Loading...I think there is almost no historical figure that Craig and I disagree on more than the Roman governor of Judea at the time of Jesus’ death, Pontius Pilate. I see him as a cruel, vicious, hard-headed, insensitive, and brutal ruler; Craig portrays him as an efficient but wise and rather sensitive aristocrat who could learn from his lessons and who would go out of his way not to offend Jewish sensibilities. A lot hangs on which view (if either) is right, since it was Pilate – we agree on this! – who ordered Jesus’ crucifixion. Moreover, if Jesus was given a decent burial (Craig’s view) or was left to hang on the cross for some time in accordance with standard Roman practice (my view), it was, in either case, Pilate’s decision.
Craig’s view is that Pilate’s sensitive decision not to allow crucified victims to hang on their crosses after their deaths is what allowed him to keep “the nation at peace” (the phrase comes from the Jewish historian Josephus, whom I will be dealing with in later posts). My view is that the reason the nation was kept “at peace” was precisely because governors like Pilate showed with graphic brutality what would happen to anyone who revolted or threatened to revolt; crucifixion and the humiliations suffered post mortem were an effective deterrent for revolt, for most of the Roman period.
But what kind of person was Pilate? Craig refers to a passage in Josephus, Book 18 of the Antiquities, where Pilate, on assuming rule of Judea, brought Roman standards bearing an image of the emperor into Jerusalem, thereby offending the Jews who were resident there, who maintained that since city was holy to God, there were to be no “images” there. According to Craig’s discussion, the Jews protested, Pilate realized he had made a mistake and backed down, and that was the end of the story. Craig emphasizes that this account shows that previous governors had not brought standards into town – showing their basic sensitivities to Jewish customs and laws – and that once Pilate saw that he had made an error he “quickly” (his word) gave way.
As Craig summarizes the event: “Pilate either did not understand Jewish law and custom and so acted in ignorance, or he did, thinking he could force on his Jewish subjects his allegiance to the emperor. In either case, he quickly learned how loyal the Jews were to their law and wisely backed down.”
For Craig, this “wise” decision affected the rest of Pilate’s rule in Judea. Jewish customs were not to be breached. And so, Craig “find[s] it hard to believe,” that once Pilate learned his lesson about Jewish determination to follow their customs, that he would later allow crucified criminals to remain on their crosses in violation of Jewish sensibilities.
I have a very different read of Pilate in general, of this incident of the standards in particular, and of its effect on Pilate’s behavior subsequently. First I’ll talk about this incident.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Oh, you & Craig were both so close! Clearly, Pilate DID learn his lesson–just not the one Craig wants him to have learned.
In the second reported incident, instead of relying on his failed “surround & threaten” tactic, he changed course and had his soldiers sneak into the crowd with clubs, giving them the ability to attack without warning.
Pilate’s mama didn’t raise no fool!
What is interesting is that the ‘second reported incident’ is in Aniquites 18.4.2 , immediately following the account of the ‘first incident’ cited by Craig about the bringing of Roman standards bearing an image of the emperor into Jerusalem, recounted in 18.4.1.
Whatever Pilate learned, he learned it quickly!”
I would say that Josephus wouldn’t have known Pilate personally. He was too young so probably relied on folk memories of him. I’ve no doubt Pilate was an officious, arrogant man. But he had relatively few troops at his disposal (about 1000) and they were auxiliaries, not legionaries, so a gendarmerie really. If he got into trouble, his boss, the Governor of Syria, would have had to have bailed him out, which wouldn’t have looked good on Pilate’s record. So I feel he may have trodden carefully at times and appeased the locals when it suited him to do so.
But that probably wouldn’t have affected whether or not a condemned man was left to rot on a cross or not.
It took several days for someone to die on a cross, right? But Xtns want to believe Jesus died on day one, was taken down, and put in a tomb. I wonder if whomever came up with the story knew it took a while to die and that is why there are additional details about breaking his legs (so he would suffocate faster – Xtns say this happened in all cases) and piercing his side to hasten the end.
Those additional details might indicate the tomb story did not happen and later narrators had to account for discrepancies with how crucifixion led to death.
What do you think?
Seems plausible to me. It might also help explain the flogging of Jesus in advance; he would have been at death’s door already.
Were people getting ready to be crucified normally flogged in advance?
Do you believe that Jesus actually was flogged before being crucified?
