DCHindley

Since I have taken a week of vacation, I had the opportunity to look into the matter of the authenticity of the Acts of Pilate circulated during the rule of Maximinus Daia.

Eusebius mentions these Acts of Pilate (and even of Jesus) in two places. Eusebius calls them forgeries that fly in the face of the chronology of Josephus.

I. The first is:

Eusebius, Church History I.ix.1-3

1. … The same writer [Josephus], in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities [18:32-35, 89], says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently [311-313 CE] given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

3. 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;

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 [Josephus' Ant 18:32-35, 89] that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

What does Eusebius suggest by the phrase "if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed"? Find below the two passages of Josephus' Antiquities book 18 regarding the governorships of Valarius Gratus and Pontius Pilate:

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 [legate of Syria] 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 [late 36 CE], and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he dared not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.

Note that the detailed accounts of Gratus' governorship cover only the first four years of a rule that supposedly ran seven years longer. In fact, Gratus seemed to have intentionally appointed a new high priest each Jewish New Year [1st of Tishri in Fall of year].

Robert Eisler had proposed in 1930 that our copies of Josephus had corrupted numerals in these two accounts. I am unwilling to look it up in Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist as Eisler can be a pain to search through, but I believe Eisler's suggestion was that Pilate was actually appointed after Gratus served only four years (i.e. 19 CE).

II. The other problem is that Josephus does not give the years of rule of any other Roman governor mentioned except for those of Pilate [18:89] and his predecessor [18:35]. This kind of irregularity, and only when it comes to governors affecting the dating of Jesus' death as presented in the NT, does suggest that the text has been tampered with.

Such an alteration to book 18 of Josephus' Antiquities would have to have been made between 305 CE and 325 CE when Eusebius wrote the Church History.

III. Based on these two points, I think it is at least possible for Josephus' accounts of the governorships of these two men to have been tampered with.

If one is willing to entertain the possibility that Pilate was actually appointed after Gratus served only four years (i.e. 19 CE), then the Acta Pilati circulated under Maximinus to be correct in dating the events surrounding Jesus to 21 CE. if so, then the preserved text of Josephus has been altered to remove any possibility of a date of 21 CE being correct. Such an alteration, if it occurred, would suggest that this Acta of Pilate were seen as enough of a threat that mss of Josephus would be altered to help dispose of that threat.

To be continued ... DCH

DCHindley

IV. The basis for Eusebius' charge that the Acts of Pilate that circulated with Maximinus's approval were forgeries, is related in the following passage:

Eusebius, Church History, IX.

II.1. But the tyrant [Maximinus Daia] who, as we have said, ruled over the districts of the Orient [Asia Minor, Syria], a thorough hater of the good and an enemy of every virtuous person, as he was, could no longer bear this [edict of toleration of Christians, issued by Galerius April, 311];

and indeed he did not permit matters [of toleration] to go on in this way quite six months [Oct 311]. Devising all possible means of destroying the peace, he first attempted to restrain us, under a pretext, from meeting in the cemeteries.

2. Then through the agency of some wicked men, he [Maximinus Daia] sent an embassy to himself against us, inciting the citizens of Antioch to ask from him as a very great favor that he would by no means permit any of the Christians to dwell in their country; and others were secretly induced to do the same thing.

The author of all this in [Syrian] Antioch was Theotecnus, a violent and wicked man, who was an impostor, and whose character was foreign to his name. He appears to have been the curator of the city.

III.1 [For] After this man [Theotecnus] had [previously up to the edict of toleration] carried on all kinds of war against us and had caused our people to be diligently hunted up in their retreats, as if they were unholy thieves, and had devised every sort of slander and accusation against us, and become the cause of death to vast numbers, he [Theotecnus] finally erected a statue of [Maximinus Daia in the guise of] Jupiter Philius [the god of friendship or good-will] with certain juggleries and magic rites.

And after inventing unholy forms of initiation and ill-omened mysteries in connection with it, and abominable means of purification, he exhibited his jugglery, by oracles which he pretended to utter, even to the emperor [Maximinus Daia];

and through a flattery which was pleasing to the ruler he aroused the demon [the god Jupiter Philius] against the Christians and said that the god had given command to expel the Christians as his enemies beyond the confines of the city and the neighboring districts.

IV.1. The fact that this man [Theotecnus], who took the lead in this matter, had succeeded in his purpose, was an incitement to all the other officials in the cities under the same government to prepare a similar memorial [to Maximinus Daia as Jupiter Philius].

And the governors of the provinces [under Maximinus' rule] perceiving that this was agreeable to the emperor [Maximunus] suggested to their subjects that they should do the same [that is, erect images to Maximinus as Jupiter Philius].

2. And as the tyrant [Maximinus Daia] by a rescript declared himself well pleased with their measures, persecution was kindled anew against us. Priests for the images 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.

3. 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.1. [They] Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate and our Saviour full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor [Maximinus]'s approval to the whole of the empire subject to him [Asia Minor & Syria], 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, to be studied and learned by heart.

2. While these things were taking place, another military commander, whom the Romans call Dux [the commandant of the Roman garrison in Damascus], seized some infamous women in the market-place at Damascus in Phoenicia, and by threatening to inflict tortures upon them compelled them to make a written declaration that they had once been Christians and that they were acquainted with their impious deeds,--that in their very churches they committed licentious acts; and they uttered as many other slanders against our religion as he wished them to.

Having taken down their words in writing, he communicated them to the emperor [Maximinus Daia], who commanded that these documents also should be published in every place and city.

It is hard to tell whether Eusebius is saying that the popular worship of Maximinus Daia literally exploded after he reversed Galarius' edict of toleration in late 311 CE. It seems unlikely that all these shrines and the priests and high priests popped up in a little under two years time. The erection of shrines across Asia and Syria plus the appointment of priests and high priests by Maximinus himself might rather suggest that Maximinus had been encouraging this kind of reverence for him ever since his appointment as Caesar in 305 CE.

To be continued ... DCH

DCHindley

V. For those who do not know, these events occurred in a period called the Tetrarchy, set up by emperor Diocletian in 293 CE, when rule of the Roman empire was divided between the Eastern and Western spheres. Initially, each sphere had a Senior Emperor known as an Augustus and a Junior emperor known as a Caesar.

In 305 CE, the Senior Augustus Diocletian (Eastern empire) and the Jr Augustus Maximian (West) had voluntarily abdicated and left the empire in charge of Constantius (Augustus) and Severus (Caesar) in the West, and Galerius (Augustus) and Maximinus Daia (Caesar) in the East.

In 306 CE the Sr Augustus of the West, Constantius, died unexpectedly and Severus was elevated to Sr Augustus of the West under the terms of the Tetrarchy. Constantius' son Constantine was named Caesar in the West under Severus, although he felt he should have inherited the position of Augustus instead of Severus.

In the same year, Maxentius had rebelled against Severus, proclaiming himself Augustus, and gained control of Italy (including Rome) and Africa. Galerius, the Senior emperor of the East, refused to accept this violation of the terms of the Tetrarchy and reinforced Severus' army in order to defeat Maxentius. Unfortunately, many of these troops had served under Maxentius' father Maximian, the retired Augustus of the West under Diocletian, who was now Maxentius' Junior Augustus. As a result, most of these troops defected to Maxentius, resulting in Severus becoming a captive.

In 307 CE, without a Senior Augustus in the West, Constantine tried to assume this role without consulting Galerius, and Galarius angrily rejected this self-appointment. In order to garner Constantine's support, Maxentius elevated him to Junior Augustus in his illegitimate regime. Because Constantine, who was related by marriage to Maxentius, preferred to stay out of this war between Galerius and Maxentius, Maxentius granted that Constantine would not be asked to attack Galerius, whom Constantine still respected.

In 308 Galerius, Senior emperor the East, appointed his general Licenius as Senior Augustus of the West and provided a large army with orders to unseat Maxentius. With this large force under Licenius' control, Constantine's loyalty switched back to Galerius, and he accepted demotion to Caesar of the West under Augustus Licenius.

In 309, at Galerius' urging, retired Augustus Diocletian threatened to come out of retirement and make war on Maximian if he did not abdicate, as Diocletian felt it was improper for Maximian to have come out of retirement in the way he did. Maximian does so, and becomes a general under Constantine.

In 310, the two senior Augusti, Licenius (West) and Galerius (East), jointly issued an edict elevating both of the Caesars (Constantine in the West, Maximinus Daia in the East) to the status of an Augustus.

In 311 CE Galerius died shortly after his edict of toleration was issued in April, and Maximinus Daia was automatically promoted to Senior Augustus under the terms of the Tetrarchy agreement. However, Maximinus was weak in the eastern European provinces and Licenius, who controlled much of Western Europe above the Danube River, was quick to force Maximinus to agree to let him "administer" Eastern European provinces for him.

Around 312 Maximinus Daia, offended by Licenius' forced agreement, entered into a pact with the rogue Augustus Maxentius, who was fighting against Licenius in the West. However, in that same year Constantine was able to defeat Maxentius, and retook Italy and Rome, with Africa promptly submitting to him as well (he sent the local generals in Carthage Maxentius' severed head).

In 313, Maximinus Daia attempted to regain control of Eastern Europe from Licenius by attacking him, but he was soundly defeated and died in July or August of that same year.

VI. So here we have the period in which these Acts of Pilate could have been circulated: From Maximinus' appointment as Caesar of the East in 305 CE to his death in 313 CE. If the reversing of Galerius' the edict of toleration in late 311 is the trigger, then the window of opportunity is just under two years (Oct 311 - July/Aug 313 CE). The city leaders of Asia and Syria could have had access to records in Rome, as theoretically inter-empire travel was guaranteed by the rules of the Tetrarchy. Maximinus (East) and Maxentius (rebel West including city of Rome) were in cahoots from 311 CE until Constantine defeated Maxentius in 312.

To be continued ... DCH

DCHindley

VII. Since Eusebius felt that the Acts of Pilate circulating during Maximinus Daia's rule were forgeries, did he believe there were bona-fide Acts of Pilate?

Justin mentions some sort of "Acts" of Pilate in the following places in his Apology:

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.

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.

I am not so sure he is referring to genuine published Acts (spurious or real), which Pilate would write up periodically, in Latin (where they would be called commentarii), to send to Rome for review by Tiberius' chief of staff. Instead, he may have been bluffing: "Go ahead, check Pilate's commentarii if you don't believe Christ was crucified, had his garments gambled for, or healed the lame and blind, just as sacred scripture foretold!" For all we know, Justin may have actually believed this was all on record. If it was true Jesus did these things, as he believed, how could it NOT have been reported to the emperor?

Tertullian seems to be aware of something purporting to be a fabulous report about Jesus by Pilate to Tiberius. So fabulous, in fact that Tiberius is converted to a believer in Christ's divinity, and recommends that the Roman Senate affirm it as well:

Apology 5:1 To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus Aurelius had experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man. 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.

Apology 21:1 All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word (what is the Latin word here?) 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.

Not to be outdone, Eusebius even gilds Tertullian's Lilly, adding even more details to bolster its credibility:

Church History, 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.

VIII. In conclusion, the Acts of Pilate circulating in Maximinus' time could have been based on actual detail in the archives of Rome. Eusebius, who preferred that these Acts reflect a positive portrait of Jesus as Tertullian held, rejected the ones circulating in Maximinus' region in which the portrait of Jesus was negative.

I know that all this information is a lot to wade through, but it has to be waded through to get at the heart of the issue.

DCH

maryhelena

Wow, DCH, your a star!

Great work in putting all this together. My thanks. :wave:

maryhelena

Yes, the possibility that the mss of Josephus have been altered, to remove the problem of the 7th year of Tiberius "passion"/crucifixion of JC, is there. However, the question becomes who did it?

In my thread on the TF I suggested that it was not Eusebius but Josephus himself who 'interpolated' the 11 and 10 years for Gratus and Pilate respectively. i.e. it was Josephus who saw the need to contradict himself re the dating of the TF with the additional years assigned to Gratus and Pilate. Why?

Because that 7th year of Tiberius date was related to an earlier gospel JC storyline: gJohn and gMark having no specific dating for Pilate and gMatthew only having the mention of Archelaus (4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) which is more an update, a narrower time-slot, for JC's birth (thereby moving the dating of the Slavonic Josephus storyline).

The 'interpolation' of these dates for Gratus and Pilate had to be done before gLuke could be written. Thus, it's far more likely that these additional pseudo-historical years were originally by Josephus. The TF, in Antiquities, could not be moved to a new timeslot because of it's placing within the account that is now referred to as Slavonic Josephus, prior to 19 c.e. (possibly an account from an earlier edition of War).

gLuke is the issue here. It's that gospel that moved the JC birth date to 6 c.e. - ruling out a passion/crucifixion in 19 c.e. (or 21 c.e. if one wants to work from the sole rule of Tiberius in 14 c.e. instead of his co-regency from 12 c.e.) gLuke's new chronology has ruled out, negated, an earlier storyline in which JC was crucified in the 7th year of Pilate. The story moves on to the 15th year of Tiberius with JC crucified, about 30 years old, in 36 c.e. Pilate, given 10 years from 19 c.e., his last historical year would be 29 c.e. - where gLuke places him. However, gLuke wants JC to be about 30 years at crucifixion, 6 c.e. to 36 c.e. - so seven pseudo-historical years are added to Pilate's rule.

That is the conclusion that can be reached - Josephus did it - when the TF and the 7th year of Tiberius JC passion/crucifixion story (a story that the forged Acts of Pilate was intent upon spreading ) are allowed to tell their own story. A story that supports the conclusion that gLuke's dating for JC is not the original dating for the JC story. gLuke did an update. And that update demonstrates that the JC story is a moving, a fluid story - hence the JC figure is not a historical figure.

The old storyline - crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius - did not die an easy death. Any documents containing that story had to be labeled 'forgeries' - that's the work of JC historicists indent upon running with the updated version, the gLuke updated version, of the JC storyboard. Yes, one wants the latest in everything - but for anyone interested in early christian origins - the latest story cannot become a dead-end; it cannot be used to nullify or negate the importance of the earlier versions of that story for understanding early christian origins.

LegionOnomaMoi

Yes, because he argued (contra Eusebius and everyone else) that the Acts of Pilate were accurate.

Not really. First, there's Jewish Wars. Second, right before the first century, there were no Roman Governers. The first governer was Coponius whose rule, BTW, Josephus discusses. See AJ 18.2.2ff. (or, if you prefer line numbers, start at 29). Third, none of the dates are given explicitly, but require working with other information, and this includes the dates for Pilate and the rest. Fourth, Pilate was the last, as after him his position was absorbed by Vitellius legate of Syria (as you noted), and during Vitellius' rule the siege of Jerusalem began.

So we have a handful of governors from the start of the first century to Pilate. The dates for all of them have to be inferred by clues Josephus gives through context and the relationship of these governors with other figures. What, then, suggests that the text has been alterted?

Such an alteration to book 18 of Josephus' Antiquities would have to have been made between 305 CE and 325 CE when Eusebius wrote the Church History.


That's probably quite accurate. The one thing is that whatever biases Eusebius clearly had for preferring the accounts of Justin and Tertullian about an report by Pilate, there was also the fact that Justin was writing fairly close to the first century, and might have had access to something actually written by Pilate (he almost certainly didn't have anything other than a forgery at best), whereas the "negative" Acts of Pilate was written, according to Eusebius, long after Justin (and even Tertullian) were dead.

Vorkosigan

Read Hindley's quotes again:

• Justin mentions some sort of "Acts" of Pilate in the following places in his Apology:
  
  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.
  
  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.

Assuming Justin knew this document -- and I see no reason why not -- it is clear that this document, like the gospels, is a fiction based on midrashic construction off the OT. The piercing by nails and the casting of lots are creations off the Psalm. The Christians attributed it to Pilate just to give it verisimultude.

What this might suggest is that Acts of Pilate 2nd century, which Eusebius had at least heard of through Justin, spurred the creation of a CounterActs of Pilate in the early fourth.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

BTW DCH, this is a very clear explanation of the issue. Excellent work.

Vorkosigan

What was the motive for moving the birth so JC could not have been executed in 21?