Did Pontius Pilate Commit Suicide?

[JamalChristophr]

I thought I heard this before. Did Pilate kill himself? And if so, does anyone know why exactly, the date, and the source for this belief?

Also, Pilate’s wife was Christian, was she not? That made him more responsible for Christ’s death when She had a dream about Jesus and warned him not to put him to death, don’t you think?

Thanks n God Bless.

 

[z_0101]

Biography.com - Pontius Pilate Biography (click thru)
(has a video too (^_^) )

Mysterious Death

The circumstances surrounding Pontius Pilate’s death in circa 39 A.D. are something of a mystery and a source of contention. According to some traditions, the Roman emperor Caligula ordered Pontius Pilate to death by execution or suicide. By other accounts, Pontius Pilate was sent into exile and committed suicide of his own accord.

 

[patrick457]

I thought I heard this before. Did Pilate kill himself? And if so, does anyone know why exactly, the date, and the source for this belief?

HIstorically speaking, we don’t know what happened to Pilate after AD 36. According to the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.85-89), around that time a Samaritan prophet gathered an armed following. Pilate then intervened immediately with some thousand soldiers and dispersed the crowd. Some were killed in the fracas and many others were taken captive; Pilate had the ringleaders put to death. But:

When the uprising had been quelled, the council of the Samaritans went to Vitellius, a man of consular rank who was governor of Syria, and charged Pilate with the slaughter of the victims. For, they said, it was not as rebels against the Romans but as refugees from the persecution of Pilate that they had met in Tirathana.

Vitellius thereupon dispatched Marcellus, one of his friends, to take charge of the administration of Judaea, and ordered Pilate to return to Rome to give the emperor his account of the matters with which he was charged by the Samaritans. And so Pilate, after having spent ten years in Judaea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refuse. But before he reached Rome, Tiberius had already passed away.

That’s where reliable historical accounts about Pilate end.

I’ll continue in the next post.

 

[patrick457]

The thing is this: early Christians had two contradictory views about Pilate. The first (and the older) one shows him as a sympathetic figure, even a secret Christian - a saint who was martyred for his faith even. The other is the less sympathetic portrayal which shows him tragically committing suicide and his dead body being infested by demons.

You had this pervasive anti-Jewish (not to be confused with ‘anti-Semitic’) sentiment in early Christianity. The early Christians, originally acting from within a Jewish context, took a page from the OT prophets’ calling Israel out for its sins: as part of their message towards (fellow) Jews, they emphasized more the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, coupled with a plea for Israel to repent and accept Jesus as the Messiah, casting the Jewish rejection of Jesus in the same light as Israel’s rejection of the prophets in former times.

A side effect of this rhetoric is that less focus is made on the Roman culpability for the crucifixion. The level of anti-Judaism in early Christianity depended mostly on the geographical area (they tended to be high in areas where there are more Jews for Christians to encounter, dialogue and/or heckle with than in areas with only a minimal Jewish presence), but in its most extreme form, the Romans are totally excused of all blame; the crucifixion is made to be an act perpetrated solely by Jews. Sometimes, it is no longer Pilate that sentences Jesus to death, but Herod (the closest they could get to a Jewish equivalent to Pilate - a political ruler).

Another possible reason why early Christians would want to blame the Romans less is because they don’t want to antagonize the government further than they already did. When you’re practicing an illegal ‘superstition’ - as the Christians legally were at that time - that could get you discriminated or worse, arrested, the last thing you’d probably want to do is to portray a Roman official complicit in the death of your movement’s Founder. That’d be just adding fuel to the fire. (It’s true that early Christians welcomed martyrdom, but they also made an effort to convince Romans that there was nothing really ‘objectionable’ about Christianity.) This tactic also has some basis in Jewish apologetics: in the 1st century, Philo appealed to Caligula and reminded him of the many privileges that previous emperors had granted to Jews, in response to measures the emperor was about to enforce that were offensive to Jewish sensibilities. It is not just that Christians needed an ally in the form of a Roman official, but it was also significant for them to not have an enemy in the form of a Roman official.

