Why did the Romans and not the Jewish leaders kill Jesus?

[steve53]

Thank you, Patrick.

As far as the authority of the Sanhedrin goes, I believe Pilate when first hearing of the charges, said to the CHIEF Priests “deal with him with your own law” or words to that effect.

That Jesus had just come from an examination before some sort of council argues that it wasn’t the full Sanhedrin, though, interestingly, it was the Passover and all of the members would have been in Jerusalem and ready for service.

John is clear about the prevalence of “secret disciples” in high circles in Jerusalem, and they could have been in the Sanhedrin. At any rate, the council, or whatever the body was, refused to convict Jesus.

But Pilate’s remark indicates that the Sanhedrin at that time could, and did, arrange for the execution of heretics. This would fit Pilate’s brutal and rapacious nature, as affirmed by Josephus and Philo. Let the Jews take care of the Jews.

Much later, a marked changed is documented.

In A.D. 58, we find that only the Roman Authority could call a Sanhedrin to council to conduct trials.

Earlier in A.D. 56, Procurator Felix had arranged for the murder of High Priest Jonathan.

Later, in A.D. 62, when Procurator Festus died “suddenly”, the High Priesthood took the opportunity to hastily and illegally convene the Sanhedrin to execute the Christian leadership in Jerusalem, to include James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

The case has been made that Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36, and that shortly afterwards, the Syrian Legate Vitellius removed Caiaphas from his position for his action against Jesus.

If so, that might have marked the beginning of more stringent rule regarding the High Priesthood, and the powers of the Sanhedrin. Vitellius, outraged at the Jewish abuse of Roman power, collared their authority. Vitellius was to remove Pilate only a year later.

 

[NotWorthy]

Later, in A.D. 62, when Procurator Festus died “suddenly”, the High Priesthood took the opportunity to hastily and illegally convene the Sanhedrin to execute the Christian leadership in Jerusalem, to include James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

The case has been made that Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36, and that shortly afterwards, the Syrian Legate Vitellius removed Caiaphas from his position for his action against Jesus.

If so, that might have marked the beginning of more stringent rule regarding the High Priesthood, and the powers of the Sanhedrin. Vitellius, outraged at the Jewish abuse of Roman power, collared their authority. Vitellius was to remove Pilate only a year later.

When James the Just was executed, what happened? The Romans removed High Priest.

I don’t think the Romans liked “the locals” dealing out capital punishment, no matter what province “the locals” were from.

 

[MorningSong51]

There are two main camps here: one is that Rome allowed the Jews some limited right to execute capital punishment for religious cases while keeping secular offenses for itself, the other being that, as in other provinces in the Empire, only Rome has the sole right to sentence people to death and withheld it from local courts (that is not to say of course that there would not have been lynchings and exercises of vigilante justice in which the Romans choose to turn a blind eye into). Rome usually withdrew the right of capital punishment or gave only limited use of it in order to prevent local courts from legally turning against sympathizers and collaborators to Roman rule.

At the time of the Maccabees, aka the Hasmoneans (who were of priestly lineage), whoever was king at the time was usually also the high priest. Now the Jewish priesthood of course was a hereditary job, which the Jews traced back to Aaron. During the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the high priests, who were rulers of the nation, were (or assumed to be) descendants of Zadok the priest (1 Kings 1:28-45). The Hasmoneans were not of Zadokite lineage, but upon their rise to power during their successful revolt against the Seleucids the natural consequence was that the leading member of the family was declared high priest. When Simon the Hasmonean ascended to the high priesthood, the previously ruling Zadokite family was deposed (1 Maccabees 14:41-49), though the system of government remained the same.

Herod the Great was not of priestly lineage (nor was he fully Jewish either), so he had to be content to appoint high priests to the position during his reign. When Rome deposed Archelaus and reorganized his territory, the privilege was passed on to the prefect or to his superior, the legate of Syria, though it sometimes granted the right of appointment to a member of Herod’s family. For sixty years (AD 6-66), the high priest was always chosen from a pool of four families of aristocratic priests. As political appointees, they did not enjoy the prestige of the hereditary high priests of ancient times, but nevertheless they had a lot of authority.

