Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22


Pilate: Weak and Timid Leader of Judaea?

Biographical Study

Submitted to Dr. William Joseph Subash, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the completion of the course

NBST-515 B10 LUO

New Testament Orientation I


Steven R. Long

October 9, 2014


I. Introduction ...........1
A. Methodology .......................................................................................................................2
B. The Purpose of the Study 2
C. Initial Conclusion of the Study ...3

II. Jewish Writings of Antiquity ..............................3

A. Philo of Alexandria (25 B. C. A.D. 50) on Pilate ..................................................................4

B. Three Actions of Pilate, by Flavius Josephus (37 A.D. 100) ................................................5
1. Idolatrous Standards ............6
2. Aqueduct Riot .....................8
3. Samaritan Massacre ..............................................................................................10

III. Five Scholarly Verdicts on Pilate ................10

A. Beloved Saint ............................11

B. Christian Convert ..........................................11
C. Insensitive Roman Official ...11
D. Villain: Cruel and Anti-Jewish .12
E. Weak and Without Conviction ..12

IV. The Gospel Presentations on Pilate .................12

V. Summary And Conclusion ....16

Bibliography ....................17


One of the least known characters of antiquity is Pontius Pilate. While he is primarily

recognized for one major event in history, the trial of Jesus Christ, he has most recently been

described as anti-Semitic, a convert, cruel, insensitive, without conviction, villain, or possibly a

Saint.1 The evidence available for research biblically and extra-biblical, is limited. Warren Carter

in Pontius Pilate: Roman Governor states, Pilate emerges as a powerful figure who played a

central role in Jesus death.2 He further concludes, Political dynamics pervade the scenes... he is

not weak or coerced.3 It seems there is a recent push in scholarly research that demonstrates

Pilate as a cruel or insensitive leader.4

Many have shed light on the troubling leadership style of the governor; his interactions

with his Jewish inhabitants suggest a basic direction regarding his life. With the little information

we can glean from Embassy to Gaius, Pro Flaccum, Legatio 299-305, Jewish War 2.169-77,

Antiquities of the Jews 18.55-89, including an inscription found in Caesarea in 1961 depicting

him as a prefect; Pilate had a greater impact on the development of Christianity through first-

century Palestine than first realized. As Warren suggests, His appointment as governor indicates

1 See Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor, (Collegeville, MN: LiturgicalPress, 2003), 3.,
Harold Heohner, Pontius Pilate, in Dictionary of Jesus and The Gospels, eds. Joel Green, Scot McKnight, and
Tom Thatcher, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1992), 616., Brian C McGing, Pontius Pilate and the Sources, CBQ 53
(1991), 416-38.

2 Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Roman Governor, Bibleinterp.com (Kansas City, 2004), accessed September 29,
2014. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Carter-Pontius_Pilate_Roman_Governor.shtml.

3 Ibid.

4 Brian C. McGing, "Pontius Pilate and The Sources." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53, no. 3: (July, 1991), 416.

that he came from a wealthy, powerful, elite Roman family.5 It is problematic to think a person

could attain the heights of the Governor of Rome as a weak leader; but was he a cruel or

insensitive leader? Do recent writings go too far?


This paper set out to research a broad background of information. The methodology at

first was random, focusing more on finding as much research material as possible. Slowly the

project came into focus with some much-needed feedback. Not only will this paper utilize

scholarly research, it will also have a focus on the historical records and writings of Josephus and

Philo of Alexandria. In searching for the works, it was difficult to find an online database in

which to query specific results. It was decided to purchase the complete works for the writers

Logos program. While the cost was a good expense, it will be utilized in future research projects.

In addition, the paper will reference online gatherings of these works.

In searching the recent scholarly journals, it was noted that most view the political figure

in a predetermined way. This author wanted to review the material with a fresh set of eyes and

decipher how each writer of antiquity presented the material. In doing a little background

research on various writers, it helped to give perspective on their motives. While this paper will

not spend time on the motives of ancient writers, it will interject obvious references to motives.

The Purpose of the Study

An initial deduction is that Pontius Pilate was a weak leader who succumbed to political

pressure; this has been a central theme of recent scholarly thought. However, this author wanted

to explore the concept further. We will attempt to demonstrate whether or not he was a weak

5 Ibid.

political leader, his political interaction with the Jewish people, and the prevailing verdicts on his

character, while making biblical conclusions on his impact in the Gospels. Therefore, the purpose

of this paper is to give a brief biography on the life of Pontius Pilate, and suggest a two-fold

Pilate in the writings and Scripture.

