Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 01-11-2006, 11:10 PM

What can we deduce about Pilate from external sources? Was he really a brutal Jew-hater? Do they portray a different man than the passion narratives?

The only (I think) reliable external accounts we have are by Josephus, with several in Antiquities and Wars, and Philo with just one in Legatio ad Gaium. The 3 passages from Josephus and the one from Philo can be found here http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/...es/pilate.html

First, I’d like to look at only the actions attributed to Pilate.

PILATE’S ACTIONS
In Antiquities 18.3.1 Pilate did the following:

*moved the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem
*brought Caesar’s effigies which were upon the ensigns into Jerusalem
*it was done at night without the knowledge of the people
*he refused the Jews requests in Cesarea for them to be removed
*on the 6th day of protest he ordered soldiers to prepare with weapons hidden
*he signaled the solders to surround them, and he then threatened the Jews with death if they didn’t leave
*seeing the Jews willingness to die for their cause, he backed down and commanded that the images be removed from Jerusalem and taken back to Cesarea

In Antiquities 18.3.2 Pilate did the following:

*Used ‘sacred money’ for a water construction project in Jerusalem
*in response to protesting Jews, he sent a great number of soldiers, who carried concealed daggers to surround them.
*he told the soldiers to look for his signal to punish them if necessary
*he told the Jews to go away
*when they didn’t go away, he gave the soldiers the signal to punish, which they did

In this case we are told that the soldiers ‘laid upon them (the Jews) much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not’.

The same incident is found in his War 2.175-177
*After his tribunal was surrounded by the angry crowd he ordered disguised soldiers to not to use their swords, but to beat any rioters with cudgels.

In Antiquities 18.4.1 Pilate did the following:
*he prevented the armed Samaritans from going up to the holy Mount Gerizzim
*in doing so, his armies seized the roads leading to it, and ‘when it came to action’ toward the Samaritan group (no indication of who started it) his men slew some, and ‘took a great many alive’
*Pilate ordered the ‘principal’ (majority?, most prominent?) of those taken alive, and ‘the most potent of those that fled’ to be slain

In Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium Pilate did the following:

*he set up gilded shields in Jerusalem in Herod’s palace
*he refused the requests by Jewish spokesmen to remove them
*in response to a letter from Tiberius, responding to a letter from the Jews, Pilate removed the shields and sent them to Cesarea

ACTIONS--CONCLUSION
Based on all of these actions I see no cause for concluding that Pilate was a brutal and unreasonable man at all. He removed the ensigns, as the Jews had petitioned. He apparently had commanded his soldiers to limit the extent of their blows on the Jews, with regard to the water projects. And in the case of the Samaritans, he was responding to already-armed civilians, he may have not ordered an attack at all, and he limited the punishment to the most potent and ‘principal’ among them. Regarding the shields, there was no violence, and he complied with Tiberius’ (to whom he answered) letter.

Could it be that Pilate was in fact being quite reasonable? Based on the actions ascribed to him in these specific incidents, that seems quite possible.

Now let’s look at how Josephus and Philo, respectively, attribute motives to Pilate.

MOTIVES ATTRIBUTED TO PILATE

Josephus:

18.3.1
*the army moved and he introduced Caesar’s effigies ‘in order to abolish the Jewish laws’
*he wouldn’t grant the request to remove them ‘because it would tend to the injury of Caesar’
*he ordered them removed because he ‘was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable’

Might it be that Pilate was simply trying to honor Caesar, and not actually be oppressive? Might it be that Caesar had some respect for the Jew’s religious commitment?

According to http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/...es/pilate.html

Quote:

Due to its position at the beginning of the accounts in both the War and the Antiquities, most scholars assume that this incident took place early on in Pilate's term of office, perhaps as early as winter 26 CE. A squadron could not be separated from its standards; if new standards were brought into Jerusalem that meant that an entirely new squadron was being stationed in Jerusalem, one which had not been used in the city previously. As a military prefect, Pilate's interest would have been in the troops themselves and their strategic positioning; the particular emblems on their standards would not have been particularly important. As a new governor, Pilate may not even have realized that this particular cohort would cause offence in Jerusalem because of its standards. Or, if he had been warned, it might have seemed absurd to him that troops which could be deployed in Caesarea could not be moved to Jerusalem. The account gives the impression of a new governor anxious to take no nonsense from the people he is to govern. The fact that he was willing to reconsider the position and did eventually change the troops shows a certain amount of prudence and concern to avoid unnecessary hostilities.

