Hypothesis: Pilate's aqueduct incident happened in 36 CE during the Passover
Posted: 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.
So did Josephus really write that these events happened at the same time? Let's look at the text (BJ 2.9.4-5):
We see that Josephus used the Greek phrase "κἀν τούτῳ" which literally means "and during this". We can analyze it word by word:
κἀν -> καὶ ἐν
καὶ -> and
ἐν -> (time) in, at, or during the time of
τούτῳ -> this
Now, it seems "this" most likely refers to the previous event, i.e. the aqueduct incident. I think it would be a very strange grammar if Josephus meant something else.
Counterargument
The obvious counterargument to this reasoning would be that these two events are together only in The Jewish War but in Antiquities of the Jews, they are separated. So why would Josephus separate them if they happened at the same time? The answer is that in Antiquities of the Jews "Josephus organizes his text both chronologically and topically" as Ken Olson demonstrated here. So even if both events happened at the same time, they belong to different topics and that is why they are separated. The aqueduct incident belongs to the topic of calamities while the events surrounding Herod Agrippa belong rather to the topic of Judean rulership in general.
The Passover
The last part of this hypothesis is the question of whether the aqueduct incident happened during the Passover. We read in The Jewish War that the incident happened "when Pilate was come to Jerusalem". We also read there was a big crowd. So the assumption is that Pilate came to Jerusalem during one of the big Jewish holidays. Obviously, this is not enough to claim that it was the Passover. However, we have another source that describes a similar event that happened certainly during the Passover. And that event is the crucifixion of Jesus.
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):
Now, we have the same Greek word "στάσις" used also in the New Testament:
It seems this is not a coincidence.
All comments are welcome.
So did Josephus really write that these events happened at the same time? Let's look at the text (BJ 2.9.4-5):
After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D4
In the mean time [Κἀν τούτῳ] Agrippa, the son of that Aristobulus who had been slain by his father Herod, came to Tiberius, to accuse Herod the tetrarch; who not admitting of his accusation, he staid at Rome, and cultivated a friendship with others of the men of note, but principally with Caius the son of Germanicus, who was then but a private person. Now this Agrippa, at a certain time, feasted Caius; and as he was very complaisant to him on several other accounts, he at length stretched out his hands, and openly wished that Tiberius might die, and that he might quickly see him emperor of the world. This was told to Tiberius by one of Agrippa's domestics, who thereupon was very angry, and ordered Agrippa to be bound, and had him very ill-treated in the prison for six months, until Tiberius died, after he had reigned twenty-two years, six months, and three days.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D5
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D4
In the mean time [Κἀν τούτῳ] Agrippa, the son of that Aristobulus who had been slain by his father Herod, came to Tiberius, to accuse Herod the tetrarch; who not admitting of his accusation, he staid at Rome, and cultivated a friendship with others of the men of note, but principally with Caius the son of Germanicus, who was then but a private person. Now this Agrippa, at a certain time, feasted Caius; and as he was very complaisant to him on several other accounts, he at length stretched out his hands, and openly wished that Tiberius might die, and that he might quickly see him emperor of the world. This was told to Tiberius by one of Agrippa's domestics, who thereupon was very angry, and ordered Agrippa to be bound, and had him very ill-treated in the prison for six months, until Tiberius died, after he had reigned twenty-two years, six months, and three days.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D5
We see that Josephus used the Greek phrase "κἀν τούτῳ" which literally means "and during this". We can analyze it word by word:
κἀν -> καὶ ἐν
καὶ -> and
ἐν -> (time) in, at, or during the time of
τούτῳ -> this
Now, it seems "this" most likely refers to the previous event, i.e. the aqueduct incident. I think it would be a very strange grammar if Josephus meant something else.
Counterargument
The obvious counterargument to this reasoning would be that these two events are together only in The Jewish War but in Antiquities of the Jews, they are separated. So why would Josephus separate them if they happened at the same time? The answer is that in Antiquities of the Jews "Josephus organizes his text both chronologically and topically" as Ken Olson demonstrated here. So even if both events happened at the same time, they belong to different topics and that is why they are separated. The aqueduct incident belongs to the topic of calamities while the events surrounding Herod Agrippa belong rather to the topic of Judean rulership in general.
The Passover
The last part of this hypothesis is the question of whether the aqueduct incident happened during the Passover. We read in The Jewish War that the incident happened "when Pilate was come to Jerusalem". We also read there was a big crowd. So the assumption is that Pilate came to Jerusalem during one of the big Jewish holidays. Obviously, this is not enough to claim that it was the Passover. However, we have another source that describes a similar event that happened certainly during the Passover. And that event is the crucifixion of Jesus.
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
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.)
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.
