PILATE, PONTIUS
Pilate Pontius
The name of the Roman procurator of Judaea , Samaria, and Idumaea (a.d. 26-36), whose part in the crucifixion of Jesus is recounted in the Gospels, occurs four times elsewhere in the NT, and always in reflexions upon that event. Its first mention (Act 3:13) is in the speech of Peter after the healing of the lame man at the Temple gate. There the emphasis is laid upon the sin of the Jews in denying Jesus and delivering Him up to Pilate, of whom it is said, in exoneration, that he was determined to let Him go. Some extenuation of their guilt, however, is found in the fact that they sinned in ignorance; and, as God has glorified Jesus and made their wickedness to serve the fulfilment of His purpose in Him, the hope of pardon is presented to them. With this reference may be taken that (Act 13:28) in Pauls address at Antioch in Pisidia, which somewhat resembles the earlier speech of Peter. Here, while the same view is taken of the Divine significance of Christs death and its fulfilment of prophecy, the sin of the Jews in not so strongly insisted upon, and on the other hand a less favourable conception of Pilates action seems to be implied. Of the Jews it is only asserted that, though they found no cause of death in Jesus, yet they desired Pilate that He should be slain; to Pilate no determination to release Him is ascribed, or even a disinclination to yield to their request. The Jews accused Christ wrongly through not understanding their own Scriptures; Pilate, so far as appears, callously put Him to death at their bidding. His guilt is accentuated in the remaining reference to him in Acts (Act 4:27). The context is a prayer of the early believers on the release of Peter and John from prison, which proceeds upon a Messianic interpretation of Psalms 2 and its application to the death of Christ. Pilate is represented as a ruler of the earth who conspired with King Herod (Luk 23:12), the Gentiles, and the people of Israel against the Lords Anointed. Again his action is conceived as overruled by God for His own purpose; but his guilt is neither extenuated nor left to be inferred. It is explicitly stated and regarded as consisting, not merely in the sacrifice of an innocent person, but in an act of rebellion against God. This view of Pilates conduct, with regard to Christ, probably prevailed in the inner circles of the gospel, since it found expression so early in the intimacy of their religious fellowship. It would be strengthened by the appearance of Divine retribution in the disgrace that befell Pilate in a.d. 36, when he was recalled to Rome at the instigation of Vitellius, and in later years would help to mould the legends that gathered round his name. The last mention of him in the NT (1Ti 6:13) is unimportant, so far as he is concerned. It is an allusion to Christs virtual confession of His Messiahship in Pilates presence, when He claimed to be a king.
D. Frew.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Pilate, Pontius
Roman procurator of Judea from 26 to 36; of equestrian rank. He tried and condemned Jesus Christ to death. He is the subject of many legends. The Abyssinian and Coptic churches believe that he afterwards became a Christian and was martyred; they venerate him as a saint.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Pilate, Pontius
After the deposition of the eldest son of Herod, Archelaus (who had succeeded his father as ethnarch), Judea was placed under the rule of a Roman procurator. Pilate, who was the fifth, succeeding Valerius Gratus in A.D. 26, had greater authority than most procurators under the empire, for in addition to the ordinary duty of financial administration, he had supreme power judicially. His unusually long period of office (A.D. 26-36) covers the whole of the active ministry both of St. John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ.
As procurator Pilate was necessarily of equestrian rank, but beyond that we know little of his family or origin. Some have thought that he was only a freedman, deriving his name from pileus (the cap of freed slaves) but for this there seems to be no adequate evidence, and it is unlikely that a freedman would attain to a post of such importance. The Pontii were a Samnite gens. Pilate owed his appointment to the influence of Sejanus. The official residence of the procurators was the palace of Herod at Cæsarea; where there was a military force of about 3,000 soldiers. These soldiers came up to Jerusalem at the time of the feasts, when the city was full of strangers, and there was greater danger of disturbances, hence it was that Pilate had come to Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion. His name will be forever covered with infamy because of the part which he took in this matter, though at the time it appeared to him of small importance.
Pilate is a type of the worldly man, knowing the right and anxious to do it so far as it can be done without personal sacrifice of any kind, but yielding easily to pressure from those whose interest it is that he should act otherwise. He would gladly have acquitted Christ, and even made serious efforts in that direction, but gave way at once when his own position was threatened.
The other events of his rule are not of very great importance. Philo (Ad Gaium, 38) speaks of him as inflexible, merciless, and obstinate. The Jews hated him and his administration, for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their susceptibilities. Some standards bearing the image of Tiberius, which had been set up by him in Jerusalem, caused an outbreak which would have ended in a massacre had not Pilate given way. At a later date Tiberius ordered him to remove certain gilt shields, which he had set up in Jerusalem in spite of the remonstrances of the people. The incident mentioned in St. Luke 13:1, of the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate mingled with the sacrifices, is not elsewhere referred to, but is quite in keeping with other authentic events of his rule. He was, therefore, anxious that no further hostile reports should be sent to the emperor concerning him.
