Dating Pilate: A New Proposal.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2896
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Dating Pilate: A New Proposal.

Post by maryhelena »

Over the years the forum has seen a number of threads on dating Pilate. Threads dealing with Daniel Schwartz’s proposal dating Pilate’s arrival in Judea to 18/19 c.e. (a proposal now accepted by a number of scholars.) This thread accepts the date that Schwartz proposes for Pilate’s arrival in Judea.. However, I think questions can be asked re the date of Pilate’s removal from Judea.

Josephus has Pilate in Judea until around 36/37 c.e. Josephus also says Pilate was 10 years in Judea. Logical reasoning is to work back 10 years from 36/37 c.e. to around 26 c.e. as a date for Pilate’s appointment in Judea. But the logic of this dating for Pilate’s appointment fails in the face of Josephus also having Pilate already in Judea by 19 c.e. If Pilate was already in Judea in 19 c.e. and was removed around 36/37 b.c. then Pilate was around 18 years in Judea.

Josephus gives Pilate 10 years in Judea. Josephus gives Gratus 11 years in Judaea. Was he wrong - or are scholars misreading these figures - misreading the figures to read as though the years of both Gratus and Josephus ran continuously. For example: Instead of working Pilate’s 10 years back from 36/37 c.e. they could instead be years running from 18/19 c.e. That would have Pilate leaving Judea around the 15th year of Tiberius, 28/29 c.e. The remaining 7 years of Tiberius could then be re-assigned to Gratus’s previous 4 years - giving him 11 years in Judea.

What this proposal sets out to do is question both the Lukan writer and Josephus in their use of Pilate in the stories they tell.

Luke:

In a recent post on another thread I wrote the following:

‘’In fact, now that I think about it - from an ahistoricist position - gLuke could well have written his gospel, dated to the 15th year of Tiberius, while allowing, being happy with, a TF in 19 c.e. After all, what did yet another crucifixion date matter when the 'wise man' figure is a literary figure. A 19 c.e. 'wise man' crucifixion story would only become a concern for the Lukan writer if that writer wanted to shift focus for some reason. So, an interesting question - who had the bigger reason to move Pilate's dating? Luke or Eusebius ? Eusebius would have a very big reason - two 'wise man' crucifixion stories would question his historicists position. One had to be a forgery. But that's a historicist position, and a historicist mistake by Eusebius. Eusebius certainty had motive to rearrange Pilate's dates. However, methinks the Lukan writer, with a focus on running a 70 year parallel from 40 b.c. to 30 c.e. required a late crucifixion date for his 'wise man'. (and Josephus accommodated the Lukan plan.) In other words, gLuke was working with a game plan - not a a fit of pique or frustration like Eusebius.’’

However, now, with the proposal set out above, questions can be asked about giving Pilate 18 years in Judea. Consequently, gLuke required more than a new focus or perspective for his new chronology, a new chronology that dated a ‘wise man’ crucifixion late in Tiberius' rule. If Pilate was not in Judea after 28/29 c.e. gLuke had a very big problem. It was alright, under an 18 year rule for Pilate, for the Lukan writer to create a new date for a crucifixion story. But if Pilate is not in Judea after 28/29 c.e. the Lukan writer cannot have a new Pilate crucifixion date late in the rule of Tiberius. Pilate, re older ‘wise man’ crucifixion stories was already connected to the ‘wise man’ crucifixion story. (from Acts of Pilate or Slavonic Josephus, not to mention the Josephan TF dating to 19 c.e. )

Additionally, gLuke could not simply utilize 28/29 c.e. for his 'wise man' crucifixion story. His nativity story set in 6 c.e. would only have his Jesus figure around 22/23 years old at that time - not the usual age by which a man becomes known as a 'wise man'.

Josephus:

Josephus has placed Pilate around 36/37 c.e. He has also placed his John the baptizer figure around that time. Additionally, he has placed the war between Antipas and Aretas around that time. This dating 36/37 c.e. is 100 years from the historical events of 63 b.c.

It’s sometimes suggested that the Josephan John the baptizer dating to 36/37 c.e. is a flashback to the gospel timeframe for the death of it’s John the Baptizer figure.

It’s been suggested, by Greg Doudna, that the Josephan mention of John the baptizer figure is a misplaced story about Hyrancus II.
(https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... rcanus_II_)

The Antipas war with Aretas in 36/37 c.e. is viewed as being a long time gap between the divorce of Aretas’s daughter and Antipas marriage to Herodias - a marriage that John the Baptist, in the gospel story, has berated Antipas for. In other words; this war is late when viewed as Aretas having his revenge on Antipas.