18.3.2
Josephus doesn’t really attribute motives to Pilate here. The mention of Pilate‘s use of sacred money may be seen as implying that it was done intentionally, though that may not have been the case. From the same site above:

Quote:

Josephus' bias is evident, particularly in his description of Pilate's motivations. The building of an aqueduct for the city was surely a commendable undertaking, one which would have benefited the inhabitants enormously. The point of conflict seems to have been around the use of temple money (or corbonas) for the project. Pilate must have had the co-operation (whether voluntary or forced) of Caiaphas and the temple authorities whose duty it was to administer the treasury; if he had taken the money by aggression Josephus would surely have mentioned it. Some light may be thrown on the matter by m.Shek 4.2 which allowed the use of surplus money from the treasury to be used for `all the city's needs'. The dating of this ruling is uncertain but it is possible that a similar allowance was made in the first century. If so, Pilate's use of surplus money for improving the city's water supply would have presumably been permitted. What may have led to hostilities, however, was if Pilate had begun to demand more than simply the surplus for his building venture. The War's use of the verb exanaliskon in 2.175, whilst perhaps over-exaggerated, may imply that Pilate began to demand ever increasing amounts, draining temple supplies and treating the treasury as his own personal fiscus.

Josephus makes it clear that the Jews strongly threatened Pilate, which can explain his use of his soldiers:

Quote:

and many ten thousandsof the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do.

And yet, Pilate is said to have limited his commands for punishment to something less that what his soldiers ended up doing. There is no indication that Pilate intended the violence upon the people that occurred.

18.4.1
Again, there is no indication of Pilate’s motivations other than to stop an armed group and to punish the most prominent among them. To do otherwise would have been a neglect of duty.

Philo:

Philo has much more harsh words for Pilate.
*his intention was to annoy the Jews rather than honor Tiberius
*he refused because he was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition
*he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity.
*as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects..(however) the Jews saw that in reaction to their threat of writing a letter Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it
*Pilate only removed then upon a stern reply from Tiberius

There are reasons to be suspicious of the description of events here. It claims to know Pilate’s internals thoughts: fears Pilate had regarding an embassy, reasons why he didn’t remove the ensigns (lack of courage--unwillingness to please the Jews), regrets without actions, unwillingness to show his true feelings (though known by the author!). And it claims to know exactly how Tiberius reacted.

Quote:

What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself. For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity

Clearly Philo detested Pilate. Much moreso that Josephus appears to have. It is hard to know how accurate a picture is presented when included is information that is almost certainly fanciful and clearly designed to support the author’s opinions about the man.

The aforementioned site points out a number of things about this passage which suggest that Pilate was not acting (in this instance) in such a hateful manner:

Quote:

Although Philo's picture of the ruthless Pilate is obviously over-exaggerated in accordance with his rhetorical aims, there is clearly some basis to the story. The most important starting point for any reconstruction is the shields themselves. Such honorific shields were common in the ancient world; generally they would contain both a portrait and an inscription (Pliny, Natural History 35; Tacitus, Annals 2.83; Res Gestae Divi Augusti 34). Pilate's shields were of this type, but even Philo has to admit that they differed by the fact that they contained no images. This suggests that, rather than deliberately acting against the Jewish law, Pilate took steps to avoid offending the people. Furthermore, they were set up inside the Roman governor's praetorium in Jerusalem, surely the most appropriate place in the city for such shields. If this event occurred after the commotion caused by the introduction of iconic standards narrated by Josephus, then Pilate's behavior was both understandable and prudent. He wanted to honour the emperor without antagonizing the people. Where he went wrong, however, was in the wording of the inscription. This would have contained both Pilate's name and that of Tiberius. In official inscriptions the emperor was referred to as: Ti. Caesari divi Augusti f. (divi Iuli nepoti) Augusto pontifici Maximo. The reference to the divine Augustus could have been seen as offensive by some Jews, particularly when it was situated in the holy city. That not everyone found this immediately offensive is suggested by Philo's description of the Jewish reaction which is rather oddly put in § 300; it seems to give the impression that the wording of the inscription was generally known before its significance was realized. This reconstruction fits in well with the final part of the story. If Pilate had set out to be deliberately provocative, it is extraordinary that he would allow an embassy to go to Tiberius and inform the emperor of his atrocities. If, however, the shields were designed to honour the emperor and Pilate had deliberately tried to avoid offence by omitting images, his decision to allow Tiberius to adjudicate makes perfect sense.
The date of this incident is uncertain, but it probably occurred after the incident with the standards.

