PONTIUS PILATE

1 JOSEPHUS ON PONTIUS PILATE

According to the present version of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, Gratus became governor of Judea in 15 CE and held the position for 11 years, exiting in 26 CE. Pilate replaced Gratus in 26 CE and was recalled to Rome in 36-37 CE after serving in Judea for 10 years. All told, the two governors served from 15-37 CE, around 22 years. That is the traditional timeline. But could the traditional timeline be wrong?
I suggest that Gratus served only three years and that Pilate came onto the scene in 18 CE. This new dating is based upon three separate issues: the flow of Josephus’ account, the handling of Josephus’ history by the Christian historian Eusebius (Chapter 3) and the coin data from the time in question (Chapter 4).
The following list of events comes from Antiquities 18.1-119:

6 CE Census of Cyrenius
6 CE Introduction of Judas the Galilean and Sadduc
6 CE Four Philosophies: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Fourth Philosophy
6 CE Joazar – Serves as High Priest
6-9 CE Coponius – Serves as Roman Governor
6 CE Judas the Galilean – Leads Tax Revolt
6-15 CE Annas – Appointed High Priest by Coponius
9-12 CE Ambivulus – Serves as Roman Governor
12-15 CE Rufus – Serves as Roman Governor
15-26 (18) CE Gratus – Serves as Roman Governor
15 CE Ishmael – Appointed High Priest by Gratus
15-16 CE Eleazar – Appointed High Priest by Gratus
16-17 CE Simon – Appointed High Priest by Gratus
18-37 CE Caiaphas – Appointed High Priest by Gratus or Someone Else
26 (18)-37 CE Pilate – Serves as Roman Governor
18 CE City of Tiberius Completed
19 CE Germanicus, Father of Caligula, is Poisoned (Confirmed by Tacitus)
26 (19) CE Pilate Builds the Aqueduct
26 (19) CE Testimonium Flavianum (TF)
19 CE Paulina is Swindled by Unnamed Jew (Confirmed by Tacitus)
36 CE Pilate’s actions towards the Samaritans
37 CE Pilate returns to Rome
34 CE Philip Dies
36 CE Aretas and Herod Antipas go to War
36 CE John the Baptist executed by Herod Antipas

Four major problems exist in Josephus’ timeline from 6-36 CE, and each will be examined below.

One – The Use of Nicknames or Titles

Josephus names four individuals opposed to Herodian and Roman rule: Judas the Galilean, Sadduc, Jesus and John. One would expect that Josephus would use the given names for these individuals not their titles or nicknames. After all, Josephus was not a member of Judas the Galilean’s Fourth Philosophy and may not have been aware of the individuals’ nicknames. Josephus did mention James, the brother of “Jesus” but Josephus did not title him as “the Just” or “the Righteous One” (Ant. 20.200-214). (Note that after James was stoned to death, the Sicarii and not the “Christians” avenged him.)
Nicknames and titles were important to the Fourth Philosophy (the Jesus Movement) which modeled itself upon Judas Maccabee’s second-century BCE movement. Judas adopted the surname Maccabee, most likely meaning “the Hammer”. Each of his four brothers also went by a title: Eleazar “Avaran”, meaning 'the Piercer' (in reference to his death); Simon "Thassi", meaning "the Wise", or "the Director", or "the Guide", or "the Man of Counsel", or "the Zealous"; John “Gaddi”, meaning “the Treasure”; and Jonathan Apphus, meaning "the Diplomat" or “the Wary”, a trait prominent in him. (1)
Josephus did enumerate the above nicknames for Judas Maccabee and his brothers (Ant. 12.265-266). However, these nicknames were known to everyone as they appeared in literature of the times, per 1 Maccabees 2:1-5. In addition, Judas was a Jewish hero, one that Josephus would have admired. So, Josephus may have included nicknames or titles of those he admired, but that praise would not be accorded to those he opposed.
The New Testament uses several nicknames to describe the disciples, based upon their characteristics. John preached a baptism of repentance and righteousness and was nicknamed “the Baptist”; Simon became “Peter/Cephas” or the rock; James was called “Just” or the “Righteous One”; another Simon was designated as the “Zealot”; the sons of Zebedee were called “the Sons of Thunder”; and Judas was given the surname “Iscariot”, probably a garbling of Sicarios, the dagger men derided by Josephus. Could Jesus have been a nickname or title also? The name Jesus or Joshua, meaning Savior or salvation, would have reminded his followers that they would soon defeat Rome just as Joshua had conquered the Holy Land.
Concerning the Jesus title theory, we will use the words of Paul, a later disciple who never met “Jesus” in the flesh. In describing the Jewish Messiah, Paul interchangeably used the terms Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus. Surely Christ was a title, meaning Messiah, but what about Jesus? Was Jesus a title as well? Twice, Paul referred to the human origins of “Jesus”, both times using the title Christ instead of the name “Jesus”.