Initial Conclusions of the Study

In Matthew's Gospel, he presents a silent Jesus before the Jewish Leaders. Matthew

states, But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single chargeto the great amazement of the

governor.6 The Bible further states, He took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd

(Matt 27:24), signifying that Pilate was not responsible for the death of Jesus. Why was this

interaction with Jesus so amazing to the Governor of Judah? It is difficult to believe that a prefect

is weak and feckless if he recognizes the integrity of Jesus, even publicly denounces the crowd,

using a Jewish illustration. This author believes at best Pilate was a neutral political leader, and at

worse, he was weak and feckless as Governor.

Jewish Writings of Antiquity

Paul J. Achtemeier in Harpers Bible Dictionary gives us some background on Pilates

life when he writes, Pilate, Pontius ... Roman prefect of Judea, the fifth governor of the province

and the second-longest holder of the office (a.d. 26-36).7 Warren Carter in Pontius Pilate:

Roman Governor states that Pilate was in office from a. d. 26-37.8 Whatever date you take as

6 Matthew 27:14, all Scriptures in are in the New International Version unless otherwise noted

(International Bible Society, 1984).

7 Paul J. Achtemeier, Harpers Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 796.

8 Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Roman Governor, (Kansas City, 2004), 1.


the legitimate time in office is of little consequence. What is worthy to note is that typical

governor appointments lasted a fraction of Pilates service. If he were a weak leader, why would

Tiberius continue his rule? One scholar suggests, This historical material [Josephus writings],

however, is filtered through the conventions of philosophical, moral rhetoric.9 If true, Philo may

call into question the validity of eyewitness accounts bearing the name of Josephus.

Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE A.D. 50) on Pilate

Philo seems to be the one most concerned with the dual nature of Pilates governorship. Philo

gives a good picture into the nature and leadership of Pilate in his Embassy to Caligula. He

describes Pilate as A man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very

obstinate.10 In addition, Philo describes him as "At all times a man of most ferocious

passions."11 This is compounded with Philos statements on how Pilate ruled, especially as

presented by the complaints of the Jewish leaders in the uprising of Judaea over the gilt shields:

He feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach
him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and
his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and
his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned.12

As you read his statements it immediately stirs the researcher in a negative way. However,

further statements by Philo paint another picture one that is more balanced. In addition, Philo

9 Tom Thatcher, Philo on Pilate: Rhetoric or Reality? Restoration Quarterly 37, no. 4: (1995), 215-218. Accessed
August 18, 2014.

10 Philo of Alexandria, The Embassy to Caligula, XXXVIII.301.

11 Ibid., 303.

12 Ibid., 302.

gives us a glimpse into the motivations of the Governor.

Philo states, He [Pilate], not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with

that of vexing the multitude. In the context, he was admitting Pilate is not interested in stirring

up the crowd. Instead, he wants to pay homage to Tiberius. Philo continues with the contrasting

viewpoint when he takes another approach to his counterpart Josephus regarding the Idolatrous

Shields. Philo writes, Which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them

except some necessary inscription.13 This is an opposite written account to that of Josephus.

Why would Philo differ and present Pilate in a different light? It is this authors view that while

Philo was critical of Pilates governorship, he was not malicious towards the prefect nor did

Philo have an obvious motive like Josephus.

What make Philo's writings, so profound are two key statements regarding the dual

nature of conflict in Pilate. First, Tiberius made it a point to quell all rebellions and Philo states

Pilate was Sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points.14 Second,

Pilate refrained "To do anything that could be acceptable to his subjects.15 The dual point here is

that Pilate desires to keep the wishes of the Emperor, while not giving in to the rebellious crowd;

otherwise the crowd may see Pilate as a weak and ask for more concessions.

There was an incredible find in Philos concluding statements. It sheds light into the

motivation of Pilate. While I understand this suggestion comes with limitations, without

question, Philo proves at a minimum a contrasting conflict within Pilate. He writes, And in this

way [Everything Philo wrote] he provided for two matters: both for the honor due to the

13 Ibid., 299.

14 Philo of Alexandria, The Embassy to Caligula, XXXVIII.303.

15 Ibid., Emphasis Mine.


emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.16 Philo admits that Pilate

was not a weak leader but a conflicted leader. The initial conclusions of this paper could retain

some merit, but it seems another understanding is beginning to emerge. While the writings of

Philo are limited, they contrast to his counterpart Josephus.

