Is Pilate good or bad?

[Rocks_91]

In the Catholic Church’s creed, it says explicitly that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate. But in my reading of the gospels, it doesn’t seem that Pilate was really bad. He did ask Jesus “What is truth?” but afterwards it seems that he had come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God as he wrote the inscription King of the Jews and said “I’ve written what I’ve written” to those who disputed it. Also, it seems that Pilate was scared and only let Jesus be crucified when Jesus told him, “you would have no power over me unless it were given you from above and he who delivered me to you has the greater guilt”. Also the gospel account of John clearly says that Pilate was “anxious to set Jesus free”.

I don’t know what the historical Pilate was like but from the gospel readings he doesn’t seem bad at all.

Thoughts?

 

[NewsTheMan]

In the Catholic Church’s creed, it says explicitly that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate.

Which is, of course, true. Historically and otherwise.

But in my reading of the gospels, it doesn’t seem that Pilate was really bad.

Well, in what way wasn’t he bad? He was brutal, it seems, in matters of politics and uprisings. But he was by no means a brute. He was considerate, and understood that Jesus was innocent of any political crime. He wasn’t evil, but the Church has never said as much. Just that Jesus suffered under him. After all, it was Pontius who put Jesus to death.

He did ask Jesus “What is truth?”

Ah, but this was rhetorical. It seems that Pilate was confused and worried. Exegesis has some interesting takes on this; and I prefer the one which says that Pilate was merely being flippant and not asking Jesus in order for an answer.

but afterwards it seems that he had come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God

Oh, definitely not. There is a sense in which Pilate was intrigued by Jesus, sure. Being a Pagan, he was not put off by the idea that God could take human form. So there is a sense in which he probably thought “Maybe this man is God?”. Perhaps he also noticed something special about Jesus. We will never know.

as he wrote the inscription King of the Jews and said “I’ve written what I’ve written” to those who disputed it.

He wrote it not because he believed it. He wrote it because it showed why Jesus was being crucified - that is, because he claimed power of isreal which belonged to the Romans and was thus a rebel and instigator. There might be a sense in which there is something deeper here. That Pilate was making up for his uncertainty and wanted to give something concrete.

Also, it seems that Pilate was scared and only let Jesus be crucified when Jesus told him, “you would have no power over me unless it were given you from above and he who delivered me to you has the greater guilt”. Also the gospel account of John clearly says that Pilate was “anxious to set Jesus free”.

Again, this is not exactly pointing towards Pilate seeing Jesus as God. He probably had political motives. For example, if Jesus was a rebel, putting him to death might instigate his followers into fighting and rioting. In any case, Pilate was a reasonable man, and could sense that Jesus was innocent of breaking any Roman law.

Thoughts?

At the end of the day, Pilate gave in to political temptation. He let an innocent man be put to death because he was threatened by the temple aristocracy. Remember, they threatened him with not being a friend of Caeser. Pilate certainly did feel something, but he was blind to it and focused more on his political career.

 

[Little_One0307]

I had always hoped that he repented of his decision in the part he played in the Crucifixtion of Christ. Someone once posted on Pilate that he may have become a saint, but its not in Church Tradition that he did.

Yet how many times do we wish to wash our hands when we actually do know the Truth but choose to act otherwise because we wish to continue doing wrong, or we think that we may not make a difference, or that it’s really hard to live our Catholic Faith publicly in such a world as we live in today?

God bless.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

In the Catholic Church’s creed, it says explicitly that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate. But in my reading of the gospels, it doesn’t seem that Pilate was really bad. He did ask Jesus “What is truth?” but afterwards it seems that he had come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God as he wrote the inscription King of the Jews and said “I’ve written what I’ve written” to those who disputed it. Also, it seems that Pilate was scared and only let Jesus be crucified when Jesus told him, “you would have no power over me unless it were given you from above and he who delivered me to you has the greater guilt”. Also the gospel account of John clearly says that Pilate was “anxious to set Jesus free”.

I don’t know what the historical Pilate was like but from the gospel readings he doesn’t seem bad at all.

Thoughts?

He was not a saint. He as a ruthless governor of Judea, where uprisings (talk about today!) were pretty violent. Romans never understood the hebrew monotheistic mentality and the multitude of rules and laws.

The gospels portray Jesus as condemned by the Jews, the Chiefs of them mainly. That gave rise to an anti-semitism which lasted for centuries.

In this context, Pilates is considered to have done what normally the Romans would bo in such a case.The scene of Barrabas, if historical, it is utterly tragic. It poses the question of responsability.

The Creed does not blame Pilates for his crucifixion but puts it into an historical perspective.

Anyhow, he was always considered someone dubious, he was afraid of freeing Jesus and having an uprising on Easter and of condemning him for considering himself the Son of God. Remember that the Romans had 10 thousand gods, so one more one less, he did not see any reason for the condemnation.

