In his book How Jesus Became God Dr. Ehrman casts doubt on Pilate’s gracious accommodation of relinquishing Jesus’s body to one “Joseph of Arimathea” for proper burial. Sufficiently challenging this narrative detail in the gospels is vital to Dr. Ehrman’s overall agenda, which is to demonstrate that more than likely Jesus’s body was left to the crows.
One of the grounds on which he doubts the gospel account is Pilate’s profile, put together largely from Josephus, and then presented as a character who would never condescend to Jewish sympathies. Dr. Ehrman examines, in rather cursory style, two passages from the Jewish historian. What Dr. Ehrman chooses not to say is as baffling and telling as what he chooses to say.
In one anecdote (pg. 162 of Dr. Ehrman’s book. However, Dr. Ehrman cites as the source Josephus’ Antiquities, whereas he seems to blend wording and details from both Antiquities and the parallel account found in Josephus’s War) Pilate set up, under cover of night, Roman standards throughout the city, well aware of the outrage it would create among the Jews, for whom images were forbidden. A demonstration the following morn ensued and lasted for several days. On the fifth (or sixth?) day Pilate set up a trap, which, when sprung, had the Jewish protestors surrounded by soldiers with weapons brandished. They were instructed to go home; if they choose to continue, they would be slaughtered. The Jews, rather than break their ancestral laws by conceding the offensive images, lay prostrate before Pilate with necks bare.
It is at this point that Dr. Ehrman adds a curious summary of his own. He writes that Pilate restrained himself and withdrew the standards because he “realized that he could not murder such masses in cold blood.” I do not know what to make of the line in quotations. Was the reason he restrained himself the sheer numbers that would have to be slaughtered, as if Pilate himself had an upper limit for cruelty? At any rate, that is not the reason given by Josephus. Josephus clearly (here quoting Antiquities 18.3.1) explains Pilate’s acquiescence with the following, “Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.”
Josephus’s account and explanation seem to paint a picture rather different, rounder, more nuanced, than what historians tend to do with it, especially historians that would use Josephus to cast doubt on the gospel accounts of Jesus’s burial. In the case of the insignia, Pilate was in a rather difficult position. Newly appointed, he naturally wished to pay homage to Caesar, and spreading the image of Caesar was a patented way of doing so. To take the insignia down, as Josephus tells us, would risk injury to Caesar’s image. Pilate puts off violence for almost a week, and even when violence was threatened, he still granted the demonstrators one last opportunity to cease and desist. In the end, it is Pilate who concedes.
We see the subtle omissions elsewhere, as when, in a paraphrase, the detail that the soldiers “laid upon them (=Jewish protestors) much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them…”.
In short, according to Dr. Ehrman in the book mentioned above, Pilate would never have made a concession to Jewish sensibilities, such as we see in the gospel accounts of jesus’ burial. I am not sure what we have just read from Josephus if NOT a concession to Jewish sensibilities.
Thoughts?
According to Josephus, Pilate was recalled to Rome because of his cruelty and corruption. I would say for the Romans themselves to consider him cruel is very revealing! And don’t forget Robert’s point. Josephus’ tendency was to ameliorate. For him to depict Pilate in a negative light is also very revealing.
The real problem with the Joseph of Arimathea story lies elsewhere however.
It relies on the assumption that Jesus had fellow travelers on the Sanhedrin. How likely is that? That’s not a rhetorical question. The Sanhedrin was made up of wealthy and influential Sadducees and Pharisees. Jesus led a peasant movement in Galilee. Class distinctions being what they were persons in these two demographics might as well have lived on different planets.
Jesus was special to his followers. But the story relies on Jesus being treated deferentially by the Romans. Why would Jesus have been treated favorably by the Romans? They just executed him for insurrection. Now they’re being nice? Why wouldn’t Jesus have been regarded by the Romans as just one more dead Jew, the latest in a looong line?
Finally,
They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb with the rich,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
– Isaiah 53,9 NRSV
When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who also was himself a disciple of Jesus.
– Matthew 27,57 NRSV
He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.
– 1 Peter 2,22 NRSV
Now wouldn’t a dispassionate observer, attached to no prior conviction, reasonably come to the opinion that the writers of the NT are drawing from Isaiah 53 for their literary depictions? Once again this is not a rhetorical question.
Two things come to mind:
First, I am not convinced that the Jews (specifically the sanhedrine) were not allowed to bury crucified criminals, as a religious accomodation.
