Loading...Why did early Christians portray Pontius Pilate, who ordered Jesus’ crucifixion, as increasingly innocent in Jesus’ death? Was it be blame Jews for being “Christ killers”?
In a couple of recent posts I’ve talked about a couple of the “Pilate Gospels” — apocryphal accounts of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion — in which Pilate himself is shown to be innocent and “the Jews” (either their leaders or the entire people) were at fault for the execution of the son of God. These accounts may have started to appear in the second century, but the texts we have now are from later periods when anti-Jewish hatred in some parts of the Christian church had become standard rhetoric, sometimes leading to violence.
This rhetorical strategy did not
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!
Sadly, it is still not uncommon today to have people explain to their children and others that the Jews were the ones who killed Jesus. I know I heard that comment numerous times as a child in the mid-west. The pushback against that narrative is practically non-existent as there is very little ‘biblical’ evidence that people are aware of to be able refute it.
Thanks, Dr Ehrman. I’m surprised though that the early Christians, reading the Pilate Gospels etc., didn’t employ a little critical thinking and realise (as we do) that only the Romans had the authority to kill Jesus. After all, they were closer to the event and some (if not all) would have been aware of the legal modalities then in force.
Unfortuantely we don’t know what individual readers might have thought — we have no record of any reactions to the book.
I also have wondered how the writers got by with this story when people would have remembered who carried out crucifixion. It was still carried out until after a couple of Christian emperors wasn’t it?
Oh yes.
I support your position. However, keep in mind at that time in the Greco-Roman world only 10-15% of people were literate in any way and down to 3% in the Palestine/Levant area. This most likely affected critical examination, especially when we also consider those who promoted ‘exonerate Pilate, implicate Jews’ were the proto-orthodox who also wrote to attack alternate christian groups. Sorry for the especially long sentence.
I discussed with a conservative evangelical where I live – chance meeting at a park – that Pilate’s writings regarding crucifying Jesus is widely regarded as a forgery, to which the person laughed derisively “Oh yeah, anything that supports the christian history has to be a forgery.” If people in our contemporary culture who are fully literate don’t take the time to investigate and learn but continue to protect their beliefs, I can understand the few literate people during that long-ago time frame doing the same.
Dr Ehrman, is it possible that Revelation was written in part to reestablish the just understanding that Rome was really the ultimate evil and possibly take some/ all of the blame off of the Jewish people?
Jews don’t come off well in Revelation either, I’m afriad. It mainly opposes Rome and its emperor, but all those who refuse to worship Christ are doomed to torment and destruction.
Your second sentence is ‘Was it be blame Jews for being “Christ killers”?’ I am pretty sure you meant, “Was it TO blame…” But if I went in and edited this to correct it, what would be the original text of the post? What you originally meant? What you actually wrote, with the typo? And would my editing be a ‘correction’ or a ‘corruption’ of what you wrote? I don’t envy you textual critics trying to sort this out in a book like the Bible with so many ancient texts to sort through!
Ah, yeah, it makes the text critic’s life interesting.
I understand the progression in the early Christian texts, but I do not agree the ‘progression’ proves a starting point with Pilate having no qualms crucifying Jesus. I am not aware of any texts suggesting Pilate crucified Jesus willingly or was concerned with a Jewish king threatening Rome’s authority. The Gospels indicate the charge ‘King of the Jews’ was Pilate’s mockery, and Jewish authority was offended. The earliest Gospel of Mark 15:14 indicates Pilate’s reluctance. Paul’s missions to the gentiles demonstrate early Jewish rejection of the movement, compounded by 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 (c. 50 CE). I understand Jesus and his early followers were Jews, but early texts suggest his ‘teachings’ were highly offensive to the people of Judea – more than just a period-common apocalyptic message.