So, he washed his hands, instead of deciding by himself. It was a bad decision. Many people died on the centuries afterwards, because they did not want to go against one’s own conscience: St. Thomas More, the great example, the king’s faithful servant but God’s first.

 

[Little_One0307]

He was not a saint. He as a ruthless governor of Judea, where uprisings (talk about today!) were pretty violent. Romans never understood the hebrew monotheistic mentality and the multitude of rules and laws.

The gospels portray Jesus as condemned by the Jews, the Chiefs of them mainly. That gave rise to an anti-semitism which lasted for centuries.

In this context, Pilates is considered to have done what normally the Romans would bo in such a case.The scene of Barrabas, if historical, it is utterly tragic. It poses the question of responsability.

The Creed does not blame Pilates for his crucifixion but puts it into an historical perspective.

Anyhow, he was always considered someone dubious, he was afraid of freeing Jesus and having an uprising on Easter and of condemning him for considering himself the Son of God. Remember that the Romans had 10 thousand gods, so one more one less, he did not see any reason for the condemnation.

So, he washed his hands, instead of deciding by himself. It was a bad decision. Many people died on the centuries afterwards, because they did not want to go against one’s own conscience: St. Thomas More, the great example, the king’s faithful servant but God’s first.

I venture to raise this question, I wonder what happened to Pilate after the events of the Crucifixion, did he repent? And if he did, then he is most assurdly in heaven or in purgatory. And those who are in heaven are saints. So he could be a saint.

I wonder why history would lose track of Pilate seeing the part he played in the Crucifixion of Christ. I guess it’s an unsolved mystery.

God bless.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t know what the historical Pilate was like but from the gospel readings he doesn’t seem bad at all.

Thoughts?

Well, the common interpretation was that Pilate was a pretty ruthless prefect.

Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country.

These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate’s denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.

On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar’s images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords.

Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.

• Josephus, Wars of the Jews 2.169-174 (cf. Antiquities of the Jews 18.55-59; Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius (38) 299-305)

After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called korbonas upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it.

Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them].

Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.

• Wars 2.175-177 (cf. Antiquities 18.60-62)

But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there.

So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathana, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews.

So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

• Antiquities 18.85-89

 

[patrick457]

I venture to raise this question, I wonder what happened to Pilate after the events of the Crucifixion, did he repent? And if he did, then he is most assurdly in heaven or in purgatory. And those who are in heaven are saints. So he could be a saint.

I wonder why history would lose track of Pilate seeing the part he played in the Crucifixion of Christ. I guess it’s an unsolved mystery.

God bless.

We don’t know. As the quote above from Josephus shows, he lost his job after he tried to violently quell the followers of a certain Samaritan prophet. His heavy-handed actions led to massive complaints, which led to him being recalled to Rome to answer before the emperor. Unfortunately for him, Tiberius was already dead before he even got there. Pilate disappears from historical accounts after this point and legends start to fill in the gaps, such as his purported suicide (or execution, depending on which legend you’re following), the eventual fate of his corpse and whatnot.

Isn’t it kind of ironic that his career would end with another ‘messianic’ (I use the term loosely here since the Samaritans do not share this Jewish concept) claimant?

 

[Benadam]

Looking at him through the lens of prophetic imagery, he is exercising the authority of Babylon.
Babylon is the name given to all human government hostile to God and those who stand up for God.
As we all know Babylon is symbolized by a woman in whom is found all the blood ever shed on earth.

On her hands is all the blood ever shed on earth and Pilate is symbolically washing them clean of it.

 

[JRKH]

In the Catholic Church’s creed, it says explicitly that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate. But in my reading of the gospels, it doesn’t seem that Pilate was really bad. He did ask Jesus “What is truth?” but afterwards it seems that he had come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God as he wrote the inscription King of the Jews and said “I’ve written what I’ve written” to those who disputed it. Also, it seems that Pilate was scared and only let Jesus be crucified when Jesus told him, “you would have no power over me unless it were given you from above and he who delivered me to you has the greater guilt”. Also the gospel account of John clearly says that Pilate was “anxious to set Jesus free”.

I don’t know what the historical Pilate was like but from the gospel readings he doesn’t seem bad at all.

Thoughts?

The reference is the creed is the common device of the time to place the crucifixion in history. You see this elsewhere in the NT and other ancient historical texts as well.
They will say that, "(this or that) event occurred during (such and such) year of the reign of (whoever).

Others have talked about Pilate in a fairly general sense which is fine. However, I think that in the particular case related in the Gospels, I think that Pilate was played as something of a pawn by the Jewish leaders. In this Pilate played the role well. Even though he could find no fault in Jesus, he permitted the crucifixion as a way to appease the people and prevent further civil disturbance.
For him, a Roman, it was simply more expedient to allow the (orderly) death of one man than to have to deal with a whole crowd of angry Jews.
Not good, not bad, just politically expedient.

