Sejanus, Pilate and the dating of the Crucifixion

[Quid est Veritas?]

Lucius Aelius Sejanus was the prefect of the Praetorian Guard from 14 - 31 AD under Tiberius. He was a shrewd operator, an equestrian who managed by intrigue and effectiveness to rise to become the second man of the Empire. Once Tiberius withdrew to Capri, he functionally ran the Empire before his sudden and precipitous fall in 31 AD.

To the historical narrative of the passion, he is actually quite a relevant player. We know Sejanus tried to establish his men in key positions and controlled appointments after Tiberius withdrew from Rome. This occurred in 26 AD, the same year Pontius Pilate was appointed prefect of Judaea. Sejanus is thus either responsible or at least involved in Pilate's appointment. The chance of Pilate being one of Sejanus' appointments is quite high.

Now Philo reports how Sejanus was opposed to the Jews, how he "desired to destroy our nation". Both Philo and Josephus reports Pilate acting quite violently to the Jews, bringing soldiers inbetween a crowd to disperse them and practically outraging them by bringing the standards into Jerusalem. This is quite understandable if Pilate was doing so on Sejanus' orders.

The Pilate in the gospels however, is careful not to offend the Jewish leadership and to keep them docile. This is incongruous to the man portrayed as violently suppressing them otherwise. How can we reconcile these conflicting views of Pilate?

The answer is the fall of Sejanus. When he was executed, we see Tiberius purging those associated with him and reversing his policies. Clearly his anti-Jewish policies would fall in this category and the best thing for a Sejanus-appointee would be to keep his head down. This is perhaps where the Jewish leadership's barb to Pilate of him being "no friend of Caesar" hits home. It is a tangible threat to report him, in a position where he is vulnerable to be recalled, if not exiled or killed, if he was Sejanus' creature. No wonder the astute Pilate would go out of his way to mollify the Jewish leadership in this case. The more brash Pilate of when Sejanus was still alive to protect him, would have just let Jesus go if he considered Him innocent, as causing consternation and suppressing resulting unrest was not uncommon earlier in his governorship. Tiberius continued purging Sejanus' appointees for the duration of his reign, although it petered out after about 34 AD.

If this is true, then the trial of Jesus had to have taken placed after 31 AD, after Sejanus' fall, but before Pilate's recall in 36 AD. It seems to me the best way to reconcile the conflicting accounts of Pilate we have from the gospels and our 1st century historians, so is a fairly good bet.
This correlates very well with a death of John the Baptist not long before 36 AD as inferred from Josephus and taking into account a roughly 3 year ministry for Jesus, renders 33-35 AD as our best estimate for the Passion narrative.

 

[Albion]

Interestingly enough, we all grew up thinking that AD33 was the right date and, as we know, most fundamentalists take it for granted and wouldn't even consider more historical information such as you and mainstream Christians take account of...but in the end it looks like 33 is the most likely date.

That does, however, make Jesus close to 40 years of age at his death, which is another conclusion that's resisted by a lot of people.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I first encountered this in the appendix of the book Pontius Pilate by Paul Meier. I think it is conclusive.

 

[Albion]

I first encountered this in the appendix of the book Pontius Pilate by Paul Meier. I think it is conclusive.

Meier does make convincing arguments in his treatment of both the Easter and Christmas narratives, I agree.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Interestingly enough, we all grew up thinking that AD33 was the right date and, as we know, most fundamentalists take it for granted and wouldn't even consider more historical information such as you and mainstream Christians take account of...but in the end it looks like 33 is the most likely date.

That does, however, make Jesus close to 40 years of age at his death, which is another conclusion that's resisted by a lot of people.

Well the age of Jesus depends how you solve the problem of the Census of Quirinius and Matthew's birth narrative.

I myself am hesitant to spesifically say a year. My major qualm is with the death of John the Baptist, as the closer this occured to 36 AD, the more sense in people ascribing Antipas' defeat to his death. I also find calendrical derivations and passover dates faulty due to the observational nature of the first century Jewish calender and the fact that intercalation was only standardised in the 12th century. Maybe ascribing it to 33 AD is inspired, but on historical grounds I opt more for ranges of years myself.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I first encountered this in the appendix of the book Pontius Pilate by Paul Meier. I think it is conclusive.

Yes, it is a very strong argument and a good answer to criticism that the Biblical Pontius Pilate seems weak and vacillating as opposed to the strong governor depicted by Philo and Josephus. I don't know Meier's book though.

 

[Albion]

'Inspired?' I'm not sure what you are referring to with that word, but I'd really be most interested in what you think about the whole of Meier's thinking on this matter. If you aren't familiar with his books, then that's almost pointless to say, but I do feel that there's more to consider.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

'Inspired?' I'm not sure what you are referring to with that word, but I'd really be most interested in what you think about the whole of Meier's thinking on this matter. If you aren't familiar with his books, then that's almost pointless to say, but I do feel that there's more to consider.

