Pontius Pilate

PONTIUS PILATE (PONTIUS PILATUS)

Prefect of Judaea c. CE 26 to CE 37

1. Sources
2. Background
3. Dates
4. Incident of the busts of the emperor
5. Controversy over the aqueduct
6. Incident at Mount Gerizim
7. The Crucifixion
8. Summary
9. Notes

SOURCES

Until recently our only sources for the existence of Pilate were the writings of Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, the crucifixion narrative found in the gospels, and a (disputed) reference in Tacitus. The apochryphal writings, such as the Acts of Pilate, are of much later composition and little can be gleaned from them.

Some doubts have been raised whether Pilate's title was that of Prefect or Procurator, or even that he existed. However in 1961 a limestone block was discovered at Caesarea, the seat of Roman power for Judaea and Samaria during the early part of the first century CE. The inscription, which is partially legible, confirms the authenticity of Pilate and his title as Prefect of Judaea (praefectus judaeae).

A reconstruction of the complete text is given below. The letters highlighted in red are visible on the stone.

DIS AUGUSTIS TIBERIEUM
PONTIUS PILATUS
PRAEFECTUS JUDAEAE
DEDIT DEDICAVIT

In assessing the character of Pilate it should be born in mind that the authors of our sources all had an axe to grind. Josephus and Philo are presenting a pro-Jewish view of history and are rarely objective on contentious issues. Similarly the gospels were written long after the period in question and historical events are seen through a theological prism. To understand the character of Pilate and the reasons why he took certain actions it is essential to take a more balanced view.

BACKGROUND

We know nothing about Pilate's background except for a statement in Josephus that he was an equestrian (i.e., a 'knight'). He probably had previous military experience, either as a staff officer or even in command of a legion. It has been maintained that equestrians were never placed in command of legions, but this is to forget that under Augustus and Tiberius the equestrians were a rising class and given far more power than previously. The poet Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus) was of the equestrian class but claimed to have commanded a legion at the battle of Philippi.

Whatever Pilate's personal background one thing is certain - he was appointed to a sensitive position in a region that was notorious for religious and political unrest. Rome would only have appointed someone whom they considered suitable for the task.

And the task was daunting. The prefects of Judaea had resonsibility for maintaining order, combatting brigandage, raising taxes, and control of the local mint. They probably had only about 3000 armed auxiliaries at their command, and these were spread throughout the province.

On the political side the prefects had to contend with ambitious and meddling Herodian aristocrats with prestigious contacts at Rome far greater than those of a mere prefect; the current high priesthood of the Ananus family with its enormous power in Jerusalem; the rival high priestly clans such as the Boethians with their own power bases and client-patron relationships; a plethora of other ambitious religiopolitical leaders each with his idea about how Judaea should be run; and the ever present menace of fundamentalist groups who saw holy war as the answer to all the woes of Judah.

DATES

Josephus relates that Pilate served ten years and that Tiberius died between the date of Pilate's departure and his arrival at Rome.¹

This is partly corroborated by the inscription on the limestone block (see above) which places Pilate in Judaea for at least part of Tiberius reign. Tiberius came to power in CE 14 and died in CE 37, so if Josephus is correct then Pilate was replaced in CE 37. A period of service of ten years produces a date of CE 26 or 27 for Pilate's arrival in Judaea.

In short we only have one statement in Josephus on which to base Pilate's dates. Whether the 'ten years' is precise or a round number can only be conjecture, but it is probably of the right order. ²

The traditional dates for Pilate's term of office are CE 26 to CE 37. However for a different end date of CE 38 see the section on the incident at Mount Gezarim below.

INCIDENT OF THE BUSTS OF THE EMPEROR

Josephus relates that Pilate moved his army from Caesarea to winter quarters at Jerusalem. They entered at night, and in the morning the populace became aware that the troops had brought with them 'busts' of the emperor. They were first Roman troops to have done this, and it was a transgression of Jewish law. A throng of Jews went to petition Pilate at Caesarea, but Pilate refused to back down. On the sixth day Pilate surrounded the protesters with troops and threatened retribution if they did not disperse. However the protesters threw themselves prostrate to the ground and bared their throats, preferring death rather than a transgression of the laws. Pilate then relented and had the busts removed. ³

'Busts' is from the Loeb translation. They are likely to have been medallions embossed with an image of the emperor Tiberius. These medallions would have been attached to the standards carried by the Roman troops, probably having been ceremoniously presented to his cohorts by Pilate when he took office. The standards were considered sacred by the military and when not in use were kept in special shrines. In Jerusalem these shrines would have been in the fortress known as the Antonia.

