Surprising List of Scholars Who Date Pilate to 18 CE

[Stephan Huller]

Craig Evans http://books.google.com/books?id=beoorz ... tz&f=false

"D. R. Schwartz ("Pontius Pilate," ABD 5:395-401) has argued compellingly that Pilate's term in office began in 19 CE, not 25 or 26, as is usually supposed."

[Stephan Huller]

Steve Mason http://books.google.com/books?id=NHRbu6 ... 22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TEoQAQ ... CB4Q6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?id=JRl1T8 ... 22&f=false

"We also have enough independent and multiform evidence, it seems to me, to declare it more probable that he took up office in 18 than in the accepted year, 26 C. E."

[Stephan Huller]

K. Lönnquist - http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/klio.20 ... format=INT

Schwartz's arguments are independently supported by K. Lönnquist (2000). His “archaeometallurgical” analysis of Judean provincial coinage in the period 6-66 CE shows that in coins dated from 17/18 CE to 31/32 the lead content dropped from about 11% to virtually nil (2000: 465), then returned to its previous levels under Claudius and Nero. Although lead (a common material in Roman aqueduct construction) has not yet been found in the Jerusalem aqueducts, its discovery in the contemporary system at Panias leads Lönnquist to concluded that it was also used at crucial points in the Jerusalem system (though now lost through subsequent ravages) and that Pilate's removal of lead from his coins was for this purpose.

[Stephan Huller]

James H Charlesworth http://books.google.com/books?id=QoIS7V ... tz&f=false

"scholars usually assume that Pilate became governor in 25 or 26 c.E. Schwartz, however, has offered impressive arguments that Gratus's tenure was much shorter, that in all probability he retired to Rome not long after he appointed Caiaphas in 18 c.e. Schwartz conjectures that Pilate took off1ce in 19.35 This would mean, then, that Pilate and Caiaphas served in their respective off1ces for a lengthy and almost identical period of time, some eighteen years for Caiaphas (from 18 to early 37) and seventeen for Pilate (from 19 to early 37)."

[Stephan Huller]

J. Vardaman argues for Friday Nisan 15, 21 CE (‘Jesus’ Life: A New Chronology’ in J. Vardaman and E. M. Yamauchi [eds.], Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan [Eisenbrauns, 1989], 55-82);

[giviyoka]

Interesting, still I think that number is way off.

[Stephan Huller]

No its the right date. The evidence amassed by Schwartz and Lönnquist aside you also have:

a) an official Roman government text which trumps the garbage which comes from the Church Fathers
b) Josephus is certainly interpolated
c) it finally explains the Jewish usage of the title of the Christian text 'the gospel.' This is key. Jesus was crucified on a Jubilee. This is why his death is significant. The Jubilee before the Jubilee which ended the Jewish religion. This is intimated in anti-Marcionite sources too.

Of course there are not things that these 'reasonable men' considered when making their decision. But it is heart warming that the best and the brightest came to the same conclusion as me and others not so 'best and the brightest.' On a personal level, it validates my unorthodox methodologies and 'instinct.' And Nietzsche said, everything comes down to instinct. And of course Schwartz and Eisenman are not on the list for different reasons.

[steve43]

I would like to see this official Roman text.

[Stephan Huller]

So Eusebius was making it up?

[Stephan Huller]

But could you get a more impressive list of scholars?