After all the to-ing and fro-ing over the years, (reading hundreds of books and papers on biblical studies) I've become convinced that Acts is little more than a "historical novel" where the author picked out some authentic names and events and wrote his novel around them. There is so much of Josephus and Paul himself in the gospels that any rational historical approach would naturally conclude influence flowing from Josephus and Paul toward the later gospels and Acts. But, it's pretty clear that there is very little of this approach in biblical studies.
An additional problem is that, except for the Wars, which is probably 60% accurate, (Josephus had a lot to hide), Josephus' writings themselves are very much "historical novels."
There are a couple of things that I think may have a very important bearing on the dating of Paul issue; this may take a little building up though I'm going to skip through it as quickly as possible:
1) After going over and over and over Josephus and Tacitus, I'm convinced that Pontius Pilate was not serving in Judaea at the time generally given for the crucifixion. And if Jesus is tied to Pilate, then some dates definitely have to be moved.
Working mainly from Antiquities, with bits from Wars noted here and there:
First of all, we are told that prior to the death of Herod the Great, there was the "Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing" by Judas and Matthias. Executions by burning followed. Herod dies FIVE DAYS after executing his son Antipater. Archelaus buries his father and takes over. At this point, the people foment a rebellion in lament for "Judas and Matthias" and make an assault on the soldiers. Archelaus responds and kills 3,000 of them.
Archelaus then heads for Rome and "Sabinus, Caesar's steward for Syrian affairs" was hot-footing it to Judea to take charge of Herod's effects. Varus attempts to restrain him but to no effect. As soon as Varus heads back to Antioch, Sabinus goes for the gold and whatever else.
Well, this bit of the story is really iffy: that Sabinus would defy Varus???
Anyway, NOW, all of a sudden, there is a "revolt of the Jews" against Sabinus just after the revolt of the Jews against Archelaus. Like having 3000 of them killed didn’t calm things down? Then, all of a sudden, Varus is in Judea at the time of this revolt AFTER which he goes to Antioch. (Compare chapters 9 and 10 in Book 17.) Here it says that after Varus went away, Sabinus "greatly distressed the Jews". (at Pentecost) So, did the rebellion happen while Archelaus was there, or only after? The whole story just reeks of manipulated facts and details and doubling. And through this whole deal there are messiahs galore, all of whom are basically rebel leaders of one sort or another and "the number crucified ...were 2000". 295-298 in chapter 10 is not only confused, it is absurd. Varus disbands his army because they are unruly and then 10,000 Jews just gave themselves up to him???
After this mess, supposedly Augustus divides the kingdom between Archelaus, Philip and Antipas.
Now notice that Damascus was NEVER given to the Jewish puppets. It was probably ruled by Aretas from 9 BC to 40 AD. Josephus refers to it as a "foreign city (Wars 1.422. See also 2.215.) So Paul’s interlude in Damascus under the rule of Aretas could have happened any time during that period.
Skip over a bunch more nonsense (which, nevertheless, requires careful reading and comparing with Wars and Tacitus to know how nonsensical some of it is). We zero in on Archelaus again who has just entered on his ethnarchy. First thing he did was take the high priesthood away from Joazar (for assisting the rebels) and gave it to Eleazar his brother. "Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the hight priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his place while he was still living." (17.341)
He then undertakes magnificent building projects including "he diverted half the water with which the village of Neara used to be watered, and drew off that water into the plain, to water those palm trees which he had there planted" (17.340). Next we have Archelaus marrying his brother's widow, having a dream interpreted by Simon the Essene, FIVE DAYS after which "the other Archelaus that was sent to Judea by Caesar to call him away, came here also." Glaphyra then has a dream and "a few days" later she dies. This was "in the tenth year of Archelaus's government." (17.342)
Priests:
Joazar son of Boethus,
Eleazar (brother of Joazar),
Jesus son of Sie.
