Pilate and Josephus

[Ben C. Smith]

Finally, if a Christian interpolator is responsible for saying that Pilate ruled 10 years, ending under vitellius, the interpolator would have given a longer time span than 10 years.

Why? AD 26 to AD 36 is around ten years, and I think Vitellius took over in Syria in 35. That works, right?

[rakovsky]

Finally, if a Christian interpolator is responsible for saying that Pilate ruled 10 years, ending under vitellius, the interpolator would have given a longer time span than 10 years.

Why? AD 26 to AD 36 is around ten years, and I think Vitellius took over in Syria in 35. That works, right?

It would not make sense if , as I think Schwartz is proposing, josephus said that pilate arrived in c. 19 ad to rule and that an interpolator added falsely that Pilate ruled only 10 years until the events of vitellius in c.36.

I say this because a Christian interpolator, seeing the supposed 19 ad. date for Pilate's arrival would have said Pilate ruled for c.17 years.

[rakovsky]

What are their main two reasons for saying that Pilate began his rule in 18 ad?

A) Antiquities of the Jews 18:32-35
32 ... Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, ...
33 upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus.
34 This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest: which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus;
35 and, when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was
made his successor. When Gratus had done those things he went back to Rome, after he
had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor [i.e. in the
12th year of Tiberius, 26 CE].

B) Antiquities of the Jews 18:89
89 So Vitellius [legate of Syria] sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the
affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the
accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste
to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he dared not contradict;
but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.

From what I understand, these are the only two places in Antiquities where he mentions a length of governorship.

DCH

Good job DCH.

Yeah I find it curious that Josephus discusses Pilate sometimes out of order, like discussing his appointment in 26 ad before discussing some other events of 19 ad, but I wouldnt be surprised if josephus did that kind of thing elsewhere in his writing. I dont find it a knock down argument by Schwartz.

[Ben C. Smith]

Finally, if a Christian interpolator is responsible for saying that Pilate ruled 10 years, ending under vitellius, the interpolator would have given a longer time span than 10 years.

Why? AD 26 to AD 36 is around ten years, and I think Vitellius took over in Syria in 35. That works, right?

It would not make sense if , as I think Schwartz is proposing, josephus said that pilate arrived in c. 19 ad to rule and that an interpolator added falsely that Pilate ruled only 10 years until the events of vitellius in c.36.

I say this because a Christian interpolator, seeing the supposed 19 ad. date for Pilate's arrival would have said Pilate ruled for c.17 years.

You misunderstood the hypothesis, then. The hypothesis is that the interpolator(s) added both Gratus' eleven years and Pilate's ten.

[maryhelena]

Thanks.

When would Tacitus suggest that Gratis entered office in Judea? Maybe there was a break in years between Gratus' rule and Pilates?

My suggestion in the OP is for the rule of Gratus - his 11 years - to have been a compilation of two periods of office in Judea. 4 years prior to Pilate and 7 years after Pilate.

It's an interesting issue.

Schwartz's arguments above don't seem so compelling to me as they might be to others. Eg. He writes: " the location of Josephus' notice concerning the appointment,
before the foundation of Tiberias (19-20 C.E.) and before the narrative culminating in Germanicus' death (19 C.E.), indicates that it too is to be placed ca. 19 C.E. "

But Josephus in fact I think could have placed this out of chronological order. Besides that, there are numerous times when Josephus got dates wrong.

And he writes: "The fact that Eusebius read the Testimonium Flavianum in his copy of Antiquities, whereas a century earlier Origen apparently did not". But first, most scholars believe that josephus had a version of the testamonium, second the Paulina and Mundus story after the testamonium proves to me that josephus included a version of the testamonium, and third Origen is unreliable about this because he got the book number wrong about James and three times mistakenly alleged what Josephus said about James.

Finally, if a Christian interpolator is responsible for saying that Pilate ruled 10 years, ending under vitellius, the interpolator would have given a longer time span than 10 years.

Methinks its all too easy to jump to the interpolator argument when a text does not suit ones argument. All avenues of research need to be fully explored before interpolation becomes a probable explanation of a text. Daniel Schwartz has done good work re dating Pilate around 19 c.e. but unfortunately has chosen to go the interpolation road - 'creative Christian copyists' - for the Josephan text for the years of Gratus and Pilate in Judea.