Second, as to the standards, my read is less that pilate was moved, and more that pilate realized the dangers of mass slaughter of peaceful protesters. Neither the locals nor the emperor would respond well to such brutality.
Yes … it’s not like Judea was in the Empire because it was too lucrative as a province to leave alone, but more that an independent kingdom that close to the northeastern flank the Rome’s granary in Egypt would have been an ever present threat of being converted into an outpost by a rival power.
Pilate doesn’t have to be a governor with a heart of gold to have in interest in playing some politics to avoid an expensive operation to put down an uprising … especially given willing collaborators in the Sanhedrin, which he might not have had a few years later in the strife in Samaria which brought his term in office to a close.
“Dr. Ehrman’s overall agenda, which is to demonstrate that more than likely Jesus’s body was left to the crows”
What if anything does he say about the Shroud of Turin?
“the story relies on Jesus being treated deferentially by the Romans. Why would Jesus have been treated favorably by the Romans?”
Maria Valtorta, _The Gospel as Revealed to Me_ vol 1-10
** you do not have permission to see this link **
aka
_The Poem of the Man-God_ vol 1-5
** you do not have permission to see this link **
from vol 4 of 5, on 742
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 2825 — Valeria begins to speak:
« I was at Tiberias, because my daughter was not well and our doctor advised us to go there…
But we are informed of many things, Master.
The reports of the least events of the Colony are laid every day on the office table of Pontius Pilate, who looks into them but before taking the relevant decisions he consults a great deal with Claudia…
Many reports deal with You and the Hebrews who stir up the country, making You the symbol of national insurrection and at the same time the cause of civil hatred.
Claudia is right when she says to her husband that he must not fear one only man in the whole of Palestine as the possible cause of disgrace for him: You.
And Pilate listens to her day after day…
So far Claudia is the most powerful one.
But if in future another power should control Pilate…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Lev February 28, 2018 at 6:44 am
Are you familiar with the story of Raymond Rogers who was the Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project?
He studied the Shroud in 1978, and he was convinced that the Carbon 14 tests in 1988 proved it was a medieval forgery.
That was until the year 2000 when a couple of amateur researchers published a paper showing a seam from a repair attempt running diagonally through the area from which the C14 sample was taken.
When Rogers saw the paper by Marino and Benford, his reaction was that they were not scientists, their theory was ridiculous, and that he still had fibre samples he had taken from the Shroud that could disprove their theory.
You can probably tell where this is going…
Upon examining the fibres under a microscope, Rogers concluded that, as they had hypothesized, a cotton patch had been woven into the linen fibres and then dyed to match the colour of the linen.
The C14 tests were correct, but they were from a medieval sample, not an ancient one.
Rogers was dying of terminal cancer, but was able to conduct further chemical tests and just weeks before he died he was able to publish a peer-reviewed paper that concluded the shroud was 1,300-3,000 years old.
More here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Perhaps the Shroud of Turin provides us with an image of Jesus after all.
BDEhrman March 1, 2018 at 4:32 pm
Death bed conversion!
But, of course, if it was 1300 years old it would be what people have claimed, a medieval forgery.
Lev August 29, 2019 at 11:53 am
I thought you might be interested in this recent development over the Shroud of Turin:
[July 24, 2019
Study of data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes
** you do not have permission to see this link ** ]
“A team of researchers from France and Italy has found evidence that suggests testing of the Shroud of Turin back in 1988 was flawed.
In their paper published in Oxford University’s Archaeometry, the group describes their reanalysis of the data used in the prior study.
After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces. Edge pieces from the shroud are rumored to have been tampered with by nuns in the Middle Ages seeking to restore damage done to the shroud over the years.
In a recent interview with L”Homme Nouveau, Tristan Casabianca, team lead on the new effort, claimed that the raw data from the 1988 tests showed that the test samples were heterogeneous, invalidating the results.”
Porphyry said
Two things come to mind:
First, I am not convinced that the Jews (specifically the sanhedrine) were not allowed to bury crucified criminals, as a religious accomodation.
Second, as to the standards, my read is less that pilate was moved, and more that pilate realized the dangers of mass slaughter of peaceful protesters. Neither the locals nor the emperor would respond well to such brutality.
But what we do know of Pilate is that he was brutal and insensitive to Jewish concerns.