"So Archelaus's country was laid to theprovince of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus." (17.354)
Book 18:
Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them until he had been consul, and one who on other accounts was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria... Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews." Josephus makes much of Cyrenius, unlike what he wrote about Varus and Sabinus. But he notes here that, despite the fact that Coponius has the authority "Cyrenius came himself into Judea..." So, rather like Varus and Sabinus.
Notice that Cyrenius is basically doing the same thing that Sabinus/Varus were to do at the death of Herod the Great only ostensibly 10 years later, i.e. 6 AD.
As an aside, I've databased comets paying particular attention to the intervals of Halley's, and there is a 10/11 year "increase" in the period right here so that, of course, catches my attention.
Josephus repeats that Judea was added to the province of Syria.
Joazar, son of Boethus reappears as high priest! However, here, instead of fomenting rebellion, he is credited with quelling it. (18.3) But, there is another evil Judas of Gamala and his pal Sadduc, a Pharisee, who were fomenting revolt rather along the line of Judas and Matthias. The wording here through (6) is VERY similar to Josephus' description of Judas the Galileans "4th Philosophy" not to mention the revered Teacher of Judas and Matthias/Golden Eagle fame. And it is here that Josephus sets out the "philosophies".
(18.26-27) "Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium..." i.e. 6 AD as noted, "he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, (how did THAT happen?) and he appointed Ananus the son of Seth while Herod [Antipas] and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."
NOW, Antipas and Philip embark on their own building projects similar to those of Archelaus ten years previous. Yes, you could say that Josephus focused on Archelaus first, then turns his attention to Antipas and Philip but the Joazar item is curious. As noted above, this Joazar was deposed by Archelaus in 4 BC for assisting the rebels and gave it to Eleazar his brother. "Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his place while he was still living." (17.341)
It’s beginning to look more like a doublet.
Coponius has a set-to with the Jews at Passover because of Samaritan issues. "A little after this incident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor..." (18.31)
"After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar..." (18.32)
Okay, we have Coponius - 6 AD
Marcus Ambivius (Ambivulus) - 9 AD
Annius Rufus - 12 AD (Death of Augustus AD 14)
Then we come to Valerius Gratus who is said to have served from 15 to 26 to be replaced by Pilate.
"[Tiberius] sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi... He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been a high priest before, to be high priest; which office when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had waited in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor." (18.33-35)
High priests:
Joazar son of Boethus, brother of Eleazar deposed 6 AD and Ananus put in his place.
Ananus, son of Seth - Supposed to have been high priest from 6 AD to 15? 8 years more or less?
Neither Marcus Ambivius nor Annius Rufus saw fit to change the high priests which the Romans were wont to do so that none of them would become too powerful?
Then, Valerius Gratus appoints four in rapid succession:
Ismael, son of Phabi - "deprived him in a little time" which sounds like months.
Eleazar, son of Ananus - one year
Simon son of Camithus - one year
Joseph Caiphas - then Gratus departs leaving him in office.
Based on the high priest count, Valerius Gratus was NOT in Judea for 11 years but rather three or four years. But it is even more problematical because, in Wars 2.168 -171, we read:
"But when the Roman Empire was translated to Tiberius... both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies; and the latter of them built the city of Caesarea... Herod also built the city of Tiberius in Galilee... Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem...." resulting in a big to-do that is plainly absurd.
BUT, at this point, what does Pilate do? (175) “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." Which led to a strategem where Pilate placed assassins in the crowd... Sicarii, in effect.
The two versions of Josephus are different enough to raise questions.
Now, notice in the above from Wars, there is no mention of prior prefects or procurators or whatever of Judea other than Coponius, back in chapter 8 (117), the mention of whom precedes the discussion the four philosophies as in Antiquities. It is as though Tiberius sent Pilate immediately upon his taking over the government.
So what are we to think about that hokey story of several governors and high priests following Coponius in Antiquities. If we go strictly by what we can derive from the text in terms of dates, we still are only at 19 AD when Pilate arrives. And even that might fit another event: the sending of Piso and Germanicus in 19.
