2 of 2
2
Voynich MS update
Posted: 03 September 2013 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1268
Joined  2007-03-21

The bottom line is: people will go on believing what they want, or need to believe, regardless of whether it’s the truth or not. What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not wait for an answer.

Brilliant!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1219
Joined  2007-04-28

Exactly. We know for sure that Pilate and Herod existed independently of the New Testament. There’s corroborative historical evidence.

We get a lot of repeats here so the next time the documentary pops up I’ll note its name, etc and investigate further though the link Dave provided seems to cover it all. It might show up on YouTube though..

[ Edited: 06 September 2013 09:35 AM by venomousbede ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2001
Joined  2007-02-19

We know for sure that Pilate and Herod existed independently of the New Testament. There’s corroborative historical evidence.

It’s a good thing there is. There was a whole family, of several generations of Herods. At least three of them (H. Archelaos, H. Antipas, and H. Agrippa) are referred to in the New Testament, all of them simply as “Herod”. Two were the sons, and one the grandson, of the Herod who enlarged and embellished the Second Temple.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2013 04:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  825
Joined  2007-03-01

BTW, is there anything in the original text of John ch 18, v 38 that suggests that Pilate was ‘jesting’? I can’t imagine a more serious question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2013 05:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2001
Joined  2007-02-19

It does look odd to the contemporary eye, but the other OED* says that 500 years ago (and perhaps 400 years ago still?), “to jest” meant “to speak in a trifling manner”, which (since Pilate was clearly dodging the issue) could perhaps in this case be stretched to mean “to equivocate” or “to prevaricate”, which would make more sense to a modern ear --- though “prevaricating Pilate” is too alliterative—it sounds like part of a tongue-twister, like “Peter Piper”

*Etymonline

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ BL: fantastic      BL: flack, flak ››