Scholars presume Pilate’s reluctance was unreasonable, not possible for a Roman official. However, Pilate’s reluctance could be the result of a ‘hidden agenda’. His documented, extensive involvement (including the odd ‘authorization’ of the same-day removal from the cross) could be explained by a hidden agenda (commonplace in history). Why not consider it here? Why not give credit to the people of Judea for rejecting ‘teachings’ of questionable motivation, rather than blame them?
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re asking or suggesting. I will say though that I think we need to resist the idea that Pilate must have treated Jesus as a special case, different from all the others who were brought before him for judgment. I’m not sure why he would have a hidden agenda for Jesus as someone special. In hindsight maybe it seems he should have (he was crucifying the Son of God!), but I don’t see good historical grounds for it.
By “hidden agenda”, I am referring to the possibility that Pontius Pilate may have had a curiosity, interest, or sympathy for leaders of a Jewish movement (John the Baptist and, subsequently, Jesus) who were openly and publicly supportive of tax collection for Rome, who had tax collectors as followers, promoted peace, submission to oppression (love your enemies, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers), criticized Jewish religious orders, never criticized Roman authority, and publicly proclaimed a centurion had the greatest faith in all Israel. Why do historians never consider the possibility that a man could be curious and sympathetic? Like John the Baptist and Jesus, Pontius Pilate was just a man. He held the role of Roman governor for a very long time (10 years), which suggests a complicated, versatile personality, rather than just cruel, incompetent traits normally attributed.
Pilate’s predecessor, Valerius Gratus, fired and appointed a succession of five Jewish high priests and Pilate seized the Temple treasury, showing that the Roman governor was sometimes at friction/conflict with Jewish authorities – a remarkable parallel with Jesus’ public criticism.
I’d say researchers are open to any theory and happy to find evidence for it. This one does not seem to be hinted at in the sources.
It is more than a theory. It is written in the earliest Christian texts, and never contradicted by these texts, including Paul’s letters. The context of these earliest texts can be explained by simple human emotions, as I summarized above. The current, predominant theory that Pilate either had no qualms at crucifying Jesus, or did so because he was afraid of a self-proclaimed king being a threat to Rome, is not supported by any early texts.
If we think any notion that is written in texts is historical, then yes, historical texts do not need to be interpreted but can be accepted as historical. That certainly is true for most readers of the Bible, of course. Then again, in that case there is little need for scholarship. If you think it’s a historical fact that Pilate had qualms, OK then!
I’m not suggesting it is historical fact. I’m just suggesting historical possibilities. I suppose I should have said, “It is not an off-the-wall theory,” since it is consistent with written accounts much closer to that time than modern-day speculation, rather than, “It is more than a theory.” I do not believe that just because something is written in texts makes it historical fact.
Regarding “Pilate’s reluctance” supported by the only text we have from that time, if you place yourself in Pilate’s mind with presumed reluctance, it explains why Pilate would not have let the Sanhedrin stone Jesus. Stoning would have meant an instant and sudden death. Letting the Sanhedrin stone Jesus would have been much simpler for Pilate, if he had no qualms for Jesus’ death. Almost everything in the Synoptics – the quick sequence of events with the orchestrated betrayal and arrest on the same night of the Lord’s Supper (the Sanhedrin wanted to have Jesus killed in secret, so a quick arrest was protective custody, especially if ending up in Roman custody – again, as written), personally meeting with Pilate, the odd sequence of the ‘crucifixion’ (no nails mentioned, removed on the same day per Pilate’s authorization, no stabbing in the Synoptics, all Jesus’ acquaintances watching the from a distance in the Synoptics, a Roman centurion at the crucifixion site), guards at the tomb per Pilate’s direct involvement. All of this shows Pilate was in control, and even directing events, with a simple explanation of human emotion. Early post writings (Tertullian) support Pilate’s complicated involvement, not indifference.
Yes, as time goes on Christians portray Pilate as increasingly innocent and not wanting to do what “the Jews” were forcing him to do. I don’t take that as historical evidence for the unanswerable historical question of what was going on in his mind.