Now, certainly the "Pilate Stone" confirms that Pilate was there and that he was prefect, NOT procurator. Tacitus’ mention is no help because it is later hearsay. Philo’s brief discussion of Pilate really sheds no light on anything either because it is retrospective and undatable. Plus, Josephus thinks that army standards were involved while Philo says gilded shields with an inscription. So we have sort of a hybrid: golden eagles??? Are we dealing with a triplet and not a doublet?
Back to Antiquities: Josephus next says (18.39) “About this time died Phraates, king of the Parthians” i.e. 16 AD followed by the first Artabanas drama. (Tacitus, Annales, 2.3 ff. Also: 2.58)
Then, we hear that Silanus is “president” of Syria(18.52). This would have to have been C. Silanus, (cos. 10) who, after five years, would have been eligible to be proconsul of Asia. None of the other Silanus prospects would fit during the time of Pilate if dated later. Tacitus tells us that this Silanus was arraigned in 22 AD for extortion in the cities of Asia. (Tacitus, Annales, 3.66 and 4.15.3)
Next: “At this time died Antiochus, the king of Commagene… so the senate made a decree that Germanicus should be sent to settle the affairs of the east….” (Ant. 18.54) That would be 18 AD. We also hear that another Silanus is consul in AD 19 along with Norbanus.
The important point of all this is to attempt to establish the fact that Pontius Pilate was in Judea a LOT earlier than is generally thought to be the case, and he probably was NOT there for 10 or 11 years. All of the Josephan text before and around and after the mention of Pilate relates to the years 16 to 19, at least, possibly 15 to 19.
When Josephus comes back to Pilate in Chapter 3 (18.55 ff), it is immediately following his remark about the death of Germanicus and it appears to be him going back to Pilate after a digression onto the other matters (the building projects of the Herodians and the Artabanus business). So, now he comes back to Pilate and it seems that he re-set himself to about 16 AD and here’s why: after his discussion of the effigies which arrived with Pilate, Josephus mentions again the corban/water issue that was noted in Wars. In Wars, it was 400 furlongs, in Antiquities, it was 200. But who’s counting?
Skip the TF for the moment, and the stories about Roman upsets and pick back up with Pilate in Chapter 4 (18.85): here we have a disruption due to Samaritans. Notice that Coponius also had problems with Samaritans (more doubling?). (18.31) Pilate apparently killed a number of them and the Samaritans complained to Vitellius, who was apparently governor of Syria at that moment (what happened to Silanus?). Vitellius pulls rank on Pilate, sends Marcellus to handle Judea, and orders Pilate to Rome. BUT, Josephus then tells us that Tiberius was dead before Pilate could get there!!!
That is an absolutely astonishing leap from 19 to 37!!! 18 years, in fact. So, how the heck did that happen?
I would suggest that the person Pilate was being sent to was Germanicus and it was HE who was dead before Pilate reached him. That is, after all, in keeping with the whole general context of the surrounding passages. There’s just no justification for a jump of 18 years.
But let’s stop a moment and think about this sudden appearance of Vitellius.
There are several Vitelliuses in Tacitus but only two would have qualified for proconsular duties: 1) L. Vitellius, consul 34, 43, 47; 2) A. Vitellius, consul in 48. Both of these are too late for our Pilate episode.
BUT, we also find a Vitellius who was a “friend of Germanicus”. We find him in Germany in Annales 1.70; in 2.6 he heads off to do a census of the Galliae; in 2.74, we find the most interesting mention: It is immediately following the death of Germanicus, and takes place in Syria:
“There was next a debate between the legates and other senators who were present as to who should be placed in charge of Syria. And, after only modest exertions from the others, for a long time the issue was between Vibius Marsus and Cn. Sentius. Then Marsus yielded to the seniority and keener contention of Sentius. (Epigraphic evidence shows that the appointment of Cn. Sentius Saturninus (suffect consul 4 AD) was confirmed by Tiberius.) and he, for his part dispatched to the City (Rome) a woman infamous for poisonings in the province and particularly dear to Plancina, by name of Martina, in response to demands from Vitellius and Veranius and the rest, who were drawing up charges and accusations as if against persons already cited as defendants.”
