spin

If you accept that Pilate's administrative behaviour was nothing special for the time, I think that you nullify your hyperbole, Koy. Did Pilate act any better or worse than Herod the Great or Herod Antipas? Did he act any better or worse than Felix? If you can't comment then all the rest is just meaningless.

The Pilate legend stuff is just christian wish fulfillment.

The rhetoric you're using is applicable to many if not most rulers of various political entities of the period, Roman or independent.

There are numerous reports of Roman governors undergoing trials and some found guilty. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

The only reason why Pilate is infamous was due to the tradition which tied him into the christian narrative. He would have been totally insignificant beside that. Philo sells the Jewish line, as does Josephus, so their biases are not particularly reflective of the reality.

I don't know the limits of this claimed fact. Pilate's handling of the shields issue was quite diplomatic, seeing as there was a conflict with official policy. He tried to bully those Jews who protested and when that proved not to change the resolve of the protesters, he had the shields removed. We only have bad press for Pilate, so we need to be extremely careful with our judgment.

I would agree that the releasing of the prisoner routine doesn't present itself as realistic. I'm just wary of analyses based on biased reporting.

I think it's hard to divine the exact purpose or reliability of this material. I don't defend it.


spin

Phoenix From Ashes

The definiteness here is unwarranted. Pilate most likely would have feared riots. His job and likely his life depended upon quelling any uprisings in this volatile area under Roman influence.

Jewish messianism had many different facets. Some believed there would be a priestly messiah, some believed there would be a kingly messiah, others believed both, and so on. According to the bible, it seems that they believed (at least initially) that Jesus would be a kingly messiah (similar to what Simon Bar Kokhba appeared early on to be to his followers).

There is no reason for this fact to be repeated. Pilate, according to the biblical text, appears to have proclaimed Jesus' innocence of any crime (whether he believed so or not was only known to him). Jesus does not seem to have publicly proclaimed himself as King of the Jews, if we may judge by the biblical accounts. However, there seem to have been those (disciples or not) who believed him to be a kingly messiah, the King of the Jews.

In this respect you are correct. However, again, it does not matter whether Pilate proclaimed that Jesus committed no crime. In the eyes of the Jews who put Jesus forward, Jesus had committed a crime, and they seemed willing to hold this against Pilate in an effort to force him to kill Jesus and save his own skin or to risk losing his post or his life. That is the point, not that Pilate said publicly that Jesus committed no crime.

Lest you think it would have been impossible for the Jews to make Pilate look bad because of such a situation as Jesus, I believe they did. According to Josephus, Pilate was eventually removed from his post because of a religious zealot:

"Josephus (Antiquities, 18, 4, 1, 2) gives an account of Pilate's removal from office. A religious fanatic arose in Samaria who promised the Samaritans that if they would assemble on Mount Gerizim, he would show them the sacred vessels which Moses had hidden there. A great multitude of people came to the 'sacred mountain' of the Samaritans ready to ascend the mountain, but before they could, they were attacked by Pilate's cavalry, and many of them were slaughtered. The Samaritans therefore sent an embassy to Vitellius, the legate of Syria, to accuse Pilate of murdering innocent people. Vitellius, who wanted to maintain friendship with the Jews, removed Pilate from office and appointed Marcellus in his place."

That would be an incorrect inference. It does not appear from the biblical accounts that Jesus did any such thing. It appears that some of his followers (new followers, disciples? I don't know) were proclaiming him the King of the Jews around Jerusalem (and possibly elsewhere).

Koyaanisqatsi

I do not accept it spin as should be obvious from what I've posted, particularly the fact that his rule was so bad that complaints against him resulted in his ignoble recall to Rome.

And, again, I qualified what I stated by saying he was "one of" the most brutal governors, not "the" most brutal governor, so, your strawman is irrelevant and continues to miss the point.

:huh:

spin

Am I supposed to defend the gospel presentation? I merely wanted you to be more aware of purity issues which were extremely important to Judaism.

Are you defending the historicity of these accounts or are you just arguing for argument's sake?

I'm certainly not arguing for the historicity of these events. My comments were about your trivializing of Jewish purity concerns.

