Pilate and Josephus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Pilate and Josephus

Post by maryhelena »

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:53 pm
maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:59 am

The 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.
The arguments put forward by Daniel Schwartz for a 18/19 c.e. appointment of Pilate to office in Judea are indeed compelling. However, these arguments sidestep the Josephan statements regarding the years in office given to Gratus and Pilate i.e. the 11 and 10 years respectively. Seemingly, there are no manuscript variants of these years:

Helen K Bond: Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation: '' First, it is difficult to see how every copy of Ant. could have been altered at such a late date (there are no textual variants here)''.


Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity: ''To my mind, all of these considerations carry enough weight to overcome the presumption of authenticity of the specific numerical data in our texts of Josephus {Ant. 18.35,89), which so smoothly give 26 or 27 C.E. as the year in which Pilate succeeded Gratus.''.

Rather than so easily deny authenticity for the numerical data in Josephus re the 11 and 10 years of Gratus and Pilate - perhaps there is something to learn from them. Perhaps the 11 years Josephus gives Gratus were not 11 consecutive years but made up of two periods in which he was governor in Judea. Perhaps Gratus was in office 4 years prior to Pilate and 7 years after Pilate. Thus 11 years - and Pilate's 10 years running from 18/19 to 28/29 c.e. Yes, it is of course possible that Pilate was in office for 18 or so years - but the Josephan numerical date allows for an alternative approach.

It is the gLuke JC story that requires Pilate to be in Judea at the end of Tiberius' rule in 36/37 c.e. . (JC birth in 6 c.e., baptism about 30 years.) gLuke moved the Jesus story from it's setting in the Acts of Pilate in the 7th year of Tiberius to the end of the rule of Tiberius. Story is one thing.....the historical question for Josephus is which Roman governor was in Judea from 28/29 c.e. to the end of Tiberius' rule. Was it a second term for Gratus or was it Pilate having a very long rule - a long rule that has no precedent in length.

Josephus does not say Gratus had two terms of office in Judea - but he also did not give the date for the death of Germanicus in 19 c.e.....an omission that contributed to the 26 c.e. dating for Pilate.

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 [see n. 75] 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.''

Apart from these considerations there are difficulties with Josephus's ending of Pilate's rule in Judea....dealing with Vitellius visiting Jerusalem once or twice - and how long it took Pilate to get to Rome....i.e. the end of Pilate's appointment to Judea is not without questions.

-----------------------------------------
added later

It seems evident that there is an accommodation between Josephus and the gospel of Luke. gLuke's chronology for it's Jesus story requires Pilate to be in Jerusalem at the end of the rule of Tiberius. It also requires the figure of John the Baptist (John in Josephus) to be active at the end of Tiberius's rule. The Josephan writer 'fixed' these two problems for gLuke. The idea has been advanced that the John the Baptist appearance at the end of Tiberius's rule is a sort of flashback. On that argument then so too could be the appearance of Pilate.....

Why did the writer of gLuke move away from the Acts of Pilate timeline and it's 7th year of Tiberius Jesus crucifixion - a timeline supported by stories in Slavonic Josephus? Regardless of whatever suggestions could be made the consequences are pretty evident.....by attempting to rule out or deny an earlier version of the Jesus story, the gLuke version helped towards the historicizing, the canonizing, of gLuke's Jesus figure...whether intentionally or accidentally. Pilate became the fall guy to make it all work....his time in office in Judea left to Josephan ambiguity....
Last edited by maryhelena on Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by maryhelena »

Links to other threads dealing with Pilate and Josephus.

Previous suggestions I have made regarding Pilate and Josephus appear in these threads. My current thinking is outlined in the OP in this new thread.

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

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3981


Josephus and Dating Pilate

viewtopic.php?p=17360#p17360

Pilate's tenure - did it begin AD 18 or 26?

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 969#p58969

Surprising List of Scholars Who Date Pilate to 18 CE

viewtopic.php?p=17200#p17200
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by rakovsky »

Doesn't Josephus say that Pilate was removed under Caligula? Does Josephus give a time for his removal?