What these three Josephan stories indicate may well be that Josephus is indeed having a flashback moment. If so, then his flashback stories are not the actual history of 36/37 c.e. Pilate is not there; Pilate is simply part of the historical flashback.. Particularly so as these three events are placed 100 years from 63 b.c.

Josephus is not writing the history of 36/37 c.e. with these three stories. He is instead writing the remembered history of events from 63 b.c., Consequently, he, like the Lukan writer, needed Pilate to appear to have had 7 additional years in Judea.

The added 7 years to Pilate are therefore symbolic years, not literal years - symbolic in the sense that these added years to Pilate are remembered years, remembered years in which earlier Hasmonean history is remembered. (actually whenever the number 7 appears - a little red flag needs to be raised…..)

Josephus, by leaving the number of years allocated to Gratus and Pilate appear as though both these years were consecutive years - has facilitated both his own story for 36/37 c.e. and allowed gLuke to have a Pilate crucifixion story later than the 15th year of Tiberius.

Viewing Pilate ruling from 18/19 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. - means that one does not have an answer to why Josephus gave Pilate 10 years and Gratus 11 years in Judea. The above argument supports the Josephan numbers and at the same time provides reasons as to why Josephus has left both these numbers to appear to be consecutive years.

Eusebius might have a big reason - the Acts of Pilate 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion date - to try and move Pilate away from an early in the time of Tiberius crucifixion date - in order to support the chronology of gLuke. However, the proposal suggested above indicates that he did not do so. The numbers given by Josephus, 11 years for Gratus and 10 years for Pilate, can be viewed as supporting an early in Tiberius rule for a Pilate ‘wise man’ crucifixion story. Viewing these years as 11 non-consecutive years for Gratus indicates that Pilate was not in Judea after the 15th year of Tiberius. Pilate's 10 years in Judea running from 18/19 c.e. to 28/29 c.e.

As Daniel Schwartz has suggested - we need to learn more about Josephus.

Pursuing these avenues of research will contribute to our certainty as
to when Pilate became governor of Judea. Some will care about this,
others might not. What is clear, however, is that even those who don’t want
“merely” to “mine” Josephus for “facts” should realize that it was only
the external pressure, of Tacitus, that forced scholars to read Josephus with
eyes that allowed them to see all there is to see. Those who read Josephus
all by himself will never know, for example, that Germanicus died in 19 CE
(a point that is quite clear in Tacitus’ annalistic narrative [see n. 75] but
not at all indicated by Josephus), hence never have the occasion to wonder
why Josephus juxtaposed that death with the beginning of Pilate’s tenure,
something that apparently contradicts Josephus’ dating of that tenure – a
point which we may pursue as we like, whether to learn more about Pilate
or, rather, more about Josephus. Page 144.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century[/box]

Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating Pilate: A New Proposal.

Post by Charles Wilson »

maryhelena --

In the ever-Politicized Wiki-P, "Salome Alexandra" [sic], we find this Note:

"Josephus' statement (Jewish Antiquities xv. 6, § 3), that Hyrcanus II, Jannaeus' eldest son, was eighty years old when he was put to death by Herod, in 31 BCE, is probably erroneous, for that would set the year of his birth as 111 BCE, and Jannaeus himself was born in 125 BCE, so that he could have been but fourteen when Hyrcanus was born to him. It is difficult to understand how a thirteen-year-old boy married a widow of thirty. The statement, made by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities xiii. 11, §§ 1, 2), that during the reign of Aristobulus, Aristobulus' wife, presumably Salome Alexandra, brought about the death of the young prince Antigonus I, because she saw in him a rival of her husband, lacks additional confirmation..."

The Dates just don't add up for certain events, as you state.

CW
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2896
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dating Pilate: A New Proposal.

Post by maryhelena »

Charles Wilson wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:39 am maryhelena --

In the ever-Politicized Wiki-P, "Salome Alexandra" [sic], we find this Note:

"Josephus' statement (Jewish Antiquities xv. 6, § 3), that Hyrcanus II, Jannaeus' eldest son, was eighty years old when he was put to death by Herod, in 31 BCE, is probably erroneous, for that would set the year of his birth as 111 BCE, and Jannaeus himself was born in 125 BCE, so that he could have been but fourteen when Hyrcanus was born to him. It is difficult to understand how a thirteen-year-old boy married a widow of thirty. The statement, made by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities xiii. 11, §§ 1, 2), that during the reign of Aristobulus, Aristobulus' wife, presumably Salome Alexandra, brought about the death of the young prince Antigonus I, because she saw in him a rival of her husband, lacks additional confirmation..."

