Pilate and Josephus

[rakovsky]

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.

Josephus, in the version that we have, put Gratus appointment chronologically together with Getmanicus' death, as I believe one of the earlier thread messages noted.
(( 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.))

In reality, Tiberius succeeded Germanicus in 15 ad before the latter's death in 19 ad. Furthermore, as I inderstand it, other events in the context or neighboring padsages occurred in ad 19. Thus, Josephus puts Gratus' appointment in with events of 19 ad.

What it looks like to me is that Gratus' appointment and Pilate's appointment are both mixed together narratively with events of 19 ad, even though Josephus's explicit remarks on their dating would put them in the time frames listed in your table above.

So:
1. Josephus here seems to be telling Gratus' and Pilate's stories chronologically, and thus the nonchronological order is not strong evidence favoring Schwartz's thesis of a 19 ad appointment.

2. If one supposes that the chronological order is determinative, eg 19 ad, and the explicit dating, eg c. 10 years from 15 ad and c. 10 years from 26 ad is interpolated, then why would the interpolator have put Gratus' appointment in chronologically with events of 19 ad, such as making it look like Tiberius' accession was on the emperor's death in 19 ad? Lacking a good answer to such a question, we can't find the chronological order determinative.

3. Schwartz's theory raises lots of problems, other problems being why Christians would have had a need to make it look like Pilate took power in 26 and not 19? Just to make the pagan Acts of Pilate with their 19 ad date for Jesus' death look false? But even if Pilate was appointed in 19 ad, that year still would not have been his 4th consultancy in Judea. Further, if the Christians in the early 4th century have switched Josephus's text to make this argument, wouldn't it's falsity be detectable to the Romans of the time who had other copies of Josephus and likely other records of the year of Pilate's appointment? Why would the gospels have said Jesus was killed in c. 33 AD when it would have been clear to their to their readers in c. 70 ad that He was killed in c. 19? Why haven't any of the apologetics or polemics like those of Celsus that remained to today mentioned this dating issue before Eusebius' time? Even if one can find answers to these questions, Schwartz's thesis does create these kind of issues.

[Ben C. Smith]

Josephus, in the version that we have, put Gratus appointment chronologically together with Getmanicus' death, as I believe one of the earlier thread messages noted.
(( 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.))

In reality, Tiberius succeeded Germanicus in 15 ad before the latter's death in 19 ad.

Tiberius did not succeed Germanicus. Tiberius succeeded Caesar Augustus. The phrase "upon whose death" refers to Augustus, not to Germanicus, who is not even named in this section of the text.

[maryhelena]

Below is the full quote from Helen Bond on her rejection of Daniel Schwarts position re Pilate being in office in 19 c.e. - briefly referenced in the OP.

Helen K Bond: Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation

1 Gratus was sent to Judaea some time after Tiberius' accession in 14 CE (Ant.
18.32-3) and spent eleven years in the province (18.35), taking us to c. 25/6 CE. Pilate
was dismissed shortly before Tiberius' death in March 37 after governing for ten
years (18.89), indicating that he took up his duties c. 26 CE. The suggestion of D. R.
Schwartz (following Eisler, Messiah, pp. 13-20) that Pilate actually took up his post
in 19 CE is unconvincing. He maintains that all the references in Josephus' Antiquities
given above which point to a date of 26 are Christian forgeries designed to refute the
Ada Pilati circulated during the principate of Maximin Daia in 311. In this work
Jesus' execution occurred in 21 CE; if Josephus' records could be tampered with to
show that Pilate had only appeared in the province in 26 CE then the work could be
proved to be a hoax. There are two major problems here. 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). Second, this reconstruction assumes that these Christian
forgers were quite happy to accept that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the incredibly
early date of 21 CE. Would it not have been more effective to add an identifiable date
to Josephus' reference to Jesus' execution rather than alter Pilate's dates? See
Schwartz, 'Pilate's Appointment', pp. 182-201.

Either the forgery was a very bad job - or it was no forgery at all. Changing the dates for Gratus and Pilate do not prove the Acts of Pilate a hoax. Dating Pilate (accepting his historicity) is a matter for history not the pen of forgery. Consequently, either those devising such a forgery were delusional or the years stated for Gratus and Pilate were not intended as a rejection of the 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story in Acts of Pilate.

From a historicists position, which is where Eusebius is coming from, Acts of Pilate and it's 7th year crucifixion story is heresy - but an ahistoricist position can take a very different view of Acts of Pilate: The Jesus story is long in the tooth and underwent development over the years. Hence, the Acts of Pilate story could not be rejected out of hand - it was part and parcel of the history of a developing story. What the 11 and 10 years of Gratus and Pilate do is move that story along to it's final ending with gLuke's birth narrative....only that birth narrative has the 'power' to undercut those earlier christians wanting to retain the older version of the story. It is that birth narrative by gLuke that requires the 11 and 10 years for Gratus and Pilate.

