Why Pilate?

[Malachi151]

Assuming that Jesus was a myth, and Mark crafted the story of his gospel, why is Pilate cast in the story?

Was Pilate a part of oral tradition by the time already, or was this a Markian invention?

If Pilate was already part of oral tradition, then why?

[gstafleu]

Perhaps that question comes down to: why at that time and place. We know why the place, since the Jesus story is a Jewish offshoot. So, if we know why at that time we'll know why Pilate, because that's who was governor.

Gerard

[Toto]

Pilate was a known character from Philo and Josephus. If "Mark" was working from a distance in time and space and using literary sources, Pilate would work as a character.

[Malachi151]

Pilate was a known character from Philo and Josephus. If "Mark" was working from a distance in time and space and using literary sources, Pilate would work as a character.

This is my thought as well, except that Josephus' writings on Pilate that we know of come after the generally agreed upon date of Mark, and we can't be sure that Mark read Philo, though I think that he did. So, these are maybes.

But I think that the time and place issue brought up by gstafleu makes sense.

My view is that Mark was written shortly after the destruction in 70, and was in fact prompted by that event. So the question then becomes of time, or perhaps something else?

Now I ask, if as I suspect, Mark is really an allegory ABOUT the destruction of Judea, did Pilate set anything in motion that led ultimately to the conflict in 64-66 that led to the destruction of Judea?

[Doug Shaver]

Assuming that Jesus was a myth, and Mark crafted the story of his gospel, why is Pilate cast in the story?
For the same reason that if you were telling a story about something happening 50 years ago and your story had a role for the president of the United States, you would cast Eisenhower in your story.

[Malachi151]

Then we are back to what gstafleu said, why is the story set in this time?

[gstafleu]

Then we are back to what gstafleu said, why is the story set in this time?
It has to be before 70, so we have a terminus ante quem (always wanted to use that term :)). But the TAQ is a bit far away.

It would also be nice to have a terminus post quem. Does Josephus give any clues as to when the Jewish revolt started to pick up steam? Were there any precipitating events? Maybe Herod (the one who died in -4) was an extra nasty character who really started things rolling?

Gerard

[Solo]

Then we are back to what gstafleu said, why is the story set in this time?

To explain the emergence of the "Jesus" movement shortly afterwards ? :rolleyes:

Jiri

[Tigers!]

Then we are back to what gstafleu said, why is the story set in this time?

Just a wild guess. Because that's when it occured?

[Malachi151]

It has to be before 70, so we have a terminus ante quem (always wanted to use that term :)). But the TAQ is a bit far away.

It would also be nice to have a terminus post quem. Does Josephus give any clues as to when the Jewish revolt started to pick up steam? Were there any precipitating events? Maybe Herod (the one who died in -4) was an extra nasty character who really started things rolling?

Gerard

Well, the Jewish revolt that I know of was in 63, but perhaps more occurred earlier, I just know know. It seems from Philo that the Jews and Pilate didn't get along well. There is also the business of John the Baptist. They both lived during the same time, so dependence on either one of them meant that the other had to be in the story, so perhaps Pilate is in the story just because JtB had to be in the story, putting Pilate in by necessity.

Mark doesn't say anything about Jesus' birth, so I doubt that 4 BCE had anything to do with anything.

I would say its probably because he wanted to include JtB, which necessitated Pilate.

[Doug Shaver]

Then we are back to what gstafleu said, why is the story set in this time?
On that point, I have no opinion that I would try to defend in a serious debate. My guess is that the stories on which Mark based his tale came from a community that had some connection with John the Baptist, and so the central character had to have a connection with him, which was most easily done by making Jesus a contemporary of John.

[gstafleu]

I would say its probably because he wanted to include JtB, which necessitated Pilate.
The JtB idea, also put forth by Doug, seems like a good one. It also ties in with something Jay Raskin says in his book, to wit that good old Eusebius changed scenes in the gospel (I forget which Gospel, I don't have the book here) that were originally assigned to Jtb so that they now are assigned to Jesus.

Gerard

[Didymus]

I would say its probably because he wanted to include JtB, which necessitated Pilate.

The JtB involvement seems very plausible. But why couldn't the crucifixion have been said to occur under one of Pilate's successors? Surely Pilate's reputation as a temporizer didn't necessitate the 33 CE dating.

One theory: If it was placed under Pilate, any eyewitnesses would have been either dead or very old in 70, when Mark was writing his gospel in the Diaspora. The long interval and the geographical distance would have made it hard for Mark and his readers to verify the story. But if it had happened more recently, there would have been an impetus to seek out and interview living eyewitnesses.

Of course, that notion assumes that Mark, or those he heard, were involved in a deliberate deception. Could there be other, better, reasons for ca 33?