This is part of the reason why Christians were kinder to Pilate than they were with, say, Caiaphas: some Christians started fantasizing about Pilate as a sympathetic figure, at best even a secret Christian who gets to be martyred for his faith. He is shown as doing God’s will in ensuring Jesus’ death and ensuring its completion (often receiving encouragement and approval for his deeds). If Pilate had any faults, at best it’d be the lack of a backbone. The Christianization of Pilate (and his wife) makes them a foil to the Jewish leaders, whose guilt stands out all the more. Pilate may be excused of his actions - called a saint who did the will of God even - but Herod, Caiaphas and ‘the (other) Jews’ were not.

The positive portrayal of Pilate begins to be less popular by the 4th century, coincidentally with the arrival of Constantine and the recognition of Christianity as a legal religion. Constantine and his successors were living, breathing emperors whose stature overshadowed that of a long-dead governor. In other words, Christians no longer needed Pilate to get recognition from Rome, so they were free to show him more as being a ‘bad guy’. Basically the positive portrayal of Pilate remained strong in the East (in the Ethiopian Church, Pilate is even venerated as a saint), while in the West, the negative portrait of Pilate began to be the standard. It’s from this time period that we get the stories of him casting him as a not-so-good guy, committing suicide in disgrace and whatnot.

Also, Pilate’s wife was Christian, was she not? That made him more responsible for Christ’s death when She had a dream about Jesus and warned him not to put him to death, don’t you think?

Thanks n God Bless.

Well, we don’t know. You see, the early Christians had this tendency to imagine people who even had the slightest bit of sympathy for Christianity as probably being ‘secret’ Christians. That’s why Pilate got excused; the gospels portray him as being quite hesitant to send Jesus to death. Not to mention the Jewish teacher Rabban Gamaliel was thought of as being a secret Christian and even a saint, all because of the tolerance he is said to have expressed in Acts 5:38-39.

 

[steve53]

HIstorically speaking, we don’t know what happened to Pilate after AD 36. According to the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.85-89), around that time a Samaritan prophet gathered an armed following. Pilate then intervened immediately with some thousand soldiers and dispersed the crowd. Some were killed in the fracas and many others were taken captive; Pilate had the ringleaders put to death. But:

When the uprising had been quelled, the council of the Samaritans went to Vitellius, a man of consular rank who was governor of Syria, and charged Pilate with the slaughter of the victims. For, they said, it was not as rebels against the Romans but as refugees from the persecution of Pilate that they had met in Tirathana.

Vitellius thereupon dispatched Marcellus, one of his friends, to take charge of the administration of Judaea, and ordered Pilate to return to Rome to give the emperor his account of the matters with which he was charged by the Samaritans. And so Pilate, after having spent ten years in Judaea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refuse. But before he reached Rome, Tiberius had already passed away.

That’s where reliable historical accounts about Pilate end.

I’ll continue in the next post.

Patrick, that would be after A.D. 37, not A.D. 36.

 

[steve53]

You had this pervasive anti-Jewish (not to be confused with ‘anti-Semitic’) sentiment in early Christianity. The early Christians, originally acting from within a Jewish context, took a page from the OT prophets’ calling Israel out for its sins: as part of their message towards (fellow) Jews, they emphasized more the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, coupled with a plea for Israel to repent and accept Jesus as the Messiah, casting the Jewish rejection of Jesus in the same light as Israel’s rejection of the prophets in former times.

A side effect of this rhetoric is that less focus is made on the Roman culpability for the crucifixion. The level of anti-Judaism in early Christianity depended mostly on the geographical area (they tended to be high in areas where there are more Jews for Christians to encounter, dialogue and/or heckle with than in areas with only a minimal Jewish presence), but in its most extreme form, the Romans are totally excused of all blame; the crucifixion is made to be an act perpetrated solely by Jews. Sometimes, it is no longer Pilate that sentences Jesus to death, but Herod (the closest they could get to a Jewish equivalent to Pilate - a political ruler).