I'll look for his book when I have the time. The problem though is that our sources are few and far between, so a lot comes down to supposition and conjecture.
For instance, we know from Tacitus that Sejanus was associated with the famous gourmand Apicius. Apicius lived at Minturnae in Campania, which is quite close to Samnium and a population of Samnites had been placed there during the Social War. Pilate's nomen of Pontius suggests Samnite origin, if not descent from the gens of the Caudine Forks fame. So possibly we have a further social connection between Sejanus and Pilate via Apicius, but conclusive evidence starts wearing thin.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Lucius Aelius Sejanus was the prefect of the Praetorian Guard from 14 - 31 AD under Tiberius. He was a shrewd operator, an equestrian who managed by intrigue and effectiveness to rise to become the second man of the Empire. Once Tiberius withdrew to Capri, he functionally ran the Empire before his sudden and precipitous fall in 31 AD.

To the historical narrative of the passion, he is actually quite a relevant player. We know Sejanus tried to establish his men in key positions and controlled appointments after Tiberius withdrew from Rome. This occurred in 26 AD, the same year Pontius Pilate was appointed prefect of Judaea. Sejanus is thus either responsible or at least involved in Pilate's appointment. The chance of Pilate being one of Sejanus' appointments is quite high.

Now Philo reports how Sejanus was opposed to the Jews, how he "desired to destroy our nation". Both Philo and Josephus reports Pilate acting quite violently to the Jews, bringing soldiers inbetween a crowd to disperse them and practically outraging them by bringing the standards into Jerusalem. This is quite understandable if Pilate was doing so on Sejanus' orders.

The Pilate in the gospels however, is careful not to offend the Jewish leadership and to keep them docile. This is incongruous to the man portrayed as violently suppressing them otherwise. How can we reconcile these conflicting views of Pilate?

The answer is the fall of Sejanus. When he was executed, we see Tiberius purging those associated with him and reversing his policies. Clearly his anti-Jewish policies would fall in this category and the best thing for a Sejanus-appointee would be to keep his head down. This is perhaps where the Jewish leadership's barb to Pilate of him being "no friend of Caesar" hits home. It is a tangible threat to report him, in a position where he is vulnerable to be recalled, if not exiled or killed, if he was Sejanus' creature. No wonder the astute Pilate would go out of his way to mollify the Jewish leadership in this case. The more brash Pilate of when Sejanus was still alive to protect him, would have just let Jesus go if he considered Him innocent, as causing consternation and suppressing resulting unrest was not uncommon earlier in his governorship. Tiberius continued purging Sejanus' appointees for the duration of his reign, although it petered out after about 34 AD.

If this is true, then the trial of Jesus had to have taken placed after 31 AD, after Sejanus' fall, but before Pilate's recall in 36 AD. It seems to me the best way to reconcile the conflicting accounts of Pilate we have from the gospels and our 1st century historians, so is a fairly good bet.
This correlates very well with a death of John the Baptist not long before 36 AD as inferred from Josephus and taking into account a roughly 3 year ministry for Jesus, renders 33-35 AD as our best estimate for the Passion narrative.

The following Hebrew Calendar Calculator does not account for the Julian-to-Gregorian date shift. However, that shift never skipped a day of the week, although "some numbers went missing". So, I think it accurately computes the day of the week, if not the actual numerical date.

14th Nisan fell on a...
26 AD - Friday
27 AD - Wednesday
28 AD - Monday
29 AD - Saturday
30 AD - Wednesday
31 AD - Monday
32 AD - Monday
33 AD - Friday
34 AD - Monday
35 AD - Monday
36 AD - Friday
If we rule out the "reign of Sejanus" (26-31 AD), then what remains are 33 & 36 AD.

Prima facie, Luke records Jesus' birth in 6 AD, during the Census of Quirinius. Church Tradition holds that Jesus was ~30 years old at the Crucifixion. One could probably make a case for either 33 AD or 36 AD. Which jives better with the Galatians chronology?

Pilate probably did become more careful after Sejanus. According to Wikipedia:
​

Philo describes a later, similar incident in which Pilate was chastened by Emperor Tiberius after antagonizing the Jews by setting up gold-coated shields in Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. The shields were ostensibly to honor Tiberius, and this time did not contain engraved images. Philo writes that the shields were set up "not so much to honour Tiberius as to annoy the multitude". The Jews protested the installation of the shields at first to Pilate, and then, when he declined to remove them, by writing to Tiberius. Philo reports that upon reading the letters, Tiberius "wrote to Pilate with a host of reproaches and rebukes for his audacious violation of precedent and bade him at once take down the shields and have them transferred from the capital to Caesarea."
​

If the Jews wrote directly to Tiberius, then doesn't that suggest Sejanus was no more? Moreover, Pilate was trying to honour Tiberius. As observed already, Sejanus had (been convicted of having) conspired against emperor Tiberius. So, Pilate plausibly tried to show his loyalty, but once Pilate received a threatening letter from the same emperor, Pilate would probably have felt he was up to "two strikes" as it were. So the words "no friend of Caesar" would have struck the fear of "strike three" into Pilate.

I offer that, after the fall of Sejanus in October 31 AD, and after the rebuke from Tiberius over the golden shields in Jerusalem, Pilate feared for his life and sought to avoid any further suspicions. Spring 33 AD, only a year and a half after the fall of Sejanus for treason, and perhaps not long after the threatening letter of rebuke from emperor Tiberius himself, is most plausibly the time when Pilate was most afraid for his position, and so most susceptible to "no friend of Caesar" remarks.

Whereas, by 36 AD, Pilate was more confident, sending an army after some Samaritans.



Dating the Crucifixion'

The date of the Crucifixion has been debated for many years, but there has been no agreement on the year nor the day. Astronomical calculations have now been used to reconstruct the Jewish calendar in the first century AD and to date a lunar eclipse that biblical and other references suggest followed the Crucifixion. The evidence points to Friday 3 April AD 33 as the date when Jesus Christ died.​

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The following Hebrew Calendar Calculator does not account for the Julian-to-Gregorian date shift. However, that shift never skipped a day of the week, although "some numbers went missing". So, I think it accurately computes the day of the week, if not the actual numerical date.

14th Nisan fell on a...
26 AD - Friday
27 AD - Wednesday
28 AD - Monday
29 AD - Saturday
30 AD - Wednesday
31 AD - Monday
32 AD - Monday
33 AD - Friday
34 AD - Monday
35 AD - Monday
36 AD - Friday
If we rule out the "reign of Sejanus" (26-31 AD), then what remains are 33 & 36 AD.

Prima facie, Luke records Jesus' birth in 6 AD, during the Census of Quirinius. Church Tradition holds that Jesus was ~30 years old at the Crucifixion. One could probably make a case for either 33 AD or 36 AD. Which jives better with the Galatians chronology?

Pilate probably did become more careful after Sejanus. According to Wikipedia:
​

Philo describes a later, similar incident in which Pilate was chastened by Emperor Tiberius after antagonizing the Jews by setting up gold-coated shields in Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. The shields were ostensibly to honor Tiberius, and this time did not contain engraved images. Philo writes that the shields were set up "not so much to honour Tiberius as to annoy the multitude". The Jews protested the installation of the shields at first to Pilate, and then, when he declined to remove them, by writing to Tiberius. Philo reports that upon reading the letters, Tiberius "wrote to Pilate with a host of reproaches and rebukes for his audacious violation of precedent and bade him at once take down the shields and have them transferred from the capital to Caesarea."
​

If the Jews wrote directly to Tiberius, then doesn't that suggest Sejanus was no more? Moreover, Pilate was trying to honour Tiberius. As observed already, Sejanus had (been convicted of having) conspired against emperor Tiberius. So, Pilate plausibly tried to show his loyalty, but once Pilate received a threatening letter from the same emperor, Pilate would probably have felt he was up to "two strikes" as it were. So the words "no friend of Caesar" would have struck the fear of "strike three" into Pilate.

I offer that, after the fall of Sejanus in October 31 AD, and after the rebuke from Tiberius over the golden shields in Jerusalem, Pilate feared for his life and sought to avoid any further suspicions. Spring 33 AD, only a year and a half after the fall of Sejanus for treason, and perhaps not long after the threatening letter of rebuke from emperor Tiberius himself, is most plausibly the time when Pilate was most afraid for his position, and so most susceptible to "no friend of Caesar" remarks.

Whereas, by 36 AD, Pilate was more confident, sending an army after some Samaritans.



Dating the Crucifixion'

The date of the Crucifixion has been debated for many years, but there has been no agreement on the year nor the day. Astronomical calculations have now been used to reconstruct the Jewish calendar in the first century AD and to date a lunar eclipse that biblical and other references suggest followed the Crucifixion. The evidence points to Friday 3 April AD 33 as the date when Jesus Christ died.​

The sequence for Philo's account of the shields is off. On internal evidence, this may be the same event recorded by Josephus. Now Josephus reports the legion standards being brought in, and Philo votive shields. Josephus was a first hand witness, while Philo was in Alexandria at the time. Philo's account is appended to the embassy to Caligula, and was intent on presenting the Jewish perspective. Based on its position as well as the similar account in Josephus, this likely occurred early in Pilate's reign.

Pilate brought two Italian cohorts, the cohors Secunda Italica Civium Romanorum and the Cohors Prima Augusta. Josephus reports that he was bringing up forces from Caesarea Maritima to winter quarters at the Antonia Fortress. Most likely, this represents commanders unaware of the specifics of the Jewish holy city that prohibited it on Temple Mount, who thus inadvertently brought in their standards. Pilate thus had to contend with an angry populace and the almost religious awe that Roman legionaries held to their standards. Hence he wrote Tiberius.
It doesn't mean this occurred after the fall of Sejanus, for even then Tiberius had much of his affairs handled via the prefect Macro. All letters would still have been addressed to Tiberius, even if filtered by his minions.

Philo's account of Tiberius' blistering reply does not fit chronologically, both narrative-wise in Philo and based on Roman practice, if it occurred after Sejanus' fall. It was the custom for Governors of new provinces to write the Emperor for advice, such as when Pliny wrote Trajan from Bithynia. The fact that Pilate remained in power, especcially under Tiberius who was quick to shuffle officials around (even more so after Sejanus' fall), suggests that this was such a letter and likely did not receive such a negative response. Josephus doesn't record it in this manner, but remember Philo had Herodian ties and wrote the Embassy to Caligula as a piece of propoganda. As such, Philo would have no access to the actual letters that Tiberius sent to Pilate to know its content and is likely extrapolating that it was a dressing down, on account of the subsequent removal of the shields. Based on Tiberius' prior rule, this is unlikely I would think.