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by arnoldo »

FWIW the Pilate inscription may help provide additional information regarding possible timelines.
. . An alternative proposed by Géza Alföldy in 2012[3] would see it as a lighthouse, one of a pair built by Herod, now restored by Pilate for the benefit of the sailors. He would thus read:

Nautis Tiberieum
– Pontius Pilatus
[praef]ectus Iudae[a]e



Josephus tells us (Jewish War I, 412; Antiquities XV, 336) that Herod built colossal lighthouses at Caesarea, the largest of which stood on the western entrance to the port was named after Augustus’ step-son Drusus, Tiberius’ brother. This then was the “Drusion”. Alfoldy surmises that the “Tiberion” was therefore another lighthouse, perhaps on the eastern entrance of the double port.
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2017 ... ate-stone/

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by maryhelena »

rakovsky wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:52 am Doesn't Josephus say that Pilate was removed under Caligula? Does Josephus give a time for his removal?

Antiquities Book 18 ch. 4

So Vitellius 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 durst not contradict. But before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.

That 10 years prior to the death of Tiberius equates to a 26 c.e. date for Pilate's appointment to office. That 26 c.e. date is disputed. The 10 year appointment of Pilate is disputed by those who date Pilate's appointment to 18/19 c.e.

If Pilate's 10 years run from 18/19 c.e. to around 29/30 c.e. and his recall to Rome was due to his treatment of the Jews, i.e. anti-Semitic charge....then perhaps his removal might indicate a connection or friendship with Sejanus. Sejanus was executed in 31 c.e.


Philo: Against Flaccus

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... ccum*.html

Flaccus Avillius succeeded Sejanus in his hatred of and hostile designs against the Jewish nation.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book40.html

Philo: ON THE EMBASSY TO GAIUS

Therefore, all people in every country, even if they were not naturally well inclined towards the Jewish nation, took great care not to violate or attack any of the Jewish customs of laws. And in the reign of Tiberius things went on in the same manner, although at that time things in Italy were thrown into a great deal of confusion when Sejanus was preparing to make his attempt against our nation; (160) for he knew immediately after his death that the accusations which had been brought against the Jews who were dwelling in Rome were false calumnies, inventions of Sejanus,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejanus#E ... _aftermath

Sejanus

Although Rome at first rejoiced at the demise of Sejanus, the city quickly plunged into more extensive trials, as Tiberius persecuted all those who could in any way be tied to the schemes of Sejanus or had courted his friendship.[58] The Senatorial ranks were purged; the hardest hit were those families with political ties to the Julians.[43] Even the imperial magistracy was not exempted from Tiberius' wrath.[59] Arrests and executions were now supervised by Naevius Sutorius Macro, who succeeded Sejanus as the Prefect of the Praetorian Guard.[60] The political turmoil continued until the death of Tiberius in AD 37, after which he was succeeded by Caligula.

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: Pilate and Josephus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

maryhelena wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 am Links to other threads dealing with Pilate and Josephus.

Previous suggestions I have made regarding Pilate and Josephus appear in these threads. My current thinking is outlined in the OP in this new thread.

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

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3981


Josephus and Dating Pilate

viewtopic.php?p=17360#p17360

Pilate's tenure - did it begin AD 18 or 26?

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 969#p58969

Surprising List of Scholars Who Date Pilate to 18 CE

viewtopic.php?p=17200#p17200
Thank you for the thread, and for the links. Very useful.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by rakovsky »

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

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by maryhelena »

rakovsky wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:28 pm What are their main two reasons for saying that Pilate began his rule in 18 ad?