So, that means that Vitellius was with Germanicus in Syria at the time he died. This is supported later in 3.9-10 when Piso is being arraigned for poisoning Germanicus back in Rome:
“On the next day Fulcinius Trio arraigned Piso before the consuls. Yet Vitellius and Veranius and the other of Germanicus’ companions maintained that there was no role for Trio; nor were they accusers themselves, they said, but as informants and witnesses of events they would deliver Germanicus’ instructions.”
Next: 3.13:
Then Fulcinius embarked on past irrelevancies, namely the fact that Piso’s tenure of Spain had been marked by corruption and greed (Piso had been legate there in 9/10 AD) … After this, Servaeus and Veranius and Vitellius with like enthusiasm (and with much eloquence on Vitellius’ part) cast the charge that in his hatred for Germanicus and his enthusiasm for revolution Piso, by licensing maltreatment of the allies, had corrupted the common soldiers to such a degree that the basest of them called him “parent of the legions.” Conversely, they said he had been savage to all the best men, especially to the companions and friends of Germanicus. Finally, he had annihilated the man himself by curses and poison: hence the rituals and abominable offerings by himself and Plancina, his claiming the state by arms, and – to ensure his appearance as the accused – his defeat in the line of battle.”
Another brief mention 3.17, and then 3.19: A few days after Caesar [Tiberius] initiated the senate’s granting of priesthoods to Vitellius and Veranius and Servaeus. … That was the end to the avenging, though Germanicus’ death was bandied about in various rumors not only among those men who lived then but also in following times. So is it the case that all the greatest matters are ambiguous, inasmuch as some people hold any form of hearsay as confirmed, others turn truth into its converse, and each swells among posterity.”
P. Vitellius, later commits suicide under indictment for something in 31 AD following the fall of Sejanus. Tacitus’ narrative is missing the end of 29 AD, all of 30, and most of 31. That period is, of course, the very period in which Jesus is said to have been crucified in Judea and might have included some pertinent information that contradicted such a claim. So, we don’t know what Vitellius was being charged with – possibly revolutionary actions against Tiberius? Being in cahoots with Sejanus?
As to there being a governor of Syria named Vitellius, we find one in Annales 6.41 mentioned as sending troops to the “nation of the Cietae” including the legate M. Trebellius. :
P. Vitellius’ wife, Acutia, was arraigned on some charge in 37 AD.
Meanwhile, back to the Testimonium: following this passage, there begins a story at 18.65 which is actually something of a take-off on a story that appears in Tacitus under the year 58 AD. How the heck did that get there? (Annales 13.44-45) Well, obviously, the story got around and was fair game for novelization.
Josephus version features novelistic elements and the abused heroine is named Paulina and her indulgent husband is Saturninus; she gets mixed up with the Egyptian cult and is abused shamefully.
The following tale in Josephus about THREE JEWS defrauding a noblewoman named Fulvia who, oddly, is also married to a Saturninus only raises the eyebrows even higher. These two events allegedly precede a banishing of Jewish and Egyptian rites from Rome as well as a the exiling of many Jews from Rome by Tiberius, something that occurred in 19 AD. We are reminded that Cn. Sentius Saturninus took over as governor of Syria/Judea after the death of Germanicus.
Thus, the Testimonium itself is given in a very 19 AD context all the way around. It appears that Pilate came in 15 or 16 and was “sent down” in 19 because he was so incompetent and may have been in cahoots with Piso. Bottom line is, it seems that if anybody was crucified/executed under Pontius Pilate, he had a very narrow window in which to do it, and it was certainly 11 years earlier than supposed. (More or less.)
So, that’s the short version of the 1st matter.
The second is this: it seems to me that the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 49 was simply Paul’s conflict that is exposed in his letters following him there. Clement said he had been exiled, well, maybe that was when. Maybe things happened just a tad earlier than we suppose (and forget Gallio, the Lukan author took that from Josephus and spun a tale around it.) If you anchor Paul in Rome in 49, then you only have to work backwards by the numbers. And you aren’t blocked by any 30 AD crucifixion date. You have a whole 11 additional years to work with.
