Damien F. Mackey
“This title then
read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified
was nigh to the
city: and it was written in Hebrew, and
Greek, and Latin”.
John 19:20
Perhaps in accord with my view that Jesus Christ was born into an
Hellenistic (Maccabean) - and not early Roman imperial - era:
A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ
Pontius Pilate’s inscription about Jesus was written in Greek, before
Latin.
Thus we read: http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app163.html
THE INSCRIPTIONS ON THE CROSS.
Appendix 163 To The Companion
Bible.
|
||
Each of the four Gospels gives a
different wording of these inscriptions:—
1. Matthew 27:37: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
2. Mark 15:26: "The King of the Jews." 3. Luke 23:38: "This is the King of the Jews." 4. John 19:19: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
Here again the difficulty is created by assuming
that these similar but differing records are identical, without
noticing the exact words which are written. It is universally assumed that
there was only one, and then follow the efforts to explain the alleged
"discrepancies" between the different versions of it.
If we note carefully what is actually said all will be clear.
I.
Mark 15:26 can be dismissed; for he does not say anything
about a "title" (Greek titlos, John 19:19) being put on the cross or anywhere else, which any
one had seen. It is a question of the Lord's "accusation" or
"indictment", or the ground or cause of His condemnation as
claiming to be "the King of the Jews".
II.
John 19:19 speaks of a "title" written by
Pilate, before it left Pilate's presence; for no one suggests that
Pilate went to the scene of the execution and wrote anything there.
In Pilate's writing the three languages were in this order: (1) Hebrew, (2) Greek, and (3) Latin (compare IV. below). And it was read after the cross had been set up. This was the one which gave rise to the argument between the Chief Priests and Pilate (John 19:21, 22); and this argument took place before the parting of the garments (verses 23, 24).
III. The inscription in Matthew
27:37 was the result of that
discussion; for another "title" was brought and was "set up
over his head", after they had "parted His garments,"
and having sat down, they watched Him there (verses 35, 36).
|
As there could hardly have been two
titles at the same time, the former must have been then taken down and the
other substituted.
We are not told how long the argument lasted or when it ceased, or what was the final result of it.
IV. A further result is seen in
Luke 23:38; for another was brought
much later, close upon "the sixth hour" (verse 44), when the darkness fell. It was written with the
languages in a different order: (1) Greek, (2) Latin, and (3) Hebrew (verse
38).¹ It was put up "over
Him" (Greek ep' auto, verse 38), "after the revilings of the People"
(compare verses 35-37, with verse
38); whereas Matthew's (Number III) was
set up before the revilings (compare Matthew 27:37 with verse 39).
The result is that:—
1. Mark's was only His indictment.
2. John's was the first, written
by Pilate himself (or by his order), in (1) Hebrew, (2) Greek, and (3) Latin,
and was put on the cross before it left Pilate's presence.
3. Matthew's was the second,
substituted for the first, in consequence of the arguments which took place,
and was set up "over His head" after the garments had been
divided, and before the revilings.
4. Luke's was the third (and
last), put up "over Him", after the revilings (Luke 23:35), and was seen just before the darkness of the
"sixth hour" (verse 44).
This was written in three languages, but in a different order:¹ (1) Greek,
(2) Latin, and (3) Hebrew (verse 38).
Not in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin, as Number II in John 19:19.
Thus, such differences as these are marks of Divine
accuracy; and, instead of being sources of difficulties, become, when rightly
divided, the means of their removal.
____________________________ ¹ But see the texts. |
|
Part Two: Gunnar Heinsohn claims
“The Romans were Greeks”
Mystery: Why did the Romans
converse in Greek?
Answer 1: The Romans were Greeks.
Professor Gunnar Heinsohn
Professor Gunnar Heinsohn seems to me to be someone who can get things
either very right, or very wrong – with the very wrong side of the scale, I think,
tending to tip the heavier.
The following post of his, which probably - and typically - fluctuates
between right and wrong, grabbed my interest, nonetheless, for its moving in a
direction similar to this present series on Pilate and to some of my recent
articles, a favouring of the Greeks over
the Romans.
Heinsohn’s post also explores some serious apparent anomalies with the
conventional view of Roman chronology, a standpoint with which I am in full agreement,
whilst not necessarily sharing all of Heinsohn’s specific details. And so, wherever
I feel it necessary, I shall add my own comments to professor Heinsohn’s post,
which he has entitled: “Roman
Chronology: Credibility Gap”:https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/roman-chronology-credibility-gap/
….
The chronology of the Roman Empire is built
directly upon the very shaky foundations of the Crisis of the Roman Republic
which may [or may not] have lasted from 134 to 27 BC.
Unfortunately, the academics can’t agree upon
whether the Crisis of the Roman Republic had an early start in
134 BC or a late start in 69 BC and whether it had an early finish
in 44 BC or a late finish in 27 BC.
