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

[maryhelena]

<snip>

So, to put a hypothesis out there plainly, I would like to suggest that the stereotyped phrase "before Pontius Pilate" in connection with Jesus' suffering and death found in second century writing connected with the Roman church had a certain propaganda value. Without actually naming the target and giving him a place of dignity in their professions of faith, the phrase would have a chilling effect on the listener when understood as a condemnation of him who is not named. The hypothesis cannot really rise above a conjecture, but it has the advantage of being the only explanation to date as to why it is such a frozen phrase. That is, other than the old chestnut that it was used to lend specificity to the historical setting. (Although not perfect, there may be a modern analogy of sorts.)

A suggestion: Perhaps the name/term 'Pontius Pilate' was used by some writers as a general term for all prefects of Judea under Tiberius. This would make some sense of the ambiguity in Josephus re dating Pilate. As demonstrated by Daniel Schwartz, Pilate was in Judea from 18 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. - approximately 19 or so years, an unusually long period of time. Perhaps this long period of rule was not by a specifically named Pontius Pilate - but the term refereed to all the prefects of Judea under Tiberius. (whether by Rome or Jewish writers...)

Such a suggestion would also make sense of the early dating for the crucifixion found in the Acts of Pilate. i.e. by using Pontius Pilate as a sort of generic name for prefects under Tiberius, the Jesus crucifixion story was able to entertain crucifixion scenarios from 7th year of Tiberius to around the 15th year of Tiberius - and even to the end of the rule of Pilate in 36/37 c.e.

Thus, not a case of a very long rule for Pilate (the ambiguity in Josephus) but a case of the term Pontius Pilate being a catch-all term for Roman prefects in Judea under Tiberius. (Perhaps one such prefect happened to be named Pontius - but no actual dating could be detailed re the Josephus ambiguity...)

[MrMacSon]

... As demonstrated by Daniel Schwartz, Pilate was in Judea from 18 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. - approximately 19 or so years, an unusually long period of time.

Livius says otherwise re Pilates starting year and tenure -

Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea from 26 CE to 36 CE; in this capacity, he was responsible for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. This was not the only incident during his tenure of office, however. In this article, all these incidents are discussed. An attempt is made to show that Pilate was sincerely interested in Jewish culture and did his best to prevent unnecessary violence.

Sources

The forty something provinces of the Roman Empire were ruled by a governor whose term lasted twelve or thirty-six months. These powerful men are virtually unknown to modern historians, who consider themselves lucky when they happen to know who was responsible for a province at a certain moment. There are, however, some exceptions. One governor, Pliny the Younger, left a collection of letters showing us something of the provincial administration. The other exception is Pontius Pilate, who is mentioned in the gospels and in several almost contemporary Jewish sources.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm [article by Jona Lendering]

There are eight! parts to that long Livius article on Pilate. The end of the 2nd & all of the 3rd are interesting, particularly in relation to what Peter K says in his OP in another recently-started thread http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 941#p58941 -

Pilate's tenure of office was not typical, however, because the Syrian governor Lucius Aelius Lamia was absent ... For reasons that will forever remain unclear, the emperor Tiberius requested the popular senator to stay in Rome, and when he died in 33, he ordered a state funeral. To Pilate, this meant that for the first six years of his term of office, he could not fall back on the Syrian governor and his troops. In case of an emergency, he and his auxiliaries were alone.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate02.html [article by Jona Lendering]

Speculations about Pilate's early years

Judaea was so unimportant a province, that no senator would have deigned to become its governor. Consequently, its governors belonged to the second class of the Roman elite, the order of the knights. These men were not entitled to the position of 'legate' or 'proconsul', but had to content themselves with the military title 'prefect' (see below).

Like all members of the Pontius family, Pilate belonged to this equestrian order. We know that the Pontii originated from a region called Samnium in central Italy, which had a reputation for its stubborn resistance to Roman expansionism. The Pontii could boast of a brilliant victory over the Romans (at the Caudine Forks in 321 BCE), had led several armies against Rome in the first quarter of the first century BCE, and prided itself on its resistance to the coup d'état of Julius Caesar. But in the days of Pontius Pilate, this was just the folklore of a family that was now thoroughly Roman. The family may have upheld its military traditions, especially since the emperor Augustus had done his best to stress the military character of the order of the knights. We may accept as a fact that Pontius Pilate had started his career as a soldier; after all, 'prefect' was a military title, and the Romans were right to demand at least some military experience before one could become governor of a province.

In the Roman Empire, advancement depended on patronage. There has been some scholarly speculation that Pilate was promoted by the powerful commander of the guard of the emperor Tiberius, a man named Seianus. It may be true and is perhaps even plausible, but we simply cannot know.

