If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Giuseppe »

Surely it raises a problem: Pilate is connected with Jesus only in Christian sources.

The first Pagan who mentioned on the same row "Pilate" and "Jesus" is: Celsus.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Sinouhe »

Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus
It is very surprising that a 2nd century historian like Tacitus mentions Jesus by his nickname and not his name. As if his messiahship was already known to all and had already entered into popular language to designate him instead of his real name. Yet there were still pretending messiahs at that time and Bar Kokhba will come 20 years after this text.

The author of these lines seems to address readers who already know Jesus and his story.

And he did the same with Pilatus. The author mention him as if he were a well known character and does not even bother to introduce him or say where he officiates. Pontius Pilate was the procurator of a lost province of the empire so it would be most likely that random readers don't know him.
Once again, it seems to be addressed at people who already know this story.

It appears unprofessional and anachronistic in the second century but surely not if it was written few centuries after.
Last edited by Sinouhe on Tue Jan 11, 2022 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Not really that surprising. Christ and Jesus became interchangeable as both proper names of the same person by the second century, similar to how "El" could be used both as a proper name for the Canaanite deity, and a general term denoting "a god".

None of this surprises me, as it is rather similar to what one would find in a short standard little creed from Christians, Ken Olson pointed out in another thread. Ken pointed to this text from Justin as a case in point:

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed." (Justin, First Apology 13)

I'd add also that Tacitus' writings were not written for "random readers" to begin with. He wrote for an educated, high class audience, to which Pilate may have had some notoriety... given he was infamous enough to be recalled to Rome for his insane actions, by Tiberius himself. Regardless, Tacitus also discusses people and places without introduction in other places. It isn't uncommon, in fact ancient authors did this all the time. I'd add that Judea was introduced and discussed in Tacitus' previous work, the Histories, so... your point seems moot.

I'd add that "the character or his geographical origin" are beside the point and irrelevant to the text. Jesus/Christus is a digression about the Fire of Rome and possible Christian involvement in it. They are sidebars. As Tacitus notes, all things evil find their home in Rome, so he doesn't really care where they came from, because it is common for random sects to make their way there, by his logic.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Giuseppe »

Chris Hansen wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:12 am Not really that surprising. Christ and Jesus became interchangeable as both proper names
The following quote from Anthony Barrett, Rome is Burning, has persuaded me that at least the reference to Pilate in the Testimonium Taciteum is probably an interpolation:


The way that the now famous Pontius Pilate is introduced raises suspicions; he is mentioned simply as “procurator” without any indication of the “province” for which he was responsible (Judea was strictly The Christians and the Great Fire speaking not a true provincia but administratively subordinate to the provincia of Syria). Pilate is, of course, a very familiar figure in the later Christian tradition as the governor of Judea at the time when the crucifixion occurred. But to a Roman readership in Tacitus’s day, he was not nearly well enough known to be mentioned without some prefatory information. One might explain that away by assuming that an earlier reference to his generally incompetent term of office was made in one of the lost books of the Annals that covered the latter years of Tiberius’s reign, when Pilate served (chapter 1). But a major role for Pilate in one of those now lost books seems very unlikely, given Tacitus’s almost flippant statement in his Histories about Judea at the time: “under Tiberius all was quiet” (sub Tiberio quies). Even the mere fact that Pilate’s term of office is mentioned as the context for the death of Christ comes as something of a surprise; it is a detail about Christ that would be of very little interest to a Roman but would have had considerable significance for a Christian reader.