Every scenario describing the disposition of Jesus’ body other than what usually happened to victims of crucifixion is predicated on Jesus being treated as special in some way. Certainly his followers thought he was special but why would anyone else think so?
The Shroud of Turin? Still? David, what do you think about the Abominable Snowman?
Stephen said
Porphyry said
Two things come to mind:
First, I am not convinced that the Jews (specifically the sanhedrine) were not allowed to bury crucified criminals, as a religious accomodation.
Second, as to the standards, my read is less that pilate was moved, and more that pilate realized the dangers of mass slaughter of peaceful protesters. Neither the locals nor the emperor would respond well to such brutality.
But what we do know of Pilate is that he was brutal and insensitive to Jewish concerns.
Every scenario describing the disposition of Jesus’ body other than what usually happened to victims of crucifixion is predicated on Jesus being treated as special in some way. Certainly his followers thought he was special but why would anyone else think so?
The Shroud of Turin? Still? David, what do you think about the Abominable Snowman?
No. We do not ‘know’ that Pilate was “brutal and insensitive to Jewish concerns”. The texts from Josephus, if read closely and with sensitivity, show a much more complex profile. As stated already, Josephus relates an historical incident in which a crowd of Jews demonstrated their position by prostrating themselves before Pilate and welcoming execution. As Josephus tells us, Pilate was impressed with their devotion and relented. There is no interpretation to be made here. Josephus is both clear and plausible. Any interpretation against what Josephus explicitly states is an interpretation of arrogance–“we, 21st c. historians, know Pilate’s actual reasons”. It is ridiculous.
The last phrase in the above quote, “Certainly his followers thought he was special but why would anyone else think so?” misses the point entirely. No argument has been made on the “specialness” of Jesus qua Jesus. What mattered to Pilate was that Jesus was a Jew, this was a major Jewish holiday, a holiday that celebrated Jewish nationalism, and that there was a Jewish law that forbade victims of execution to be left rotting over night on the Sabbath.
The REAL QUESTION is: why would Pilate NOT allow Jesus to be buried? Or better, what would Pilate have gained by denying Jesus burial?
Every scenario describing the disposition of Jesus’ body other than what usually happened to victims of crucifixion is predicated on Jesus being treated as special in some way.
I think there is serious and credible evidence that the Jews in Judea were permitted (presumably as a religious accommodation) and did, in fact, bury crucified criminals. In other words, I think there is reason to believe that what normally happened in Judea is not what normally happened in the rest of the empire.
Josephus explicitly mentions the practice.
And the practice he attests to does not seem implausible to me. The Romans in general, and Pilate, in particular, could be brutal, but they were in the business of keeping order. If certain minor concessions made to influential parties could facilitate smooth functioning (e.g., “we’ll track down insurrectionists and enemies of Roman rule, and turn them over to you, but we want to bury them the day they are executed”), it seems entirely plausible he (or one of his predecessors) might have made such concessions. I mean, we know that they got far more significant concessions, like not being exempted from military service.
I’m not saying it is definitively settled, but I don’t see any reason to confidently dismiss the possibility either.
The texts from Josephus, if read closely and with sensitivity, show a much more complex profile.
Well Connor you can spin it any way you wish but if you actually read Josephus and Philo you get a pretty consistent image of a brutal, corrupt Roman official. In Philo’s words, “inflexible, stubborn, and cruel”. When you read Josephus it helps to remember he’s basically sucking up to a Roman audience. He depicts Pilate as a bad apple, careful not to condemn Roman policy as a whole. Josephus’ objectivity is suspect. Imagine how bad Pilate must have been for even Josephus to have to out him!
Philo is much more to the point. In his Embassy to Gaius, Philo provides a laundry list of abuses: bribery, violence, theft of Temple funds, assaults, and frequent executions without trial. As far as the “standards” incident, Philo indicates that Pilate’s actions were intended to deliberately provoke the Jews. He only backed down because he was afraid word of his corruption would get back to Tiberius. Which is what in fact ultimately did Pilate in.
Josephus reports that Pilate brutally massacred a gathering of Samaritan religious worshippers at Mount Gerizim in 36 CE. Word got back to Tiberius through official channels and Pilate was recalled to Rome. (I doubt it was to congratulate him on his sensitivity.)
I doubt if Pilate ever even knew who Jesus was. Are we to imagine the Romans had no legal bureaucracy? Or did every capital criminal get a personal interview with Pilate? (Which is what you have to believe if you think Jesus did.) At best Pilate probably pencil-whipped a death warrant. If even that, based on what Philo reports.
