Josephus and Dating Pilate

[maryhelena]

Daniel Schwartz has proposed that Pilate was appointed to office in Judea around 19 c.e.

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. Especially in light of the exceptional nature of Josephus' numerical
data here, and the presence of Germanicus with a mandate to do something in
Judaea, it seems to us that the question, so long considered closed, should now
at least be considered open, and that the weight of evidence points to the
earlier dating.

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

Chart detailing Schwartz chronology. Page 190.

Antiquities	Historical Details	Years
18.33b-35	V. Gratus governorship; Pilate appointed.	14/15 - ?
18.36-38	Antipas builds Tiberius	19-21
18.39-54	"At that time" Parthian affairs, Armenia, Germanicus' mission to East and death there.	2 b.c.e - 19 c.e.
18.55-64	Pilate's governorship in Judaea.	? - 37
18.65 -80a	"In those days" = Isis scandal	19
18.80b -84	"At that time" - Jewish scandel in Rome	19
18.85-89	Pilate suppresses Samaritans and is removed from office	37
18.90-95	Vitellius and the high-priestly vestments	37
18.96-126a	Vitellius, the Parthians, Antipas and the Nabateans; Philip dies	34-37

The usual dating for Pilate, 26 c.e., is not without it’s own problems: Specifically the dating for the expulsion of Jews from Rome. The 26 c.e. dating for Pilate is 6 – 7 years later than the date given by Tactius for the expulsion of Jews from Rome i.e. around 19 c.e.

Tactius Annals 2.83

And so the people grieved the more bitterly as though Germanicus was again lost to them. New honours were devised and decreed, as men were inspired by affection for him or by genius. His name was to be celebrated in the song of the Salii; chairs of state with oaken garlands over them were to be set up in the places assigned to the priesthood of the Augustales; his image in ivory was to head the procession in the games of the circus; no flamen or augur, except from the Julian family, was to be chosen in the room of Germanicus. Triumphal arches were erected at Rome, on the banks of the Rhine, and on mount Amanus in Syria, with an inscription recording his achievements, and how he had died in the public service.

Tactius Annals 2.85

That same year......

There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a resolution of the Senate was passed that four thousand of the freedmen class who were infected with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of Sardinia, to quell the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the pestilential climate. The rest were to quit Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated their impious rites.

Germanicus
Germanicus Julius Caesar (24 May 15 BC – 10 October AD 19)

While the 26 c.e. dating for Pilate is questionable - so too is the 18/19 c.e. dating - because this date gives Pilate a very long time ruling in Judea - around 18 years compared to the 10 years given by Josephus.

In his reconstruction Schwartz cuts the number of years Josephus has given to Pilate’s predecessor. Josephus gives Gratus 11 years - Schwartz wants to give him 4 years. Thus allowing Pilate’s appointment to be in 18/19 c.e.

While the aim is a good one - placing Pilate in office prior to 26 c.e., and thus harmonizing Josephus with Tactius and the expulsion of Jews from Rome around 19 c.e., the method is not without it’s shortcomings:

Josephus gives Gratus 11 years and Pilate 10 years.
Schwartz gives Gratus 4 years and Pilate 18 years.

My suggestion in this OP is that Josephus has reversed the order of Roman governors. Pilate ruled prior to Gratus and ruled 11 years from 14 c.e. He was followed by Gratus who ruled 10 years from 26 c.e. to 36/37 c.e.

Why would Josephus reverse the order in which Pilate and Gratus held office in Judea?

One reason could related to the 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story in the Acts of Pilate.

(3) The third question, whether any copyist 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 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 - five years before Pilate in fact entered office, according to Josephus. However, since it is difficult 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 date in Antiquities 18.35,89.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century. On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History
of the First Century. Page 142.

Or, it could be that Antiquities was not yet written. In other words; the data re the 7th year crucifixion story in the Acts of Pilate was sourced from elsewhere. That source could be the data that is now in Slavonic Josephus, i.e. the story about a birth of an anointed one prior to the 15th year of Herod 1 and the crucifixion of a wonder-doer figure under Pilate. A crucifixion story of this wonder-doer figure around 21 c.e. would place the age of such figure within the ‘not yet 50 years’ of gJohn. (25 b.c.e. or earlier - to 21 c.e.)

For whatever reason, the gospel story was moved forward by gLuke to the 15th year of Tiberius. Necessitating that the 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story be side-lined. One way this could be done was to reverse the order in which Pilate and Gratus were in office in Judea. Josephus, in Antiguities, thus supports gLuke’ chronology while at the same time negating the earlier 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story.

Dating Pilate to 14 c.e. supports a crucifixion prior to 26 c.e. Whether one wants to run with 21 c.e. or 19 c.e. (Josephus placing the TF prior to 19 c.e.). Dating Pilate late supports a crucifixion anytime from 27 c.e. to 37 c.e. Kokkinos proposing a crucifixion around 36/37 c.e - the John the Baptist figure, re Josephus, still alive at that time. Since the gospel figure of Jesus is not a historical figure, all these dates suggest is that the gospel writers were playing the number’s game. Using symbolic numbers to chart their historical, prophetic, interpretations.