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! (Romans 9:5)

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. (2 Cor. 5:16)

Note that Paul believed that Christ Jesus was equivalent to God. Paul’s Jesus Christ had no contact with the physical world. That may be why he used the term Christ when referring to the worldly Messiah figure. Certainly, the term Jesus did not reflect the earthly Messiah or Paul would have used this instead of Christ in the above passages.
The name Paul, meaning small, was itself a nickname for Saul. Paul also used the nickname for Simon, calling him Cephas and Peter. He did, however, use the name James instead of his nickname “the Just” or “Righteous One”. But this usage may have been part of Paul’s strategy in fighting James. How would it look to his own disciples if he called his opponent the “Righteous One”. Instead, Paul coupled James with the circumcision group, who were vehemently opposed to his teaching to the Gentiles on circumcision and the Law.  
We must then come back to Josephus’ use of nicknames in his history. He was consistently opposed to Judas the Galilean and his followers. If this was his attitude, then why would he use the terms Sadduc (Righteous) and Jesus (Savior).  If we replace the nicknames of Sadduc and Jesus with John and Judas, we have created a new history, one that makes total sense.

Two – The Lives and Deaths of Judas the Galilean and John the Baptist

In 6 CE, Josephus really introduced us to John the Baptist and Judas the Galilean. Note that the Slavonic Josephus (SJ War 2.110) placed John right before the passage about Judas the Galilean. If true, then John came onto the scene in 6 CE, with his birth some 30 years earlier or around 25 BCE. Thus, if John died in 36 CE, then his ministry lasted at least 30 years, not the year or two as detailed in the Gospels. And if John’s ministry lasted 30 years, then the Messiah’s ministry may have also endured for a lengthy period, not the three years as claimed by the Gospels.
If the above scenario is correct, then a rereading of Josephus’ history only speaks of two individuals: Judas the Galilean, titled Jesus and John the Baptist, titled Sadduc. Josephus recounts Judas’ exploits (6 CE) and then tells of his death around 19 CE (TF). Likewise, he introduces John in 6 CE and recounts his death in 36 CE. Under the existing or traditional interpretation of these passages, we are to believe that Josephus attributed the creation of the Fourth Philosophy to Judas and Sadduc, a philosophy responsible for the downfall of the Jewish nation and as important as the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, yet provided no details of their deaths. Josephus detailed the crucifixions of Judas the Galilean’s sons James and Simon (Ant. 20.102) (about the same time that another James and Simon were imprisoned, per Acts 12), another son, Menehem, was killed in 66 CE (War 2.445-447) and a grandson, Eleazar, committed suicide at Masada in 73 CE (War 7.253; 388-398). The current explanation of Josephus’ omission of Judas the Galilean’s death is absurd. Josephus did tell us about Judas but this was changed to the current passage about Jesus’ death (TF).
The following passages from Josephus describe Judas the Galilean, Sadduc, Jesus (TF) and John the Baptist:

There was one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty. …For Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundation of our future miseries … because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction. …But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kind of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord. (Ant. 18.4, 9-10, 23)