But all this is really secondary. Concern with Pilate’s ethics is an attempt to figure out some way to claim that what probably happened to Jesus, didn’t happen. Namely that he was crucified, and that his body was left on the cross to the mercy of the elements and that eventually the gore was tossed into an anonymous mass grave. A horrible fate, appalling, even to folks like me who have no faith commitment. But we have to remember that crucifixion was not simply a form of execution. Public shaming and body desecration was exactly the point.
I have written this before but I know of no better way to say it. In the face of a lack of definitive evidence one way or another the most logical assumption is that what normally happened is what actually happened. And we know what normally happened.
I’m not saying it is definitively settled, but I don’t see any reason to confidently dismiss the possibility either.
Porphyry I am far from saying anything is definitely settled or speaking from a position of confidence. What I am saying is that many more things are possible than are likely.
>> I am far from saying anything is definitely settled or speaking from a position of confidence. What I am saying is that many more things are possible than are likely.
I appreciate that statement as written. Yet returning to the original comment that elicited the comment to which it was a response:
>> Every scenario describing the disposition of Jesus’ body other than what usually happened to victims of crucifixion is predicated on Jesus being treated as special in some way
My point is precisely that we don’t know what the normal disposition of mortal remains of crucified criminals was in first-century Judea under Roman rule, so we can’t say what would have been normal or exceptional, and indeed we have good (not definitive) reason to think the normal disposition of such corpses in Judea was different from what was normal in the remainder of the empire.
“what we do know of Pilate is that he was brutal and insensitive to Jewish concerns”
Was “Pilate… insensitive to Jewish concerns” about crucified bodies remaining “on their crosses” during a Sabbath?
John 19 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
30 When he took the vinegar, Yeshua said,
“Behold, it is finished.”
And he bowed his head and gave up his Spirit.
31 But the Judeans, because it was evening, they were saying,
“These bodies will not pass the night on their crosses,
because the Sabbath day is approaching”,
for it was a great Sabbath day.
And they sought from Pilate to break the legs of those who had been crucified,
and they would be taken away.
32 And the soldiers came and they broke the legs of the first
and of the other who was crucified with him.
33 When they came to Yeshua, they saw that he had died already
and they did not break his legs.
Michael R. Trotter, “Judea as a Roman Province, AD 6-66”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In addition to the increased tension caused by the Roman taxation of Judea, Jewish-Roman relations were considerably strained by the actions of Roman governors who were ignorant of Jewish religious practices.
Unlike previous rulers of Judea, the Roman prefects often did not grasp how seriously the Jews took their religious laws and had difficulty understanding how seemingly routine actions, such as displaying the image of the emperor, could kindle the ire of their Jewish subjects.
Despite this lack of an in-depth comprehension of Jewish customs, the Roman administrators who ruled Judea from AD 6 to 41 generally went to great lengths to preserve the indigenous laws of their Jewish cities.
Unlike much of the Roman Empire, the province of Judea was not required to worship the emperor; instead the emperor only asked that the Jews make burnt offerings to God on his behalf.[29]
Likewise, with the exception of Pontius Pilate,[30] the Romans seem to have made a sincere effort to respect the Jewish law forbidding images.
For example, when the Syrian legate Vitellius was bringing an army to Nabatea, he agreed to lead his soldiers around Judea so that the banners bearing the image of the emperor would not pass through Jewish cities.[31]
In addition to generally respecting Jewish customs, Roman prefects of Judea allowed Jewish cities to have a certain degree of autonomy in enforcing local Jewish laws.
Although the Roman governor was ultimately responsible for the military, financial, and judicial administration of the province, in general the Sanhedrin (the governing body of the Jews led by the high priest) had authority to enforce Jewish law and arbitrate legal disputes in Jewish cities, provided the crime in question was not political in nature, since such crimes were seen as attempts to interfere with Roman interests and were therefore under the jurisdiction of the Roman governor.
Because one could become a Roman citizen only by performing a notable service to the Roman Empire or by being the child of a Roman citizen, most Jews living in Judea fell under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin and its subsidiary tribunals.[32]
However, the Sanhedrin’s authority among the Jews was not absolute.
For example, although the Sanhedrin was legally empowered to enforce the observance of Jewish customs, as will be discussed below, it could not legally carry out capital punishment.