Three Actions of Pilate, by Flavius Josephus (37 A.D.100)

Without a doubt, Josephus represents Pilates character especially negative in most of the

Jewish sources. Primarily there are three key stories to help shed light on the man Pilate, 1) the

idolatrous standards 2) the aqueduct riot and 3) the Samaritan massacre. Treating the information

carefully will help us to glean the predisposed position of each writer. For example, Josephus

himself was highly dedicated to the Jewish system and even fought against the Roman Army in

The Jewish Revolt of a.d. 66 to 70.17 Does that mean he is solely interested in discrediting Pilate?

More likely Josephus is interested in painting all Roman leaders negatively to further a personal

agenda of overthrowing their abusiveness practices toward the Jewish people. This is a valid

consideration in the discussion but most important is to look at the accounts objectively before

we pass judgment on the mans character. It can be stated that there is more than one reasonable

explanation for the material.

Idolatrous Standards

Josephus reports in The Jewish War, Pilate brought Roman troops to Jerusalem from

Caesarea. He committed an unprecedented violation of Jewish sensibilities allowing the troops to

bring into the city military standards bearing the symbol of the Emperor. This was considered an

16 Ibid., 305.

17 Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.6 23.


idolatrous image and worse, it was done under the cover of night. 18 Josephus writes,

...Considering their laws to have been trampled under foot, as those laws permit no image to be

erected in the city; while the indignation of the townspeople stirred the countryfolk.19 We

conclude from the writings that Jewish law permitted no outside images in the city.

This perceived insult initiated the protests against Pilates decision and secret addition of

the standards. So strong was their protest, instead of obeying the directive of Pilate to disperse,

they were willing to stand their ground amidst threats of public execution. This additional proof

of a healthy tension by the Governor balancing two difficult tasks continues to erode our initial

claim that he was weak. Exploring the protests further may lend a hand to our understanding.

The protests suggest 1) Pilate was unaware of the Jewish law as the new prefect, 2) he

intentionally stirred up the people, or, 3) he was carefully balancing the wishes of Rome and the

Jewish subordinates. About the idea that Pilate was unaware of the Jewish customs and laws,

there seems to be a clue in the concluding remarks of Josephus when he writes about the

Governors reaction toward the Jews. Instead of complying with the wishes of Rome, the Jews

choose to die rather than break their laws. Overcome with astonishment at such intense

religious zeal, Pilate gave orders for the immediate removal of the standards from Jerusalem.20

Josephus details that Pilate, ...Introduced [the standards] into Jerusalem by night and under

cover.21 We can safely suggest Pilate was completely informed of his actions.

18 Josephus, The Jewish War 2.169-174.

19 Ibid.

20 Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII.3.1., Jewish War 2.169-174., Wars, II.9.2.

21 Jewish War 2.169-174.


While some scholars argue that Pilate stirred up the people as an insensitive leader, it

would stand opposed to his political ambition to seduce the people toward rebellion. As

Governor of Judaea, he was charged with keeping Romes interests intact and keeping the order

of the people. Brian McGing informs us in Pontius Pilate and The Sources, that provincial

leaders must maintain a healthy balance.22 Pilates dual role as Governor was tenuous and

problematic as Judeans historically were hard to rule.

A claim that deserves further scrutiny is when Carter suggests, He [Pilate] shared an

insensitivity to Jewish customs that was typical of elite Roman prejudices toward provincials.23

Carter further claims Governors of Rome Exercised military, political, social, judicial, and

economic control, often in exploitative and harsh ways.24 Adding to the scholarly volumes on

Pilate it can be suggested here that Pilate was prejudice toward the Jewish people.

This could account for the continual strife he created with his decisions and give credence to his

seemingly tepid approach in varying situations. We have learned as recently as the twenty-first

century, how those who are prejudice can at times are friendly, and yet utterly cruel. This line of

thought should be the highlight of scholarly research in the near future.

It seems that even in the writings of Josephus, though he tries to paint Pilate in a negative

way, a dual approach in our understanding is emerging. Recent suggestions on Pilates rule as

Governor shows a juxtaposed viewpoint of 1) yielding to the wishes of Rome, 2) while

22 Brian C. McGing, "Pontius Pilate and The Sources." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53, no. 3: (July, 1991), 435.

23 Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Roman Governor, (Kansas City, 2004), 2.

24 Ibid.

reminding the Jewish people that Rome is in charge.25 It is fairly benign to say at some level

Pilate wanted to honor Tiberius. Pilate was well aware of his political opponents potential

outburst, and desiring favor from Tiberius, seems to be a plausible initiative against Herod.

On the one hand Pilate needs to keep the peace and citizenry content. On the other hand,

he is intent on improving his standing in the Roman leadership and remaining faithful to

Tiberius. This two-fold Pilate may be reasoning enough for the seemingly erratic decisions

during his rule. As stated earlier, the material, thus far, does not paint Pilate in a weak manner.

Aqueduct Riot

A second dramatic event can be found in the writings when Josephus states that extreme protests

broke out after Pilate used Temple funds (Corban) to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem. Josephus

writes, After this he [Pilate] raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which

is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred

furlongs [about 54 miles].26 Why was Pilate taking on such a large task? It seems something can

be gleaned from the earlier writings. Josephus states, And now Herod the tetrarch, who was in

great favor with Tiberius, built a city of the same name.27 Unlike Herod, Pilate missteps in that

he stole the money from the temple to build his lifes achievement. In essence, Pilate does not

make this decision primarily to inflame the Jews but to compete with Herod for the favor of


Most provincial Governors held a lavish lifestyle and therefore taxation practices would not have

25 McGing, "Pontius Pilate and The Sources," (1991).

26 Wars, II.9.4. Insert mine.

27 Wars. II.2.3

been enough to build an aqueduct. What I find odd is the contrasting reports in the writings in

regard to the size and scope of the project.

In Antiquities Josephus states, the aqueduct was two-hundred furlongs.28 However, in

Wars, Josephus states it was four-hundred furlongs.29 A scholar by the name of Uriel Rappaport

has suggested in Josephus Personality and The Credibility of His Narrative, the varying

reports amounts to inaccuracies in the writings; therefore, Josephus must not be a reliable

historical source.30 More soundly is the idea that he was not concerned about size of the project

so much as the nature in which the project started. Josephus is not a Roman engineer and

therefore could have simply misstated the total length. In this matter, Uriel goes too far.

The response of the people was expected; Josephus states, They came about his tribunal, and

made a clamor of it.31 Pilate knew of the potential problems as Josephus suggests, When he

[Pilate] 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.32

This prearrangement of the Roman soldiers signals Pilates desire to squash any open rebellion.

With clubs at the ready, soldiers violently attacked the Jews and inflicted mass casualties.

The result, "Many of them, perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as

28 Antiquities, XVIII.3.2.

29 Wars, II.9.4

30 Uriel Rappaport, Josephus Personality and The Credibility of His Narrative, Making

History: Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 110. (ed. Zuleika Rodgers), 68.

31 Wars, II.9.4

32 Wars, II.9.4

trodden to death by themselves."33 The cruelty upon the crowd caused them to hold their peace

and return home. We can safely conclude this is another example where Pilate was balancing his

charge to build the glory of Rome, while maintaining order among the inhabitants.

The Samaritan Massacre

A third story on Mt. Gerizim seems to paint Pilate in a most damming way. Samaritan leaders,

Thought lying a thing of little consequence,34 So they entreated people to gather together to

view sacred artifacts left by Moses. Josephus plainly tells his readers these reports were lies.

However, the masses gathered in a great "multitude" and agreed to arrive at Tirathaba, a village

in Samaria. Upon their sojourn "Pilate prevented they were going up, seizing upon file roads

with a great band of horsemen and foot-men"35 A large-scale rebellion of the Samaritans under

Pilates charge would be tantamount to a dereliction of duty.

