Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
QuoteReplyTopic: Pontius Pilate: Villain or Victim? Posted: 22-Apr-2011 at 13:26
Perceptions of Pilate vary: the gospels depict him as a weak governor under intense pressure to appease the Jewish elite while historians like Josephus depict him as a vicious butcher who ordered many massacres to prevent rebellion. There is even dispute over his fate: some say he committed suicide when he fell from the emperor's favor while others claim he converted to Christianity and was executed by Tiberius
I thought the gospels portrayed him as cagey, politically. He manipulated the situation to elevate the culpability of the Jewish elite and take much of the responsibility from his shoulders. Even the zealots took part.
This story was probably edited during First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.Main purpose was,Roman racial politics against Christians,could have been erased!"We were not,Jews were,they already had admitted" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
According to one theory Pontius Pilate was Scottish. He was supposedly the illegitimate son of a Roman governor and a Pictish woman. How did he end up in Palestine?
Council of chosen have spoken their words!Do not make me feel like a Christ:crucified.Anyway we are talking about something on edge of twilight zone.I believe scripts were made for this:Centers of power would have used them for governing the people!
You are making joke on me,combining my words from posts of mine in forum.I make joke on you and Nick. As you are significant council of wise old men.Here old women,in front of their doors/windows/balcony ,are commenting(gossiping ) happenings around!?!Pilate was real from blood and bones.Was the Christ?We have only 4+many others new gospels,had written many years after the event they described!Christ was and will be question of faith!"Do we have faith in?" will create this theological discussion. Pilate's role was edited in the scripts,main idea would have been developed:Adoption of new religion by the Rome.Screenplay writers of ancients did it again!
Yep. He will always be a quest for many pard. And especially for those little old ladies who sit around the windows. Me.... I can only claim my faith; as the objective historian in me hasn't yet been satisfied with the empirical evidence.
But I can't be perfect eh. And in the end I'll probably be ok. Going to sleep now. Got cattle to move in 4 hours.
be well.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 25-Apr-2011 at 04:16
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
I thought the gospels portrayed him as cagey, politically. He manipulated the situation to elevate the culpability of the Jewish elite and take much of the responsibility from his shoulders. Even the zealots took part.
During my schooldays we were taught Pilate was desperate to have the local elite on his side folowing Barrabas' unsuccessful uprising. Releasing Barabbas honored the Jewish custom of Jubilee while crucifying Jesus was a diplomatic move intended to appease the priets. Neither Pilate nor Herod saw Christ as a threat: initially Pilate wanted to release him after a quick flogging
I thought the gospels portrayed him as cagey, politically. He manipulated the situation to elevate the culpability of the Jewish elite and take much of the responsibility from his shoulders. Even the zealots took part.
During my schooldays we were taught Pilate was desperate to have the local elite on his side folowing Barrabas' unsuccessful uprising. Releasing Barabbas honored the Jewish custom of Jubilee while crucifying Jesus was a diplomatic move intended to appease the priets. Neither Pilate nor Herod saw Christ as a threat: initially Pilate wanted to release him after a quick flogging
Good commentary. Being raise and split between baptists-lutherans and catholics....i got the mutli version alas.... usually it was a slam on the Jews and then eventually that transitioned somewhat. Ntl ole Pilate, depending on who you were talking with, was either a mis-understand 'sorta good guy' forced by the aforementioned Jews or was a willing participant viz his aspirations all things political.
To be honest not much has changed.
CV
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 26-Apr-2011 at 19:20
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
This is a quote from Josephus on Pilate: "...
Flavius Josephus
Josephus
on Pontius Pilate and the Aqueduct Riots
Flavius
Josephus, The Jewish War 2.175-177
"On a
later occasion he provoked a fresh uproar by expending upon
the construction of an aqueduct the sacred treasure known as
Corbonas; the water was brought from a distance of seventy
kilometers. Indignant at this proceeding, the populace
formed a ring round the tribunal of Pilate, then on a visit
to Jerusalem, and besieged him with angry clamor.
He, foreseeing the tumult, had interspersed among the crowd
a troop of his soldiers, armed but disguised in civilian
dress, with orders not to use their swords, but to beat any
rioters with cudgels. He now from his tribunal gave the
agreed signal.
Large numbers of the Jews perished, some from the blows
which they received, others trodden to death by their
companions in the ensuing flight. Cowed by the fate of the
victims, the multitude was reduced to silence."
Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.60-62
"He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction
of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting
the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five
kilometers. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations
that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled
and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his
promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and
abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in.
He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be
dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs,
and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the
Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in
full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged
signal.
They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had
ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and
those who were not. But the Jews showed no
faint-heartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by
men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were
slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows.
Thus ended the uprising."
Flavius
Josephus, The Jewish War 2.175-177 http://www.bible-history.com/quotes/flavius_josephus_4.html For all said here I don't see him as a bad governor, on the opposite - build aqueducts etc to improve the life of the people there, not for his own pleasure; and he was supposed to crush rebellions, this was his job. s for the story about Jesus - what was hi supposed to do, release someone who the Jews themselves said was a troublemaker? And on what excuse, only because ...what? The NT is a religious work with it's own agenda, of course they would villify Pilate - but objectively he had no choice in the matter. And hence he was the inspiration for my favorite song from my favorite rock opera 'Jesus Christ Superstar':
Chapter 2. How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate concerning Christ.
1. And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were
already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which
prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor
the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing
might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which
were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of
our Saviour Jesus from the dead.
2. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him,
and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now
believed by many to be a God. They say that Tiberius referred the matter
to the Senate, but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had
not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no
one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of
the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine
Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men.
3. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made
in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he
had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.
4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the
laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of
those especially distinguished in Rome. In his apology for the
Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been
translated into Greek, he writes as follows:
5. But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their
origin, it was an ancient decree that no one should be consecrated a God
by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus
Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus. And this is a
point in favor of our doctrine, that among you divine dignity is
conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made
a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be
gracious to God.
6. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry
into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine,
where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to
them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had
not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to
hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the
Christians. Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this into his mind
in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at its beginning,
might spread in all directions throughout the world.
And Pilate's suicide
Chapter 7. Pilate's Suicide.
It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner; and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period.
Interestingly, Pontius Pilate is venerated as a saint in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and his wife, Claudia Procula, is venerated by the Ethiopian and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The Pontii were a Samnite family, he was of equestrian rank.
My view is that he was a weak man who knew right from wrong, but would not do the right thing if it had to be done at great personal expense.
I didn't now he was a Samnite, thank you. As for right and wrong - it's a question of POV and the way one is raised, there is no universal above-human understanding of what is right and wrong; so what seems evident right/wrong dichotomy to one is not evident for another. For a certain native tribe in say, Africa, a revenge action is the right thing to do, when for a person living in a law-based society it's a definitely wrong - just a question of POVs.
I don't think Pilate was weak, he did what he had to do - there is this rebel guy, his people what him dead, and as a Roman governor he is supposed to ensure peace and quash possible rebellions - so to personally protect Jesus would be seen as a biased, not to say a dangerous action, like letting a trouble-maker go. This is my opinion anyway.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum