Please don't misunderstand: Jesus was crucified during Pilate's term as governor. That is a fact and I believe in the Gospel's one-hundred percent as well as all Holy Scripture from Genesis to Revelation and every book in between. The problem is, circa 27-36 is wrong for Pilate's term; he actually governed much earlier. Scholars who examine him under a microscope often come away convinced he governed much earlier than AD 27.
I disagree on Pilate's dates. Roman scholarship has almost universally found his period of governing Judaea to be 26-36 AD. Mommsen, Goldsworthy, etc., all agree on this.
You say those who examine him under a microscope. Well, what are our sources for Pilate? They are Philo, Josephus, one line in Tacitus, the Pilate stone, a few coins, the Gospels, and early Christian tradition.
Philo, Tacitus, and the Pilate stone merely places him in Tiberius' reign. The coins are only associated with him based on dating, upon which we disagree and is therefore rendered equivocal.
Early Christian tradition tells us that Pilate either converted and was martyred at Vienna in Gallia Narbonensis, or commited suicide. Its timeline however, suggests this after Tiberius' reign. This is however late and contradictory in nature.
So the entire debate rests on Josephus and the Gospels...
In a nutshell, Flavius Josephus promised he put Antiquities of the Jews in chronological order. Yet, he has Pilate in office governing before known AD 16 events. Meanwhile, he has the Crucifixion of Christ somewhere in AD 17-19 range. People say this can't be right based on Luke 3:1. But Luke was surely referring to Tiberius Caesar's fifteenth year of tribunician power (June 27, AD 13-June 26, AD 14) which is how that emperor commonly reckoned his reign. I'm confident Luke was not referring to his fifteenth regnal year.
Firstly, remember Josephus' Antiquities is a corrupted source. We know the Testamonium Flavium was under the knife of a redactor, as it is far too positive an appraisal from a Pharisaic Jew of Josephus' background, and if this was its original content, why did Eusebius reference a far less glowing description? There was an original reference to Jesus and his crucifixion here, based on later references to James the Just, but our content is not the original. We also have variants extent of this passage.
Now let's look at his chronology, bearing this in mind. We have the death of Germanicus (19 AD), then we have the accounts of Pilate of the standards and affair of the aquaduct; then the Testimonium Flavium. Therafter follows the Paulina/Mucina scandal, the expulsion of the Jews and Isis worshippers (19 AD), then the Samaritan uprising and Pilate's recall. Following this we have Antipas' campaign and then Agrippa's being released by Caligula on the death of Tiberius (36 AD). Everything in brackets are sure dates by other Roman historians. By your reckoning of how Josephus' chronology works, the entire career of Pilate had to have taken place in 19 AD and only in that year, since it falls between the death of Germanicus and the expulsion of the Jews.
Such a reading makes little sense. Now, bearing in mind the corrupted nature of the Antiquities, we see the lurid, almost voyeuristic tale of Paulina and Munda does not fit the otherwise Jewish nature of the work. Why spend more time telling this story than recounting the actual expulsion of the Jews, when this has precious little to do with the Jews and the book is a book of Jewish Antiquities. It does not fit the tenor of the rest of the work. For this reason, many argue this was a later insertion into Josephus as an anti-pagan polemic, or alternately, a lurid rumour that someone wanted to give the air of respectibility to.
Alternately, remember that works were broken into books, written either on scrolls or codexes. It makes more sense for Josephus to recount the entire career of Pilate in one go, than to put a strange interpolation of Paulina and the Jewish expulsion inbetween. Usually, this is what Josephus does, so it is decidedly odd to break up someone's narrative in this manner. It has been argued that the account of Paulina and the Jewish expulsion are misplaced in our extent version, due likely to a late Roman or mediaeval library error, and should follow Germanicus' death. This makes far more sense thematically, as Germanicus died under suspicious circumstances in the east, blamed by Agrippina on poisoners, and is a reason given by others why the Isis worshippers were expelled at this time.
