[geocentrism] Fw: Pilate's Silver
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <TraditionalCatholicsUnited@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John Kaminski" <skylax@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:38:22 +1000
Pilate's Silver:
Josephus' Account of the Passion
by Peter E. Chojnowski, Ph.D.
This is the account, given by the 1st Century A.D. Jewish Roman historian
Flavius Josephus in his book The Jewish War, according to the Old Slavonic
rendition of the Greek original, of the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of
Jesus Christ, known here as "the Wonderworker":
First, the statements about the ministry of Jesus and His miracles:
"At that time there appeared a man, if it is permissible to call him a man. His
nature and form were human, but his appearance was something more than that of
a man; notwithstanding his works were divine. He worked miracles wonderful and
mighty. Therefore it is impossible for me to call him a man; but again, if I
look at the nature, which he shared with all, I will not call him an angel. And
everything whatsoever he wrought through an invisible power, he wrought by word
and command. Some said of him, 'Our first lawgiver [Christ] is risen from the
dead and hath performed many healings and arts, while others thought that he
was sent from God. How be it in many things he disobeyed the Law and kept not
the Sabbath according to our fathers' customs. Yet, on the other hand, he did
nothing shameful; nor did he do anything with the aid of hands, but by word
alone did he provide everything."[1]
Second, the statements concerning His Trial Before Pilate and His Passion:
"And there assembled unto him of ministers one hundred and fifty, and a
multitude of the people. Now when they saw his power, that he accomplished
whatsoever he would by a word, and when they had made known to him their will,
that he should enter into the city and cut down the Roman troops and Pilate and
rule over us, [but he took no notice]. And when therefore knowledge of it came
to the Jewish leaders, they assembled together with the high priest and spake:
'We are powerless and too weak to withstand the Romans. Seeming moreover that
the bow is bent, we will go and communicate to Pilate what we have heard, and
we shall be clear of trouble. ...' And he [Pilate] had that Wonderworker
brought up, and after instituting an inquiry concerning him, he pronounced
judgement: 'He is a benefactor, not a malefactor, nor a rebel, nor covetous of
kingship.' And he let him go; for he had healed his dying wife. And he went to
his wonted place and did his wonted works. And when more people again assembled
round him, he glorified himself through his actions more than all. The teachers
of the Law were overcome with envy, and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order
that he should put him to death. And he took it and gave them liberty to
execute their will themselves. And they laid hands on him and crucified him
contrary to the law of their fathers."[2]
Third, the statements concerning the aftermath of the Passion of Jesus Christ:
"This curtain [of the Temple] was before this generation entire, because the
people were pious; but now it was grievous to see, for it was suddenly rent
from the top to the bottom, when they through bribery delivered to death the
benefactor of men and him who from his actions was no man. And many other
fearful signs might one tell, which happened then. And it is said that he,
after being killed and after being laid in the grave, was not found. Some
indeed profess that he had risen, others that he was stolen away by his
friends. But for my part I know not which speak more correctly. For one that is
dead cannot rise of himself, though he may do so with the help of the prayer of
another righteous man, unless he be an angel or another of the heavenly powers,
or unless God himself appears as a man and accomplishes what he will, and walks
with men and falls and lies down and rises again, as pleases his will. But
others said that it was not possible to steal him away, because they set
watchmen around his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000 Jews."[3]
A) Independent Verification:
Why Josephus Matters
If we were to attempt to find an extra-biblical historical source to confirm
the happenings described in the Gospels, there is certainly none better than
that of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.). There are two
reasons why Josephus (who later, due to the patronage of Vespasian, took the
family name of the emperor as his own) is such an outstanding historical
source. First, he has no "interest" in testifying to and confirming the events
as described in the Gospels - as far as we know, he never was a Christian.