We can’t be sure whether one permanently appointed council or Great Sanhedrin actually existed as such during the time of Jesus as the later Mishna describes it or whether there was a variety of temporarily convened sanhedrins, including those directly convened by the high priest, as smaller sanhedrins seem to have dotted the landscape.

Excellent information that you provided, thank you. You know, the more I read up on Herod - I personally enjoyed Jesus remark, "He replied, "Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’

 

[MorningSong51]

Thank you, Patrick.

Yes, thank you. Patrick had a very good post and also Steve 53, thanks for the info.

As far as the authority of the Sanhedrin goes, I believe Pilate when first hearing of the charges, said to the CHIEF Priests “deal with him with your own law” or words to that effect.

 

[MorningSong51]

As a matter of fact, under the title Roman rule: As the commanding general of Lebanon, he gathered troops and marched on Jerusalem, intending to avenge himself on the Jewish leaders who had dared to judge him. He was stopped by his father Antipater, but not many years later he took revenge and murdered the judges. Correction: Second Temple Period: reference,thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Historical_Overview

 

[MorningSong51]

The Jewish understanding of "Messiah

So then the big question? In John 1: 19-23, the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was, as scripture states, "2 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” What scripture tells us, John did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah” - Returning back to Matthew, and to the part in scripture that Herod, “called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.” Again, we read - "7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

My understanding is that the leaders had some idea that a deliverer was going to be sent to the Jewish people. Even so, with the questions asked to John, they knew that Elijah would return but also a Prophet had to be sent to identify the Messiah, only John indicated that he was neither. Whether or not, Elijah was the prophet - that would be the question and another thought would be when Jesus question the leaders on John’s baptism, “John’s baptism–where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’

“But if we say, ‘From men’–we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

I really like it when Jesus is asking the questions…its that feeling when you are about to get caught into something, and you have a mind freeze second to think about it.

 

[karaleigh]

4.) Antipas did not have a direct hand in the death of Jesus, unless you’re holding to the Gospel of Peter (where it is Antipas who sentences Jesus to death and the Jews who literally crucify Him - Pilate is absolved of any guilt whatsoever); if we look at Luke, Pilate offered Jesus to be sent to him (both men were apparently in Jerusalem at the time), but after mocking Jesus, he never seemed to have done anything further.

Registered in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Pilate wasn’t absolved of guilt, he was considered a procurator…

It was the custom for the procurators to reside at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to preserve order, and accordingly, at the time of our Lord’s last Passover, Pilate was occupying his official residence in Herod’s palace. The history of his condemnation of our Lord is familiar to all. We learn from Josephus that Pilate’s anxiety to avoid giving offence to Caesar did not save him from political disaster. The Samaritans were unquiet and rebellious Pilate led his troops against them, and defeated them enough. The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, then president of Syria, and he sent Pilate to Rome to answer their accusations before the emperor."

Pilate caused rioting among the Orthodox priests and Jewish citizens in different regions in the Judea peninsula when this official prefect ordered idolatry as part of Judea and the stautes were placed in and around varies Jewish temples. Pilate must have felt powerful knowing the priests stood encouraging the crowd for the death of Jesus, as Pilate begin to develop a Roman nation for his own self to reside in. To deter the riots and again gain control the Judea region, Pilate was sent back to Rome by Vitellius. Pilate was no longer heard of after varies criminal trials and finally his expulsion from the Roman legions and Rome all together.

Personally, I feel Pilate was somewhat of a stooge of the Roman Emperor.

 

[NotWorthy]

Registered in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Pilate wasn’t absolved of guilt, he was considered a procurator…

It was the custom for the procurators to reside at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to preserve order, and accordingly, at the time of our Lord’s last Passover, Pilate was occupying his official residence in Herod’s palace. The history of his condemnation of our Lord is familiar to all. We learn from Josephus that Pilate’s anxiety to avoid giving offence to Caesar did not save him from political disaster. The Samaritans were unquiet and rebellious Pilate led his troops against them, and defeated them enough. The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, then president of Syria, and he sent Pilate to Rome to answer their accusations before the emperor."