An additional problem is that, except for the Wars, which is probably 60% accurate, (Josephus had a lot to hide), Josephus' writings themselves are very much "historical novels."
There are a couple of things that I think may have a very important bearing on the dating of Paul issue; this may take a little building up though I'm going to skip through it as quickly as possible:
1) After going over and over and over Josephus and Tacitus, I'm convinced that Pontius Pilate was not serving in Judaea at the time generally given for the crucifixion. And if Jesus is tied to Pilate, then some dates definitely have to be moved.
Working mainly from Antiquities, with bits from Wars noted here and there:
First of all, we are told that prior to the death of Herod the Great, there was the "Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing" by Judas and Matthias. Executions by burning followed. Herod dies FIVE DAYS after executing his son Antipater. Archelaus buries his father and takes over. At this point, the people foment a rebellion in lament for "Judas and Matthias" and make an assault on the soldiers. Archelaus responds and kills 3,000 of them.
Archelaus then heads for Rome and "Sabinus, Caesar's steward for Syrian affairs" was hot-footing it to Judea to take charge of Herod's effects. Varus attempts to restrain him but to no effect. As soon as Varus heads back to Antioch, Sabinus goes for the gold and whatever else.
Well, this bit of the story is really iffy: that Sabinus would defy Varus???
Anyway, NOW, all of a sudden, there is a "revolt of the Jews" against Sabinus just after the revolt of the Jews against Archelaus. Like having 3000 of them killed didn’t calm things down? Then, all of a sudden, Varus is in Judea at the time of this revolt AFTER which he goes to Antioch. (Compare chapters 9 and 10 in Book 17.) Here it says that after Varus went away, Sabinus "greatly distressed the Jews". (at Pentecost) So, did the rebellion happen while Archelaus was there, or only after? The whole story just reeks of manipulated facts and details and doubling. And through this whole deal there are messiahs galore, all of whom are basically rebel leaders of one sort or another and "the number crucified ...were 2000". 295-298 in chapter 10 is not only confused, it is absurd. Varus disbands his army because they are unruly and then 10,000 Jews just gave themselves up to him???
After this mess, supposedly Augustus divides the kingdom between Archelaus, Philip and Antipas.
Now notice that Damascus was NEVER given to the Jewish puppets. It was probably ruled by Aretas from 9 BC to 40 AD. Josephus refers to it as a "foreign city (Wars 1.422. See also 2.215.) So Paul’s interlude in Damascus under the rule of Aretas could have happened any time during that period.
Skip over a bunch more nonsense (which, nevertheless, requires careful reading and comparing with Wars and Tacitus to know how nonsensical some of it is). We zero in on Archelaus again who has just entered on his ethnarchy. First thing he did was take the high priesthood away from Joazar (for assisting the rebels) and gave it to Eleazar his brother. "Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the hight priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his place while he was still living." (17.341)
He then undertakes magnificent building projects including "he diverted half the water with which the village of Neara used to be watered, and drew off that water into the plain, to water those palm trees which he had there planted" (17.340). Next we have Archelaus marrying his brother's widow, having a dream interpreted by Simon the Essene, FIVE DAYS after which "the other Archelaus that was sent to Judea by Caesar to call him away, came here also." Glaphyra then has a dream and "a few days" later she dies. This was "in the tenth year of Archelaus's government." (17.342)
Priests:
Joazar son of Boethus,
Eleazar (brother of Joazar),
Jesus son of Sie.
"So Archelaus's country was laid to theprovince of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus." (17.354)
Book 18:
Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them until he had been consul, and one who on other accounts was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria... Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews." Josephus makes much of Cyrenius, unlike what he wrote about Varus and Sabinus. But he notes here that, despite the fact that Coponius has the authority "Cyrenius came himself into Judea..." So, rather like Varus and Sabinus.