Josephus declares When it came to action, some of them [Samaritans] they slew, and

others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive.36 In response, the Samaritans sent

an embassy to complain to Vitellius. Tiberius was already dead, and thus, Vitellius ordered

"Pilate to go to Rome." This scene seems to show that in the end, Pilate's overtly cruel nature

won out. If our study, thus far, has produced anything, it is that various beholders chose to

present Pilate in a particular way. The prickly practices in which Pilate rules give us an

opportunity to see his conflicted decisions, prejudicial motives, and the difficult task of ruling

33 Wars, II.9.4

34 Antiquities, XVIII.4.1

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

obstinate people. From the writings we have established our initial conclusion needs to be

updated from a leader who is weak, to one who is conflicted, possible even prejudicial. Would

the scholars agree?

Five Scholarly Verdicts on Pilate

Warren Carter in Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor, gives a nice overview of the

five scholarly verdicts on Pilate. I will attempt to generalize his research and writings. Carter

presents five conclusions that Pilate is 1) a beloved Saint, 2) Christian convert, 3) insensitive

Roman official, 4) villain: cruel and anti-Jewish, or 5) weak and without conviction.

A Beloved Saint

Carter states that many who claim Pilate was a Christian believe he was also a martyr.37

For instance, according to Carter and Elliot in Apocryphal New Testament 222-24, Pilate sends

Herod a letter depicting his sorrow and suffering for crucifying Jesus. According to a later

tradition, Pilate Describes numerous tragedies that have befallen his family.38 This later

tradition has come under scrutiny and as of yet, no one can produce a credible or unchallenged

source. However, since the view presents Pilate as a Christian and martyr, some scholars believe

Pilate committed suicide; there are others who claim he was a Saint.39

Christian Convert

This is one of the older verdicts rendered to Pilate by scholars. Primarily rooted in Pilates

reluctance to condemn Jesus to die on the cross, this viewpoint tends to move the ownership of

37 Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor, (Collegeville, MN: LiturgicalPress, 2003), 10.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid., 11.

Christ's crucifixion to the Jews.40 According to carter, This view came to the fore in the late

second century... and The early church leader Tertullian... claimed that the emperor Tiberius...

and Pilates boss, received and believed a report from Syria Palestine which had revealed the

truth of Christs divinity.41 This viewpoint has come under fire and is untenable.

Insensitive Roman Official

Brian McGing in Pontius Pilate and The Sources, concludes The governors of Judaea...

constantly displayed a general lack of sensitivity, tact, and knowledge.42 Carter suggests Pilate

as trying to fulfill the roles and requirements of being Roman governor of the difficult province

of Judea as ably as he can.43 Both scholarly giants believe Pilate to be a mere shadow compared

to the greatness of the emperors of ancient Rome. Carter and McGing share parts of this view

together but not exclusively of the others.

Villain: Cruel and Anti-Jewish

This view sees Pilate as a co-conspirator in the death of Jesus. Carter suggests this view is a

Consequence of his cruel hatred of Jewish people.44 It has been argued in this viewpoint that

Sejanus was a very anti-Semitic individual and as such, appointed Pilate, as governor in hopes

the Jews would revolt so that Rome could crush and exterminate the race completely.45 Carter

claims some in a scholarly world identify the conflicts in Rome as the primary evidence that

40 Ibid., 6.

41 Ibid.

42 McGing, "Pontius Pilate and The Sources," (1991), 438.

43 Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor, (2003), 5.

44 Ibid., 3.

Pilate wanted to provoke a violent disagreement.46 This viewpoint has a mixed review among

recent scholarly work; however, further research may have some merit.

Weak and Without Conviction

This is the viewpoint held by many scholars due to the way the Gospels tell the story. Carter

states the primary thought is that "He [Pilate] has noble intentions to release the innocent' Jesus,

but he is too weak, lacks conviction, and gives into stronger voices."47

Many casual readers easily identify with this view because of the Gospel writings.

The Gospel Presentations on Pilate

The New Testament references where Pilate plays a central role in the events surrounding

the trial and crucifixion of Jesus (Matt. 27:1-2, 11-26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28-

19:16; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Tim. 6:13), is paramount to our understanding of Pilates life.

While its true that the writings and sources depict Pilate in a negative light, we have in the

Gospels another image of his leadership and role at the trial of Jesus.

All of them said, Let him crucified! Then he asked, Why, what evil has he done?
But they shouted all the more, Let him be crucified! (Matt 27:23; cf. Mark 15:13-14).

"I find no basis for an accusation against this man... and here I have examined him in
your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him..."
And Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept shouting,
"Crucify, Crucify him! A third time he said to them, Why, what evil has he done? I
have found in him no ground for the sentence of death. I will therefore have him flogged
and then release him. (Luke 23:4, 14, 22).