For example, is there any reason why there couldn't have been an actual, notorious crucifixion in that year?

Didymus

[Malachi151]

The JtB involvement seems very plausible. But why couldn't the crucifixion have been said to occur under one of Pilate's successors? Surely Pilate's reputation as a temporizer didn't necessitate the 33 CE dating.

One theory: If it was placed under Pilate, any eyewitnesses would have been either dead or very old in 70, when Mark was writing his gospel in the Diaspora. The long interval and the geographical distance would have made it hard for Mark and his readers to verify the story. But if it had happened more recently, there would have been an impetus to seek out and interview living eyewitnesses.

Of course, that notion assumes that Mark, or those he heard, were involved in a deliberate deception. Could there be other, better, reasons for ca 33?

For example, is there any reason why there couldn't have been an actual, notorious crucifixion in that year?

Didymus

I think that this makes sense too, and I had thought of that earlier as well, but a little differently.

I think that "Mark" was writing allegory, and thus choosing someone who was dead and gone made more sense, otherwise it would be a little too close to current events and stand out as not quite making sense.

"Mark" copied almost everything he wrote from the Hebrew Bible, almost everything Jesus says, what he does, the details of every scene, etc., comes from the Hebrew Bible, so he was obviously aware of the fact that he was building the story this way. He couldn't think he was writing history by copying from old books.

But yeah, I think that setting the story outside the time of current living people was a major part of it, so he wanted to set it beyond living memory, in a time from which there were no real survivors to speak of, and also as close as possible to present day within that limitation, so as to be able to connect the story of Jesus to the destruction of Judea.

About 50 years would be that sweet spot in those days.

[jakejonesiv]

The evagelists got Pilate from the same place they got most of their psuedo historical characters and events: Josephus. It is based on a garbled account of Antiquities 18:4. Specifically, the Samaritans sending a bad report of Pilate to Rome is replicated in the gospel threat of the Jews to tattle Pilate out (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20John%2019:12-16) if he didn't crucify Jesus.


Of course, Antiquities 18:3 didn't come into existence until much later. :eek:

Jake Jones IV

[Malachi151]

....

I have considered this, but I see a few problems. #1 I don't think Mark was written that late. #2 wouldn't Mark's treatment of Herod and JtB more in line with what Josephus wrote?

[Chris Weimer]

It has to be before 70, so we have a terminus ante quem (always wanted to use that term :)). But the TAQ is a bit far away.

Abbreviating terminus ante quem can get it confused with terminus a quo or terminus ad quem...

[jakejonesiv]

I have considered this, but I see a few problems. #1 I don't think Mark was written that late. #2 wouldn't Mark's treatment of Herod and JtB more in line with what Josephus wrote?

I am pleasantly suprised that you have considered it!

According to Zindler, JBAP in Josephus is an interpolation also.

I have a qusetion for you. What in GMark recommends a first century date to you?

Jake Jones IV

[Malachi151]

I am pleasantly suprised that you have considered it!

According to Zindler, JBAP in Josephus is an interpolation also.

I have a qusetion for you. What in GMark recommends a first century date to you?

Jake Jones IV

Well, a few things. 1) What I believe is the relevance to the destruction of 70. 2) The fact that Matthew and Luke were copied from it in some fashion, and we seem to have a final date of Luke of no later than mid/early 2nd century, so there has to be time to be transmitted and copied and morphed into two new gospels, etc. 3) As I said, Mark doesn't seem, from what I know, to be in line with Josephus.

I'd like to hear more of an argument as to why Mark may have read Josephus.

[Didymus]

I think that "Mark" was writing allegory...

I agree, as far as the story lines are concerned. But he also used actual history as context for those stories - a bit distorted perhaps, but certainly "fact-based." There was a King Herod, there was a John the Baptist, there was a Pilate, a Caiphas, etc.

"Mark" copied almost everything he wrote from the Hebrew Bible, almost everything Jesus says, what he does, the details of every scene, etc., comes from the Hebrew Bible, so he was obviously aware of the fact that he was building the story this way. He couldn't think he was writing history by copying from old books.

The stories about Jesus were, as you say, allegorical, i.e., the story lines were in most cases derived from the Old Testament and were intended to illuminate the messianic theology that became Christianity. But many of the details, as well as the context and major historical figures, weren't allegorical or copied from old books; they were pure 1st century Judea.

Mark didn't omit real historical events entirely; the Temple really was destroyed by the Romans, Pilate really was an asshole, and Jewish troublemakers really were crucified. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to rule out the possibility that the fictional crucifixion of Jesus was based on an actual crucifixion that took place during Pilate's administration. That's probably the most parsimonious explanation one can imagine for Mark's decision to place it in that period.

Seems like JtB's ministry and (somebody's) crucifixion could be historical bookends to Mark's allegorical story of Jesus' earthly ministry.