Before Pilate assumed the governorship of his province in 26 CE, he must have sought advice. We know one of his advisors: the high priest Joseph Caiaphas. Pilate's predecessor Valerius Gratus (tenure of office: 15-26 CE) had been looking for a high priest he could rely on, and had dismissed three high priests before appointing Caiaphas in 18. (It is tempting to link this appointment to the Jewish embassy that in 17 had appealed to the emperor Tiberius for a reduction in the tribute of Judaea. Was Caiaphas rewarded for his tactful behavior in Rome?) Pilate never changed the high priest, which can only mean that he had found in Caiaphas a man who could be trusted.

Pilate must have studied the Jewish religion before he went to Judaea. Like all Romans, he must have been intrigued by its old age, its philosophical depth, its resistance to the Greco-Roman culture, and its barbarian custom of circumcision. He must have read about the policy of the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who had tried to civilize the Jews and had persecuted those who had continued their atrocious practice of mutilating the genitals of boys before they had reached the age of consent. It has been argued that Pilate tried to follow in Antiochus' footsteps, and that the incidents we will discuss below were deliberate provocations. This point of view is untenable, since it ignores the negative bias of the Jewish sources.

Besides, there is positive proof that Pilate embarked upon a policy of cooperation. Since there was no Syrian governor to mint coins, Pilate had to do it himself. These coins show the staff of an Italian seer; on the reverse, one could have seen a bunch of grapes, which is the usual picture on any Jewish coin. Pilate thus combined an inoffensive pagan and an inoffensive Jewish symbol, which probably reflects a policy of equal rights to Jews and pagans. He would not force the Jews to lay down their ancestral ways; he invited them to be Rome's equals.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate03.html [article by Jona Lendering]

Interesting, that Livius article has Pontius Pilate pensioned off after he executed a "Samatarian prophet"

The Samaritan prophet

The sect of the Samaritans had its origins in a doctrinal conflict in Jerusalem in the age of Alexander the Great. One group of priests had left the city and started a new sect in the city of Samaria. One of their beliefs was that the prophet whose coming Moses had predicted in Deuteronomy 18.14-18, would reveal his identity by showing Moses' sacred vessels. This (Messianic?) belief was shared by the members of the Sect of Qumran, who knew that a treasure could be found on top of this mountain (Copper Scroll, 12.4).

In 36, a man claimed to be Moses reincarnate and gathered an armed following. Pilate intervened immediately with some thousand soldiers, dispersed the crowd, and had -as in the previous incident [Jesus' execution]- only the ringleaders executed. Nonetheless, the Samaritans considered his violence excessive and appealed to the Syrian governor, Lucius Vitellius (not to be confused with son, who became emperor). Pilate was pensioned off.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate07.html

.

[maryhelena]

... As demonstrated by Daniel Schwartz, Pilate was in Judea from 18 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. - approximately 19 or so years, an unusually long period of time.

Livius says otherwise re Pilates starting year and tenure -

Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea from 26 CE to 36 CE; in this capacity, he was responsible for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. This was not the only incident during his tenure of office, however. In this article, all these incidents are discussed. An attempt is made to show that Pilate was sincerely interested in Jewish culture and did his best to prevent unnecessary violence.

Sources

The forty something provinces of the Roman Empire were ruled by a governor whose term lasted twelve or thirty-six months. These powerful men are virtually unknown to modern historians, who consider themselves lucky when they happen to know who was responsible for a province at a certain moment. There are, however, some exceptions. One governor, Pliny the Younger, left a collection of letters showing us something of the provincial administration. The other exception is Pontius Pilate, who is mentioned in the gospels and in several almost contemporary Jewish sources.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate01.htm [article by Jona Lendering]

There are eight! parts to that long Livius article on Pilate. The end of the 2nd & all of the 3rd are interesting, particularly in relation to what Peter K says in his OP -

Pilate's tenure of office was not typical, however, because the Syrian governor Lucius Aelius Lamia was absent ... For reasons that will forever remain unclear, the emperor Tiberius requested the popular senator to stay in Rome, and when he died in 33, he ordered a state funeral. To Pilate, this meant that for the first six years of his term of office, he could not fall back on the Syrian governor and his troops. In case of an emergency, he and his auxiliaries were alone.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate02.html [article by Jona Lendering]

Speculations about Pilate's early years

Judaea was so unimportant a province, that no senator would have deigned to become its governor. Consequently, its governors belonged to the second class of the Roman elite, the order of the knights. These men were not entitled to the position of 'legate' or 'proconsul', but had to content themselves with the military title 'prefect' (see below).