On another note, recreating the first century calendar is impossible. In the Talmudic times in Babylonia, the Jewish calender underwent reform that was completed and fixed by the Maimonides in the 12th. Prior to this, it was observational, based on the spotting of the new moon and with some intercalation on account of this. So to determine with any certainty the day of the week in the first century retroactively by employing the later Jewish calendrical rules, is specious. This did not apply to the observational nature of the calender in the first century.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The sequence for Philo's account of the shields is off. On internal evidence, this may be the same event recorded by Josephus. Now Josephus reports the legion standards being brought in, and Philo votive shields. Josephus was a first hand witness, while Philo was in Alexandria at the time. Philo's account is appended to the embassy to Caligula, and was intent on presenting the Jewish perspective. Based on its position as well as the similar account in Josephus, this likely occurred early in Pilate's reign.

Pilate brought two Italian cohorts, the cohors Secunda Italica Civium Romanorum and the Cohors Prima Augusta. Josephus reports that he was bringing up forces from Caesarea Maritima to winter quarters at the Antonia Fortress. Most likely, this represents commanders unaware of the specifics of the Jewish holy city that prohibited it on Temple Mount, who thus inadvertently brought in their standards. Pilate thus had to contend with an angry populace and the almost religious awe that Roman legionaries held to their standards. Hence he wrote Tiberius.
It doesn't mean this occurred after the fall of Sejanus, for even then Tiberius had much of his affairs handled via the prefect Macro. All letters would still have been addressed to Tiberius, even if filtered by his minions.

Philo's account of Tiberius' blistering reply does not fit chronologically, both narrative-wise in Philo and based on Roman practice, if it occurred after Sejanus' fall. It was the custom for Governors of new provinces to write the Emperor for advice, such as when Pliny wrote Trajan from Bithynia. The fact that Pilate remained in power, especcially under Tiberius who was quick to shuffle officials around (even more so after Sejanus' fall), suggests that this was such a letter and likely did not receive such a negative response. Josephus doesn't record it in this manner, but remember Philo had Herodian ties and wrote the Embassy to Caligula as a piece of propoganda. As such, Philo would have no access to the actual letters that Tiberius sent to Pilate to know its content and is likely extrapolating that it was a dressing down, on account of the subsequent removal of the shields. Based on Tiberius' prior rule, this is unlikely I would think.

On another note, recreating the first century calendar is impossible. In the Talmudic times in Babylonia, the Jewish calender underwent reform that was completed and fixed by the Maimonides in the 12th. Prior to this, it was observational, based on the spotting of the new moon and with some intercalation on account of this. So to determine with any certainty the day of the week in the first century retroactively by employing the later Jewish calendrical rules, is specious. This did not apply to the observational nature of the calender in the first century.

The incident with the standards involved blatantly graven images... whereas the shields were described as having explicitly no images whatsoever at all. So I still feel that they relate to separate events.

The scholarly article I referenced in no less than Nature agrees that 14th Nisan was a Friday in 33 AD... same as the Hebrew calendar calculator I referenced... so according to the scientific journal Nature it is accurate (for that year at the minimum)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The incident with the standards involved blatantly graven images... whereas the shields were described as having explicitly no images whatsoever at all. So I still feel that they relate to separate events.

The description of the shields seem to suggest legionary scutae, and seeing that Philo was not an eyewitness and wrote with the intent of pleading his case to Caligula, a garbled account of the same event is probable.
It may be separate events, I agree, but chronologically, both would need to be early in the period of his governship. It makes little sense for Pilate, once he has had some experience of Jewish contrariness, to attempt to do this, especcially if trying to lie low following the fall of Sejanus. The affair of the standards or the votive shields, both suggest a Pilate who is new to Jerusalem. I can see the superficial attraction of reading it in the manner you have presented, I simply do not think it plausible nor does it fit our texts well.

The scholarly article I referenced in no less than Nature agrees that 14th Nisan was a Friday in 33 AD... same as the Hebrew calendar calculator I referenced... so according to the scientific journal Nature it is accurate (for that year at the minimum)

You didn't reference an article, but a few lines quoted from one. It says by 'astronomical data' and dating an eclipse, they reached that date. How they determined weather conditions in first century Judaea in order to determine when the New Moon was spotted, is beyond me. It was observational after all, so even if the correct year, how they determined the exact date is a bit suspect. I assume they determined Jesus died on a friday and therefore ascribed 14 Nissan to that friday based on likely moon phases and the eclipse, and retro-actively determined the Gregorian date. There are those who argue Jesus did not die on a friday, although I am not one of them, but still. This is certainly in the realm of the possible, but I am very hesitant to give it the stamp of the definite.
I shall look for and read the article when I have the time, as your link only gives the lines you quoted as well.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The description of the shields seem to suggest legionary scutae, and seeing that Philo was not an eyewitness and wrote with the intent of pleading his case to Caligula, a garbled account of the same event is probable.
It may be separate events, I agree, but chronologically, both would need to be early in the period of his governship. It makes little sense for Pilate, once he has had some experience of Jewish contrariness, to attempt to do this, especcially if trying to lie low following the fall of Sejanus. The affair of the standards or the votive shields, both suggest a Pilate who is new to Jerusalem. I can see the superficial attraction of reading it in the manner you have presented, I simply do not think it plausible nor does it fit our texts well.

Well, every source I have ever consulted blamed Pilate for wittingly trying to antagonize the Judaeans. I.e. he was (supposedly) trying to push Roman rule and Roman Cultic symbolisms upon them.