Didymus

[jakejonesiv]

Well, a few things. 1) What I believe is the relevance to the destruction of 70. 2) The fact that Matthew and Luke were copied from it in some fashion, and we seem to have a final date of Luke of no later than mid/early 2nd century, so there has to be time to be transmitted and copied and morphed into two new gospels, etc. 3) As I said, Mark doesn't seem, from what I know, to be in line with Josephus.

I'd like to hear more of an argument as to why Mark may have read Josephus.

I would recommend the possibility that Mark 13, the Little Apocalypse, is derived from the Bar Kotchba rebellion, about 135 CE.

[Malachi151]

I would recommend the possibility that Mark 13, the Little Apocalypse, is derived from the Bar Kotchba rebellion, about 135 CE.

That's a very hard sell, especially when people had already cited this gospel prior to that date, and it seems very likely that Matthew and Luke were already written by this time.

[yalla]

That's a very hard sell, especially when people had already cited this gospel prior to that date, and it seems very likely that Matthew and Luke were already written by this time.

Well I would be reluctant to put "Mark" as post 135ce but I'm not totally rejecting the idea.
The problem is that the people who are supposed to have cited the gospels prior to that date are rather hard to definitively date.
With almost any of the alleged chronology of early Christian writings there is a lot of margins for debate and the traditional patristic sources are not as solid as they appear to be at first glance.
More than once I have tried to pin down a date [via the internet and books]for someone eg Papias, Ignatius, Valentinus and have found the following:
1. A lot of sources just repeat other sources sometimes near verbatim.
2.On further investigation I found a variety of dates for a particular person.
Irenaeus' date can vary by decades and he is fairly late and fairly well
documented.
3.Most early writers are nebulous, very little is known about them at all.
Sometimes all that is supposed to be known can be traced to a single source which is itself doubtful.
The whole biography of Marcion [from Sinope, had lots of money etc] can apparently be traced to a single later hostile source but is endlessly cited as if solid fact.
4. One nebulous date is related to another nebulous date to date either of the persons involved or a third.
spin dates Ignatius to c160, he is not alone in that.
Some date him "never" as in he is a forgery.

There is no certainty. Although there may be the appearance of such.
So a healthy scepticism seems to be required.
cheers
yalla

[Malachi151]

Yes, this is true. I wonder about this. Why are they so damned hard to date, I mean, I know why they are, but standard Greek and Roman and Egyptian works from this period are not so hard to date, they give information that makes them dateable, but these Christian works are so vague....

My other problem with these late dates, however, has to do with the fact that Pilate and JtB are even used. Why pick these people for the story if you are trying to write a relevant story in 135-150? These people would have been meaningless to people of that time, yet still meaningful to people in 70.

[yalla]

Yes, this is true. I wonder about this. Why are they so damned hard to date, I mean, I know why they are, but standard Greek and Roman and Egyptian works from this period are not so hard to date, they give information that makes them dateable, but these Christian works are so vague....

My other problem with these late dates, however, has to do with the fact that Pilate and JtB are even used. Why pick these people for the story if you are trying to write a relevant story in 135-150? These people would have been meaningless to people of that time, yet still meaningful to people in 70.

Well 71ce would seem to me to be the earliest possible date for the first of the gospels. [Probably after. Maybe well after. I favour c100plus for g''Mark".]
So after that would be even less meaningful to people.
And maybe that is the attraction.
If you are writing creatively shall we say in the late 1c or even later having no contemporaries around to question your facts [particularly if there have been one or two wars intervening] might be a considerable advantage might it not?

[MadPhatCat]

Why Pilate?

Heard it was good for the core muscles.

[Doug Shaver]

Of course, that notion assumes that Mark, or those he heard, were involved in a deliberate deception.
Not necessarily, I think. If you're writing fiction, you're not trying to deceive anyone, but you do still want to help your readers suspend their disbelief. To that end, Mark would have wanted to minimize conflicts between what he said happened and what his readers knew happened.

[yalla]

I just had a thought.
I don't have many and haven't worked through it carefully so be nice please.

We know that Josephus was in 2 critical places for the saga we are considering, Jerusalem/Judea and then Rome, from 70 to about 100ce.
And that he was very interested in the events of Judea, hence "War" and "Antiquities".
And that he had pretty good literary and political contacts.
So if a literary work was published that directly pertains to his field of interest such as the preliminaries to the Roman Judean War, the decades immediately preceding, which includes accounts of events and characters [Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, the Pharisees, perhaps J the Baptist etc] involved in his own history then he would have sat up and taken some notice of it. Used it as a source maybe.
Presuming he was aware of it, presuming it was circulated in such a manner that he was likely to hear of it etc..
And its' ["Mark's"] latinisms etc seem to suggest to many that it was circulating in the Roman sphere for a gentile/Roman audience at least in part.

