Historical Pontius Pilate vs the Biblical Pontius Pilate

[Herrick]

In the New Testament Pilate is depicted in a sympathetic manner. However according to Reza Aslan (around 1:14:50 in this video), Pilate was responsible for the deaths of many Jews. Pilate never would've hesitated having Jesus killed, nor would Pilate have left Jesus's fate in the hands of his fellow Jews.

The New Testament isn't a trustworthy historical document but I'm not sure how trustworthy Aslan is either.

 

[Sea of red]

I think Jesus was an historical figure but I also think many elements of the gospels that are supposed to be secular in nature, are very much propaganda from second century Christians.

If the NT account of Jesus' trail was historical, Jewish sources would have made some sort of attestation to it. You'll hear all kinds of excuses for the lack of records from Jewish historians but the reality remains, it would have been one of the most major events in first century Judaism.

Josephus records all kinds of crimes against Jews: Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, the rulers of Hasmonean dynasty, the various Caesars, and even Pilate. He does record an account of Jesus, but it's debated if it's original, and even if it was, we find no account of the trail, like we do for John The Baptist or Jesus son of Ananus.

Does that mean Jesus is mythical? No, it just means that the likely hood of embellishment is high.

 

[Herrick]

I think Jesus was an historical figure but I also think many elements of the gospels that are supposed to be secular in nature, are very much propaganda from second century Christians.

That was one of the points Azlan brings up in that video. Pilate was made into a sympathetic figure in order to make Christianity more palatable for Romans. Makes sense but due to some other dishonest things Azlan's said, I don't know how reliable he is on this particular subject.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Christians often assert (in error) that the four gospels are eye-witness accounts or (without attestation) compiled from eye witness accounts. This raises the question: how did the gospel writers acquire the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (in MT 27, MK 15, LK 23, and especially JN 18, which relates that Pilate left his palaver with the Jewish leaders, went back inside the palace, and had a soul-searching talk with Jesus.) Given the status of Jesus' followers at the time -- pariahs both to the Jewish leadership and the Romans -- the most sensible answer is that the dialogue is fictitious and fashioned for the proselytizing narrative they needed.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Herrick, you might find this interesting.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Pilate we see in the Gospels is a brutally pragmatic, self-interested political beast.
I find nothing in the text to indicate that he was doing anything 'sympathetic' or atypical insofar as the Jews were concerned or Rome's occupation.
A 'sympathetic' Pilate would not have scourged Jesus - and then Crucified Him all the same.
Pilate was simply juggling all the various factors and factions.
Release Barabbas?
Sure, then have him followed and quietly kidnapped and executed.

 

[credoconsolans]

Christians often assert (in error) that the four gospels are eye-witness accounts or (without attestation) compiled from eye witness accounts. This raises the question: how did the gospel writers acquire the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (in MT 27, MK 15, LK 23, and especially JN 18, which relates that Pilate left his palaver with the Jewish leaders, went back inside the palace, and had a soul-searching talk with Jesus.) Given the status of Jesus' followers at the time -- pariahs both to the Jewish leadership and the Romans -- the most sensible answer is that the dialogue is fictitious and fashioned for the proselytizing narrative they needed.

Exactly. Though I think when the gospels were written, Christianity wasn't as important to the Romans as they - and current Christians - like to imagine it was. When Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about Christians, he had only a vague notion of them and this was in the early 2nd century.

 

[FwL]

Delete

 

[FwL]

Christians often assert (in error) that the four gospels are eye-witness accounts or (without attestation) compiled from eye witness accounts. This raises the question: how did the gospel writers acquire the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (in MT 27, MK 15, LK 23, and especially JN 18, which relates that Pilate left his palaver with the Jewish leaders, went back inside the palace, and had a soul-searching talk with Jesus.) Given the status of Jesus' followers at the time -- pariahs both to the Jewish leadership and the Romans -- the most sensible answer is that the dialogue is fictitious and fashioned for the proselytizing narrative they needed.

This has been a sticking point for me as well.

You can extend this question to include all of the dialogue in both testaments. Who was the holy stenographer during all these events?

Did Jesus leave his notes for the sermon on the mount lying around for the writers to remember his speech word-for-word?

The only answer I've ever gotten to this type of questioning is that the holy spirit inspired the writers and compilers of the Bible so, therefore, God.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Pilate we see in the Gospels is a brutally pragmatic, self-interested political beast.
I find nothing in the text to indicate that he was doing anything 'sympathetic' or atypical insofar as the Jews were concerned or Rome's occupation.
A 'sympathetic' Pilate would not have scourged Jesus - and then Crucified Him all the same.

Well, that's not sympathetic according to modern sensibilities. But by the standards of the age? Gibbon reports that during periods when the Roman empire outlawed Christianity, it was a common practice for Roman magistrates to arrest people who'd been denounced as Christians, torture them until they agreed not to confess to being Christian, and then let them go.

Pilate was simply juggling all the various factors and factions.
Release Barabbas?
Sure, then have him followed and quietly kidnapped and executed.

Crucify Jesus and release Barabbas? Not bloody likely.

The first thing you need to know is that the New Testament was written in Greek, and Greeks stuck "s" on the ends of foreign men's names to make them sound masculine to Greek ears; this is part of what happened to Yeshua on its way to becoming Jesus.

The second thing you need to know is that, just like in thousands of other languages, in Aramaic people were often referred to as "the son of so-and-so", and it has a prefix that means "the son of", equivalent to "Mac" in Scots Gaelic and "Ben" in Hebrew. In Aramaic the prefix that means "the son of" is "Bar".

So there was nobody literally named "Barabbas"; what there was was a guy people called "Bar Abba".

The third thing you need to know is that "Abba" is the Aramaic word for "father".

Note, the name Barabbas is a Hellenization of the Aramaic Bar Abba (בר אבא), literally "Son of the Father".​

(Source)

So whoever wrote that story into the New Testament had evidently heard, probably at second or third hand, that when Pilate had Jesus in custody there was a crowd of local Jews making a fuss, and Pilate asked them what they wanted from him, and the crowd said "We want you to release the Son of the Father".

 

[credoconsolans]

Christians often assert (in error) that the four gospels are eye-witness accounts or (without attestation) compiled from eye witness accounts. This raises the question: how did the gospel writers acquire the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (in MT 27, MK 15, LK 23, and especially JN 18, which relates that Pilate left his palaver with the Jewish leaders, went back inside the palace, and had a soul-searching talk with Jesus.) Given the status of Jesus' followers at the time -- pariahs both to the Jewish leadership and the Romans -- the most sensible answer is that the dialogue is fictitious and fashioned for the proselytizing narrative they needed.

This has been a sticking point for me as well.

You can extend this question to include all of the dialogue in both testaments. Who was the holy stenographer during all these events?

Did Jesus leave his notes for the sermon on the mount lying around for the writers to remember his speech word-for-word?

The only answer I've ever gotten to this type of questioning is that the holy spirit inspired the writers and compilers of the Bible so, therefore, God.

You can find all kinds of stuff like this in the bible.

Jesus has his famous talk with Nicodemus about being "born again". Jesus means 'to be born again spiritually'. Nicodemus intentionally takes the other meaning of rebirth and asks Jesus - rhetorically really - "How can one come from the womb again?". Jesus has to explain he means a spiritual rebirth from heaven.

Born Again evangelicals lionize this story and make it a basic tenet of their faith.

Problem is, in Hebrew the word for rebirth is different than the word used for a spiritual reawakening.

But the word in Greek does have two meanings.

So Jesus and Nicodemus never had this conversation because Nicodemus couldn't have misunderstood what Jesus was saying if they were speaking in Hebrew.

But it makes a good lesson if the conversation was fiction and told in Greek.