I doubt Philo would have gotten such details wrong, he was certainly one of the most educated humans alive on earth at the time. He probably had most if not all of the Torah memorized. He reported Pilate was ostensibly trying to honor Tiberius, but actually trying to goad the Jews. That description doesn't fit well with the incident with the Legionary standards the 1st time Pilate entered the city. The standards would honor the Legions, not the emperor directly, yes? Whereas pure gold "shields" would make much more of a visually spectacular display befitting an emperor himself. Philo may not have been a soldier, but I'm sure he knew the difference between basic items such as weapons, armors, & standards. Philo was the double-triple PhD. of his era. And he had seen "all too many" Roman legions in his day as well.

Of course, IDK, just seems like a transitionary incident, from an active antagonization in keeping with Sejanus' policy which was then muted by imperial opposition... implying opposition to Sejanus' policy... implying opposition to Sejanus... and Tiberius' opposition to Sejanus set on almost instantaneously... such that Sejanus would almost certainly be out of the picture before Pilate received the letter. Tiberius accused Pilate of antagonizing Jewish sensibilities... the exact threat leveled against him by the Sadducees in the Gospels. Speculating wildly but plausibly, possibly the emperor had told Plate in the letter words to the effect that "if he really wanted to be a friend of Caesar, then he should be friends of the Caesar's subjects as well" or something similar. Then the High Priests, knowing of the contents of the letter, did remind Pilate of the same threat.

You didn't reference an article, but a few lines quoted from one. It says by 'astronomical data' and dating an eclipse, they reached that date. How they determined weather conditions in first century Judaea in order to determine when the New Moon was spotted, is beyond me. It was observational after all, so even if the correct year, how they determined the exact date is a bit suspect. I assume they determined Jesus died on a friday and therefore ascribed 14 Nissan to that friday based on likely moon phases and the eclipse, and retro-actively determined the Gregorian date. There are those who argue Jesus did not die on a friday, although I am not one of them, but still. This is certainly in the realm of the possible, but I am very hesitant to give it the stamp of the definite.
I shall look for and read the article when I have the time, as your link only gives the lines you quoted as well.

IDK, Nature is a very reputable journal... how complex are the calculations ? Surely, the Jews would have known when the actual full moon was occurring, even if it was obscured by cloud cover for a few days... Are you saying that a night of clouds at a full moon could throw of the whole Passover sequence until the next month? I thought it was something like the second Friday after a more-or-less fullish moon was observed

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, every source I have ever consulted blamed Pilate for wittingly trying to antagonize the Judaeans. I.e. he was (supposedly) trying to push Roman rule and Roman Cultic symbolisms upon them.

I doubt Philo would have gotten such details wrong, he was certainly one of the most educated humans alive on earth at the time. He probably had most if not all of the Torah memorized. He reported Pilate was ostensibly trying to honor Tiberius, but actually trying to goad the Jews. That description doesn't fit well with the incident with the Legionary standards the 1st time Pilate entered the city. The standards would honor the Legions, not the emperor directly, yes? Whereas pure gold "shields" would make much more of a visually spectacular display befitting an emperor himself. Philo may not have been a soldier, but I'm sure he knew the difference between basic items such as weapons, armors, & standards. Philo was the double-triple PhD. of his era. And he had seen "all too many" Roman legions in his day as well.

Of course, IDK, just seems like a transitionary incident, from an active antagonization in keeping with Sejanus' policy which was then muted by imperial opposition... implying opposition to Sejanus' policy... implying opposition to Sejanus... and Tiberius' opposition to Sejanus set on almost instantaneously... such that Sejanus would almost certainly be out of the picture before Pilate received the letter. Tiberius accused Pilate of antagonizing Jewish sensibilities... the exact threat leveled against him by the Sadducees in the Gospels. Speculating wildly but plausibly, possibly the emperor had told Plate in the letter words to the effect that "if he really wanted to be a friend of Caesar, then he should be friends of the Caesar's subjects as well" or something similar. Then the High Priests, knowing of the contents of the letter, did remind Pilate of the same threat.

I agree that Pilate tried to antagonise the Jews, as this fits his description as well as Sejanus' known enmity towards them. That is not the point.

The votive shields had to have occurred early in his period as governor. Philo reports 4 Herodian princes being sent as an embassy to him. Now the whole setup had to have occurred during a passover, for both Pilate and the Herodians to be present.

Now Herod had 10 sons, of whom 3 were killed during his lifetime, Mariamne's child died young, and Archelaus had been exiled to Gaul. Thus the five remaining Princes were Philip, Antipas, Herod the son of Mariamne II, Phasael and Herod son of Cleopatra.

Herod son of Cleopatra is little known, and no account exists of his playing a significant part in anything and was likely in Armenia at the time. Philip died in 34, so it had to have occurred before this. Herod son of Mariamne II, was the first husband of Herodias according to Philo, but the Gospel of Mark says it was Philip who had been her first husband, before she married Antipas. Either way, an amiable gathering between Herodias' first and second husband is unlikely, so for both to be on one embassy is doubtful. This means that it had to have occurred before the death of John the Baptist, which based on the presumed period of Jesus' ministry and the fact that a significant military defeat in 36 AD is blamed on his execution, places this in 31 AD. For John's death was as a consequence of Herodias' marriage.
The Votive shield event thus most plausibly occurred before 31 AD, and thus before the fall of Sejanus as such. You could argue it to have occurred that exact year, but that would be complete conjecture, and does not really fit the narrative in my opinion.