It's not a matter of rules against entering the place. I've already indicated some of the issues that would have impact on priests entering Roman headquarters. As I wrote:

Naturally priests would not enter places where Roman soldiers frequented. Soldiers worshipped pagan gods and had pagan symbols -- even the standards would have been considered pagan symbols because they often referred to the emperor or to gods. Leather goods, which were staple costume items for soldiers, could easily impart impurity and render priests unclean.

You did not take any of this on board.

It is not a matter of rules regarding entering Roman or even Patagonian houses, there are rules for maintaining purity. All evidence points to purity issues being an integral part of the temple cultus. Not having a specific level of purity excluded you from ritual foods or from ritual performances.

The reason why foreigners were excluded from the temple was that they were never able to reach the purity necessities that made one eligible to enter the temple precincts. Herod, to guarantee standards for his temple, supplied priestly families with the necessary materials for them to build it, so there could be no purity issues.

In modern day terms, religionists who think rock music is evil won't enter concert halls. It's not the place itself that is the problem, but what might go on in it.

You are not looking at the evidence here. You falsely assume that there must be some law that forbids a priest from going into the bed of the harlot in order for him not to go into the bed for purity reasons.

You can believe what you want PhilosopherJay. It's usually based on eisegesis. I don't support the content of the narrative you are attempting analyse. I merely point to there being nothing strange in the idea that priests would not enter a place which would compromise their purity.


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

Phoenix, my apologies, but I'm growing very tired of having to cover ground I already did and you have not addressed. Josephus recounts how Pilate not only anticipated a riot during the aquaduct debacle, he did not fear one, but instead took covert steps to ensure that if any riot broke out, there would be a sufficient multitude of soldiers posing as a part of the crowd to quell it efficiently (and did so, no less, when one erupted).

That would be a part of his job, incidentally; to control the region and be prepared at all times for any uprising. The Passover festival, for an obvious example, would most certainly have been a time when Pilate was absolutely concerned and therefore likewise prepared for any kind of uprising, particularly if he did not have the troop support he thought he needed.

But, again, you have not addressed the fact that for Pilate to have been susceptible to blackmail, he would have had to have believed that "the crowd" had something on him to blackmail him with.

He publicly declared that Jesus had committed no Roman crime (that would include Caesar's decree), so he could not possibly have believed that "the crowd" could blackmail him with something he had already officially declared as a duly authorized representative of Rome that which was not a crime in his mind.

Which proves that Pilate would not have been susceptible to blackmail by "the crowd" Phoenix.

You have just proved my point. To be susceptible to blackmail on any level, Pilate would have had to have believed that "the crowd" would be able to prove to Caesar that Jesus had claimed to be the "King of the Jews."

He did not; Pilate knew this, allegedly ruled on it and then publicly confirmed that no one considered Jesus to be the "King of the Jews," so there would be no grounds in Pilate's mind for any kind of blackmail, if, indeed, such a man as Pilate feared such sophistry from a crowd of subjugated Jews.

:huh:

Then they should have stoned him to death as they tried twice before.

No, the point that you keep avoiding is that, for blackmail to work Pilate must have believed "the crowd" had a case against him to blackmail him with. He clearly did not and publicly declared it in his official role as a promagistrate of Rome.

Look bad? "The Jews" as you put it denounced Jesus as a "King of the Jews," thereby concurring with Pilate's findings that Jesus was not and never claimed to be (as you concede) the "King of the Jews."

"I have found this man has commited no Roman crime. He does not claim that he is your king, your Sanhedrin claimed he claimed that and I do not beleive them. Is he your king?"

"We have no king but Caesar, but if you don't kill Jesus, we're going to tell our mortal enemies and our oppressors that you refused to kill him for claiming he was the King of the Jews."

"You just publicly declared that you don't consider him to be the King of the Jews; he has publicly declared he is not the King of the Jews; and I have officially, publicly declared that he has committed no Roman crime. The record is clear, fuck you."

"Then we shall riot!"

"Beside the fact that I already anticipated such a possibility on this day particularly, because I'm not a fucking idiot, you mean you're going to riot if I don't kill the completely innocent man that you all agree is not your 'King' even though you all supposedly love him so much that if you found out that your leaders had conspired to try and kill him (as I just told you was precisely what they did) you'd riot against them, but now, inexplicably are not going to, because you're all just so susceptible to 'office politics' that don't yet exist? Gee, I never thought of that possibility on this the most militarily prepared day of the year for such a contingency. GUARDS!"

