TedM

Yes, it was contrary to the interests of Rome. That doesn't mean Pilate was aware of that fact, and was intentionally trying to stir things up. Allowing the embassy to go to Rome may actually suggest that he wasn't aware.

It seems to me that most significant information we have pertaining to Pilate's motivation with regard to the movement of Roman ensigns and shields (if different), is this:

Do you deny this statement Amaleq? If not, isn't that enough to show that Pilate was doing just what would be expected and that any refusal to change has a reasonable basis in that fact? If you do deny it, why?

I would think that in light of the above information and now that you realize that he didn't take the shields into the Temple (I wasn't sure if Herod's palace was part of it so I didn't dispute your claim), and that he actually took them to where he himself resided (according to my source) that the Jewish offense might not have been anticipated at all by Pilate. Would you agree? Would you agree that we therefore have no evidence from Pilate's actions that the Jewish offense was anticipated other than the opinions of Josephus and Philo?

ted

Amaleq13

Ted,

For some reason, the link in your OP no longer works though it did before. Is it just me?

Are you seriously arguing that Pilate was unaware that, once he knew the basis and offensive nature of the Jews' objections, refusing to comply with the request was likely to stir them up?

Where do you get the idea that he allowed the embassy to go?

I don't recall a source given for it and now I can't look for myself. If true, it would explain the shields but I'm not sure of the relevance to the effigies.

While I wait to learn the source of the claim, how is this relevant to his bringing in the effigies at night?

I've already said (emphasis added)"If he didn't know it would offend them before, he certainly knew it later and he still refused to comply."

TedM

Nope. I can't get to it either now.

Not at all. I said nothing of the sort. 1. Since the soldiers were doing their job, there is no reason to conclude that just because Tiberius later ruled for them to be removed that Pilate had any original ill intentions. 2. Once Pilate was aware of the the offensive nature of the issue, his refusal to comply does not equal a malicious intention to offend, because as far as we know he was choosing a higher value of serving Rome. Josephus says "he would not grant their requrest becuase it would tend to the injury of Caesar".
That this was his prevailing value is evidenced by the fact that once the ruling from Tiberius reached him, he complied immediately.

In Philo's account (which I strongly suspect is talking about the same incident as Josephus) they told him that they were going to go. He allowed them to go because all he had to do was change his mind. The suggestion by Philo that he 'lacked courage' to remove them is sufficient an explanation: He lacked courage to do something contrary to Roman practice. Had he believed he was doing something Rome would disapprove of, all he had to do was give in. The way the story reads, Pilate absolutely allowed them to go.

It may be of value to note that Philo says nothing forbidden was actually done, which was all the more reason Pilate would have allowed them to go!


According to Josephus in his Wars, the 'standards' are the effigies. If my source is accurate, I think it explains both the effigies and the shields because I think they are both talking about the same incident. It really doesn't make sense to think that after one incident Pilate would have purposely created and reacted as portrayed in the other. Both have to do with introducing offensive things in Jerusalem from Cesarea, and neither account references another similar incident.

The argument that he was trying to avoid problems by sneaking them in at night really is kind of silly. First, we don't really know why they arrived at night. Second, it was discovered soon enough (the very next morning according to Josephus!). Are we to assume that he thought to himself "if I sneak them in at night they'll never be discovered"? Unlikely.


I have no problem with the idea that he knew it would offend them and still did it. I'm claiming that it is most likely that he did it and continued to defy the Jews out of respect for Rome, which was a greater value for him. We have no evidence to the contrary. You seem to want to see this as a black or white either/or situation. I think that while he may have originally been unaware of offending the Jews, at some point he certainly was aware, and then it became a values conflict. He still valued serving Rome more, but was willing to back down either because he was 'deeply affected by their resolution' as Josephus says, or because he was told by Rome that it was ok to remove them). Since Philo had connections to Herod, I now think that his account is likely more accurate with regard to the reason Pilate backed down.

Here is a site that recreates what happened, with a large degree of speculation. I've bolded a few parts that may be of interest:

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html

I"m coming to the conclusion that it is really tough to know what really happened, and your interpretations may be right, but I see no need for them to be. Common sense about what Pilate would have done as a commander and clues about what he did do in the reports give plenty of support for a man that was primarily doing his job, and valued that more than the Jewish sensitivities--which IMO is not an unreasonable posture.

ted

Amaleq13

Bastards!