The betrayal (multiple attestation in 1 Corinthians 11:23) – as written – had to be preplanned between Jesus and Judas; sudden arrest in the middle of the night at a remote location outside the walls of the city, different from the location of the supper meeting (otherwise how would Judas know the odd time and place to bring the hastened arresting party [into formal custody to preempt death plots? – Matthew 12:14 26:4, Mark 3:6 11:18, Luke 19:47 22:2]), initiated by a command from Jesus, “One of you eating with me will [or shall] betray me.” It is a type of direction or command, unless you believe in divine preeminence. All of this (including my preceding comments) points towards hasty, tight-timing control, unless early Jesus followers made all of this up. You can’t make this stuff up.
It’s not clear to me Paul is referring to the betrayal in 1 Cor. 11:23. He uses paradidomi elsewhere to refer to God handing Jesus over to his death.
When I mention “the odd sequence of the crucifixion” with a short duration of six hours, I’m implying that Jesus may not have died on the cross. Ironically, this is also directly supported by early texts, that Jesus appeared live after the crucifixion (the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and a 9th century Syriac version of Testimonium Flavianum where Josephus wrote, “They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was thought to be the Christ”, which is thought to be an authentic core without Christian alteration, per Israeli archeologist Shlomo Pines, 1971). It is a very simple and strong argument that if Jesus died on the cross, the movement would have died right then and there, not even a blip in history, particularly if he rotted for days, eaten by animals. Jesus surviving the crucifixion would also explain how the conversations between Pilate and Jesus were recorded – a common logic argument.
Pilate could have done whatever he wanted, and taking a Jewish peasant down from a cross before death, particularly someone he sympathized with, was within his power – and human possibility – infinitely more likely than resurrection.
‘Taking a Jewish peasant down from a cross before death’ could have been an impulsive act on Pilate’s part. People often do impulsive things without thinking of consequences. He could have forced Jesus to ‘lay low’ afterward, making only a few brief appearances (again, consistent with ancient texts). Better than dying on the cross. A ‘normal’ death at some point thereafter is also consistent with ossuary inscriptions from the Talpiot tomb. I know – not conclusive, but an interesting possibility.
Sure. Or he could have left him on the cross for 30 days. Just about any possibility is possible!
Regarding the scenario of Jesus taken from the cross on the same day he was crucified, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day. What did he mean by the “third day”? Was this from the time he was crucified, or from the time Jesus died, or did he understand this to be the same day? Paul never indicated Jesus lingered for several days on the cross. It seems he would have, if counting days.
He appears to be speaking sequentially, so the third day would be the third day after his remains were disposed of.
Bart,
You’ve spent time talking about deriving things a historical figure did or wrote by finding things attributed to them that run counter to theologies that the orthodox establishment held.
Would you say it’s likely that Luke 19:8-9 represents an instance of the author himself including a saying of Jesus that runs counter to his own personal theology of salvation?
If so, can you imagine why the author would have included such an account? No one was holding a gun to Luke’s head compelling him to include such a tale (presumably…).
Could you ask your questoin again and quote the verses so other readers can see what you’re asking about?
8 Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” 9 Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.”
It seems to me Luke is including a teaching of Jesus that suggests that giving away your possessions and making right your wrongs is the means to salvation. Luke clearly believes that that is NOT the path to salvation, based on Acts. Why would Luke be comfortable doing such a thing?
Possibly he thought that those who did what God wanted before Jesus could be saved? In Acts the death of Jesus itself never is said to bring atonement for sins. A person is saved by repenting of their sins and finding God’s forgiveness (which for Luke is the same as following Jesus)
Does this fit into Acts 16:30-34?
30 Then he brought them outside and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 They spoke the word of the Lord[f] to him and to all who were in his house. 33 At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay. 34 He brought them up into the house and set food before them, and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God.
Seems to me Luke is saying that “belief in Jesus” is what brings salvation there.