But he does'nt refer to it at all [TF obviously excluded].
[OK argument from silence I know but I reckon he could be expected to have known these works ...maybe..?]

Does anyone believe Josephus knew g"Mark", or its later editions such as g"Matthew", conventionally placed in the lifetime of Josephus?

Why not?

OK "Mark" is said to have been a low profile work, but not so "Matthew".
And even "Luke", according to those who like to claim companion of Paul etc.

I'm suggesting that there is a certain degree of posssibility that Josephus could have been expected to be familiar with the early gospels, not necessarily JC, but at least have been aware that in certain circles 1 or 2 or 3 accounts of a fair length and alleged impact were making the rounds in the same literary circles more or less in which he was moving.
After all there has been stated that there is a fair degree of crossover between the Jewish and Christian groups at this time.
Its not like its a closed shop or a sphere that is foreign to him.

What do you think?
Does this, if it carries any weight, suggest a late date for the gospels, ie a date after the death of Josephus, late 1c wasn't it?
"Mark" post dating the death of Josephus roughly? Circa 100ce?

Be gentle.
cheers
yalla

[Malachi151]

Good points yalla, something to consider.

[Toto]

yalla - Harold Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth argues that Josephus did not know any of the gospels. In his Contra Apion, Josephus lists and rebuts all of the anti-Jewish propaganda of his day, and he does not show any knowledge of the gospels, which all contain slurs agains "the Jews."

[jgibson000]

yalla - Harold Leidner in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth argues that Josephus did not know any of the gospels. In his Contra Apion, Josephus lists and rebuts all of the anti-Jewish propaganda of his day, and he does not show any knowledge of the gospels, which all contain slurs agains "the Jews."

He doesn't show any knowledge of the "anti Jewish" polemic in the DSS either. Should we then conclude from this that the DSS were written after Josephus died?

And are the "slurs" in the NT really "anti Jewish/anti-semitic", let alone against "the Jews"? Or are they more limited in scope vis a vis their targets, not to mention of cut from the same cloth as are the charges of gross "Jewish" unfaithfulness and that we see in, say, Jeremiah or Amos or in the intramural volleys of vitriol thrown by Jewish groups and proto Rabbinic schools against other Jewish groups and proto Rabbinic schools in the first century?

If this is the best that Leidner can offer to prove his claim, both his logic and his scholarship is very sloppy.

JG

[Toto]

He doesn't show any knowledge of the "anti Jewish" polemic in the DSS either. Should we then conclude from this that the DSS were written after Josephus died?

I was not aware of anti-Jewish polemic in the DSS. Would you like to provide a reference? Certainly Josephus did not know something called the "Dead Sea Scrolls."

And are the "slurs" in the NT really "anti Jewish/anti-semitic", let alone against "the Jews"? Or are they more limited in scope vis a vis their targets, not to mention of cut from the same cloth as are the charges of gross "Jewish" unfaithfulness and that we see in, say, Jeremiah or Amos or in the intramural volleys of vitriol thrown by Jewish groups and proto Rabbinic schools against other Jewish groups and proto Rabbinic schools in the first century?

I know that there are well-meaning people who try to read the NT in a way that reinterprets the anti-Jewish passages as merely accusations of Jewish unfaithfulness to their own tradition, or some such. I would not try to discourage that interpretation in anyone who feels the need to honor the gospels. But you have to admit that a lot of Christians and others have read the gospels as anti-Semitic, and it is quite easy to find passages such as 1Thess 2,14-16

If this is the best that Leidner can offer to prove his claim, both his logic and his scholarship is very sloppy.

JG

If you are going to attack Leidner, please read him in the original, rather than relying on my brief and possibly incomplete summary.

(Previous threads on Leider here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=47540) and some others.

[yalla]

He doesn't show any knowledge of the "anti Jewish" polemic in the DSS either. Should we then conclude from this that the DSS were written after Josephus died?


JG

OK thank you for the responses, Toto and JG.
Obviously I would not try to make a case for Josephus being written before the DSS.

But with the gospels we have been told, per conventional wisdom, 3 things:
1. They were written before the death of Josephus in the late 90s, 98ce I believe [?] and thus it is theoretically possible for him to have read or heard of them second hand at least. Some date all of the Pauline material, gospels and Acts prior to Josephus' death.
Possible.

2. That Christians were active in various places, presumably some of them at least with access to one or more of those gospels, throughout the empire.

Including Rome where, according to Paul's Romans and alleged 1 "Clement" epistle, gospel material was known, at least in some degree. "Clement" being the 3rd or 4th or something similar in the line of prominent Roman Christians and operating as a Christian and writing [whoever wrote the epistle] presumably from Rome within [just] the lifetime of Josephus.