Notice that Cyrenius is basically doing the same thing that Sabinus/Varus were to do at the death of Herod the Great only ostensibly 10 years later, i.e. 6 AD.
As an aside, I've databased comets paying particular attention to the intervals of Halley's, and there is a 10/11 year "increase" in the period right here so that, of course, catches my attention.
Josephus repeats that Judea was added to the province of Syria.
Joazar, son of Boethus reappears as high priest! However, here, instead of fomenting rebellion, he is credited with quelling it. (18.3) But, there is another evil Judas of Gamala and his pal Sadduc, a Pharisee, who were fomenting revolt rather along the line of Judas and Matthias. The wording here through (6) is VERY similar to Josephus' description of Judas the Galileans "4th Philosophy" not to mention the revered Teacher of Judas and Matthias/Golden Eagle fame. And it is here that Josephus sets out the "philosophies".
(18.26-27) "Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium..." i.e. 6 AD as noted, "he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, (how did THAT happen?) and he appointed Ananus the son of Seth while Herod [Antipas] and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."
NOW, Antipas and Philip embark on their own building projects similar to those of Archelaus ten years previous. Yes, you could say that Josephus focused on Archelaus first, then turns his attention to Antipas and Philip but the Joazar item is curious. As noted above, this Joazar was deposed by Archelaus in 4 BC for assisting the rebels and gave it to Eleazar his brother. "Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his place while he was still living." (17.341)
It’s beginning to look more like a doublet.
Coponius has a set-to with the Jews at Passover because of Samaritan issues. "A little after this incident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor..." (18.31)
"After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar..." (18.32)
Okay, we have Coponius - 6 AD
Marcus Ambivius (Ambivulus) - 9 AD
Annius Rufus - 12 AD (Death of Augustus AD 14)
Then we come to Valerius Gratus who is said to have served from 15 to 26 to be replaced by Pilate.
"[Tiberius] sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi... He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been a high priest before, to be high priest; which office when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had waited in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor." (18.33-35)
High priests:
Joazar son of Boethus, brother of Eleazar deposed 6 AD and Ananus put in his place.
Ananus, son of Seth - Supposed to have been high priest from 6 AD to 15? 8 years more or less?
Neither Marcus Ambivius nor Annius Rufus saw fit to change the high priests which the Romans were wont to do so that none of them would become too powerful?
Then, Valerius Gratus appoints four in rapid succession:
Ismael, son of Phabi - "deprived him in a little time" which sounds like months.
Eleazar, son of Ananus - one year
Simon son of Camithus - one year
Joseph Caiphas - then Gratus departs leaving him in office.
Based on the high priest count, Valerius Gratus was NOT in Judea for 11 years but rather three or four years. But it is even more problematical because, in Wars 2.168 -171, we read:
"But when the Roman Empire was translated to Tiberius... both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies; and the latter of them built the city of Caesarea... Herod also built the city of Tiberius in Galilee... Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem...." resulting in a big to-do that is plainly absurd.
BUT, at this point, what does Pilate do? (175) “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." Which led to a strategem where Pilate placed assassins in the crowd... Sicarii, in effect.
The two versions of Josephus are different enough to raise questions.
Now, notice in the above from Wars, there is no mention of prior prefects or procurators or whatever of Judea other than Coponius, back in chapter 8 (117), the mention of whom precedes the discussion the four philosophies as in Antiquities. It is as though Tiberius sent Pilate immediately upon his taking over the government.
So what are we to think about that hokey story of several governors and high priests following Coponius in Antiquities. If we go strictly by what we can derive from the text in terms of dates, we still are only at 19 AD when Pilate arrives. And even that might fit another event: the sending of Piso and Germanicus in 19.
Now, certainly the "Pilate Stone" confirms that Pilate was there and that he was prefect, NOT procurator. Tacitus’ mention is no help because it is later hearsay. Philo’s brief discussion of Pilate really sheds no light on anything either because it is retrospective and undatable. Plus, Josephus thinks that army standards were involved while Philo says gilded shields with an inscription. So we have sort of a hybrid: golden eagles??? Are we dealing with a triplet and not a doublet?
