Amaleq13

On the contrary, we know that Pilate ignored an imperial edict to stop unfair treatment of the Jews because he was sent to account for their continuing complaints a couple years after it was issued.

What a bizarre reading of the evidence! He was confounded by their willingness to die and decided against having to explain mass murder to his boss.

With soldiers hiding among them ready to beat them down.

He ordered them to be beaten. If you consider that "reasonable", you're on your own. I wash my hands of it.

Amaleq13

There is no reason to think that Rome would have approved of any such practice and certainly not if it involved freeing convicted seditionists.

John Kesler

Or perhaps blood mingling with sacrifices means...blood mingling with sacrifices.

TedM

Are you referring to his order to go to Rome after the Samaritan uprising? If so, that was an order that came about by an accusation of the Samaritan senate! Of course those folks would have been complaining about Pilate. His army killed some of their people. Upon reading Josephus' account of the incident, I hardly see evidence of any unfair treatment though. The first, and generally assumed early account by Josephus explicitly states that Pilate wouldn't remove teh images 'because it would tend to the injury of Caesar'. Sounds like he was trying to please the emporer to me.


The account says nothing about him deciding against having to explain mass murder to his boss. It says "Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable". He's talking about an emotional response of a positive nature toward those crazy Jews! There is nothing 'bizarre' in my reading at all because it is based on what is actually written, and not a speculation about what wasn't written.


He gave them 5 days with the ensigns before any military involvement. And, even after being abused by them (Josephus' words) in the water construction incident, he personally asked them to go away. I didn't say he didn't employ effective fighting methods (few soldiers against "ten thousands" may have necessitated some deception), but he did give them time to comply. He was in charge. It was their duty to comply. He didn't have to give them any leeway at all.


That's what rulers sometimes had to do to maintain control when they were greatly outnumbered, as was the case here. What do you think would have a been reasonable thing to do when many ten thousands were clamoring together against him, and some were using reproaches and abusing the man, showing no sign of respecting his authority over them, with his soldiers greatly outnumbered? Sometimes violence is the only way to get a mass mob to disperse. As indicated, it worked. I"m not saying I advocate it or that it is a 'nice' thing to do, but sounds like it may have been a reasonable action under the circumstances.

Had such a practice existed, there is reason Rome would have let it continue, since there is external evidence that they had some desire to allow them to preserve traditions. I agree that it doesn't make sense to have a tradition of freeing convicted seditionists. That doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of releasing lesser prisoners though. Barabbas may have been an abherration Pilate allowed to prove the hypocrytical nature of the Jews. Or he was made up by Mark for the same purpose. If historical, it would make sense for Pilate to have intended to rearrest Barabbas later.


Yes, but we might expect Josephus to have mentioned such an incident. If Galileans were killed with sacrifices, does that imply that it happened in Jerusalem, where the water construction incident was? Who knows

ted

JEST2ASK

Who Knows is my point ... I still see this all as very elequent, speculation based not on anything more than but what if's. Sorry but I can understand hypotheticals when stated as such but not when cloaked as analysis.

Amaleq13

I thought you were disregarding speculations about Pilate's thinking in the ancient texts. Did that only apply to Philo?

TedM

It's an analysis of what is reasonable to speculate based on the information we have. If I made it sound like more, I apologize. If I knew how to modify the title of the thread to be less dogmatic, I would.

You have a point there, Amaleq. I wasn't as careful on that one. I guess that one is less certain since it isn't a description of his action, but his alleged thinking.

ted

Amaleq13

Like I tell the kids, "Behavior never lies".

What does what you know of Pilate's behavior tell you about the guy?

I see a stubborn bully who demonstrated a complete disregard for the religious beliefs of the Jews. I see a man who viewed the threat of violent force as a primary answer to resistance and I see a willingness to carry out the threat but not to the point of mass murder.

The Gospel stories describe Pilate as honoring a Jewish religious occasion by freeing a convicted criminal and rather quickly agreeing to the demands of a crowd to execute a man he considered innocent.

They just don't sound like the same man to me.

TedM

I see a man who valued his duty to following Roman procedure enough that he wouldn't immediately change his mind when such procedures conflicted with the religious beliefs of the Jews. I see a man who initially responded to unarmed threats without violence but with warnings, but who would use it in a restrained manner if the warnings were not heeded. I see a man who was willing to be flexible and appease the Jews under certain circumstances, and uphold their traditions that he didn't believe in, even if he didn't have to.

Given that he was the commander of the Roman army in Judea, and that the army was greatly outnumbered by the people, and that the people were so easily excited to rioting themselves, all of the above actions of the man fall under the category of 'reasonable'.

They sound like the same man to me.

"a man who valued his duty to following Roman procedure". He had Jesus scourged for claiming to be king. He was concerned about offending Casaer. The threats by the chief priests about this affected him.

"enough that he wouldn't immediately change his mind when such procedures conflicted with the religious beliefs of the Jews." After questiong Jesus about whether he claimed to be king, he did inflict punishment--scourging. It appears he thought that was sufficient to comply with Roman law. However, what he deemed appropriate was in conflict with what the Jews deemed appropriate for religious reasons: death due to blasphemy. After the scourging, 3 times Pilate brought Jesus out to be released so clearly he didn't immediately change his mind. He was stubborn against Jewish religious sensitivities.

"a man who initially responded to unarmed threats without violence but with warnings, but who would use it in a restrained manner if the warnings were not heeded." This didn't happen in this case perhaps because a warning of violence or actual violence would have been imprudent since it was during the Passover.

"a man who was willing to be flexible and appease the Jews under certain circumstances" He appeased them under these circumstances.

"and uphold their traditions that he didn't believe in, even if he didn't have to." This he did also, I think due to the fact that it was easy to trade one man for another in order to avoid a serious and unnecessary conflict against his outnumbered military.


ted

Amaleq13

Neither Roman procedure nor duty inspired him to desecrate the Jewish Temple so they cannot be used as an excuse for his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that what he had done was horribly offensive and likely to create problems for himself. In fact, one could more easily argue that Roman procedure and duty required him to avoid causing such an unnecessary disruption. This point fails.

As I've shown, his desecration of the Temple argues against this point. Further, I do not believe it was Roman procedure to simply scourge a self-proclaimed challenger of Roman authority. Do you have any evidence to support this assumption? There is no reason to assume he would be concerned about Caesar if he thought the man to be innocent of the charges. This point fails on many counts.

As addressed above, this contention requires support.

It was well within Pilate's power to allow the Jews to stone Jesus for what they considered to be a crime. If that is the case, we are still left rejecting Mark's scene as fiction. This point not only fails but argues for my position.

The evidence that extra guards were placed around the Temple during Passover denies this speculation. They were there as an implied threat of violent reprisal given any disruptions and there is no reason to assume the Romans were bluffing nor that they were concerned about being outnumbered by untrained and likely poorly armed rabble. Another failed point.

Pilate conceded when confronted with a choice between concession and mass murder. There is nothing even approximately similar in the Gospel stories so you really have no support for this bit of speculation. This point fails as well.

On the contrary, there is no evidence in the historical record that he had any regard for Jewish traditions. In fact, his initial act of desecration and his subsequent refusal to change his actions argues against such a notion. In addition, there is absolutely no support for the existence of this idiotic "tradition" and absolutely no reason to think that the Romans would ever consider freeing a convicted criminal for a Jewish religious holiday let alone a convicted seditionist. So we have no evidence for the tradition, no reason to think Rome would ever condone such a practice, and no reason to think Pilate would continue it had it existed. Perfect score!

I think you will continue to see what you want to see regardless of the amount of evidence against such a conception.