This also transforms Pilate's narrative into a complete one, thus more in line with Josephus' methods with others' careers.
Following the account of Pilate's recall, we see two events almost certainly taking place in 36 AD, most definitely the release of Herod Agrippa, which is based on Caligula becoming Princeps on Tiberius' death. So either Josephus ignored 17 years of history of Judaea and Pilate's entire career occured in one year, or Pilate's recall occurred in 36 AD and we are presented with a longer account. I am sorry, but the latter makes far more sense.
As for your other comments...I know the Romans dated years by the two consuls. But that has nothing to do with how the Romans of Tiberius' era reckoned that emperor's reign: tribunician power. Extensive research clearly reveals Luke 3:1 refers to the fifteenth year of this and not his regnal year. Consular dating has nothing to do with 3:1.
Romans didn't date by tribunician power. Provincials did, and they did not date by lesser officials, but by who was in charge. No one dated by Agrippa or Marcellus' tribunician powers, so why think they would do so by Tiberius'? Later Romans started dating by Imperium Procunsularis, denoting holding power over the Imperial provinces, but they certainly did not date by the early provisional and limited grants of tribunician status to Tiberius. Please give a citation for your contention, outside of the Luke passage you would claim for it.
Anyway, Tacitus, Suetonius and Velleius Paterculus disagree on the dates for Tiberius gaining the tribunicitas potentas, so which one is meant then?
I researched everything for seven years. There is no doubt Pilate was long gone before Antipas and the king warred which was 36. Besides, I'm not even sure why you're mentioning this. (This is the problem with quickly skimming through research 200 pages long and within minutes commenting on it--no offense intended, I understand you're busy.)
It is a part of the Achilles heel of your Josephan chronology argument. What evidence shows Pilate long gone before Antipas' war with Aretas? Citation?
I apologise for the quick look through, I shall give your article a more thorough read when I have time.
I am not taking liberties. Everything is well sourced.
I disagree.
I may not be understanding you correctly, but are you assuming I refer to Vitellus as a suffect consul before AD 34? That is not the case. Being consularis did not necessarily mean that person held the consulship. I'm saying if you take Josephus at his word of his work being in chronological order (his original Greek; not a Latin alternative) it can be easily deduced that Vitellius was awarded the status of ex-consul (ὑπατικόν, aka consularis, a title often awarded in name only during the empire) and he was that unnamed legate sent to govern Syria for Aelius Lamia circa 21-32 as mentioned by Dio, Tacitus and Suetonius. Pilate was removed during this time. Vitellius did not become a genuine consul until 34 many years later. Pilate's dismissal should not be confused with, and dated to, Vitellius' official governorship of Syria 35-39. Why would Pilate be ordered to report to Tiberius in Rome circa 36/37 considering that emperor had not stepped foot in that city for eleven years?
Recalled to Rome does not mean necessarily going to the city itself, and regardless, Tiberius is unlikely to see an equestrian governor of a backwater province himself. Likely it would be Macro that Pilate would have had an audience with.
Most of this regarding Vitellius' career is conjecture and conflicts with the Annals of Tacitus. For Tacitus would certainly have mentioned if someone was granted proconsular status prematurely, as this was highly irregular, and he spends some time on Vitellius.
Again, Aelius Lamia's governorship of Syria was a farce according to Tacitus and others; he was detained in Rome for the duration of his term and an unknown legate was sent to be the real governor. That unnamed legate was obviously Vitellius. Read AJ 18 while keeping this in mind and you'll see for yourself that AJ is suddenly in chronological order just like Josephus promised (1.17). The only reason scholars currently claim the events in AJ 18 are out of order is because they are oblivious to this hidden anomaly. If Vitellius was not governing Syria in place of Lamia, who was? It surely wasn't Pacuvius. There's really no evidence at all for him.