Pilate caused rioting among the Orthodox priests and Jewish citizens in different regions in the Judea peninsula when this official prefect ordered idolatry as part of Judea and the stautes were placed in and around varies Jewish temples. Pilate must have felt powerful knowing the priests stood encouraging the crowd for the death of Jesus, as Pilate begin to develop a Roman nation for his own self to reside in. To deter the riots and again gain control the Judea region, Pilate was sent back to Rome by Vitellius. Pilate was no longer heard of after varies criminal trials and finally his expulsion from the Roman legions and Rome all together.

Personally, I feel Pilate was somewhat of a stooge of the Roman Emperor.

If I remember correctly, Pilate had a protector in Rome… one of the emperors. One that protector was gone, so was Pilate.

 

[steve53]

As a matter of fact, under the title Roman rule: As the commanding general of Lebanon, he gathered troops and marched on Jerusalem, intending to avenge himself on the Jewish leaders who had dared to judge him. He was stopped by his father Antipater, but not many years later he took revenge and murdered the judges. Correction: Second Temple Period: reference,thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Historical_Overview

All that happened before the Second Temple was built, I believe. Herod started the project in 20 B.C, seventeen years into his formal reign. When he was the governor of the Galilee, under his father Antipater, in the lat 40’s BC, he was indeed threatened with trial for his murder of a Jew. But the Jew was a known bandit and killer himself, so the Sanhedrin was trying to figure out a way to get rid of him.
When governor, Herod was tremendously popular with the Jews for getting rid of the robbers- both Jewish, Arab, and Trachonites, and the Romans were grateful to him for settling that country.
So Herod went to Jerusalem ready to answer the charge, along with a goodly number of Roman troops he had borrowed from the governor of Celesyria, I think. The Sanhedrin dropped the charges, and his father and older brother, who administered Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, were able to hold his anger in check.
But yes, he managed to kill them all once he obtained the supreme power, including his erstwhile ally, Hyrcanus II.

 

[steve53]

So then the big question? In John 1: 19-23, the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was, as scripture states, "2 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” What scripture tells us, John did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah” - Returning back to Matthew, and to the part in scripture that Herod, “called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.” Again, we read - "7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

My understanding is that the leaders had some idea that a deliverer was going to be sent to the Jewish people. Even so, with the questions asked to John, they knew that Elijah would return but also a Prophet had to be sent to identify the Messiah, only John indicated that he was neither. Whether or not, Elijah was the prophet - that would be the question and another thought would be when Jesus question the leaders on John’s baptism, “John’s baptism–where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’

“But if we say, ‘From men’–we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

I really like it when Jesus is asking the questions…its that feeling when you are about to get caught into something, and you have a mind freeze second to think about it.

The birth story and Herod’s reaction makes more sense if you believe that the Star of the East was actually Halley’s comet, which would have been spectacularly brilliant some 24 cycles ago- as the comet is thought to lose 10 percent of its luminescence every circuit as the ice is heated away. It would have been visible for weeks if not months, as well, and would have been seen in 12-11 B.C.
The Messiah was a Jewish myth that was well delineated in Isaiah, which foretold where he would come, and what he would do- but not when. So there was a blueprint to go one for anyone who wanted to claim the throne!

 

[steve53]

Registered in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Pilate wasn’t absolved of guilt, he was considered a procurator…

It was the custom for the procurators to reside at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to preserve order, and accordingly, at the time of our Lord’s last Passover, Pilate was occupying his official residence in Herod’s palace. The history of his condemnation of our Lord is familiar to all. We learn from Josephus that Pilate’s anxiety to avoid giving offence to Caesar did not save him from political disaster. The Samaritans were unquiet and rebellious Pilate led his troops against them, and defeated them enough. The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, then president of Syria, and he sent Pilate to Rome to answer their accusations before the emperor."