The Dates just don't add up for certain events, as you state.

CW
Lots of stuff doesn't add up with Josephus. That's why Josephus needs to be put in the Dock. Especially so if we want to use his writing to support a theory on Christian origins. Even with Hasmonean history, as you point out, one can't take the writing of Josephus at face value. Perhaps, at the end of the day, as I proposed in the OP, there might be method in his madness. What we perceive as contradiction or outright illogical might just require a different approach to his writing than we are used to - even an approach that we find unscholary or even crazy... Josephus is there - our major source to a time period from which our culture arose. - we need to do whatever it takes to get to know Josephus.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2896
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dating Pilate: A New Proposal.

Post by maryhelena »

Further to the above post - a post suggesting that Pilate was not in Judea in the years 36/37 c.e. – additional argument can be offered. Since Pilate is not the only figure featured in the events Josephus relates to 36/37 c.e., it is beneficial to consider these other events that Josephus lists.

1) The Josephan John the baptizer figure. This is a figure usually associated with the gospel John the Baptist figure. However, since the Josephan placing of this figure is out of context with the gospel chronology, it’s been suggested that Josephus is having a flashback moment. However, Kokkinos rejects this idea and hence has a Jesus crucifixion in 36 ce. ie. Basically reading the gospel story into Josephus - a story which has the execution of John the Baptist prior to the crucifixion of Jesus. And of course, re Josephus, Pilate is set in Judea in 36/37. In effect, giving the gLuke Jesus a ministry of around 7 years. (the three year ministry being a reading of gJohn.) https://www.academia.edu/42949214/Cruci ... h_of_Jesus.

2) Greg Doudna has suggested that the Josephan figure of John the baptizer is a story that is Chronologically Dislocated i.e. that the story relates to Hyrcanus II. https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... rcanus_II_

3) ’The point of interest here is that every word of Josephus’s story of John would
read perfectly well in the time of Herod the Great (37-4 BCE). The figure “Herod” of the story, if the story were read in isolation, would read perfectly well and naturally as Herod the Great.’’


4) ’Hyrcanus’s intended flight to the Nabateans and execution by Herod makes better
sense dated ca. 34 BCE in the context surrounding Herod’s trip to Mark Antony in
Laodicea—before rather than after Herod’s defeat by and then victory over Malichus I in the First Nabatean War of 32-31 BCE.’


5) The usual date for Herod’s execution of Hyrcanus II is 30 c.e. – i.e. prior to his visit to Octavian after the battle of the Actium in 30 b.c. The reason given in Antiquites book 15.ch.6.4,5 is that Herod when appearing before Octavian though it better to have Hyrcanus II out of the way re any potential change Rome might seek re his, Herod’s, association with Marc Antony. In other words, linking his execution of Hyrcanus II to 30 c.e. allows him to stand as the only viable ruler of Judea when appearing before Octavian.

6) However, as Greg Doudna has show in his article, there are indications in Antiquities that Hyrcanus II was executed prior to 30 c.e. If 34 b.c. is, as Doudna suggests, a more appropriate dating - then what we have is Josephus writing a story re his John the baptizer figure in 36/37 c.e. - 70 years from the execution of Hyrcanus II in 34 b.c. (A date which is also 100 years from the events of 63 b.c.)


7) ’However, the failed escape attempt and execution of Hyrcanus II is arguably
better situated ca. 34 BCE, preceding rather than following the First Nabatean War of 32-31 BCE which Herod ultimately won,’’


8) [Herod’s forces] suffered great losses … the Arabs … returned and killed them
after their rout. The Jews therefore suffered death in various forms, and only a
few of those who escaped found shelter in their camp. Then King Herod in
despair of the outcome of the battle rode off to get aid but in spite of his haste he was not quick enough in bringing help, and the Jews’ camp was taken … so unexpected a victory … in destroying a large part of [Herod’s] force. (Ant.
15.112-120)’’.


9) Greg Doudna, in his article, has only argued that Herod’s execution of Hyrcanus II better fits 34 b.c. than 30 b.c. It’s a pity he did not follow through - if the Josephan John the baptizer story (in 36/37 c.e.) is a chronological misplaced story about Hyrcanus II - then so also is the accompanying story set in 36/37 c.e. - the war between Herod (supposedly Antipas) and Aretas. The Josephan John the baptizer story and it’s follow on re the war with the King of the Nabateans is a flashback, a chronological misplaced story of the events of Hyrcanus II and Herod’s war with the Natabeans. A war resulting initially in a defeat for Herod but an ultimate victory.

