andrewcriddle

One interesting possibility, mentioned but not supported by Brown in 'Death of the Messiah' pages 702-703, is that the incident of the effigies in Josephus and the incident of the shields in Philo are actually the same incident, reported with different biases.

If this is right and IMHO it would be surprising for a competent governor to get in a similar controversy twice, then Josephus may be presenting an exaggerated account of what actually happened.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I've wondered about that myself.

Do you think it likely that Pilate knew enough about them in advance to expect his actions were likely to, at the least, annoy the Jewish populace?

andrewcriddle

IF Philo's account is a more accurate version of Josephus' then it seems quite likely that Pilate would have legitimately hoped that he had found a mutually acceptable compromise between normal Roman practice and Jewish sensibilities.

One problem is that even if the two accounts do go back to the same incident; Philo may possibly be toning down what Pilate attempted in order to claim that even Pilate never attempted anything as outrageous as Caligula did.

Andrew Criddle

John Kesler

When I quoted Luke 13, you said that this incident "could well be referring" to the same event described by Josephus, and you ascribed a figurative interpretation to "blood mingling with sacrifices" to make the connection more explicit. However, when I mentioned that a literal interpretation of Luke 13 might be preferred, you wondered why this incident wasn't mentioned in Josephus. This seems like circular reasoning to me. The issue is Luke 13's portrayal of Pilate, not what interpretation one must put on the text to correlate it with an extrabiblical source.

TedM

Amaleq, it's not like he barged into the Jewish Temple and said, " you must all worship Augustus since his name is on these shields!". The people didn't even intially see any significance in them! There is nothing to suggest anything other than Pilate as behaving like a good patriotic Roman. From my first post: There is no sign that he deliberately did anything to upset the Jews. It sounds to me more like he was decorating his office with honorific shields which were common in the ancient world. These were symbols of patriotic value. Even if he wasn't legally required to set them up, it makes sense to conclude that he did so for patriotic reasons--love and pride for his country. Of course Pilate was offended when the Jews objected! Naive? Perhaps. Intentional? No need to assume so.


No, and 'procedure' may be too strict a word. But, I don't assume he did it for fun. I assume he did it because Jesus didn't deny being king, and as such he ruled that it was an anti-Rome stance. The logical Roman response would have been to chastise or punish him in some way, which Pilate did. Surely he felt that some response was his 'duty'.

Just because he thought Jesus to be no 'real' threat, doesn't mean he wouldn't be concerned about Caesar. Caesar might get upset at Pilate for letting a man proclaiming himself King go, and he might get upset for being bothered once again by a dispute with the Jews over what was really a religious concern. Why take a risk?


Introducing an alternative action doesn't argue change the fact that the Gospel Pilate was consistent with the external record in his stubborness and his not easily being persuaded to 'cave in' to the mob. Your alternative is not a given either. From the site I keep relying on:
What evidence are you referring to? In any case, even if there were extra guards place there, that says nothing about how great a threat they were. There IS reason to assume they weren't strong: According to Holding's site Jerusalem normally only had 600 soldiers, and ALL OF JUDEA only had 3000!, and according to the the other site I've been using the governors only had auxilliary troops at their disposal and "unlike his predecessors, Pilate could not rely on the immediate support of the legions in case of unrest. This would mean that Pilate was more than usually dependent on his auxiliaries and that ANY POTENTIAL UPRISING had to be put down quickly before it could escalate."



If the soldiers were as strong as you seem to think, then it may have been the same choice: concession or mass murder. In any case, Pilate wasn't 'confonted' with a choice in the ensigns incident that he himself didn't create. He had other choices, so your either/or comparison is invalid. The fact is that Pilate made a concession before, so it isn't that odd for him to have made a concession which included responding to a threat of a knife at his own political throat since he made a 'concession' previously when the Jew's throats were exposed.


That isn't what I said. I said nothing about how he 'felt' about them: I said he was willing to "uphold their traditions that he didn't believe in, even if he didn't have to." This he did when he 'conceded' to their demands regarding the removal of the shields. He upheld their tradtions that he didn't believe in, and he didn't have to. Same thing here in the Gospel.


End the end, his actions did change though. He didn't 'believe' in the tradition, but he still voluntarilychanged his actions under sufficient pressure, and upheld their traditions. Same thing here in the Gospel.

All of that is irrelevant to this discussion--which is whether Pilate in the Gospels acted in a way that was consistent with the external record. So far, he's passing with flying colors.


Sure there is. He continued prior traditions that he would rather have not, and he appeased the crowd in the past. Plus the emperor, according to Philo, sent a stern and strong message to him previously about retaining Jewish traditions. These are several reasons to think Pilate would continue it had it existed.