What you are now arguing has nothing to do with Pilate's alleged susceptibility to being blackmailed as it did not and could not have existed.

:huh:

No, he was eventually removed because of the complaints against his brutality, not because of any one Zealot. Please don't ever quote someone's evidently biased interpretation or summary of Josephus again. If you want to quote Josephus, do so directly.

Then, once again, Pilate was correct in his alleged ruling that Jesus had committed no Roman crime and therefore could not possibly be susceptible to blackmail accordingly from the impossibly fickle, easily manipulated crowd.

Again, you prove my point while continuing to avoid it. Why? I have shown you the courtesy of addressing every one of your points, now please address mine.

Blackmail is dependent upon the individual believing he has done something wrong; Pilate, as a Roman promagistrate, not only did nothing wrong, his ruling (if it ever crossed his desk, which this one most definitely would not have) would be considered a finding of Roman law.

There would be no grounds at all for which Pilate would fear "the crowd" could blackmail him and certainly not into blackmailing him to execute a man he just officially declared to be innocent of all charges.

Not a threat of a riot (that he would have most assuredly been prepared for on that day just as a matter of military course) and certainly not a threat that Jewish slaves, basically, could possibly attain an audience with Ceasar to accuse Pilate of not killing an innocent man that never claimed he was a "King" and that they themselves publicly declared was not their King.

That is beyond preposterous.

:huh:

spin

OK, so you want to slavish believe biased sources and traditions. You are entitled to fabricate titles like the "most brutal whippet beater" or "one of the most brutal chicken pluckers", but to call me calling you a "strawman" is risable. Complaints were often received about Roman governors. We don't know much about Pilate, so you can make arguments from silence and empty claims to your heart's content.


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

What? If you'll recall, I offered to change my statement to "one of the most infamous, brutal governors." Is that not sufficiently qualified for you?

Do you want me to state that he was no more brutal than any other Gauleiter in the Nazi reich, or would you also consider that to be an example of my being "slavish" to "biased sources and traditions?" I mean, considering that he murdered a man he officially, allegedly declared to be completely innnocent, that billions of people over the centuries believe(d) to be their God and Lord and Savior, what do you want me to call him?

Just another Nazi Gauleiter? I have no problems with that.

:huh:

I said one of; one of the most brutal governors and, again, offered to further qualify it. Do you want me to just state that Pilate was one of the most infamous governors? Will that stop this sophistry?

The fact remains that he was successfully recalled to Rome (removed from his post and his title) because of the complaints of his brutality, not just that complaints were lodged. That axiomatically makes him one of the most (infamous) brutal governors in the minds of not just Roman superiors at the time, but obviously in the minds of the Jews he brutalized.

Was that the only "point" you wanted to make, or are you arguing that his removal was purely political (as seems to be the current exegesis) in which case, may I just call him "one of the most infamous governors who, in the minds of the Jewish subjects he brutalized--enough for them to make a large enough political stink about it that he ended up being actually recalled as a result--would not be afraid of being blackmailed by a crowd of Jews?"

:huh:

Now please stop with this blatant and irrelevant strawman and address my points, particularly the one that Phoenix keeps trying to avoid, which was that Pilate would have no grounds to be susceptible to Jewish blackmail.

spin

No, it's not. You haven't got a clue about how cruel anyone was in Galatia, or North Africa or various parts of Iberia, so you are just talking through your hat. Come on. Pilate does not seem to be any worse than the majority. You are simply being slavish to your biased sources, two ancient Jewish apologetic writers.

Remember that which you coyly call the "aqueduct debacle"? The fact that Pilate was carrying out the operation shows him in a better light than a number of governors who came out to the provinces to milk them dry. He was attempting to carry out important public works which would be for the benefit of the local population. But to you it's just the aqueduct debacle.

No, I want you not to be anachronistic.