[maryhelena]

Finally, if a Christian interpolator is responsible for saying that Pilate ruled 10 years, ending under vitellius, the interpolator would have given a longer time span than 10 years.

Why? AD 26 to AD 36 is around ten years, and I think Vitellius took over in Syria in 35. That works, right?

It would not make sense if , as I think Schwartz is proposing, josephus said that pilate arrived in c. 19 ad to rule and that an interpolator added falsely that Pilate ruled only 10 years until the events of vitellius in c.36.

I say this because a Christian interpolator, seeing the supposed 19 ad. date for Pilate's arrival would have said Pilate ruled for c.17 years.

Unless that Christian interpolator had a copy of Tactius he would not know the events Josephus describes in Antiquities Book 18 ch. 3 are dated by Tactius to the death of Germanicus. A death dated to 19 c.e.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century


''Those who read Josephus all by himself will never know, for example, that Germanicus died in 19 CE
(a point that is quite clear in Tacitus’ annalistic narrative but not at all indicated by Josephus), hence never have the occasion to wonder why Josephus juxtaposed that death with the beginning of Pilate’s tenure, something that apparently contradicts Josephus’ dating of that tenure – a point which we may pursue as we like, whether to learn more about Pilate or, rather, more about Josephus.''

Links that maybe of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnaeus_Ca ... Piso#Trial

Expelled Under Tiberius.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12816-rome

The reign of Tiberius (until the removal of his minister Sejanus) was fraught with misfortune for the Jews. When the cult of Isis was driven out of Rome (19 C.E.) the Jews also were expelled, because a Roman lady who inclined toward Judaism had been deceived by Jewish swindlers. The synagogues were closed, the vessels burned, and 4,000 Jewish youths were sent upon military service to Sardinia. After the death of Sejanus (31) the emperor allowed the Jews to return.

[maryhelena]

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
VOLUME 1B
JUDEAN WAR 2

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
BY
STEVE MASON

Pilate’s dates in office are usually given as 26-36 CE,
on the strength of Ant. 18.35, which has his predecessor
Valerius Gratus in Judea for 11 years, and 18.89, which
gives Pilate 10 years in office, a calculation that accounts
for Eusebius’ claim that Pilate began to govern in the
12th year of Tiberius (= 26 CE; Hist. eccl. 1.9). D. R.
Schwartz (1992: 182-217), however, makes a compelling
argument for the years ca. 19 to 37 as Pilate’s term.
His case includes these points: (a) Valerius Gratus is
reported to have left Judea after deposing 4 high priests
in rapid succession (after about a year each from 15 CE)
and then leaving Caiaphas in office; (b) the extremely
brief account of Gratus’ tenure, which is only in Antiquities (18.34-35),
contrasts with an expansive treatment of
Pilate’s term in both works (Ant. 18.35-89); (c) the long
term of Caiaphas as high priest (18-36 CE) is most easily
explained by a change of governor and therefore of
policy with respect to high priests; (d) most important,
the surrounding events in the Antiquities narrative—the
founding of Tiberias in about 19 CE (18.36-38), the rule
of Orodes as king of Armenia (16-18 CE; Ant. 18.52),
the death of Germanicus in 19 CE (Ant. 18.53-54), an
the expulsion of Judeans and Egyptians from Rome in 19
(so Tacitus, Ann. 2.85; Ant. 18.65-84)—would normally
suggest that Pilate arrived at roughly the same time. As
Schwartz observes (1992: 184), it seems more economical
to explain the unsupported year counts for Gratus’
and Pilate’s terms in office, even as textual corruptions,
than to overturn this complex of accidental narrative
evidence.

Schwartz’s arguments are independently supported by
K. Lönnquist (2000). His “archaeometallurgical” analysis
of Judean provincial coinage in the period 6-66 CE
shows that in coins dated from 17/18 CE to 31/32 the
lead content dropped from about 11% to virtually nil
(2000: 465), then returned to its previous levels under
Claudius and Nero. Although lead (a common material
in Roman aqueduct construction) has not yet been found
in the Jerusalem aqueducts, its discovery in the contemporary
system at Panias leads Lönnquist to concluded
that it was also used at crucial points in the Jerusalem
system (though now lost through subsequent ravages)
and that Pilate’s removal of lead from his coins was for
this purpose. Although he allows that Pilate’s predecessor
Valerius Gratus may have begun construction or
planning (to account for the 17/18 CE), he thinks that
the appearance of a new coin type—with upright palm,
representing good luck—matches a type otherwise used
only for the arrival of new governors. And so he dates
Pilate’s arrival to 17/18 (2000: 467-68).