The Crisis of the Roman Republic refers to an
extended period of political instability and social unrest that culminated in
the demise of the Roman Republic and the advent of the Roman Empire, from
about 134 BC to 44 BC.
The exact dates of the Crisis are unclear
because “Rome teetered between normality and crisis” for many decades.
Likewise, the causes and attributes of the crises changed
throughout the decades, including the forms of slavery, brigandage, wars
internal and external, land reform, the invention of excruciating new
punishments, the expansion of Roman citizenship, and even the changing
composition of the Roman army.
Modern scholars also disagree about the nature of the
crisis.
Mackey’s comment: As it happens, I have thrown out much of this
supposed Republican ‘history’ in my article:
A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ
whilst retaining the Roman Republican history as
outlined in Maccabees 1-2.
Heinsohn continues:
The Crisis of the Roman Republic – an extended
period of political historical unrest, from about 133 BC to 30 BC.
In it’s turn, the chronology of the Crisis of the
Roman Republic is based upon the “fragmentary” and “somewhat erroneous” Chronology
of Rome where AD 1 = 754 AUC.
….
The ancient Romans were certain of the day Rome was
founded: April 21, the day of the festival sacred to Pales… However they did
not know, or they were uncertain of, the exact year the city had
been founded…
Ab urbe condita is a
Latin phrase meaning “from the founding of the City (of Rome)”, traditionally
dated to 753 BC. AUC is a year-numbering system used by some ancient
Roman historians to identify particular Roman years.
… It was later calculated (from the historical record of the succession of Roman consuls) that the year AD 1 corresponds to the Roman year 754 AUC, based on Varro’s epoch.
Marcus Terentius Varro (116 BC – 27 BC) was an
ancient Roman scholar and writer.
… The compilation of the Varronian chronology was an attempt to determine an exact year-by-year timeline of Roman history up to his time… It has been demonstrated to be somewhat erroneous but has become the widely accepted standard chronology, in large part because it was inscribed on the arch of Augustus in Rome; though that arch no longer stands, a large portion of the chronology has survived under the name of Fasti Capitolini. 
The Fasti Capitolini, or Capitoline Fasti, are a
list of the chief magistrates of the Roman Republic, extending from the early
fifth century BC down to the reign of Augustus, the first Roman emperor.
… The Capitoline Fasti were originally engraved on marble tablets erected in the Roman forum. The main portions were discovered in a fragmentary condition, and removed from the forum in 1546, as ancient structures were dismantled to produce material for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica. … Thirty fragments of the Fasti Capitolini were recovered, along with twenty-six fragments of the Acta Triumphalia, or Fasti Triumphales, dating to the same period and recording the names of Roman generals who had been honoured with a triumph. … Two additional fragments were discovered during excavations in the forum in 1817 and 1818. Others were discovered in excavations from 1872 to 1878, with the last discovered in the Tiber in 1888.
One peculiarity of the Crisis of the Roman Republic
is the tumultuous narrative of the Roman Legions where 27 new legions
are founded before “about half” of all the legions are suddenly disbanded in 31
BC.
This fine finesse helps mask the massive turmoil
experienced by the Roman Legions between 59 and 31 BC when 27 Roman
Legions were founded and “about half of the over 50 legions” were
disbanded in 31 BC.
However, peculiarities in the Chronology of Rome
are not unusual.
For example:
The history of the Roman Empire begins with the outlier
reign of Emperor Augustus who rules for 40 years from 27 BC.
Augustus… was a Roman statesman and
military leader who served as the first Emperor of the Roman Empire,
controlling Imperial Rome from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.
The saga of the Roman Empire then proceeds with
the most extraordinary sequence of Emperors that contains a
multi-layered mix of man-made manipulation artefacts.
The Roman Empire was the post-Roman Republic period of
the ancient Roman civilization, characterized by government headed by emperors
and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, Africa
and Asia.
… The imperial period of Rome lasted approximately 1,500 years compared to the 500 years of the Republican era.
The 100 Year Credibility Gap
A charitable interpretation of the data suggests the first 100 years of the Roman Empire narrative is creative fiction using characters and artefacts from the Roman Republic. 
Apparently, the Roman
Empire didn’t need to steadily increase the number of Roman
Legions as the empire expanded towards it’s “greatest extent” in 117 AD.
….
Arguably, the best support for the 100 Year
Credibility Gap is the Pantheon in Rome where the classical
architecture of a temple providentially borrowed from before the Arabian
Horizon becomes the portico to the temple built by Hadrian in 126
AD.
The Pantheon is a
former Roman temple, now a church, in Rome, Italy, on the site of an earlier
temple commissioned by Marcus Agrippa during the reign of Augustus (27
BC – 14 AD).
The present building was completed by the emperor Hadrian and probably dedicated about 126 AD.
Mackey’s comment: I am even more radical than Heinsohn here,
having argued in my article, “A New Timetable” (above), for a re-dating of
Hadrian as a Seleucid Greek ruler.