A number of items jump off the page concerning Judas the Galilean. First, he aligned himself with another teacher, named Sadduc. Both teachers were revolutionaries, exhorting the people to assert their liberty from Roman taxation, for submitting to this taxation was akin to submitting to slavery. Thus, the Roman tax issue placed Judas against both the Herodians and the Romans. Note that this same tax issue was charged against Jesus before Pilate. “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2).
Second, Judas and Sadduc were so influential that Josephus elevated their movement to an historical level, placing their teaching next to the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. Josephus even blamed their teachings for the eventual war and destruction of Jerusalem, claiming that the teachings infected the younger Jews who became zealous for it. This sentiment is echoed in Acts 21:20 where James supposedly told Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.” In fact, Judas’ movement was the most important in first-century Jewish politics, yet that is not the impression given by Acts 5:37 where Judas was killed and his followers scattered, a one-hit wonder. But he was not a one-hit wonder. Josephus wrote that his movement captivated the Jewish insurgents from 6 CE to 73 CE, the last gasp at Masada. As important as both Judas and Sadduc were to Jewish history, Josephus would not have excluded their deaths from his history. Yet, their deaths are missing from the current texts of Josephus.
Third, Judas and Sadduc were nationalists, placing God’s nation above Rome. This attitude was at odds with the Herodians and wealthy High Priests, who lavished praise upon the Romans, as Rome represented money, power and their own security. Judas could call no man Lord or Ruler, those terms belonged to God. So, Judas could not serve both God and Rome, just as Jesus said: “No one can serve two masters. …You cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt. 6:24). And in the Slavonic Josephus, John the Baptist in 6 CE stated: “God has sent me to show you the lawful way, by which you will be rid of [your] many rulers. But there will be no mortal ruling [over you], only the Most High, who hath sent me” (SJ War 2.110).
Fourth, Judas’ followers would undergo any type of death rather than submit to any man as Lord. This, of course, was the same attitude present in the Christians at Rome during the persecution in 64 CE after the Great Fire. In fact, the great historian Gibbon believed that those being tortured were the followers of Judas the Galilean, not the Christians of the time. (2)

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Ant. 18.63-64)

Where do we begin? This Testimonium Flavianum or TF is one of two mentions of Jesus by our current edition of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. He is not cited once in Josephus’ War but is included in the Slavonic Josephus.
First, we are to believe that Josephus used the titles Jesus and Christ in his description, even going as far as declaring Jesus as the Christ. If this were original to Josephus, then Josephus was a follower of Jesus or at least a believer. However, we know that Josephus actually considered Vespasian as the Messiah, not Jesus. That makes it hard to believe that this part of the passage actually came from the hand of the Jewish historian. In addition, the passage claims that Jesus’ followers consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. Nowhere in Josephus’ writings of this time do we see a teacher with this type of following. It did not exist! However, during the time of Paul, teachings about “Jesus” were distributed among the Jews and Gentiles.
Second, the TF reads more like a later Church Creed than any actual reporting by Josephus. He was crucified under Pilate and raised three days later. No, this was not from Josephus. And where did the prophets foretell “these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him?” Sounds like the final passage in the Gospel of John: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25).
Finally, the TF sits squarely between two events from 19 CE: the death of Germanicus and the Paulina swindle, both included in the writings of Tacitus. Why would Josephus place a 30-33 CE event between two 19 CE events? Perhaps, the answer is that the death of “Jesus” really occurred in 19 CE, not 30-33 CE.

Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure against him. (Ant. 18:116-119)

Three – John the Baptist Died After “Jesus”

Using Josephus’ timeline, John the Baptist/Sadduc died after Judas/Jesus. This flies in the face of traditional New Testament chronology. The New Testament has John dying during the ministry of Jesus, leaving the second-in-command position to Peter. This traditional viewpoint also ignores James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19; 2:9-12), who Paul regarded as leader of the Jerusalem apostles. In reality, John survived Judas the Galilean and led the Fourth Philosophy until his death in 36 CE. After John’s death, James became leader at the council of Jerusalem, around 38 CE. (Note that James led the movement from 38 to 62 CE or 24 years, consistent with the timeframe given by  ).

Four – Pilate’s Arrival in Judea

The number of years served by Gratus appears to be three but the text states ten. This then makes Pilate’s reign begin in 26 CE.

This dating for Pilate is important, as an earlier date means that “Jesus” could have been crucified as early as 18 CE. Now, New Testament scholars and just about everyone who has read Luke will scoff, as Luke solidly places the beginning of John’s and Jesus’ ministries in the 15th year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1) or around 28-29 CE. If it is Biblical, it must be correct! However, Luke’s history (Luke and Acts) can be questioned for accuracy, as many of his claims do not mesh with the historical records as detailed by Josephus. (11)

NOTES

http://themaccabee.blogspot.com/p/basics-of-st-judas-maccabaeus.html and Wikipedia.
Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, 530-31.

2 EUSEBIUS

In addition, we know of one text no longer available to us, the Memoranda, that has “Jesus” crucified in 21 CE. Eusebius claims that this Memoranda was a forgery, citing the incorrect dating of the crucifixion.

In Antiquities Book xviii, the same writer [Josephus] informs us that in the twelfth year of Tiberius, who had mounted the imperial throne after the fifty-seven-year reign of Augustus, Judaea was entrusted to Pontius Pilate, and that Pilate remained there ten years, almost till Tiberius’s death. This clearly proves the forged character of the Memoranda so recently published, blackening our Saviour; at the very start the note of time proves the dishonesty of the forgers. If they are to be believed, the crime of the Saviour’s Passion must be referred to Tiberius’s fourth consulship, i.e. the seventh year of his reign, but at that time it is clear that Pilate was not yet in charge of Judaea, if we are to accept the testimony of Josephus, who explicitly declares, in the passage already quoted, that it was the twelfth year of his reign that Tiberius appointed Pilate procurator of Judaea. (12)

Eusebius accepts the dating of Luke and supports this by using Josephus. However, as already noted, Josephus describes only three years for Gratus, not eleven. If Gratus served only three years, then the Memoranda’s dating of the crucifixion may be accurate.

2 COIN DATA

Coins exist that may help date Gratus and Pilate. These coins do not picture the governors but date the reign of Tiberius. On the reverse of these coins, the year of Tiberius’ reign is detailed as follows: L = year, A (Alpha) = 1, B (Beta) = 2, Γ (Gamma) = 3, Δ (Delta) = 4, E (Epsilon) =5, ζ (Sigma) = 6, Z (Zeta) = 7, H (Eta) = 8, θ (Theta) = 9 and I (Iota) = 10. Thus, a coin with LA would be from the year 15 CE, since Tiberius’s reign as Caesar began in 14 CE.
These coins have been assigned to the various governors based upon the year of the coin and the understood reign of each governor. As such, all coins from 15-26 CE (LA – LIA) have been assigned to Gratus and the coins from 29-31 CE (LIζ – LIH) have been assigned to Pilate. (13) Many point to this as proof that Pilate came to Judea in 26 CE, as there appears to be a coin from Gratus dated to 24 CE. But, this assignment to Gratus is simply following the accepted dating from Josephus. It is not an independent dating source.
And one other important point should be noted. Under the accepted reign for Pilate (26-37 CE), we should expect a coin to have been minted during his first year as governor. But, only coins from 29-31 CE exist. So, could any of the coins now assigned to Gratus have really been minted during the reign of Pilate? In other words, coins from 17/18 and on may have been Pilate’s coins.
Recently, Dr. Kenneth Lonnqvist of the University of Helsinki, Finland, claims that Pilate came to office in 17-18 CE based upon a new archaeometallurgical analysis that shows that the alloys in 17/18 CE coins changed from a lead tin-bronze (tertiary alloy) to a pure tin-bronze (binary alloy), only used from 17/18 to 31/32 under Pilate. (14) He explains why such a change to the coins was made.

“The change may denote that lead was used for the construction of the infamous Roman aqueduct to Jerusalem, as mentioned by Josephus (War 2.175 and Ant. 18.60), as lead would have been used in such a typically Roman project. Supposing this was the case, it would suggest that the construction of the aqueduct began ca. 17/18 A.D. as Pilate assumed office.”

