Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 5:58 am
Steve Mason, probably the most prominent living Josephus scholar, wrote about the Testimonium Flavianum:
First, one example that has previously been discussed on this forum, is from
Daniel Schwartz, who has argued that the chronological data on the length of the terms of Gratus and Pilate in Antiquities 18.35 and 18.89, which contradict his theory that Pilate was governor of Judea in 19 CE,
is the product of Christian interpolation:
Josephus mentions, in his Antiquities, twelve Roman governors of Judea, and
three others in his War, but it is only regarding Gratus and Pilate that he states (in
our two passages in Ant. 18 – §§ 35, 89) how long they served. That makes these data
suspicious, and since they apply to the governors of Judea in the most interesting
period of Judean history in the eyes of Josephus’ Christian copyists, it is not difficult
to suspect that some well-meaning copyist attempted to make Josephus more specific
than he really was [Schwartz, Reading the First Century, 141].
I think Schwartz is probably wrong in thinking that Ant. 18.35 and 89 are Christian interpolations, but nonetheless Schwartz suspects it, and Mason accepts Schwartz's case for dating Pilate as governor of Judea in 19 CE.
Actually, Daniel Schwartz does not say the chronological data for Gratus and Pilate was a christian interpolation. All he does is remark on the fact that the chronological data is suspicious. That leave the question of the chronological data open. Yes, as noted in previous posts, Schwartz has prioritized the narrative data over the chronological date. I have suggested that a way around this problem is to view the chronological data as not being sequential - either for one or for both of the two governors of Judaea. But to ignore Schwartz's argument for a 19 c.e. date for Pilate is to ignore the narrative data.
Schwartz makes an interesting point over the Acts of Pilate and it's 21 c.e. dating.
Suspicions, however, are not the same as conclusions.
What is important, in the present context, is that such suspicions as these should
send us off to do three things: (1) to see if there is any other evidence, in Josephus,
for placing Pilate’s appointment to office around 19 CE; (2) to see if there is any other
evidence, outside of Josephus, for things changing in Judea around 19 CE;
and (3) to see whether there was any good reason for a copyist of Josephus
to want to make Pilate begin governing later than he really did. These all
prove to be fruitful.
(1) The first question immediately directs our attention to the fact that
Josephus begins his account of Pilate’s service as governor, in Antiquities
18.55, right after referring to the murder of Germanicus (Tiberius’ nephew,
Claudius’ brother), which occurred in 19 CE (§ 54).77 This suggests that
Josephus thought that is when Pilate entered into office. In fact, since the
appointment of Pilate was mentioned in § 35 but the account of his tenure
begins only in § 55 it sounds like the reader is meant to imagine Pilate
traveling from Rome to Judea around the same time as the events recounted in
between 78 – which culminate, as stated, with Germanicus’ death in 19 CE.
(2) The second question leads us to ask what else was happening in our
region in 19 CE, and that takes us directly to a Tacitean passage concerning
17 CE (Annals 2.42.5 – GLA no. 283) where we read of complaints, by the
inhabitants of Judea and Syria, about the high tribute they were required to
pay. Tacitus does not say how the complaint was handled, but since Ger-
manicus’ mission to the East, which began in 17 CE, was intended to deal
with various disputes and complaints that had arisen around the Roman
East,79 the Judeans’ complaints could well have been on his agenda.
Switching governors is always a way of mollifying provincials.80
(3) The third question, whether any copyists had anything to gain by
making Pilate’s career begin later than it really did, has led scholars to
notice, and to bring into the present discussion, the fact that the Church
father Eusebius reports in his Church History (Book 1, Ch. 9) that there
was circulating, in his day (the early fourth century), an anti-Christian text
purporting, so it seems, to be Pilate’s report to Tiberius about the case of
Jesus. Eusebius argues that those so-called Acta Pilati must be false since
they date the report to Tiberius’ fourth consulate, which came in 21 CE –
five years before Pilate in fact entered into office, according to Josephus.
However, since it is difficult to believe that forgers of such Acta Pilati would
choose a date so easily refutable on the basis of the main relevant source, it
may well be that their copy of Antiquities did not include the chronological
data in Antiquities 18.35, 89. The fact that Eusebius read the Testimonium
Flavianum in his copy of Antiquities, whereas a century earlier Origen
apparently did not, makes it all the more likely that also the chronological data
in Eusebius’ copy of Josephus, and hence in our texts, were the contribution
of creative Christian copyists.81
We could, and elsewhere have, delve more into the ins and outs of this
type of argument.82 In the present context, where the focus is upon
methodology, suffice it to say that it was only by rubbing Tacitus against Josephus
that we began to notice such things as the lack of proportion between
Josephus’ account of Gratus’ tenure and the length he ascribes it, the unique
status of Josephus’ chronological data for just these two governors, the
juxtaposition of Germanicus’ death and Pilate’s entrance into office, the
open question as to what Rome did about the Judean and Syrian complaints
Tacitus reported for 17 CE, and Eusebius’ report about the false Acta Pilati.
That is quite a lot of leads, and some meaningful results, stemming from the
comparison of two texts.
==========
81 On the Testimonium Flavianum debate, see P. Winter in HJP 1.428–441 (432 on
Origen); Mason, JNT, 163–183; and Whealey (n. 60) – where pp. 12–29 are on Origen and
Eusebius. Daniel Schwartz, Reading the First Century,
Yes, Schwartz has questioned the chronological date for Gratus and Pilate - and indeed that question needs to be asked. Schwartz says
'more likely' that
''contribution of creative Christian copyists'' could be involved - in the numerical date problem. Suggesting that such a christian contribution might have it's own christian purpose. Schwartz makes no reference the TF itself being a whole-cloth Eusebius interpolation. He referenced Winter, Mason and Whealey.
As to the consensus dating of Pilate to 26 c.e. Schwartz makes a point regarding the dating of Jews being expelled from Rome i.e. the year Germanicus died, 19 c.e. - as detailed in Annals 2.85. If Pilate is dated to 26 c.e. then the Jews were not expelled from Rome during Pilate's term of office in Judaea. Consequently, Schwartz is here referencing Tacitus in support of the Josephus connection between dating the expelling of the Jews from Rome - in the time of Pilate. Hence, the 19 c.e. Antiquities date for Pilate - the time of the death of Germanicus and the time when some Jews were expelled from Rome.
But there does seem to be a major discrepancy between the two writers concerning
the chronology of the events in question, for while both put them in the
days of Tiberius (who ruled 14–37 CE), Tacitus – by his references to consuls 75 –
clearly places the events in 19 CE while Josephus, after beginning his account
of Pontius Pilate, including his first two clashes with the Jews and
then the Testimonium Flavianum, introduces these Roman stories by saying
they happened “at the same time.” According to the usual reconstruction
of events, Pilate was governor of Judea for a decade beginning in 26 CE, so
Josephus seems to have dated these events in Rome at least 6–7 years later
than Tacitus did. Daniel Schwartz, Reading the First Century,
Where does all this leave the TF - it leaves it where it is found - within a context of 19 c.e. Yep, argue that it should not be there, argue that the Jews, under Pilate, were expelled from Rome somewhere around or post 26 c.e. - and argue that Luke trumps Josephus - all for what? To save the TF from Josephus by advocating Eusebius did a whole cloth interpolation - albeit he played 'eyes closed pin the tail on the donkey'. ....