Jesus' age- insight from John 2:20?

[BartholomewB]

I’m writing my Master’s thesis on the historical Jesus. I’ve researched about 10-12 different authors and their books regarding the dates of Jesus’ birth, public ministry, crucifixion, etc. I’ve made an extensive study of the Gospel of John as well (not for my thesis, though).

In my own mind, this research had led me to believe without doubt that Jesus died on Friday, April 3, 33 CE. However, other people have come up with other dates. I cannot say with absolute certainty that the date I gave is correct. The fact that it is correct to me does not make it factually correct. There is much proof that Jesus died about that time, but not incontrovertible proof that the date I gave is the exact date. However, if you reject that date, you also have to reject the year 33 CE and back down to 30 CE or move up to 36 CE if you believe Jesus died on a Friday, 14 Nisan.

Thank you, Lily. Now we’re both on the same wavelength. In fact I would go further than you and eliminate 36 from the list of possibilities, cutting it down to just two dates: April 7, 30, and April 3, 33. My own hunch ― but it’s really no more than that ― is that Lagrange has been right all along with his preference for the year 30. My only serious doubt about that arises from the Sejanus factor, which I summarized in my post #6 on this thread. You haven’t mentioned him so far. Do you think it’s unimportant?

Thanks
Bart

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I think Sejanus is important and lends credence to Jesus’ death being on April 3, 33. It is proper, I think to believe that Sejanus appointed Pilate. If Sejanus were still alive at the time of Jesus’ death, Pilate, in my opinion, would not have shown such deference to the Jews, almost fearing them, placating them. Pilate’s strange behavior only makes sense if Sejanus had already been executed.

I am assuming you believe the same thing. Do you have additional reasons?

Thanks,

Lily

Edit: I’m sorry! You are going with 30 CE, when Sejanus was still alive. I can’t say it can’t be. If you go with the year 30, and it could be 30, of course, how do you factor in the Jews veiled (or not so veiled) “Amicus Caesaris” threat? How could they have threatened Pilate like that had Sejanus still been alive?

 

[steve53]

I’m writing my Master’s thesis on the historical Jesus. I’ve researched about 10-12 different authors and their books regarding the dates of Jesus’ birth, public ministry, crucifixion, etc. I’ve made an extensive study of the Gospel of John as well (not for my thesis, though).

Lily- I think you are misguided in your approach to your thesis topic. If you are talking about something relatively recent and complex, with many different sources of information to plow through, then a “survey” of the top-rated scholars might be in order. But when discussing the historicity of Jesus, there are only 5-6 written sources to be considered that are veracious and somewhat contemporary- Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, and the New Testament. With all those works online and in searchable form, you can persue through them as well as any “expert.”

Don’t sell yourself short.

I would recommend Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome.” Hagan focuses on secondary and tertiary characters in the New Testament that are also written about in secular Roman texts where there are historical events associated with them, if not outright biographies.

He concludes that the crucifixion year had to be 36 A.D.

 

[BartholomewB]

I think Sejanus is very important and lends great credence to Jesus’ death being on April 3, 33. It is proper, I think to believe that Sejanus appointed Pilate. If Sejanus were still alive at the time of Jesus’ death, Pilate, in my opinion, would not have shown such deference to the Jews, almost fearing them, placating them. Pilate’s strange behavior only makes sense if Sejanus had already been executed.

I am assuming you believe the same thing. Do you have additional reasons?

Thanks,

Lily

 

[BartholomewB]

I think Sejanus is very important and lends great credence to Jesus’ death being on April 3, 33. It is proper, I think to believe that Sejanus appointed Pilate. If Sejanus were still alive at the time of Jesus’ death, Pilate, in my opinion, would not have shown such deference to the Jews, almost fearing them, placating them. Pilate’s strange behavior only makes sense if Sejanus had already been executed.

I am assuming you believe the same thing. Do you have additional reasons?

Thanks,

Lily

The argument that Pilate would not have deferred so readily to the Jerusalem priesthood holds water, on condition that we can find evidence that Sejanus had it in for the Jews. But I’ve never seen any convincing evidence to that effect. Where does that assertion come from? Not, I think, from either Suetonius or Tacitus. Possibly from Philo or some other Jewish writer? I’d be grateful if you can point me in the right direction.