Despite the privileges extended to the Jews by their Roman governors, some saw Roman rule as “an insult to the rights of God’s chosen people who instead of paying tribute to the emperor in Rome should themselves have been called to rule over the pagan world.”[33] …
============
Jews under Roman Rule – W. D. Morrison
The Roman Procurators (A.D. 6-37.)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
During the ascendency of the Romans Judaea was divided for administrative purposes into ten or eleven districts or toparchies.
Local councils consisting according to the extent of the locality, of from seven to twenty-three members, were in existence throughout the province, and these councils enjoyed considerable authority both in criminal and administrative affairs.
Over these local bodies stood the Senate or Sanhedrin of Jerusalem as a kind of superior council for the whole province.
This council, besides exercising a spiritual authority which was co-extensive with Judaism, was also empowered to give legal decisions and to frame administrative regulations within Judaea in all matters which lay beyond the competence of the smaller provincial councils.
All criminal offences committed by Jews were within the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, but when the punishment decreed against an offender involved his execution, this extreme sentence required to be confirmed by the procurator before it could legally take effect.
Charges of blasphemy and of transgressing the Law were heard by this tribunal, and even Roman citizens accused of profaning the Temple had to appear before it.
The Sanhedrin also maintained a police force; and in all matters of faith, custom, and law, where Roman interests were not at stake, this council, as well as the inferior provincial councils, possessed a wide-extending and effective power.
The procurator, however, was not in any way bound by the decisions of the local bodies, and he could nullify their action, when such a course seemed to him expedient.
As the representative of Caesar, he had power to nominate or dismiss the high priest, a power which was frequently exercised.
He alone possessed full jurisdiction over Roman citizens, and a sentence of death had no legal force till it was confirmed by him.
But notwithstanding these restrictions, the Jewish authorities enjoyed more local liberty under Roman rule than they had done under their own princes, for it was a fixed principle with the imperial government to leave the enforcement of local laws and the management of national institutions as much as possible in the hands of the subject races.
============
hat tip
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
The texts from Josephus, if read closely and with sensitivity, show a much more complex profile.
Well Connor you can spin it any way you wish but if you actually read Josephus and Philo you get a pretty consistent image of a brutal, corrupt Roman official. In Philo’s words, “inflexible, stubborn, and cruel”. When you read Josephus it helps to remember he’s basically sucking up to a Roman audience. He depicts Pilate as a bad apple, careful not to condemn Roman policy as a whole. Josephus’ objectivity is suspect. Imagine how bad Pilate must have been for even Josephus to have to out him!
Philo is much more to the point. In his Embassy to Gaius, Philo provides a laundry list of abuses: bribery, violence, theft of Temple funds, assaults, and frequent executions without trial. As far as the “standards” incident, Philo indicates that Pilate’s actions were intended to deliberately provoke the Jews. He only backed down because he was afraid word of his corruption would get back to Tiberius. Which is what in fact ultimately did Pilate in.
Josephus reports that Pilate brutally massacred a gathering of Samaritan religious worshippers at Mount Gerizim in 36 CE. Word got back to Tiberius through official channels and Pilate was recalled to Rome. (I doubt it was to congratulate him on his sensitivity.)
I doubt if Pilate ever even knew who Jesus was. Are we to imagine the Romans had no legal bureaucracy? Or did every capital criminal get a personal interview with Pilate? (Which is what you have to believe if you think Jesus did.) At best Pilate probably pencil-whipped a death warrant. If even that, based on what Philo reports.
But all this is really secondary. Concern with Pilate’s ethics is an attempt to figure out some way to claim that what probably happened to Jesus, didn’t happen. Namely that he was crucified, and that his body was left on the cross to the mercy of the elements and that eventually the gore was tossed into an anonymous mass grave. A horrible fate, appalling, even to folks like me who have no faith commitment. But we have to remember that crucifixion was not simply a form of execution. Public shaming and body desecration was exactly the point.
I have written this before but I know of no better way to say it. In the face of a lack of definitive evidence one way or another the most logical assumption is that what normally happened is what actually happened. And we know what normally happened.
In Philo’s words, “inflexible, stubborn, and cruel”. When you read Josephus it helps to remember he’s basically sucking up to a Roman audience. He depicts Pilate as a bad apple, careful not to condemn Roman policy as a whole. Josephus’ objectivity is suspect.
It seems that we are here operating on a black or white scale, which is bad history. So let’s reframe the question.