There is reason to suspect that Philo’s opinions regarding Pilate may have not been based on the facts, since even his own description of this specific case suggest that Pilate was not deliberately trying to provoke the Jews, and may have believed he was honoring the emperor as he should. Philo’s views about Pilate are not supported by what Josephus says either. Might it be that Philo’s position simply reflected those of the Jews who strongly opposed Roman occupation, who reacted to the beating and killing of some of their own, who attributed the harsh actions of Pilate’s soldiers to Pilate himself, and who interpreted any violation of the strict Jewish laws as an intentional act of aggression?

Though Josephus describes some things Pilate did which displeased the Jews, the clearest motive he gives is to follow Roman law and to protect Roman military interests. Philo attributes harsh motives to him, but his specific actions suggest otherwise..

SUMMARY OF PILATE’S CHARACTER
In summary, an evaluation of all four specific incidents do not reveal a Pilate who was intentionally insensitive to Jewish laws and customs. Rather, we see a Pilate who desired to honor the Emperor, both learned of and was impressed by the Jewish commitment to their laws, showed a later sensitivity to their ways, and who showed a desire for military restraint even when faced with thousands of dissenting Jews and personal abuse, and even against those who took up arms. Rather than portraying a ruthless brute, these accounts, when analyzed more closely, portray a man who tried to take a practical approach to balancing his allegiance to his own country and respecting the different ways of inhabitants of the country in which he was in charge, a feat requiring skillful navigation.

DID PILATE WANT OR NEED TO APPEASE THE JEWS?

From the same site again:

Quote:

The first is the lack of a Syrian legate for the first six years of Pilate's term of office. Tiberius appointed L. Aelius Lamia to the post but kept him in Rome, presumably trying out a form of centralized government. This may not have been altogether successful as subsequent legates governed from the Syrian capital, Antioch. (See Tacitus, Annals 1.80, 6.27, 32; Suetonius, Tiberius 63). The implication of this is that for the early part of his governorship Pilate had no legate on hand in Syria on whom he could call in an emergency. 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.

The traditional capital, Jerusalem, continued as the focus of Jewish religious life whilst the governor resided in Caesarea together with his troops and entourage, transforming the city into the Roman administrative headquarters. On occasion, the governor would move to Jerusalem, particularly during festivals both to keep the peace and to hear criminal cases.

The governors of Judea had only auxiliary troops at their disposal. These appear to have been descendents of the Herodian troops drawn predominantly from Caesarea and Sebaste. They amounted to five infantry cohorts and one cavalry regiment scattered throughout the province. One cohort was permanently posted in the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem.

We have seen an internal motivation for Pilate to want to appease the crowds (respect for their ways). And we have seen that he does not indiscriminately respond to threats with violence. Now we see that there was a definite military motivation for Pilate to want to appease the crowds. He has already seen that they can unexpectedly and quickly gather in the thousands over issues that he may not fully understand. Might this, along with a both a practical and politically and culturally sensitive Pilate be a possible explanation for his decision to appease an angry crowd during a Passover event--an event which drew in huge crowds, being stirred up over religious issues, as depicted in the gospels?

In the Gospels Pilate is depicted as giving Jesus a fair chance to defend himself, and of ruling fairly in finding Jesus innocent. Yet, the chief priests challenge his allegiance to the Roman state by saying it is HIS duty as a Roman to rule on putting a man to death, and that he isn’t a friend of Caesar if he lets one who ‘sets himself against Caesar’ go free. So, Pilate is pressured by a challenge to his allegiance to Rome. Since Pilate had lost a similar challenge on the shields issue, there was reason for him to take this challenge seriously. And, he is pressure by the growing crowd that is stirred up by chief priests who say that Jesus blasphemed God--something that could quickly lead to an unpleasant military situation. A second challenge to take seriously.

What did Pilate do? He took the easy way out. I see nothing in his actions toward Jesus, the chief priests, or the mob that is out of character.