If Schwartz and Lönnquist are correct (but cf. Bernett
2007: 199 n. 111), Josephus’ quick movement here from
Tiberius’ accession 14 CE to the appointment of Pilate
in 18/19 CE would be more easily intelligible than it
is on the customary dating: his passing over the brief
term of Gratus would match his treatment of the other
2/3-year terms, of Coponius (barely mentioned at 2.117),
Ambivulus, and Rufus, to focus understandably on the
governor who spent some 18/19 years in the region and
left a decisive mark. It would not, then, be the enormity of
Pilate’s measures alone that attracted Josephus’
interest (note his apparent difficulty in characterizing
the aqueduct episode as a catastrophe), but much more
Pilate’s impressively long term in office. Such a long
term would match Tiberius’ known policy of leaving
provincial governors in office as long as possible (Ant.
18.170; Tacitus, Ann. 1.80; Suetonius, Tib. 41), assuming
only that there was some defect with Tiberius’ first
choice of prefect, Gratus.

Some defect with Gratus? Perhaps the man was ill - or his family was ill - and had to go home - only to return when Pilate was removed after 10 years in office.....many ways to skin a cat...

[rakovsky]

Finally, if a Christian interpolator is responsible for saying that Pilate ruled 10 years, ending under vitellius, the interpolator would have given a longer time span than 10 years.

Why? AD 26 to AD 36 is around ten years, and I think Vitellius took over in Syria in 35. That works, right?

It would not make sense if , as I think Schwartz is proposing, josephus said that pilate arrived in c. 19 ad to rule and that an interpolator added falsely that Pilate ruled only 10 years until the events of vitellius in c.36.

I say this because a Christian interpolator, seeing the supposed 19 ad. date for Pilate's arrival would have said Pilate ruled for c.17 years.

You misunderstood the hypothesis, then. The hypothesis is that the interpolator(s) added both Gratus' eleven years and Pilate's ten.

So under that hypothesis, when Tiberius took power in c. 15 ad, then how many years does Schwartz think Gratus and Pilate really ruled, such that Pilate took power in 19 ad? Is Gratus supposed to have ruled only 4 years until 19 ad, and then Pilate ruled just 10? Is the next procurator supposed to have ruled until the events of vitellius?

Not only that, but this hypothesis would demand that there was a Christian "depolator" who took out from the text the account of Gratus' appointment in 15 ad, because currently Gratus appointment is mixed with events if 19 ad, Germanicus' death in that year. Plus, the "depolator" must have taken out the true account of Pilate's removal if it did not happen under vitellius as mentioned.

So the hypothesis creates more problems if it were true.

[Ben C. Smith]

Finally, if a Christian interpolator is responsible for saying that Pilate ruled 10 years, ending under vitellius, the interpolator would have given a longer time span than 10 years.

Why? AD 26 to AD 36 is around ten years, and I think Vitellius took over in Syria in 35. That works, right?

It would not make sense if , as I think Schwartz is proposing, josephus said that pilate arrived in c. 19 ad to rule and that an interpolator added falsely that Pilate ruled only 10 years until the events of vitellius in c.36.

I say this because a Christian interpolator, seeing the supposed 19 ad. date for Pilate's arrival would have said Pilate ruled for c.17 years.

You misunderstood the hypothesis, then. The hypothesis is that the interpolator(s) added both Gratus' eleven years and Pilate's ten.

So under that hypothesis, when Tiberius took power in c. 15 ad, then how many years does Schwartz think Gratus and Pilate really ruled, such that Pilate took power in 19 ad? Is Gratus supposed to have ruled only 4 years until 19 ad, and then Pilate ruled just 10?

No. Gratus is supposed to have governed for 4 years, Pilate for about 17.

Not only that, but this hypothesis would demand that there was a Christian "depolator" who took out from the text the account of Gratus' appointment in 15 ad, because currently Gratus appointment is mixed with events if 19 ad, Germanicus' death in that year.