Heinsohn continues:
The Pantheon of
Agrippa well deserves the name of the Sphinx of the Campus Martius, because, in
spite of its preservation, it remains inexplicable from many points of view.
This uncertainty relates to the general outline as well
as to the details of the building.
The rotunda is obviously disjointed from the portico, and their architectural lines are not in harmony with each other.
On the other hand, it is evident that the Pantheon seen
by Pliny the elder, in Vespasian’s time, was not the one which has come down to
us, because there is no place in the present building for the Caryatides of
Diogenes the Athenian, and for the capitals of Syracusan bronze which he saw
and described as crowning the columns of the temple.
Therefore, when I was asked in 1881 to write an official
account of the excavations undertaken by Guido Baccelli, the Minister of Public
Instruction, who freed the Pantheon from its ignoble surroundings, I began the
report by stating that the veil of mystery in which the monument was
shrouded had by no means been lifted by these last researches, and that
perhaps it never would be.
We were far from supposing that before a few years had
elapsed we should discover another, nay, two more Pantheons under the
existing one, and should be able to declare that Agrippa’s name engraved on
the epistyle of the pronaos is historically and artistically misleading.
The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome – Rodolfo
Lanciani – 1897
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028273997#page/n536/mode/1up 
The Romans only developed fired clay bricks under the
Empire, but had previously used “mud brick”,
dried only by the sun and therefore much weaker and only suitable for smaller
buildings.
Development began under Augustus, using techniques
developed by the Greeks, who had been using fired bricks much longer, and the
earliest dated building in Rome to make use of fired brick is the Theatre of
Marcellus, completed in 13 BC.
The 200 Year Credibility Gap
A less charitable interpretation of the data suggests the entire Roman Empire narrative is creative fiction that incorporates convenient characters and available artefacts from Greek Republics scattered across Europe and around the Mediterranean Sea.
The 200 Year Credibility Gap suggests the concept
of the Roman Empire was created in the 2nd millennium to validate and
encapsulate the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth.
Mackey’s comment: But see my revision of the chronology of Jesus
Christ as above.
Herod Antipater, known
by the nickname Antipas, was a 1st-century ruler of Galilee and Perea, who bore
the title of tetrarch (“ruler of a quarter”) and is referred to as both “Herod
the Tetrarch” and “King Herod” in the New Testament although he never held the
title of king.
He is widely known today for accounts in the New
Testament of his role in events that led to the executions of John the
Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.
After being recognized by Augustus upon the death of his
father, Herod the Great (c. 4 BC/AD 1), and subsequent ethnarch rule by his
brother, Herod Archelaus, Antipas officially ruled Galilee and Perea as
a client state of the Roman Empire.
Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire occurred intermittently over a period of over two centuries between
the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD under Nero Caesar and the Edict of Milan
in 313 AD, in which the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and
Licinius legalised the Christian religion.
Support for the 200 Year Credibility Gap is found
in Alexandria [Egypt] where the Roman remains [including coins of Trajan
and Hadrian] are buried deep beneath the debris layer associated with
the Arabian Horizon of 637 CE.
Mackey’s comment: But see my articles arguing for the
non-historicity of Mohammed.
Heinsohn continues:
….
Strangely enough, the 200 Year Credibility Gap
resolves a few thorny issues.
Mystery: Why did the Roman Empire continue to use
the SPQR emblem?
Answer: The Empire narrative providentially borrowed it from the Republic.
SPQR is an initialism of a
phrase in Latin: Senātus Populusque Rōmānus, referring to the government
of the ancient Roman Republic, and used as an official emblem of the
modern-day comune (municipality) of Rome.
It appears on Roman currency, at the end of documents
made public by inscription in stone or metal, and in dedications of monuments
and public works, and it was emblazoned on the vexilloids of the Roman
legions.[citation needed]
… This signature continued in use under the Roman Empire.
Mystery: Why did the Romans converse in Greek?
Answer 1: The Romans were Greeks. Answer 2: Latin, like the Roman Empire, was only invented in the 2nd millennium.
The Church issued the dogmatic definitions of the first
seven General Councils in Greek.
Even in Rome, Greek remained at first the language of the
liturgy and the language in which the first popes wrote.
During the Late Republic and the Early Empire, educated
Roman citizens were generally fluent in Greek, but
state business was conducted in Latin.
Medieval Latin was the
form of Latin used in the Middle Ages…
… There is no real consensus on the exact boundary where Late Latin ends and medieval Latin begins.
Some scholarly surveys begin with the rise of early
Ecclesiastical Latin in the middle of the 4th century, others
around 500, and still others with the replacement of written Late Latin by
written Romance languages starting around the year 900.
….
Mystery: Why do Roman cultural artefacts look Greek?
Answer: The Romans were Greeks.  |
No comments:
Post a Comment