THE PASSOVER PRISONER RELEASE TRADITION

What about the tradition of releasing a prisoner each year? Could such a tradition have existed? Though we have nothing but biblical accounts that reference it, I see nothing from the four external incidents Pilate was involved in that would preclude him from either creating or preserving such a tradition.. Pilate displayed a willingness to preserve Jewish tradition as it pertained to the ensigns, and had received from the emperor himself a ruling to respect the traditional Jewish policy regarding the shields in Herod’s palace. Even the Roman coins in Judea during Pilate’s day (see same site) show an attempt to respect the Jewish ways:

Quote:

The second archaeological link with Pilate is a number of bronze coins struck by the prefect on three successive years, 29/30, 30/31 and 31/32 CE. Each depicts a distinctively Jewish design on one side along with a pagan symbol on the other….That the coins were not generally regarded as offensive is apparent from the fact that the coins would have been used until Agrippa's reign and he only changed the design in his second year.

Might it be that Pilate--knowing his own men had unfairly killed many Jews against his command--would be willing to help appease the Jews by releasing one of their own who they wanted released? After all, he could always justify it to Rome, which already was in favor of preserving Jewish traditions. For those not inclined to accept a Pilate who would release someone without regard to the charge, such as a murdering seditionist, here is a possible explanation (idea from Holding's site): Pilate may have realized that the chief priests were trying to manipulate him (as implied in the Gospels), so rather than release a minor criminal, which could have been the typical tradition, he decided to take the upper hand: "Which will you choose, he asks: The one called Jesus (whom you know is "innocent") or the one called Barabbas (who IS guilty - and whose release would reveal that you value your personal grudge over your "loyalty" to the Roman Empire!)?" Pilate may have known that they could have always re-arrested Barabbas at a later time.

Making oneself King of the Jews without Caesar‘s consent would be a serious charge which Rome wouldn't like. Rome would have backed him on the crucifixion. The chief priests would have backed him on it. The Jewish people would have backed him on it. And, the man charged didn’t deny that he was already the King. Crucifying the 'King' in order to preserve a Jewish tradition would have had Rome's approval, and would have been in sinc with several of Pilate's values. And, it would have been the easy way out.

ted

TedM · 01-12-2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

SUMMARY OF PILATE’S CHARACTER
In summary, an evaluation of all four specific incidents do not reveal a Pilate who was intentionally insensitive to Jewish laws and customs. Rather, we see a Pilate who desired to honor the Emperor, both learned of and was impressed by the Jewish commitment to their laws, showed a later sensitivity to their ways, and who showed a desire for military restraint even when faced with thousands of dissenting Jews and personal abuse, and even against those who took up arms. Rather than portraying a ruthless brute, these accounts, when analyzed more closely, portray a man who tried to take a practical approach to balancing his allegiance to his own country and respecting the different ways of inhabitants of the country in which he was in charge, a feat requiring skillful navigation.

After thinking some more, this could be too kind. It is possible that Philo was correct with regard to certain personal attributes. Maybe Pilate did dislike the Jews, found them annoying and probably very odd, and treated them unfairly at times. However, the external examples--even including Philo's--at the least seem to portray a Pilate that chose (though perhaps reluctantly) practicality and restraint over unchecked brutality.

The military situation may have been Pilate's largest motivator. According to Holdings' site, there were no more than 3000 Roman soldiers in all of Judea, and 600 in Jerusalem. During Passover, I would think the number in Jerusalem was higher. Still, this is not a large number compared to the possible tens or even hundreds of thousands that could decide to revolt.

ted

Amaleq13 · 01-12-2006, 09:15 AM

It seems clear to me that you are selectively reading your sources and ignoring anything that argues against your preconceived conclusion (ETA though your second post shows promise

). Rather than rely on your own potentially biased interpretation of the evidence, I suggest you consult the views of historians who have made it their business to study ancient Rome and Pilate in specific. I believe you will find that they tend to agree with Philo's opinion rather than dismiss it as you do.

TedM · 01-12-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It seems clear to me that you are selectively reading your sources and ignoring anything that argues against your preconceived conclusion (ETA though your second post shows promise

)

Hmm... I may have to use my new Steak and Shake weapon on you..

Quote:

Rather than rely on your own potentially biased interpretation of the evidence, I suggest you consult the views of historians who have made it their business to study ancient Rome and Pilate in specific. I believe you will find that they tend to agree with Philo's opinion rather than dismiss it as you do.

Since the accounts by these two regarding these 4 incidents are to my knowledge basically all we really can rely on to get an external picture of Pilate, I don’t know what they might point out that I’ve overlooked, but if you want to provide some evidence from them that counters anything I’ve written, I’m open to it.