The use of lead in the Roman pipes is unquestionable, as the excavations in Pompeii prove. Even today, these pipes are visible to the thousands of tourists who roam the streets. While the amount of lead used in the aqueduct was miniscule, the pipes within the town were made of lead, capable of withstanding high pressures. (15) The Roman government brought water to the city but wealthy individuals had to purchase their own waterlines. Thus, the aqueduct project may have been quite lucrative to those in charge. As such, lead was as valuable as gold.
But would any government change their coinage to meet a challenge, such as an aqueduct? Yes, and the US government did just that in 1943, during World War II. “Owing to a shortage of copper during the critical war year 1943, the Treasury Department resorted to the use of zinc-coated steel for our cents.” (16) The penny was changed from 95% copper to steel, and the government issued over 1 billion of these cents. Now, it could be argued that such a small amount of copper would be insignificant in a major was effort, but the government saved where it could. The same argument could be used for diverting lead from coins to pipes in Pilate’s aqueduct project.
In addition, Lonnqvist notes that the change of coin alloy coincided with a new coin type featuring a palm branch, possibly a friendly gesture from the new governor. Could this coinage have spurred Jesus’ disciples upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem? “A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road (Matt. 21:8).” The palm branch would be remembered as a symbol of the Messiah’s power and not the rule of Rome.
However, Pilate’s tenure as governor was anything but peaceful. He ruthlessly dealt with Jesus and his followers, making crucifixion a promise to anyone else preaching non-Roman values. And by 29-31 CE, his new coinage now depicted pagan images, a slap in the face to devout Jews.
Pilate’s legendary cruelty may also explain the countermarking of his coinage. All coins from 17/18 to 29-31 were countermarked or removed from general circulation and used only by the military. This happened after Pilate was recalled to Rome and may have been a gesture of apology to the Jews. But why would coins from 17/18 have been countermarked if they were not associated with Pilate?
Instead of proving that Gratus reigned from 15-26 CE, the coins actually suggest that Pilate came onto the scene around 18 CE. With this earlier date for Pilate, much of the confusion in Josephus’s account can be rectified. The events surrounding the mentions of Pilate in Antiquities all are from 18-19 CE. If Pilate actually came onto the scene in 18 CE, then everything is in order.

Was Josephus’s Account of Gratus and Pilate Altered?

In the passage quoted above concerning the Memoranda, Eusebius uses the authority of Josephus to prove the document a forgery. What did the Memoranda actually say about Jesus? From Eusebius, we know that this document stated that Jesus was crucified in 21 CE, not 30-33 CE as claimed by the Gospel of Luke. In addition, the Memoranda had unflattering things to say about Jesus. What, we do not know. But, it possibly could have painted Jesus as an anti-Roman rebel who deserved his punishment under Pilate. Remember, Eusebius was writing at a time when Jesus had been declared God. Certainly, no god-man could have been guilty of a crime deserving crucifixion. Eusebius may have just been pushing the Gospel line where Jesus was innocent of all charges. The ingenious use of Josephus simply bolstered his argument.
So, does Eusebius use an altered version of Josephus’ Antiquities when countering the attacks made in the Memoranda? First, we should note that Eusebius uses Josephus’ writings elsewhere in his History of the Church. A good example is his treatment of the passage from Acts 5:33-39, where Luke claimed that Gamaliel in 35 CE referred to Theudas and Judas the Galilean as examples of failure. First, Eusebius dates the census of Quirinius and the rise of Judas the Galilean at 3 BCE, right after the death of Herod the Great. (17) However, this census occurred in 6 CE, after the removal of Herod’s son Archelaus. Strike one on Eusebius’ dating.
Second, Eusebius dates Theudas at 44-46 CE, at the time of Fadus, procurator from 44-46 CE. (18) Using Josephus, Eusebius is trying to validate Luke’s use of Theudas in Acts 5. However, in so doing, Eusebius confirms that Luke’s history cannot be trusted. If Theudas died around 45 CE, then Gamaliel in 35 CE could not have known about this future event. Strike two on Eusebius.
Third, to get around the possible dating problem surrounding Theudas (45 CE) and Judas the Galilean (incorrectly dated by Eusebius at 3 BCE), Eusebius ignores Judas after telling us about Theudas. This omission, he may have thought, would hide the incorrect sequencing of Acts 5, where Judas supposedly came after Theudas. If Eusebius had been honest about the Acts 5 passage and Josephus’ writings, he would have mentioned that Judas the Galilean’s sons were crucified between 46-48 CE, after the death of Theudas (Ant. 20.97-102). Strike three on the use of Josephus by Eusebius.
What does the above example prove? Only that Luke’s history is anachronistic and that Eusebius cannot be trusted with the use of Josephus’ writings. With a questioning attitude, the following passages from our current Josephus should be examined:

Ant. 18.4 (Judas the Galilean is referred to as a Gaulonite, from Gamala)
Ant. 18.33-35 (the length of term for Gratus)
Ant. 18.63-64 (the Testimonium Flavianum (TF))
Ant. 18.81-84 (the unnamed Jew)
Ant. 18.89 (the length of term for Pilate)
Book 18 of Antiquities has several passages that must be addressed in this study. The most famous is the TF, reproduced below.

