Duvduv

Does this mean that somebody simply chose to interpolate this little reference to the "Acts of Pilate" in the first Justin Apology to give the Apology more veracity for the 2nd century? I suppose if they had, they could have at least had Justin using the names of the canonical gospels and make at least one reference to "Paul", but they didn't fix it up for some reason....

mountainman

There is great confusion about what is meant by the term "The Acts of Pilate". There appears to be at least three different documents or manuscripts that are sometimes referred by this name. SeeThree Acts of Pilate - we have:

(3.1) The very early christian "Acts of Pilate"
(3.2) The early fourth century pagan "Acts of Pilate"
(3.3) The late fourth century christian "Acts of Pilate"

About 3.1:

Duvduv

If Justin really directed his emperor to a text in his archive that doesn't even exist, it would be like someone telling the president to look in Library of Congress for all information about how George Washington cut down the cherry tree or the adventures of Paul Bunyan.

DCHindley

Dave,

You'll never avoid bias, I'm afraid. The trick to interpreting "history" (historical narrative) is to recognize that facts about history are always analyzed from the perspective (POV) of the author of that history, and thus are retold anew.

You, the reader of those histories, have to figure out a system to neutralize the bias, and recover the facts that had been relayed. I do this by ignoring the "color commentary" contained in the historical narrative.

Someone has already introduced the Acts of Pilate, but seems to confuse them with the Acts of Pilate mentioned mentioned by Eusebius, and again with the books so named that have been preserved among Christian apocrypha.

There are three writers who speak of Acts of Pilate:

Justin says:

The Apology of Justin 1:35 And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts (ακτων) of Pontius Pilate.

The Apology of Justin 1:48 There are these words: "At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

These "aktOn" (Acts, sometimes referred to as Acta) are actually the official notes of trials and decisions that government officials were expected to record and periodically forward on to their superiors. Bureaucrats at the next level summarized them into statistics and forwarded the statistics up the chain of command to the Imperium or the Senate.

What Justin is confidently assuming is that the truth of the Christian accounts of Jesus and his death could be confirmed by reference to these kinds of official records. However, what the upper levels of the bureaucracy did with the original records is not known, but I will note that remains of a number of them (by village magistrates and regional governors) were found in the garbage dumps of Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, although these may be the copies publically posted at the magistrate's office each day.

Tertullian says:

Tertullian Apology 5:1 Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.

Tertullian Apology 21:1 All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

It appears that Tertullian is even more confidently assuming that whatever Acta he received from Palestine would have been sooooo compelling that the Emperor would certainly have ruled Jesus divine, but since he hadn't, the Senate must have restrained him.

Eusebius says:

Church History of Eusebius, II.ii. AND when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.

They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate, but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.

These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome. In his apology for the Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek, he writes as follows: "But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree n that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus. And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported (αγγελθεντος) to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians."

When Eusebius says "they say" it sounds to me like Eusebius hadn't himself actually seen this miraculous account, but is referring to the "accounts" of Tertullian and Justin.

Eusebius also mentions certain Acts of Pilate that were published in the reign of emperor Maximin around 311 CE, in two separate places:

Church History of Eusebius I.ix.2-4 The same writer (Josephus), in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius ... Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea [Ant. 18:32-35], and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius [Ant. 18:89].

Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts (υπομνήματα) against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign [ca 21 CE]; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

What Eusebius means by "if Josephus is to be accepted" is this:

Antiquities of the Jews 18:32-35 32 ... Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, ... 33 upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. 34 This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest: which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; 35 and, when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor [i.e. in the 12th year of Tiberius, 26 CE].

Antiquities of the Jews 18:89 89 So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he dared not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.

Eusebius's comment suggests that not everyone accepted the reading that yields 26 CE for the appointment of Pilate, or there was doubt about the accuracy of his sources in this case. The detailed accounts of Gratus' governorship cover only the first four years of a rule that supposedly ran seven years longer. This, plus the fact that specific numbers are attributed to Gratus and Pilate alone (11 & 10 years respectively, while all the other governors' actions before and after Gratus and Pilate are dated by year of the reign of the emperors), might suggest that Josephus' account was tampered with and that Pilate was actually appointed after Gratus served only four years (i.e. 19 CE). This would allow the Acta Pilati of Maximin to be correct in dating the events surrounding Jesus to 21 CE.

To justify his charge that the Acts published by Maximin, which disagreed with the dating inferred from the Gospels, surely had to be fabrications, he says further:

Church History of Eusebius IX.iv-vi: iv ... Priests for the images [erected to emperor Maximin as a god by the Greek cities of the provinces] were then appointed in the cities, and besides them high priests by Maximinus himself. The latter were taken from among those who were most distinguished in public life and had gained celebrity in all the offices which they had filled; and who were imbued, moreover, with great zeal for the service of those whom they worshiped.

Indeed, the extraordinary superstition of the emperor, to speak in brief, led all his subjects, both rulers and private citizens, for the sake of gratifying him, to do everything against us, supposing that they could best show their gratitude to him for the benefits which they had received from him, by plotting murder against us and exhibiting toward us any new signs of malignity. v. [These then,] Having therefore forged Acts (υπομνήματα) of Pilate and our Saviour full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor's approval to the whole of the empire subject to him, with written commands that they should be openly posted to the view of all in every place, both in country and city, and that the schoolmasters should give them to their scholars, instead of their customary lessons, be studied and learned by heart.

These have nothing to do whatsoever with the apocryphal Acts of Pilate preserved in Christian literature.

You, as a reader of history, have to learn to read between the lines.

DCH

Duvduv

It's kind of amusing to see this author ("Eusebius") spend so much time and effort talking about the enemies who plotted against his group when it was his group that was attaining favor with the rulers against all others......

mountainman

Yes it does sound like the usual inevitable vagueries ....


But how can we be reasonably sure? Scholarship seems to have convinced itself that the manuscript in our possession was authored by christians in response to the "Pagan Acts of Pilate", presented above as reported by Eusebius. The text itself in its current form has the date of 425 CE written in the text. A number of scholars allow that this date could have been altered, from an earlier date, but most scholars provided as estimated chronology for the "Late Christian Acts of Pilate" as being within the fourth century. In their book Apocryphal gospels Hans-Josef Klauck and Brian McNeil (2003) write:

"By c.378 CE, Epiphanius of Salamis clearly knows Christian Acts of Pilate,
which existed in a variety of different versions (Panarion 50.1.5-8).
This allows us to date the composition of the Acts of Pilate to the first decades
of the fourth century; the author will have drawn on older material."

Can you DCH or anyone dig out the reasons by which scholarship has convinced itself that there were two 4th century "Acts of Pilate" - the one referred to by Eusebius as the "Pagan Acts of Pilate" and the other, the text in our possession ANOTHER separate and later "Christian Acts of Pilate".

Occam reckons there is no later Christian version, only the one "Pagan Acts of Pilate" and we are looking right at it, especially in the bit that Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the god Asclepius. I cannot honestly conceive of a 4th century Christian saying that Big J did his healing via the pagan god of medicine and physicians. It is more likely the author was a follower of Asclepius.

PhilosopherJay

DCHindley,

Excellent analysis of the problem.

I'll just add one more thought. Why does Eusebius not quote from the Christian Acts of Pilate? Why does he quote Tertullian instead? It is obvious that he does this because he does not have the Christian Acts of Pilate. Why doesn't he?

How could this ultra-important document have disappeared in the 100 year period from Tertullian to Eusebius. It seems ridiculous that if this document was in the possession of Tertullian, he would not have sent a copy of it to the Churches in Rome and Alexandria and they would not have circulated it to dozens of other churches. It would certainly have been important to every orthodox Church to have this document and circulate it as widely as possible to combat heresy, a central mission for the Orthodox Churches.

How could Justin know of the existence of this document and not seek out a copy to be certain what was in it?

We are left with only two realistic possibilities: Tertullian or somebody has duped Eusebius and he is transmitting a false description of a document that never existed or Eusebius himself is falsifying document tertullian and perhaps Justin's work.

We could permit Eusebius the excuse that he was duped if he had honestly raised the question of the missing document. He could have explained that Tertullian had kept the document in his possession and allowed nobody to copy it and it was destroyed in a fire or disappeared after his death. However, he does not do this, but gives the opposite impression that the document is in circulation and known.

Since Eusebius is concealing or lying about the availability of the document to himself and others, there is no reason to believe that he is not lying about the document itself. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that he is making up a Christian Acta of Pilate to combat the Roman Acta of Pilate, which is as he suggests, most likely a forgery.

Again we see that instead of being a concrete foundation for Christian history based on rock solid truths and near certain probabilities, in Eusebius, we have a muddy swamp of uncertainties and probable lies.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

Jay, who knows if Eusebius even existed or whether his book was a project written by others?
Who knows when it was actually even written?

DCHindley

According to the Wiki article, the apocryphal Acts of Pilate was composed in the "mid 4th century," around 325-375 CE, while Eusebius wrote the Church History no later than 325 CE. Of course this dating of the AoP may be due to the fact that Eusebius does not cite it.

"The main body of Acta Pilati is in two sections, with an appendix, Descensus ad Infernos—the Harrowing of Hell—that does not exist in the Greek texts, and is a later addition to the Latin versions.

The first (chapters i–xi) [of the Greek original] contains the trial of Jesus based upon Luke 23.

The second part (xii–xvi) regards the Resurrection. In it, Leucius and Charinus, the two souls raised from the dead after the Crucifixion, relate to the Sanhedrin the circumstances of the descent of Christ to Limbo. A literature of miracle-tale romance developed around a conflated "Leucius Charinus" as an author of further texts.

The [Latin] Harrowing of Hell episode depicts St Dismas accompanying Christ in Hell, and the deliverance of the righteous Old Testament patriarchs."

This is clearly the result of popular imaginitave story telling.

An appended text [The Report of Pilate to Claudius] purports to be a written report made by Pontius Pilate to [Tiberius] Claudius [Nero = emperor Tiberius], containing an anti-Semitic description of the crucifixion, as well as an account of the resurrection of Jesus; both are presented as if in an official report [that is, official Acta].

Justin was confidently asserting what he merely assumed, that such an official report would certainly, in his humble opinion, have existed. He does not claim to know what it said. Since Christian Apologists were generally ignored by the authorities, I doubt anyone was going to spend the time to research any official archives to refute it. Imagine Justin saying to the government records clerk: "Hello, I am a member of a banned religious sect here to see the memiors of the Prefect Pontius Pilate, please."

Even though the Report of Pilate from the mid 4th century claims to have been found in the archives of the Roman Praetorium in Jerusalem, the fact was that any files resident there were likely destroyed in the rebellion of 66-74 CE (look what happened to the records maintained by the extensive bureaucracy of Saddam and Qadafi after their regimes fell).

Tertullian was clearly passing on a pious rumor. The best you get is that Tiberius received "intelligence" from Pilate. It seems the Latin word was "adnuntiatum" which is the passive participle of a verb meaning to announce or proclaim something. This is not really "intelligence" but already a legendary announcement to Tiberius of the wonders happening in Palestine.

Tiberius ergo, cuius tempore nomen Christianum in saeculum introivit, adnuntiatum [was announced] sibi [to him] ex Syria Palaestina, quod illic veritatem ipsius divinitatis revelaverat, detulit ad senatum cum praerogativa suffragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit; Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatus periculum accusatoribus Christianorum.

Eusebius places his stamp of approval on the almost legendary rumor relayed by Tertullian, and opposes it to the version published by the co-emperor maximin in 311 CE, which dates the events to 21 CE instead of around 30 CE like the gospels do.

Unfortunately he gives very little detail other than a specific date for the "passion" of the Lord. Seeing that if they were correct it would call into question the Christian gospel accounts, of course he is going to say Maximin's version is a "forgery!" It does not appear that Maximin's Acta had anythiong good to say about Jesus.

As noted before, there is evidence that the preserved text of Josephus has been altered to remove any possibility of Maximin's date (21 CE) being correct. Rather than indicating Maximin's Acta were fabrications, it suggests rather that they were seen as enough of a threat that mss of Josephus would be altered to help dispose of the threat.

Such an alteration to book 18 of Josephus' Antiquities would have to have been made between 311 CE (the year Maximin published what he purported to be actual Acts of Pilate) and 325 CE when Eusebius wrote the Church History. Eusebius was fully aware that not everyone was happy with the text of Josephus as he recounts it.

DCH

maryhelena

And that's it - a story re a crucifixion of JC in 21 c.e. has to hit the dust! Antiquities has to be made ambiguous re dating Pilate...And all for what? One can go the route that its all in vain; all for the dubious task of historical make-believe. Or? Simply a 'salvation' history, a pseudo-history, from day one - a storyline that does not require historical precision in it's telling. It's only once the JC story was viewed as historical that the charges of forgery and interpolation can be entertained. The author of that story - or safe-keepers of that story - had the artistic license to update, re-tell or make deletions or additions to it.

I've recently updated my earlier chart re the 21 ce dating referenced by Eusebius. What I have done is work with the idea of an ur-Luke - starting from 3:1. (sure, from a 'Q' perspective this might not go down well - but I'm interested in the development of the gospel storyline re JC....) A storyline that has moved with the times, as they say, and sought to update the time frame for the JC pseudo-history as historical events change. Resulting in a JC story that is 'salvation history' not actual history.

Slavonic Josephus: Birth of an Anointed One and Wonder-doer story	gJohn	gMark	ur-Luke - from 3:1: The 15th year of Tiberius: 29/30 c.e.	gMatthew	gLuke - with birth narrative	-
Birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c.	-	-	Birth in 1 b.c. if Jesus about 30 years old in 15th year of Tiberius	No specific dating for Jesus birth narrative during the rule of Herod the Great. 40 b.c. to 4 b.c. (or 1 b.c.)Jesus a young child during time of Herod Archelaus (4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) Indicating a birth close to end of rule of Herod the Great.	Jesus and JtB birth narratives in 6 c.e	-
John the Baptizer and Herod Archelaus.(4 b.c. to 6 c.e) “And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.	Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.	Early gMark probably contained the Archelaus divorce story and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra, the wife of Alexander. Indicating a crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius in 21 c.e.The Archelaus history becomes the basis of the later Antipas, Herodias and Philip story.	A birth date that requires the Antipas and Herodias story.	The divorce of Archelaus and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra, the wife of Alexander, the basis of the Antipas, Herodias and Philip story.	The Antipas and Herodias story.	-
Herodias married to Philip the Tetrarch	-	Herodias married to Philip	Possibility that u-Luke also referenced Philip as husband of Herodias	Herodias married to Philip	No mention of Philip being the husband of Herodias. Josephus: Antiquities, 94 c.e. providing a different ‘history’.	-
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. Josephus dating of Pilate ambiguous, can be dated to 19 c.e. Wonder-doer figure is around 46/47 years old in 21 c.e. Eusebius mention of a crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e	JC, not yet fifty. Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate.	Crucified under Pilate. About 30 c.e. with a 1 year ministry	Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate, about 36 c.e. if born in 6 c.e. and about 30 years old at crucifixion. However, gLuke's new dating structure is ambiguous and contradicts that of ur-Luke.	-