Title of Essay

Compare and contrast the portrait of Pilate that emerges in the Gospels with that found in Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.55-64 (18.3.1-3); and, The Jewish Wars, 2.169-177 (2.9.2-4).  What implications would you draw about the reliability of the Gospels?

Commentary:

This was a fun brief analysis of a primary document against the gospels. In this case comparing the writings of Flavius Josephus about Pilate with the Pilate depicted in the Gospels.

Pilate is presented in both the Gospels and in Josephus as a complex character who is cruel, disrespectful of the culture of the province he rules for the emperor and often deceptive.  The underlying character of Pilate appears consistent between the Gospels and Josephus.  Whether violent by nature or merely typical of his culture in representing an occupying force is unclear, however, Pilate clearly dealt quite harshly with the citizens of Judea.  He also appears to vacillate in relation to his respect for religious practice, walking back acts of sacrilege under the strain of opposition from the populous.  Josephus depicts Pilate as a deceptive person, however in the matter of the crucifixion, Pilate appears to be less so, dealing with Jesus in the Gospels, in a reasonably straightforward fashion even to standing up to the crowd.  This may be indicative of someone who has learnt from his previous mistakes.  There is no direct correlation between the Gospels and Josephus save as to the naming of the governor, nevertheless, it is possible to see somewhat of a correlation of the underlying character of Pilate.  Certainly, there appears to be no significant discrepancy in the depiction of the governor between the accounts.

I was pretty happy with the result of 80%, which is a mid-range Distinction. The rules were no source material outside of the assigned texts of Josephus and the Gospels. Therefore, no bibliography.

Pilate in Josephus and the Gospels

Introduction

Josephus[1] and the Gospels both present a picture of Pilate[2] as a complex man caught in a difficult role in difficult times.  He was cruel, disrespectful and deceptive in his dealings with the Jews.  Violent and overbearing towards the conquered peoples of Judea, yet also afraid of and conciliatory towards them.  The basic character presented in the Gospels largely matches Josephus’ depiction of this deeply flawed Roman Governor.

Pilate’s Role

Pilate appears in the synoptic Gospels (Matt 27; Mark 15; Luke 3, 13, 23)[3], in John’s Gospel (John 18-19) and in Acts (Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28) and in 1 Timothy (1 Tim 6:13).  In Matthew, Pilate is introduced as “the governor” (Matt 27:1), Luke designates him as “governor of Judea” (Luke 3:1) and John refers to Pilate’s residence as being the “governor’s headquarters” (John 18:28).  Josephus refers to Pilate as procurator[4] (Antiq. 18.3.1; Wars. 2.9.2), which role he held from before the time of John’s commissioning as “the Baptiser” (Luke 3:1) until after the crucifixion of Jesus (Matt 27:65).  As procurator, Pilate ruled the imperial province of Judea (Luke 3:1).

Pilate’s Cruelty

Pilate is a complex character.  He appears quite cruel but also fearful and devious.  He may not be considered a harsh overlord so much as a capricious one.  His violence is apparent in Josephus’ writings.  Josephus records his attempt to intimidate the Jews over the matter of the “Standards” or “Images”[5] however he seems to quickly back down when met with resistance (Wars 2.9.3 and Antiq. 18:3:1).  Josephus comments, “Overcome with astonishment at such religious zeal, Pilate gave orders for the immediate removal of the standards from Jerusalem.” (Wars 2.9.3).  On another occasion in relation to the construction of an aqueduct using temple funds (Corbonas – for use in social and public works, Mark 12:41), Pilate conceals his men armed with clubs, among the rioters.  These men at a “prearranged signal” (Wars 2.9.4 and Antiq. 18.3.2) proceeded to beat the rioters but that his men “inflicted much harder blows than” Pilate had ordered (Antiq. 18.3.2).  Josephus notes that Pilate’s men killed at least a number of them (Antiq. 18.3.2).  In Wars, Josephus suggests that the restraint was in using cudgels rather than swords (Wars. 2.9.4).