This ignores my point that he was, in no real way, "serving Rome" by continuing to piss off his populace. A reasonable man, say Tiberius, had no problem recognizing what was the best course of action for Rome. A reasonable man, say Pliny, asks the emperor what he should do when confronted with a confusing situation.

Perhaps he chose not to use force to stop them because it would just be another complaint to add to what he feared they were already going to say. You kind of skipped over the part where the Jews apparently had many complaints against him. Specifically, the part where Philo mentions "his frequent executions of untried prisoners". Yet another reason to question the historicity of the trial scene.

You are reading that into Philo who says nothing of the sort. It seems to me Philo is saying he lacked the courage to admit he had made an error or that he feared appearing weak before his subjects.

If by "allow" you mean "chose not to stop them by force", then I agree. If by "allow" you mean, "gave them permission", I do not.

No, that is according to speculation based on the reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. As it stands, we appear to have two incidents. I would think that one problem with conflating the two is the fact that the shields are specifically described as not carrying an image. I'm not sure how that can be reconciled with effigies.

No, it is not if the problem was resistance to placement. We have a modern parallel readily available in the recent Ten Commandments debacle. As with Pilate, the offending item was placed at night when there would be no one to stand in the way. Once established, the burden is shifted to those who wanted it removed.

I consider this objection entirely disingenuous. The behavior tells us much about Pilate and his awareness of the reaction his actions would obtain.

Since this speculative attempt to rescue Pilate's reputation appears to follow from your conclusion rather than from any evidence there is no good reason to accept it. Philo tells us the Jews had many complaints against Pilate and Josephus tells us he was eventually sent to Tiberius to answer for his behavior.

Why did Pilate lose his job, Ted?

Toto

Google cache of the link in the OP

Website problems for that site can be reported to webmaster_0001@evansville.edu

This appears to be the same material:

http://cr.middlebury.edu/public/russ...olePilate.html

TedM

That's a good point. He may have been made an error in judgement at that early point in his tenure.

Yes, if true it weakens my argument.


Yes, I doubt Philo really knew what Pilate was thinking since he wasn't there and he likely got information from people who hated Pilate.

From Wars: He even names them, Amaleq. No speculation here by me.

That is a problem with conflating, but conflation makes the most sense to me, and I stated why in my last post. The most logical way to reconcile the differences are to consider the effects of time on memory, time on the retelling retelling, and the fuel of bias. We both read them as the same incidents initially, and I think with valid reason.

Ther eis no evidence of a problem of resistance to placement. There is clear evidence of resistance to them staying there after placement. Josephus' comment that the response was immediate the next morning renders the idea of sneaking a silly one, though I suppose they may have done so anyway.


The action told is arrival at night. The intention is the author's editorial comment, which I'm seeing more and more was biased against Pilate somewhat.

How do you read Josephus then when he states ? And Philo when he writes ? And the reasonable claim that bringing in the standards was simply 'standard' practice for Romans?


Of course the Jews had many complaints against a man occupying their God-given land, whose soldiers killed some of them on 2 occasions. He was 'eventually sent' to Tiberius because the Samaritan Senate didn't like the fact that Pilate's soldiers killed some of their people when they took up armes in religious fervor. It has nothing to do with Jewish complaints mentioned by Philo. To link them is bizarre.


Probably because the tensions were rising between him and the Jews. That would have happened had a man brought in effigies by mistake, moved them only upon discovery that Rome approved their removal, had soldiers that beat rioters who protested a construction project they thought was against their laws, and had killed the primary leaders of an armed religious movement. The hatred and tensions didn't require a man who was brutal and cared nothing for their ways.

I"m tiring of this dispute in part because it is becoming clearer to me that neither of the accounts of Josephus or Philo can be considered accurate. IF one takes the position that Josephus was biased FOR Pilate, one can find comments by him to the contrary, and if one takes the position that he was biased against Pilate one can find comments by him to the contrary also.
In Philo, one can find many problems with the characterization of Pilate also. And when one tries to harmonize the two accounts which I now believe were regarding the same incident, it becomes clear that one or both simply contain inaccurate descriptions of what actually happened.

As such, it's hard to recover much of anything about the man's true character, and it becomes increasingly difficult to make a strong case either for or against his portrayal in the Gospels.

ted

Amaleq13

Why would they hate him, Ted? Personal experience with his behavior, perhaps?

I assumed you were equating the standards with the shields in Philo. That is speculative. If you were not, I retract the comment.

There really is nothing more "logical" about this speculation than accepting we have two different incidents being described.

I wondered if they might be the same incident but I really have no evidence to assume that to be true.