That is, contemporary to Josephus living and writing in the same place with probably excellent access, by virtue of his position as an imperial protege, to whatever Christian material and information was around.

3. That the final split between Christianity and Judaism had yet to occur, usually dated to the latter part of the 1c or even later, so that as a Jew Josephus was still possibly/probably in contact with those circles that included people familiar with or even using one or more of the gospels if they existed as per conventional dating.

Can he be expected, by virtue of proximity and interest, to be aware of the gospels materials? As literary works. As rumour.
After all its only a few years since Paul was allegedly in Rome, Nero burnt the Christians, "Chrestus'' the riotous Jew operated a few decades prior, there is reputed to be a thriving Christian community, persecution is yet to occur, some penetration of the imperial household by Christians has been alleged and there is possibly/probably still confusion between the categories of Christian and Jew.
It seems to me to be likely that Josephus would be intersted in and have the resources to know about the gospels if they were circulating as claimed.
[I'm presuming multiple copies are around, enough copies of "Mark" for both "Matthew" and "Luke" to independently come in contact with it. And that's ignoring alleged Q itself in more than 1 version so as to be independently available to both the later gospel writers and even the first according to some. Whatever form, if any, it is in.]
In fact I would expect anything that was related to Judea and Judaism, including a new religion emanating from Jerusalem, to be referred to Josephus as the "go to" resident Jewish expert for things Jewish as far as the Roman authorities, with their assorted ears to the ground, were concerned. Dinner table conversation ["Hey Joe who are these Christ worshippers your Jews are on about?"]
Just a series of thoughts.
cheers
yalla

[Malachi151]

All good points, but what if Christianity didn't start in Judea, but rather in Rome?

[yalla]

All good points, but what if Christianity didn't start in Judea, but rather in Rome?

All the more likely Josephus knew about it?

Why do you suggest Rome?

[jgibson000]

I was not aware of anti-Jewish polemic in the DSS. Would you like to provide a reference?

How much of the DSS have you actually read?

As to a reference, there's Pesher Nahum (4QpNah = 4Q169), not to mention the War Scroll.

Then from the Pharisaic perspective, how about Psalms of Solomon?

Certainly Josephus did not know something called the "Dead Sea Scrolls."

Nor does he know the works of Philo. So I guess Philo also wrote after Josephus died.

I know that there are well-meaning people who try to read the NT in a way that reinterprets the anti-Jewish passages as merely accusations of Jewish unfaithfulness to their own tradition, or some such. I would not try to discourage that interpretation in anyone who feels the need to honor the gospels.

How kind of you. But are you actually claiming that the only reason that scholars who maintain that the Christian "slurs" against Jews that you claim can be found in the NT are part of traditional Jewish intramural polemic, is not because they have been persuaded by evidence, but because that they feel bound to "honour" the gospels? Can you provide some citations of authors who discuss the allegedly anti-semitic passages in the Gospels that might indicate your claim has some merit?

And may I ask about how much work you have done in Intertestamental and Rabbinic literature?

But you have to admit that a lot of Christians and others have read the gospels as anti-Semitic,

And this proves what? A lot of people have read Revelation as a countdown tract. Argumentum ad populum.

and it is quite easy to find passages such as 1Thess 2,14-16

Haven't you argued that that passage is an interpolation? Are you now saying that it was an original part of 1 Thess?

In any case, is it worse than anything that is in Pesher Nahum or the War Scroll?

And do these passages that you refer to (but do not name) employ the same sort of anti-Jewish language or level the same charges against Jews that we find in Greco-Roman (Gentile) polemics/propaganda against Jews and Judaism (For these, see Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism by Menahem Stern)?

I'd be grateful to see your comparative analysis.

JG

[yalla]

Networks.
Sometimes it's not what you know but who you know.

As an offshoot of my thought[s] about Josephus and the gospels I wondered if he, Josephus, knew of Philo.
Seems he did.

From Early Jewish Writings website

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

Citing James C VanderKam:
"Josephus considered him prominent in every way and skilled in philosophy." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 138)"

Which got me on to a very interesting fellow.

Tiberius Julius Alexander [junior].
- son of the governor of the Alexandrian Jews who was also guardian of Antonia the mother of Claudius who was the bloke who expelled the Roman Jews who were making pests of themselves "at the instigation of Chrestus".
-nephew of Philo.
-father-in-law of Herod Agrippa the bloke who allegedly plays a role in gospel
stories.
-brother to the governor of the Alex. Jews, successor to their dad.
Procurator of Judea 46-48ce, according to Josephus, at the time Paul was allegedly active in Jerusalem.
Prefect of Egypt, appointed by Nero, the bloke who allegedly burned the Christians.
Crucifier of 3 of the mates of Josephus, 2 of whom died but one did not after Josephus requested TJA they be taken down. [I'm not certain about this titbit.]
General of the Roman army at the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Now that is particularly interesting.
Cos, according to Josephus, Josephus was there and highly involved as well and thus it would seem to be almost certain that he knew TJA well. [Plus the crucifixion story]
So Josephus probably knew someone fairly closely who was privy, perhaps, possibly, maybe, to information regarding:
Pilate, one of his predecessors
Chrestus, via his dad and Antonia
Nero burning Christians
Whatever herod knew re John the Baptist, Paul, Jesus et al.
What was going on in Judea [and Alexandria]. Such as the killing of Stephen, the killing of James, whatever Paul was doing and so on.