If this took place in the early period of Pilate's office, this might explain why it had not happened before. Pilate may have been unaware of the Jewish antagonism to imperial images.

Pilate's 'army' is clearly an exaggeration as his main forces would have remained at his headquarters at Caesarea. Josephus' text makes no mention of the troops being replacements for those of the Jerusalem garrison, but gives the impression that they were an additional force. One possibility is that a cohort or other sizeable group had been making a circuit of Judaea and Samaria to maintain a presence in the territory which terminated at Jerusalem at the end of the campaigning season. There is nothing sinister about their arrival during the night as this is the time troops would naturally arrive after a day's march.

The reaction of the Jews and their prostration and baring of their throats is the usual Josephean hyperbole. Whether Josephus invented the scenario or was recounting the anti-Roman polemic he would have been exposed to in his youth is debatable. However Josephus had been a military leader in the holy war against Rome so he may well have unthinkingly subscribed to such versions.

Philo mentions that Pilate set up the contentious standards in the temple, but Philo has an even bigger pro-Jewish axe to grind than Josephus. If this had actually happened it is difficult to see why Josephus omitted it. ⁴

The probable scenario is that the imperial images gave a degree of offence, but this was seized on and magnified by militant fundamentalists. Although there may have been trouble at Caesarea, the petitioners were probably some of the more moderate religious leaders of Jerusalem who were keen to have order in the city re-estabished.

If we can say anything about this episode it must be that Pilate comes out of it well. Having to remove images of the Emperor must have been a bitter pill for a Roman commander to swallow.

CONTROVERSY OVER THE AQUEDUCT

Josephus relates that Pilate diverted funds from the sacred treasury to fund an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem. Tens of thousands of Jews rioted in protest. Pilate dispatched soldiers dressed in Jewish garments under which they carried clubs to surround the protestors. In dispersing the riot the blows they struck were much harder than Pilate had ordered, and injured both rioters and bystanders. The uprising was crushed, many of the rioters slain on the spot. ⁵

The first point to make is that the need to build the aqueduct shows that there was a water shortage in Jerusalem, or at least a potential one. The second point is that it is very unlikely that Pilate would have taken it upon himself to divert funds from the temple treasury. One can assume the decision to build the aqueduct was taken elsewhere, possibly at the Sanhedrin or possibly at Rome, and that Pilate had to enforce the decision against the will of the objecting faction.

The problem presumably arose because the treasury was mainly comprised of the funds raised by means of the temple tax. No doubt some high priests - and certainly the fundamentalists - saw the only legitimate use of this money to be the glorification of God and the ongoing project of building the greatest temple the world had ever known. However it is likely that diaspora Jews saw it somewhat differently when they visited Jerusalem during the festivals and found the infrastructure lacking. It may have been complaints from influential diaspora Jews which initiated the decision to use the temple funds to build the aqueduct.

The number 'tens of thousands' of rioters, although possibly inflated by Josephus, indicates the magnitude of the disturbance. It can only be assumed it was organised, another chance for fundamentalists to show their muscle.

The claim that Pilate's men were disguised is interesting, providing we do not take Josephus' description too literally. It would seem to show that Pilate was being sensitive to the feelings of the Jewish population. His men would have been patrolling the streets without any ostentatious show of armour or insignia, and armed only with clubs rather than the more military sword. One could be reminded of the British presence in Basra immediately following the invasion of Iraq when British troops patrolled the city wearing berets rather than helmets as symbolism that they were peacekeepers rather than conquerors.

If we allow for the possibility that Pilate's men were over enthusiastic in putting down the riot, it would seem that Pilate was acting correctly.