There is no disputing that Pilate is depicted as
1. trying to please the emperor
2. finding something respectable in the Jewish devotion to their laws
3. giving the Jews adequate time to comply with his rule
4. and limiting both the intensity and extent of violence of his soldiers to what seems a reasonable level for maintaining control

There is also no disputing the fact that the Jewish opposition to Pilate is depicted as being steeped deeply in their own religious fervor, resulting in very disrespectful conduct. This tendency to react strongly, quickly, and in great numbers would only naturally put a man on the defense, yet even then he was restrained in his responses.

I see no strong evidence of the kind of Pilate Philo depicts within the writings by Josephus

And, a case can be made that Philo had a motivation to present Pilate unfavorably:

According to http://tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html

Quote:

It has been noted by McGing [McG.PP] that Josephus' description of Pilate is surprisingly neutral - and Philo, who is responsible for the worst descriptions of Pilate, had his own reasons for making Pilate look bad. The incident referred to by Still above is in fact the ONLY event that Philo actually refers to - the rest of his descriptions of Pilate being typical of what seems to be "a store of standard, highly rhetorical accusations and even vocabulary, reserved mostly for Roman (occasionally other) enemies of the Jewish people, and applied with no great distinction between one Roman and another." [ibid., 433] In short, and without doubting any particular report made in his writings, the descriptions of Pilate as inflexible, cruel, etc. seem to be nothing more than Philo's efforts at stereotyping. Note, also, the context of the account: As Still notes, this was written to the attention of Gaius Caesar - aka, Caligula, regular winner of the Unreasonable Person Award. Caligula, we may remember, wanted to set up a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple. Philo, in trying to persuade him to defer, held up a story (see below) in which Pilate erected some shields that offended the people, and then was chastened by Tiberius for his unreasonableness - the point for Philo being, to hold up the relatively reasonable Tiberius as an example for Caligula to follow. And thus, it was needful for Philo to make Pilate look as naughty as possible.

Since Philo provides little actual evidence to support his claims regarding Pilate’s character, and Josephus’ account is NOT support for his claims, and Philo’s opinions can reasonably be explained in a number of ways, I think it is most prudent to look at the actual actions attributed to the man in his account (which I did in the beginning of my post). They, along with those in Josephus' accounts, are consistent with a Roman governor behaving reasonably.

I conclude that his actions are compatible with a man of reason simply trying to do his job without causing great offense, though certainly great offense was taken. This is true for both the accounts of Josephus and Philo. And in Philo’s account there are some odd references that may even be clues to an attempt by Pilate to avoid offending them (which would be understandable given the earlier ensign incidence and his eventual response)--though he consistently underestimated their capacity to be offended.

ted

JEST2ASK · 01-12-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What can we deduce about Pilate from external sources? Was he really a brutal Jew-hater? Do they portray a different man than the passion narratives?
The only (I think) reliable external accounts we have are by Josephus, with several in Antiquities and Wars, and Philo with just one in Legatio ad Gaium. The 3 passages from Josephus and the one from Philo can be found here http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/...es/pilate.html

Major delation sorry but I hope I keep this in context and the wondeful material you have provided is not overlooked

There is reason to suspect that Philo’s opinions regarding Pilate may have not been based on the facts, since even his own description of this specific case suggest that Pilate was not deliberately trying to provoke the Jews, and may have believed he was honoring the emperor as he should. Philo’s views about Pilate are not supported by what Josephus says either. Might it be that Philo’s position simply reflected those of the Jews who strongly opposed Roman occupation, who reacted to the beating and killing of some of their own, who attributed the harsh actions of Pilate’s soldiers to Pilate himself, and who interpreted any violation of the strict Jewish laws as an intentional act of aggression?

Though Josephus describes some things Pilate did which displeased the Jews, the clearest motive he gives is to follow Roman law and to protect Roman military interests. Philo attributes harsh motives to him, but his specific actions suggest otherwise..

DID PILATE WANT OR NEED TO APPEASE THE JEWS?

From the same site again:

We have seen an internal motivation for Pilate to want to appease the crowds (respect for their ways). And we have seen that he does not indiscriminately respond to threats with violence. Now we see that there was a definite military motivation for Pilate to want to appease the crowds. He has already seen that they can unexpectedly and quickly gather in the thousands over issues that he may not fully understand. Might this, along with a both a practical and politically and culturally sensitive Pilate be a possible explanation for his decision to appease an angry crowd during a Passover event--an event which drew in huge crowds, being stirred up over religious issues, as depicted in the gospels?

