DCHindley wrote:Ken and others,
The only other place where I am aware of likely tampering with Josephus is in the accounts of the first few procurators of Judea, including Pilate.
The Judean governors are usually introduced and dated by an association with a year of the reigning emperor, with the length of governorship not stated. However, the length of governorship is expressly stated for Valarius Gratus ("eleven years" Ant 18.35) and Pontius Pilate ("ten years" Ant 18.89). In the case of Gratus, the detailed accounts of Gratus' governorship (32-34) cover only the first four years of a rule that supposedly ran seven years longer, even though Gratus seemed to have intentionally appointed a new high priest each year for the first four.
As the text stands in all mss., the sentence "after he [Gratus] had tarried in Judea eleven years" would make this the 12th year of Tiberius (26 CE). He supposedly appointed Joseph Caiaphas as HP before he left town and headed back to Rome, and Pilate came to replace him. See the bolded text below.
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 [i.e. in the 12th year of Tiberius, 26 CE], when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.
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.
Why is this important? Well, we know from Eusebius that sometime in the reign of emperor Maximinus Daia (ruler of Asia Minor & Syria, 305-313 CE, under the Tetrarchy established by Diocletian), he had published something he purported to be Pilate's own
Acta (private diary accounts of official actions, kept by all Roman officials with juridical powers).
Church History 9.5.1. [The flatterers of Maximinus Daia] Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate and our Saviour [Πιλάτου καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὑπομνήματα] full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor [Maximinus]'s approval to the whole of the empire subject to him [Asia Minor & Syria], with written commands that they should be openly posted to the view of all in every place, both in country and city, and that the schoolmasters should give them to their scholars, instead of their customary lessons, to be studied and learned by heart.
In them is the claim that the events that happened to Jesus occurred in the fourth consulship of Tiberius (21 CE). Eusebius takes umbrage to this statement, and attempts to dismiss it as follows:
Church History 1.9.1. … [Josephus], in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities [18:32-35, 89], says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.
2. Accordingly the forgery of those [Maximinus Daia and his flatterers] who have recently [305-313 CE] given currency to Acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.
3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius (21 CE), which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed [εἴ γε τῷ Ἰωσήπῳ μάρτυρι χρήσασθαι δέον], who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work [Josephus' Ant 18:32-35] that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign (26 CE). [my bolding]
What does Eusebius suggest by the phrase "if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed"? The unusual wording only occurs at the place where Pilate's governorship can be dated, which as they stand now cannot allow the events that happed to Jesus occur in 21 CE. Impossible! But that is almost too convenient, and suggests to me that the text of Josephus was tinkered with to make the actual sequence of events "go away" so the Christian account could not possibly have anything to do with 21 CE. I believe Steve Mason also suggests this as well (I think I read his reservation in the most recent edition of his
Josephus and the New Testament).
The passage may have originally read: "35 and, when he [the HP Simon] 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, [interpolation removed] when Pontius Pilate came as his successor [ca. 19 CE]. This jives better with the dates of some of the events in Rome which Josephus associates with Pilate's time, such as Mundus & Paulina, where we can cross reference them to statements made by Tacitus, etc. The same editor who added the 11 years of rule of Gratus when it was actually four, then went on to make sure that nobody could possibly back date Pilate as early as 21 CE by adding that he ruled 10 years. It is not even necessary to assume that the editor who may have added these interpolations edited out anything bad or otherwise about Jesus. His whole purpose was to make the date for Jesus' actions in Maximinus Daia's
Acta Pilati impossible.
Why? To appease Christians. Constantine had become sole ruler of the western empire by 313-314, including Rome, where presumably he had access to the original physical copies of Josephus' books. Constantine, I think to rally support from Christians for his push to topple the eastern emperor Licenius, had the text of Josephus Antiquities 18 amended to make Maximinus'
Acta dating of their savior's events, and the description of his deeds as given in these
Acta, impossible. In the end, he was successful and became emperor of a united empire around 324 (well, with his son Crispus as a Caesar) or 326/7 (sole emperor without any Caesars). The dates for the interpolation could be anytime from 313 CE onwards, maybe even 305 onwards if he felt he needed to gain Christian approval. After all, Eusebius was a Bishop in Caesarea in Palestine, smack in Maximinus' domain, and Constantine certainly had Eusebius' support.
Could the TF have been interpolated at about the same time as the change to make Maximinus Daia a liar?
Eusebius' writing history is not fully understood, but it went something like this:
- *Before 300: Eusebius composes the first editions of the Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History (in seven books)
*Late 313?: Eusebius produces new edition of Ecclesiastical History incorporating revised version of the Martyrs of Palestine (short recension) and an account of Maximinus in 311-313 (Book Nine)
*c. 314-c. 318: Eusebius composes the Preparation for the Gospel
*c. 315: New edition of Ecclesiastical History, which includes the present Book Eight and 10.1-7
*c. 318-c. 323: Eusebius composes Demonstration of the Gospel
*325/6: Eusebius publishes final edition of Ecclesiastical History and second edition of the Chronicle (and probably writes the Theophany)
Just food for thought ...
DCH