Did the writer of gLuke just happen to find these 11 and 10 years for Gratus and Pilate in Josephus - years that support the birth narrative he is writing - did that writer interpolate Josephus - or was the Josephan writer willing to back up the story gLuke wants to tell - even to having Pilate in Jerusalem at the end of the rule by Tiberius. The old saying 'follow the money' could well be, in this case, who benefits from those 11 and 10 years of Gratus and Pilate. GLuke and it's birth narrative in 6 c.e. are the beneficiaries. Yes, that birth narrative puts to bed, as it were, the Acts of Pilate story - but it does not deny the role that story played prior to the gLuke birth narrative i.e. Matthew's birth narrative allowing for an alternative story. Additionally, Josephan chronology for the TF keeps past history in focus even as the Jesus story moved forward via those 11 and 10 years for Gratus and Pilate; years that enable gLuke's birth narrative.

Methinks tracing the gospel Jesus story through it's various incarnations and developments can provide insight regarding early christianity. Viewing Jesus as historical is a dead-end - viewing the Jesus figure as a literary figure opens the door to new vistas

Dates:
Gratus 14 - 18 c.e. Pilate 19 - 29/30 c.e., Gratus 31 - 36/37 c.e.

It is only gLuke's birth narrative that requires Pilate in Jerusalem in 36/37 c.e., a birth narrative requiring the 11 and 10 years for Gratus and Pilate. Hence attributing 17 years to Pilate is questionable. Josephus says only two Roman governors in Judea under Tiberius - thus Gratus 11 years could be broken down to two periods in office.

[Charles Wilson]

The old saying 'follow the money' could well be, in this case, who benefits from those 11 and 10 years of Gratus and Pilate. GLuke and it's birth narrative in 6 c.e. are the beneficiaries. Yes, that birth narrative puts to bed, as it were, the Acts of Pilate story - but it does not deny the role that story played prior to the gLuke birth narrative i.e. Matthew's birth narrative allowing for an alternative story...

Very fine Post maryhelena.

Do you have a representative Time Line for the writing of Matthew AND THEN the writing of Luke? I agree that the Time Lines of Matthew and Luke are critical in the manner you describe. FWIW, I believe that Matthew's Genealogy probably comes from Nicholas of Damascus, who forged a genealogy that would have allowed Herod to assume both King and High Priest positions. It's a simple rewrite to place this story as a lead for Matthew.

The problem(s) are that the sophisticated production, readership levels and distribution would seem to imply that this was a Political Production [Edit:] ...and a Production for a very few people. As I have pointed out, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit supplants the Baptism of John at a time when the presented "Believers" totaled no more than a handful of people. These are Political Fossils being found in the rocks and it might imply different Political Operatives controlling the production.

How many years between Matthew and Luke for you, maryhelena?

Methinks tracing the gospel Jesus story through it's various incarnations and developments can provide insight regarding early christianity. Viewing Jesus as historical is a dead-end - viewing the Jesus figure as a literary figure opens the door to new vistas

Required reading for this Group, mh.

CW

[maryhelena]

How many years between Matthew and Luke for you, maryhelena?

Methinks tracing the gospel Jesus story through it's various incarnations and developments can provide insight regarding early christianity. Viewing Jesus as historical is a dead-end - viewing the Jesus figure as a literary figure opens the door to new vistas

Well, that's a difficult question....

I don't think gLuke can be dated prior to Antiquities, around 93/94 - or more correctly the gLuke birth narrative in 6 c.e. (Quirinus). Which would indicate a proto-Luke that is minus the 6 c.e. birth narrative. (as in Marcion's version). A gLuke version starting with the 15th year of Tiberius and a Jesus figure around 30 years would have a nativity around 1 b.c. - and a crucifixion that year - the 15th year of Tiberius which happens also to be the 10th year of Pilate (from 19 c.e.) This version of the Jesus story would have that figure 'born' post the death of Herod....thus a move away from gMatthew.

gMatthew gives no date for a birth narrative. Without the mention of Archelaus and a young child, Jesus, returning from Egypt, gMatthew's birth narrative could be dated anytime in the rule of Herod. Which would make it correspond to the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus i.e. a birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod. A birth narrative set early in the rule of Herod would make it's Jesus figure 'not yet fifty' (gJohn) at a crucifixion in either 19 c.e. (Josephan account) or 21 c.e. (7th year of Tiberius re Acts of Pilate.) Thus, the addition in gMatthew of Archelaus and a young child, Jesus, returning from Egypt appears to be a tweak to accommodate a birth narrative late in the rule of Herod.

Dating the individual gospels is of interest but, for me, it's the developing story they contain that I find fascinating. Rather than the historicists who are just happy to go along with the creed - crucified under Pilate - I find that all the various birth and crucifixion stories indicate a literary figure. A literary figure that represents a political allegory of Jewish/Hasmonean history.