Another possible reason why early Christians would want to blame the Romans less is because they don’t want to antagonize the government further than they already did. When you’re practicing an illegal ‘superstition’ - as the Christians legally were at that time - that could get you discriminated or worse, arrested, the last thing you’d probably want to do is to portray a Roman official complicit in the death of your movement’s Founder. That’d be just adding fuel to the fire. (It’s true that early Christians welcomed martyrdom, but they also made an effort to convince Romans that there was nothing really ‘objectionable’ about Christianity.) This tactic also has some basis in Jewish apologetics: in the 1st century, Philo appealed to Caligula and reminded him of the many privileges that previous emperors had granted to Jews, in response to measures the emperor was about to enforce that were offensive to Jewish sensibilities. It is not just that Christians needed an ally in the form of a Roman official, but it was also significant for them to not have an enemy in the form of a Roman official.

This is part of the reason why Christians were kinder to Pilate than they were with, say, Caiaphas: some Christians started fantasizing about Pilate as a sympathetic figure, at best even a secret Christian who gets to be martyred for his faith. He is shown as doing God’s will in ensuring Jesus’ death and ensuring its completion (often receiving encouragement and approval for his deeds). If Pilate had any faults, at best it’d be the lack of a backbone. The Christianization of Pilate (and his wife) makes them a foil to the Jewish leaders, whose guilt stands out all the more. Pilate may be excused of his actions - called a saint who did the will of God even - but Herod, Caiaphas and ‘the (other) Jews’ were not…

A careful reading of Josephus suggests that the attitude of the early Christians were correct, and the modern disposition to downplay the role of the Jews and the Second Temple High Priesthood in Jesus’ execution and persecutions of the Christians is suspect.

This is probably driven by politics- the Jews are a force in the world today, whereas Imperial Rome has few defenders.

After Jesus’ Caiaphas-driven crucifixion in A.D. 36, the High Priest unleashed young Jews like Saul of Tarsus- the future Paul- to harass the Nazarenes into extinction or repentance. The High Priesthood was behind the execution of James, the brother of Jesus, in A.D. 62, and were probably the power behind the scenes in Nero’s decision to persecute the Christians in A.D. 64.

source Hagan “Fires of Rome”

 

[Timothysis]

The High Priesthood was behind the execution of James, the brother of Jesus, in A.D. 62, and were probably the power behind the scenes in Nero’s decision to persecute the Christians in A.D. 64.

source Hagan “Fires of Rome”

This assertion requires a complete revision of history as we know it. Nero persecuted the Christians after the great fire of Rome as a way to quell the growing sentiment that he was responsible for the fire. How could a minor priesthood in a backwater like Judea going to influence the emperor of Rome to such a degree?

 

[steve53]

This assertion requires a complete revision of history as we know it. Nero persecuted the Christians after the great fire of Rome as a way to quell the growing sentiment that he was responsible for the fire. How could a minor priesthood in a backwater like Judea going to influence the emperor of Rome to such a degree?

If you read Josephus, you realize that Jewish aristocrats played a large role in Imperial Rome- starting with Herod the Great and going on through Agrippa the 2nd.

Moreover, in a key passage in Josephus, it is reported that the Second Temple High Priest Ismael resigned the post to move to Rome to become a part of Poppea’s Salon in about A.D. 61. She was the wife of Nero and seven years older than he was- she had tremendous power over him. Throw in that Josephus himself was in Rome and entertained by Nero in A.D. 62-63.

Sure, it is speculation, but very reasonable speculation. Astounding that a High Priest would resign and move to Rome- unless he wanted to stomp out the Christians.

Ot is that reaching too far?!!!

By the way, Agrippa I was likely responsible for Claudius becoming Emperor. So the Jews were in position of real power in Imperial Rome.

 

[patrick457]

A careful reading of Josephus suggests that the attitude of the early Christians were correct, and the modern disposition to downplay the role of the Jews and the Second Temple High Priesthood in Jesus’ execution and persecutions of the Christians is suspect.

This is probably driven by politics- the Jews are a force in the world today, whereas Imperial Rome has few defenders.

After Jesus’ Caiaphas-driven crucifixion in A.D. 36, the High Priest unleashed young Jews like Saul of Tarsus- the future Paul- to harass the Nazarenes into extinction or repentance. The High Priesthood was behind the execution of James, the brother of Jesus, in A.D. 62, and were probably the power behind the scenes in Nero’s decision to persecute the Christians in A.D. 64.

source Hagan “Fires of Rome”

Y’know I kinda get suspicious when people bring up the ‘powerful Jews behind the scenes’ card, if only because of the conspiracy theorists who like to invoke it so often as an excuse/scapegoat. But even if Jews really are “a force in the world today,” I couldn’t care less - good for them, but it’s none of my business.

