gavriel said

maryhelena said
Regarding Daniel Schwartz and his early dating for Pilate in Judea. His latest book, Reading the First Century (2014) supports his earlier argument (1992). Has Schwartz made any headway with his early dating for Pilate. Indeed he has. 

The Josephan scholar Steve Mason:

“We also have enough independent and multiform evidence, it seems to me, to declare it more probable that he took up office in 18 than in the accepted year, 26 C. E.”

** you do not have permission to see this link **

 

Kenneth Lonnqvist has an argument based on lead in coins…..an argument that supports early dating for Pilate in Judea.

Pontius Pilate  –  An Aqueduct Builder?  –  Recent Findings and New Suggestions

** you do not have permission to see this link **

While not yet a consensus position  –  an early dating for Pilate seems well on its way….

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century:

”The third question, whether any copyists had anything to gain by
making Pilate’s career begin later than it really did, has led scholars to
notice, and to bring into the present discussion, the fact that the Church
father Eusebius reports in his Church History (Book 1, Ch. 9) that there
was circulating, in his day (the early fourth century), an anti-Christian text
purporting, so it seems, to be Pilate’s report to Tiberius about the case of
Jesus. Eusebius argues that those so-called Acta Pilati must be false since
they date the report to Tiberius’ fourth consulate, which came in 21 CE –
five years before Pilate in fact entered into office, according to Josephus.
However, since it is difficult to believe that forgers of such Acta Pilati would
choose a date so easily refutable on the basis of the main relevant source, it
may well be that their copy of Antiquities did not include the chronological
data in Antiquities 18.35, 89. The fact that Eusebius read the Testimonium
Flavianum in his copy of Antiquities, whereas a century earlier Origen apparently did not, makes it all the more likely that also the chronological data in Eusebius’ copy of Josephus, and hence in our texts, were the contribution of creative Christian copyists.

We could, and elsewhere have, delve more into the ins and outs of this
type of argument. In the present context, where the focus is upon methodology, suffice it to say that it was only by rubbing Tacitus against Josephus
that we began to notice such things as the lack of proportion between Josephus’ account of Gratus’ tenure and the length he ascribes it, the unique
status of Josephus’ chronological data for just these two governors, the
juxtaposition of Germanicus’ death and Pilate’s entrance into office, the
open question as to what Rome did about the Judean and Syrian complaints
Tacitus reported for 17 CE, and Eusebius’ report about the false Acta Pilati.
That is quite a lot of leads, and some meaningful results, stemming from the
comparison of two texts”.

On gJohn’s not yet 50 years old   –  it’s in the text and it’s up to each of us to make of it what we will…

I think you have to reproduce the arguments, rather than referring to books that are not available online. That Schwartz himself thinks that his original proposition is strengthened , is not surprising.

The argument you quote from Schwartz taken in isolation is weak.  The Acts of Pilate is some work of a forger, and much later than Josephus. Whatever Eusebius is referring to, that forger may simply have lifted his assumptions from Josephus, committing the same interpretation error from the Josephan order of narratives. Not convincing.

These days one can find a pdf of almost anything online. As it is I gave a link to the Lonnqvist article.

As to the Acts of Pilate being a forgery  –  very bad forgery don’t you think… For anyone to be stupid enough to write such a work when gLuke was in circulation boggles the mind….If, as is the consensus position, gLuke was the last of the synoptic gospels  –  then there was a time when stories about an earlier than gLuke crucifixion were possible. Basic logic here 😉

All the author of the ‘forgery’ needed for the 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story was  –  Josephus! The TF and it’s Pilate mention is placed within a section of Antiquities dealing with events around 19 c.e. The expulsion of Jews from Rome being dated, via Tacitus, to around 19 c.e. So  –   the Josephan dating of the TF contradicts gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius! Oh, you might say, Josephus got things in the wrong order  – but one would need evidence for that. That Josephus got things in the wrong order in some places does not translate to he always put stuff in the wrong order  –  therefore the TF is in the wrong pace. Why? Because gLuke, the last of the synoptic gospels tells a different story re the gospel crucifixion…That approach is not dealing with history. It is dealing with an interpretation of the gospel story.