Was Pilate a saint? Of course not. Was Pilate a demon? no. He was simply a man in his context. And that makes things complicated–which, when dealing with history, is a sign we are moving in the right direction.
So, what is implausible about Pilate relinquishing the corpse of a man over to a leader of a volatile mass on a day when his armed forces were 2:100 against the Jews? There is nothing implausible about Pilate placating Jewish sensibilities by conceding the body of one Jew, especially one not known to him to be a political agitator.
We can contrast the case of Jesus with another case, also embedded in the gospel tradition–Barabbas. I frankly find this detail implausible to the highest degree. If the Greek used of him does in fact indicate that he was arrested as an insurrectionist–that is, an enemy of the STATE–then I cannot even understand how Barabbas was not already crucified, let alone why he was allowed to be exchanged. It boggles the historian’s imagination.
“The real problem with the Joseph of Arimathea story lies elsewhere however.
It relies on the assumption that Jesus had fellow travelers on the Sanhedrin.
How likely is that?
That’s not a rhetorical question.
The Sanhedrin was made up of wealthy and influential Sadducees and Pharisees.
Jesus led a peasant movement in Galilee.
Class distinctions being what they were persons in these two demographics might as well have lived on different planets”
Do you believe that Joseph of Arimathea was part of the Sanhedrin?
If ‘yes,’ reference?
Mark 15 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 And at once in the morning the Chief Priests made a council
with the Elders and with the Scribes and with the whole assembly,
and they bound Yeshua and brought him and delivered him to Pilate.
…
42 And when it was Friday evening, which is before the Sabbath,
43 Yoseph came, who was from Ramtha, an honorable counselor
who had been waiting for the Kingdom of God,
and he ventured and entered to Pilate and requested the body of Yeshua.
44 But Pilate wondered if he had been dead that long,
and he called the Centurion and asked him if he had died before the time.
45 And when he learned, he gave his body to Yoseph.
46 And Yoseph had bought linen and he took it down and wrapped it
and placed it in a tomb that was hewn out in rock
and he rolled a stone at the entrance of the tomb.
Luke 22:66 (NABRE)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
When day came the council of elders of the people met,
both chief priests and scribes,
and they brought him before their Sanhedrin.
Luke 23 (NABRE)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
50 Now there was a virtuous and righteous man named Joseph
who, though he was a member of the council,
51 had not consented to their plan of action.
He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea
and was awaiting the kingdom of God.
52 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
53 After he had taken the body down,
he wrapped it in a linen cloth
and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb in which no one had yet been buried.
“The Shroud of Turin? Still? David, what do you think about the Abominable Snowman?”
I know practically nothing about “the Abominable Snowman.”
The Shroud of Turin is the most-studied archaeological artifact of all time.
What do you believe was responsible for the formation of the Shroud:
body image?
blood images?
“read Josephus and Philo you get a pretty consistent image of a brutal, corrupt Roman official. In Philo’s words, ‘inflexible, stubborn, and cruel'”
Can one infer from that anything regarding how Pilate would have handled somebody’s request to take custody of a crucified individual’s corpse?
_The Complete Works of Philo Complete and Unabridged_
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page n1028 — XXXVIII. (299) “Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you.
Pilate was one of the emperor’s lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea.
He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300)
But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields;
and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301)
“But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out:
“Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us;
do not destroy the peace which exists.
The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws;
let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation.
Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed.
And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.” (302)
“But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303)
Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points.
And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304)
And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him!
But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves;
(305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus.
And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice.
And in this way he provided for two matters:
both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.
XXXIX. (306) “Now the things set up on that occasion were shields, on which there was no representation of any living thing whatever engraved.
But now the thing proposed to be erected is a colossal statue.
Moreover, then the erection was in the dwelling-house of the governor;
but they say, that which is now contemplated is to be in the inmost part of the temple, in the very holy of holies itself, into which, once in the year, the high priest enters, on the day called the great fast, to offer incense, and on no other day, being then about in accordance with our national law also to offer up prayers for a fertile and ample supply of blessings, and for peace of all mankind.
(307) And if any one else, I will not say of the Jews, but even of the priests, and those not of the lowest order, but even those who are in the rank next to the first, should go in there, either with him or after him, or even if the very high priest himself should enter in thither on two days in the year, or three or four times on the same day, he is subjected to inevitable death for his impiety, (308) so great are the precautions taken by our lawgiver with respect to the holy of holies, as he determined to preserve it alone inaccessible to and untouched by any human being.
