Peter Marchant: The Trouble with Pilate

[Giuseppe]

I have read the article of Peter Marchant on The Journal of Higher Criticism Vol 15 No 3. I advice strongly the reading of it.

The author notes some anomalies:

• in Josephus, the death of Judas the Galilean is probably removed by the Christians

• Eusebius was not a pious forger insofar his Testimonium Eusebianum was entirely interpolated in Josephus not after John the Baptist but before John the Baptist, contra the Gospel effort to make John the precursor of Jesus on both a temporal and spiritual level.

• the Acta Pilati of Maximinus Daia had as hero Judas the Galilean and introduced the false anti-Christian meme that Judas was the Christian Jesus.

In the Nicene Creed, "He died sub Pontio Pilato" seems to go against the Gospel propaganda against the Jews as deicide: after all these efforts to accuse the Jews, now the Christians themselves accuse Pilate! But that reference, sub Pontio Pilato, is a chronological one, not a polemical anti-Pilate reference.


Hence, Eusebius interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum to make it clear that Jesus of Nazareth was not Judas the Galilean.

The implication is that:

• Josephus talked more diffusely about the crucifixion of Judas the Galilean by Pilate

• "Mark" (author) introduced Pilate in his holy fable because Pilate was famous in Rome (see Tacitus, if genuine) because he had crucified the same Founder of the Fourth Philosophy (probably a self-proclaimed 'Christ').

[Giuseppe]

Another point:

• hardly the Acta Pilati were without a historical kernel, since they had access to the Imperial Archives, hence their "Jesus" was probably the seditionist known as Judas the Galilean, since the Gospel Jesus never existed.

The implication is the concrete possibility that the source used by the Acta Pilati was used by "Mark" (author) too, to fix under Pilate his Jesus of paper.

[Giuseppe]

Hence the next question is:

Given the HISTORICAL FACT that Pilate crucified Judas the Galilean or an equivalent seditionist from Judea, how could that precise fact work as controlling factor in Mark's choice of Pilate to fix his invented Jesus in human history ?

[Giuseppe]

The impression is that Judas the Galilean (and by extension, his probable killer: Pilate) differs from the other seditionists (respectively, for Pilate: from other Roman Governors) in virtue of his recognized role of Founder of a Sect (respectively, for Pilate: his recognized role of killer of a such Founder):

Under his administration [Coponius] it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.

(War 2.118)

We don't have another equivalent of Official Founder of a Sect X in Josephus.

Hence the most pragmatic reason for "Mark" (author) opt on Pilate as chronological timer of Jesus's crucifixion, is his recognized role of killer of the Official Founder of a Jewish Sect.

If Pilate had crucified the Founder of the Fourth Sect, then why couldn't he have crucified the Ideal Founder of the Fifth Sect, i.e. the Christian Sect ?

[Giuseppe]

Quoting from Dave Allen, with a slight alteration, the following is a hypothetical reconstruction of what there was in the place of the Testimonium Eusebianum:

Now there was about this time Judas the Galilean, an innovator and deceiver of the people. Through his sorcery and innovations he drew over to him many Galileans and by them he was seen to be a King: For fear of the influence of a great many people, he suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pilate who condemned him to be crucified. Many of his followers, the Galileans were slain and thus checked for the moment. The movement again broke out with wild fury and mischievous superstition not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

https://davesblogs.home.blog/2019/10/23 ... n-flavian/

If "Mark" (author) read something of very similar to that passage (just as Tacitus later), then he could have derived the right inspiration to fix his invented Jesus under Pilate. What pleased him about this passage, is surely the idea, already found in our Josephus in an explicit way, that a contemporary Jew was seen as the Founder of a Sect.

(Note that the originality of Judas the Galilean is that his movement survived to his death. Nothing of similar is known about Theudas, the Eyptian Prophet, etc.).

"Why don't we apply the same idea to our Jesus?"

[Giuseppe]

This point appears to be decisive:

In the Acta, however, a document issued on the orders of the emperor, the date given for the Passion could hardly have been arbitrary since it would then be open to ridicule to conflict with official records or the work of historians of the period.

(p. 87)

[Giuseppe]

I am reading a second time this important article.

The author notes correctly that the insignia episode about Pilate and the Temple is not an action a cruel ruler does in the middle of his rule, but the typical action he could have made in the beginning of his rule, as a form of inauguration of it (under the sign of the hard repression).

Hence the emphasis "sub Pilato" is meant to remove from Pilate's rule the first years when Pilate was involved in the repression of the revolt of Judas the Galilean.

It was a scandal that couldn't be neutralized by merely saying: "the seditious was Judas, not Jesus!"