The tendency, already discernible in the canonical Gospels, to lay stress on the efforts of Pilate to acquit Christ, and thus pass as lenient a judgment as possible upon his crime, goes further in the apocryphal Gospels and led in later years to the claim that he actually became a Christian. The Abyssinian Church reckons him as a saint, and assigns 25 June to him and to Claudia Procula, his wife. The belief that she became a Christian goes back to the second century, and may be found in Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv). The Greek Church assigns her a feast on 27 October. Tertullian and Justin Martyr both speak of a report on the Crucifixion (not extant) sent in by Pilate to Tiberius, from which idea a large amount of apocryphal literature originated. Some of these were Christian in origin (Gospel of Nicodemus), others came from the heathen, but these have all perished.
His rule was brought to an end through trouble which arose in Samaria. An imposter had given out that it was in his power to discover the sacred vessels which, as he alleged, had been hidden by Moses on Mount Gerizim, whither armed Samaritans came in large numbers. Pilate seems to have thought the whole affair was a blind, covering some other more important design, for he hurried forces to attack them, and many were slain. They appealed to Vitellius, who was at that time legate in Syria, saying that nothing political had been intended, and complaining of Pilate’s whole administration. He was summoned to Rome to answer their charges, but before he could reach the city the Emperor Tiberius had died.
That is the last we know of Pilate from authentic sources, but legend has been busy with his name. He is said by Eusebius (H.E., ii, 7), on the authority of earlier writers, whom he does not name, to have fallen into great misfortunes under Caligula, and eventually to have committed suicide. Other details come from less respectable sources. His body, says the “Mors Pilati”, was thrown into the Tiber, but the waters were so disturbed by evil spirits that the body was taken to Vienne and sunk in the Rhône, where a monument, called Pilate’s tomb, is still to be seen. As the same thing occurred there, it was again removed and sunk in the lake at Lausanne. Its final disposition was in a deep and lonely mountain tarn, which, according to later tradition, was on a mountain, still called Pilatus, close to Lucerne. The real origin of this name is, however, to be sought in the cap of cloud which often covers the mountain, and serves as a barometer to the inhabitants of Lucerne. The are many other legends about Pilate in the folklore of Germany, but none of them have the slightest authority.
———————————–
ARTHUR S. BARNES Transcribed by Lawrence Progel
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Pilate, Pontius
( , Graecized from the Latin Pontius Pilatus), the Roman procurator or resident as governor of Judaea during the period of our Lord’s public ministry and passion, and chiefly known in history from his connection with the Crucifixion. In the following account we combine Scriptural notices with information from other ancient resources and modern examination.
I. His Name. His praenomen or first name is unknown. His nomen or family name indicates that he was connected, by descent or adoption, with the gens of the Pontii, first conspicuous in Roman history in the person of C. Pontius Telesinus, the great Samnite general. The cognomen Pilatus has received two explanat tions.
(1.) As armed with the pilum or javelin (comp. “pilata agmina,” Virg. AEn. 12:121);
(2.) As contracted from pileatus. The fact that the pileus or cap was’the badge of manumitted slaves (comp. Suetonius, Nero, c. 57; Tiber. c. 4), makes it probable that the epithet marked him out as a libertus, or as descended from one.
II. His Office. Pilate was the sixth Roman procurator of Judaea (Mat 27:2; Mar 15:1; Luk 3:1; Joh 18:29). under whom our Lord taught, suffered, and died (Act 3:13; Act 4:27; Act 13:28; 1Ti 6:13). The testimony of Tacitus on this point is no less clear than it is important; for it fixes beyond a doubt the time when the foundations of our religion were laid. “The author of that name (Christian) or sect was Christ, who was capitally punished in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate” (Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus est). Aprocurator (, Philo, Leg. ad Caium, and Josephus, War, 2:9, 2; but less correctly , Mat 27:2; and Josephus, Ant. 18:3, 1) was generally a Roman knight, appointed to act under the governor of a province as collector of the revenue, and judge in causes connected with it. Strictly speaking,procuratores Ccesaris were only required in the imperial provinces, i.e., those which, according to the constitution of Augustus, were reserved for the special administration of the emperor, without the intervention of the senate and people, and governed by his legate. In the senatorial provinces, governed by proconsuls, the corresponding duties were discharged by quaestors. Yet it appears that sometimes procuratores were appointed in those provinces also, to collect certain dues of the fiscus (the emperor’s special revenue), as distinguished from those of the cerarium (the revenue administered by the senate). Sometimes in a small territory, especially in one colntiguous to a larger province, and dependent upon it, the procurator was head of the administration, and had full military and judicial authority, though he was responsible to’the governor of the neighboring province. Thus Judaea was attached to Syria upon the deposition of Archelaus (A.D. 6), and a procurator appointed to govern it, with Caesarea for its capital. Already, during a temporary absence of Archelaus, it had been in charge of the procurator Sabinus; then, after the ethnarch’s banishment, came Coponius; the third procurator was M. Ambivius; the fourth Annius Rufus; the fifth Valerius Gratus; and the sixth Pontius Pilate (Josephus, Ant. 18:2, 2), who was appointed A.D. 25-6, in the twelfth year of Tiberius. He held his office for a period of ten years (Josephus, Ant. 18:10, 2). The agreement on this point between the accounts in the New Testament and those supplied by Josephus is entire and satisfactory. It has been exhibited in detail by the learned, accurate, and candid Lardner (t 1503-89, Lond. 1827). These procurators had their headquarters at Caesarea, which is called by Tacitus Judeece caput; but they took up their temporary abode at Jerusalem on occasion of the great feasts, as a measure of precaution against any popular outbreak. SEE PROCURATOR.