Like all members of the Pontius family, Pilate belonged to this equestrian order. We know that the Pontii originated from a region called Samnium in central Italy, which had a reputation for its stubborn resistance to Roman expansionism. The Pontii could boast of a brilliant victory over the Romans (at the Caudine Forks in 321 BCE), had led several armies against Rome in the first quarter of the first century BCE, and prided itself on its resistance to the coup d'état of Julius Caesar. But in the days of Pontius Pilate, this was just the folklore of a family that was now thoroughly Roman. The family may have upheld its military traditions, especially since the emperor Augustus had done his best to stress the military character of the order of the knights. We may accept as a fact that Pontius Pilate had started his career as a soldier; after all, 'prefect' was a military title, and the Romans were right to demand at least some military experience before one could become governor of a province.

In the Roman Empire, advancement depended on patronage. There has been some scholarly speculation that Pilate was promoted by the powerful commander of the guard of the emperor Tiberius, a man named Seianus. It may be true and is perhaps even plausible, but we simply cannot know.

Before Pilate assumed the governorship of his province in 26 CE, he must have sought advice. We know one of his advisors: the high priest Joseph Caiaphas. Pilate's predecessor Valerius Gratus (tenure of office: 15-26 CE) had been looking for a high priest he could rely on, and had dismissed three high priests before appointing Caiaphas in 18. (It is tempting to link this appointment to the Jewish embassy that in 17 had appealed to the emperor Tiberius for a reduction in the tribute of Judaea. Was Caiaphas rewarded for his tactful behavior in Rome?) Pilate never changed the high priest, which can only mean that he had found in Caiaphas a man who could be trusted.

Pilate must have studied the Jewish religion before he went to Judaea. Like all Romans, he must have been intrigued by its old age, its philosophical depth, its resistance to the Greco-Roman culture, and its barbarian custom of circumcision. He must have read about the policy of the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who had tried to civilize the Jews and had persecuted those who had continued their atrocious practice of mutilating the genitals of boys before they had reached the age of consent. It has been argued that Pilate tried to follow in Antiochus' footsteps, and that the incidents we will discuss below were deliberate provocations. This point of view is untenable, since it ignores the negative bias of the Jewish sources.

Besides, there is positive proof that Pilate embarked upon a policy of cooperation. Since there was no Syrian governor to mint coins, Pilate had to do it himself. These coins show the staff of an Italian seer; on the reverse, one could have seen a bunch of grapes, which is the usual picture on any Jewish coin. Pilate thus combined an inoffensive pagan and an inoffensive Jewish symbol, which probably reflects a policy of equal rights to Jews and pagans. He would not force the Jews to lay down their ancestral ways; he invited them to be Rome's equals.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate03.html [article by Jona Lendering]

Daniel Schwartz: Studies
in the Jewish Background
of Christianity

• Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office
  and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18—20''
  
  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

my bolding

[MrMacSon]

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity

• Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18—20''
  
  ... the weight of evidence points to the earlier dating

Cheers.

[maryhelena]

Not only is the usual date for the arrival of Pontius Pilate in Judea questionable - there are also historical problems with his removal from office.

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background to Christianity:

Pontius Pilate's Suspension from Office:
Chronology and Sources

• T h e P r o b l e m
  
  According to Ant. 18.89, L. Vitellius, the Roman governor of Syria, removed
  Pilate from office and sent him to Rome so as to answer various complaints
  against him, but, although Pilate hurried to Rome, by the time he arrived
  Tiberius had died. Tiberius died on 16 March 37 (Tacitus, Ann. 6.50).^
  Immediately thereafter (§§ 90—95), Josephus records that Vitellius visited
  Jerusalem during the Passover festival. Passover probably fell on April 19 or
  20 that year,' so these two reports coordinate well; the first datum means
  Pilate was suspended sometime around February-March, while the second
  regards a visit in April. The problem comes with Josephus' report a few pages
  later, in §§ 122—126, of Vitellius visiting Jerusalem during a Jewish festival, at
  which time he received notice of Tiberius' death. Given the importance of this
  news and Vitellius' stature as the supreme Roman official in the East, he
  probably received this news within a few weeks, which would lead us to
  assume that the visit of §§ 122—126 was during Passover 37, in mid-April. But,
  if this is the case, and the earlier Passover visit, of §§ 90—95, is therefore
  moved up to the spring of 36 C.E., then what shall we say of Josephus' notice
  that Pilate, although he hurried to Rome," arrived only after Tiberius died —
  about a year later?! This is the problem.

Problems re Pilate arriving and problems re leaving Judea present a 19 year period of Jewish history in which the gospel story is set. So...one Pontius Pilate ruling 19 years - or Pontius Pilate being a catch-all term for Roman prefects in Judea under Tiberius.....