I know a few nutcases - excuse the term, but I’m frank at this kind of stuff - out there who think the idea of establishments being ‘Jew-run’ is supposed to be something sinister, but seriously? That’s their idea of ‘bad’? Well, since these people also tend to be those types who still cling to outdated ideas of race (implication: Jews belong to an ‘inferior’ race, so the idea of them being successful is intolerable ) I guess it’d be natural if they started to think that way.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Thanks everyone for your responses. It does seem as though nothing is certain about Pilate’s death.

 

[Timothysis]

Ot is that reaching too far?!!!
.

I think so.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I thought I heard this before. Did Pilate kill himself? And if so, does anyone know why exactly, the date, and the source for this belief?

Also, Pilate’s wife was Christian, was she not? That made him more responsible for Christ’s death when She had a dream about Jesus and warned him not to put him to death, don’t you think?

Thanks n God Bless.

I lifted the following from this link -

neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00886.html

Eusebius reported that Pontius Pilate committed suicide during the reign of Caius or Emperor Caligula. Eusebius records the following for us,

It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time of our Savior, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner; and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period.[11]

The quote reveals that many Greeks considered Pilate’s misfortunes to be divine justice for the death of Jesus Christ. Tradition adds that Pilate died in Vienne, France on the Rhone or on Mount Pilatus, Switzerland.[12] The Eastern Orthodox church believes that Pilate and his wife eventually became Christians. That would be wonderful if true.

We don’t really know what happened to PIlate, although it would appear likely he committed suicide.

I don’t get the impression his wife was Christian at the time she had the dream, but that God maybe gave her a warning for her husband through the dream. Her dream did not imply forgiveness, but judgement - “I suffered terribly on account of that just man!”

Yet obviously someone later told the apostles about her dream, or it wouldn’t have been reported in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 27. Either she told someone who told someone, or PIlate did, since it would seem there was only the two of them who were privy to the message.

She may have become Christian later perhaps, but the fact is that we just don’t know for sure. What I do think is that Pilate’s decision would have haunted him for the rest of his life - the earthquake, the darkening of the sun, the inevitable report by the officer in charge of the execution, the warning from his wife, the curtain splitting in two in the temple, probably demonic countenances in the crowd calling for Christ’s execution, the empty tomb after the guards collapsed from fear, the stone rolled back, the tombs splitting open, reports of the resurrected dead being seen in the city, and reports of Pentecost.

He wouldn’t have been allowed to forget it - that’s for sure.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks everyone for your responses. It does seem as though nothing is certain about Pilate’s death.

Depending on which story you hear, either Pilate:

• died in exile
• was beheaded by order of Tiberius (though according to Josephus, Tiberius should have been dead by the time Pilate was sacked)
• was beheaded by order of Nero
• was forced to commit suicide by Caligula
• condemned by Tiberius to die a horrible death, but forestalled him by committing suicide
• shot by an arrow
• drowned

There’s also two main contradictory versions (with variants of course) about what happened to Pilate’s body. In the ‘saintly Pilate’ version, not only does Pilate’s decapitated head get received by an angel, he (and his wife and their children) also get to be buried in the tomb of Jesus. But in the ‘suicidal Pilate’ stories, his corpse could find no permanent resting place since everywhere it went demons disturbed the area it stayed in.

 

[steve53]

Y’know I kinda get suspicious when people bring up the ‘powerful Jews behind the scenes’ card, if only because of the conspiracy theorists who like to invoke it so often as an excuse/scapegoat. But even if Jews really are “a force in the world today,” I couldn’t care less - good for them, but it’s none of my business.

I know a few nutcases - excuse the term, but I’m frank at this kind of stuff - out there who think the idea of establishments being ‘Jew-run’ is supposed to be something sinister, but seriously? That’s their idea of ‘bad’? Well, since these people also tend to be those types who still cling to outdated ideas of race (implication: Jews belong to an ‘inferior’ race, so the idea of them being successful is intolerable ) I guess it’d be natural if they started to think that way.

