? Answer: to take advantage of the gullible woman.
What did Anubis mean to the worshipers at the Temple of Isis? Answer: Anubis was the Son of God (Osiris).
Jesus was the Son of God.
So, is this second sad calamity related to the TF which is a sad calamity? The answer is yes.
Jesus is the Son of God. As Decius Mus has dressed himself up as the Son of God …
Originally, Anubis was said to be the son of Ra and Hesat. However, in the Middle Kingdom a new god of the dead became incredibly popular, named Osiris. In this time, Anubis was re-envisioned as the son of Osiris.
Source: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
from a result to the googled question: Who was the father of Anubis
As Decius Mus has dressed himself up as the Son of God, Anubis, someone has dressed himself up as the Son of God, Jesus.
Now, read the third passage, the Jewish Affairs passage.
The Jewish Affairs Passage, The Third Passage of the Testimonium Flavianum Three-Part Set
There was a man who was a Jew but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. Living at Rome, he professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses.
This is a clear reference to Paul. Here it is:
When we reached Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly.
The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present.
He greeted them, then proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry.
They praised God when they heard it but said to him, “Brother, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews, and they are all zealous observers of the law.
They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to
abandon Moses …
… [T]he Jews from the province of Asia noticed him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd, and laid hands on him,
shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us. This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and, what is more, he has even brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this sacred place.”
The whole city was in turmoil with people rushing together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the gates were closed.
While they were trying to kill him, a report reached the cohort commander that all Jerusalem
was rioting.
Three days after his arrival in the province, [Porcius Festus, procurator: 60-62] went up from
Caesarea to Jerusalem
where the chief priests and Jewish leaders presented him their formal charges against Paul.
They asked him
as a favor to have him sent to Jerusalem, for they were plotting to kill him
along the way.
Festus replied that Paul was being held in custody in Caesarea and that he himself would be
returning there shortly.
He said, “Let your authorities come down with me, and if this man has done something improper, let them accuse him.”
[Paul had a hearing. Paul appealed to Caesar. Paul went to Rome.]
When [Paul] entered Rome, [he] was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier
who was guarding him.
Three days later, he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had gathered, he said to them, “My brothers, although I had done nothing against our people or our ancestral customers, I was handed over to the Romans as a prisoner from Jerusalem.
After trying my case, the Romans wanted to release me because they found nothing against me deserving the death penalty.
But when the Jews objected, I was obliged to appeal to Caesar, even though I had no accusation to make against my own nation.
“… But we should like to hear you present your views…”
So, they arranged a day with Paul and came to his lodgings in great numbers. From early morning until evening, he expounded his position to them, bearing witness to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from the law of Moses…
Acts 21: 17-21, 27-28, 30-31; 25: 1-5; 28: 16-19, 22-23
Go back to The Jewish Affairs Passage
Living at Rome, he professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses.
He procured three other men, entirely of the same character with himself to be his partners.
These four men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one who had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the Temple at Jerusalem. When the men had gotten the purple and gold, they employed them for their own uses and spent the money themselves (on which account it was that they at first required it of her).
Steefen
Did Paul ask people who had embraced the Jewish religion (or Judaism Lite, Judaism without circumcision) ask for money or actually collect money from people outside of Jerusalem and send it to Jerusalem?
The answer is, Yes.
Written by leading scholars, the Focus On essays are designed to stimulate thought and to explore in depth topics of interest in the field of Biblical studies. New essays on specific themes, with links to related content within the site for further reading, are published throughout the year. All visitors to Oxford Biblical Studies Online can access these essays, but related content links in Previous Features are available to subscribers only. Please visit the full collection of Focus On essays.
Paul’s Collection for the Poor in the Church at Jerusalem
Paul B. Duff
The George Washington University
Surprisingly, the practice of collecting money at Christian ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Thus, due to the paucity of evidence provided by the New Testament, a detailed picture of the collection is beyond our grasp.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So, in Josephus’ third passage, the nobility of being devout to religion is shown to be at risk of being seen as being gullible such that men of Paul’s character can take advantage of religious people.
Paul takes advantage of the religious.
Decius Mundus (Savior of the World and Son of God) takes advantage of the religious.
And so, the Testimonium Flavianum’s first passage is explained by Josephus.
= = =
A first century Jewish historian is saying, Jesus as a historical person who lived in the late 20s/early 30s, crucified by Pilate, is part of a large scheme by Paul.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)