That is not how book 18 of the Antiquities reads. Gratus' appointment is tied up with Tiberius' accession, not with Germanicus' death:

After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus.

[DCHindley]

So under that hypothesis, when Tiberius took power in c. 15 ad, then how many years does Schwartz think Gratus and Pilate really ruled, such that Pilate took power in 19 ad? Is Gratus supposed to have ruled only 4 years until 19 ad, and then Pilate ruled just 10? Is the next procurator supposed to have ruled until the events of vitellius?

Yes, Gratus governed for just 4 years. Just 4 years of things he did in Judea are mentioned, primarily deposing the HP and appointing a new one each year. Four times. I'm not sure if this is mentioned by Josephus, but I've heard speculation that he received bribes in exchange for the appointments. I doubt that taking bribes was considered "kosher" by Roman higher-ups, but the Roman governor had the right to appoint the high priests of the temple organization. So, was he supposed to have just stopped doing this lucrative things for his final 6 years?

No, I think that Tiberius, upon accession to the imperial power, just replaced Gratus, appointed by Augustus, with his own man, almost as soon as he came to power (1 YR).*

Pilate serving for 17 years (19-36 CE) is in line with Josephus' account about Tiberius setting up his appointees in such a way that guaranteed that their governorships would "automatically renew," allowing them to take their share of the graft in a more leisurely (and less oppressive) manner than other governors had been able to do before them.**

Not only that, but this hypothesis would demand that there was a Christian "depolator" who took out from the text the account of Gratus' appointment in 15 ad, because currently Gratus appointment is mixed with events if 19 ad, Germanicus' death in that year.

Plus, the "depolator" must have taken out the true account of Pilate's removal if it did not happen under vitellius as mentioned.

So the hypothesis creates more problems if it were true.

I am not so sure I understand what you mean there.

DCH

*

Emperor:	Governor of Syria:	Prefect (Governor) of Judea, Samaria and Idumea:
Octavian (Augustus) 31 BC - AD14	P. Sulpicius Quirinius, AD 6 - ??	Coponius AD 6 - 9
*	Uncertain	M. Ambivius AD 9 - 12 (?)
*	Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silannus, AD 12 - 14	Annius Rufus AD 12 - 14
Tiberius AD 14 - 37	Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silannus, AD 14 - 17	Annius Rufus AD 14 - 15 (?)
*	*	Valerius Gratus AD 15 - 17
*	Cn Calpurnius Piso, AD 17 - 19	Valerius Gratus AD 17 - 19
*	Cn Sentius Saturninus, AD 19 - 21	Valerius Gratus AD 19 - 21
*	Unsure	Valerius Gratus AD 22 - 26
*	Unsure	Pontius Pilate AD 26 - ??
*	L. Aelius Lamia, ?? - AD 32	Pontius Pilate AD ?? - 32
*	L. Pomponius Flaccus, AD 32 - 35?	Pontius Pilate AD 32 - 35
*	L. Vitellius, AD 35 - 37	Pontius Pilate AD 35 - 36
*	*	Marcellus AD 36 - 37
Gaius (Caligula) AD 37 - 41	L. Vitellius, AD 37 - 39?	Marullus AD 37 - 39?

**JOE Antiquities of the Jews 18:
172 ... [Tiberius, as emperor] permitted those governors who had been sent once to their government [to stay there a long while], out of regard to the subjects that were under them; [τὰς δ᾽ ἀρχὰς συγχωρεῖν τοῖς ἅπαξ εἰς αὐτὰς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καταστᾶσιν, the key word being ἅπαξ, which here seems to have the meaning of "automatically"].

for that all governors are naturally disposed to get as much as they can; and that those who are not to permanently there, but to stay a short time, and that at an uncertainty when they shall be turned out, do the more severely hurry themselves on to fleece the people;

173 but that, if their government is long continued to them; they are at last satiated with the spoils, as having gotten a vast deal, and so become at length less sharp in their pillaging;

but that, if successors are sent quickly, the poor subjects, who are exposed to them as a prey, will not be able to bear the new ones,

while they shall not have the same time allowed them wherein their predecessors had filled themselves, and so grew more unconcerned about getting more;

and this because [all the governors appointed under previous rulers] they are removed before they have had time [for their oppressions].