Pilate’s Disrespect

Culturally, Pilate may not respect the Gods of subject peoples.  Whilst Josephus does not explicitly state what Roman policy is anent religious practice in subject nations, his reference to Pilate’s “astonishment” at their religious zeal seems to indicate that there were other factors at play, including that Pilate may have been contravening Roman policy (Wars. 2.9.3 and Antiq. 18.3.1)[6].  The Jews appeared to feel that they had grounds to protest.  Pilate’s walking back of a religiously problematic decision as opposed to his violent response to the aqueduct matter (even though it involved corbonas or corban) suggests something restraining him on matters of the Jewish religion.[7]  It is possible that Pilate was merely better prepared and more willing to exercise force on this second occasion however Josephus’ note in relation to the initial recorded event that Pilate was astonished at their “devotion to the [religious] laws” (Antiq. 18.3.1) cannot be ignored as a factor in his first response.

Pilate the Deceiver

Josephus’ depiction of Pilate is of a devious man.  Josephus notes that Pilate set up the images in the city under cover of night, he “secretly armed” and placed his troops in concealment (Antiq. 18.3.1), on another occasion he dressed his troops in local attire and seeded them among the populous (Wars. 2.9.4).  Setting up the images under cover of night seems strange, as if Pilate thought that the Jews would not notice and conclude where the images had come from.  The fact that the Jews immediately applied to Pilate to seek their removal and continued in this request for five days (Wars. 2.9.2) is evidence that it was obvious who was at the back of the installation of the images.  Having been caught in this act, Pilate then chooses to brazen it out until he finally acquiesces and removes them (Wars. 2.9.3).  Clearly, Pilate had made a misstep that perhaps informs him in his later management of the matter of Jesus and the Crucifixion.

Pilate in the Gospels

The Gospels present a governor who seems anything but capricious.  In the lead up to the crucifixion, he gives Jesus every opportunity to respond and is amazed that he doesn’t (Matt 27:14; Mk 15:2-5; Luke 23:3-4). John portrays Pilate as somewhat cynical with his “What is truth?” question (Jn 18:38).  He seems to have quite an insight into the motives of Jesus’ accusers and their envy (Matt 27:18; Mk 15:10).  He also appears to be more willing to stand up to the crowd to at least some extent (Matt 27:23; Mk 15:14; Luke 23:4, 14-16, 20, 22; John 18:31, 38; 19:4-6).  He even seems unwilling to appear unjust, washing his hands of and seeking to avoid responsibility for Jesus’ condemnation (Matt 27:24 cf. Luke 23:6-7 and John 19:8-12).  Nevertheless, he adhered to the normal process of crucifixion in having Jesus scourged brutally prior to crucifixion (Matt 27:26; John 19:1-3).  Perhaps the cruelty of the soldiers preparatory to the crucifixion is indicative of their leadership (Matt 27:27-31; Mk 15:16-20).  Pilate does have one more Parthian shot at the Jewish leaders, putting a sign up over the cross “The King of the Jews” and refusing to amend it (John 19:19-22).   We next encounter Pilate directly after the death of the Lord when Joseph of Arimathea asks for Jesus’ body to bury it, which Pilate accedes to (Matt 27:58; Mk 15:42-45; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-40) and then in ordering a guard to watch over the tomb in response to the importuning of the Pharisees (Matt 27:62-65).

Luke’s reference to the mixing of the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices refers to a massacre ordered by Pilate that appears unrelated to the matters discussed by Josephus (Luke 13:1).[8]  It appears that the short period of Pilate’s governing prior to Jesus’ ministry had been marked by at least three conflicts (the Galileans Luke 13:1; the matter of the images Wars. 2.9.2-3 and Antiq. 18.3.1; and the matter of the aqueduct Wars. 2.9.4 and Antiq. 18.3.2) which possibly explains his approach to the crowd even to the extent of trying to offload responsibility for the conflict about the execution of Jesus to Herod (Luke 23:6-7).

The Reliability of the Gospel Portrait of Pilate

Whilst there is no direct correlation between Josephus’ writings and the Gospels except for in Antiquities 18.3.3 and particularly the latter reference to the crucifixion, the Pilate referenced in the Gospels is independently attested by a contemporary commentator in Josephus and certainly the “flavour” of his character appears to be similar.  As such, it is reasonable to see Josephus’ record as supporting the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the man and potentially of Jesus.[9]  As an example of the correlation in character, Pilate’s stubbornness referenced in Josephus’ Wars. 2.9.2 in allowing the Jews to remain five days motionless around his house before he acted is matched by his stubbornness in refusing to convict Jesus throughout John 18.  At the least, there appears little if any conflict between Josephus’ account and the account of the man in the Gospels and thus Josephus provides one small element of contribution to the veracity of the Gospel accounts.

