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]
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]