I don’t know of any indication they were. I kind of doubt it, but I don’t think we can know.
What were the gospels authors’ reason for saying that Jesus was flogged?
To make the suffering worse?
That’s a good option. Or possibly to explain why he died so quickly?
it’s funny people bet soul on text that’s been change, forced by catholic and Rome in later history, and book of revelation was all about Nero and Roman’s as antichrist, Rome catholic put bible together, I think is there is such thing as satan and god, then satan started the church what says you Bart?
One other question do you think the Catholic Church has missing text that they will never allow the public to see?
I love you work, I also like listen to rabbi tovia singer
I don’t believe in Satan myself, so I don’t think he startd the church. And no, I’m 99.999% sure the Catholic church is not hiding texts of the Bible from public view because of the problems they would create.
I totally believe in Satan as the church I grew up described him. But as for God, nothing like, perhaps OT, the worker who touches the Ark of Covenant dies instantly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzzah#:~:text=When%20the%20oxen%20stumbled%2C%20making,the%20Lord%20for%20his%20error.
https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/6-6.htm
How much does your view on whether Pilate allowed the burial depend on Jesus actually being killed for high treason? If it turned out that Pilate had in fact no particular interest in executing him but only ordered it to please the mob would you say then there’s every chance he allowed the body to be taken down?
No, the other accounts we have of the remains of crucifixion victims are usuually ot connected to high treason. People who were crucified were left on their crosses as a warning not to do what they had done.
I’m guessing with these related judgements, Pilate wasn’t looking to learn much. I’m not a scholar and, I’m more influence by what Ehrman says here. But, I bet Jesus learned that under no circumstances should Roman leaders learn that you want to be any kind of king.
Unrelated question: Is the word “Hades” as used in the Bible synonymous with Sheol? Hard to believe the biblical authors meant the abode of the mythical Greek God Hades, King of the Underworld, brother of Zeus and Poseidon. If the biblical authors did not mean the Greek Underworld, then how did the term “Hades” end up in our Bibles?
The Greek writers of the NT would not have had an equivalent term for Sheol (it’s a Hebrew term without Jewish equivalent, since it seems to be designating a place, but that place is probably simply the grave.) In Greek speaking realms, the place of the dead was “hades” — and so that’s just how they rendered the term. It is used on the Sepptuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) to render Sheol. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the authors thought of Hades in th eGreek sense. I talk about all this a bit in my book Heaven and Hell, if you’re interested.
Dear Dr. Ehrman.
Unrelated to this post, I again have a question.
While doing research on 1 Corinthians 7:29, I stumbled upon a (seemingly) novel interpretation of the passage. I would love it if you give me your thoughts. Is this a viable interpretation, or is it a novel one which the original recipients couldn’t have come to themselves?
“Paul is not concerned about the duration of time but the character of the time. He is talking not about how little time is left but about how Christ’s death and resurrection have changed how Christians should look at the time that is left. He is not recommending that one should take the short-term view of life, nor is he offering an interim ethic for the impending end-time tribulation. Instead, he understands the compressing of the time to mean that the future outcome of this world has become crystal clear. The time has been “foreshortened,” which means that “the event of Christ has now compressed the time in such a way that the future has been brought forward so as to be clearly visible” (Fee 1987: 339 n. 14).”
David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, p 328–329.
Gordon Fee was a fine man and a good friend. But I’m afraid I don’t think he can be right about this one. Paul consistently argues that since the end is near, it should affect how people should live. There is no reason to get married or to change ones social status (e.g., by seeking to be free if a slave) since Jesus was soon to return from heaven. Why worry about such things? Get ready for the second coming! (Thus, e.g., 7:26)
I often think Pontius Pilate has had a rather bad press (apart from the hagiographies of later Christianity)!
The two accounts we have are from Jewish writers and we cannot *entirely* eliminate an element of bias on their parts.
I regard him as a man doing a difficult job in a difficult province with his position possibly bearing some (very tenuous) parallels with the British Northern Ireland Secretary in the early 1980s, a representative of a foreign power detested by large sections of the local population. However, he stayed governor for ten years so that suggests he was getting something right.
Concerning his connection with Jesus of Nazareth I like Anatole France’s “The Procurator of Judaea”.
