Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:23 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 2:23 am Pontius Pilate — An Aqueduct Builder? — Recent Findings and New Suggestions

Kenneth K. A. Silver

here

Thank you for another great article. I naively thought that aqueducts were made of lead, from start to end. But according to Lönnqvist, this wasn't the case:

... in standard Roman engineering terms lead would have been used only for those particular sections in the aqueduct that needed lead. What perhaps is surprising is that lead pipes or fistulae seem to have been used in Roman water systems mainly for the final part of the water system, usually where the aqueducts ended in the castellum divisiorium and further on in pipes close to the final destination of use.

Pontius Pilate — An Aqueduct Builder? — Recent Findings and New Suggestions, p. 470

So was any lead found in Jerusalem? No, even though archaeologists found five aqueducts. So how do we know that lead was used in this region at all? They found some lead pipes inside the city of Banias (Caesarea Philippi):

This important archaeological evidence of the early use of lead pipes was discovered at Banias in the north of Israel and dates probably to the first century A.D. The excavator reported that the water system found at Banias consisted of distribution pools and conical lead pipes. Two such pipes were discovered in one of the pools, while a third, broken one, in the second pool.

Pontius Pilate — An Aqueduct Builder? — Recent Findings and New Suggestions, p. 469

So this lead was found as part of a city water system, not as part of some external aqueduct. Caesarea Philippi was rebuilt in 3 BCE by Philip the Tetrarch. So we can assume the internal water system was rebuilt too. And they probably used lead then. Therefore, it makes so much sense that Tiberias, a city built anew by Herod Antipas in c. 18 CE, needed lead just like Caesarea Philippi needed it.

I speculate that only relatively new cities may have used lead for their water system. That would explain why there was no lead found in an old city like Jerusalem.

Glad the article was useful. Yep, speculate by all means. I don't have anything apart from the two articles.

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:03 am The only records of Pilate's aqueduct incident are from Josephus Flavius. He doesn't date this incident directly, so we only know that it happened during Pilate's reign (traditionally dated to 26 - 36 CE). However, I argue, that Josephus wrote in The Jewish War that this incident happened at the same time when Herod Agrippa came to Rome. Now, Agrippa's arrival to Rome is usually dated to the spring of 36 CE (source) so that would mean the aqueduct incident happened in 36 CE too.

I agree with Peter Kirby, the OP is well considered. Looking at the wording of the introductions to the pericopes in the Jewish War was a very good idea, since the order in which the events are narrated in Josephus' works is not necessarily the same as the chronological order of the events (i.e., one has to allow for some topical reordering of events).

I think we can say a little more than that Pilate's rule in Judea is traditionally date from c. 26 to 36 CE though. It is true that is traditional in the sense that it is held by the vast majority of scholars, but that is because it attested by Josephus in Antiquities 18.33-35, 88-89:


https://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=jos ... /AJGk18#04

Tiberius succeeded Augustus in 14 CE and sent Valerius Gratus to succeed Annius Rufus in 14 CE. Gratus returned to Rome after Spending 11 years in Judea and Pontius Pilate came as his successor, which would establish the beginning of Pilate's administration in 25 CE plus possible travel time for Gratus and himself to travel to Judea to take up their offices, so very plausibly Pilate arrived in Judea in 26 CE.


So the text of the Antiquities say that Pilate spent 10 years in Judea when Vitellius sent him to reply to the accusations of the Samaritans before the emperor, but Tiberius had died before he arrived. As Tiberius died in March, 37 CE, Tiberius probably left Judea in late 36 or early 37. If we take the 10 years as a round number (i.e., it could have been 10 years and a few months), this would also support the idea that Pilate had taken up his governorship c. 26 CE. So Pilate's governorship began no earlier than 25 CE and ended no later than 37 CE; so c. 26 to 36 CE is correct.

