Message from discussion Pilate's testimony
Received: by 10.68.212.232 with SMTP id nn8mr9071325pbc.1.1324055810262;
Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:16:50 -0800 (PST)
From: iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pilate's testimony
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:13:54 -0800 (PST)
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1324056135 80613 126.96.36.199 (16 Dec 2011 17:22:15 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:22:15 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
X-Authentication-Warning: yws13.prod.google.com: news set sender to n...@google.com using -f
Injection-Info: x7g2000vby.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.8.131.52; posting-account=rvHJqQoAAAC8r1Xv_0U31B-mmTnI0xlX
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darwin.ediacara.org id pBGHMF0C080600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Dec 16, 2:20 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 1:06 pm, Perseus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 8:27 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 15, 10:37 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 15, 5:34 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 13, 1:58 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 13, 8:28 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 13, 11:16 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2:57 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 3:53 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 7:19 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 4:06 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 5:50 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're going to reply (and I expect you will) please cite the primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > literature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's letters, James, Peter, John
> > > > > > > > > > > > and Jude's letters. Happy reading.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your contribution. I'm certain you did your best.
> > > > > > > > > > This seems to be amongst the set of reasonable possibilities.
> > > > > > > > > Cites to the others?
> > > > > > > Still no cites?
> > > > > Still no citations.
> > > > > At this point I consider the matter to be closed. You may have the
> > > > > last word.
> > > > The sources have been given to you. Go away and read them.
> > > Just a point of clarification --- I seem to have missed a post.
> > > I was under the impression that no source prior to Justin Martyr ---
> > > Christian or otherwise --- mentioned the Acts of Pilate. Which of
> > > your sources prior to Justin reference this document? (Please provide
> > > edition and page number.)
> > > > They have
> > > > been painstakingly copied through the centuries for. Many translations
> > > > exist. And yet you seem to prefer to read the opinions expressed in
> > > > writings nearly 2000 later somehow reasoning that being 2000 years
> > > > down the road they would be in a better position to know what really
> > > > happened. I've got some news for your ego. You are not the example
> > > > academic you think you are. Your scholarship is the poorest I've ever
> > > > seen. You refuse to even read the primary sources and then think you
> > > > should be taken seriously. Go away, learn Greek, read the sources.
> > > > Then come back and we can talk about it. Until you can handle the
> > > > sources directly you just another whining voice that evidently doesn't
> > > > have a clue.
> > > > JC
> > even if existed such a forged or real document, it would not prove
> > that Jesus was a god-man. It only would have proved that a man named
> > Jesus was crucified in times of Procurator Pilate.
> > Perseus
> The reason this is a (moderately) interesting question to me is that
> we have forgeries that circulated later --- both Christian and secular
> (the latter intended to discredit the Christian version).
> The idea of this document can be plausibly traced back to Justin
> Martyr. There was an interesting (moderately, to me) line of
> scholarship in the 1880s that suggested the forgery we have can be
> traced back to the document Justin referred to, but this position has
> been abandoned since then (as best I could tell). While the idea of
> such a document may be traced back to Justin, the evidence we have
> suggests the documents we possess were created much later.
Draws a deep breath. Oh Garamond, Garamond, Garamond. If you still
doubt that the deeds of Pilate were recorded then skip over to the new
Tacitus thread that will be available shortly.
I've specifically delayed entering into a discussion about so called
later forgeries and allowed you to hold fast onto this a priori
assumption as a tool to let you be able to reason on the meaning of
Justin's statement. Now's the time to jump over to the Tacitus thread.
We'll talk about whether later documents were forgeries and how much
so and with what motivation later. Suffice it to say that are far too
quick to assume that the Christian version in its entirety is a
forgery. Also the fact that Romans later made their own version in no
way refutes the prior existence of an original. It merely enforces it.
They explicitly accept by this act that an original version existed.
> There was an even earlier strain of scholarship that suggested Justin
> was referring to a real document. As he did not quote from the
> document, was in no position to know whether or not such a document
> existed and as we have no other record of this document, that line has
> been abandoned as well.
> This is not the only time Justin got his facts wrong. Whether you
> want to acribe this to malice, carelessness or being honestly misled
> is a question history isn't well-equipped to answer.