Sejanus, Pilate and the dating of the Crucifixion

[Erik Nelson]

On what grounds would this be a 'concession after the fall of Sejanus'? I don't think we have enough information thereon to tell.

To release prisoners to the populace upon their request was a recognised principle of Roman Law, such as when Pliny records criminals being freed in this manner; or when Josephus records Albinus releasing prisoners. When such a practice became coupled to passover is an open question (though perhaps suggested in the Mishna too), but it doesn't seem unreasonable for the Romans to do this as a public relations exercise on Passover. After all, it is all about the Jews being freed from captivity in Egypt, and the large crowds would need to be kept well-disposed to the Roman Authorities that needed to keep the peace with likely little manpower.

Christian Apologetics UK: Would Pontius Pilate have Released a Prisoner at Passover?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Christian Apologetics UK: Would Pontius Pilate have Released a Prisoner at Passover?

Yes, I basically agree with this article. I don't see how this suggests it being a post-Sejanus concession though.

In Justinian's code, the final form of Roman Law, we see the principle enshrined that a magistrate may pardon criminals if he so wishes, on the grounds of Aequitas as a 'higher principle of Justice' due to the general feelings of society.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yes, I basically agree with this article. I don't see how this suggests it being a post-Sejanus concession though.

In Justinian's code, the final form of Roman Law, we see the principle enshrined that a magistrate may pardon criminals if he so wishes, on the grounds of Aequitas as a 'higher principle of Justice' due to the general feelings of society.

well, wasn't it described as a "tradition"? Could a "tradition" be only 2 years old?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

well, wasn't it described as a "tradition"? Could a "tradition" be only 2 years old?

No, but Roman rule itself only started in 6 AD, so any tradition had to have been less than 20 years for a Passover release.

 

[Erik Nelson]

No, but Roman rule itself only started in 6 AD, so any tradition had to have been less than 20 years for a Passover release.

pre-Roman Jewish tradition?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

pre-Roman Jewish tradition?

Possible. I think the idea of the Passover as releasing the Jews from captivity in Egypt, suggests it as a practice.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Possible. I think the idea of the Passover as releasing the Jews from captivity in Egypt, suggests it as a practice.

John 18:39
But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

 

[Erik Nelson]

Archaeologists Identify 'Lost' Jerusalem Street Built by Pontius Pilate — the Man Who Condemned Jesus to Death | Live Science

"archaeologists from the Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University dug down beneath the street, reaching areas that had been sealed off by the street's mortar. They found dozens of coins, with the most recent dating back to A.D. 30/31, a time when historical records show that Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea. The absence of coins from later times indicates that most or all of the construction was done when he was prefect"
​

built as a concession after the fall of Sejanus?

fall of Sejanus in 31AD enabled the execution of John the Baptist in 32AD??

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Archaeologists Identify 'Lost' Jerusalem Street Built by Pontius Pilate — the Man Who Condemned Jesus to Death | Live Science

"archaeologists from the Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University dug down beneath the street, reaching areas that had been sealed off by the street's mortar. They found dozens of coins, with the most recent dating back to A.D. 30/31, a time when historical records show that Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea. The absence of coins from later times indicates that most or all of the construction was done when he was prefect"
​

built as a concession after the fall of Sejanus?

fall of Sejanus in 31AD enabled the execution of John the Baptist in 32AD??

No way to establish causation of this road, as not mentioned in our sources.

John the Baptist was executed by a Roman client king, who ruled the area he was active in, so Rome was probably unbothered either way. The fall of Sejanus likely has no relation to his execution (which we don't know the exact date of anyway).

 

[Erik Nelson]

No way to establish causation of this road, as not mentioned in our sources.

John the Baptist was executed by a Roman client king, who ruled the area he was active in, so Rome was probably unbothered either way. The fall of Sejanus likely has no relation to his execution (which we don't know the exact date of anyway).

we don't know when the road was constructed, though evidently after 30/31 AD

wouldn't the Romans have dug down to lay down foundations for the paving stones?

So the original builders may have dug down through and removed layers which had contained coins from 32+ AD ?

when after 31 AD is the most plausible time period to place the construction? 40s AD ? with the construction of the 2nd / 3rd walls & towers ?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

we don't know when the road was constructed, though evidently after 30/31 AD

wouldn't the Romans have dug down to lay down foundations for the paving stones?

So the original builders may have dug down through and removed layers which had contained coins from 32+ AD ?

when after 31 AD is the most plausible time period to place the construction? 40s AD ? with the construction of the 2nd / 3rd walls & towers ?