10) Interestingly, of course, is the fact, re Josephus, that upon the death of Tiberius, the Roman governor of Syria, Vitellius, never made it to Petra to avenge the loss of Herod’s army. Aretas, consulting his diviners says that Vitellius would not enter Petra because one of the rulers would die. Josephus using prophetic prediction to end up his flashback; his chronologically displaced story about Hyrcanus II and the war of Herod with the Nabateans that followed.

11) Josephus has linked Pilate to Vitellius i.e. Samaritans complained to Vitellius regarding Pilate killing some Samaritans. In 36/37 c.e. not only is there an issue with Vitellius not going after Aretas and taking Petra - but Josephus gives two stories about Vitellius that have led some scholars to view Vitellius as having two visits to Jerusalem. However, Daniel Schwartz on Vitellius: ‘’ However, while no one could possibly fail to realize that it is the same Tiberius whose death is mentioned in Ant. 18.89 and who dies in 18.224, or that it is the same Gaius who dies in Ant. 18.307 and who is assassinated at such length in Book 19, concerning Vitellius' visit the case is not the same. The foci of the two accounts are very different. Indeed, as our review of scholarship showed, most readers assume that the two accounts refer to two different visits. Now we must add that, surprising as it may seem, Josephus himself seems to have forgotten that the two accounts refer to the same visit’’. Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish background to Christianity: Pontius Pilate's Suspension from Office: Chronology and Sources. .

12) Vitellius, if the Josephan story about the war with Aretas is a flashback, a chronologically misplaced story, then Vitellius was never going after Aretas in 36/37 c.e. If so - is the Josephan linkage of Pilate to Vitellius also a misplaced story. In other words: had Pilate already left Judea before Vitellius arrived in Syria ?

13) Josephus links the removal of Pilate to the Samaritan incident – but gives no date for it - the complaint goes to Vitellius who arrived in Syria in 35 c.e. Interestingly, the governor of Syria from 22 c.e. to 32 c.e., Lucius Aelius Lamia, never made it to Syria. (if Pilate’s 10 years run from 19 c.e. then it would be under this governor that he would have been removed - hence during this governor that the Samaritan incident took place. ) ''In 22 AD he was appointed imperial legate to Syria by Tiberius but was detained in Rome and never traveled to Syria in person''. Wikipedia.

14) Tiberius, Philo says via Agrippa, was angry with Pilate over the incident of the Roman standards. How much more so if Pilate is guilty of killing Samaritans. To assume that Tiberius left Pilate in Judea for 18 years - a Roman prefect with questionable character - is perhaps to assume too much. (On the Embassy to Gaius)

15) Why then does Josephus place Pilate in a context of 36/37 c.e. ?

16) Follow the money is a good working standard: Pilate in Judea in 36/37 c.e. allows gLuke to have a late in Tiberius crucifixion story - as Kokkinos has demonstrated with his 36 c.e. crucifixion story. The gospel story stands: John the Baptist was killed prior to Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

17) Bottom line: Josephus is working with the gLuke writer. With a JC crucifixion in 36/37 c.e. gLuke’s chronological framework is extended beyond 40 b.c. (Lysanias of Abilene) to 63 b.c. and the downfall of the Hasmonean dynasty and it’s subjection to Rome. (albeit with a temporary but disastrous interlude between 40 – 37 b.c.)

====================
Greg Doudna ends his article on Hyrancus II and a Josephan chronologically dislocated passage with this:

‘’If this analysis is correct—that Josephus misplaced this story to the wrong Herod
in Antiquities—then there is no attestation external to the New Testament of the New
Testament figure of John the Baptist of the first century CE of the time of Jesus. The
implication would seem to be this: either the New Testament John the Baptist has been
generated in the story world of the Gospels, or he is a different figure than Josephus’s
John the Baptist, perhaps a later leader in the same movement bearing the same name,
who was secondarily conflated with Josephus’s John the Baptist.
These issues are beyond the scope of this paper.’’

Doudna suggests that there is ‘’no attestation external to the New Testament of the New Testament figure of John the Baptist of the first century CE of the time of Jesus’’. Perhaps what is needed is to reconsider the relationship between Josephus and the Lukan writer. If, as suggested in this post, that there is a connection - then the relationship between the gospel story about John the Baptist and the Josephan story about John the baptizer - and Pilate - needs to be further investigated. Both stories, the Josephan and the Lukan, are stories that relate to events in Hasmonean history. Consequently, a relationship between Josephus and the Lukan writer needs to be seriously considered.
Post Reply