Perhaps Gratus only ruler 3 years - to 18/19 c.e. Pontius Pilate (if original name) ruled 3 years to 21 c.e. (Acts of Pilate crucifixion story). gLuke wants to move the crucifixion story to around the 15th year of Tiberius but, obviously, had to keep the name of the earlier prefect (perhaps long gone back to Rome). The end result being that the rule of Pontius Pilate would be extended.....Josephus providing backup for a late dating - and leaving ambiguous the start of Pilate's arrivial in Judea.

Yep, Josephus provides back-up for the gospel story.....not for it's historicity but for it's story, it's political allegory. I would suggest that denying the Josephan writer a role in supporting the gospel story is to refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room.....

[Secret Alias]

Many reasonable scholars accept the idea (or are at least open to the idea) that the crucifixion took place in 21 CE (= derived from the Acts of Pilate known to and reported by Eusebius). There are things in Josephus that 'help' this assumption. Also as I have noted many times the 49 (7 x 7) year gap before the destruction makes logical sense as (a) the destruction is always associated with the cycle of jubilees and sabbatical years and (b) Christianity interprets the crucifixion in terms of a 'redemption' from the Law and sins/debts in the world. Once again ideas rooted in traditional Israelite tradition such as this have a greater likelihood of being correct than newly invented nonsense from internet forums.

[Peter Kirby]

A suggestion: Perhaps the name/term 'Pontius Pilate' was used by some writers as a general term for all prefects of Judea under Tiberius. This would make some sense of the ambiguity in Josephus re dating Pilate.

At the price of being completely insensible on the face of it, of course.

[Charles Wilson]

Pilate was not the only one who was sent marked, "Return to Sender". This is (I believe) at the crucial Passover of 9 CE, where the Priests who were saved, along with Peter, thought they could finish the job started 12 years earlier a week after Herod's death:

Pilate was pensioned off.

Josephus Antiquities 18, 2, 2:

"As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the Samaritans came privately into Jerusalem, and threw about dead men's bodies, in the cloisters; on which account the Jews afterward excluded them out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully than they had formerly done. A little after which accident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor in that government..."

CW

[Bernard Muller]

"BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem,"
Πιλᾶτος δὲ ὁ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἡγεμὼν στρατιὰν ἐκ Καισαρείας ἀγαγὼν καὶ μεθιδρύσας χειμαδιοῦσαν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις
"but now" is a translation of δέ, which can mean "but", "and" or "then", not necessarily "now" as "at the same time".

Because:

One chapter before, the same word is used at the beginning of section 3, but translated as "and now":
"And now Herod the tetrarch, who was in great favor with Tiberius, built a city of the same name with him, and called it Tiberias [19-20 AD]."
Ἡρώδης δὲ ὁ τετράρχης, ἐπὶ μέγα γὰρ ἦν τῷ Τιβερίῳ φιλίας προελθών, οἰκοδομεῖται πόλιν ἐπώνυμον αὐτῷ Τιβεριάδα

However, "and now Herod the tetrarch ..." is immediately preceded by:
"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."
Also from the same section, Tiberius, sometimes at the beginning of his reign, is said to have sent that Gratus.
Tiberius started to rule in September 14 AD, after the death of Augustus. Add 11, and that gives 25 AD at the earliest, which is close to the widely accepted time of the start of Pontius Pilate's rule in the fall of 26 AD, and certainly not close to 18 or 19 AD.

It is clear that δέ does not mean "now" as "at the same times", because 25-26 AD is not the same time as 18-19 AD.
"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 [25-26 AD].
And now [δέ] Herod the tetrarch, who was in great favor with Tiberius, built a city of the same name with him, and called it Tiberias [18-19 AD]."

There are many instances in Josephus' works where δέ (translated by "now", "but now", "and now") is used to introduce a new story.

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

Surprising List of Scholars Who Date Pilate to 18 CE

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=797

Josephus and Dating Pilate

viewtopic.php?t=809&p=17360

The Chronology and Tenure of Pontius Pilate, New Evidence for Re-dating the Period of Office. Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 BCE - 135 CE. The Numismatic Circular, pp. 1-7. Kenneth Lönnqvist.

https://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Ch ... %B6nnqvist

The dating issue re Pilate is not simply an academic issue. The consequences of dating Pilate early raises questions about the gospel crucifixion story. Viewing gLuke as a later gospel suggests that Jesus stories could have had an earlier crucifixion date. For instance; Acts of Pilate and Slavonic Josephus suggest a crucifixion date prior to the 15th year of Tiberius.

Additionally, questions could be raised over Pilate having a very long - around 19 year - rule in Judea.

If the Jesus crucifixion dating has changed in the retelling of the Jesus story - did dating Pilate move along with the redating of the crucifixion? Ambiguity in Josephus regarding both the arrival and the departure of Pilate suggests that more is at play here than the length of Pilate's rule in Judea.