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

In the Catholic Church’s creed, it says explicitly that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate. But in my reading of the gospels, it doesn’t seem that Pilate was really bad. ?

then you need to read all gospel accounts of the passion again if you think it is not bad for the civil ruler with power of life or death over accused criminals to bow to the will of the crowd for political expediency. The purpose, however, of his mention in the Creed is also to set the events of Christ’s life firmly in human recorded history.

 

[patrick457]

The reference is the creed is the common device of the time to place the crucifixion in history. You see this elsewhere in the NT and other ancient historical texts as well.
They will say that, "(this or that) event occurred during (such and such) year of the reign of (whoever).

Others have talked about Pilate in a fairly general sense which is fine. However, I think that in the particular case related in the Gospels, I think that Pilate was played as something of a pawn by the Jewish leaders. In this Pilate played the role well. Even though he could find no fault in Jesus, he permitted the crucifixion as a way to appease the people and prevent further civil disturbance.
For him, a Roman, it was simply more expedient to allow the (orderly) death of one man than to have to deal with a whole crowd of angry Jews.
Not good, not bad, just politically expedient.

Peace
James

I partly agree. But then again Pilate does have some reason to be concerned: Jesus had a following (maybe not too large but a following nevertheless), He talked about the Kingdom of God within the kingdom of Caesar, He had taken physical action in the Temple. Coupled with the fact that He is apparently NOT a madman makes Jesus loads more dangerous. In a season such as Passover (when millions of people from all over the known world come to the city to celebrate Israelite release from Egyptian bondage), a guy like Jesus was the last person you’d want showing up on your doorstep, if you were in Caiaphas’ or Pilate’s position.

Here you have the responsibility to keep the peace and quell anything that smacked of a disturbance to the status quo, then comes an obscure Galilean prophet bringing His followers and symphatizers with Him (“Messiah, you say? Yeah, we’ve got truckloads of Messiahs and prophets in the cells or hanging on crosses over there if you’ll look carefully”), teaching potentially offensive material (and staging what looks like public demonstrations to boot!). Even the locals seem to be drawn to His teachings, which is not a good sign: even the mere fact that people gather before this Man would have set off the warning signals.

 

[JRKH]

I partly agree. But then again Pilate does have some reason to be concerned: Jesus had a following (maybe not too large but a following nevertheless), He talked about the Kingdom of God within the kingdom of Caesar, He had taken physical action in the Temple. Coupled with the fact that He is apparently NOT a madman makes Jesus loads more dangerous. In a season such as Passover (when millions of people from all over the known world come to the city to celebrate Israelite release from Egyptian bondage), a guy like Jesus was the last person you’d want showing up on your doorstep, if you were in Caiaphas’ or Pilate’s position.

Here you have the responsibility to keep the peace and quell anything that smacked of a disturbance to the status quo, then comes an obscure Galilean prophet bringing His followers and symphatizers with Him (“Messiah, you say? Yeah, we’ve got truckloads of Messiahs and prophets in the cells or hanging on crosses over there if you’ll look carefully”), teaching potentially offensive material (and staging what looks like public demonstrations to boot!). Even the locals seem to be drawn to His teachings, which is not a good sign: even the mere fact that people gather before this Man would have set off the warning signals.

Nicely put.
Nice summery of the historical context and the “Roman” viewpoint.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

When considering whether Pilate is “Good or Bad”, what part does “ignorance” play in the matter?
Given Pilate’s background, can it be accurately stated that he was " justifiably ignorant" of who Jesus claimed to be? (As opposed to the Jewish leaders who should have known and accepted Jesus)

What part does “ignorance” play in his potential culpability?

Peace
James

 

[Brendan]

FYI,

His wife Claudia is vererated as a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Churches

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Procula

 

[Rocks_91]

then you need to read all gospel accounts of the passion again if you think it is not bad for the civil ruler with power of life or death over accused criminals to bow to the will of the crowd for political expediency.

Excuse me, but it seems that Jesus himself excused Pilate, at least partly, when he said “you would have no power over me were it not given you from above” and “he who delivered me to you has the greater guilt”. Jesus was predestined to be crucified, and when he said that, it seems to me that he was actually telling Pilate “it’s ok” because it is written that Pilate wanted to free Jesus from the Jews.

But I guess the gospel doesn’t say enough to conclude whether Pilate should be totally excused.

Anyway, he may have repented before death and possibly even be a saint. We shall only know the truth of his actions when we go to heaven, I guess.

 

[patrick457]

Excuse me, but it seems that Jesus himself excused Pilate, at least partly, when he said “you would have no power over me were it not given you from above” and “he who delivered me to you has the greater guilt”. Jesus was predestined to be crucified, and when he said that, it seems to me that he was actually telling Pilate “it’s ok” because it is written that Pilate wanted to free Jesus from the Jews.

This is actually a conundrum that a lot of people face: how to fit the rather kind-looking Pilate of the Gospels with the efficiently ruthless governor of Philo and Josephus. This to the point that there are actually some scholars who propose that a good deal of the Gospel accounts of the trial before Pilate is a fictional creation designed to remove the blame for Jesus’ death from the Romans and to lay it more on the Jews. They instead think that Pilate would have not thought twice about putting Jesus to death: no Barabbas and no longwinded back-and-forth debates. Instead, what they thought happened was: the priests bring Jesus in, Pilate interrogates Him briefly, deems Him guilty and quickly sentences Him to be crucified.

Personally though I do not see a need to go that far and propose a disparity between the NT’s Pilate and the Pilate of Philo and Josephus. Who knows if Pilate actually had motives of his own during that first Good Friday which led him to act like that?

 

[patrick457]

FYI,

His wife Claudia is vererated as a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Churches

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Procula

Ethiopian Christians venerate Pilate as a saint along with his wife (perhaps based on the more sympathetic portrayal of him in the apocryphal gospel Acts of Pilate), but they’re pretty much unique in this. The West has had a less favorable view of Pilate, as a look through various legends concerning his fate show.

 

[Brendan]

This to the point that there are actually some scholars who propose that a good deal of the Gospel accounts of the trial before Pilate is a fictional creation designed to remove the blame for Jesus’ death from the Romans and to lay it more on the Jews. They instead think that Pilate would have not thought twice about putting Jesus to death: no Barabbas and no longwinded back-and-forth debates. Instead, what they thought happened was: the priests bring Jesus in, Pilate interrogates Him briefly, deems Him guilty and quickly sentences Him to be crucified.

Historically, there would be a very pragmatic reason for Pilate to hesitate. Christ was popular with the people. Remember that just days before, that Nazorean was treated to almost a Roman style Triumph upon his entry into Jerusalem. He had to weight executing Christ against the level of trouble he could expect from the followers of Christ.

On the other side of the coin were the Temple leaders, who could cause their own level of trouble.

So, strictly from a pragmatic, or machivelian political standpoint, he needed to make a careful decision on whom he could least afford to antagonize.

His solution was a master stroke (with some possible Divine guidance). He allows this ‘Jesus’ to be cruxified, but carefully deflected the blame to the Sanhedrin. Even allowing the people to decide between Jesus and Barabbas. So any anger the followers of Christ would have would be deflected from him towards the Temple. Political infighting between the Jews was a good thing, it weakened them.

 

[patrick457]

Historically, there would be a very pragmatic reason for Pilate to hesitate. Christ was popular with the people. Remember that just days before, that Nazorean was treated to almost a Roman style Triumph upon his entry into Jerusalem. He had to weight executing Christ against the level of trouble he could expect from the followers of Christ.

On the other side of the coin were the Temple leaders, who could cause their own level of trouble.

So, strictly from a pragmatic, or machivelian political standpoint, he needed to make a careful decision on whom he could least afford to antagonize.

His solution was a master stroke (with some possible Divine guidance). He allows this ‘Jesus’ to be cruxified, but carefully deflected the blame to the Sanhedrin. Even allowing the people to decide between Jesus and Barabbas. So any anger the followers of Christ would have would be deflected from him towards the Temple. Political infighting between the Jews was a good thing, it weakened them.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. In fact, one could say that the Jewish crowds were in some way responsible for Jesus’ death, but not in the way people often think. It was precisely because they supported Jesus that He got killed. They must have, or the death sentence would not make any sense: crucifixion was, after all, a public death that was meant to send a message to sympathizers and shame them along with the victim. If Jesus did not enjoy any support from the people, Pilate would not have bothered sending Him up on a cross at all.

 

[Little_One0307]

We don’t know. As the quote above from Josephus shows, he lost his job after he tried to violently quell the followers of a certain Samaritan prophet. His heavy-handed actions led to massive complaints, which led to him being recalled to Rome to answer before the emperor. Unfortunately for him, Tiberius was already dead before he even got there. Pilate disappears from historical accounts after this point and legends start to fill in the gaps, such as his purported suicide (or execution, depending on which legend you’re following), the eventual fate of his corpse and whatnot.

Isn’t it kind of ironic that his career would end with another ‘messianic’ (I use the term loosely here since the Samaritans do not share this Jewish concept) claimant?

Thanks for posting this, it helps me be able to see what has happened to him a bit later than the Gospel narratives.

God bless you.