Again though, many have argued Josephus and Philo's accounts to refer to the same event. Most notably Gratz and Mommsen. There are many internal similarities, as in Pilate bringing up troops late at night, displaying the offending items in Jerusalem, being forced by opposition of the Jewish leadership to take them down, and neither Philo nor Josephus records two separate events. That both in their accounts of Pilate's reign only mention one event, which appears so similar in each in spite of noted differences, means that both referring to the same event is not beyond the realm of the possible. Anyway, legionary standards and votive shields bearing the titulature of the Emperor, aren't that different. The Emperor was the Imperator holding Imperium over the Legions, after all. He was their commanding general in theory, on account of his proconsular status. Legion standards or scuta would intrinsically be honouring the Emperor as well. Golden shields bearing honour to the Emperor often was actually a part of Legion standards, so whatever occurred here in either case, it had to do with ceremonial Legion shields. The big difference in the accounts is the aniconic nature of Philo's shields and Philo's embassy of Herodian princes to Pilate.

Philo may have been knowledgable on Judaism, but he was not privy to internal Roman affairs and wrote his Embassy to Gaius as propaganda, to try and win the new Emperor over. You hardly do this by painting it as a more understandable event, like Josephus' standards with fresh troops does, but more as an explicit act. Similarly, he wrote many years after the fact and was not an eyewitness. While a learned man, it is unreasonable to think he necessarily had everything right, as even excellent historians like Josephus, Polybius or Tacitus made mistakes or did not have all the information. He would likely have learned of this from oral accounts, leaving him at the mercy of the manner in which his source presented it.
I am not saying they are the same event, but they might be. They may also be two completely separate events that just happened to be chosen as a representative event to the exclusion of the other, by two Jewish historians. Regardless, it likely occurred before Sejanus fell either way, but it is difficult and equivocal to date these events, as both Philo and Josephus fail to give us much chronological information. Your hypothesis of the votive shields occuring after Sejanus' fall is certainly possible, although I do not find it overly convincing.

IDK, Nature is a very reputable journal... how complex are the calculations ? Surely, the Jews would have known when the actual full moon was occurring, even if it was obscured by cloud cover for a few days... Are you saying that a night of clouds at a full moon could throw of the whole Passover sequence until the next month? I thought it was something like the second Friday after a more-or-less fullish moon was observed

Before 220s AD the Sanhedrin added intercalary months every 2-3 years based on the observation of the New Moon and agricultural conditions in Palestine. This is similar to the modern Islamic calendar that requires the actual physical observation of the moon to become operative.
Mathematical tables and rules only came to be consulted from the 200s after the Rabbis were expelled from areas of Palestine after the Bar Kohba revolt, to try and make due and get a date as close as possible. This was as an adjunct to actual reports of what was occuring in the Holy Land, which was paramount, with the increasing diaspora causing mathematical means to gain in importance over time. This continued apace until Maimonides established a fixed Metonic 19 year cycle in the 12th century and finally severed the observational cord.
Before 200 AD, intercalary months could be arbitrarily added depending on weather conditions and harvests, so the actual drift of the calendar was much worse, and there is no way to determine the Hebrew dates retroactively without an account of when and how often intercalation occured. It is highly anachronistic to backtrack Maimonides' calendar. It is modern conceit to think calendars were determined by mathematical means in olden times. The Romans only started doing so after Julius Caesar authorised calendrical reform, and the Greeks never did: they adopted the Roman Julian calendar.

This is why I think Nature determined a friday, close to the lunar eclipse, whose lunar cycle fits what would be expected and based on the Biblical account, thus named it 14 Nisan. I see no other way to determine this, and such a method remains speculative and far from definite. Thus trying to secure such a date within the framework of 33-35 AD is doubtful, based on attempted calendrical reconstruction.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Erik Nelson I tracked down the text of your Nature article.

They determined when the crescent of the new moon would be seen in March/April in Jerusalem during the time of Pontius Pilate to determine a likely start for the month of Nisan. They then determined the dates when 14/15 Nisan would coincide with a friday: 11th April 27 AD, 7th April 30 AD, 3rd April 33 AD, 23rd April 34 AD. They note the observational nature of the calendar and also that intercalary months were added to hedge their answer.The article notes the impossibility of retroactively assigning first century dates by modern calculations, but suggests these as plausible candidates.

What they then do, is show that a partial Lunar eclipse occurred on 3 April 33 AD in Jerusalem. The article then appeals to Peter's quotation of the prophet Joel at Pentecost, that the moon would turn to blood. They argue the moon would be just above the horison and would therefore have appeared blood red. Based on this, they determine this to be the date of the Crucifixion. It is an interesting article, but their argument rests mostly on the eclipse.

 

[Erik Nelson]

@Erik Nelson I tracked down the text of your Nature article.

They determined when the crescent of the new moon would be seen in March/April in Jerusalem during the time of Pontius Pilate to determine a likely start for the month of Nisan. They then determined the dates when 14/15 Nisan would coincide with a friday: 11th April 27 AD, 7th April 30 AD, 3rd April 33 AD, 23rd April 34 AD. They note the observational nature of the calendar and also that intercalary months were added to hedge their answer.The article notes the impossibility of retroactively assigning first century dates by modern calculations, but suggests these as plausible candidates.