Second, his contacts with the Jews of the Mediter-ranean world, including the
Jews of Jerusalem, were extensive. He himself was from Palestine and re-turned
there, after a stay in Rome, prior to the Fall of the City in 70 AD. His
contacts were far-reaching and of the highest quality, being a commander of the
Jewish forces fighting the Romans prior to 70 AD, a friend and interpreter for
Titus the Roman besieger of the City, and, later, a confidant and client of the
Roman emperors. To this extensive practical experience, we can add his high
social status as the son of a priest and a man who, at the age of nineteen,
decided to join the Pharisees.[4] What we cannot help but recognize here is the
fact that Josephus would have access to a wealth of personal accounts and
high-level information, which would not even be available to most Christ-ians
of the period. What we find in the Old Slavonic (Old Russian) manuscript is,
precisely, language which indicates that Josephus was an unbiased historian of
events in the Life of Jesus Christ, who had access to accounts coming,
ultimately, from well-placed first-hand observers of those events.
Although it is clear that Josephus was a patriotic Jew, he quickly became
impressed with the grandeur and power of the Roman Empire. This deep impression
which the Empire made on him was the reason for his efforts to prevent violent
conflict between his nation and Rome. In 66, being unable to prevent the
outbreak of hostility between the two sides in Palestine, Josephus reluctantly
joined the rebellion and even assumed a command in Galilee where he fortified a
number of cities. His eventual surrender to overwhelming Roman power led to his
imprisonment in 67. It was during this imprisonment that he was to form a
lasting friendship with the Roman general Vespasian. When Vespasian became
emperor in 69, Josephus was officially freed.[5]
Josephus shows himself to be a man caught in the very nexus of the most
important events of the time-period, when we find him returning to Jerusalem
with the son of Vespasian, the general and future emperor, Titus. Knowing of
Roman power and Jewish weakness, Josephus tried to convince the Jews holding
the city to surrender and thus save it. He was unsuccessful. After the
destruction of Jerusalem, Josephus returned to Rome and accepted an imperial
pension - even gaining Roman citizenship and adopting the name of the imperial
family.[6]
It was upon his return to Rome, after the destruction of the Temple, that
Josephus began his literary endeavors. His first work, the one that attracts
our interest, was The Jewish War. It was written as a general history of the
wars from the time of the Maccabees to the Great War with Rome, which resulted
in the demise of the nation of Israel. Josephus' eyewitness ac-count of the
last years of resistance and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, are
invaluable contributions to our understanding of the social, political, and
religious milieu of the New Testament period.[7] Basically, if Josephus did not
know what was going on amidst the Romans and the Jews of the period, who would?
It is, of course, within these two groups that we must search for a more
perfect understanding of the events surrounding the Passion of Jesus Christ.
B) The Passion:
A Conspiracy Unreported?
The implications of the passage cited above are clear. In what appears to be a
text coming from the hand of a skeptical, puzzled unbeliever, we find
confirmation of the Gospel's explicit statements concerning the ministry and
the miracles of Jesus Christ. In passages resembling those found in his later
work, The Antiquities of the Jews XVIII, 63f, Josephus testifies to the unique
nature of the mission of Christ and the marvelous phenomenon, which even
impressed this Jewish priest and Roman collaborator. His simple statement that,
"he did nothing shameful; nor did he do anything with the aid of his hands, but
by word alone did he provide everything," is evocative of many of the incidents
reported in the Gospels (e.g., the healing of the servant of the Centurion) in
which a simple word from Christ worked miraculous cures at a distance. This
same point, that "he accomplished whatsoever he would by a word," is mentioned
again in the section of text which discusses the desire, on the part of the
"multitude of the people," that he should enter into the city (Jerusalem) and
"cut down the Roman troops, and Pilate, and rule over us."