...since the scandal was just that: that the only historical messiah crucified in the light of the History by Pilate was named Judas, and not Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

The strongest argument of the article is the following:

• Acta Pilati: Pilate ruled also 10 years before the time we usually assign to his rule.

• Eusebius's reaction: Acta Pilati is a total forgery, because Josephus secures us that Pilate ruled not during those early 10 years.

The question we can't elude: why was the entire Eusebian apologetics against Acta Pilati reduced to insist that Pilate didn't rule during those early 10 years ?

Best answer: because there was something of greatly embarrassing in the only idea that Pilate ruled during those first 10 years.


The concrete possibility that, during those first 10 years, Pilate repressed harshly the revolt of Judas the Galilean.

Basically, what embarrassed Eusebius was the dangerous connection Pilate/Judas the Galilean.

[maryhelena]

I just bought the Kindle version of the JHC from amazon (cheap enough but no table of contents )

I have come to the conclusion that Maximinus’s pamphlet probably carried the correct date of the Passion and that chronological fabrications were carried out by Christian scribes to shorten Pilate’s term of office in AJ from 18 years (18-36) to 10 years (26-36). The motives were twofold: a) so that the Lukan date for the Passion could be upheld and b) the apparently unsavory events depicted in the Acta, taking place in 20-21, could be divorced from any association with Pilate, and if with Pilate, also with Christ.

Price, Robert. The Journal of Higher Criticism Volume 15 Number 3 (p. 87). Kindle Edition.

So far so good:

Reasons for the chronological redating of Pilate? In order that the chronology - hence crucifixion dating - of gLuke could be upheld without the distraction of the Acts of Pilate dating. (Josephus having his own 19 c.e. dating) If Pilate's arrival in Judaea was left to 18/19 c.e. and he stayed there for 18 years until 36/37 c.e. - then a conflict between the Acts of Pilate dating, Josephus dating, and the gLuke dating for the crucifixion would continue. Shortchanging Pilate years circumvented any potential problems before they could cause division.

If Peter Marchant had stopped here all would be well. Unfortunately, he has let assumptions spoil his Pilate argument.

I think that the TF has been inserted at the precise point in the narrative where the later exploits of Judas of Galilee, including details of his public execution, have been suppressed. I will be accused of an argument from silence here, but how better can we explain, in addition to the arguments already adduced, why the crucifixion of Jesus, by this placement, is now out
of synchronicity with the execution of John the Baptist

Peter Marchant has no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean - just as Greg Doudna has no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Saphat. If no historical evidence is available for figures in the writing of Josephus then the question to ask is what purpose do these figures serve in the 'history' Josephus is writing ?

Greg Doudna made an interesting suggestion regarding the Josephan figure of John the baptizer. i.e. this Josephan figure is a misplaced reference to Hyrcanus II. (or history remembered re the dating 63 b.c. to around 37 c.e.)

I have previously suggested that the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean, and his two sons, reflect the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus. History remembered rather than simply being misplaced. (Aristobulus II poisoned in 49 b.c., Alexander beheaded in 48/47 b.c., and Antigonus crucified and beheaded in 37 b.c.) Josephus placing the crucifixion of the two sons of Judas the Galilean around 40 years from 6 c.e. (time of Tiberius Julius Alexander 46/48 c.e.)

Indeed, it's very easy to take Josephus at face value. But that approach won't take one very far in searching for the early Jewish roots of christian origins. All that is achieved is to muddy the waters for historical research. Josephus was a Hasmonean/Jewish historian. Retelling his people's history, remembering that history under Roman occupation, necessitated that remembrance be muted. Storytelling was a way to achieve that remembrance without provoking Roman censure.

[MrMacSon]

Peter Marchant has no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean - just as Greg Doudna has no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Saphat. If no historical evidence is available for figures in the writing of Josephus then the question to ask is what purpose do these figures serve in the 'history' Josephus is writing ?

• They don't have to serve a purpose other than be part of a narrative that the author - 'Josephus' - wanted to provide.
  
  Aspects of Josephus' accounts about himself seem far-fetched (more than his accounts of Judas the Galilean, Jesus ben Saphat/Sapphias, or John the Baptist, and nearly on a par with the NT-gospel writers accounts about their main character, Jesus).

Indeed, it's very easy to take Josephus at face value. But that approach won't take one very far in searching for the early Jewish roots of Christian origins.

• There's good evidence, regardless of their accuracy or truthfulness, that aspects of the works of Josephus were used or reflected upon by NT authors.

All that is achieved is to muddy the waters for historical research.

• Yes, so stop muddying the waters.

Storytelling was a way to achieve that remembrance without provoking Roman censure.

• Exactly.