Back to Antiquities: Josephus next says (18.39) “About this time died Phraates, king of the Parthians” i.e. 16 AD followed by the first Artabanas drama. (Tacitus, Annales, 2.3 ff. Also: 2.58)
Then, we hear that Silanus is “president” of Syria(18.52). This would have to have been C. Silanus, (cos. 10) who, after five years, would have been eligible to be proconsul of Asia. None of the other Silanus prospects would fit during the time of Pilate if dated later. Tacitus tells us that this Silanus was arraigned in 22 AD for extortion in the cities of Asia. (Tacitus, Annales, 3.66 and 4.15.3)
Next: “At this time died Antiochus, the king of Commagene… so the senate made a decree that Germanicus should be sent to settle the affairs of the east….” (Ant. 18.54) That would be 18 AD. We also hear that another Silanus is consul in AD 19 along with Norbanus.
The important point of all this is to attempt to establish the fact that Pontius Pilate was in Judea a LOT earlier than is generally thought to be the case, and he probably was NOT there for 10 or 11 years. All of the Josephan text before and around and after the mention of Pilate relates to the years 16 to 19, at least, possibly 15 to 19.
When Josephus comes back to Pilate in Chapter 3 (18.55 ff), it is immediately following his remark about the death of Germanicus and it appears to be him going back to Pilate after a digression onto the other matters (the building projects of the Herodians and the Artabanus business). So, now he comes back to Pilate and it seems that he re-set himself to about 16 AD and here’s why: after his discussion of the effigies which arrived with Pilate, Josephus mentions again the corban/water issue that was noted in Wars. In Wars, it was 400 furlongs, in Antiquities, it was 200. But who’s counting?
Skip the TF for the moment, and the stories about Roman upsets and pick back up with Pilate in Chapter 4 (18.85): here we have a disruption due to Samaritans. Notice that Coponius also had problems with Samaritans (more doubling?). (18.31) Pilate apparently killed a number of them and the Samaritans complained to Vitellius, who was apparently governor of Syria at that moment (what happened to Silanus?). Vitellius pulls rank on Pilate, sends Marcellus to handle Judea, and orders Pilate to Rome. BUT, Josephus then tells us that Tiberius was dead before Pilate could get there!!!
That is an absolutely astonishing leap from 19 to 37!!! 18 years, in fact. So, how the heck did that happen?
I would suggest that the person Pilate was being sent to was Germanicus and it was HE who was dead before Pilate reached him. That is, after all, in keeping with the whole general context of the surrounding passages. There’s just no justification for a jump of 18 years.
But let’s stop a moment and think about this sudden appearance of Vitellius.
There are several Vitelliuses in Tacitus but only two would have qualified for proconsular duties: 1) L. Vitellius, consul 34, 43, 47; 2) A. Vitellius, consul in 48. Both of these are too late for our Pilate episode.
BUT, we also find a Vitellius who was a “friend of Germanicus”. We find him in Germany in Annales 1.70; in 2.6 he heads off to do a census of the Galliae; in 2.74, we find the most interesting mention: It is immediately following the death of Germanicus, and takes place in Syria:
“There was next a debate between the legates and other senators who were present as to who should be placed in charge of Syria. And, after only modest exertions from the others, for a long time the issue was between Vibius Marsus and Cn. Sentius. Then Marsus yielded to the seniority and keener contention of Sentius. (Epigraphic evidence shows that the appointment of Cn. Sentius Saturninus (suffect consul 4 AD) was confirmed by Tiberius.) and he, for his part dispatched to the City (Rome) a woman infamous for poisonings in the province and particularly dear to Plancina, by name of Martina, in response to demands from Vitellius and Veranius and the rest, who were drawing up charges and accusations as if against persons already cited as defendants.”