The "Wonderworker," "angel," and man whose "appearance was something more than
that of a man," is identified as a man who both violated certain "customs"
concerning the Sabbath and "did nothing shameful." He, apparently, from the
account given by Josephus, became a grave "problem" for the leaders of the
Jewish people, when His miracles incited the people to believe that He had the
divinely given power necessary to overthrow the oppressors of Israel and
restore the Davidic kingdom. Here we find a slight variation of the account
given in the Gospels, which would indicate that its author either did not know
the content of the Gospel accounts (which appears likely) or had access to
information about the political intrigue be-tween Jewish and Roman leaders that
was not available to, or did not concern, the Evangelists. According to
Josephus, the Jewish leaders, worried about their own situation, reported the
events surrounding Christ to Pilate. Pilate, after en-gaging in what appears to
be a very violent form of crowd control, brought Christ before him and judged
him to be innocent of all charges of insurrection. After Jesus' dismissal, the
marvels increased, again causing the Jewish leaders to come to Pilate.
It is in this second attempt to implicate Jesus that the Jewish leaders
revealed their true motivation and intention. With regard to this section of
the text, either it is a complete "interpolation" (a word very popular with the
scholars who wish to dismiss the statements made in the Old Slavonic text) or
it provides us with "inside" information that sheds an entirely new light upon
the Trial and Passion of Jesus Christ. There are no other possibilities. If we
look at two different translations of the same text, we find that there is
still no ambiguity as to the meaning of the passage. Thackeray renders the
passage, "the teachers of the Law were overcome with envy, and gave 30 talents
to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. And he took it and gave
them liberty to execute their will themselves. And they laid hands on him and
crucified him contrary to the law of their fathers."[8] In a translation of the
same passage by the scholar G.A. Williamson, who upholds the authenticity of
the Old Slavonic "additions," we find the following: "The exponents of the Law
were mad with jealousy, and gave Pilate 30 talents to have him executed.
Accept-ing the bribe, he gave them permission to carry out their wishes
themselves. So they seized him and crucified him in defiance of all Jewish
tradition."[9] With regard to the meaning of the text, the differences present
in the translations are insignificant. Pilate has gone from an active role, one
in which he judges according to his own understanding that Jesus is not a
malefactor, to a passive role on account of a bribe. "And he took it and gave
them liberty to execute their will themselves." The final sentence of this
section indicates that they ("they" here clearly refers to the "teachers of the
Law" - if not, the whole passage would make no sense) executed their desires
when "they laid hands on him and crucified him contrary to the law of their
fathers."
If we truly think about these passages, rather than just dismissing them
arbitrarily as "interpolations," we find that this identification of the
"teachers of the Law" and native Jews in general as the proximate (i.e.,
immediate or "closest") cause of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, many aspects
of the whole situation, along with numerous Scriptural references and a
tradition within Christianity, become more intelligible. That Josephus should
mention this singularly unique event should not at all surprise us; it would
surprise us if he did not mention it in his first work on the Jews. References
to Christ, as worker of wonders and as a man who purportedly rose from the
dead, appear in his later book entitled, The Antiquities of the Jews. Such
renowned 20th Cen-tury scholars as Thackeray, von Harnack, and Burkitt have
affirmed the references to Christ there as authentic.[10]
All the points mentioned here, the bribery of Pilate, the fact that the Jewish
leaders "laid hands" on Christ and "crucified him contrary to the law of their
fathers," along with the judicious and balanced historian's horror at the
injustice of the actions taken by his fellow Jews, clearly make this an
historical event which could not be passed over in silence. I would challenge
any scholar to cite a case in which the leaders of the Jewish people are known
to have turned over one of their own countrymen to the Romans and demanded from
the Romans that the man be executed by way of crucifixion. I know of no other
historical example of such an event. Moreover, something has to explain Gospel
passages such as the one in the Gospel of St. John. First, St. John, the only
known apostolic witness to the actual events themselves, gives an account of
the profoundly shocking statement of the leaders of the Sanhedrin who denied
their Messiah ("whomever" he might be) and their very norm of governmental
legitimacy by responding to Pilate's acknowledgement of the kingship of Christ
("Behold your king") with the statement, "We have no king but Caesar." After
this verbal coup d'etat, on the part of the chief priests, the Gospel of St.