[Charles Wilson]

Rather than the historicists who are just happy to go along with the creed - crucified under Pilate - I find that all the various birth and crucifixion stories indicate a literary figure. A literary figure that represents a political allegory of Jewish/Hasmonean history.

For that half of the Gospel Story, I am in total agreement.

Best,

CW

[rakovsky]

Josephus, in the version that we have, put Gratus appointment chronologically together with Getmanicus' death, as I believe one of the earlier thread messages noted.
(( 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.))

In reality, Tiberius succeeded Germanicus in 15 ad before the latter's death in 19 ad.

Tiberius did not succeed Germanicus. Tiberius succeeded Caesar Augustus. The phrase "upon whose death" refers to Augustus, not to Germanicus, who is not even named in this section of the text.

Ben,
I thought that Josephus was referring here to Germanicus, because I read:

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.

[rakovsky]

Below is the full quote from Helen Bond on her rejection of Daniel Schwarts position re Pilate being in office in 19 c.e. - briefly referenced in the OP.

Helen K Bond: Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation

1 Gratus was sent to Judaea some time after Tiberius' accession in 14 CE (Ant.
18.32-3) and spent eleven years in the province (18.35), taking us to c. 25/6 CE. Pilate
was dismissed shortly before Tiberius' death in March 37 after governing for ten
years (18.89), indicating that he took up his duties c. 26 CE. The suggestion of D. R.
Schwartz (following Eisler, Messiah, pp. 13-20) that Pilate actually took up his post
in 19 CE is unconvincing. He maintains that all the references in Josephus' Antiquities
given above which point to a date of 26 are Christian forgeries designed to refute the
Ada Pilati circulated during the principate of Maximin Daia in 311. In this work
Jesus' execution occurred in 21 CE; if Josephus' records could be tampered with to
show that Pilate had only appeared in the province in 26 CE then the work could be
proved to be a hoax. There are two major problems here. 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). Second, this reconstruction assumes that these Christian
forgers were quite happy to accept that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the incredibly
early date of 21 CE. Would it not have been more effective to add an identifiable date
to Josephus' reference to Jesus' execution rather than alter Pilate's dates? See
Schwartz, 'Pilate's Appointment', pp. 182-201.

Either the forgery was a very bad job - or it was no forgery at all. Changing the dates for Gratus and Pilate do not prove the Acts of Pilate a hoax. Dating Pilate (accepting his historicity) is a matter for history not the pen of forgery. Consequently, either those devising such a forgery were disillusion or the years stated for Gratus and Pilate were not intended as a rejection of the 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story in Acts of Pilate.

Could you please rephrase or expand on this? What do you mean by disillusion?

There seems to be alot of what are for me complicated issues that arise surrounding Schwartz's thesis, which I am inclined to doubt.

He is saying that since Josephus put Pilate's appointment in with events of 19 ad, and the pagan Acta Pilati dated Jesus' death to the fourth consultancy of Pilate (was that in 19 ad?), therefore Josephus's passages on the procurators' dates and the story of events under Vitellius must have been inserted by Christians.

I can understand that argument, but it also appears reasonable for me to think that Josephus mentioned Pilate's appointment nonchronologically. The thesis also raises lots of questions for me like:
Weren't there other records in Josephus' time dating Pilate's reign?
Wouldn't people have noticed if the Christians went through and switched Josephus's many copies in Latin and Greek?
Does Josephus always narrate and list appointments exactly chronologically in his works? I doubt it. Antiquities comes across a bit like a work of literature with lots of stories, rather than a strict timeline. When I read it, it didn't give me an impression of a strict timeline.

How likely would it be that Pilate wrote not just a letter to Rome, but whole Acts debunking Christianity back in c.19 ad?

Why didn't early Christian apologists mention the Acts before Eusebius did? It seems more likely to me that the pagan Acts were one of many forgeries of the era.

Why did the late 1st century Bible writers make it look like Jesus got killed in c. 33 ad when everyone would know or could easily prove that he got killed in c. 19 ad, 14 years earlier, and expect to get away with it?

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben,
I thought that Josephus was referring here to Germanicus, because I read:

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.

But you see it now, right? Josephus narrates Germanicus' death after the notice about Pilate succeeding Gratus as governor and before the description of the events of Pilate's governorship.

[rakovsky]

I assume and trust you are right, but I feel obtuse on this whole dating debate, like when Mary writes:
" 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."

I don't know how failing to give the 19 ad date for Germanicus contributed to dating Pilate's appointment to 26 ad, unless, as I guessed, somehow Josephus had linked the two directly.

Besides that, if Pilate's appointment is narrated before Germanicus' 19 ad death, wouldn't that imply that Pilate's appointment was before that time in 19 ad if we read everything as listed chronologically?