I’m surprised at you, Patrick.

You are the most rational of posters, yet here you spin off into political rhetoric.

We are talking about history here, and it is clear from Josephus and the secular historians that the Jewish rulers did play a very large role in Imperial Rome. In fact, Josephus suggests that Augustus, Agrippa, and Herod the Great ruled the Empire in equal measure during their terms.

A strict read of Josephus finds a strong Jewish presence in the Imperial Court of Cauis, Claudius, and Nero. The story of the High Priest Ismael is truly amazing, and should be more widely known. Ismael was likely the High Priest who badgered Festus in A.D. 60 to send Paul the Apostle back to Jerusalem for execution. When Paul was sent to Rome instead later in the year- after being “tried” before Agrippa II-soon afterward we find Ishmael resigning the position of High Priest- “confounding” the Jews in doing so- and joining the Salon of Poppea in Rome.

You can bet that if Paul maintained the same type of high profile in Rome as he did in the rest of his travels, that he would have caused trouble. And who was in the Salon of Poppea but his old nemesis Ismael.

And the book of ACTS ends abruptly in A.D. 63 with Paul in Rome. The persecution of the Christians by Nero began a year later. With Ismael probably still in Poppea’s and Nero’s inner circle- and Ismael still harboring a vendetta against Paul and the Christians.

Ishmael, by the way, was beheaded in Cyrene, a Jewish Zealot stronghold, under mysterious circumstances early in the revolt- perhaps A.D. 66.

Josephus is also very clear on the High Priest Ananus (son of Ananus) executing James. the brother of Jesus, and other leading Jerusalem Christians in A.D. 62.

Moral judgements aside, the early Christian animosity against the Jews has its roots in these and other actions. It’s not something they pulled out of the air. And the Romans consistently tried to protect the Christians from the High Priesthood- with Paul being the prime example.

While no one condones that sort of class/race targeting today, we shouldn’t ignore or re-write history to fit current political norms. History is what it is.

Why is the Ishmael story not more widely known? Why isn’t the connection between Paul and the persecutions more accepted?

Where am I mis-interpreting the facts in Josephus?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Depending on which story you hear, either Pilate:

• died in exile
• was beheaded by order of Tiberius (though according to Josephus, Tiberius should have been dead by the time Pilate was sacked)
• was beheaded by order of Nero
• was forced to commit suicide by Caligula
• condemned by Tiberius to die a horrible death, but forestalled him by committing suicide
• shot by an arrow
• drowned

There’s also two main contradictory versions (with variants of course) about what happened to Pilate’s body. In the ‘saintly Pilate’ version, not only does Pilate’s decapitated head get received by an angel, he (and his wife and their children) also get to be buried in the tomb of Jesus. But in the ‘suicidal Pilate’ stories, his corpse could find no permanent resting place since everywhere it went demons disturbed the area it stayed in.

Hi Patrick,
Which ones (if any) were commented on by Church Fathers?

 

[patrick457]

I’m surprised at you, Patrick.

You are the most rational of posters, yet here you spin off into political rhetoric.

‘Most rational’? Sorry, wrong poster.

We are talking about history here, and it is clear from Josephus and the secular historians that the Jewish rulers did play a very large role in Imperial Rome. In fact, Josephus suggests that Augustus, Agrippa, and Herod the Great ruled the Empire in equal measure during their terms.

A strict read of Josephus finds a strong Jewish presence in the Imperial Court of Cauis, Claudius, and Nero. The story of the High Priest Ismael is truly amazing, and should be more widely known. Ismael was likely the High Priest who badgered Festus in A.D. 60 to send Paul the Apostle back to Jerusalem for execution. When Paul was sent to Rome instead later in the year- after being “tried” before Agrippa II-soon afterward we find Ishmael resigning the position of High Priest- “confounding” the Jews in doing so- and joining the Salon of Poppea in Rome.

Wait, I thought Ismael (and that other guy Helkias) was kept as hostages by Poppaea, supposedly a pious woman.