The theory in this OP supports the years given by Josephus for two Roman governors of Judea - while reversing their order of being in office in Judea.

Yes, it also implicates the Josephan writer in supporting gLuke - and thus implicates the Josephan writer with supporting the pseudo-historical gospel Jesus story.

Schwartz raised this question: "The third question, whether any copyist had anything to gain by making Pilate’s career begin later than it really did.."

Who gained by Josephus reversing the order in which Pilate and Gratus held office in Judea? The Lukan writer.

[steve43]

MaryHelen-Josephus was BORN in A.D. 37. I cannot believe that a man of his capacity would mix up Gratus and Pilate- not only in Antiquities but Wars.

[MrMacSon]

MaryHelen-Josephus was BORN in A.D. 37. I cannot believe that a man of his capacity would mix up Gratus and Pilate- not only in Antiquities but Wars.

My understanding is the earliest versions of Antiquities we have are from the 11th C ... ie. likely copies of altered version of redacted copies (or similar).

How do we know any of it is that accurate?

[maryhelena]

MaryHelen-Josephus was BORN in A.D. 37. I cannot believe that a man of his capacity would mix up Gratus and Pilate- not only in Antiquities but Wars.

A man of his capacity? Indeed, a man of his capacity.....

Josephus’ prophetic role as historian merits special attention.....In War 1.18-19 he declares that he will begin writing his history where the prophets ended theirs, so he is continuing this part of their prophetic function. According to Ap.1.29 the priests were custodians of the nation’s historical records, and in Ap.1.37 inspired prophets wrote that history. As a priest Josephus is a custodian of his people’s traditions, and by continuing that history in the Jewish War and subsequently by rewriting it in his Antiquities, he is a prophet. For Josephus prophets and historians preserve the past and predict the future, and he has picked up the mantle of creating prophetic writings. Perhaps, in his own mind he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography....

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis by Robert Karl Gnuse.

[maryhelena]

MaryHelen-Josephus was BORN in A.D. 37. I cannot believe that a man of his capacity would mix up Gratus and Pilate- not only in Antiquities but Wars.

My understanding is the earliest versions of Antiquities we have are from the 11th C ... ie. likely copies of altered version of redacted copies (or similar).

How do we know any of it is that accurate?

We don't. All that can be done with statements Josephus makes is to look for other sources that can support or contradict what he says. For instance, dating Pilate is helped by use of Tactius.

Pursuing these avenues of research will contribute to our certainty as to when Pilate became governor of Judea. Some will care about this, other might not. What is clear, however, is that even those who don’t want ‘merely’ to ‘mine’ Josephus for ‘facts’ should realize that it was only the external pressure, of Tactius, that forced scholars to read Josephus with eyes that allowed them to see all there is to see. 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 Tactius’ 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.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century. On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History
of the First Century. Page 144.

(my formatting)

[MrMacSon]

... All that can be done with statements Josephus makes is to look for other sources that can support or contradict what he says.

For instance, dating Pilate is helped by use of Tactius.

The earliest Tacitus documents are also a similar age to the Josephus documents? ~11th C ?

[maryhelena]

... All that can be done with statements Josephus makes is to look for other sources that can support or contradict what he says.

For instance, dating Pilate is helped by use of Tactius.

The earliest Tacitus documents are also a similar age to the Josephus documents? ~11th C ?

So...throw the lot out and then?

We have what we have and we have to make the best of it.....

[The Crow]

... All that can be done with statements Josephus makes is to look for other sources that can support or contradict what he says.

For instance, dating Pilate is helped by use of Tactius.

The earliest Tacitus documents are also a similar age to the Josephus documents? ~11th C ?

Hmmmm, I would have thought they were earlier than that but I can find no mention of Tacitus documents earlier than what you specify Mac. So I guess my uneducated question is. "How can Tacitus be used to verify Pilate or any one else?" Wasn't most of the documents he would have consulted have been burned up in the so called christian burning of Rome?

[MrMacSon]

... All that can be done with statements Josephus makes is to look for other sources that can support or contradict what he says.

For instance, dating Pilate is helped by use of Tactius.

The earliest Tacitus documents are also a similar age to the Josephus documents? ~11th C ?

So...throw the lot out and then?

We have what we have and we have to make the best of it.....

Not necessarily throw it out, but we should be mindful Tacitus may be redacted, and thus reflect later thought or doctrine ...

Hmmmm, I would have thought they were earlier than that, but I can find no mention of Tacitus documents earlier than what you specify Mac. So I guess my uneducated question is. "How can Tacitus be used to verify Pilate or any one else?" Wasn't most of the documents he would have consulted have been burned up in the so called christian burning of Rome?

Interesting question re documents being burned up in Rome .... or documents destroyed in other scenarios, such as

• destruction of the Library of Alexandria; eg. during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (AD/CE 270–275); and/or
• it's later destruction by Muslim invaders eg. 642
• the destruction of various Serapea

.

[steve43]

You have to accept Josephus at face value- he is our only source on most things.

If you challenge Josephus, you have to be on VERY solid ground.

And you simply are not.

What can be derived from Josephus might be personally repugnant to you, but it doesn't advance the ball to make illogical and critically specious assumptions to downplay the importance of his writings.