A good source of information as to those places were Christians were active.
Known to Josephus.
I reckon this strengthen the possibility that Josephus could have been aware of Christianity and the gospels if these were around as they are reputed to have been.
I'd better check that Josephus knew of Philo hey.
cheers
yalla

[yalla]

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html

"But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Caius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Caius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."
JA 18.8

[Toto]

How much of the DSS have you actually read?

As to a reference, there's Pesher Nahum (4QpNah = 4Q169), not to mention the War Scroll.

Then from the Pharisaic perspective, how about Psalms of Solomon?

I don't claim your level of expertise. Perhaps you could point to some specific passage that denigrates the Jews, all Jews, or claims that they are the children of Satan?

Nor does he know the works of Philo. So I guess Philo also wrote after Josephus died.

Apprently Josephus does mention Philo. From Peter Kirby's site (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html)James C. VanderKam writes: "Although many of Philo's writings have survived, little is konwn about his life. We do not even know when he was born or when he died. The few facts about his life come from occasional hints in his own books and a small number of external references (e.g., Josephus mentions him).

How kind of you. But are you actually claiming that the only reason that scholars who maintain that the Christian "slurs" against Jews that you claim can be found in the NT are part of traditional Jewish intramural polemic, is not because they have been persuaded by evidence, but because that they feel bound to "honour" the gospels? Can you provide some citations of authors who discuss the allegedly anti-semitic passages in the Gospels that might indicate your claim has some merit?

How about Ludemann, The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible? I could go on, but that would get off topic for this thread.

And may I ask about how much work you have done in Intertestamental and Rabbinic literature?

As you have been told, this forum includes rank amateurs such as myself, who hope to learn from people like you.

And this proves what? A lot of people have read Revelation as a countdown tract. Argumentum ad populum.

There is language in the NT that looks anti-Semitic. There are centuries of Christian church history in which the literate chuch scholars used those passages as the basis of anti-Semitic teaching. Now in the post-Halocaust era there are Christians who want Jews to like them, and want to reinterpret those passages as something else. I wish them well.

Haven't you argued that that passage is an interpolation? Are you now saying that it was an original part of 1 Thess?

It was probably an interpolation, but it was a very early interpolation made by Christians, and accepted by the early Christian church.

In any case, is it worse than anything that is in Pesher Nahum or the War Scroll?

Mind coming up with an example?

And do these passages that you refer to (but do not name) employ the same sort of anti-Jewish language or level the same charges against Jews that we find in Greco-Roman (Gentile) polemics/propaganda against Jews and Judaism (For these, see Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism by Menahem Stern)?

I'd be grateful to see your comparative analysis.

JG

Jeffrey: if you want to start a new thread on this topic, please be my guest. I think that there are some prior threads on this topic. But I would appreciate it if you would state your thesis and supply some discussion instead of just challenging everything others write.

[jgibson000]

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html

"But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Caius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Caius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."
JA 18.8

Please note that my claim was not that Josephus had no knowledge of Philo. My claim was that Josephus did not know Philo's writings.

Your quote from Antiquities is hardly evidence against my claim.

At best, if this passage is not an interpolation, all that can legitimately be concluded from it is

(1) that Josephus knew of Philo, not his works, since there's no mention of Philo here as a writer; and

(2) since Philo is not mentioned in War, even though we might expect him and his embassy to Caligula to have been, given that Josephus speaks in the War of the events that he notes in the Antiquities caused and followed upon the embassy, Josephus only came to know of Philo late in his (Josephus') life.

Indeed, if this passage proves anything, it's just the opposite of what you (apparently) think it does.

Consider this:

Josephus tells us that the number of Jewish ambassadors from Alexandria to Caligula was three, with Philo at their head. But Philo himself, in his personal account of the embassy, says that there were no fewer than five such ambassadors.

Would Josephus have contradicted the account of the major player in, and an eyewitness to, the event he describes had he read Philo?

My money, and (to my knowledge) that of Josephan scholars, is with Whiston when he says

"... that he [Josephus] ever did [i.e., ever read Philo], does not appear."

JG

[Vorkosigan]

Why Pilate? Possibilities...