(P.S. Background for people: according to Josephus, around the year 60, Agrippa II and the priests of Jerusalem were embroiled in a dispute over the construction of a wall which blocked the king’s view of the Temple (“for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices”). Agrippa and Festus wanted the wall torn down. When this case was brought to Nero by an embassy which included Ismael son of Phiabus - who was involved in the disturbances common in Jerusalem before the Jewish-Roman War (20.180-181) - and Helkias, the temple treasurer, Nero decided in favor of the priests, “in order to gratify Poppea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero.” Most of the embassy was sent home, but for some reason Ismael and Helkias were kept by Poppaea as hostages. Because Ismael did not return Agrippa appointed a new high priest. (Antiquities 20.189-196) The next thing we know about Ismael is that he has been beheaded in Cyrene under unknown circumstances at some unspecified date (War 6.114).)

 

[patrick457]

Hi Patrick,
Which ones (if any) were commented on by Church Fathers?

I could name two. On the one hand, you have Tertullian (ca. 160-225) who represents a form of the ‘St. Pilate the Christian’ idea. On the other, you have Eusebius in the 4th century who gives us one of the first attestations to the ‘bad, suicidal Pilate’ stories.

Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians. …]

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Cawsars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars. (Tertullian, Apology 5; 21)

You might say they’re not really the most unbiased sources in terms of context: Tertullian was trying to ‘advertise’ Christianity to Rome by insinuating that Christianity was actually once accepted by Romans (represented by Pilate, who he claims was a Christian, and Tiberius, who would have supposedly converted if it was possible for emperors to be Christians and who would have supposedly proclaimed Jesus as a legal Roman god).

By the time of Eusebius, on the other hand, Christians, who were just recovering from the harsh persecution under Domitian, no longer really needed Pilate; quite the opposite, he has become more of a liability. It was at that time that many governors, like so many Pontius Pilates, were sending Christians to death; some anti-Christians even used Pilate as their poster boy. (Just like the Christians who bandied the ‘St. Pilate’ portrait had used Pilate as their poster boy: y’know, he just did the will of God, he actually believed in Jesus, he was excused from his responsibility by Jesus, he was even martyred for his supposed faith.) So I guess it’s not really unnatural that Eusebius will not have a positive view of Pilate. He could not afford to bend things in Pilate’s favor; he had to die a ‘bad’ death, the worst imaginable.

It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius [Caligula], whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner; **and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. **This is stated by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period. (Church History 2.1.7)

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I could name two. On the one hand, you have Tertullian (ca. 160-225) who represents a form of the ‘St. Pilate the Christian’ idea. On the other, you have Eusebius in the 4th century who gives us one of the first attestations to the ‘bad, suicidal Pilate’ stories.

Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians. …]

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars. (Tertullian, Apology 5; 21)

You might say they’re not really the most unbiased sources in terms of context: Tertullian was trying to ‘advertise’ Christianity to Rome by insinuating that Christianity was actually once accepted by Romans (represented by Pilate, who he claims was a Christian, and Tiberius, who would have supposedly converted if it was possible for emperors to be Christians and who would have supposedly proclaimed Jesus as a legal Roman god).

By the time of Eusebius, on the other hand, Christians, who were just recovering from the harsh persecution under Domitian, no longer really needed Pilate; quite the opposite, he has become more of a liability. It was at that time that many governors, like so many Pontius Pilates, were sending Christians to death; some anti-Christians even used Pilate as their poster boy. (Just like the Christians who bandied the ‘St. Pilate’ portrait had used Pilate as their poster boy: y’know, he just did the will of God, he actually believed in Jesus, he was excused from his responsibility by Jesus, he was even martyred for his supposed faith.) So I guess it’s not really unnatural that Eusebius will not have a positive view of Pilate. He could not afford to bend things in Pilate’s favor; he had to die a ‘bad’ death, the worst imaginable.

It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius [Caligula], whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner; **and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. **This is stated by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period. (Church History 2.1.7)

Thanks Patrick! We are very lucky to have you teaching us!

 

[Mintaka]

First off, it wasn’t fun being High Priest. Powerful, yes, but you also had a big fat target painted on your back.