I fail to see how it was obviously Vitellius? Rome was full of potential aristocrats for such an assignment. Why not Piso, for instance? You need to give a better accounting of why you take this leap.
The English translations of AJ 18 say that by the time Pilate arrived in Rome, Tiberius was dead. But the Greek word rendered, "dead" can grammatically be rendered Tiberius "had moved" before Pilate's arrival. Tiberius twice moved out of Rome: once early in AD 21 until sometime in 22 and then he permanently moved out in 26. Rendering μεταστάς "moved" keeps AJ 18 in chronological order if it's also understood that Vitellius was the legate sent to govern Syria circa 21-32. "Moved" also means Pilate's term in Judea ended much earlier than AD 36/37. Pilate was out of office by AD 21. This also explains why Pilate is governing before AD 16 events in AJ. Either Josephus kept his promise of keeping his reports in order of time they occurred in or he did not. Please read the pdf before jumping to any conclusion.
I did read this part of your article, hence I wrote how it doesn't fit, as it is followed immediately by events unequivocally in 36 AD. Please see what I wrote earlier on Josephus' chronology. A reading as Tiberius having died, makes the most sense, which is why it is translated in this manner by first century scholars that made those English translations.
Where does Josephus say Pilate governed for ten years? Tarrying for ten does not mean "governing for ten."
Agreed, but by your chronology argument he governed for 1 year as I showed above. This doesn't make sense seeing that we have two separate passovers, Jesus' crucifixion and the affair of the votive shields, at least. It also makes no sense to mention the 10 years unless referring to the period in which he was governor. It would be a silly throwaway comment otherwise, and thus not in keeping with Josephus' style.
Why would ancient historian and theologian, Paulus Orosius, say the great AD 17 earthquake was the Passion quake if it wasn't?
He was a late Roman writer, writing after the sack of Rome. He therefore does not unequivocally have access to records like say Tacitus had, and his works are largely based on Tacitus, Suetonius, Caesar, Lucan, etc. So we do not know where he got this information nor how accurate it is.
How come scientists cannot find an earthquake for AD 27-36?
Because a local Jerusalem event need not be picked up geologically?
Why would Paulus Orosius say Jesus was born about the same time the gates of Janus were closed by the Romans for the third time (likely 13 BC) if this is not true? (I'm aware Orosius made a few contradictory statements. In another place, he said Jesus was born in 2 BC. But all other facts he put forth indicate 13 BC is actually correct.)
John's advice to the soldiers in Luke 3:14 was only apropos for AD 14/15 when mutinies broke out after the death of Augustus (the sixteenth year of Tiberius' TP). His advice would seem a bit out of place for AD 26 and beyond.
Why out of place? Because people cannot remember events from 10 years ago? This is a strange objection anyway.
Why did Josephus say the Crucifixion was about the same time as the Paulina/Mundus scandal which in turn he said occurred about the same time as the Jewish banishment from Rome which is well known to have been AD 19? He's either telling the truth, lying or badly mistaken.
There's much, much more...
When it is recognized that Luke 3:1 refers to the fifteenth year of Tiberius' tribunician power, chronology is easily determined for the ministry and passion of Jesus Christ. Thinking it's his fifteenth regnal year causes the debate to go on and on as to which year Jesus was crucified in.
If you have the time, I strongly suggest you read the entire pdf otherwise you might inadvertently take comments of mine out of context. This subject is much too complex to respond to in a post. Some readers are probably already confused. Apologies. But that's the risk of complexity. Please read the pdf if you can free up the time. It would be much appreciated and you just might change your mind.
You said: "It does not seem convincing though, and I have not seen something that supports Pilate's period as governor having been incorrectly dated." If you don't read the pdf, then you probably never will. Besides, it's an easy, non-technical read and should be quickly accomplished. (my mediocre writing skills, aside.)
Have a great day! Sorry for being so long-winded.
I will take a good look at your argument when I have time, but the crux thereof seems mistaken in my opinion. No offense meant.
