Photon

I just finished a biographical novel called "Pontius Pilate" by Paul L. Maier. It started out as an interesting read, as he attempted to spin together a coherent story of what might have motivated Pilate to make the decisions he did, and it was very illuminating as to his insights into Roman politics and culture.

However, in the last third of the book, it turned into a Christian apologetic, complete with presenting the NT scriptures as truth (even to the point of claiming the darkness at Jesus' death was a historical fact). Now, considering the author was also a campus chaplain at Western Michigan University, the apologetic stance of the book doesn't surprise me.

The most fascinating portrayal in the book was of Pilate himself, and of his relationships with the powers that were (Antipas Herod, Tiberias, Caligula, Sejanus, etc.), and chiefly his dedication to logic and fair treatment and tolerance of the Hebrews.

My question is, does anyone have source material that might shed light in a more unbiased way, on the character of Pilate himself? The Maier book was very good at rationalizing the massacres that were alleged to be perpetrated by Pilate, and consistently portrayed the Jews as radical fundamentalists. I assume that he wanted a favorable portrayal of Pilate due to the NT accounts of his behavior. So would anyone like to offer a different or supporting opinion on Pontius Pilatus himself with references that I might look up?

Thanks in advance.

The Evil One

A lot of historical novels do this, even ones that aren't by chaplains. Reasons being, of course, 1) that historical novelists are raised in the same of-course-Jesus-was-real-and-theGospels-if-not-literally-true-are-close-enough-for-governmnet-work atmosphere as the rest of Western civilisations, and 2) it's a damn good story and most fiction writers are a sucker for a good story.

I mean, even Graves uses gospel material in "Claudius the God", treating it as historical record rather than myth.

Toto

Pilate is discussed in Josephus and Philo, the only other historical sources, as a tyrant and a brute. Christians have to work very hard to reconcile the picture of Pilate in the gospels with this historical record.

This article summarizes some of the attempts to make sense of Pilate: The search for the historical Pilate.

Pilate has specific references to Josephus and Philo.

The Trial Before Pontius Pilate has a long discussion of Josephus, and there is also a long discussion here.

Photon

Thanks, Toto.

That is exactly what I was looking for - some reconstructions about the character that are still consistent with historical records, and the climate of Rome, but do show a substantially different Pilate in each one.

What are the prevailing opinions on the quality of the histories of Philo, Tacitus, and Josephus in general? I mean, there have been some pretty specious events that were reported, so I'm wondering if historians discount only pieces of their work, or the fact that seemingly supernatural events reported as history would cast a poor light on the entirety of their histories?

Photon

And I'm not specifically referring to the forged passages by Eusebius either.

Toto

Their biases are obvious, but they are the best we have, especially Jospehus. They attempt to write real history (as opposed to historical novels or religious tracts) so the tendency is to assume that there is some real history underlying what they say, with allowances for their polemical purposes.

Other histories of the era that we know about from references have not survived. Christians made a point of copying Josephus (and added at least one section to his work) because he describes in detail the horrors of the destruction of Jerusalem and other events around the time of the early church, even though the only mention of Christianity is in a passage that is an obvious forgery.