Best,

Ken

This is off-topic, but fwiw

Ken Olson wrote:
... Antiquities 18.33-35:

Ant. XVIII 033 ... Tiberius Nero...sent Valerius Gratus as procurator of Judea, to succeed Annius Rufus. 034 This man [Gratus] deposed Ananus from the high priesthood and named Ismael, son of Phabi, as high priest and soon replaced him with Eleazar, son of Ananus, who had been high priest before. After he had held the office for a year, Gratus deposed him and gave the high priesthood to Simon, son of Camithus. 035 After he had held the dignity no more than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done all this he returned to Rome after spending eleven years in Judea, and Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

https://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=jos ... /AJGk18#04

That account of Gratus deposing Ananus from the high priesthood, then appointing and displacing his son Eleazar, is very similar to what's reported in Antiquities 20.200 where, another of Ananus's sons, aka Ananus, was appointed and deposed within a short period of time; though the reasons are more fully explained in Ant. 20 - and not just wrt James and 'the other issue' - eg., the younger Ananus, the new high priest, "belonged to the Sadducee sect which...was the strictest of all the Jews in judging offenders," and "Ananus had wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin without [the procurator's] consent." See 20.201.

Antiquities 20:197-203:


https://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=jos ... ies/AJGk20

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 2:17 pm I agree with Peter Kirby, the OP is well considered.

Thank you.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 2:17 pm So Pilate's governorship began no earlier than 25 CE and ended no later than 37 CE; so c. 26 to 36 CE is correct.

I fully agree.

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:03 am
I'm aware that the year 36 CE is not one of the traditional dates of Jesus' crucifixion but I have already argued elsewhere that there are good arguments why the year 36 CE makes sense. So I will just focus on the similarity between the aqueduct incident and the crucifixion of Jesus.

The key word is a sedition (στάσις). Both events are connected to a sedition. Let's read Josephus first (AJ 18.3.2):

But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition [στάσις].
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D2

Now, we have the same Greek word "στάσις" used also in the New Testament:

Mark 15:7 (NASB20)
And the one named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the rebels [στασιαστῶν] who had committed murder in the revolt [στάσει].

Luke 23:18-19 (NASB20)
But they cried out all together, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas!” (He was one who had been thrown into prison for a revolt [στάσιν] that took place in the city, and for murder.)

It seems this is not a coincidence.

All comments are welcome.

στάσις : besides its appearance in Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:18-19, as mentioned in the OP, it's used again in Luke 23 and few times in Acts (it seems to have another use in Hebrews 9:8: as 'standing' or 'still standing'). See https://biblehub.com/greek/4714.htm

Thayer's gives:


'Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament' -

Mark Jeong, The Collapse of Society in Luke 23: A Thucydidean Take on Jesus’ Passion New Testament Studies 67(3), 2021 , pp. 317 - 335.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 5567EF6D51

The references are listed on that webpage, eg.,


https://archive.org/details/luke0000bovo

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 2:17 pm

So the text of the Antiquities say that Pilate spent 10 years in Judea when Vitellius sent him to reply to the accusations of the Samaritans before the emperor, but Tiberius had died before he arrived. As Tiberius died in March, 37 CE, Tiberius probably left Judea in late 36 or early 37. If we take the 10 years as a round number (i.e., it could have been 10 years and a few months), this would also support the idea that Pilate had taken up his governorship c. 26 CE. So Pilate's governorship began no earlier than 25 CE and ended no later than 37 CE; so c. 26 to 36 CE is correct.

Best,

Ken

Recommended reading that challenges the above dating for Pilate: Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century ((2013) and Studies in the Jewish background to Christianity, (1992)

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 11:15 pm Recommended reading that challenges the above dating for Pilate: Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century ((2013) and Studies in the Jewish background to Christianity, (1992)

I'd like to summarize my arguments against the Pilate 18 CE hypothesis:

- It contradicts Josephus' dates for their reigns (first Gratus 11 years and then Pilate 10 years).
- It seems Tiberius preferred a 10-year period for one prefect, even though there were exceptions. Gratus with a 4-year reign and Pilate with an 18-year reign would have been another case of exceptions.
- There is a specific pattern on the coins from this period when coins from years 15/16 CE to 24/25 CE have always written within a wreath a title or a name but never a date. On the other hand, coins from years 30 CE to 32 CE have always written a date within a wreath. The difference between patterns matches Josephus' dates for Gratus and Pilate. The hypothesis would have to explain why Pilate used Gratus' pattern in the first years of his reign and then he changed it to another.

The dating of Pilate's governorship in Judea from c. 26-36 CE is securely established by the text of the Antiquities (Ant. 18.35, 89, and, to a lesser extend 18.177).

