Re: Josephus, Pilate and Paul - questions, comments

[Laura]

Laura, reading your latest installment, I find it difficult to match these two remarks:

Sabinus, Caesar's steward for Syrian affairs, as he was making haste into Judea to preserve Herod's effects

"Sabinus" was probably just a low level military commander that Varus left in charge when he took the treasures of Jerusalem back with him to Antioch.

It seems to me that this Sabinus was a special envoy of Caesar's with specific orders to represent Caesar's interests in the mopping up of Herod's legacy. Such a person cannot have been a rather low level military commander under Varus' jurisdiction. Rather, he would've been something like a legatus Augusti IMO.

EDIT: Maybe it was Gaius Poppaeus Sabinus ?

You are assuming that Josephus has his facts straight.

It's possible. I just don't buy it. Procurator was an equestrian rank post and your guy became consul in 9 AD, a patrician rank post.

 

[Laura]

Further digging revealed that Sabinus was procurator or treasurer.

See: _https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0017_0_17227.html

And what is THEIR source???

 

[Palinurus]

And what is THEIR source???

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Jos., Ant., 17:221–94; Jos., Wars, 2:16–74; Schuerer, Hist, 161f.; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 4 (19502), 173–7; Pauly-Wissowa, 2nd series. 2 (1920), 1595f., no. 4; A.H.M. Jones, The Herods of Judea (1938), 159, 161–2, 165.

[Lea Roth]

Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Laura]

Besides, you are missing the point: I'm not doubting that a Sabinus was there, but Josephus would have been unlikely to have trashed a consular that way, making him look like a thief and a fool. Unless, of course, he was the Sabinus who was persecuted under Tiberius.

Varus was in deep doo after he lost the legions in Teutoberg forest and wasn't rehabilitated until after Tiberius came to power. There are some serious issues here. Plus, Josephus gives some variations on the story of Sabinus and the loot in Wars, enough to make one question just exactly what he was doing.

Perhaps you should wait until ALL the evidence is laid out before trying to use the same sources that cannot be trusted to back up nonsense that people have believed for way too long?

 

[Laura]

And what is THEIR source???

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Jos., Ant., 17:221–94; Jos., Wars, 2:16–74; Schuerer, Hist, 161f.; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 4 (19502), 173–7; Pauly-Wissowa, 2nd series. 2 (1920), 1595f., no. 4; A.H.M. Jones, The Herods of Judea (1938), 159, 161–2, 165.

[Lea Roth]

Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.

In short, the source at the beginning is Josephus (which I knew but wanted you to notice). Every one of those added references just goes back to Josephus. Every one. What I'm doing is taking the SOURCE apart and showing that it cannot be trusted.

 

[Palinurus]

Okay, Laura. Understood. I'll wait and see. ;)

 

[Laura]

Okay, Laura. Understood. I'll wait and see. ;)

I apologize for being so cranky last night. You are right that I shouldn't give my hand away until all the evidence is laid out, so I've modified the remark.

 

[Palinurus]

Very gracious of you, Laura. Thank you. No harm done though. We all have our moments...

If I may say so, the rewrite now seems much more to the point.

Anyway, already two more new installments to enjoy. I'll try to restrain myself as much as possible.

 

[Juba]

I'm sincerely sorry to add my post to the wrong part of the forum.

I had impression that Paul was shady figure in whole NT story, I also misinterpreted Laura's conclusion about Paul's work. His "hard work" I was looking trough historic hodgepodge and ponerization, thinking that he itentionally invented the story of Biblical proportions trying to "guide" believers in direction of the new church with him as one of leading figures/apostles.

The reason why I was holding to that idea is because there are more and more facts about Jesus as fictionall and not historical figure, (For example lack of historical records about Jesus and none of his own writen work.), and of course Paul's supposed role in staging Christ's church. (Including his abrupt turnaround from zealous persecutor of christians to one of christianity’s greatest proponents surely make me wonder who was indeed so called Paul of Tarsus before he became the apostle Paul? And his Damascene conversion made even more mess in my head.)

I think that Paul went directly to Rome after all the persecutions he experienced from the James Gang in their drive to gain supporters and funds for their revolution. He was not making a collection and he did not have any reason to hang out with those people considering the increasing rebellion in Palestine. Paul was working as hard as he could to prevent the disaster that he could see coming if the Jews stood up against Rome and if the Gentiles continued to perceive the Jews as exclusivist and xenophobic. If he began his ministry in 19 AD in his early twenties, he would have been in his fifties by the time he made it to Rome. Perhaps he was exiled from Rome for a period as Clement suggests in his brief recap of the career of Paul. Perhaps he did go to Spain. And perhaps he returned to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem and wrote chapters 9 through 11 of Romans in his grief and despair that his life’s work aimed at preventing this tragedy had been in vain.

And perhaps the entire James Gang, the putative apostles of the mythical Jesus of Nazareth, that were actually the revolutionary followers of Judas the Galilean, all perished, along with their delusions of messianic salvation, in the fires of Jerusalem.

Thank you Laura for explanation, looking forward for more. :)

 

[Laura]

I'm sincerely sorry to add my post to the wrong part of the forum.

You didn't. I only closed the thread until I could complete the installments - it is now re-opened for discussion.
This thread can just fade out.

 

[judaswasjames]

If one can't rely on Josephus, the most reliable historian of his time, what can be relied on for the period? Better to use modern Teachers to learn from. They can even help with understanding ancient history.

 

[Laura]

If one can't rely on Josephus, the most reliable historian of his time, what can be relied on for the period? Better to use modern Teachers to learn from. They can even help with understanding ancient history.

Josephus was definitely NOT the most reliable historian of his time. However, the necessity to provide some reasonable information because of his audience, some things can be sussed out despite his efforts to blow smoke.

An additional problem is the endless editing and censorship imposed by various factions.

And yes, it helps to have a real source that can read the past which is why we have our channeling experiment that has stood the test of time.

 

[judaswasjames]

If one can't rely on Josephus, the most reliable historian of his time, what can be relied on for the period? Better to use modern Teachers to learn from. They can even help with understanding ancient history.

Josephus was definitely NOT the most reliable historian of his time. However, the necessity to provide some reasonable information because of his audience, some things can be sussed out despite his efforts to blow smoke.

An additional problem is the endless editing and censorship imposed by various factions.

And yes, it helps to have a real source that can read the past which is why we have our channeling experiment that has stood the test of time.

'Reliable' according to Christians.