Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

David, you recently uploaded a PDF file concerning the Acta Pilati circulated under Maximinus and the dates of Gratus and Pilate. I have read and reread this file a couple of times, and am interested in figuring out what happens chronologically if we accept the suggestion that Gratus governed Judea for only 4 years before Pilate came on board.

For reference, Wikipedia offers a table with the accepted dates for the governors of Judea. Tiberius ruled from AD 14 to 37.

If Gratus governed for only 4 years, then Pilate must have taken over in around AD 19. If Jesus died under Pilate, then this could line up with a hypothetical reconstruction of mine concerning the alleged birth date of Christ. However, in Antiquities 18.6.5 §177 Josephus claims that Tiberius sent in only two procurators: Gratus and Pilate. We have to extend Pilate's rule, maintaining his departure near the end of Tiberius' life (Marcellus probably not being a "real" governor), in order to account for this statement, I believe. So the seven years we remove from Gratus must accrue to Pilate.

I noted on another thread how suspicious it seems that Jesus' death is said to have happened almost exactly 40 years before the fall of Jerusalem. If the implied dates in Josephus have been tampered with, maybe this total was closer to 50 originally, and was changed to 40 precisely because of the symbolic value.

So certain concepts that I have been playing with would line up fairly well if Pilate's dates are adjusted as suggested. But what else would have to change? Are there other events which would have to be tweaked in order for everything to fall into place? You seem as if you have given this some thought, David, so whatever else you can offer would be most welcome.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Tacitus writes in Annals 2.85 that "another debate dealt with the proscription of the Egyptian and Jewish rites" [actum et de sacris Aegyptiis Iudaicisque pellendis]. This debate is dated to after the accession of Tiberius to his third consulship, alongside Germanicus, and thus to after AD 18, I think. If it has anything to do with the Mundus and Paulina affair and the Fulvia debacle described by Josephus in Antiquities 18.3.4-5 §65-84 in the section describing Pilate's tenure, then the date would again support Pilate's taking the reins in around AD 19.

ETA: Another possible indicator: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4026.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Secret Alias »

I think it might be worth revisiting the scholarly reconstructions of Schwartz, Mason, Charlesworth etc regarding the gap in Josephus at this point in the narrative. It sounds like a crazy idea the first time you hear it - something straight out of this forum by a nutbar like me. But there is surprising consensus about the (potential agreement) between Josephus and the Acts of Pilate. What makes this more interesting is that Justin was clearly (or likely) filtered down to us via Irenaeus who likely employed Josephus when constructing Luke. The 'fifteenth of Tiberius' is either a corruption of 15 Tybi or a deliberate and blatant attempt to redefine Christianity away from the Acts of Pilate material. Remember (as you have demonstrated) Justin embraces the Acts of Pilate as an 'official document' proving the existence of Jesus. This I think goes hand in hand with the 'census' and the interest in the Acts of Pilate in Tertullian who often it seems employs documents of Justin (= Against the Jews/book 3 Against Marcion and as Andrew and I agree Book Four Against Marcion) which have only been superficially 'sanitized' to agree with hitherto non-existent or nascent Christian orthodoxy (i.e. fourfold canon, the influence of Luke's 'fifteenth of Tiberius' as the beginning of Jesus's ministry etc).

What this suggests to me at least is that the introduction of the ministry of Jesus beginning in the fifteenth of Tiberius (and necessarily the 'invention of Luke/Acts as we now have them) was done late in Irenaeus's tenure. He must have grown into his position of authority, tolerating gospel harmonies of previous generations only to 'discover' Luke and the fourfold canon when he consolidated his power - perhaps after the expulsion of Florinus. When Justin's works were corrected he left the mentions to the Acts of Pilate (and their necessary agreement to the 21 CE ministry intact). It implies again that Justin had real influence in the Christian community and that Irenaeus needed his association/support of Justin (at least the claim of association/support) as a stepping stone for power. Then when he consolidated his power he couldn't very well erase the allusions to the Acts of Pilate. They were passed along in the copies of Justin that eventually became 'taken over' by Tertullian albeit passed on to Tertullian through after an editorial effort by Irenaeus.

In other words, since Justin never explicitly mentioned the name or chronological details associated with his gospel, likely only slammed Marcion for falsifying a commonly held gospel, Irenaeus could insert references to Luke in various texts. But he was unable or unwilling to fully remove 'Acts of Pilate' markers despite the contradiction with Luke.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:04 pm David, you recently uploaded a PDF file concerning the Acta Pilati circulated under Maximinus and the dates of Gratus and Pilate. I have read and reread this file a couple of times, and am interested in figuring out what happens chronologically if we accept the suggestion that Gratus governed Judea for only 4 years before Pilate came on board.

For reference, Wikipedia offers a table with the accepted dates for the governors of Judea. Tiberius ruled from AD 14 to 37.