John states exactly what we find in Josephus, "Then therefore he delivered him
to them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him forth."[11] In this
regard, something like the political situation portrayed by Josephus must have
taken place or else the attribution of guilt to the leaders of the Jewish
people by St. Peter, St. Paul, and, even, in such early Christian writers as
St. Justin, would lack force for the people of the time.[12] I have never read
anything in Scripture, coming from the Evangelists or from the other Apostles,
in which the Romans, as a group, were condemned for bringing about the death of
Jesus Christ.
C) The Torn Curtain and the Temple Inscription
Included in the Slavonic "Additions" (i.e., material included in the Old
Slavonic translation of The Jewish War which is not included in the extant
Greek text) are passages concerning the aftermath of the Crucifix-ion, which
confirm the "bribery" statement, contained in the earlier citation, along with
providing additional information that is extremely intriguing. Al-though
classified by the Jewish scholar Robert Eisler as "clearly a Chris-tian
interpolation," the text reads like one written by a habitual skeptic and not
as one written by a devoted believer. Either there is much fakery going on or
this is a text by a Jew of pagan Greco-Roman culture who has definite and exact
information concerning the events surrounding the one, which he calls the
"wonderworker." He either saw the sight himself or has second- or third-hand
accounts of the sight. Confirming the Gospels here in every detail, Josephus
writes that, "This curtain [of the Temple] was before this generation entire,
because the people were pious; but now it was grievous to see, for it was
suddenly rent from the top to the bottom, when they through bribery delivered
to death the benefactor of men and him who from his actions was no man
[emphasis mine]." How consonant with the passage in The Antiquities of the Jews
that speaks of Christ as "a wise man, if indeed he should be called a man. For
he was a doer of marvelous deeds."[13] Why would the first part be an
"interpolation" and the second part of the same sentence perfectly in accord
with what Josephus said in other works?
This text clearly identifies the Death of Christ as being the point in time
when the curtain of the Temple was rent "from the top to the bottom." We, also,
have the singular fact presented that the curtain of the Temple, after being
rent at the time of the Passion, was left hanging for a considerable period of
time. Such would be quite an odd fact to make up if one were looking to skew
the text in any way.
Josephus goes on to speak about the reports of the Resurrection. He treats them
here not as facts, but simply as reports. "But for my part I know not which
speak more correctly" (i.e., those who say the body of Christ was stolen away
or those who say that He rose from the dead). At this point, he presents
another singular fact that appears to be too particular to be an
"interpolation." Josephus, in regards to those arguing that the Resurrection
had indeed taken place, says, "But others said that it was not possible to
steal him away, because they set watchmen around his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000
Jews." This purported fact, unreported in the Gospels, would be a perfectly
understandable consequence of the intense concern, on the part of the leaders
of the people, that Jesus' prophecy that he would raise His body up after three
days, would not be fulfilled. The enormous Jewish presence at the tomb and the
miniscule Roman one would reflect their respective "interest" in the case of
Jesus of Nazareth. The Jewish leaders were so adamant that they were willing to
renounce their loyalty to the House of David, while Pilate was so, seemingly,
indifferent that he was even willing to put forward as a king one that did not
have the sanction of Caesar. Moreover, if this information about the strength
of the guard at the tomb is true, then there is no possible way that the body
could have been "stolen away." That there is no mention of these kinds of
numbers in any other source but that of Josephus indicates that the "silver"
must have flowed quite freely in the aftermath of this incident.
Finally, in a part of the text for which I have no explanation, but which is
included immediately be-fore the section which discusses the renting of the
curtain, we read of the "equal pillars" present in the post-Resurrection
Temple, "and upon them titles in Greek and Latin and Jewish characters," giving
warning that no foreigner should enter within; the text goes on to say, "And
above these titles was hung a fourth title in the same characters, announcing
that Jesus the king did not reign, but was crucified by the Jews, because he
prophesied the destruction of the city and the devastation of the temple"
[emphasis mine].[14] The point of interest here is that Eisler does not speak
of this section as a "Christian interpolation."