In the Gospels Pilate is depicted as giving Jesus a fair chance to defend himself, and of ruling fairly in finding Jesus innocent. Yet, the chief priests challenge his allegiance to the Roman state by saying it is HIS duty as a Roman to rule on putting a man to death, and that he isn’t a friend of Caesar if he lets one who ‘sets himself against Caesar’ go free. So, Pilate is pressured by a challenge to his allegiance to Rome. Since Pilate had lost a similar challenge on the shields issue, there was reason for him to take this challenge seriously. And, he is pressure by the growing crowd that is stirred up by chief priests who say that Jesus blasphemed God--something that could quickly lead to an unpleasant military situation. A second challenge to take seriously.

What did Pilate do? He took the easy way out. I see nothing in his actions toward Jesus, the chief priests, or the mob that is out of character.

THE PASSOVER PRISONER RELEASE TRADITION

What about the tradition of releasing a prisoner each year? Could such a tradition have existed? Though we have nothing but biblical accounts that reference it, I see nothing from the four external incidents Pilate was involved in that would preclude him from either creating or preserving such a tradition.. Pilate displayed a willingness to preserve Jewish tradition as it pertained to the ensigns, and had received from the emperor himself a ruling to respect the traditional Jewish policy regarding the shields in Herod’s palace. Even the Roman coins in Judea during Pilate’s day (see same site) show an attempt to respect the Jewish ways:

Might it be that Pilate--knowing his own men had unfairly killed many Jews against his command--would be willing to help appease the Jews by releasing one of their own who they wanted released? After all, he could always justify it to Rome, which already was in favor of preserving Jewish traditions. For those not inclined to accept a Pilate who would release someone without regard to the charge, such as a murdering seditionist, here is a possible explanation (idea from Holding's site): Pilate may have realized that the chief priests were trying to manipulate him (as implied in the Gospels), so rather than release a minor criminal, which could have been the typical tradition, he decided to take the upper hand: "Which will you choose, he asks: The one called Jesus (whom you know is "innocent") or the one called Barabbas (who IS guilty - and whose release would reveal that you value your personal grudge over your "loyalty" to the Roman Empire!)?" Pilate may have known that they could have always re-arrested Barabbas at a later time.

Making oneself King of the Jews without Caesar‘s consent would be a serious charge which Rome wouldn't like. Rome would have backed him on the crucifixion. The chief priests would have backed him on it. The Jewish people would have backed him on it. And, the man charged didn’t deny that he was already the King. Crucifying the 'King' in order to preserve a Jewish tradition would have had Rome's approval, and would have been in sinc with several of Pilate's values. And, it would have been the easy way out.

ted

Sorry if this is a side track to both Ted & Amaleq13,
I am out of my depth here but as you pointed out What about the tradition of releasing a prisoner each year? Could such a tradition have existed? Though we have nothing but biblical accounts that reference it, , however in my mind I see no reason to give credance to the Gospel accounts regarding the setting,the timing, the Jewish trials,Pilates actions.

So why speculate if Pilate acted in character when (IMO) there is no basis for analyysis. Again I am way out of my depth, since the gospels and other NT writtings have instances of stoning and other actions not taken by the Romans why assume (sorry if that is an inaccurate choice of words) so much of the Gospels as having basis in history. Unless of course this is all scholarly hypothetical discourse, in which case forgive my misunderstanding

Julian · 01-12-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEST2ASK

Sorry if this is a side track to both Ted & Amaleq13,
I am out of my depth here but as you pointed out What about the tradition of releasing a prisoner each year? Could such a tradition have existed? Though we have nothing but biblical accounts that reference it, , however in my mind I see no reason to give credance to the Gospel accounts regarding the setting,the timing, the Jewish trials,Pilates actions.

So why speculate if Pilate acted in character when (IMO) there is no basis for analyysis. Again I am way out of my depth, since the gospels and other NT writtings have instances of stoning and other actions not taken by the Romans why assume (sorry if that is an inaccurate choice of words) so much of the Gospels as having basis in history. Unless of course this is all scholarly hypothetical discourse, in which case forgive my misunderstanding

Amaleq shows why the release of a prisoner is a silly notion over here, if memory serves: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=149359

Julian

John Kesler · 01-12-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What can we deduce about Pilate from external sources? Was he really a brutal Jew-hater? Do they portray a different man than the passion narratives?