Regards
Bart

 

[steve53]

Why do you think Jesus was 46 at the time? Construction on the temple began 16 years before Jesus’ birth. I give you Barnes’ notes on that passage in John (bolding is mine)::

Forty and six years … - The temple in which they then were was that which was commonly called “the second temple,” built after the return of the Jews from Babylon. See the notes at Matthew 21:12. This temple Herod the Great commenced repairing, or began to rebuild, in the eighteenth year of his reign - that is, sixteen years before the birth of Christ (Jos. ‘Ant.,’ b. xv. Section 1). The main body of the temple he completed in “nine years and a half” (Jos. ‘Ant.,’ xv. 5, 6), yet the temple, with its outbuildings, was not entirely complete in the time of our Saviour. Herod continued to ornament it and to perfect it even until the time of Agrippa (Jos. ‘Ant.,’ b. xx. chapter viii. Section 11). **As Herod began to rebuild the temple sixteen years before the birth of Jesus, and as what is here mentioned happened in the thirtieth year of the age of Jesus, so the time which had been occupied in it was “forty-six years.” ** This circumstance is one of the many in the New Testament which show the accuracy of the evangelists, and which prove that they were well acquainted with what they recorded. It demonstrates that their narration is true. Impostors do not trouble themselves to be very accurate about names and dates, and there is nothing in which they are more liable to make mistakes.

Instead of using Barnes, you should read Josephus yourself. Virtually everything we know about the Second Temple comes from either Josephus, or, to a lesser degree, Philo.

You need to understand the architecture of the Second Temple. It was not a single building, but a complex divided up into four sections and set upon a 35 acre tiled-over plateau that was surrounded by 40 foot tall bricked in columns, and with a cedar roof around the rectangular perimeter.

It was built in stages. The first stage took ten years to complete, starting in 20 B.C. and ending in 10 B.C. This involved the OUTER courtyard, or the first courtyard, and did not involve the HOLY TEMPLE itself.

The sanctuary was located in a separate 10-15 acre complex within the outer temple courtyard, and surrounded by 60 foot tall bricked in columns. Access was limited to Jews only. Inside were three other courtyards, with the Holy Temple itself located in one of them. It was this complex that, in A.D. 35, they would have been working on for 46 years- starting in 10 B.C. Or at least that is a very reasonable interpretation.

All in Josephus.

 

[steve53]

I meant to write “some scholars” not “the Synoptics.” I should not try to post and write papers. I am not good at multi-tasking. My mistake, and I apologize. My focus of study for my Master’s is the historical Jesus. I believe his ministry was "about 3 1/2 years. So, here is what I believe:

Well, we know Jesus was born during the final years of the reign of Herod the Great. Herod died in 4 BCE, so Jesus was most likely born in late 5 BCE or early 4 BCE. Frankly, I go with late 5 BCE because Herod had to have enough time to order all boys two and under in Bethlehem and the surrounding area killed (Mt 2:16; 19).

We do not know that he was born in the FINAL years of his reign. But certainly, it was Herod the Great who was in power, and we have to factor in the two year search.

Scholars are widely divided on the year of Jesus’ crucifixion, with dates ranging from 26-36. It is fairly easy to rule out some of those years by asking who was in office when Jesus was crucified? Who were the officials who presided at Jesus’ trial? They were Caiaphus and Pilate, both of whom were in office from 26-36 CE. Right away, we can rule out any year prior to 26 CE. The crucifixion occurred on a Friday (the only thing problematic with that is that Jews usually did not allow the bodies of the crucified to be on the cross late in the afternoon, but are we really sure that Jesus was on the cross from noon till three? I don’t think so.). However, we will accept Friday since it is generally accepted. The only years in which 14 Nisan (the generally accepted date and month) occurred on a Friday were 27, 30, 33, and 36 CE. Okay, getting closer.

Luke 3:1-3 tells us that John the Baptist began his ministry “in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” The Emperor Augustus died on August 19, 14 CE, a fact which can be confirmed by the Roman historians Tacitus (*Annales *4§4) and Suetonius (Tiberius 73). So, the 15th year of Tiberius’ reign, the year in which John the Baptist began his public ministry would have been 29 CE.

Actually, the last year of the reign of Augustus would be the FIRST year in the reign of Tiberius. The same year in any case. And a new year would start in January- Roman dating. So JB started his ministry in A.D. 28.

In Lk 3:23, we read that Jesus was “about 30 years old” when he began his own public ministry. If Jesus was born in 5 BCE, this would mean that he was about 33 years old when he began his public ministry. (Men had to be between 30-50 to enter the royal priesthood of Melchizedek, so Jesus was at least 30 at his baptism.)