If Gratus governed for only 4 years, then Pilate must have taken over in around AD 19. If Jesus died under Pilate, then this could line up with a hypothetical reconstruction of mine concerning the alleged birth date of Christ. However, in Antiquities 18.6.5 §177 Josephus claims that Tiberius sent in only two procurators: Gratus and Pilate. We have to extend Pilate's rule, maintaining his departure near the end of Tiberius' life (Marcellus probably not being a "real" governor), in order to account for this statement, I believe. So the seven years we remove from Gratus must accrue to Pilate.

I noted on another thread how suspicious it seems that Jesus' death is said to have happened almost exactly 40 years before the fall of Jerusalem. If the implied dates in Josephus have been tampered with, maybe this total was closer to 50 originally, and was changed to 40 precisely because of the symbolic value.

So certain concepts that I have been playing with would line up fairly well if Pilate's dates are adjusted as suggested. But what else would have to change? Are there other events which would have to be tweaked in order for everything to fall into place? You seem as if you have given this some thought, David, so whatever else you can offer would be most welcome.
Tacitus writes in Annals 2.85 that "another debate dealt with the proscription of the Egyptian and Jewish rites" [actum et de sacris Aegyptiis Iudaicisque pellendis]. This debate is dated to after the accession of Tiberius to his third consulship, alongside Germanicus, and thus to after AD 18, I think. If it has anything to do with the Mundus and Paulina affair and the Fulvia debacle described by Josephus in Antiquities 18.3.4-5 §65-84 in the section describing Pilate's tenure, then the date would again support Pilate's taking the reins in around AD 19.
I think the case was first made for this by Robert Eisler in a German work that was later translated into English as Messiah Jesus & John the Baptist (1933). In his day he was considered a breath of fresh air and a genius, but today he is considered a bit of a nut case. There should be a link to it in the debate prep page.

The evidence is all circumstantial, nothing hard and direct, but people get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time in criminal courts, where the bar is set fairly high.

But let's assume for the moment that the text of Antiquities actually was altered to make the date of Jesus' death in the Acta impossible. The question can be asked: Why?

I've suggested that the likely suspect is Constantine, but how would he have gained access to records like this? From what I have been able to find out, they would not have been public records, but the private possessions of Pilate himself. When he returned to Rome in 36 CE, he had many years of loot from his governorship of Judea. He would have retained any notebooks or diaries he may have kept, because these were treated as personal property, and may help his case if he was charged and tried for misconduct after the fact. He supposedly went into exile in the time of Caligula (AD 37–41), committing suicide in Vienna in Gaul.

However, possessions from his estate could have lived on (preserved by wives, children, freedmen). I have some questions about how these records could have been made available to partisans of Maximinus Daia, seeing that Maximinus was in Asia Minor and Syria, while Gaul was under the control of Constantine. However, under the tetrarchy agreement free trade between the four tetrarchies was not to be impeded, and as far as I know no one tried. So, it is not impossible that partisans of Maximinus, as private citizens, could have traveled to Vienna or wherever Pilate ended up, and sought out these relics. It's just a stretch.

By emasculating the Acta through the altering of the text of Antiquities, Constantine may have been attempting to gain the approval of the Christians in his struggles to hold onto supreme power after defeating all of his enemies, including Maximinus, for whom these charges would be embarrassing or at very least troublesome for them.

I just don't know ...

DCH
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Secret Alias »

I think another reason has to do with the seventy weeks and the entire end of day speculation which calculated the year 6000 or any Jewish interest in sabbatical years and Jubilees. Look at Irenaeus's argument Book 2 trying to argue that the year of favor extended from Jesus's time to his time. If you "front load" Christianity and Christian eschatology to an increasingly temporally remote 21 or 22 CE then the religion loses its vitality. It happened to rock and roll. The more it became a "tradition" with saints who lived in the past the more young people lost interest.

I think the crucifixion happening to fall exactly 49 years before the destruction of Jerusalem meant that some sort of sabbatical/Jubilee-based eschatology like we find at Qumran was at work "selling" it's significance. So too the citation from Daniel chapter 9 in Mark. But how long does this argument work? How long do people care about cycles of 7 and 49 years when the destruction of Jerusalem came and went with anything happening to second century believers?

I suspect the old arguments no longer had the resonance they once did a hundred a hundred and fifty years after 21 CE. That's why we see new claims about Daniel being fulfilled in the reign of Commodus by Christians. I think this situation may explain the Marcion as naucleros motif developing the use of the image in Plato.

Marcion was the blind (=dead) naucleros who founded the Church. He was the owner of the ship. But the original message was increasingly irrelevant not making sense to people in the late second century. So it was that various "pilots" rose to right the ship (= gnostics) to bring it safely to harbor. The Catholic tradition was the one which ultimately succeeded.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by maryhelena »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:04 pm ........... and am interested in figuring out what happens chronologically if we accept the suggestion that Gratus governed Judea for only 4 years before Pilate came on board.

...........................

Ben.
Depends whether one is a historicist or an ahistoricist.

Dating Pilate early, 18/19 c.e. and allowing for a long period in office, up to 36/37 c.e. still allows for a Jesus crucifixion story to be dated in the 30s. (Thus allowing the gospels, gLuke, to negate the Acts of Pilate story) All a historicist has to do is say that the TF has been placed by Josephus in the wrong context,the wrong time slot. (The events surrounding the TF being connected by Tacitus to the death of Germanicus in 19 c.e.) Easy............ :D

The JC crucifixion story aside, there is still a historical problem with Pilate having such a very long time in office.