History, as now suggested by Daniel Schwartz, and supported by leading Josephan scholar, Steve Mason, relates to Pontius Pilate being in Judea from around 18/19 c.e. Yes, a long rule for Pilate  –  a long rule which could be accounted for by Josephus:

Antiquities Book 18.ch.6.5.

‘’Tiberius….…..that he permitted those governors who had been sent once to their government [to stay there a long while], out of regard to the subjects that were under them;’’.

An early crucifixion date is a challenge to the Jesus historicists. If, as is evident, from both the Acts of Pilate, re Eusebius, the context of the TF in Antiquities and an early dating for Pilate  –  then the story in gLuke  regarding a 30 year old crucified man in the 15th year of Tiberius is questionable. No, of course not, I don’t think the author of gLuke is telling lies  –  as I don’t think the author/authors of the early crucifixion story, 7th year of Tiberius, were lying. Why not? It really is simple  –  these stories are not about a flesh and blood Jesus. The Jesus of the gospel story is a literary creation. As such this symbolic figure can be set down in whatever context the author desires. Whether it’s the time of Alexander Jannaeus, the time of Herod I, or the time of Quirinius  –  these stories reflect a political allegory, they reflect history they are not history. It’s the long shadow of Jewish history that is reflected in the gospel story. The gospel story is not the history of that story’s central character –  to read the story that way is to miss the only roadway that has the potential of reaching early christian origins. Jewish history has to be paramount  –  not interpretations of the gospel story.

Why did gLuke change the story from Herod I to Quirinius? One reason would be that he wanted to close the door to Jewish history. One way to do this was to remove his Jesus figure from connection to Herod I. Having his Jesus born under Quirinius  –  born when no descendant of Herod I ruled in Judea  –  allowed a Jews against Rome scenario to cloud the Herod vs the Hasmoneans history and Herod’s execution, via Marc Antony, of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. The gentile mission required that any Jewish nationalistic issues be side-lined. The road to a spiritual kingdom necessitated that hopes for a Jewish Kingdom, freedom from Rome, be closed. 

The author/authors of gLuke moved the Jesus story to the time of Quirinius and the 15th year of Tiberius. Unfortunately for the Lukan writer, earlier versions of the Jesus story continued to exist. The Lukan update, like all updates, would be taken up by some and not by others. Some people stay with Windows XP and others stay up all night to get the latest version 10…Knowing the old versions of Windows (3.1 anyone… )allows one to appreciate how far it has come with version 10. So, with different versions of the Jesus story  –  knowing early versions allows one to appreciate the story’s development  –  and allows one to ‘see’ that story for it’s political allegory rather than a romanticized story about an illiterate carpenter preacher that was for dubious reasons crucified under Pilate.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century. From page 139.

5.6.4 Tacitus pushes us to examine Josephus’ story more closely,
and this fills out our dossiers

As already broached in another context (Section 5.6.2.1), both Josephus
(Ant. 18.65–84) and Tacitus (Annals 2.85 – GLA, no. 284) report that in the
days of Tiberius the Senate took punitive measures against Egyptians and
Jews in Rome, expelling thousands from the city. They also indicate that
this occurred in connection with charges of promiscuous sexual behavior:
in Josephus this nexus is explicit and detailed, for he tells how Egyptian
priests and some Jewish con artists were guilty of taking advantage of
some respectable Roman matrons. In Tacitus, as so often, a similar result is
achieved via innuendo, namely, by bringing the Senate’s decisions to conscript and expel Egyptians and Jews right after a paragraph dealing with the problem of prostitution and profligacy. Given this juxtaposition of Jews
and Egyptians, their punishment, and the context (both writers even specify
Sardinia as the place to which the conscripts were sent), it seems very clear,
as scholars agree, that both writers are reporting the same events. But there
does seem to be a major discrepancy between the two writers concerning
the chronology of the events in question, for while both put them in the
days of Tiberius (who ruled 14–37 CE), Tacitus – by his references to consuls – clearly places the events in 19 CE while Josephus, after beginning his account of Pontius Pilate, including his first two clashes with the Jews and
then the Testimonium Flavianum, introduces these Roman stories by saying
they happened “at the same time.” According to the usual reconstruction
of events, Pilate was governor of Judea for a decade beginning in 26 CE, so
Josephus seems to have dated these events in Rome at least 6–7 years later
than Tacitus did.