What they then do, is show that a partial Lunar eclipse occurred on 3 April 33 AD in Jerusalem. The article then appeals to Peter's quotation of the prophet Joel at Pentecost, that the moon would turn to blood. They argue the moon would be just above the horison and would therefore have appeared blood red. Based on this, they determine this to be the date of the Crucifixion. It is an interesting article, but their argument rests mostly on the eclipse.

Thanks for the summary

Certainly seems sensible that Jesus' 3-year earthly ministry may have begun after the fall of the "anti-Semite" Sejanus in October 31 AD.

The Gospel of John describes initial ministry events prior to Jesus' first ministry "Passover" (John 2). Perhaps the fall of the "hated anti-Semite" Sejanus was viewed as a "watershed" precipitating John the Baptist's many baptisms ??

That would define a chronology as follows:

pre-Ministry & Baptism (John 1) ~= late 31 AD
Passover 1 (John 2) ~= spring 32 AD
Passover 2 (John 6) ~= spring 33 AD
Tabernacles (John 7) ~= fall 33 AD ("sent Temple guards to arrest him" John 7:32)
Passover 3 (John 11-13ff) ~= spring 34 AD

Alternatively, Sejanus may have motivated a non-violent resistance movement "of Faith" in John the Baptist, such that the above chronology should then start earlier...

Perhaps the best speculation is that John & Jesus emerged in response to Sejanus + Pilate... whereas the "cowed" Pilate of the Crucifixion occurred after Sejanus' fall ?? Perhaps his fall was attributed to the wealthy Sadducees & Pharisees, like Philo, so buoying their social esteem & (over-) confidence ???

Passover 1 Jesus turned over tables without issue. Passover 2 - Tabernacles Jesus feared for the Jewish leaders ordering Temple soldiers around... perhaps a significant change in tone suggesting the fall of Sejanus after Jesus' 1st Passover ?

pre-Ministry & Baptism (John 1) ~= late 30 AD, "in response to Sejanus"
Passover 1 (John 2) ~= spring 31 AD, "Sejanus' Pilate happy to let chaos reign in Temple"
Passover 2 (John 6) ~= spring 32 AD, "Jewish leaders emboldened by fall of Sejanus"
Tabernacles (John 7) ~= fall 32 AD ("sent Temple guards to arrest him" John 7:32)
Passover 3 (John 11-13ff) ~= spring 33 AD​

 

[Erik Nelson]

www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/JesusAndTheJubilee.pdf

The year 20BC was (approximately) a Jubilee Year... plausibly Herod the Great began renovating the Temple of Jerusalem on a Jubilee Year, the one marking the transition from the ninth to the long-anticipated tenth Jubilee Cycle after Ezra's Covenant Renewal about 420 BC.

John 2:20 says Jesus cleansed the Temple after 46 years... at the beginning of his 3 year Ministry... implying that the Crucifixion was (approximately) another Jubilee Year event (=Luke 2). All that would strongly (?) support a Crucifixion date around 30AD.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/JesusAndTheJubilee.pdf

The year 20BC was (approximately) a Jubilee Year... plausibly Herod the Great began renovating the Temple of Jerusalem on a Jubilee Year, the one marking the transition from the ninth to the long-anticipated tenth Jubilee Cycle after Ezra's Covenant Renewal about 420 BC.

John 2:20 says Jesus cleansed the Temple after 46 years... at the beginning of his 3 year Ministry... implying that the Crucifixion was (approximately) another Jubilee Year event (=Luke 2). All that would strongly (?) support a Crucifixion date around 30AD.

This is an interesting article you quoted. Some observations:

Josephus records 37/36 BC as a Sabbatical year, when Herod took over Jerusalem. We also know the 2nd year of Nero's reign to be one, based on a record of a loan discovered, meaning 55/56 AD. Now the problem is whether a Jubilee year fell after a Sabbatical year, whether it was therefore two such years in fact, or if they continued on in 7 year cycles. This was noted in your article. We don't know how, if at all, Jubilee years were actually practiced in Second Temple times outside of a measure of time. Sabbatical years were practiced, as Josephus records Roman relaxation of taxation for Sabbatical years in Judaea.

What this means is one of the years 21-23 BC may be a Jubilee year, corresponding with 27-29 AD being the next possible ones. I find the idea of coupling Jesus' ministry to the Jubilee intruiging, but I am not willing to read so much into the Qumran scroll of Melchizidek as the article does. For the Qumran sect was not a mainstream Jewish group, so it is extrapolation to make parallels between their beliefs as if they were commonplace in Second Temple Judaism.
Jesus being crucified on a Jubilee year is very poetic, but as you noted, this gives us a date that is too early for Sejanus' fall, thus giving us the problem of Pilate's character as depicted in the Gospels, and too early for our presumed period of John the Baptist's ministry. Unless we made an error on how Jubilees are determined, which because of the uncertainty of it falling on the 50th or 49th year by Second Temple times, is certainly a possibility.

 

[Erik Nelson]

This is an interesting article you quoted. Some observations:

Josephus records 37/36 BC as a Sabbatical year, when Herod took over Jerusalem. We also know the 2nd year of Nero's reign to be one, based on a record of a loan discovered, meaning 55/56 AD. Now the problem is whether a Jubilee year fell after a Sabbatical year, whether it was therefore two such years in fact, or if they continued on in 7 year cycles. This was noted in your article. We don't know how, if at all, Jubilee years were actually practiced in Second Temple times outside of a measure of time. Sabbatical years were practiced, as Josephus records Roman relaxation of taxation for Sabbatical years in Judaea.