You've got it the wrong way around. The oldest coins they found, under the paving stones, was 31 AD. So the road was likely built 31 or 32 AD, as that was the coins of the era dropped therein. Certainly possible it was built later, but that would mean accounting for the lack of later coins.

 

[Erik Nelson]

You've got it the wrong way around. The oldest coins they found, under the paving stones, was 31 AD. So the road was likely built 31 or 32 AD, as that was the coins of the era dropped therein. Certainly possible it was built later, but that would mean accounting for the lack of later coins.

when romans built roads, they built them to last

so they excavated and filled in with sand & gravel, yes?

so, they themselves removed 6" of soil, which could have contained coins dated after 31 AD? The newest coin, in the undisturbed soil beneath even the road foundation, was 31 AD... but there was originally another 6" of soil above that?

Or are you saying a previous cobbled road was ripped up, and the workers in their haste or what not, dropped some of their pay, consisting of freshly minted coins from the years they were employed , 30/31 AD ?

Guess it doesn't make sense that there was open field from Siloam to the Haram al-Sharif in 31 AD ??

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

when romans built roads, they built them to last

so they excavated and filled in with sand & gravel, yes?

so, they themselves removed 6" of soil, which could have contained coins dated after 31 AD? The newest coin, in the undisturbed soil beneath even the road foundation, was 31 AD... but there was originally another 6" of soil above that?

Or are you saying a previous cobbled road was ripped up, and the workers in their haste or what not, dropped some of their pay, consisting of freshly minted coins from the years they were employed , 30/31 AD ?

Guess it doesn't make sense that there was open field from Siloam to the Haram al-Sharif in 31 AD ??

You won't find coins older than when the surface was laid, no. So the oldest date the road could have been built is 31 or 32 AD. Yes, they excavated before they built the road, but during construction the fill they used always contained coins of low denomination - from pay or just carelessness. The fact is they excavated then filled the road surface with rubble, so that rubble layer - and the spectrum of coins it contains - dates when the road itself was built.

 

[Erik Nelson]

You won't find coins older than when the surface was laid, no. So the oldest date the road could have been built is 31 or 32 AD. Yes, they excavated before they built the road, but during construction the fill they used always contained coins of low denomination - from pay or just carelessness. The fact is they excavated then filled the road surface with rubble, so that rubble layer - and the spectrum of coins it contains - dates when the road itself was built.

if you believe Biblical and Talmudic reports, of damage to the Temple during the Crucifixion event, could that favor a 30 AD Crucifixion date, with a 31 AD completion of road renovations (perhaps from the earthquake) ?

what about Barabbas' rebellion, more fitting under Sejanus (due to grievances) or after (due to laxer governance) ?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

if you believe Biblical and Talmudic reports, of damage to the Temple during the Crucifixion event, could that favor a 30 AD Crucifixion date, with a 31 AD completion of road renovations (perhaps from the earthquake) ?

what about Barabbas' rebellion, more fitting under Sejanus (due to grievances) or after (due to laxer governance) ?

I see no reason to think there was any laxer governance under Pilate at any point.

Sure, you can connect the road renovations to damage after an earthquake, but you'd first need to establish an early Crucifixion date before then - else that is merely a circular argument.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I see no reason to think there was any laxer governance under Pilate at any point.

Sure, you can connect the road renovations to damage after an earthquake, but you'd first need to establish an early Crucifixion date before then - else that is merely a circular argument.

The fact does remain, that Pilate did stall & stall, until he did get the Jewish leaders to say "we have no king but Caesar"

Then he immediately ordered the Crucifixion of "the king of the Jews" twice mocked, by both Roman client king & Caesar

Pilate may have been "playing dumb", "what, me?", but he did achieve a clear, complete & unambiguous affirmation of loyalty?

As you said, "no laxer government under Pilate at any point". So, the Gospel accounts are just about as consistent with 30 AD under Sejanus as with 33 AD after his tenure?

30 AD earthquake damage + 31 AD renovations including road repair is a consistent narrative, a plausible abduction ?

What about Barabbas? 27/28 AD Sabbath year, 28/29 AD Jubilee year, peak of John the Baptist's preaching... inspiring Barabbas' revolt the very next Passover 30 AD?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The fact does remain, that Pilate did stall & stall, until he did get the Jewish leaders to say "we have no king but Caesar"

Then he immediately ordered the Crucifixion of "the king of the Jews" twice mocked, by both Roman client king & Caesar

Pilate may have been "playing dumb", "what, me?", but he did achieve a clear, complete & unambiguous affirmation of loyalty?