Much scholarly attention has been devoted to this problem, and it seems
that, if we set aside the desperate suggestion that the authors refer to different expulsions, there are three main approaches. Namely, we may:

(a) reject Josephus’ dating of Pilate so as to move the beginning of Pilate’s term
of office up to 19 CE;

(b) assume Pilate indeed began to serve in 26 CE and that Josephus placed these
stories several years too late, and then go on to wonder whether he erred out of ignorance or, rather, deliberately misplaced these stories for some reason, such as the desire to juxtapose these Roman cheats to his account of Jesus; or

(c) reread Josephus in a more general way, so that when he says the Roman events
happened “at this same time” he means not “the time of Pilate” but, rather, “the time
of Tiberius.”

Each of these options has its merits, and what is important is that each leads
us to investigate Josephus more thoroughly than might otherwise have occurred to us. To take them in order:

(a) Move up Pilate’s appointment?

The usual reconstruction of Pilate’s term of office as running 26–37 CE is based on three explicit Josephan data:
at Antiquities 18.33a he reports Tiberius’ accession to the imperial throne,
at § 33b we read that Valerius Gratus was appointed governor of Judea,
and § 35 reports that after eleven years in the governorship Gratus was
replaced by Pontius Pilate. Given Tiberius’ accession to office in August
14, this would bring us down to 25 or 26 CE, depending upon how long we
imagine it took Tiberius to remove Gratus and appoint his replacement, and
how long it took the latter, Pilate, to arrive in Judea. Correspondingly, in
Antiquities 18.89 we read that Pilate served ten years, then (after suspension
from office) hurried to Rome but by the time he arrived Tiberius had died.
Tiberius died in March 37, which means that Pilate began to serve around
26 or 27 CE. These two data, in § 35 and § 89, which fit one another well
insofar as they fill up Tiberius’ years as emperor (as is pointed out explicitly
in Ant. 18.177 as well), are quite clear and unambiguous, but they are also
the only explicit evidence for dating Pilate’s entry into office as Gratus’
successor.

Without Tacitus, we might not think twice about these data. However,
once Tacitus pushes us to think about this some more, we easily note two
striking facts:

(1) any reader of Josephus’ account of Gratus should be very surprised to read
that Gratus served eleven years, for all Josephus tells us of his affairs, in Antiquities
18.34–35, is that he deposed four high priests one after the other: one upon his arrival
in Judea (so it sounds), the second – “not long thereafter,” the third and the fourth
after a year each – whereupon he was recalled to Rome and replaced by Pilate. Were it
not for the fact that the received text of Josephus states “eleven” we probably would
have guessed “three” or “four.” It could be that our guess, that is, our impression
from the story itself, is better than the received text of this numeral.
(2) Josephus mentions, in his Antiquities, twelve Roman governors of Judea, and
three others in his War, but it is only regarding Gratus and Pilate that he states (in
our two passages in Ant. 18 – §§ 35, ) how long they served. That makes these data
suspicious, and since they apply to the governors of Judea in the most interesting
period of Judean history in the eyes of Josephus’ Christian copyists, it is not difficult
to suspect that some well-meaning copyist attempted to make Josephus more specific
than he really was.

Suspicions, however, are not the same as conclusions. What is important, in
the present context, is that such suspicions as these should send us off to do
three things: (1) to see if there is any other evidence, in Josephus, for placing
Pilate’s appointment to office around 19 CE; (2) to see if there is any other
evidence, outside of Josephus, for things changing in Judea around 19 CE;
and (3) to see whether there was any good reason for a copyist of Josephus
to want to make Pilate begin governing later than he really did. These all
prove to be fruitful.