A friend meets with an elderly Pilate and they have dinner. The friend recounts his youthful infatuation with a Jewish dancer who got involved with Jesus of Nazareth He asks Pilate if he recollects the man.
“Pontius Pilate contracted his brows, and his hand rose to his forehead in the attitude of one who probes the deeps of memory. Then after a silence of some seconds: “Jesus?” he murmured, “Jesus—of Nazareth? I cannot call him to mind.”
Hi Bart,
Just a question on Pilate. He was the governor of Judea or equivalent. Was it customary for him to try criminals personally, or was Jesus being given special treatment? In that case, historians wouldn’t have missed it. He was even sent to Herod for cross-examination. I would have expected some local magistrates to have taken up the trial of Jesus.
Thanks,
Sudas ([email protected])
Jesus definitely would not have been given special treatment. We know of him as probaby the most important figure in Western Civilization; Pilate would never have heard of him. He was a rural peasant who was making wild claims about himself and the fate of the Jews. Pilate would probably have examined capital cases in a special room and probably did not waste a lot of his morning doing so. Troublemakers were simply dealt with quickly. The story of is found only in Luke and does not appear plausible. The Roman governor was the only official allowed to prosecute a capital case.
Unrelated question: Regarding the separation of the sheep from the goats in Matthew 25, I read an argument that when Jesus referred to “the least of these,” he was not referring to just any humans, but specifically to brothers or sisters in Christ.
Matt. 25:40 “And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me.’”
In support this argument we’re told to see Matt. 12:50, “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Also Matt. 12:48-49 and Matt. 28:10.
I noticed that in Matt. 25:45 there is no mention of brothers or sisters: “Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’”
Do you think Jesus’ reference to “the least of these” is a reference to only brothers and sisters in Christ, or for any human?
I think that he means anyone that people encounter who they find to be in need — just as the sheep and goats themselves are mainly non-followers of Jesus, so too the people they help. Those in need are Jesus’ brothers and sisters. The later *Christians* of course came to think that only church members were parts of the family; I think Jesus maintained that all people were in the family — unless they rejected the demands of God to help those in need. (The Good Samaritan is in; the priest and Levite are out)
I think that he means anyone that people encounter who they find to be in need — just as the sheep and goats themselves are mainly non-followers of Jesus, so too the people they help. Those in need are Jesus’ brothers and sisters. The later *Christians* of course came to think that only church members were parts of the family; I think Jesus maintained that all people were in the family — unless they rejected the demands of God to help those in need. (The Good Samaritan is in; the priest and Levite are out)
The idea of deterrence is always debated.Is the death penalty a deterrent to future crimes? The jury is out.
I don’t know current statistics,but back 2000 years ago the crucifixion rates were steady or even easily augmented,as crimes were committed just the same.Just like today,people knowing what could happen to them still commit crimes.One could even say that the constant offense to the Jewish religion (religion, not “sensitivities”)would bring more,not less,insurrection and instability.
What would mainly deter,though,if indeed it significantly deterred,would be the fear of crucifixion itself,less so the post-mortem result.
We know how brutal Pilate was.He was recalled for that precise reason.Imagine!Someone that Rome,sweet Rome,considered too much of a bad thing!
But that’s the point:the brutality or unfairness per se would not have horrified Rome,but the risk of revolt,civil war,and whatever disturbed the “peace” was the worrisome part,as it was economically detrimental.
If Pilate relented about the Emperor standards,he could have obliged powerful Arimathea allowing Jesus’ burial. The fact is that Rome’s common practice is not reason enough to conclude something for which we have no proof whatsoever,not even a mysterious hint, not as little as an alternative story. Nada.
Another widespread custom was bribery.Bribing Pilate would have moved mountains.
Unrelated question: Regarding the story of Lazarus and the rich man, at the end of Luke 16:24 we read “. . . for I am in anguish in this flame.” At the website Bible Gateway, I see that most Bible translations render it the singular “flame.” Yet some render it “fire.” And some, including the NRSV, render it the plural “flames.” Does the Greek say singular or plural? Has the NRSV made a translation mistake? Also, do you think how it’s translated makes a difference to our interpretation of the story? To me a singular “flame” makes it less likely a reference to the flames of Hell, and more likely symbolic of some other kind of suffering.
It literally says “in this flame.” Interesting idea about it not being literal — but since he want someone to touch his tongue with water it appears it’s to be taken as a real flame of fire.