The two stories narrated in Ant. 18.65-84, which are set in Rome, are said to take place 'About this time'. It is easily understandable that Josephus included them because he was constructing his narrative in Ant. 18.55 - 18.89 around a series of thoryboi (tumults, disorders) that took place among the Jews (or Samaritans). It is true that the Paulina story in Ant. 18.66-80 does not involve a thorybos among the Jews, but Josephus specifically acknowledges that he has a story about a thorybos among the Jews [well, technically he uses the cognate verb], but he is going to tell the Paulina story first and will then return to tell the story of the thorybos among the Jews (Ant. 18.65). Then after telling the Paulina story he says that he is returning to tell the story of what happened to the Jews in Rome (Ant. 18.80).

Josephus may well have included the two events narrated in 18.65-18.80 because the story of the thorybos among the Jews in 18.81-84 was topically related to the rest of his narrative in that section of the work. (We might discuss why he included the Paulina story; I think it was because it came to him in the same source about events in Rome as the story about how the Jews came to be banished from Rome by Tiberius and was too interesting to pass up).

We have explicit testimony in the Antiquities as to the date of Pilate's governorship (c. 26 - 36 CE), but we do not have explicit testimony as to when the events narrated in 18.65-18.80 happened other than that it was 'About' or 'Around' this time, which is vague enough that it could allow a date of, say, ten years earlier (this is the theory held by the vast majority of scholars).

It is worth noting that Daniel Schwartz, in his argument for the redating of the beginning of Pilate's governorship considers the possibility that 'about this time' could mean the governorship of Pilate or the reign of Tiberius, but he prefers the former. But Schwartz is not arguing that the Roman stories in Ant. 18.65-18.80 came after the events narrated in 18.55-64. He is arguing that the two events that took place in Rome narrated in 18.65-18.80 are narrated after the events in 18.55-64 because Josephus has arranged his text both chronologically and topically. He narrates the central events that took place in Judea during the rule of any one person before the events that took place in the diaspora within the rule of that person (whom he takes to be Pilate). Essentially, he is agreeing with the majority of scholars that the events narrated in 18.65-18.80 are placed where the are for topical reasons and not because they followed after the events narrated in 18.155-64, but he disagrees about what those topical reasons are (i.e., he thinks it's because they took place in the diaspora).

I think Schwartz is probably wrong. While it is true that Josephus does often narrate things that took place in the diaspora in a narrative order that is not chronologically continuous with Judean events (i.e., not necessarily after the events he has previously narrated), I do not think this covers all of the topical ordering that Josephus has done.

Best,

Ken

But (and I address this to anyone) surely:

1. the material (= Josephus) survived among the Christians
2. the Christians understood Jesus to have had a ministry subsequent to 29 CE.
3. Pilate governed at the time Jesus was crucified.

As such THE PARTS OF JOSEPHUS THAT AGREE WITH "CHRISTIAN HISTORY" are not necessarily "interesting" or authoritative. Josephus wouldn't have been used by Christians in its original form if Josephus disagreed with Christianity. It's the parts of Josephus that disagree or appear to disagree with Christianity are more likely to be authentic or at least are more interesting.

The reason I blow my stack at this forum is that it always seems that there are consistent voices who aren't interested in the favoritism given to the manuscripts that survived. It's always like "oh they're JUST the manuscripts that survived ... there's nothing to it." No, no, no. It's more like, THESE manuscripts survived because they contributed or supported a particular point of view, a particular understanding of history. That a proponent of Christians altering Josephus wants "the rest of Josephus" to be Josephus. No, you can't do that. You can't cheat on your wife "just a little." You either cheated or you didn't. Once you cheated you're soiled.

So it's like "the gospel" is the gospels that the Christians (orthodox) preserved. The "history of the apostolic period" is the Acts the Christians (orthodox) preserved. The canon is the canon the Christians preserved etc . etc. Gee, what a surprise! Everything agree with the orthodox. And they acted interested and SURPRISED by what blood they can squeeze from an orthodox stone. Ridiculous.

Completely oblivious that your diet taste like fast food ... when your diet IS from fast food restaurants.

At least recognize that we're goldfish swimming in a small fishbowl. There are or were results BEYOND the small fishbowl.