Critical Review

It is possible to interpret Pilate’s actions between the Gospels and Josephus in a number of ways.  It could be argued that Pilate was typical of all Roman governors sent to maintain a Roman province and keep the subject peoples subdued.[10]  Perhaps such an argument could then be mounted that this could have been any governor and not the person referenced in both Josephus and the Gospels.  Perhaps the mention of the incident of the Galileans in Luke 13:1 which does not appear to be mentioned by Josephus may indicate a fatal flaw in Luke’s account referencing an incident that Josephus should have mentioned if it had occurred.[11]  The alternative argument would be that Josephus didn’t mention the massacre because such incidents (outside of Jerusalem) were no more than business as usual in a Roman Province in the relatively early days of the pax Romana.[12] Judea was on the way towards the events of 70CE[13] and was relatively lawless, hence men such as Barrabas were at hand pending execution for murder and sedition.

Pilate is clearly portrayed in Josephus in a way that does match broadly the Pilate portrayed in the Gospels.  He is governor or procurator (or prefect) which in the context are similar terms for one who governs an imperial province in the Roman empire.  He engages in a series of acts that show a pattern of harshness or cruelty that is echoed by his soldiery in both Josephus’ writings and in the scourging of Jesus in the Gospels.  This is a weak correlation, because the Roman approach to crucifixion was always brutal and cruel but nevertheless is some sort of link in behaviour.  Certainly, the relationship between Pilate and the Jewish leaders is almost identical between Josephus’ depiction and that in the Gospels.  The relationship was tumultuous, adversarial and ultimately even the outcomes are similar in that Pilate backs down and accedes to their requests.  Even the slightly less accommodating approach of Pilate during the crucifixion does not necessarily indicate a fundamental difference between Pilate referenced in Josephus vis a vis in the Gospels but more a development of his rulership relationship with the Jews.

Conclusion

The Pilate portrayed in the Gospels appears reasonably well matched to the character of the Pilate portrayed by Josephus.  Devious, stubborn, cruel and disrespecting of the religion of the Jews is how he is portrayed in both Antiquities and Wars.  In the Gospels there is a slightly more nuanced picture of a man who does not wish to appear unjust, but who, nonetheless, reverts to type when pressured by the Jewish leaders and the crowd.  He appears to want to portray himself as a tough man but ultimately appears to be enslaved to powers that he can’t control; whether in the crowd or in some outside force such as the emperor and the politics of his day.  A complex man out of his depth is distinctly the portrayal of both Josephus and the Gospel accounts.

---

[1] Flavius Josephus 37CE to c100CE

[2] Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea 26/27CE to 36/37CE

[3] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved

[4] The term for Governor at the time of Pilate was “Prefect”.  Emperor Claudius changed the term to “Procurator”.  During Pilate’s rule he would have been referred to as “Prefect” but when Josephus wrote, the contemporary term was “Procurator”

[5] Antiq 8.3.1 refers to “busts of the emperor” with the Jewish leaders referencing  “images” as opposed to “standards” used by previous procurators.  Wars 2.9.2 refers to “effigies” called “standards”.  Contextually, the “standards” in Wars are different to the “standards” in Antiquities. 

[6] Whilst neither Antiquities or Wars nor the Gospels supplies context, Rome’s policy was not to explicitly disrespect local religious practice so long as the province’s populous accepted Rome’s pantheon.  Regardless, culturally, most Romans appeared to have contempt for local religious customs.  A key exception would be Pompey’s treatment of the temple in 63BCE where he did enter the temple in Jerusalem but then left it without disturbing anything and ordered its cleansing the next day.  This is not necessarily indicative of individual attitudes among Romans and may have had more to do with power politics.

[7] Whilst this is speculation, it does seem to contradict Rome’s policy of not interfering in local custom and religion.  At the same time, Rome did expect reciprocal respect for Rome’s pantheon including Emperor worship.  Pilate may have been trying to emphasise the importance of Emperor Worship but may have received advice as to previous Governors’ policies in this regard causing him to back down upon this opposition.

[8] It is possible that this is the event narrated by Josephus Antiq 18.4.1

[9] Many scholars argue that Antiq 18.3.3 is a later insertion and cannot be reliably attributed to Josephus.

[10] Particularly by the use of crucifixion as a method of suppression of dissent.

[11] Note footnote 8 above.

[12] 27BCE to 180CE

[13] Destruction of the second Temple and first Jewish-Roman War