***Parts of Luke are contentious, but that is the nature of the beast. Jesus could well have started his ministry without immediately beginning to attend the Passover celebrations. In fact, Mark begins his narrative about Jesus after JB had been “delivered up” to Herod Antipas. Whether JB had been arrested or executed is not delineated. I do not think it is “kosher” to use any information from either the Old Testament or the Talmud when doing a historical determination like this. I would place little importance on the Melchizedek angle. JB was a renegade preacher in any case, and should not be held to tradition. ***

The gospel of John, which I take as the most accurate, tells us that Jesus celebrated three Passovers with his disciples: (1) Jerusalem (Jn 2:13; 23), (2) Galilee (Jn 6:4), (3) Jerusalem (Jn 11:55;12:1). Matthew 12:1, I think it is, records a fourth Passover not recorded in John. That would make a public ministry of 3 ½ years. If Jesus began his public ministry in 29 CE, a 3 ½ year ministry would bring us to 33 CE, and 14 Nisan was on a Friday in 33 CE.

Only if Jesus immediately started to attend the Passovers when baptized- which is contentious.

John 2:20 tells the reader that the temple was completed “46 years ago.” If any of you are familiar with the writings of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, he states in his Antiquities 15.11.1 § 380 that renovation of the temple began in 20-19 BCE and was completed 18 months later (Antiquities 15.11.6 § 421). So, if we add 46 years to 18-17 BCE, we are brought to 29 CE.

***Read my previous post on this. You have to understand the structure of the Temple complex to make sense of it all. ***

If the above biblical passages are correct, and if the calculations are correct, Jesus died on Friday, April 3, 33 CE.

In Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22 Irenaeus says Jesus was “about fifty” when he was crucified, however that would mean Jesus was born about 20 BCE! Surely, not!

Irenaeus is a secondary source. But an interesting tidbit. If Jesus were crucified in A.D. 36, and was “about” fifty, then his birth year would be “about” 13 B.C. Hey, Halley’s comet sped by “about” that time!

Note: All of the above work is not original to me. I’ve culled and put together things from true biblical scholars in writing my Master’s thesis. I can’t take credit for the work of others.

***Sounds like a fun project. Keep us posted! ***

 

[steve53]

:nope:

On the Death of Herod, the Birth of Jesus and the Accuracy of Luke

Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

Matthew 2:1-2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.”

Logically, Jesus had to have been born before the death of Herod the Great.

In the late 1800’s, German scholar Emil Schurer claimed that Herod died in 4 BC. Thus, Jesus had to have been born no later than 4 BC.

Herod slaughtered all the newborns who were two years old and under.

Those newborns would have been born between 6 BC and 4 BC.

Therefore, Jesus may have been born as early as 6 BC – maybe earlier.

But is this correct? No. Schurer may have relied on Josephus who made errors in his reporting of the dates of key events. If Josephus is incorrect, how can we determine the accurate date for the death of Herod? By going back to the beginning of Herod’s reign.

When was Herod the Great appointed king?

Josephus offers two possibilities: 40 BC and 39 BC. These can’t both be right, but there are other sources that suggest 39 BC is the correct date: Roman historians Appian and Dio Cassius. Appian wrote a history of Roman civil wars which mentions the appointment of Herod. It is possible to compare those events with Dio Cassius’ Roman History to determine that key events contained in these two works including the appointment of Herod occurred in 39 BC.

How long was Herod’s reign?

We know that Herod reigned as king for 37 years. Therefore, in order to work out when Herod died, we simply add 37 years to the year of his appointment as king to arrive at a date of 1 BC.

When did Herod conquer Jerusalem?

Once again, Josephus offers two dates for Herod’s conquering of Jerusalem: 37 BC and 36 BC. He further tells us that Herod 34 years later. Since Josephus did not count partial years (Herod did not begin his reign on January 1, for example), this puts the death of Herod in either 2 BC (if he conquered Jerusalem in 37 BC) or 1 BC (if he conquered Jerusalem in 36 BC). Is there any way to determine which of these is correct? Yes.

Which lunar eclipse is the correct one?

Josephus recorded that Herod died between the occurrence of a lunar eclipse and Passover. Astronomers have confirmed that there was a partial lunar eclipse in 4 BC and a total lunar eclipse in 1 BC. Since 4 BC is not an option for the death of Herod based on the two previous points, the eclipse of 1 BC must be the one that Josephus is referencing.

***By far most “scholars” agree that Herod the Great died in the fall of 4 B.C.
Remember that not only was there a lunar eclipse noted, but in Josephus it was reported to have occurred just before the Passover of the year of Herod’s death- I doubt the 1 B.C. eclipse occurred in that time frame. The lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. happened on March 23 or thereabouts. There was a mild insurrection at the temple in Jerusalem upon the belief that Herod had died (in Jericho). The rioters were arrested and burned alive, with the eclipse happening that evening.

At any rate, looking at Josephus, a birth year of 6 A.D., based on the Roman empire turning Judea into a province and taking it from the Herods and so ordering a census- which we see in Luke- is untenable. ***

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily- I think you are misguided in your approach to your thesis topic. If you are talking about something relatively recent and complex, with many different sources of information to plow through, then a “survey” of the top-rated scholars might be in order. But when discussing the historicity of Jesus, there are only 5-6 written sources to be considered that are veracious and somewhat contemporary- Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, and the New Testament. With all those works online and in searchable form, you can persue through them as well as any “expert.”

Don’t sell yourself short.

I would recommend Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome.” Hagan focuses on secondary and tertiary characters in the New Testament that are also written about in secular Roman texts where there are historical events associated with them, if not outright biographies.

He concludes that the crucifixion year had to be 36 A.D.

Thank you for the recommendations. I will take a look at the books you mentioned. Like Bart, I have pretty much discarded 36 CE, but with something like this, where so much is uncertain, one has to keep an open mind, and I am not set on 33 CE if credible new evidence is presented.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The argument that Pilate would not have deferred so readily to the Jerusalem priesthood holds water, on condition that we can find evidence that Sejanus had it in for the Jews. But I’ve never seen any convincing evidence to that effect. Where does that assertion come from? Not, I think, from either Suetonius or Tacitus. Possibly from Philo or some other Jewish writer? I’d be grateful if you can point me in the right direction.

Regards
Bart

Yes, Bart, I have to admit, it is mostly Flavius Josephus and Philo (mostly) who write of Sejanus’ hatred of the Jews, however, it does seem to be supported by Scripture. For example, in Luke 13:1 Jesus makes reference to the “Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices,” referencing the murder of Jews and the desecration of their worship. Perhaps you read it differently?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily- I think you are misguided in your approach to your thesis topic. If you are talking about something relatively recent and complex, with many different sources of information to plow through, then a “survey” of the top-rated scholars might be in order. But when discussing the historicity of Jesus, there are only 5-6 written sources to be considered that are veracious and somewhat contemporary- Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, and the New Testament. With all those works online and in searchable form, you can persue through them as well as any “expert.”

Don’t sell yourself short.

I would recommend Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome.” Hagan focuses on secondary and tertiary characters in the New Testament that are also written about in secular Roman texts where there are historical events associated with them, if not outright biographies.

He concludes that the crucifixion year had to be 36 A.D.

I agree that Josephus is very important. He is one of the non-Christian sources who mentions Jesus in his writing. However, doesn’t Luke 3:1-2 rule out a crucifixion year of 36 CE?

*In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the Word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. *

Given a 3 1/2 year ministry, that would give us a crucifixion date of 33 CE, or if one goes with a 1 year ministry, a crucifixion date of 30 CE. That’s partly why I ruled out all years except 30 and 33 CE.

I will be rereading Josephus. I’m not NEARLY finished with my thesis! I love learning about the historical Jesus. It’s natural, I think. When we love someone, we want to know all about him or her, so it’s natural to want to know about Jesus. What isn’t so much fun for me is working with all these dates. I’m am not a good numbers person, so I appreciate any correction all of you can give me. Thanks to all.

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, Bart, I have to admit, it is mostly Flavius Josephus and Philo (mostly) who write of Sejanus’ hatred of the Jews, however, it does seem to be supported by Scripture. For example, in Luke 13:1 Jesus makes reference to the “Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices,” referencing the murder of Jews and the desecration of their worship. Perhaps you read it differently?

I’ve never read Philo, so I’m prepared to accept the possibility that something might turn up there. But there’s nothing of that kind in Josephus. Sejanus’s name turns up a few times in Book 18 of the Antiquities, mainly in connection with his fall from power. There’s not so much as a hint that he ever nurtured any feelings of animosity or hostility toward the Jews, or ever acted in any way to antagonize them. And as for the incident in Luke, I read that as an act of injustice committed by an imperial official against the local population he was supposed to be governing. I see nothing at all in that verse to suggest that Sejanus, acting through Pilate, was deliberately seeking to cause harm to the Jewish nation, or had singled the Jews out for ill-treatment.