45 According to Warren Carter, Proponents of this view include Ethelbert Stauffer, Christ and

the Ceasars: Historical Sketches. Translated by K. and R. Gregory Smith (Londong, 1955); Ernst

Bammel, Syrian Coinage and Pilate, JJS 2 (1950-51), 108-110.

46 Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor, (2003), 3.

47 Ibid., 4.

Pilate went out again and said to them, Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you
know that I find no case against him. (John 19:4, 6).

If one takes Griesbach's two-document theory of Matthean priority, then Luke, Mark and John

would naturally follow, and the order in the presentation of Pilate is clear. Just like we learned

from our sources above, it seems each writer presents Pilate uniquely in the Gospels.48 This

uniqueness should not be viewed with skepticism, but rather understood in the broader context

that each writer had a point and a target audience.

First in Matthews Gospel, we see a detailed account of Pilate, Jesus, and the rebellious

crowd. Matthew 27:1-2, 11-26 introduced Pilate's wife, unnamed in the Gospel but called Procla

or Procula in a later tradition. She confronts Pilate to have nothing to do with that righteous

man, about whom she has had a dream. Matthews Gospel is the first to introduce a hand-

washing illustration whereby Pilate vindicates himself from the sins of the people (27:24-25).

Matthews Gospel gives us the most detailed description of the events. This seems logical

given the well-known fact that scholars believe Matthews audience was largely Jewish.

Therefore, it would seem important for Matthew to emphasize the rebellion of the Jewish

leaders, along with emphasizing the guilt of the nation, in order to contrast the innocence of

Jesus. Moreover, the added details and warnings from Pilates wife, along with the hand washing

illustration, give credence to the idea of a literary device the author uses to overly emphasize

Israels guilt and their rejection of Christ.

In the account of Mark 15:1-15, he presents Pilate in a peculiar manner. The Bible says,

Pilate questioned Him again, saying, Do you not answer? See how many charges they bring

against you! But Jesus made no further answer; so Pilate was amazed (vs. 4-5 NASB). Mark

48 It should be noted that I am a personal believer in the Griesbach theory.


adds to Matthews account inserting a tradition during the feast; Pilate would release a prisoner

of the crowds choosing. Many scholars have claimed Pilate was too weak to defend a just man,

and this is the reason he sent Jesus to the cross and freed Barabbas. However, as shown in our

research above, Pilate is carefully walking the line between maintaining the interests of Rome

while keeping the order of the people. Once Pilate realizes the people will not relent, he gives in

to their wishes.

In the Luke 23:1-25 version of the event, Pilate is sent to Herod Antipas for further

treatment. In Herods presence soldiers mock him, beat him, and yet Herod finds no fault in

Jesus. Once done with his questions, Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate for the final verdict. Luke

states, And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking Him,

dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate. Now Herod and Pilate became

friends with one another that very day; for before they had been enemies... (vs. 11-12 NASB).

This one verse sheds some light into the relationship between Pilate and Herod.

For the first time, we have credible evidence the two were at odds with each other. The story of

the Aqueduct begins to make sense. It is justifiable that Pilate extends the waterway in contrast to

the Herod's city. It is safe to reason they were in competition for the favor of Rome.

Interestingly enough there is a weird statement found in Luke 13:1, Of the Galileans

whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, In my limited study I found no extra

biblical support for this claim. While one of our writers we have studied may have alluded to this

statement, it seems an obscure passage and possibly a later addition. There may have been a few

authors of antiquity that discussed this matter, however, no such writing could be found.

Regardless, it doesnt appear to be too far-fetched given the details of the Samaritan massacre.

Finally, in the account of John 18:28-19:16, one writers suggest it was An elaborate

scheme of inside and outside scenes, carr[ying] even further the idea that Pilate, who did not

wish to condemn Jesus, was a helpless pawn.49 John is not remotely concerned with the person

of Pilate as his focus remains on Jesus and his kingdom ministry from God. All through the

passages there are many statements about the kingship of Jesus. It crescendos when Jesus

declares, You say correctly that I am a king. For this, I have been born, and for this I have come

into the world, to testify to the truth (v 37). For John, kingship of Christ takes precedence over

how the reader views Pilate.

