Pontius Pilatus

[Ingsoc]

A rather strange article we have on this guy, first of all the attempt to harmonize the account of Josephus and the New Testament are highly problematic, second their is no evidence to a connection between Sejanus and Pilatus and the evidence for Sejanus anti-Jewish policies and sentiments are rather dubious.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

A rather strange article we have on this guy, first of all the attempt to harmonize the account of Josephus and the New Testament are highly problematic, second their is no evidence to a connection between Sejanus and Pilatus and the evidence for Sejanus anti-Jewish policies and sentiments are rather dubious.

 

 

 

Many scholars try to harmonize different accounts in order to create a narrative .

I agree that there is no evidence to connect Seianus and pilatus but it is logical to assume that a powerfull man like Seianus was involved in appointments, such as the appointment of Pilatus and others . I did not read Philo, what he has to say about Seianus anti-Jewish sentiments ? Whatever he says, I had found scholars who built a whole theories on much less (my bad English) . For example - J.D Grainger wrote in his book "The Roman War of Antiochos the Great" that the seleucid king and Flamininus had very good relationship . Now, there is no evidence for that pure and simple but Graniger conjectured that Antiochus' delegates to Rome must have met Flamininus several times in Greece and must have formed a very good relationship with him on behalf of their king .

 

The article had new ideas and they are based on fragile evidence but it is interesting, well writen and cautious .

 

Edit : BTW P.P., who is the author ?

Edited January 11, 2009 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

A rather strange article we have on this guy, first of all the attempt to harmonize the account of Josephus and the New Testament are highly problematic

 

Integrating the account of the New Testament with the New Testament is highly problematic too! Didn't we already have a very lengthy thread on this very topic somewhere?

[Primus Pilus]

I wrote this. As I say with all of my writing, it's intended to be introductory and present an overview of various sources. The idea is to inspire further investigation, not to present a definitive resource. In any case, I don't know how one could approach Pilate without at least observing the New Testament and its possibilities. Considering the relative lack of evidence, using every source available is simply being diligent.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I wrote this.

 

 

Woops...lucky me

[Primus Pilus]

I wrote this.

 

 

Woops...lucky me

 

 

Why? It's perfectly ok to be critical. Provided people take into account what my objective is, I have no issue whatsoever with dissenting opinion, correction or general criticism.

[caldrail]

I wrote this. As I say with all of my writing, it's intended to be introductory and present an overview of various sources. The idea is to inspire further investigation, not to present a definitive resource. In any case, I don't know how one could approach Pilate without at least observing the New Testament and its possibilities. Considering the relative lack of evidence, using every source available is simply being diligent.

 

The biggest problem with the NT as I see it is that using it as a historical source is much the same as learning about Spartacus from the works of Kirk Douglas. The story was written to illustrate Jesus as the son of god, and really should have a page that says "Some characters and events have been changed for dramatic purposes". That is after all the main reason behind the inconsistentcies in the accounts of the time. If you try to compare a history book (however biased) with a fairy tale, naturally it won't work.

 

The problem here is a matter of faith. Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and so they do desperately want the NT to prove to be correct. That creates a market for researchers who would like to be the first to find that evidence. Time and again I read or watch tv and a researcher wanders off to the Holy Land "In search of Jesus". Well, he was there, I don't doubt that for a moment, on the principle of no smoke without fire. But in the same way that we eulogise personalities such as sportsmen, entertainers, and especially politicans (who make a living from exploiting this facet of the human psyche), so the image of Jesus has become more important than the man.

 

There is one researcher in particular I'm thinking of. I've seen him tv a couple of times now, and always by the end of the program he bleats on that the man himself is not important, but that his message is. The only account of his 'message' is in a story rewritten to deify him decades later, and that was subject to a committee to decide what events should be kept or discarded.

 

I've said before that my biggest bone of contention to the NT thing is not its dubious accuracy, but rather the lack of confirmation from contemporary sources. Tiberius was not a man to accept that some judaean born in a stable had any right to be regarded as divine as he was. I can't imagine him sat in Capri hearing of some barbarian claiming to be the son of god and not doing something about it.

 

The episode of Jesus' arrest is therefore perhaps based on real events, since he was speaking against Roman sentiment during a military occupation. The curious thing is that only Jesus was arrested in the story, and that no great change in public order was noted by Roman commentators. If Sejanus had a hand in appointing Pontius Pilate as governor, that merely made him politically astute and acceptable to the Sejanus regime. Certainly he wouldn't have wanted a political upheaval - the very thing Jesus was striving for (as opposed to the spritual motives the NT describes) - and so Jesus was slapped down having brought himself to Roman attention.

 

The story of the crucifixion is a fundamental part of Christian mythos, but one that doesn't entirely make sense, and although the Romans are held to have nailed Jesus up, the episode remains obscure in Roman terms. Perhaps thats not suprising. You have a rabble-rouser in a turbulent province and once dealt with, the turbulence dies down. The Judaean establishment may well have wanted jesus out of the picture too, as he represented a loose cannon. The deed is done, peace is restored without recourse to conflict, and no-one is saying anything to Rome.

 

If anyone seriously does want to compare contemporary accounts and attempt some sort parallel chronology, good luck I say. Who is more correct? A film scriptwriter playing on peoples emotions or a tabloid newspaper that is more interested in celebrity secrets?

[Ingsoc]

I agree with you caldrail. In regards to Pilatus i think that the writers of the NT portray him as weak so they could lay the blame of Jesus crucifixion on the Jews, partly because the vast majorty of Jews didn't accept Christianity and partly because the Roman became the main target pool from whom Christianity wanted to draw conversions. Josephus portray of Pilatus is much more accurate, true you could say that he made his look like a bad guy to explain the Jewish anti-Roman sentiments, however he doesn't make the same thing with Pilatus predecessors and in my view it's would indicated the truth in Josephus claim about Pilatus hard hand.

 

The connection between Sejanus and Pilatus seem dubious to me. first thing Pilatus was just a minor equestrian and if not for his involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus he wouldn't be remember by anyone just as his predecessors as Judean governors are remembered, so he wasn't someone who probably had strong connections to the Roman elite, even not the equestrian elite. second thing the only source for such connection is Philo and we need to remember that he make this connection when he was appealing in front of Caligula to back away from his anti-Jewish policies, obviously Philo wanted to make that hostility to the Jews is something that belong to the enemy camp and connection Pilatus with Sejanus was the perfect way to do it.