“How many deaths then do you not suppose that the people, who have been taught to regard this place with such holy reverence, would willingly endure rather than see a statue introduced into it?
I verily believe that they would rather slay all their whole families, with their wives and children, and themselves last of all, in the ruins of their houses and families, and Tiberius knew this well.
(309) And what did your great-grandfather, the most excellent of all emperors that ever lived upon the earth, he who was the first to have the appellation of Augustus given him, on account of his virtue and good fortune;
he who diffused peace in every direction over earth and sea, to the very furthest extremities of the world?
(310) Did not he, when he had heard a report of the peculiar characteristics of our temple, and that there is in it no image or representation made by hands, no visible likeness of Him who is invisible, no attempt at any imitation of his nature, did not he, I say, marvel at and honour it?
for as he was imbued with something more than a mere smattering of philosophy, inasmuch as he had deeply feasted on it, and continued to feast on it every day, he partly retraced in his recollection all the precepts of philosophy which his mind had previously learnt, and partly also he kept his learning alive by the conversation of the literary men who were always about him; for at his banquets and entertalnments, the greatest part of the time was devoted to learned conversation, in order that not only his friends’ bodies but their minds also might be nourished.
XL. (311) “And though I might be able to establish this fact, and demonstrate to you the feelings of Augustus, your great grandfather, by an abundance of proofs, I will be content with two;
for, in the first place, he sent commandments to all the governors of the different provinces throughout Asia, because he heard that the sacred first fruits were neglected, enjoining them to permit the Jews alone to assemble together in the synagogues, (312) for that these assemblies were not revels, which from drunkenness and intoxication proceeded to violence, so as to disturb the peaceful condition of the country, but were rather schools of temperance and justice, as the men who met in them were studiers of virtue, and contributed the first fruits every year, sending commissioners to convey the holy things to the temple in Jerusalem.
(313) “And, in the next place, he commanded that no one should hinder the Jews, either on their way to the synagogues, or when bringing their contributions, or when proceeding in obedience to their national laws to Jerusalem, for these things were expressly enjoined, if not in so many words, at all events in effect;
(314) and I subjoin one letter, in order to bring conviction to you who are our mater, what Gaius Norbanus Flaccus wrote, in which he details what had been written to him by Caesar, and the superscription of the letter is as follows:
CAIUS NORBANUS FLACCUS, PROCONSUL, TO THE GOVERNORS OF THE EPHESIANS, GREETING.
“Caesar has written word to me, that the Jews, wherever they are, are accustomed to assemble together, in compliance with a peculiar ancient custom of their nation, to contribute money which they send to Jerusalem;
and he does not choose that they should have any hindrance offered to them, to prevent them from doing this;
therefore I have written to you, that you may know that I command that they shall be allowed to do these things.”
(316) “Is not this a most convincing proof, O emperor, of the intention of Caesar respecting the honours paid to our temple which he had adopted, not considering it right that because of some general rule, with respect to meetings, the assemblies of the Jews, in one place should be put down, which they held for the sake of offering the first fruits, and for other pious objects?
(317) “There is also another piece of evidence, in no respect inferior to this one, and which is the most undeniable proof of the will of Augustus, for he commanded perfect sacrifices of whole burnt offerings to be offered up to the most high God every day, out of his own revenues, which are performed up to the present time, and the victims are two sheep and a bull, with which Caesar honoured the altar of God, well knowing that there is in the temple no image erected, either in open sight or in any secret part of it.
(318) But that great ruler, who was inferior to no one in philosophy, considered within himself, that it is necessary in terrestrial things, that an especial holy place should be set apart for the invisible God, who will not permit any visible representation of himself to be made, by which to arrive at a participation in favourable hopes and the enjoyment of perfect blessings.
(319) “And your grandmother, Julia Augusta, following the example of so great a guide in the paths of piety, did also adorn the temple with some golden vials and censers, and with a great…
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
There is nothing implausible about Pilate placating Jewish sensibilities by conceding the body of one Jew, especially one not known to him to be a political agitator.What convinces you Pilate did not think of Jesus as a political agitator? It seems the Romans crucified him for a royal claim. What do you make of the “King of the Jews” charge?
There is also the finer distinction of whether he was a political agitator against Rome or a political agitator against the Sanhedrin.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)