Interestingly enough Johns Gospel presents a different version than Luke. In Johns

account the scourging, mistreatment, and the purple robe come from Pilate. Moreover, there are

many attempts to release Jesus. Consequently, John portrays Pilate as a shrewd leader waiting for

the crowd to narrow in the statements of Jesus and Pilate tests the Jews fidelity to Rome. The

crowd is more than happy to oblige and states, If you release this Man, you are no friend of

Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar. (v 12 NASB). On that

basis, Pilate is forced to give in to the crowd and turns Jesus over to be crucified.

Summary and Conclusion

As we poor over the sum of the material, we have effectively showed that Philo was balanced in

his approach and treatment of Pilate. At first glance it seems he was completely negative toward

his governorship, in context, his writings remain fairly neutral. The most credible statement and

what summarily change the direction and outcome of this paper is when Philo wrote, And in

49 Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harpers Bible

Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 797.


this way he [Pilate] provided for two matters: both for the honor due to the emperor, and for the

preservation of the ancient customs of the city.50 This statement does not show Pilate as a weak

and timid leader. Therefore, our initial conclusion needed to adjust.

Josephus, on the other hand, seems to have an agenda and motive behind his writings. It is

fascinating and odd that out of nearly ten years of rule, Pilate is only mentioned a few times and

in the most negative way. When you take the whole of Josephus work, and look at history

portraying him as a leader in The Jewish Revolt, one cannot help but speculate that his chief aim

is to paint Rome negatively in order to facilitate a large-scale rebellion. As hard as Josephus tries

to discredit Pilate as a merciless tyrant, the Gospel treatments seem to contradict his


In the Gospels, there seems to be a washed over presentation. Pilate is neither cruel nor

benevolent. He is neither merciful nor weak. The statement in Luke 13:1 could be a later addition

to the text. None of the Gospels displays him as a weak leader but rather accommodating.

Therefore, it can be concluded that our initial conclusions must be changed to the two ideas

found in this paper. Pilate is 1) conflicted as a leader, desiring to adhere to the wishes of Rome;

while keeping the peace of its citizens, and 2) Pilate is an elite leader with prejudice toward the

Jews. These two suggestions need further criticism and research in the near future.


Bond, Helen, K. Pontius Pilate In History And Interpretation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2004. Google Scholar. Accessed August 27, 2014.

50 Achtemeier, Harper & Row, Harpers Bible Dictionary (1985), 797.



Carter, Warren. Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor. Collegevill, MN: Liturgical
Press, 2003. Google Books. Accessed August 27, 2014.

Carter, Warren. Pontius Pilate: Roman Governor, Bibleinterp.com (Kansas City, 2004).
Accessed September 29, 2014.

Claudel, Paul, and Marie Ponsot. "Pilate's Case." Cross Currents 36, no. 3 (September 1,
1986): 323-331. Accessed August 18, 2014.

Josephus. Works. Translated by H. St. J Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis H.
Feldman. 9 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929-62.

Lnnqvist, Kenneth. An Aqueduct Builder? Recent Findings and New Suggestions,

KLIO v82, 2, (Feb, 2000), 459-474. Accessed September 29, 2014.

McGing, Brian Charles. "Pontius Pilate and The Sources." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53,
no. 3: (July, 1991), 416-438. Accessed August 18, 2014.

Philo. Works. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus. 10 vols.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929-62.

Rappaport, Uriel. Josephus Personality and The Credibility of His Narrative, Making History:
Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 110. (ed. Zuleika Rodgers), 68.
Accessed October 6, 2014. http://natzraya.com/Books%20on%20Judaism%20and%20the

Rigelhof, T. F. "Pontius Pilate: A Biography." Biography 23, no. 4 (Fall, 2000): 821.
Accessed August 18, 2014.

Singer, Isidore, et al., eds. Pontius Pilate. The Jewish Encyclopedia; A Descriptive Record of
The History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of The Jewish People From The Earliest
Times to The Present Day. New York, NY: 1906. Accessed August 18, 2014.

Taylor, Joan E. "Pontius Pilate and The Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea." New Testament
Studies 52, no. 4 (10, 2006): 555-82. Accessed August 18, 2014.

Thatcher, Tom. "Philo on Pilate: Rhetoric or Reality?" Restoration Quarterly 37,

no. 4: (1995), 215-218. Accessed August 18, 2014.