1. AMark's reading of the Daniel prophecies put Jesus in Pilate's time.

2. AMark could only remember Pilate, whose term was the longest of the prewar period.

3. AMark used Pilate because he had rep for cruelty.

4. AMark was writing very late ~150 and incorporated Pilate because it was already in Jesus tales in his source.


Perhaps, more importantly, one might also ask why AMark had Pilate's name there, but not Caiaphus'. Why not just call Pilate "the procurator" and avoid all the business about using a real name? After all, AMark's geography is symbolic and Jesus' movements are bullshit.

To answer that, I suspect that level of detail is necessary for the parallel that AMark constructed between Pilate and Herod.

Michael

[yalla]

Please note that my claim was not that Josephus had no knowledge of Philo. My claim was that Josephus did not know Philo's writings.

Your quote from Antiquities is hardly evidence against my claim.

At best, if this passage is not an interpolation, all that can legitimately be concluded from it is

(1) that Josephus knew of Philo, not his works, since there's no mention of Philo here as a writer; and



JG
Well I'm not sure about Josephus' alleged lack of knowledge of the philosophy of Philo.
Both VanderKam and the quote from Josephus [which seems to be the basis for Vanderkam's comment] indicate that he, Josephus, had an opinion on the philosophy of Philo.
Citing James C VanderKam:
"Josephus considered him prominent in every way and skilled in philosophy." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 138)"
Citing Josephus.
"But Philo,............................ one not unskillful in philosophy,..."
Now I reckon the J quote is definitely a comment on Philo as a writer. It is indirect but it is there. It might be based on Philo's reputation rather than an actual reading of his works , I don't know. But it would seem to be a fairly strong indicator that Josephus is familiar with the works of Philo in some way.
No idea about interpolation.
And I don't consider any historian perfect. At least he seems to know about elements of Philo's embassy and quotes him indirectly. Accurately?
I'm not fussy.

At least I found out that he was aware of Philo and whether directly by reading or not was also aware in some way of his works.

What I did find interesting was his probable [certain?] association with the nephew of Philo, Tiberius Julius Alexander, a fellow who was in the thick of things relating to alleged Christian events and persons.
A man in the know.
About Claudius, Herod, Nero, Pilate and Judea.
Now just on the basis of this connection I reckon it's possible that Joe would have heard some rumours, gossip, maybe even facts, about the alleged persons and events claimed to be happening by the conventional Christian version.
TJA is the right man in the right places at the right times to have, possibly, informed Joe about alleged Christian events, maybe even the gospels themselves and piqued joe's interest.
If such existed.
So just on this relationship alone, about which I knew nothing a day or 2 ago, I reckon my humble suggestion that Joe, with his area of interest and political connections could be expected to have had more knowledge of those works, persons and events claimed by conventional Christian version than he does reveal.
I'll keep looking.
cheers
yalla

[Malachi151]

Why Pilate?

1. AMark's reading of the Daniel prophecies put Jesus in Pilate's time.

2. AMark could only remember Pilate, whose term was the longest of the prewar period.

3. AMark used Pilate because he had rep for cruelty.

4. AMark was writing very late ~150 and incorporated Pilate because it was already in Jesus tales in his source.


Perhaps, more importantly, one might also ask why AMark had Pilate's name there, but not Caiaphus'. Why not just call Pilate "the procurator" and avoid all the business about using a real name? After all, AMark's geography is symbolic and Jesus' movements are bullshit.

To answer that, I suspect that level of detail is necessary for the parallel that AMark constructed between Pilate and Herod.

Michael

But Pilate is not presented as cruel, the Jews are, while Pilate is presented as reasonable...

[Vorkosigan]

He doesn't show any knowledge of the "anti Jewish" polemic in the DSS either. Should we then conclude from this that the DSS were written after Josephus died?

The difference being, of course, that scholars argue that the gospels were already in circulation by the time Josephus got around to defending his people and his faith. Did the DSS circulate around the Med?


And are the "slurs" in the NT really "anti Jewish/anti-semitic", let alone against "the Jews"?

Yes. Matt 27:25 is pretty specific -- "his blood be upon us."

Or are they more limited in scope vis a vis their targets, not to mention of cut from the same cloth as are the charges of gross "Jewish" unfaithfulness and that we see in, say, Jeremiah or Amos or in the intramural volleys of vitriol thrown by Jewish groups and proto Rabbinic schools against other Jewish groups and proto Rabbinic schools in the first century?

That is a possible context, but it is difficult to see a concrete link in the Christian context. How would you make a link between the intramural Jewish attacks, and the gospels' attacks on the Jews?

If this is the best that Leidner can offer to prove his claim, both his logic and his scholarship is very sloppy.

You'll get no argument from me on this score.