Yes, that’s right. Acts says that on a number of occasoins. The issue is what it means to “believe in Jesus.” In Acts it is not “believe that his death brings an atonement for your sins.” It means something more like “believe that he is the way to God” — that is, accept that his way of life and death and his instruction about how to live are the way to have salvatoin (for pagans as in Acts 16, in other words, leave your other Gods and accept the way of Jesus)
It seems to me that discrimination takes different forms. Some forms, like racial discrimination, are based on characteristics regarded as innate and unchangeable. Others, such as discrimination based on occupation or social status, may not begin as fixed, yet can become virtually hereditary and difficult to escape.
From an Asian perspective, Arabs and Israelis often appear culturally, ethnically, and even linguistically close in many respects. Antisemitism may have begun largely as religious prejudice, but the Nazis transformed it into a supposedly racial issue. Likewise, discrimination against Black people was sometimes justified through the claim that they were descendants of Ham.
A similar pattern can be seen in Edo-period Japan, where eta and hinin were placed beneath the peasant class. This hierarchy functioned not only as status discrimination but also as a tool of social control. By creating a group below the peasants, the authorities could help stabilize the social order.
In both Edo Japan and Nazi Germany, discrimination also worked through scapegoating: society’s problems were assigned to a particular group. In this sense, prejudice is often rationalized afterward through theology, race, social order, or ideology, allowing people to act on fear, resentment, or contempt without guilt.
I’m confused as to the power of Pilate as opposed to the ‘Jewish Monarchy’. Who was their leader that insisted on crucification. Did they have that much power over the administration and Pilate? If he found him innocent 3 times, why didn’t that dictate his release? I believe he washed his hands of it. Did he then turn Jesus over to the executioners under the guidance of the Pharisees? Was it the Pharisees that orchestrated this sentence? Were they in control of the romans? Do we know the names of these jews?
That said, who really WAS responsible for the crucifixtion?
The idea that he found him innocent three times is a claim of later Christian storytellers; it almost certainly cannot be historical. The Jewish leaders did not have the power/authority to order a crucifixion. (And even in the Gopsels, the Pharisees were not involved: it’s the chief priests/scribes/Sadducees.)
Surely this analysis ignores an important feature of the Passion narratives in all four Gospels: each of them devotes significant attention to Palm Sunday. That makes little sense if the intention is to portray all Jews as rejecting Jesus as Messiah. Either there were large numbers of Jews who saw him as their rightful king – in addition to the many who didn’t – or the priests and other parts of the Jewish establishment managed, in a matter of a few days to intimidate or change the affiliations of a lot of Jews who accepted Jesus as king to the point of their eager participation in “the mob.” That seems quite implausible. I suggest that the texts support a reading that holds them to be claiming that the Jews in Jerusalem were divided into (at least) two factions: some who will be eligible for salvation, and some who forfeit it. I believe the Passion narratives delineate, in a quite detailed way, who is invited in, and who cannot be. For example, in the priest’s refusal to provide atonement to Judas (their proper job), they forfeit.
I don’t see anyway that the Triumphal Entry could have been a historical event. I explain why in my book Jesus Before the Gospels, but maybe I should post on it. (Probably have: but I could repost it)
Bart – That would of course be interesting to see. But even as a non-scholar, I too have doubts not only about the historicity of the content of this pericope but also of much more in the Passion narratives, for specifiable reasons. However that is beside my point here, which I meant to be directed at the question: what message did the Gospel writers intend to be conveying in this pericope? Please do post your reasons, if you will.
By the pericope of the Triumphal Entry? They are trying to show that Jesus really was the messiah, that he fulfilled Scripture, that Jews realized it, but they turned on him a week later anyway so that they were responsible for the execution of the one they hailed as king and lord. (So it’s a combination of Christology, fulfillment of prophecy, and anti-Judaism)
Turned on him possibly because of his attack on the Temple and Temple ideology? But the text doesn’t say. We are left to conjecture.