Regards
Bart

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’ve never read Philo, so I’m prepared to accept the possibility that something might turn up there. But there’s nothing of that kind in Josephus. Sejanus’s name turns up a few times in Book 18 of the Antiquities, mainly in connection with his fall from power. There’s not so much as a hint that he ever nurtured any feelings of animosity or hostility toward the Jews, or ever acted in any way to antagonize them. And as for the incident in Luke, I read that as an act of injustice committed by an imperial official against the local population he was supposed to be governing. I see nothing at all in that verse to suggest that Sejanus, acting through Pilate, was deliberately seeking to cause harm to the Jewish nation, or had singled the Jews out for ill-treatment.

Regards
Bart

Thank you for the information, Bart. I will go over my notes on Josephus again. This is from Philo:

“Therefore everyone everywhere, even if he was not naturally well disposed toward the Jews, was afraid to engage in destroying any of our institutions, and indeed it was the same under Tiberius though matters in Italy became troublesome when Sejanus was organizing his onslaughts. For Tiberius knew the truth, he knew at once after Sejanus’ death that the accusations made against the Jewish inhabitants of Rome were false slanders, invented by him because he wished to make away with the nation, knowing that it would take the sole or the principal part in opposing his unholy plots and actions, and would defend the emperor when in danger of becoming the victim of treachery. And he charged his procurators in every place to which they were appointed to speak comfortably to the members of our nation in the different cities, assuring them that the penal measures did not extend to all but only to the guilty, who were few, and to disturb none of the established customs but even to regard them as a trust committed to their care, the people as naturally peaceable, and the institutions as an influence promoting orderly conduct" (Philo Legatio 24, 159-161).

And Eusebius writes:

“…Sejanus, who was then in great favor with Tiberius, had made every effort to destroy the whole nation of the Jews from the foundation, and that in Pontius Pilate under whom the crimes were committed against our Savior, having attempted everything contrary to what was lawful among the Jews respecting the Temple at Jerusalem, which was then yet standing, excited them to the greatest tumults" (Ecclesiastical History ii, V).

Of course it would help my case if I could cite Tacitus or Suetonis on the subject of Sejanus’ hatred of the Jews, but unfortunately, right now, I cannot. You are right.

To me, Pilate’s response to this:

“…Pilate made efforts to release him (Jesus), but the Jews cried out, saying ‘If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar.’ When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat…And so he then delivered him up to them to be crucified.”

…seems only intelligible if given after 31 CE, but perhaps I am misinterpreting. The Jews were threatening Pilate, as I see it, and they could not have done that when Sejanus was in power, but one would first have to accept Sejanus’ anti-Semitism.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Just a “thank you” to everyone on this thread whether I’ve conversed with you or not. The historical Jesus is very important to me, so I appreciate any corrections, conjectures, book recommendations, etc. Some day we will all know all, but for now, we just have to muddle through.

 

[steve53]

Thank you for the recommendations. I will take a look at the books you mentioned. Like Bart, I have pretty much discarded 36 CE, but with something like this, where so much is uncertain, one has to keep an open mind, and I am not set on 33 CE if credible new evidence is presented.

Hagen quotes extensively from Josephus, Philo, & Tacitus among others in his works. And that is a good thing.

Also Lily, what you should remember and pay close attention to is the secondary story of Herod Antipas, his wife Herodias, and John the Baptist. There is a whole dimension here that sheds light on the time frame. When Herod Antipas married Herodias there was a huge outcry in the Jewish community, and especially from John the Baptist. Herod Antipas had to abandon his wife, who was a Arabian princess, who went back to her father who was King,Aretas.

So Aretas basically declared war against Antipas and occupied part of his territory. Herod Antipas was preparing to go to war against Arates and, according to Hagen, had John the Baptist arrested because he was causing a distraction to his soldiers. He later had John the Baptist executed, and we know that Jesus’ final year and last Passover happened after John the Baptist was executed, and also after Herod Antipas’ army was destroyed by King Aretas of Arabia.

When could those events have happened?

And we haven’t even begun to talk about Lucius Vitellius, and the threat from the Parthian Empire.

So there is a lot more to this time line question than what is seen superficially in the New Testament.

I hope you find this as interesting as I do.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hagen quotes extensively from Josephus, Philo, & Tacitus among others in his works. And that is a good thing.