Pilate caused rioting among the Orthodox priests and Jewish citizens in different regions in the Judea peninsula when this official prefect ordered idolatry as part of Judea and the stautes were placed in and around varies Jewish temples. Pilate must have felt powerful knowing the priests stood encouraging the crowd for the death of Jesus, as Pilate begin to develop a Roman nation for his own self to reside in. To deter the riots and again gain control the Judea region, Pilate was sent back to Rome by Vitellius. Pilate was no longer heard of after varies criminal trials and finally his expulsion from the Roman legions and Rome all together.

Personally, I feel Pilate was somewhat of a stooge of the Roman Emperor.

Jerusalem was considered Holy ground, and no graven images could be allowed into it. First, Pilate brought in engraved shields to decorate the Palace of Herod, and then some years later allowed his soldiers to bring in ensigns- which were probably small statues set atop poles to represent military groups. So he was challenging the Jews, and there was bloodshed, but nothing documented by Josephus, though Luke hints at it.
Where there was real bloodshed when Pilate had to abandon a pet aqueduct project because the Jews protested on the use of the holy money, or Corban, to finance it. Pilate started the massacre, having his soldiers disguise themselves as Jews for a demonstration, and then in the middle of the protest, revealing themselves and killing many and causing a panic.
Pilate had no desire to live in Jerusalem, or to change Judea. He was perfectly willing to enjoy life in Caesarea, and enjoy the good life while raking in money through various corrupt means.
Pilate was widely believed to be Lucius Sejanus’ man, who had designs on the empire. When Tiberius crushed the conspiracy of Sejanus, Pilate was saved likely only because Tiberius was loathe to change provincial governors unless there was a really good reason. When Pilate attacked the Samaritans, Tiberius- or Vitellius- had one.

 

[steve53]

“I understood this as “The Romans ruled the city through the High Priest and Sanhedrin, so often the Jewish authorities of the city had to arrest people on the orders of the Romans.” - is this true?”

If the Romans wanted someone arrested, the Temple guard or the Jewish elders would see to it. But more likely the Romans would just arrest them themselves, if it was a civil crime against Roman law. But remember that Jewish law encompassed most activities in life, so the priests could handle most problems and the Romans were happy to let them.

Likely, that is why Caiaphas was so insistent in getting rid of Jesus. Some say that Vitellius was due in to Jerusalem for the Passover, and Caiaphas didn’t want to risk Jesus causing a scene, and making him look bad. Pilate would have had similar concerns, and would have wanted Jesus out of the way as well.

 

[NotWorthy]

The birth story and Herod’s reaction makes more sense if you believe that the Star of the East was actually Halley’s comet, which would have been spectacularly brilliant some 24 cycles ago- as the comet is thought to lose 10 percent of its luminescence every circuit as the ice is heated away. It would have been visible for weeks if not months, as well, and would have been seen in 12-11 B.C.
The Messiah was a Jewish myth that was well delineated in Isaiah, which foretold where he would come, and what he would do- but not when. So there was a blueprint to go one for anyone who wanted to claim the throne!

I think the average astrologer would have recognized a comet from a star. Why in the world would one follow a comet?

Wouldn’t a supernatural event like a star that moves incite an astrologer to investigate?

 

[PeterGStanley]

I believe the Bible says because it was passover they could not do it themselves - I could be wrong.

 

[steve53]

I think the average astrologer would have recognized a comet from a star. Why in the world would one follow a comet?

Wouldn’t a supernatural event like a star that moves incite an astrologer to investigate?

Maybe it’s a translational thing. Not my department.

But even Herod would recognize that the comet in the sky meant something, and when three wise men showed up looking for the birth of a King, and pointed towards Bethlehem, well…

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe it’s a translational thing. Not my department.

But even Herod would recognize that the comet in the sky meant something, and when three wise men showed up looking for the birth of a King, and pointed towards Bethlehem, well…

Why would a comet mean anything? I get the feeling that the, what is it 76 year cycle of Haley’s, would be very repeatable for predictable.

… And anyway, have you ever seen a comet “point to something”?

 

[MorningSong51]

Steve53 and NotWorthy, I appreciate the information that you both supplied to this thread. Certainly interesting info, again thank you.

 

[MorningSong51]

I believe the Bible says because it was passover they could not do it themselves - I could be wrong.

and from my understanding and also I’m sure that I will be corrected: Somewhere in the N.T the Sanhedrin/judges were not allowed to enforce capital punishment, although I read that this was not 100 % correct, but its pretty close. The Sanhedrin was without authority to instigate charges and was only supposed to investigate charges brought before it, please see John 18: 31 At this, Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” The Jews answered him, “We do not have the right to execute anyone,” – which from this passage, the death penalty was not allowed to be enforced in their laws in Roman territory. However, like you wrote, true it was Passover but the death penalty was much more than that, it was about taking a life also this was a law that had been listed underneath under the 2nd commandment - Love thy neighbor as thyself, ‘What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.’ Book of Tobias: Chapter 4:15 Do to no one what you yourself hate… One other questions that I had, that the law was strict in holding that there be no trials during Passover, during the night or on the eve of the Sabbath.

The High Council accused Jesus of blasphemy, being the Son of God - the statement that “I and the Father are one.” ( John 10:30). “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” see John 19:7 "The Jews answered, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” or according to Luke 23: 14 “A political agitator” or in Mark 15:4 “See how many accusation they are bringing against you!”

In John 10:34-35…The Law uses the word “gods” of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected (see 2 Timothy 3 - which is remarkable statement) in Timothy 2:3 line 14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, 15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The way I understood this, was that man ‘received’ God’s word directly; was able to interpret the law - or to understand the meaning and make judgments - good and evil, and also be inspired by them. Although man without the Wisdom of God, was basically in the dark - to interpret through his own means, many passages that related to this in 1 Corinthians. The interpretation rest of the fact that man, being in the image of God, has the ability - with God’s wisdom, to discern for himself, what is good and pleasing to God. Another passage that Jesus stated," “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” The kingdom of Heaven is within our reach - it is not to difficult, “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.” - a quote from Deuteronomy 30.

Jesus tells us that we have the ability to change and to be with God within us - a truer sense of salvation, it is not to difficult and it is not beyond your reach. I could write more, but this is the main focus: That Jesus, even though this trial was about his authority and title but also the trial was about his teachings. The apostles were an important factor in spreading the teachings of Christ, with the guidance of the Advocate…and so, we are important (also) to spread the teachings to others…

The most important passage was the last one that I brought up: Even so, with the questions asked to John, they knew that Elijah would return (4th cup of Elijah - celebrated on Passover) but also a Prophet will have to be sent to identify the Messiah, only John indicated that he was neither. Whether or not, Elijah will be the prophet to return ("He will come “with” the clouds of heaven or Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt) . The passage reflect back to John’s birth: Jesus question the leaders on John’s baptism, “John’s baptism–where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ “But if we say, ‘From men’–we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” (And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous–to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”)

So you guys will have to correct my errors - if this info, isn’t correct.

 

[patrick457]

If I remember correctly, Pilate had a protector in Rome… one of the emperors. One that protector was gone, so was Pilate.

Not exactly ‘one of the emperors’, but he was supposed to have a patron in Rome.

Pilate was theorized to have been appointed to his position in AD 26 with the support of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, commander of the Praetorian Guard, who had been under the service of the imperial family for twenty years when he became Praetorian Prefect in AD 15. As Tiberius became more embittered with the position of princeps, he began to depend more and more upon the limited secretariat left to him by Augustus, and specifically upon Sejanus and his Praetorians.

In AD 17 or 18, Tiberius had trimmed the ranks of the Praetorian guard responsible for the defence of the city, and had moved it from encampments outside of the city walls into the city itself (the Castra Praetoria), giving Sejanus access to somewhere between 6000 to 9000 troops. The death of Drusus elevated Sejanus, at least in Tiberius’ eyes; the latter thereafter referred to him as his socius laborum (‘partner of my labors’) and had statues of Sejanus erected throughout the city. Eventually, with Tiberius’ withdrawal in AD 26 to the island of Capri, Sejanus was left in charge of the entire state mechanism and the city of Rome. It was in this climate that Pilate arrived in Caesarea Maritima.