With regard to our specific question, the year Pilate was appointed, we have
suggested that 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. The same is also implied, apparently, by the inclusion of the
Roman scandals of 19 within the chapter on Pilate. Moreover, this suggestion
is also based upon a few specific considerations — the impression given by the
narrative of Gratus' term, the cessation that year of annual minting and annual
appointments of high priests, and Eusebius' report about fourth-century
forgers — and upon an analysis of the relationship of structure and chronology
in the last three books of the Antiquities. To my mind, all of these
considerations carry enough weight to overcome the presumption of
authenticity of the specific numerical data in our texts of Josephus {Ant. 18.35,
89), which so smoothly give 26 or 27 C.E. as the year in which Pilate succeeded
Gratus.

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Page 200.


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

Suspicions, however, are not the same as conclusions. What is important, in
the present context, is that such suspicions as these should send us off to do
three things: (1) to see if there is any other evidence, in Josephus, for placing
Pilate’s appointment to offce around 19 CE; (2) to see if there is any other
evidence, outside of Josephus, for things changing in Judea around 19 CE;
and (3) to see whether there was any good reason for a copyist of Josephus
to want to make Pilate begin governing later than he really did. These all
prove to be fruitful.

(1) The frst question immediately directs our attention to the fact that
Josephus begins his account of Pilate’s service as governor, in Antiquities
18.55, right after referring to the murder of Germanicus (Tiberius’ nephew,
Claudius’ brother), which occurred in 19 CE (§ 54). This suggests that
Josephus thought that is when Pilate entered into offce. In fact, since the
appointment of Pilate was mentioned in § 35 but the account of his tenure
begins only in § 55 it sounds like the reader is meant to imagine Pilate traveling
from Rome to Judea around the same time as the events recounted in
between – which culminate, as stated, with Germanicus’ death in 19 CE.

(2) The second question leads us to ask what else was happening in our
region in 19 CE, and that takes us directly to a Tacitean passage concerning
17 CE (Annals 2.42.5 – GLA no. 283) where we read of complaints, by the
inhabitants of Judea and Syria, about the high tribute they were required to
pay. Tacitus does not say how the complaint was handled, but since Germanicus’
mission to the East, which began in 17 CE, was intended to deal
with various disputes and complaints that had arisen around the Roman
East, the Judeans’ complaints could well have been on his agenda.
Switching governors is always a way of mollifying provincials.

(3) The third question, whether any copyists had anything to gain by
making Pilate’s career begin later than it really did, has led scholars to
notice, and to bring into the present discussion, the fact that the Church
father Eusebius reports in his Church History (Book 1, Ch. 9) that there
was circulating, in his day (the early fourth century), an anti-Christian text
purporting, so it seems, to be Pilate’s report to Tiberius about the case of
Jesus. Eusebius argues that those so-called Acta Pilati must be false since
they date the report to Tiberius’ fourth consulate, which came in 21 CE –
fve years before Pilate in fact entered into offce, according to Josephus.
However, since it is diffcult to believe that forgers of such Acta Pilati would
choose a date so easily refutable on the basis of the main relevant source, it
may well be that their copy of Antiquities did not include the chronological
data in Antiquities 18.35, 89. The fact that Eusebius read the Testimonium
Flavianum in his copy of Antiquities, whereas a century earlier Origen
apparently did not, makes it all the more likely that also the chronological data
in Eusebius’ copy of Josephus, and hence in our texts, were the contribution
of creative Christian copyists.

We could, and elsewhere have, delve more into the ins and outs of this
type of argument. In the present context, where the focus is upon methodology,
suffice it to say that it was only by rubbing Tacitus against Josephus
that we began to notice such things as the lack of proportion between
Josephus’ account of Gratus’ tenure and the length he ascribes it, the unique
status of Josephus’ chronological data for just these two governors, the
juxtaposition of Germanicus’ death and Pilate’s entrance into offce, the
open question as to what Rome did about the Judean and Syrian complaints
Tacitus reported for 17 CE, and Eusebius’ report about the false Acta Pilati.
That is quite a lot of leads, and some meaningful results, stemming from the
comparison of two texts.

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by rakovsky »

Thanks.

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

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.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Pilate and Josephus

Post by DCHindley »

rakovsky wrote: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:28 pmWhat 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
Post Reply