So, that means that Vitellius was with Germanicus in Syria at the time he died. This is supported later in 3.9-10 when Piso is being arraigned for poisoning Germanicus back in Rome:
“On the next day Fulcinius Trio arraigned Piso before the consuls. Yet Vitellius and Veranius and the other of Germanicus’ companions maintained that there was no role for Trio; nor were they accusers themselves, they said, but as informants and witnesses of events they would deliver Germanicus’ instructions.”
Next: 3.13:
Then Fulcinius embarked on past irrelevancies, namely the fact that Piso’s tenure of Spain had been marked by corruption and greed (Piso had been legate there in 9/10 AD) … After this, Servaeus and Veranius and Vitellius with like enthusiasm (and with much eloquence on Vitellius’ part) cast the charge that in his hatred for Germanicus and his enthusiasm for revolution Piso, by licensing maltreatment of the allies, had corrupted the common soldiers to such a degree that the basest of them called him “parent of the legions.” Conversely, they said he had been savage to all the best men, especially to the companions and friends of Germanicus. Finally, he had annihilated the man himself by curses and poison: hence the rituals and abominable offerings by himself and Plancina, his claiming the state by arms, and – to ensure his appearance as the accused – his defeat in the line of battle.”
Another brief mention 3.17, and then 3.19: A few days after Caesar [Tiberius] initiated the senate’s granting of priesthoods to Vitellius and Veranius and Servaeus. … That was the end to the avenging, though Germanicus’ death was bandied about in various rumors not only among those men who lived then but also in following times. So is it the case that all the greatest matters are ambiguous, inasmuch as some people hold any form of hearsay as confirmed, others turn truth into its converse, and each swells among posterity.”
P. Vitellius, later commits suicide under indictment for something in 31 AD following the fall of Sejanus. Tacitus’ narrative is missing the end of 29 AD, all of 30, and most of 31. That period is, of course, the very period in which Jesus is said to have been crucified in Judea and might have included some pertinent information that contradicted such a claim. So, we don’t know what Vitellius was being charged with – possibly revolutionary actions against Tiberius? Being in cahoots with Sejanus?
As to there being a governor of Syria named Vitellius, we find one in Annales 6.41 mentioned as sending troops to the “nation of the Cietae” including the legate M. Trebellius. :
P. Vitellius’ wife, Acutia, was arraigned on some charge in 37 AD.
Meanwhile, back to the Testimonium: following this passage, there begins a story at 18.65 which is actually something of a take-off on a story that appears in Tacitus under the year 58 AD. How the heck did that get there? (Annales 13.44-45) Well, obviously, the story got around and was fair game for novelization.
Josephus version features novelistic elements and the abused heroine is named Paulina and her indulgent husband is Saturninus; she gets mixed up with the Egyptian cult and is abused shamefully.
The following tale in Josephus about THREE JEWS defrauding a noblewoman named Fulvia who, oddly, is also married to a Saturninus only raises the eyebrows even higher. These two events allegedly precede a banishing of Jewish and Egyptian rites from Rome as well as a the exiling of many Jews from Rome by Tiberius, something that occurred in 19 AD. We are reminded that Cn. Sentius Saturninus took over as governor of Syria/Judea after the death of Germanicus.
Thus, the Testimonium itself is given in a very 19 AD context all the way around. It appears that Pilate came in 15 or 16 and was “sent down” in 19 because he was so incompetent and may have been in cahoots with Piso. Bottom line is, it seems that if anybody was crucified/executed under Pontius Pilate, he had a very narrow window in which to do it, and it was certainly 11 years earlier than supposed. (More or less.)
So, that’s the short version of the 1st matter.
The second is this: it seems to me that the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 49 was simply Paul’s conflict that is exposed in his letters following him there. Clement said he had been exiled, well, maybe that was when. Maybe things happened just a tad earlier than we suppose (and forget Gallio, the Lukan author took that from Josephus and spun a tale around it.) If you anchor Paul in Rome in 49, then you only have to work backwards by the numbers. And you aren’t blocked by any 30 AD crucifixion date. You have a whole 11 additional years to work with.