As you said, "no laxer government under Pilate at any point". So, the Gospel accounts are just about as consistent with 30 AD under Sejanus as with 33 AD after his tenure?

30 AD earthquake damage + 31 AD renovations including road repair is a consistent narrative, a plausible abduction ?

What about Barabbas? 27/28 AD Sabbath year, 28/29 AD Jubilee year, peak of John the Baptist's preaching... inspiring Barabbas' revolt the very next Passover 30 AD?

No, I don't consider the attempted release of Jesus an example of being particularly more lax. I mean, Jesus was crucified after all. It is more important to explain why he needed to placate the Jewish authorities then, while otherwise depicted as not being too bothered - keeping in mind that our Jewish sources are highly biased against him, as you would expect. Judaea was never an easy posting.

As to Barabbas, we only know of him from the Gospels. How extensive his 'revolt' was is unknown, but likely minor - perhaps he was just a highwayman.

Abduction follows from propositions, but the idea of the road construction being post-earthquake is not reasoned therefrom, but a proposition itself. Essentially you have proposed an earthquake in 30 AD, that the road construction constitutes repairs thereof in 31 AD, and linked it to the crucifixion account but placed in 30 AD. These are mutually dependant propositions, a circular argument in other words, not really abductive reasoning. If you could establish one of these propositions on its own, you could conjecturally derive the others perhaps, but not as it stands.

 

[Erik Nelson]

No, I don't consider the attempted release of Jesus an example of being particularly more lax. I mean, Jesus was crucified after all. It is more important to explain why he needed to placate the Jewish authorities then, while otherwise depicted as not being too bothered - keeping in mind that our Jewish sources are highly biased against him, as you would expect. Judaea was never an easy posting.

As to Barabbas, we only know of him from the Gospels. How extensive his 'revolt' was is unknown, but likely minor - perhaps he was just a highwayman.

Abduction follows from propositions, but the idea of the road construction being post-earthquake is not reasoned therefrom, but a proposition itself. Essentially you have proposed an earthquake in 30 AD, that the road construction constitutes repairs thereof in 31 AD, and linked it to the crucifixion account but placed in 30 AD. These are mutually dependant propositions, a circular argument in other words, not really abductive reasoning. If you could establish one of these propositions on its own, you could conjecturally derive the others perhaps, but not as it stands.

well, that's what abductive reasoning is?

you try to weave a parsimonious & natural narrative around known facts, augmented with plausible inferences:

earthquake at Crucifixion => repairs & renovations
road repair & renovation in c. 31-32 AD
-----------------------------------
Crucifixion in 30-31 AD​

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

well, that's what abductive reasoning is?

you try to weave a parsimonious & natural narrative around known facts, augmented with plausible inferences:

earthquake at Crucifixion => repairs & renovations
road repair & renovation in c. 31-32 AD
-----------------------------------
Crucifixion in 30-31 AD​

Again, these are dependant upon one another. In essence, this whole is a circular argument and thus one proposition in toto. We don't know that the road construction represents 'repairs' rather than a new road, for instance. We know a road was built 31 AD about, and Jesus was crucified sometime around that decade and reportedly there were earthquakes during this event. There is a difference between an inference and a supposition, and connecting these events is the latter, not the former. If the road fill was crumbled masonry or so, or we have some form of geologic evidence of an earthquake in 30 AD, that would be a different kettle of fish.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Again, these are dependant upon one another. In essence, this whole is a circular argument and thus one proposition in toto. We don't know that the road construction represents 'repairs' rather than a new road, for instance. We know a road was built 31 AD about, and Jesus was crucified sometime around that decade and reportedly there were earthquakes during this event. There is a difference between an inference and a supposition, and connecting these events is the latter, not the former. If the road fill was crumbled masonry or so, or we have some form of geologic evidence of an earthquake in 30 AD, that would be a different kettle of fish.

and more evidence to consider

this isn't circular reasoning

I'm not saying one thing is true because of something else because of the first thing

this is standard law enforcement Abduction, trying to fit the facts all at once into a single narrative

it's an explanation, not a proof

I haven't proved anything, just offered a "compelling" if unsubstantiated interpretation of facts, connecting them together into a single storyline

more evidence would be far more preferable of course