INCIDENT AT MOUNT GERIZIM

Josephus relates that 'a man who made light of mendacity, and in all his designs catered to the mob' (Loeb translation) caused an assembly of Samaritans at their holy mountain of Mount Gerizim where he promised to show the sacred vessels that Moses had buried there. The Samaritans were armed and based themselves at the village of Tirathana where their numbers constantly grew. But their route up Mount Gerizim was blocked by Pilate's forces consisting of a detachment of cavalry and heavily-armed infantry. In the battle that followed many Samaritans were killed or taken prisoner and Pilate had the ringleaders put to death.

Josephus continues that the council of the Samaritans complained to Vitellius, the Governor of Syria, claiming that the participants at Mount Gerizim had not been rebels but refugees from Pilate's brutality. Vitellius replaced Pilate with Marcellus and ordered Pilate to Rome to face charges. 'And so Pilate, after having spent ten years in Judaea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refuse. But before he reached Rome Tiberius had already passed away' (Loeb translation). ⁶

Note Josephus makes no attempt to defend the Samaritans which he undoubtedly would have done if they had been Jews. Instead he vilifies the leader as a liar and rabble-rouser. Apart from that there is nothing contentious about the first half of the narrative, and it would appear that Pilate was operating appropriately.

However the second half of the narrative is pure Josephean mud-slinging and is easy to refute.

1. Vitellius had no authority over Pilate who had been appointed directly by Rome.
2. Vitellius had no authority to appoint a new Prefect, Marcellus.
3. What charges could be brought against Pilate? He had tackled a body of armed men and restored the rule of Roman law
4. Why would the Samaritans complain to Vitellius rather than Rome?

Josephus' target is once again Pilate. In order that all the incidents that occurred in Jerusalem are seen to be due to the brutality of Pilate and not by rebellious Jews, Pilate is depicted as so brutal that even the Governor of Syria has him removed.

Underlying this concoction is probably some historic facts. The likelihood is that Pilate was recalled to Rome at about this time. This may have been simply due to the fact that having occupied the position for ten years he was due for replacement. Alternatively Rome may have seen the situation in Judaea and Samaria as so difficult that it was considered appropriate to send a new face.

However it is equally as possible that Josephus was embroidering the truth and that Pilate's recall happened after Tiberius death. Pilate could have lost office during a purge of Tiberius' appointees by the new emperor Gaius Caligula and their replacement with appointees of his own. If this is correct, as Tiberius died at the end of CE 37, Pilate's period in Palestine would have terminated in CE 38.

THE CRUCIFIXION

A detailed examination of Pilate's involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus needs separate treatment, and only one issue is discussed here.

From Pilate's point of view the facts were simple. A man had been arrested, his followers had been armed, blood had been shed in the ensuing struggle, and the man's continued presence in Jerusalem during Passover could lead to serious trouble. But whatever action Pilate took would rebound on him. If Pilate found the man guilty and had him executed Pilate would once more be branded as a brutal Roman. But if Pilate let him go free and this did lead to trouble, then Pilate would get blamed for that.

In the end Pilate did his duty. He had the man executed and kept the peace.

SUMMARY

I find nothing at all to suggest that Pilate was unusually brutal in his dealings with the Jews. On the contrary he seems to have handled matters with some sensitivity.

We do not know what happened to Pilate after his return to Rome. But no doubt Pilate would have scoffed if someone had foretold that he would become the most famous Roman of all.

NOTES

1.	Antiquites XVIII: 88-89

2.

The possibility that the 'ten years' is a round number has been opposed with the argument that Josephus would have has access to records and personal statements in his birthplace in Jerusalem. However Josephus was not writing from Jerusalem - which was then destroyed - and it is unlikely he showed any interest in such an obscure matter before he began to write his histories. It has also been said that Josephus is using the same words he uses in Antiquites XVIII: 37 . Pilate is said to have 'tarried ten years' and Pilate's predecessor, Grattus, to have 'tarried eleven years'. As the words are identical, and as the eleven years of Grattus is so precise, then Josephus' statement about Pilate must be equally precise. However this is to rely on an elderly translation, the original Greek is different.

3.	Antiquites XVIII. 55-58, War II.169-174

4.	Cited in Eusebius Dem. Evang. VIII. 2. 123

5.	Antiquites XVIII. 60-62, War II.175-177

6.	Antiquites XVIII. 85-89