Sejanus then slowly but steadily began his play for power in Tiberius’ absence. While his Praetorians controlled the imperial post, and with it the information that Tiberius received from Rome and vice versa, the presence of Tiberius’ mother, Livia Drusilla, seems to have checked his overt power for a time. At her death in 29, Sejanus began to lay bare his plans, commencing a series of purge trials of Senators and wealthy Roman equestrians, removing those capable of opposing his power as well as extending the imperial (and his own) treasury. Agrippina the Elder, the widow of Tiberius’ nephew and adopted son, the famed general Germanicus, along with two of her sons, Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar were arrested and exiled in 30; all of them later died under suspicious circumstances. Of this purge, Agrippina the Younger (Tiberius’ niece), Gaius Caligula (Agrippina’s son and Tiberius’ grand-nephew), Julia Drusilla (Caligula’s sister), and Julia Livilla (Agrippina’s sister) were the only survivors.

In 31, Sejanus seems to have plotted to covertly court those families with ties to the Julians, and attempted to ingratiate himself with the Julian family line with an eye towards placing himself, as an adopted Julian, in the position of princeps, or as a possible regent. Livilla was later implicated in this plot, and was revealed to have been Sejanus’ lover. (Sejanus had originally requested to marry her in AD 25, but later backed down under pressure.) The plot seems to have involved the two of them overthrowing Tiberius, with the support of the Julians, and either assuming the Principate themselves, or serving as regent to the young Tiberius Gemellus or possibly even Caligula. Those who stood in his way were tried for treason and swiftly dealt with. Upon the discovery of the plot, Sejanus was summoned to a Senate meeting, where a letter from Tiberius was read condemning Sejanus and ordering his immediate execution: within the week, he and several of his colleagues were dead. Tacitus writes that more treason trials followed, directed against those who were associated with Sejanus or could in some way be tied to his schemes (Annals 6.19), which permanently damaged Tiberius’ reputation. With the death of Sejanus, Pilate may have realized that, with his lack of political support in Rome, he would have to act more carefully.

 

[patrick457]

Jerusalem was considered Holy ground, and no graven images could be allowed into it. First, Pilate brought in engraved shields to decorate the Palace of Herod, and then some years later allowed his soldiers to bring in ensigns- which were probably small statues set atop poles to represent military groups. So he was challenging the Jews, and there was bloodshed, but nothing documented by Josephus, though Luke hints at it.

Where there was real bloodshed when Pilate had to abandon a pet aqueduct project because the Jews protested on the use of the holy money, or Corban, to finance it. Pilate started the massacre, having his soldiers disguise themselves as Jews for a demonstration, and then in the middle of the protest, revealing themselves and killing many and causing a panic.

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 clamour at it.

Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armour 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 clamour. 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.

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

The fact that the soldiers could disguise themselves and blend in with the crowd by wearing plainclothes relatively easily seems to point out the fact that they were local recruits into the auxiliaries, probably Samaritans - not too friendly after all with Jews were they. Judaea was a minor province; consequently, its governors belonged to the second class of the Roman elite, the equestrian order (ordo equester). These men were not entitled to become legates or proconsuls, but had to content themselves with the title of prefect – and after AD 41, procurator. Because the prefects were not of high enough rank to command legions (his superior in Syria had them), they only had auxiliary troops under their disposal.

Auxiliaries were mainly recruited from peregrini, free provincial (non-Roman) subjects who constituted the vast majority of the Empire’s population. This was in contrast to the legions, which only admitted Roman citizens.

Luke talks about people reporting to Jesus about the soldiers who “mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1). We don’t know what incident is being referred to here: it could very well be one of the incidents mentioned by Josephus or another one that was not recorded.