(1) The first question immediately directs our attention to the fact that
Josephus begins his account of Pilate’s service as governor, in Antiquities
18.55, right after referring to the murder of Germanicus (Tiberius’ nephew,
Claudius’ brother), which occurred in 19 CE (§ 54).This suggests that
Josephus thought that is when Pilate entered into office. In fact, since the
appointment of Pilate was mentioned in § 35 but the account of his tenure
begins only in § 55 it sounds like the reader is meant to imagine Pilate traveling from Rome to Judea around the same time as the events recounted in between – which culminate, as stated, with Germanicus’ death in 19 CE.

(2) The second question leads us to ask what else was happening in our
region in 19 CE, and that takes us directly to a Tacitean passage concerning
17 CE (Annals 2.42.5 – GLA no. 283) where we read of complaints, by the
inhabitants of Judea and Syria, about the high tribute they were required to
pay. Tacitus does not say how the complaint was handled, but since Germanicus’ mission to the East, which began in 17 CE, was intended to deal with various disputes and complaints that had arisen around the Roman
East, the Judeans’ complaints could well have been on his agenda. Switching governors is always a way of mollifying provincials.

(3) The third question, whether any copyists had anything to gain by
making Pilate’s career begin later than it really did, has led scholars to
notice, and to bring into the present discussion, the fact that the Church
father Eusebius reports in his Church History (Book 1, Ch. 9) that there
was circulating, in his day (the early fourth century), an anti-Christian text
purporting, so it seems, to be Pilate’s report to Tiberius about the case of
Jesus. Eusebius argues that those so-called Acta Pilati must be false since
they date the report to Tiberius’ fourth consulate, which came in 21 CE –
five years before Pilate in fact entered into office, according to Josephus.
However, since it is difficult to believe that forgers of such Acta Pilati would
choose a date so easily refutable on the basis of the main relevant source, it
may well be that their copy of Antiquities did not include the chronological
data in Antiquities 18.35, 89. The fact that Eusebius read the Testimonium
Flavianum in his copy of Antiquities, whereas a century earlier Origen apparently did not, makes it all the more likely that also the chronological data in Eusebius’ copy of Josephus, and hence in our texts, were the contribution
of creative Christian copyists.

We could, and elsewhere have, delve more into the ins and outs of this
type of argument. In the present context, where the focus is upon methodology, suffice it to say that it was only by rubbing Tacitus against Josephus that we began to notice such things as the lack of proportion between Josephus’ account of Gratus’ tenure and the length he ascribes it, the unique
status of Josephus’ chronological data for just these two governors, the
juxtaposition of Germanicus’ death and Pilate’s entrance into office, the
open question as to what Rome did about the Judean and Syrian complaints
Tacitus reported for 17 CE, and Eusebius’ report about the false Acta Pilati.
That is quite a lot of leads, and some meaningful results, stemming from the
comparison of two texts.

(b) Deliberate misplacement?

A second approach to the discrepancy between dating the Roman events to 19 CE and Josephus’ placing them in the framework of Pilate’s tenure admits that Josephus’ arrangement is wrong,
chronologically, and suggests that, if not simply due to error, it may have
derived from Josephus’ desire to juxtapose the Roman scandals to his account of Jesus, which had to come in the chapter about Pilate. In particular, it has been suggested that since the first Roman story is about the way
some villains took advantage of a naïve Roman lady by letting her think her
sexual partner was a god, Josephus – it has been suggested – juxtaposed it
with the Testimonium Flavianum in order to make fun of the belief in the
virgin birth. However, as things stand the Testimonium is very positive
about Jesus but makes no mention of the notions that Jesus’ father was
God or his mother a virgin. Moreover, this type of hypothesis entails the
additional notions that (1) the Testimonium was originally negative and
(2) the beliefs about Jesus’ father and mother were current early enough for
Josephus to mock them. The former issue would take us to such points as
the fact, noticed above (n. 60), that § 65 seems to indicate that the Testimonium, which immediately precedes it, reported some sort of tumult, as well as other evidence concerning the text of the Testimonium; the latter issue
would take us into New Testament scholarship and its attempts to trace the
development of the beliefs in question, a development that was part and
parcel of the transformation of a national savior (“Son of David”) into a
universal one (“Son of God”). Thus, just as the preceding hypothesis took
us both into the Josephan context and, eventually, to Tacitus and Eusebius,
the present one would take us into the Josephan context and, eventually, to
the New Testament.

(c) Chapter on Tiberius, not on Pilate?

The suggestion – as old as Johannes Keppler – that Josephus considered his chapter to be defined by the term of
office of Tiberius as emperor, not that of Pilate as governor of Judea, so the
Roman stories would not be out of place, chronologically, leads to an investigation of the “markers” Josephus used to distinguish one chapter from the next. Was the structure of his narrative, for the first century, supplied
by the succession of emperors or, rather, by that of the governors of Judea?
I have discussed this in detail elsewhere, and with the help of an analysis of
all of Antiquities 18–20 have shown why it seems that Josephus considered
“this time” to be that of Pilate, not that of Tiberius. True, there are some
open questions in that case, some room for more thought. In the present
context it is enough to say that whoever wants to pursue this type of argument needs to go through large sections of the Antiquities so as to assess how it divides into chapters.

Pursuing these avenues of research will contribute to our certainty as
to when Pilate became governor of Judea. Some will care about this, others might not. What is clear, however, is that even those who don’t want “merely” to “mine” Josephus for “facts” should realize that it was only
the external pressure, of Tacitus, that forced scholars to read Josephus with
eyes that allowed them to see all there is to see. Those who read Josephus
all by himself will never know, for example, that Germanicus died in 19 CE
(a point that is quite clear in Tacitus’ annalistic narrative but
not at all indicated by Josephus), hence never have the occasion to wonder
why Josephus juxtaposed that death with the beginning of Pilate’s tenure,
something that apparently contradicts Josephus’ dating of that tenure – a
point which we may pursue as we like, whether to learn more about Pilate
or, rather, more about Josephus.

Continuous narrative – continuous history? From Germanicus to Pilate
(Ant. 18.35, 55)

To illustrate, finally, what we can learn from Josephus from such avenues of
research, let us revert for a moment to the point mentioned earlier: Josephus
announces Pilate’s appointment in Antiquities 18.35 but has him arrive and
begin to rule Judea only twenty paragraphs later (§ 55), after recounting all
sorts of events in the East. For the reader, the effect is as if Josephus sent
Pilate on his way from Rome to Judea and then, to fill up the time while he
traveled, told us about events elsewhere in the world. This, in fact, is a usual
ploy; note, for a nearby example, that after Antiquities 18.1–3 says Quirinius
came to take a census in Judea and liquidate Archelaus’ estate there, Josephus first rants about rebels of the “Fourth Philosophy” (§§ 4–10) and then goes on to give a long account of all four Jewish sects (§§ 11–25). After all that, he resumes the narrative at § 26 by noting that “by now” Quirinius had
completed the liquidation of Archelaus’ estate – as if time has passed since
he first mentioned Quirinius’ mission. Indeed, the reader who has read several pages since then may feel well-prepared for this notice, although those pages did not record a single event said to have occurred in the meantime. Similarly, in War 3.503–505, after Josephus reports that Vespasian, on the
western shore of the Sea of Galilee, ordered the construction of a fleet of
rafts, he then proceeds to give a long geographical excursus describing the
Sea and its environs (§§ 506–521), after which he picks up the narrative at
§ 522 with “Vespasian, when his rafts were ready […]” – and the reader
can appreciate that some time was needed for their construction. Anyone
interested in assessing Josephus’ artistic capacity, or his notion that history
must be continuous, would not want to miss this. But if we now revert to
the postponement of Pilate’s arrival in Antiquities 18, we may note that
these analogies suggest that Josephus indeed meant us to understand that
Pilate was appointed around the time of Germanicus’ mission to the East
and death there, of which his narrative filled up, as it were, the time Pilate
needed for his trip to Judea.

Once we take note of this Josephan penchant for a continuous narrative,
which was so strong that he used extraneous excurses to give us the impression that time passed when time had to pass, we might infer that when he has no such excurses to offer he might portray events as if they were continuous even if they were not. Thus, for example, we have already noted that
although Josephus says at Antiquities 13.254 that after the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes (129 BCE) John Hyrcanus I “immediately” started a series of military campaigns, archaeological and numismatic evidence shows that in fact more than fifteen years went by. Any discussion of such moves by
Josephus presupposes a willingness to read extra-Josephan evidence in order
to determine whether Josephus’ account corresponds to events or, rather,
to his ignorance or to his own notions of what makes a book good reading.
Thus, even those who want to focus on Josephus himself cannot neglect
comparing him to others, if they want to work with as much evidence about
Josephus as possible.

————————————————–

gmatthews said

maryhelena said

If we find historical blunders in ancient writing  –  then it becomes the job of historians to address them. That’s what Daniel Schwartz does. Dealing with historical blunders is not a job for NT scholars who might be influenced by their NT interpretations or in some way have vested interest in how the historical blunders are addressed.

However these infancy stories, including Matthew, most likely has no chronological shift compared to the underlying Jewish-christian tradition, which originally contained the basic elements: Miraculous birth, birth in Bethlehem and settlement in Nazareth.  Out of these 3 elements, only the third is historical. The early Christians worked their way backwards from Jesus self-assignment as a Messiah, thus giving birth to later legends, wildly off the starting point.

When do historians (those that are strictly historians) ever get involved in “proving” the historicity of the Gospels?  None step foot in this arena because they know their limitations.  For those of us who are agnostic the Nativity stories are, like gavriel said, obviously almost entirely made up by working backwards trying to insinuate something divine in every aspect of the life of Jesus.  

Indeed it’s a pity that historians don’t like to get into what for them maybe termed ‘theological waters’….That does not mean, of course, that when a source makes historical claims that historians should not be at the ready to offer their assistance in verifying the claims.

Indeed, one can argue that the nativity stories are working backwards in order to add the divine to the life of the gospel story. Divine claims saddled with historical claims  –  would not the divine claims be good enough? Jesus born somewhere at an unknown time would surely carry enough weight for theological purposes? That the authors of the nativity stories chose to add historical time frames to their stories indicates that they must have had a reason for doing so. 

There’s not a single person on the planet who has the slightest bit of interest in the Bible who doesn’t have an opinion one way or the other as to the historicity of the Nativity.  There is no middle ground here.  Unless you want to find someone from Asia who has never been exposed to Christianity to decide what is a Biblical historical blunder or not you’re going to have to make do with the rest of us.  I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that I’m only interested in what really happened.  Let the chips fall where they may.  When you have an obvious interest in at least one Nativity story being true doesn’t it seem a bit condescending to tell the rest of us that our interpretations might be influenced?  From a purely scientific vantage a lot of the Nativity stories are outlandish when viewed clinically.  Immaculate conception?  Wise men following a stationary heavenly object that no one thought to make a record of?  But, my opinions might be influenced?

Methinks your reading me wrong! I very much have an interest in both nativity stories. I am not choosing between them. It’s the chronology of both stories that has value  –  not the dating of one nativity story above the other. The authors saw fit to date their nativity stories differently. Two completely different time frames. Sure, it’s easy to say this does not matter that gLuke, for example, made a historical blunder so one can try and work around Quirinius in some fashion in order to lessen the problem. I don’t find that a satisfactory manner of dealing with Luke’s supposed historical blunder. Luke contradicts Matthew  –  and it’s that contradiction that has to be faced instead of attempting to brush it under the carpet. 

As to Luke’s timeline I’m surprised gavriel hasn’t mentioned the opinion of the first couple of chapters of Luke being tacked on later possibly affecting that.  If that bit was added at some point 100 years later (or what ever the prevailing opinion is) then I would expect there to be some problems with the time line.  The editor wasn’t there after all.  How many Americans can name more than 2 consecutive US presidents from 100 years ago?

I’ve no problem with that. The update is there however and still needs to be addressed for what it is: a contradiction of Matthew’s nativity story. Even if, for the sake of argument, the gospel story was written 300 years after the Pauline epistles, it still has to be dealt with for what it says, for what it claims. Dating of the written source does not change the dating, the setting, of the story the written source contains. Additionally, the Jesus story is not confined to our canonical gospels   –  allowing more scope for research for the historical claims the Jesus story makes. The gospel story makes historical claims. It has a historical time-frame. To address the historical claims it is necessary to step outside the story, as it were, and deal with history. One can interpret the story in many ways  –  as a story. However, if historical verification of the claims made in the story are important  –  then interpretation of the story has to give way and allow the light of history to do it’s job.

In the case of the OP  –  asking the age of Jesus  –  the history of Pilate becomes relevant. When did Pilate arrive in Judea? The historical and numismatic evidence is now pointing towards an early arrival  –  17/18 c.e. A consequence of that dating suggests that the TF is not out of place in it’s Antiquities 19 c.e., position. That has consequences for Luke’s 6.c.e. Quirinius birth narrative and his Jesus being 30 years old when crucified  –  a crucifixion in 36/37 c.e., a crucifixion which would be outside of the Antiquities TF time slot of 19 c.e. Why did Luke set his Jesus story in the time of Quirinius…..Sure, one can say that question can’t be answered. But that leaves us with the plain fact of the matter  – a new birth date for the Jesus nativity story…A historical blunder or method in the madness? A Jesus historicist has to run with the historical blunder  –  an ahistoricist can take Luke at his word and seek not to resolve the supposed contradiction with Matthew  –  but to allow the contradiction to present an alternative scenario.

(Arguments have been made that Matthew’s birth narrative can run back as far as 12/11 b.c.e.  –  thus it’s Jesus could be around 30 years of age at a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius  –  either 19 or 21 c.e.  –  thus fitting the Antiquities TF  –  and the Acts of Pilate). 

maryhelena said: Indeed, one can argue that the nativity stories are working backwards in order to add the divine to the life of the gospel story. Divine claims saddled with historical claims  –  would not the divine claims be good enough? Jesus born somewhere at an unknown time would surely carry enough weight for theological purposes? That the authors of the nativity stories chose to add historical time frames to their stories indicates that they must have had a reason for doing so. 

gmatthews: Doesn’t it seem odd to create a frame work of campfire tales and legends and then intersperse a few historical details and then say those few details are wrong?  The way I see it the “historical” details were used to flesh out the story and modified as necessary.  Therefore, their “historicity” should be held at arms length when viewed under the microsope.  That’s just the way I’ve been viewing the Gospels the past few years.  How else to explain the vast differences in events that can be seen?  

I’ve no interest in ”THE Nativity having taken place”   –  I’m an ahistoricist after all  –  and been so for well over 30 years….. I see the dating used by the gospel writers as relevant to their story. That’s where we are using a different approache to the gospel story. My point is that the dating is not irrelevant but very much a part of the story that draws in history.

gmatthews: After Jesus appeared to his disciples after his Resurrection he told them to go to one place in one Gospel and another in a different Gospel.  Perhaps the kernel of truth in this is that they went somewhere after the crucifixion, but the where was unimportant to the Gospel writers since they were going to attribute the impetus to travel to Jesus.  Maybe I chose a bad example here, but the gist is what I mean by the “historical” events being used to help shape the narrative.

I don’t see that you have referenced any historical event in the above….all you have referenced are points taken from the gospel story…

gmatthews: While I’ve enjoyed the back and forth on what Josephus said compared to the Gospels, for me, I don’t really care how old Jesus was.  I believe he existed, but that’s all that’s important to me.  When I originally answered the OP I was giving an answer Martin Hengel roughly gave in different books and articles of his (I’ve read several of his books and articles over the past couple of years so his opinions, albeit colored by his religion, are fresh in my mind)

I don’t care either  –  re how old Jesus was  –  my view is that the gospel Jesus is a literary figure. Therefore,  Luke’s mention of age and dates of birth and crucifixion are not taken as applying to a flesh and blood man. These dates are part of a gospel template  –  a time-frame  –  in which the Lukan writer has placed the Jesus story. i.e. an interpretation of Jewish history, the meaning found within that history as it relates to OT and prophetic interpretations, is placed within a template  –  a prophetic template that involves dates that relate to, for the writer, important events in Jewish history. The Lukan writer is a past-master at this type of writing. History might be long in the tooth but create a prophetic template and reflections of historical events from within and without that template frame can all sit comfortably together. 

Birth narrative in 6 c.e. is around 70 years from 63 b.c.e. (Pompey in Jerusalem temple and Roman control of Judea..)

Jesus ministry at 30 years of age around the time of 15th year of Tiberius  –  29/30 c.e. is 70 years from when Antigonus became King and High Priest of the Jews in 40 b.c.e. Luke’s mention of Lysanias of Abilene points to a linkage to 40 b.c.e.

Give Jesus a three year ministry (gJohn) and a crucifixion in 33 c.e. and its 70 years back to the execution/crucifixion by Rome of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c.e.

Give Jesus a crucifixion in 36/37 c.e. (Josephus has John the Baptist killed at this time) and 100 years back is 63 b.c.e. and the Roman control of Judea.

I think, with the historicist vs ahistoricst debate it’s good to allow that both sides have good faith in their arguments. I put myself in the middle as I don’t ascribe to the Doherty/Carrier theory nor the Jesus historicist position. Unlike the Doherty/Carier theory, I believe that history is fundamental to the gospel story. The Pauline writing, to my thinking, is not the place to seek early christian origins. Theology or philosophy, which is what the Pauline writings are dealing with, is no substitute for historical research  –  and it’s historical research that is needed for the gospel story. Pauline theology or philosophy is no help for a historical study. The gospel story stands on it’s own feet  –  it does not need interpretations of the Pauline writings in order to deal with the historical reflections it contains. Unlike the Jesus historicists I don’t hold to a historical Jesus  –  but I do hold to the view that historical figures were important to the gospel writers and therefore relevant to their gospel story.

Anyway, gmatthews, thanks for the exchange of views. I probably won’t post any more on this subject right now as I’m leaving tomorrow for a week away  –  with little hope of having time to post….

gavriel said

maryhelena said
Another article for download by Kenneth Lonnqvist:

The Chronology and Tenure of Pontius Pilate: New Evidence for Re-dating the Period of Office

 

Dr. Kenneth Lönnqvist,University of Helsinki, Finland.
 
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Re-dating Pilate early  –  17/18 c.e.  –  means that the TF, with it’s mention of Pilate, is not out of place in it’s 19 c.e. time slot.  Indicating, of course, that there was an earlier Jesus crucifixion story. Rather than allowing gLuke to trump Josephus   –  much better to question our own understanding of Luke’s gospel….

Once again: Not convincing. Did you notice one of the conclusions: “However,accepting a ‘low chronology’ for Pilate would not compromise the traditional chronology of the events of the Gospels and the account of the crucifixion of Jesus,as our suggestion mainly deals with the date of accession of Pilate to office” 

Well  – the consensus is that there was a historical Jesus  –  therefore one would not expect this scholar to challenge that assumption. He is dealing with coins not interpretations of the gospel story!

The basic line of reasoning is that a change in the alloy used occurring around 17/18 signifies a change of governor. Why? It could result from anything occurring in the imperial mining sources.  Likewise the attempt to explain a change in style from a late Gratus coin (in 24/25 CE according to the traditional Gratus dating ) to an unquestioned Pilate style coin (CE 29/30) is explained by referring to political circumstances outside Palestine. The suggestion that the alloy change was influenced by the use of lead in Pilate’s aqueduct project is pure speculation.

In fact, my disbelief in the Pilate/Gratus revision increased after having read this article. Some scholars know how to write scholarly articles on thin air.

Yep, and some scholars go where the evidence leads 😉