Vorkosigan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think the strong historical association with Paul and the Pillars has to be taken into account. Whoever the Pillars really were and whatever the nature of Jesus' "appearances" to them, they are at least grounded in the historical period concurrent with Pilate. Any need to make Jesus contemporaneous with Peter and James would necessitate (or at least facilitate) making him contemporaneous with Pilate, would it not?

Of course, there's also the possibility that an HJ really was crucified under Pilate.

[Malachi151]

I think the strong historical association with Paul and the Pillars has to be taken into account. Whoever the Pillars really were and whatever the nature of Jesus' "appearances" to them, they are at least grounded in the historical period concurrent with Pilate. Any need to make Jesus contemporaneous with Peter and James would necessitate (or at least facilitate) making him contemporaneous with Pilate, would it not?

Of course, there's also the possibility that an HJ really was crucified under Pilate.

I doubt this, and I further doubt that there ever was a Peter or a James. These too seem to by mythical constructs to me.

The main real characters seem to be:

"Paul" (whoever that is)
John the Baptist
Pilate
Herod

As for the 12 apostles, Peter, James, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Barnabas, Judas, etc. these all seem to be fictional.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I doubt this, and I further doubt that there ever was a Peter or a James. These too seem to by mythical constructs to me.

The main real characters seem to be:

"Paul" (whoever that is)
John the Baptist
Pilate
Herod

As for the 12 apostles, Peter, James, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Barnabas, Judas, etc. these all seem to be fictional.
But there is primary evidence in the Pauline corpus for the existence of the Pillars as some kind of historical figures. Paul claims to have met them. That's not to say it proves they were followers of an HJ but Paul seems to have been talking about somebody who existed at a time and place contemperaneous with Pilate and for whom Paul claims "appearances" by Jesus. All that really matters anyway is that Mark thought they were real people at a real time and place.

[Malachi151]

But there is primary evidence in the Pauline corpus for the existence of the Pillars as some kind of historical figures. Paul claims to have met them. That's not to say it proves they were followers of an HJ but Paul seems to have been talking about somebody who existed at a time and place contemperaneous with Pilate and for whom Paul claims "appearances" by Jesus. All that really matters anyway is that Mark thought they were real people at a real time and place.

Yes, I've often wondered about this, and how much to trust "Paul". He obviously was a liar IMO. He clearly makes up many things in "his" letters, his visions of Jesus for one.

[Didymus]

Not necessarily, I think. If you're writing fiction, you're not trying to deceive anyone, but you do still want to help your readers suspend their disbelief. To that end, Mark would have wanted to minimize conflicts between what he said happened and what his readers knew happened.

If Mark put Jesus' execution under Pilate in order to discourage fact checking, he would have been engaged in a deliberate deception. That's what I was getting at, but I don't think he was doing that. If there are any historical facts to be found in Mark, they are, IMHO, the crucifixion of a holy man in Jerusalem ca 33 and the subsequent reports of sightings. Seems to be that those constitute the core events that led to the belief that the crucified man was the messiah, and the armature upon which Mark constructed the rest of the story.

Some biblegeeks think Mark's gospel was written entirely as - and understood by his readers as - a fable. Perhaps, but it's presented as a historical biography, and that's certainly how it was read by Matthew and Luke, both of whom fleshed it out by adding more ersatz biographical and historical detail.

Didymus

[Didymus]

Of course, there's also the possibility that an HJ really was crucified under Pilate.

Not necessarily an HJ, but a mystic of some sort whose biography was wholly fabricated by Mark, using the OT as his primary source. Whether such an individual could be called a "historical Jesus" is, IMO, doubtful.

(Seems to me that the HJ-MJ dichotomy is a dead end. There are other possible origins for the Christ myth.)

Didymus

[yalla]

Well does it need to be Pilate executing specifically by crucifixion?
Could it be that Pilate executed someone[s] and that was embellished to crucifixion?
Do we know, via Josephus I presume, if Pilate in all his years as governor did execute anyone?
Did he specifically crucify anyone?
If so, then each and every one of such, from either category, could at a stretch qualify as the template for an HJ.
A big stretch of course.
And one that renders all the son of god/messiah etc stuff rather redundant.

[Doug Shaver]

If there are any historical facts to be found in Mark, they are, IMHO, the crucifixion of a holy man in Jerusalem ca 33 and the subsequent reports of sightings.
I agree. I happen to have come around to the view that there are no facts in Mark, and that the first people who read the work, including Matthew and Luke, probably didn't think there were. I think the latter two were just embellishing what they understood to be a work of fiction.

At the same time, I don't think historicists are fools for rejecting such a hypothesis. I think it is very defensible, but I don't think historicism is indefensible. Not yet, anyway. I do, though, consider the evidence offerered in its support to be much weaker than most historicists apparently think it is.