I'm arguing on the basis of Pilate's actions. You continue to be arguing at least somewhat on the basis of assumed character traits which are not necessarily accurate. Primarily you seem stuck on the idea that he intentionally desecrated the Temple, when the facts don't show this as his motivation, and the passage has indications that his motivation was actually to avoid offending them.

ted

TedM

So might Philo. Actually, I thought the two WERE the same incidents originally.

TedM

I don't see how. I'm saying if it was a separate incident (and probably literal) we might expect Josephus to have mentioned it. A figurative interpretation only goes along with this expectation, which wasn't met.

I"ve addressed Luke's portrayal. Let's keep in mind that Pilate was a ROMAN, and his soldiers twice killed some Jews who were persuing some religious purpose (once clearly against Pilate's actions). Of course that would lead to people thinking Pilate was a brutal, unfair, jerk! That doesn't mean it is justified, nor that the Pilate of the Gospels is out of character, especially when an analysis of the most detailed accounts of his actions shows a high consistency with the Gospel trial accounts with regard to his values (the things that concerned him).

Amaleq13

Nonsense. He refused to remove then even after the Jews complained and only did so when the emperor ordered it. If he didn't know it would offend them before, he certainly knew it later and he still refused to comply. If nothing else, the emperor's order clearly denies your suggestion.

Josephus tells us Pilate was the first to bring Caesar's effigies into the city and he snuck them in at night. It is difficult to read that as suggesting he was unaware of the potential offense (though I'm sure you will do so). Again he refused to comply when the Jews complained.

More nonsense. Your own link in the OP acknowledges that Philo makes that very accusation and Josephus' description of him being the first to bring effigies into the city and choosing to do so at night hardly suggests an honest mistake. His refusal to comply also argues against innocence.

More nonsense. The logical Roman response is the one we know they embraced: kill the claimant and arrest any followers. Problem solved.

That's exactly what it does mean and the real threat would be getting accused of killing yet another innocent man.

Josephus. Remember? The extra regiment (ie 1,000 soldiers) placed around the Temple during Passover?

Improving your knowledge of the Roman army and the fear they instilled in their dominated lands will provide what you need here.

Thank you for yet another reason to doubt that any trial would be involved for an alleged seditionist during Passover. Nothing stops an uprising like killing the leader. Was the Egyptian Josephus describes as obtaining an apparently threatening following given a trial or did they just ride out and behead him?

This is unsubstantiated speculation that requires no response.

He didn't concede to their demands, he conceded to the emperor's order. Don't you read your own sources? You've got nothing here to support the Gospel story.

For very specific reasons that do nothing to make the Gospel account more credible. You've got no order from the emperor and no willingness on the part of the crowd to die for their request.

Only in your mind and that of apologists like Holding.

I was mistaken in specifying the Temple but the rest of this paragraph is denied by your own linked source. With regard to the incident Philo relates: "He is accused of intentionally annoying the Jewish people by setting up gilded shields in Herod's palace in Jerusalem."

With regard to the incident described by Josephus, being the first to bring in effigies and doing so at night hardly suggest an innocent motivation.

That he refused to comply even after the Jews made their objections known is clear evidence against this ridiculous attempt to create the appearance of historical consistency in the Gospel story.

You've got nothing, Ted, except a pre-conceived conclusion and an indefatigable willingness to reinterpret any evidence to be consistent with it.

But I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to use the word "indefatigable".

TedM

So what? How does that suggest he was behaving contrary to a patriotic Roman?

No, it doesn't. Pilate may have believed strongly in what he was doing. The emperor's order did settle the matter on the shields, but that doesn't argue against patriotism because we see in Philo's account that the emperor strongly favored maintaining Jewish traditions--something Pilate may have underestimated since in this case it went against a standard Roman practice(see below). Regarding the ensigns, it didn't take an emperor's order (if a different incident).

The account doesn't say he snuck them in, but it does say imply it. That may be Josephus' bias. As to being the first, the following, which was in my OP answers this adequately:

The fact that it was apparantly the duty to bring them in along with the army negates any argument about him being sneaky or the 'first'. It was supposed to be done. That is being a good Roman citizen. To hell with those who oppose him: they are opposing Roman tradition.

I'm out of time for the rest..

ted

Amaleq13

It is clear from the emperor's order that his actions and his refusal to comply with their requests was considered contrary to the interests of Rome. He was supposed to prevent uprisings, Ted, not inspire them.

Your unsubstantiated speculation offers nothing to refute what I've written above.

Get back to me when you've got something more than a "may" that appears to exist only so that you can preserve your preconceived conclusion.

Your source is just as free with speculation as yourself. It has too many "may"s and "might"s to do answer anything adequately.