What this means is one of the years 21-23 BC may be a Jubilee year, corresponding with 27-29 AD being the next possible ones. I find the idea of coupling Jesus' ministry to the Jubilee intruiging, but I am not willing to read so much into the Qumran scroll of Melchizidek as the article does. For the Qumran sect was not a mainstream Jewish group, so it is extrapolation to make parallels between their beliefs as if they were commonplace in Second Temple Judaism.
Jesus being crucified on a Jubilee year is very poetic, but as you noted, this gives us a date that is too early for Sejanus' fall, thus giving us the problem of Pilate's character as depicted in the Gospels, and too early for our presumed period of John the Baptist's ministry. Unless we made an error on how Jubilees are determined, which because of the uncertainty of it falling on the 50th or 49th year by Second Temple times, is certainly a possibility.

Well... if we know 522 BC was a Jubilee year, then a straight-forward continuation of the 50-year Jubilee Cycle would make 22 BC another Jubilee, with 23 BC a Sabbatical year along with 37 BC...

Plausibly no heavy construction work could begin on a Sabbatical or Jubilee year, requiring Herod to wait until the year afterward, which would be 21 BC (so possibly I'm off by one year)...

22 BC + 50 = 29 AD

Passover 1 = John 2:20 = 20 BC + 46 = 27 AD
Passover 2 = 28 AD = Sabbatical year
Passover 3 = 29 AD = Jubilee year

36, 43, 50, 57... 63,70,77

According to this picture, Jesus was baptized in late 26 AD... i.e. John the Baptist began his ministry essentially immediately upon the unpopular Pilate's appearance upon the political stage..

Meanwhile, I think you can construe the "first" census of Quirinius as a decade prior to the one in 6AD --> 5 BC... 5 BC to 26 AD ~= 30 years

All these dates accord with the Gospels and mutually agree within one year...

Some like "Keras" say the 50th year was a Jubilee year, but that it didn't affect the underlying Sabbatical cycle...

37/36
30/29
23/22
16/15
9/8
2/1BC
6/7AD
13/14
20/21
27/28 = Sabbatical year (incl. Pass. 2 in Spring 28 AD) => 28/29 = Jubilee year (incl. P3 Spring 29)
34/35
41/42
48/49
55/56
62/63
69/70
76/77 => 77/78 = Jubilee year... cp. conspiracy of Alienus & Marcellus vs. Vespasian ??

According to this modified picture, it would be ironic that the Jewish leaders were plotting bloody murder during Jesus' 2nd - 3rd Passovers, as both of those would have been Holy Sabbatical - Jubilee years

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well... if we know 522 BC was a Jubilee year, then a straight-forward continuation of the 50-year Jubilee Cycle would make 22 BC another Jubilee, with 23 BC a Sabbatical year along with 37 BC...

Plausibly no heavy construction work could begin on a Sabbatical or Jubilee year, requiring Herod to wait until the year afterward, which would be 21 BC (so possibly I'm off by one year)...

22 BC + 50 = 29 AD

Passover 1 = John 2:20 = 20 BC + 46 = 27 AD
Passover 2 = 28 AD = Sabbatical year
Passover 3 = 29 AD = Jubilee year

36, 43, 50, 57... 63,70,77

According to this picture, Jesus was baptized in late 26 AD... i.e. John the Baptist began his ministry essentially immediately upon the unpopular Pilate's appearance upon the political stage..

Meanwhile, I think you can construe the "first" census of Quirinius as a decade prior to the one in 6AD --> 5 BC... 5 BC to 26 AD ~= 30 years

All these dates accord with the Gospels and mutually agree within one year...

Some like "Keras" say the 50th year was a Jubilee year, but that it didn't affect the underlying Sabbatical cycle...

37/36
30/29
23/22
16/15
9/8
2/1BC
6/7AD
13/14
20/21
27/28 = Sabbatical year (incl. Pass. 2 in Spring 28 AD) => 28/29 = Jubilee year (incl. P3 Spring 29)
34/35
41/42
48/49
55/56
62/63
69/70
76/77 => 77/78 = Jubilee year... cp. conspiracy of Alienus & Marcellus vs. Vespasian ??

According to this modified picture, it would be ironic that the Jewish leaders were plotting bloody murder during Jesus' 2nd - 3rd Passovers, as both of those would have been Holy Sabbatical - Jubilee years

The problem is then dating John the Baptist's ministry. John needs to be killed before Jesus' death, but we know from Josephus that Antipas' defeat in 36 AD was blamed on his execution. John was recorded as dying due to Antipas marrying Herodias and John objecting. This would have to place this as around 26-28 AD at the latest, which is a significant change of the chronology. The longer the time period from 36 AD, the less plausible the date for the execution of John. This hypothesis is pushing 10 years then.
It is certainly a possible hypothesis, and the idea of Jesus' ministry coinciding with Sabbatical and Jubilee years is attractive from a soteriological standpoint. However, the disciples are recorded as plucking and eating wheat, while the land was supposed to lie fallow in these years. This may just mean that people weren't properly following the custom, but Josephus recorded Roman tax breaks for these years, so this seems unlikely therefore. Alternately, this may have occurred in the first year of His ministry, as the Synoptics only mention one vs the three passovers of John. It is very speculative though.