Also Lily, what you should remember and pay close attention to is the secondary story of Herod Antipas, his wife Herodias, and John the Baptist. There is a whole dimension here that sheds light on the time frame. When Herod Antipas married Herodias there was a huge outcry in the Jewish community, and especially from John the Baptist. Herod Antipas had to abandon his wife, who was a Arabian princess, who went back to her father who was King,Aretas.

So Aretas basically declared war against Antipas and occupied part of his territory. Herod Antipas was preparing to go to war against Arates and, according to Hagen, had John the Baptist arrested because he was causing a distraction to his soldiers. He later had John the Baptist executed, and we know that Jesus’ final year and last Passover happened after John the Baptist was executed, and also after Herod Antipas’ army was destroyed by King Aretas of Arabia.

When could those events have happened?

And we haven’t even begun to talk about Lucius Vitellius, and the threat from the Parthian Empire.

So there is a lot more to this time line question than what is seen superficially in the New Testament.

I hope you find this as interesting as I do.

Yes, I do find it as interesting as you do, Steve, and I will certainly investigate all the information you’ve given me. I do not have a closed mind on the subject at all. Thank you for your help and the information.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Has anyone mentioned the historian Eusebius yet? He mentions the destruction of the temple (AD70) occurring 40 years after Christ’s death. (Eusebius book 3: ch. 7) That bit of information favours the early crucifixion date of AD 30. It fits better with John 2:20 data too.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Has anyone mentioned the historian Eusebius yet? He mentions the destruction of the temple (AD70) occurring 40 years after Christ’s death. (Eusebius book 3: ch. 7) That bit of information favours the early crucifixion date of AD 30. It fits better with John 2:20 data too.

I quoted Eusebius, but not the information you provided. Thank you. Every little bit helps, seeing that we don’t have a lot.

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you for the information, Bart. I will go over my notes on Josephus again. This is from Philo:

“Therefore everyone everywhere, even if he was not naturally well disposed toward the Jews, was afraid to engage in destroying any of our institutions, and indeed it was the same under Tiberius though matters in Italy became troublesome when Sejanus was organizing his onslaughts. For Tiberius knew the truth, he knew at once after Sejanus’ death that the accusations made against the Jewish inhabitants of Rome were false slanders, invented by him because he wished to make away with the nation, knowing that it would take the sole or the principal part in opposing his unholy plots and actions, and would defend the emperor when in danger of becoming the victim of treachery. And he charged his procurators in every place to which they were appointed to speak comfortably to the members of our nation in the different cities, assuring them that the penal measures did not extend to all but only to the guilty, who were few, and to disturb none of the established customs but even to regard them as a trust committed to their care, the people as naturally peaceable, and the institutions as an influence promoting orderly conduct" (Philo Legatio 24, 159-161).

And Eusebius writes:

“…Sejanus, who was then in great favor with Tiberius, had made every effort to destroy the whole nation of the Jews from the foundation, and that in Pontius Pilate under whom the crimes were committed against our Savior, having attempted everything contrary to what was lawful among the Jews respecting the Temple at Jerusalem, which was then yet standing, excited them to the greatest tumults" (Ecclesiastical History ii, V).

Of course it would help my case if I could cite Tacitus or Suetonis on the subject of Sejanus’ hatred of the Jews, but unfortunately, right now, I cannot. You are right.

To me, Pilate’s response to this:

“…Pilate made efforts to release him (Jesus), but the Jews cried out, saying ‘If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar.’ When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat…And so he then delivered him up to them to be crucified.”

…seems only intelligible if given after 31 CE, but perhaps I am misinterpreting. The Jews were threatening Pilate, as I see it, and they could not have done that when Sejanus was in power, but one would first have to accept Sejanus’ anti-Semitism.

Lily, thank you for those excerpts from Philo and Eusebius. Now I need to follow up on this angle.

I wish you good luck with your thesis. Our little conversation today I found both instructive and enjoyable. Please keep in touch, and let us know, from time to time, how your thesis is going, and brief us on anything you have discovered that is of particular interest.

Best wishes,
Bart

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily, thank you for those excerpts from Philo and Eusebius. Now I need to follow up on this angle.

I wish you good luck with your thesis. Our little conversation today I found both instructive and enjoyable. Please keep in touch, and let us know, from time to time, how your thesis is going, and brief us on anything you have discovered that is of particular interest.

Best wishes,
Bart

Thank you, Bart. I, too, found this conversation enjoyable and instructive.

Lily