Getting back to my reference to Pilate desecrating the Temple, I may have to retract my retraction. From here:

"They marched into the city with their Roman standards, bearing the image of the "divine emperor" and set up their headquarters right in the corner of the Temple in a palace-fortress called "Antonia," which outraged the Jews. Pilate quickly learned their zealous nature and political power within the province and, according to Josephus, ordered the standards to be returned to Caesarea (Josephus Ant. 18.3.1-2; Wars 2.9.2-4)."

IIUC, it wasn't actually in the Temple but connected to it.

In addition, this is a separate location from Herod's palace in which Pilate likely resided and in which the problematic shields were placed. Two locations suggests two incidents.

You've got to be freaking kidding me. This "distinction" is ridiculous. If they objected to their placement after the fact, they certainly would have objected prior to their placement had they known about it.

I've clearly established that it is not "silly" and your ridiculous distinction above utterly fails to accomplish anything.

The intention is common sense, Ted. Something you appear to using quite selectively here.

I read your questions as ignoring what I've already said. Whether it was a regular practice and whether Pilate knew beforehand he would offend the Jews are actually irrelevant to the fact of his stubborn refusal to comply. A reasonable man would weigh the importance of a regular practice with a potential uprising like Tiberius obviously did. A reasonable man who was, for some reason, incapable of reaching that conclusion on his own would, like Pliny, ask his emperor for guidance and inform the Jews he was doing so.

That isn't what Josephus tells us:

"But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate." (Ant.18.4.2)

That Vitellius took these claims seriously enough to send him to the emperor to explain simply cannot be ignored as you are clearly doing.

And you know that Vitellius did not take into account prior complaints when judging the complaint of the Samaritan's because....?

On the contrary, it is common sense. To ignore any possibility of connection is what is truly bizarre.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't asking for your personal opinion. I was hoping you might check to see how historians answer the question.

I'm not surprised you are tired, the effort to ignore the obvious disparity between what the historical record says and the Bible story must be exhausting.

Even assuming the details cannot be considered reliable, we are still left with two 1st century historians who, subsequent to consulting whatever sources they had available and regardless of differing individual biases, agree that Pilate acted in an antagonistic and disrespectful manner toward his Jewish subjects. You ignore this fact to the detriment of your argument.

It really isn't necessary in order to reject the absurd "tradition" of releasing a convicted criminal for Passover.

TedM

Perhaps, perhaps not..


Why do you need anything more than common sense? How likely is it that both Philo and Josephus would mention very similar and critically important different incidents without mentioning the other--either separately or within the story they each wrote? Not likely. What we have is probably the same story altered over time because neither man who wrote about them was present to witness the incident. Josephus wasn't even born yet. We aren't going to resolve this one. I think it is a reasonable possibility at the least though.

[quote]Neither of the citations refer to the temple, Herod's palace or Antonia. What is the basis for this claim? Also, if the concern was desecration of the temple it is nearly inconceivable for Josephus to not have mentioned it. It simply wasn't desecrated. The 'offense' wasn't nearly so bad.


Of course they 'would have objected'. So what? The point is that they still did object and there was no reason to think they 'would not have' after the placement, so there really was no logical reason to 'sneak them in' at night. It didn't make any difference at all. Therefore it is silly to think that they purposely did this, though Josephus thought they did.


That would have been the most reasonable course to take. He may have let a loyalty to the emperor guide his stubborness. After all, it would have been almost an insult to take the shields down. When we realize that here was a man who hadn't had a problem with ensigns and shields in the Judean city of Cesarea where he was stationed, he may not have really planned ahead for the kind of opposition he got, so the first time he had to consider going to the emperor may have been AFTER he had already made a move. It is human nature to rationalize behaviors and he certainly had something strong to use here--allegiency to Rome. It wasn't wise, and it wasn't the most reasonable course of action, but it is understandable and very unfair to see this alone as evidence of the kind of man Philo described.

All it means is that he took the claims seriously after hearing one side tell about the deaths of their people--perhaps their loved ones even--a side that clearly lied based on Josephus' account, since they did not go to Tirathaba in order to 'escape the violence of Pilate', but to gather together to go up the mountain armed to pursue a religious treasure hunt which would have confirmed their superiority over Rome as God's chosen people!


And you know that he did? For Pete's sake a bunch of people died at the hands of Pilate's soldiers. It seems reasonable to conclude that that alone was reason enough to send Pilate to account for the incident.


Josephus' account isn't nearly so strong as Philo's, pointing out that while Pilate intended to 'abolish the Jewish laws' he did so in order to honor Caesar, he was emotionally affected in a positive way in response to the Jewish devotion after seeing it first-hand, and that he was restrained in his orders against the rioting Jewish crowds which had abused him. So, I submit that you seem to be ignoring those facts--supplying your own spin on them (Pilate didn't kill them because he didn't want to have to explain mass murder, etc..)

Yet he was allowed to remain for years after the disputed incidents with the effigies and shields by a very 'fair' emperor whom Philo says was very supportive of Jewish traditions. I don't think we can just disgregard the likelihood that they were biased. We can look at Pilate's actions, and have done so. As I see it the only arguments you have against Pilate's character with any substance is that Pilate should have gotton the emperor's decision before refusing to uphold his respect for Rome, since the Jews were so upset. That just doesn't seem to go far IMO. Now, it may be that he was a jerk, and that the two writers got it right. Even if I concede this possibility, I don't see it as strong evidence against the actions during the trial for the simple reason that he may well have had a strong motivation to avoid a military conflict at that time.


Do you think the idea of a Jewish tradition of releasing a minor criminal during Passover is absurd? I can think of a couple of reasons for one:

1. Passover was symbolic for Israel's escape from the imprisonment of slavery from the Egyptians. Releasing a prisoner could be a way to remember their own release. Under Roman occupation such a release takes on even more meaning, as it could symbolize release from the Romans.

2. Passover also was a time of atonement. Jewish forgiveness of a minor criminal could symbolize their own hope for God's forgiveness of the whole nation for their sins


Would Rome ever agree to such a tradition? Well, they agreed to remove the statues of the emperor and shields with his name on it in order to honor Jewish tradition, so I'd say they would go pretty far to keep the peace, and that the release of a petty criminal would be a very minor tradition to uphold. Would they release a political prisoner? Seems unlikely, and maybe that is why John says he was just a robber, and maybe the Christian tradition embellished just how bad the guy was for apologetic reasons. But, I can see Pilate making an exception--and actually challenging them to release a 'true' political troublemaker in order to expose the extreme hypocracy on the part of the chief priests and the crowd, and with the intention of re-arresting him later.

It's late. Maybe tomorrow I'll look at the rest of your answer about the trial, which may have addressed some of what I just wrote.

ted

Amaleq13

Because "common sense" absent evidence is often just speculation and I believe that is true in this instance. It is possible these are the same incident but the differences in detail, as you acknowledged, make it difficult to argue that position. Everything I've read treats them as separate incidents though the possibility of conflation is sometimes mentioned.

Each author mentions things the other does not. You have no basis for your probability estimate.

They provided their source, Ted. You can read the website as well as I.

I was responding to your assertion, "Ther eis no evidence of a problem of resistance to placement.", which suggests we have no reason to assume such a thing. And that is absurd as you now appear to acknowledge.

Except the one I've already offered. The one that was recently confirmed by the sneaking in of the ten commandments monument at night. You avoid the protests and place the burden upon those wanting it removed. Ignoring this doesn't make it go away, Ted. It is an entirely logical explanation for Pilate's behavior that denies your assertion.

This is exactly why I'm asking, Ted. Why would Vitellius assume against the governor and for the Samaritans? Do you think it might have been because he knew Pilate's reputation for abusive behavior?

I was your claim, therefore, you have the burden to support it.

Only with evidence will this be a reasonable conclusion. Please support this with evidence of other governors being called to account for defeating rebels or even Pilate being called to account for the slaying of the Galileans or beating the protesting Jews or the stealing of Temple funds.

This is exactly my point. Despite that fact, we are still left with a depiction of a man who antagonized and abused his Jewish subjects until he lost his job.

Don't change the story. The Gospels do not describe Barabbas as a "minor criminal" and you know it. There is no evidence to support the existence of such a tradition and only John depicts it as such. In addition, there is absolutely no reason to think the Romans would condone such a tradition and no evidence that they did.

IOW, yes. That you feel capable of formulating speculative possibilities to rationalize an unsubstantiated practice is as unsurprising as it is unconvincing.

It is absurd to suggest they would free a convicted seditionist for Passover and there is absolutely no evidence that any such tradition ever existed.

Why bother? You will continue to feel free to rely on unsubstantiated speculation and I will continue to expect evidence to support claims.

TedM

I'm letting you have the last word on this Amaleq, other than to repeat that the citations your source gave didn't mention what the source said about the temple, as far as I saw when I looked at them.

Thanks for the discussion.

ted