More strikingly, Pilate is said to have held the rank of “procurator.” This is simply inaccurate. The term “procurator” for someone in an administrative position has a long history (it is attested well before the imperial period), but it was not used for the equestrian governors of quasi-provinces like Judea at the time of Christ’s crucifixion, that is, late in Tiberius’s reign (he died in AD 37).64 In fact, the designation of such governors as procurators was introduced by Claudius, thus after AD 41. The change apparently did not occur everywhere at the same time and seems to have prevailed only gradually.65 Before Claudius, equestrian governors like Pilate held the title of “prefect” (praefectus). We have explicit primary evidence that Pilate was no exception: on a building inscription found in the city of Caesarea in Judea he is unequivocally called a praefectus. 66 Thus, the allusion to Pilate’s office, an item already likely to be far more interesting to a Christian than to a pagan in the Rome of Tacitus’s day, adds to the mystery by committing a serious, and quite elementary, anachronism on a technical point. Tacitus is elsewhere quite punctilious in his use of such terminology and makes a careful distinction between procurators and prefects. He reports, for instance, that during the preparations for a major offensive against the Parthians in AD 63, letters were sent out to “tetrarchs, kings, prefects, procurators and praetors in charge of neighbouring provinces [sc. to Syria]” where a distinction is drawn between the procurators, that is, the governors of small “provinces,” and the prefect who commanded cohorts of troops established within some provinces.67 While it may be true that at times the phraseology and the concepts applied by Tacitus to an earlier era are more properly those of his own day (this certainly might be reasonably claimed about the language that he uses to describe the Christians),68 the error over Pontius Pilate’s office is of a different order, it is a basic historical blunder and, as such, very surprising indeed if made by Tacitus. If this passage is not by Tacitus but is rather a later interpolation, there may be a clue to how the error arose.
[...]
All of this adds weight to arguments that at least the specific reference to the “procurator Pontius Pilatus” could actually be an interpolation by someone very familiar with Christian writings.

(p. 158-161, my bold)
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

At best, even if that part is interpolated, it just adds weight to my argument because then the text of Tacitus could be argued to far more closely align with Pliny's work. That being said, I'm not particularly persuaded by these arguments myself.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Sinouhe »

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed." (Justin, First Apology 13)
You compare an historian with Justin a christian apologist…. + obviously, the readers are not the same for these 2 texts.
I'd add also that Tacitus' writings were not written for "random readers" to begin with. He wrote for an educated, high class audience, to which Pilate may have had some notoriety... given he was infamous enough to be recalled to Rome for his insane actions, by Tiberius himself. Regardless, Tacitus also discusses people and places without introduction in other places. It isn't uncommon, in fact ancient authors did this all the time.
Yes but still, Tacitus adress the reader as if they don’t know who is Chrisus and Christians.

Except if you consider that Christians were a BIG THING in the beginning of the second century in Rome, already separate from the jews and well known fron everybody, it doesn’t make sens for an historian like Tacitus to write only one line about Jesus and Pilatus without presenting these 2 characters and their location. Even if the main subject is the burning of Rome.
The way that the now famous Pontius Pilate is introduced raises suspicions; he is mentioned simply as “procurator” without any indication of the “province” for which he was responsible (Judea was strictly The Christians and the Great Fire speaking not a true provincia but administratively subordinate to the provincia of Syria). Pilate is, of course, a very familiar figure in the later Christian tradition as the governor of Judea at the time when the crucifixion occurred. But to a Roman readership in Tacitus’s day, he was not nearly well enough known to be mentioned without some prefatory information. One might explain that away by assuming that an earlier reference to his generally incompetent term of office was made in one of the lost books of the Annals that covered the latter years of Tiberius’s reign, when Pilate served (chapter 1). But a major role for Pilate in one of those now lost books seems very unlikely, given Tacitus’s almost flippant statement in his Histories about Judea at the time: “under Tiberius all was quiet” (sub Tiberio quies). Even the mere fact that Pilate’s term of office is mentioned as the context for the death of Christ comes as something of a surprise; it is a detail about Christ that would be of very little interest to a Roman but would have had considerable significance for a Christian reader.

More strikingly, Pilate is said to have held the rank of “procurator.” This is simply inaccurate. The term “procurator” for someone in an administrative position has a long history (it is attested well before the imperial period), but it was not used for the equestrian governors of quasi-provinces like Judea at the time of Christ’s crucifixion, that is, late in Tiberius’s reign (he died in AD 37).64 In fact, the designation of such governors as procurators was introduced by Claudius, thus after AD 41. The change apparently did not occur everywhere at the same time and seems to have prevailed only gradually.65 Before Claudius, equestrian governors like Pilate held the title of “prefect” (praefectus). We have explicit primary evidence that Pilate was no exception: on a building inscription found in the city of Caesarea in Judea he is unequivocally called a praefectus. 66 Thus, the allusion to Pilate’s office, an item already likely to be far more interesting to a Christian than to a pagan in the Rome of Tacitus’s day, adds to the mystery by committing a serious, and quite elementary, anachronism on a technical point. Tacitus is elsewhere quite punctilious in his use of such terminology and makes a careful distinction between procurators and prefects. He reports, for instance, that during the preparations for a major offensive against the Parthians in AD 63, letters were sent out to “tetrarchs, kings, prefects, procurators and praetors in charge of neighbouring provinces [sc. to Syria]” where a distinction is drawn between the procurators, that is, the governors of small “provinces,” and the prefect who commanded cohorts of troops established within some provinces.67 While it may be true that at times the phraseology and the concepts applied by Tacitus to an earlier era are more properly those of his own day (this certainly might be reasonably claimed about the language that he uses to describe the Christians),68 the error over Pontius Pilate’s office is of a different order, it is a basic historical blunder and, as such, very surprising indeed if made by Tacitus. If this passage is not by Tacitus but is rather a later interpolation, there may be a clue to how the error arose.
[...]
All of this adds weight to arguments that at least the specific reference to the “procurator Pontius Pilatus” could actually be an interpolation by someone very familiar with Christian writings.
Excellent. Thanks
That being said, I'm not particularly persuaded by these arguments myself.
These arguments taken separately are not decisives, but in my opinion, the accumulation of all the arguments plead in favor of an interpolation.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Giuseppe »

Count me highly skeptical about the authenticity of Pliny on the presence of pacifist Christians in Bythinia.

Russell Gmirkin has Revelation, notoriously not at all a pacifist text, supporting the authenticity of the persecution of the Christians under Nero:

There may also be an early echo of Rome’s burning in Rev. 18 (which builds on Rev. 17), which pictures Babylon the Great (Rome) burning as punishment for shedding the blood of the martyrs and the saints. I interpret this as recalling the murder of Christians in Rome blamed for Nero’s fire, and predicting Rome burning again as punishment. (The historical context is 69 CE when it was anticipated that Rome would be the scene of civil war among the contenders for the throne in “the year of the four emperors”; cf. 17.6.) If this interpretation is correct, it becomes an early witness to events under Nero that supports the later account by Tacitus.

(my bold)

It is surely a better way to prove Tacitus than the appeal to the forgery in Pliny the Younger
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by MrMacSon »

Chris Hansen wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:12 am ... Christ and Jesus became interchangeable as both proper names of the same person by the second century, similar to how "El" could be used both as a proper name for the Canaanite deity, and a general term denoting "a god".
Which raises the prospect that Christ was being used as a general term denoting a type of god or other celestial entity or concept.

Chris Hansen wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:12 am None of this surprises me, as it is rather similar to what one would find in a short standard little creed from Christians
which also raises the prospect that Christ was being used as a term denoting a celestial entity or concept.

Ken Olson pointed out in another thread. Ken pointed to this text from Justin as a case in point:

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed." (Justin, First Apology 13)

Justin Martyr also appeals to the 'Acts of Pontius Pilate' to substantiate accounts of Christ's crucifixion in 1 Apology 35. And, in 1 Apol 48, he appeals to the 'Act of Pontius Pilate' as evidence for Jesus' healing powers (Justin then goes on to say, in 1 Apol 48, Jesus was slain because the 'Spirit of prophecy' predicted it and Isaiah said "the righteous perish").

Martyr also says Pilate is 'part of a foretold conspiracy' (1 Apol 40), & uses Pilate as a reference for the time of Jesus' teaching (1 Apol 46)

1 Apol 35
And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. And we will cite the prophetic utterances of another prophet, Zephaniah, to the effect that He was foretold expressly as to sit upon the foal of an ass and to enter Jerusalem. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

A lot of that comes from Psalm 22


1 Apol 40
And we have thought it right and relevant to mention some other prophetic utterances of David besides these; from which you may learn how the Spirit of prophecy exhorts men to live, and how He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ by Herod the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your governor among them, with his soldiers; and how He should be believed on by men of every race; and how God calls Him His Son, and has declared that He will subdue all His enemies under Him; and how the devils, as much as they can, strive to escape the power of God the Father and Lord of all, and the power of Christ Himself; and how God calls all to repentance before the day of judgment comes. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

1 Apol 46
But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible--let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians ...