D) The Scholarship
The question of the status of the Old Slavonic text of The Jewish War has been
a contention amongst scholars since knowledge of the text arose in the Western
world due to the translation of the Old Slavonic texts relating to St. John the
Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the early Church into German by Alexander Berendts.
Berendts tried to translate the entire text of The Jewish War but his efforts
were cut short by his death. The text that was translated was not, apparently,
a mere translation of the extant Greek text since it contains both material not
present in the existing Greek text and omits material present in the Greek. The
work of Jewish scholar, Robert Eisler on the question of the authenticity of
the text, and G.A. Williamson's Penguin translation of it, which included the
key passages as part of the appendix, popularized the idea that the Old
Slavonic text was a translation of an early addition of the Greek text. That
there were two editions is mentioned in the preface to the extant Greek text
itself.
The German scholar who was at the forefront of the research in this area of the
Old Slavonic "additions," was Johannes Frey of the University of Dorpat. After
producing a thoroughgoing study of the history of the Passion, in 1908 he
published a substantial volume in which he treated the subject of Josephus'
"Christian" passages in much minute detail. In this regard, Frey called
attention to the fact that the general characteristics of these passages were
very different from those of all other ancient Christian "forgeries" known to
the scholarly world. Frey's main contention, after all of his extensive
research and explication of the text, was that the author must be held to be a
Jew and not a Christian. To substantiate his claim, he pointed out that there
is no evidence of direct dependence on early canonical Christian literature,
nor any sign of an acquaintance with the precision of the written tradition or
of the inner oral traditions of the Christians themselves. In so far as there
is an agreement with the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles, it is only in the
form of generalities; it is as if someone is speaking from the "outside."
The question then arises, where did the author of the text get his information?
As Frey asserts, he did not get it from merely fabricating it in his
imagination. He has traditional material of some sort to go on. He is clearly
setting forth what he has heard people say. The testimony often ap-pears to
trouble him exceedingly. And yet, he does not come off as a hostile critic. In
fact, he generally ap-pears to be sympathetic. He clearly believes that Jesus
was an outstanding figure who was unjustly done to death. Frey's main
contention is that the writer of the text worked on Jewish general popular oral
sources; he had at his disposal oral traditions proximate to the occurrences.
He therefore is the greatest external source, from the 1st Century, to confirm
the accounts of the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Notes:
1. Josephus, Vol. III, The Jewish War (Books IV-VII) in The Loeb Classical
Library, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (London: William Heinemann LTD, n.d.), pp.
648-649.
2. Ibid., p. 650.
3. Ibid., p. 658.
4. The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1987), p. ix.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., p. 650.
9. Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. G.A. Williamson (London, 1970), pp. 398-400.
10. Cf. H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus, The Man and the Historian (New York,
1929), pp. 136-137.
11. Taken from the Douay-Rheims Bible, St. John 19:14-16.
12. For example, we read in The First Apology of St. Justin, the Martyr, "But
Jesus Christ stretched out his hands when he was crucified by the Jews, who
contradicted him and denied that he was Christ." Also, in the same work, St.
Justin writes, "Not withstanding this, the Jews who are in possession of the
books of the prophets did not recognize Christ even when he had come, and they
hate us who declare that he has come and show that he was crucified by them as
had been predicted" [emphasis mine]. Cf. Early Christian Fathers, translator
and editor Cyril C. Richardson (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), pp.
264-265.
13. Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 63.
14. Josephus, War, p. 657.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from the September, 2005 edition of
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14216
905-871-6292 * cfnjv@xxxxxxxxxxxx
CFN is published once a month (12 times per year) . Subscription: $28.00 a
year.
Request sample copy
Home . Audio Cassettes . CFN Index . New DVD Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.15/949 - Release Date: 12/08/2007
11:03 AM
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Fw: Pilate's Silver