First, most scholars believe this passage is a partial or complete interpolation and not from the pen of Josephus. So much is patently pro-Christian. For example, we are to believe that Josephus called Jesus a wonder-worker, the Christ and more than a mortal man (god), that this Jesus was raised from the dead, attested to by the prophets and that the Christians still existed at his time. If this really came from Josephus, then why is there no other mention of his exploits in this particular era? According to the passage, the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things about Jesus.
In reality, Josephus has total disdain for the wonder-workers, claiming that they are the most dangerous of the insurgents (War 2.258-260). As for the Christ, Josephus proclaims Vespasian to be the world ruler (Star Prophecy). And, Josephus certainly does not view Jesus as a god and does not believe in the resurrection.
In addition, it appears as if this passage was written long after the time of Josephus. Note that the passage refers to the “tribe of Christians”. Suetonius and Tacitus refer to the followers of Jesus as Christians, but Josephus does not use that term. Instead, Josephus uses the terms Zealots, Sicarii or wonder-workers. In fact, after the stoning of James, the Sicarii avenge his death, not the Christians (Ant. 20.200-210).
The current TF does not come from the pen of Josephus. This is attested to by Origen in the third century, who states that Josephus “did not receive Jesus for Christ”. (19) Thus, the interpolated passage can be pinpointed as either late third century or early fourth century. This possibly points to Eusebius. Remember that Eusebius was refuting information from the Memoranda that was “blackening the Saviour”. Eusebius simply let Josephus defend the Christian story. The question is this: did Eusebius add this whole passage or did he replace another passage?
Josephus does write extensively about Judas the Galilean but fails to mention his death. This is strange considering that he chronicles the deaths of Judas’ three sons and a grandson at Masada. It is inconceivable that Josephus does not write about Judas’ death. But, Josephus probably does write about Judas’ death, a passage revised into our current TF.
At the beginning of Book 18, another interpolation may be in play. Here, Josephus supposedly writes that Judas is a Gaulonite, born in the city of Gamala. Nowhere else does Josephus note this connection with Gamala. Later in Antiquities 18.23, Josephus says this about Judas: “But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author.” The reference to Galilean is consistent with other passages about Judas. When recounting the crucifixions of Judas’ two sons, James and Simon, Josephus ties the two to Judas of Galilee (Ant. 20.102).
This same reference to Galilee also runs through Josephus’ other major work, The War of the Jews. First, Judas is called the son of Sepphoris, or possibly from Sepphoris (War 1.648). Sepphoris was the major city of Galilee, just a few miles from the village of Nazareth (Nazareth may not have even existed at this time). Josephus then describes another robber named Judas: “In Sepphoris also, a city of Galilee, there was one Judas (the son of that arch robber Hezekias, who formerly overran the country, and had been subdues by King Herod)” (War. 2.56). And a little later, Josephus writes: “Under his administration [Coponius] it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said that they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to no mortal men as their lords” (War 2.118) (Slavonic Josephus 2.118). When describing Judas’ son Menahem, Josephus writes: “In the meantime one Menahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean… broke open the king Herod’s armory” (War 2.433-434). And finally, Judas is mentioned one more time in the story of Eleazar and Masada. However, no mention of Galilee is present, although Judas is once again tied to the census revolt (War 7.253).
Concerning Judas, Josephus consistently ties him to Sepphoris or to Galilee. The one passage from Ant. 18.4 that claims that Judas was from Gamala may be a later interpolation. The motive may have been to distance this Judas from Galilee. After all, the legend of Jesus of Nazareth was wholly connected to Galilee. This interpolation, along with the TF, lessened the possible impact of Josephus’ writings concerning Judas the Galilean.
A third interpolation comes shortly after the TF, that being the story of the unnamed Jew (Ant. 18.81-84). In this story, several Jews defraud a Roman woman named Fulvia, having her send money to the temple in Jerusalem. The Jewish scoundrels then take the money and run. Interestingly, Josephus knows the name of the Gentile turned Jewish woman but is unable to name the Jewish crooks. Perhaps Josephus did identify the Jews but this has been erased by pious Christians. Could the unscrupulous Jews have been Saul and his henchmen? In this passage, the unnamed Jews cut ties to both Jerusalem and Rome. Note that Paul never traveled to Rome and only went to Jerusalem in the dead of night.
With theses three passages as a possible pattern of deceit, we must then readdress the dating of Gratus and Pilate. According to Eusebius and our current version of Antiquities, Gratus ruled from 15-26 CE (11 years) and Pilate from 26-36 CE (10 years) (Ant. 18.35 and 18.89). The question is this: was the rule of Gratus changed by Eusebius from 2 or 3 years to 11 in order to prove the Memoranda a forgery? Our present form of Antiquities concerning Gratus is as follows:

[Tiberius] sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. 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 Carrithus; 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. (Ant. 18.33-35)

The text describes only three years of activity. Gratus changed high priests every year, possibly accepting bribes for the office. Interestingly, this yearly change of high priests is verified by John 11:49, where Caiaphas “was high priest that year.” Scholars have pinpointed the reign of Caiaphas from 18-37 CE. If Caiaphas was high priest in 18 CE, then it follows that the arrest and crucifixion of “Jesus” must have occurred in his first year in office, as he was high priest “that year”.
Two separate pieces of information may shed some light on Gratus’ term. First, according to Eisler’s reading of the Romanian Josephus, Gratus was recalled for taking a bribe from Ishmael. (20) Note that Ananus had been high priest from 7-15 CE and that he had great wealth and political power. Only a large bribe could have unseated such a figure. In fact, our version of Antiquities has Gratus replacing Ananus, Ishmael, and then Eleazar (son of Ananus). The appointment of Caiaphas may or may not have been made by Gratus. The text simply states that after a year Simon was replaced by Caiaphas. It has been widely assumed that Gratus appointed Caiaphas as well.
The second source questioning Gratus’ length of tenure comes from Jerome, whose copy of Josephus stated that Caiaphas bought the office of high priest from Herod Antipas, not Gratus. (21) This means that Gratus was replaced prior to Caiaphas or around 18 CE. This very well may be true, as the yearly parade of newly appointed high priests may have been quite lucrative. Unfortunately for Gratus, such overt corruption probably cost him his job, as complaints would have been leveled against him. In fact, Eisler submits that this corruption did cause Gratus’ ouster.
And, if Gratus had been removed around 18 CE and if Pilate had not yet replaced him, then the claim by Jerome may also be true. Perhaps Herod Antipas took advantage of the situation and made a small fortune for himself. Taking advantage of a change in governors also occurred before the stoning of James (Ant. 20.197-204). In that example, the fifth son of Ananus, to have held the position of high priest, had James put to death while the Roman governor, Albinus, was on his way to assume control of the government after the death of Festus.
Such an action by Herod Antipas may have been viewed unkindly by Pilate. And Pilate’s actions concerning the aqueduct, where many Jews were slaughtered, were certainly unpopular with Antipas. (Pilate’s attack may be recorded in Luke 13:1-2, where Jesus is told of the Galileans “whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.”) Luke’s Gospel also contends that Antipas and Pilate were enemies before the arrest of “Jesus” but became friends afterwards (Luke 23:12). This new friendship grew out of a mutual desire to crush any insurgency. Since “Jesus” was proclaimed Messiah or King, his removal from the scene benefitted both Pilate and Antipas. Even Luke admits that Herod Antipas desired to kill “Jesus” (Luke 13:31).
Finally, the current passage states that Gratus went back to Rome after he tarried in Judea eleven years. The passage about Pilate is exactly the same: “So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome” (Ant. 18.89). The same person who changed the tenure of Gratus also changed the exit date for Pilate.

Conclusion

The text of Josephus clearly describes only three years for Gratus. This is also bolstered by the claims of Eisler and by Jerome. In addition, the new coin evidence adds great weight to the early arrival of Pilate (around 18 CE). If Pilate actually arrived in Judea in 18 CE, then “Jesus” may have been crucified much earlier, anywhere from 19-21 CE, consistent with the Memoranda.
An earlier crucifixion strains the traditional timeline, but scholars should examine this much closer. Defending this traditional timeline will become harder and harder as evidence mounts against it.