1 Apol 48
And that it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead, hear what was said. There are these words: "At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. And how it was predicted by the Spirit of prophecy that He and those who hoped in Him should be slain, hear what was said by Isaiah. These are the words: "Behold now the righteous perish, and no man lay it to heart; and just men are taken away, and no man considereth. From the presence of wickedness is the righteous man taken, and his burial shall be in peace: he is taken from our midst."

1 Apol 61
And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.


fwiw, Pilate also gets a brief mention in 2 Apol 6

many of our Christian men exorcising ['demoniacs'] in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

One might wonder if, "in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate", as in both of those last two passages, was a later gloss (as one might also wonder about the passage in 1 Apol 13 given the subsequent mentions of Pilate)


The mention of Pilate by Justin also raises (for me, at least) the early chronology or perhaps the perceived chronologically of the mention of Pilate, especially wrt Marcion. The first mentions of Pilate are, of course, attributed to the Gospels and Tacitus' Annals xv.44. Then there is the first line in the perceived, reconstructed Marcionite Gospel; some versions of which include reference to Pilate, some don't, afik. Then there's this mention by Justin. I'm not aware of any other claimed mentions of Pilate before Justin. Perhaps Justin's and Marcion's mentions of Pilate, if indeed Marcion did mention Pilate (see below), were contemporaneous and even quite close in their chronology: almost simultaneous (Markus Vinzent says there's evidence they communicated and had had considered dialogue).

Irenaeus Adv Haers 1.27.2 has

Marcion of Pontus succeeded him [Cerdo] and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that Father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judæa, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103127.htm

The major premise in the third sentence of that passage would seem to be (to me, at least) that "Jesus...was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judæa". The second most significant premise is that "Jesus...abolish[ed] the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world (whom he calls Cosmocrator)", which is a premise which Irenaeus is attributing to Marcion. The third most significant premise would seem to be, "Jesus being derived from that Father who is above the God that made the world", again attributed to Marcion. The fourth most significant premise would seem to be, "Jesus being derived from that Father who is above the God that made the world" and the fifth premise would be, "coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar".

Now, it may seem that Irenaeus was attributing "coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar" to Marcion. But perhaps he wasn't. Perhaps he was asserting it himself, independent of what Marcion might or might not have said.

Celsus is said to mention Pilate, asking, 'If Jesus really had been the Son of God, he asked, why hadn’t God punished Pontius Pilate, the man responsible for crucifying him? Why had Pilate not been driven insane or torn apart, like the characters in Greek myths? Why had no calamity befallen him?' eta: this may not be right

Origin has in Contra Celsus II,34

And yet he does not know that it was not so much Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that for envy the Jews had delivered Him), as the Jewish nation, which has been condemned by God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally omit what is related of Pilate's wife, who beheld a vision, and who was so moved by it as to send a message to her husband

There's also an obscure reference in Contra Celsum, Book VII,43


Tertullian has in his Apology, chapter 21, -

But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified. He Himself had predicted this; which, however, would have signified little had not the prophets of old done it as well ... All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Cæsars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Cæsars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Cæsars. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm

Tertullian goes on to mention Nero in the very next sentence after asserting Jesus disciples, "suffering greatly themselves from the persecutions of the Jews", and a somewhat weird comment, about "having faith undoubting in the truth" -

His disciples also, spreading over the world, did as their Divine Master bade them; and after suffering greatly themselves from the persecutions of the Jews, and with no unwilling heart, as having faith undoubting in the truth, at last by Nero's cruel sword sowed the seed of Christian blood at Rome. Yes, and we shall prove that even your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ. It is a great matter if, to give you faith in Christians, I can bring forward the authority of the very beings on account of whom you refuse them credit. Thus far we have carried out the plan we laid down. We have set forth this origin of our sect and name, with this account of the Founder of Christianity. Let no one henceforth charge us with infamous wickedness; let no one think that it is otherwise than we have represented, for none may give a false account of his religion.


fwiw, there's the inscription on the Pilate Stone (which I only add b/c I came across it while researching some of these passages)

... . . . . . S TIBERIEVM
... . [PO]NTIVS PILATVS
..[PRAE]CTVS IVDA[EA]E
..[REF]ECI[T]

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by Peter Kirby »

Is it possible that the missing sections of the Annals contained some discussion of Pilate?
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: If even Tacitus didn't mention Pilate in connection with Jesus...

Post by perseusomega9 »

Intentionally or not?
Post Reply