Why not also consider the portrayal in Luke 13:1-2?

Quote:

13:1 At that very time there were some present who told him [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?

This seems like a different Pilate from that of the passion narratives.

Toto · 01-12-2006, 12:02 PM

TedM - you have evidence from Philo, who was more or less contemporaneous with Pilate. You have evidence from Josephus, who wrote a bit later, and had his own biases, but at least attempted to write history. You can assume that Josephus gives the Jewish reaction to Pilate. Both of these writers describe a somewhat brutal Roman ruler. If we had a Roman view of Pilate, it would probably be more nuanced and portray him as a strong executive making difficult decisions.

And then you have some religiously based stories that mention Pilate in an inconsistent light, that show him as vascillating and indecisive, a tool of the Jewish leadership. If he were that deferential to the Jewish leadership, why would Philo have hated him so much? If he wanted to appease the mob, which mob would it be - the mob who supported Jesus or the mob who opposed him? If Jesus was a threat, what about his followers?

There are just too many holes in your reconstruction.

TedM · 01-12-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Why not also consider the portrayal in Luke 13:1-2?

This seems like a different Pilate from that of the passion narratives.

That account could very well be referring to the killing of Jews by Pilate's soldiers in 18.3.2, during which Josephus says the soldiers "laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them". People's blood was mingled with sacrifices in the sense that sacred money was used for the construction project which led to the incident. Since people died, of course some would have see Pilate in a bad light and describe him in such a way. The passage from Josephus, addressed above, reveals that "many ten thousands of the people go together, and mad a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do."

Given this description by Josephus, it looks to me like although his soldiers exceeded his commands, Pilate's own reaction was restrained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can assume that Josephus gives the Jewish reaction to Pilate. Both of these writers describe a somewhat brutal Roman ruler.

What actions of Pilate's in Josephus' accounts do you perceive to have been evidence of a brutal Roman ruler? Same question for Philo's account.

Quote:

If we had a Roman view of Pilate, it would probably be more nuanced and portray him as a strong executive making difficult decisions.

Which fits the actions attributed to him by two Jews more than their descriptions of his character (really Josephus hardly says anything bad about the man, though perhaps it is implied).

Quote:

And then you have some religiously based stories that mention Pilate in an inconsistent light, that show him as vascillating and indecisive, a tool of the Jewish leadership.

The vascillating you see may have been intentional--a way of toying with the Jews who he perceived were trying to manipulate him. OR, a reasonable response to a situation that was quickly getting out of hand--something he had have bad experiences with in the past.

Quote:

If he were that deferential to the Jewish leadership, why would Philo have hated him so much?

How deferential? Compare letting one man go to appease the crowd with several actions which deeply offended the religious, and two incidents involving clubbing and killing Jews. You don't see a reason why Philo would have hated him?

Quote:

If he wanted to appease the mob, which mob would it be - the mob who supported Jesus or the mob who opposed him? If Jesus was a threat, what about his followers?

Jesus' followers were not a threat at the trial. Most had fled the night before. The mob was not a group that changed their mind, but the vast majority of people who probably didn't know what to think about this preacher, but had just heard that he had committed blasphemy, and who were disgusted by that, and were now getting worked up by the religious leaders of their community that they looked up to.

Quote:

There are just too many holes in your reconstruction.

Feel free to point some out.

ted

blt to go · 01-12-2006, 01:13 PM

TedM, I have been following this discussion with interest. I did have a question, though, about the methodology presented by these sites. If we dismiss portions of Philo and Josephus as being “bias�? for being pro-Jewish, shouldn’t we, using the same method, dismiss portions of the Christians writers for being “bias�? for being anti-Jewish?

It raised concerns that the authors of these sites acknowledged the viciousness of Pilate portrayed, but then dismissed it as “biased�? polemics. (Another question, on the side. Why are the coins “Pro-Roman�? images on one side and “Pro-Jewish�? on the other? Thanks.) Then they wanted to only look at certain actions, and even then in only a certain light.

If that is the method in which Josephus and Philo must be read, to be consistent, should we read the Gospel accounts the same way? For example, I could argue that we remove the Pro-Roman/Anti-Jewish bias of the Gospels and only looking at the actions of Pilate, he clearly wanted Jesus killed, against what the Jews wanted.

Looking at just his action of offering a prisoner up, what type of prisoner did he offer? If he wanted Jesus to be “set free�? by the crowd, isn’t the most natural thing to do, is pick a person that there is no way the Jewish crowd would pick over Jesus? Who does he pick? An insurrectionist. An anti-Roman. A hero to the Jewish people.

Pilate: Who do you want? Barabbas who did what you all want to do, and kick the Romans right in the nuts, even killing a few, or Jesus, a traveling rabbi?

If Pilate really wanted the crowd to pick Jesus, what is the one type of person that is certain to be left on the chopping block? A publicani—a tax collector. Why pick a hero, when you could pick a villain? Grab some poor slob of a tax collector (If the bias of the Gospels states that Pilate would sacrifice an innocent Jesus, he equally would sacrifice an innocent tax collector), and place him up for a choice.

Taking the “bias�? out of it, by picking a hero, Pilate purposely sealed Jesus’ fate.

I guess the question is—why do you accept the contention that Josephus and Philo were biased, but do not apply the same methodology to the Gospel writers?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2006, 09:15 AM	#3
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	It seems clear to me that you are selectively reading your sources and ignoring anything that argues against your preconceived conclusion (ETA though your second post shows promise ). Rather than rely on your own potentially biased interpretation of the evidence, I suggest you consult the views of historians who have made it their business to study ancient Rome and Pilate in specific. I believe you will find that they tend to agree with Philo's opinion rather than dismiss it as you do.

01-12-2006, 12:02 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	TedM - you have evidence from Philo, who was more or less contemporaneous with Pilate. You have evidence from Josephus, who wrote a bit later, and had his own biases, but at least attempted to write history. You can assume that Josephus gives the Jewish reaction to Pilate. Both of these writers describe a somewhat brutal Roman ruler. If we had a Roman view of Pilate, it would probably be more nuanced and portray him as a strong executive making difficult decisions. And then you have some religiously based stories that mention Pilate in an inconsistent light, that show him as vascillating and indecisive, a tool of the Jewish leadership. If he were that deferential to the Jewish leadership, why would Philo have hated him so much? If he wanted to appease the mob, which mob would it be - the mob who supported Jesus or the mob who opposed him? If Jesus was a threat, what about his followers? There are just too many holes in your reconstruction.

01-12-2006, 01:13 PM	#10
blt to go Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 513	TedM, I have been following this discussion with interest. I did have a question, though, about the methodology presented by these sites. If we dismiss portions of Philo and Josephus as being “bias�? for being pro-Jewish, shouldn’t we, using the same method, dismiss portions of the Christians writers for being “bias�? for being anti-Jewish? It raised concerns that the authors of these sites acknowledged the viciousness of Pilate portrayed, but then dismissed it as “biased�? polemics. (Another question, on the side. Why are the coins “Pro-Roman�? images on one side and “Pro-Jewish�? on the other? Thanks.) Then they wanted to only look at certain actions, and even then in only a certain light. If that is the method in which Josephus and Philo must be read, to be consistent, should we read the Gospel accounts the same way? For example, I could argue that we remove the Pro-Roman/Anti-Jewish bias of the Gospels and only looking at the actions of Pilate, he clearly wanted Jesus killed, against what the Jews wanted. Looking at just his action of offering a prisoner up, what type of prisoner did he offer? If he wanted Jesus to be “set free�? by the crowd, isn’t the most natural thing to do, is pick a person that there is no way the Jewish crowd would pick over Jesus? Who does he pick? An insurrectionist. An anti-Roman. A hero to the Jewish people. Pilate: Who do you want? Barabbas who did what you all want to do, and kick the Romans right in the nuts, even killing a few, or Jesus, a traveling rabbi? If Pilate really wanted the crowd to pick Jesus, what is the one type of person that is certain to be left on the chopping block? A publicani—a tax collector. Why pick a hero, when you could pick a villain? Grab some poor slob of a tax collector (If the bias of the Gospels states that Pilate would sacrifice an innocent Jesus, he equally would sacrifice an innocent tax collector), and place him up for a choice. Taking the “bias�? out of it, by picking a hero, Pilate purposely sealed Jesus’ fate. I guess the question is—why do you accept the contention that Josephus and Philo were biased, but do not apply the same methodology to the Gospel writers?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.