even in the more lucky case for Pilate, the formal absolution had to be made publicly before an imperial court, and in that occasion Pilate would have probably spoken the titular name of the Samaritan false prophet (i.e. "Christus") as formal apology of himself.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:26 amI think the implication is otherwise. If Pilate stood trial in Rome then the fact that Tiberius died would have been irrelevant and there would thus have been no need for Josephus to mention his death at that particular point in his narrative. By saying "BUT before he got to Rome Tiberius was dead" (presuming that English translation is accurate) the implication is surely that Pilate got lucky.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:35 am The text doesn't say that the trial didn't happen in Rome. It implies only that Tiberius was not the judge.But before he reached Rome, Tiberius had already passed away.
This absence of Tiberius in the trial of Pilate was deformed in the Christian tradition as Tiberius being opposed by the Senate to introduce Jesus in the Roman Pantheon.
I don't know where to turn to check it up now, but I have long understood that if someone was sent to Rome to face trial before the emperor they got lucky if the emperor died before they arrived.
At any case, you had already answered that you are not persuased by this argument (I hope not for the fact that Tiberius died soon).
What do you think about another argument for the introduction of Pilate in the Gospel story?