Secondly, if you read about somebody in the Roman world resigning his post, it usually means that he was told to resign his post. It’s not exactly a sign that you are doing well. A high priest resigning his post and running all the way to Rome? Sounds like somebody suggested he leave Jerusalem “for his health.”

Who got appointed High Priest after him? Who was that person related to? That’s the interesting question.

Now, once you get to Rome and you’re an ex-High Priest who doesn’t have to follow all the High Priest laws, you’re an exotic foreigner. Poppaea was a “Godfearer” trying to be a Jew (at least when she wasn’t allegedly being cruel or getting her creepy friends preferments), so of course she would invite an ex-High Priest to join her group of dinner party friends.

But Poppaea was hardly Mrs. Policymaker for the Empire. Even if she had wanted to do anything dramatic, she was pretty much restricted to dinner invitations (and sleeping around on her own time). Also, she ended up slightly dead, kicked to death by her husband, and he killed her son from a previous marriage, etc.

That said, Nero has a slightly better reputation in Jewish legend and history than in Christian legend and history. But honestly, that’s not really saying much.

 

[steve53]

‘Most rational’? Sorry, wrong poster.

Wait, I thought Ismael (and that other guy Helkias) was kept as hostages by Poppaea, supposedly a pious woman.

(P.S. Background for people: according to Josephus, around the year 60, Agrippa II and the priests of Jerusalem were embroiled in a dispute over the construction of a wall which blocked the king’s view of the Temple (“for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices”). Agrippa and Festus wanted the wall torn down. When this case was brought to Nero by an embassy which included Ismael son of Phiabus - who was involved in the disturbances common in Jerusalem before the Jewish-Roman War (20.180-181) - and Helkias, the temple treasurer, Nero decided in favor of the priests, “in order to gratify Poppea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero.” Most of the embassy was sent home, but for some reason Ismael and Helkias were kept by Poppaea as hostages. Because Ismael did not return Agrippa appointed a new high priest. (Antiquities 20.189-196) The next thing we know about Ismael is that he has been beheaded in Cyrene under unknown circumstances at some unspecified date (War 6.114).)

Hostages as Josephus used them are not what we think of today- someone abducted, tied up, and held for ransom while being locked in a closet.
Usually, hostages were of Royal line from a country or kingdom that had an alliance with Rome. If there was a coup, Rome had a storehouse of Royal replacements they could put on the throne in a pinch.
Some countries- most notably Parthia- would ASK Rome to send over a “hostage” to rule them if things got contentious politically.
Hostages were treated like Royalty. The WERE royalty. Life was good.

In fact, Poppea might have employed the hostage power of Rome in regards to Ismael at his own request- so he could give a plausible reason for him to resign the High Priest’s position.
So Ismael was hardly an unwilling abductee. Clearly, he WANTED to stay in Rome.
Poppea had a secret Salon and was interested in the forbidden art of Astrology and all things occult. You can bet that the Jewish rituals of the time were absolutely fascinating to her. Ismael, by the way, as the High Priest, would have been no mean astrologer himself and know all of the secrets of the Jewish High Priesthood.
How much of a profile did the early Christians have in Rome at that time? High enough for Nero to target them. Along with the Second Temple Priests, you can bet that Poppea would have been fascinated with the religion based on a man who had been crucified and then had come back from the dead- utterly fascinated. And with a central ritual that appeared to be based on cannibalism.
What type of waves did Paul the Apostle make in Rome? As a Roman citizen, was Paul invited into the Salon of Poppea for discourse and questioning? If he was, he would have accepted the invitation gladly. And was his old nemesis ex-High Priest Ismael there? We are talking A.D. 63.
And, remember that it was Ismael only 2-3 years before who was demanding that Procurator Festus execute Paul when Paul was in Caesarea and Ismael was in Jerusalem.
There are lots of very reasonable connections that can be made here- not the least of which is that Josephus himself was a part of Poppea’s salon when he visited Rome in A.D. 63.

If I had a time machine, Rome in the A.D. 63-64 is where I would want to go first (maybe second).

source Hagan “Fires of Rome” (from Josephus and Tacitus, of course)