There is no sophistry here, Koy. I said: 'You are entitled to fabricate titles like the "most brutal whippet beater" or "one of the most brutal chicken pluckers"'. The second version I supplied was for your rehashed version. Tacitus tells about a lot of uncool governors, but Pilate doesn't rate a mention on that score. Perhaps he had a much better perspective than your Jewish apologists. Remember that the only Latin writer who seems to show any interest in Pilate at all is Tacitus A.15.44 and that passage seems to be a christian cuckoo. No ancient writer seems as interested as you in Pilate.

Lots of governors were recalled and/or tried. You have shown no attempt to get beyond your literary sources.

Why not call him a minor Roman governor about whom we know very little other than what a few ancient Jewish apologetic historians said against him.

When I complain about your facile approach to very dubious source literature, you whinge about strawmen. That's still risible, Koy.

I merely found your untenable position supporting the common stereotyped cardboard figure worth noting because I thought you might reconsider and adjust with a more critical analysis of your own.


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

No, I'm "talking" through the historical record and repeatedly offering to categorize Pilate however the fuck you want.

Because he was recalled by Rome due to complaints about his brutality as all sources show, but hey, you name it. Pontius Pilate was a what governor? No more or less brutal than any other governor according to Spin and not according to the multitudes who suffered under him, so much so that they actually were able to get him removed from his post?

You got it.

NOW PLEASE ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINTS, NAMELY THAT PILATE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO FEAR BLACKMAIL FROM THE "CROWD."

:huh:

spin

When you have nothing to compare your "the most" and "one of the most", it seems like you're talking through you hat.

Representative of his period. Where are the reports regarding Pilate in the Roman sources if he was such a bad egg? Yeah, there ain't any.

Here's another governor of Judea (Tac. A.12.54):

Felix... had for some time been governor of Judaea, and thought that he could do any evil act with impunity, backed up as he was by such power. It is true that the Jews had shown symptoms of commotion in a seditious outbreak, and when they had heard of the assassination of Caius, there was no hearty submission, as a fear still lingered that any of the emperors might impose the same orders. Felix meanwhile, by ill-timed remedies, stimulated disloyal acts; while he had, as a rival in the worst wickedness, Ventidius Cumanus, who held a part of the province, which was so divided that Galilea was governed by Cumanus, Samaria by Felix. The two peoples had long been at feud, and now less than ever restrained their enmity, from contempt of their rulers. And accordingly they plundered each other, letting loose bands of robbers, forming ambuscades, and occasionally fighting battles, and carrying the spoil and booty to the two procurators, who at first rejoiced at all this, but, as the mischief grew, they interposed with an armed force, which was cut to pieces.

A procurator in Asia, Tac. A.4.15:

Lucilius Capito, procurator of Asia, who was impeached by his province, was tried by them, the emperor vehemently asserting "that he had merely given the man authority over the slaves and property of the imperial establishments; that if he had taken upon himself the powers of a praetor and used military force, he had disregarded his instructions; therefore they must hear the provincials." So the case was heard and the accused condemned.

Tac. A.12.49:

Julius Pelignus was then procurator of Cappadocia, a man despised alike for his feebleness of mind and his grotesque personal appearance. He was however very intimate with Claudius, who, when in private life, used to beguile the dullness of his leisure with the society of jesters. This Pelignus collected some provincial auxiliaries, apparently with the design of recovering Armenia, but, while he plundered allies instead of enemies, finding himself, through the desertion of his men and the raids of the barbarians, utterly defenceless, he went to Rhadamistus, whose gifts so completely overcame him that he positively encouraged him to assume the ensigns of royalty, and himself assisted at the ceremony, authorizing and abetting.

Tac. A.3.70:

Ancharius Priscus had prosecuted Caesius Cordus, proconsul of Crete, for extortion, adding a charge of treason, which then crowned all indictments.

These were grabbed at random from Tacitus's Annals to show that governors were frequently in the poo for misdeeds. Tacitus has no bad dope on Pilate, yet you want to claim that Pilate was the most brutal..., no, one of the most brutal frog rapists of all time.

I DON'T GIVE A TINKER'S CUSS ABOUT "the actual points". THAT'S YOUR TANGO WITH THE XMAN. HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED THAT I'VE SHOWN NO INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT?

I think the blackmail position is silly, but I don't care. I was just interested in your recital of the anti-Pilate stuff from your unanalysed sources.

Feel free to say the last word.


spin