For the ahistoricists - well - the whole Pilate dating issue is manna from heaven.... ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:59 amThe JC crucifixion story aside, there is still a historical problem with Pilate having such a very long time in office.
Why is that a problem? I know it would be longer than any other prefect/procurator, but Josephus already praises Tiberius for having appointed only two of them, so the combined tenures of Gratus and Pilate are already probably going to be longer than the combined tenures of any other pair. And according to Tacitus, writing from the point of view of necessary Roman interventions into Judean affairs, sub Tiberio quies: so there would be little need for Tiberius to replace Judean prefects/procurators during his reign.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected 4 times to the US presidency, and died during that fourth term. No other president was elected even to 3 terms (and the number of terms is now restricted by law). So Roosevelt really stands out in the list of presidents. If Pilate stands out in the list of prefects/procurators, well, Josephus and Tacitus have given us some decent reasons for it, I think.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:44 pmI think the case was first made for this by Robert Eisler in a German work that was later translated into English as Messiah Jesus & John the Baptist (1933).
Thanks. I have access to this work (and have browsed it before for very different reasons), and am now perusing the section in which he discusses this matter.
But let's assume for the moment that the text of Antiquities actually was altered to make the date of Jesus' death in the Acta impossible. The question can be asked: Why?

I've suggested that the likely suspect is Constantine, but how would he have gained access to records like this? From what I have been able to find out, they would not have been public records, but the private possessions of Pilate himself. When he returned to Rome in 36 CE, he had many years of loot from his governorship of Judea. He would have retained any notebooks or diaries he may have kept, because these were treated as personal property, and may help his case if he was charged and tried for misconduct after the fact. He supposedly went into exile in the time of Caligula (AD 37–41), committing suicide in Vienna in Gaul.

However, possessions from his estate could have lived on (preserved by wives, children, freedmen). I have some questions about how these records could have been made available to partisans of Maximinus Daia, seeing that Maximinus was in Asia Minor and Syria, while Gaul was under the control of Constantine. However, under the tetrarchy agreement free trade between the four tetrarchies was not to be impeded, and as far as I know no one tried. So, it is not impossible that partisans of Maximinus, as private citizens, could have traveled to Vienna or wherever Pilate ended up, and sought out these relics. It's just a stretch.

By emasculating the Acta through the altering of the text of Antiquities, Constantine may have been attempting to gain the approval of the Christians in his struggles to hold onto supreme power after defeating all of his enemies, including Maximinus, for whom these charges would be embarrassing or at very least troublesome for them.

I just don't know ...
What I wonder is this: is it necessary to posit actual records from Pontius Pilate for all of this? If my conjecture is correct, and both Luke 2.2 and the relevant portions of Luke 3.1-2 are (relatively) late additions to the Lucan text, then on the Christian side of things there may have initially been no real concern over exactly which decade the crucifixion was assigned to, just so long as it happened "under Pontius Pilate," as the creeds say. On the Roman side of things, surely there might have been ways before Rome fell to know Pilate's dates aside from his own personal documents. In other words, what if the Acta Pilati were indeed a forgery, but the dates were based upon sound historical knowledge? What if, in fact, the dates were not even the goal of the forgery, but just a natural byproduct of locating Pilate in his own natural environment? But to do so, if it conflicted with the Lucan chronology, would be damaging to Christian belief; hence the changes made to Josephus. What do you think?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Secret Alias »

If my conjecture is correct, and both Luke 2.2 and the relevant portions of Luke 3.1-2 are (relatively) late additions to the Lucan text, then on the Christian side of things there may have initially been no real concern over exactly which decade the crucifixion was assigned to,
Tyson came to much the same conclusion. It is interesting that the Mandaeans have a version of the birth narrative which survived in spite of their tradition being virulently anti-Christian.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Gratus and Pilate (for D. C. Hindley).

Post by Secret Alias »

what if the Acta Pilati were indeed a forgery, but the dates were based upon sound historical knowledge
The reality is that so much of Tertullian - even what he says in the Apology - is based on a strange version of history which assumes that the Roman government knew about Jesus and was reacting to his presence on the earth. This isn't clear from the gospel. The notion that 'the Romans have in their possession a census which knew of Jesus' is also part of this process. One wonders who was it that first introduced this 'Roman interest' in Jesus. Indeed one wonders whether the Acts of Peter - with Peter and Simon Magus coming to Rome - was in some way related to the Acts of Pilate no matter how indirectly. We have so many clues in the gospel - the centurion being one of the first to recognize Jesus - that Rome is the real focus of the narrative. But was this later or part of the earliest Christian understanding? Was Rome supposed to know about Jesus or was what was happening in Judea supposed to be kept 'secret'? These are fundamental questions. How did 1 Cor 2:8 - None of the rulers ['archons'] of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory - fit in to this tradition? These are deep question with no ready answers.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply