Minimalist

Well....Tiberius became emperor in 14 and Pilate's term as prefect dates to 26. But 26 is the year when Tiberius went into semi-retirement and relied on Lucius Aelius Seianius to run things. So Pilate could have been Seianus' man which explains why Vitellius Veteris removed him from office in 36.

stephan huller

I'm still on vacation and away from my library but Dio DOES NOT say that "Archelaus" was deposed so anyone arguing this is merely borrowing ideas from Josephus again. I hate typing on my smartphone but the bottom line for me is that if Schwartz and Evans can agree on something this is worthy of a second, third and fourth look. In short to keep an open mind.

The OP has nothing directly to do with Archelaus. My point is that previous threads have noted the early dating for the crucifixion in the pagan Acts of Pilate. All I did in this thread is to add another layer to that understanding. That Archelaus, is associated with the crucifixion in (a) the Epistle of the Apostles and a number of other sources including both the pagan Acts (via Eusebius's reaction) and the Christian Acts of Pilate.

Since Archelaus is by all accounts "earlier" than traditional crucifixion dating I strongly suspect these Archelaus crucifixion accounts represent a second layer to the 21 CE tradition.

The fact that 20 CE was a Jewish Sabbatical year clinches the argument IMO for its correctness as the year of the ministry of Jesus. Rabbinic reports acknowledge 69 CE as a sabbatical year. My guess - no my gut sense - is that the destruction MUST have been a Jubilee (= 49 + 1) also making the year of the crucifixion a Jubilee.

At last the gospel and its very name "gospel" make sense (= the traditional Samaritan use of the equivalent Arabic term in their Commentary on the Pentateuch = "the proclamation of the coming of the Jubilee in the sixth month period preceding the new year"). These arguments are so strong IMO that they drag the Archelaus dating along with them to 21 CE. That Josephus fails to mention 69 CE was a Sabbatical year is highly suspicious too. As Schwartz rightly notes the texts as we have them were manipulated by Christians - IMO in the third century after a similar outbreak of sabbatical messianism.

outhouse

Agreed. Evans is no dummy

maryhelena

My bolding.

Stephan, are you saying that Archelaus was ruling in Judea in 21 c.e.? Or are you saying that Archelaus was simply alive in Gaul at that time? You have a big problem re Archelaus ruling in Judea in 21 c.e. As for Archelaus being alive in 21 c.e., in Gaul - then he may as well be alive in 26 c.e. (the conventional dating for Pilate) and the crucifixion moved to that date - or later. You have not provided any evidence re dating for the death of Archelaus.

Yes, an early crucifixion dating re Acts of Pilate and dating Pilate early is possible. That some sources mention Archelaus in connection with Pilate and the crucifixion is indeed interesting. But without an evidenced dating for the death of Archelaus - the references to him and Pilate and an early crucifixion are not substantiated. The early crucifixion dating stands without Archelaus. The mention of Archelaus raises questions - but these questions can't be answered, in connection with an early crucifixion, without some evidence for dating the death of Archelaus.

stephan huller

I am saying that Dio's statement about "Herod of Palestine" cannot be used as anything other than a parallel to the story in Josephus about "Archelaus" (which I don't have in front of me because I am away from my library). Yes they are related. But IF there was a revisionist agenda in the surviving texts of Josephus it wasn't just directed against the pagan Acts of Archelaus (as pet Schwartz) but also a parallel tradition within Christianity. Both the pagan and heretical Christian traditions which identify the crucifixion as taking place before the fifteenth year of Tiberius seem to have drawn from (a) a date of 21 CE (b) an interest in the year as either related to a sabbatical year or a jubilee = "the year of favor" and/or related to (c) the reign of Archelaus. I think these three elements are authentic original components of the original Passion narrative deliberately and consciously obscured by the third century Christianized text of Josephus used by later Church Fathers to define the "under Pontius Pilate" in the near contemporary creeds.

maryhelena

my bolding

Stephan, I'm not going to keep banging my head over this issue. The rule of Archelaus in Judea ended, according to conventional dating, in 6 c.e. i.e. prior to the time of Pilate. If you want to make use of the sources which have Archelaus linked to Pilate re a crucifixion story - you have to offer some evidence about when Archelaus ruled, start and end, and the time of his death. You have not done that. Without that evidence, the sources that link Archelaus with Pilate to a crucifixion are open to serious questioning as to their credibility...

stephan huller

But the "conventional dating" is based on Josephus and Josephus has just been demonstrated to be wrong about the other half of the pairing in the Ep. Apost. = Pilate (according to a very conservative scholar = Evans) and specifically because of a reactionary agenda (= Eisler, Schwartz). So who cares about Josephus? There's a truth somewhere but as it stands a 21 CE for Archelaus is not impossible in light of the problems with Josephus

maryhelena

The 21 c.e. dating for a crucifixion story is possible re Josephus being ambiguous about dating Pilate - as Schwartz has shown. So, yes, dating Pilate is open to debate. However, just because the Josephan dating for Pilate is questionable, being ambiguous, that does not automatically mean that the Josephan dating for Archelaus is questionable - being as it is based upon the Josephan dating for the rule of Herod the Great.

Stephan, all of the Josephan history for the Herodians is questionable. However, one needs a better argument for dating Archelaus ruling in Judea in 21 c.e. than simply asserting that Josephus made a hash of dating Pilate - therefore - he also made a hash of dating Archelaus. Maybe he did - but the Pilate argument does not carry over to Archelaus. You need a better argument than that in order to question the conventional dating for Archelaus.

stephan huller

That is not what Schwartz says. Schwartz and Eisler assume Josephus has been tampered with by a late Christian anti-pagan redaction. I have gone one step further noting that the "correction" to Josephus was related to Luke and its anti-heretical (specifically Marcionite) agenda. Since Archelaus shows up in the now heretical (or pre-Lukan) tradition as Pilate's counterpart in the earlier crucifixion dating I think it is safe to say it is part of the tradition which Luke sought to "correct" hence it is likely that Christians as well as pagans thought Archelaus reigned beside Pilate in 21 CE

andrewcriddle

I don't really see how one can get around Cassius Dio as confirming the deposition of Archelaus in the reign of Augustus. I.E. even if Pilate was appointed very early on in the reign of Tiberius it would still be after the deposition of Archelaus.

(Also the whole point of the imperial prefects in Judea was to keep order after the abolition of a client tetrarch for Judea. If Archelaus was still ruling Judea there would be no need for Pilate.)

Andrew Criddle