III. His Life.
1. Of the early history of Pilate we know nothing; but a German legend fills up the gap strangely enough. Pilate is the bastard son of Tyrus, king of Mayence. His father sends him to Rome as a hostage. There he is guilty of a murder; but being sent to Pontus, rises into notice as subduing the barbarous tribes there, receives in consequence the new name of Pontius, and is sent to Judaea. It has been suggested that the twenty-second legion, which was in Palestine at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and was afterwards stationed at Mayence, may have been in this case either the bearers of the tradition or the inventors of the fable (comp. Vilmar, Deutsche Nationalliteratur, i, 217).
2. His Official Career. (1.) His Administration in General. One of Pilate’s first acts was to remove the headquarters of the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem. The soldiers of course took with them their standards, bearing the image of the emperor, into the Holy City. Pilate had been obliged to send them in by night, and there were no bounds to the rage of the people on discovering what had thus been done. They poured down in crowds to Caesarea, where the procurator was then residing, and besought him to remove the images. After five days of discussion he gave the signal to some concealed soldiers to surround the petitioners and put them to death unless they ceased to trouble him; but this only strengthened their determination, and they declared themselves ready rather to submit to death than forego their resistance to an idolatrous innovation. Pilate then yielded, and the standards were by his orders brought down to Caesarea (Josephus, Ant. 28, 3,12; War, ii. 9, 2-4). No previous governor had ventured on such an outrage. Herod the Great, it is true, had placed the Roman eagle on one of his new buildings; but this had been followed by a violent outbreak, and the attempt had not been repeated (Ewald, Geschichte, 4, 509). The extent to which the scruples of the Jews on this point were respected by the Roman governors is shown by the fact that no effigy of either god or emperor is found on the money coined by them in Judaea before the war under Nero (ibid. v, 33, referring to Deuteronomy Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique judaique, pt. viii, ix). Assuming this, the denarius with Casar’s image and superscription of Matthew 23 must have been a coin from the Roman mint, or that of some other province. The latter was probably current for the common purposes of life. The shekel alone was received as a Temple-offering. See ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION.
Coin of Judaea struck under Pontius Pilate.
Obverse: (Of Tiberius Caesar), with the legend r 16, i.e. A.D. 99, the year of our Lord’s crucifixion. Reverse: (Julia [mother] of Caesar), with three ears of corn tied together. Probably a quadrans, equivalent to two mites (Mat 11:29).
On two other occasions Pilate nearly drove the Jews to insurrection; the first when, in spite of this warning about the images, he hung tip in his palace at Jerusalem some gilt shields inscribed with the names of deities, which were only removed by an order from Tiberius (Philo, Ad Caium, 38, ii, 589); the second when be appropriated the revenue arising from the redemption of vows (Corban: comp. Mark vii, 11) to the construction of an aqueduct. This order led to a riot, which he suppressed by sending among the crowd soldiers with concealed daggers, who massacred a great number, not only of rioters, but of casual spectators (Josephus, War, ii, 9. 4). Ewald suggests that the Tower of Siloam (Luk 13:4) may have been part of the same works, and that this was the reason why its fall was looked upon as a judgment (Gesch. vi, 40). The Pharisaic reverence for whatever was set apart for the Corban (Mar 7:11), and their scruples as to admitting into it anything that had an impure origin (Mat 27:6); may be regarded, perhaps, as outgrowths of the same feeling. See CORBAN.
To these specimens of his administration, which rest on the testimony of profane authors, we must add the slaughter of certain Galilaeans, which was told to out Lord as a piece of news ( Luk 13:1), and on which he founded some remarks on the connection between sin and calamity. It must have occurred at some feast at Jerusalem, in the outer court of the Temple, since the blood of the worshippers was mingled with their sacrifices; but the silence of Josephus about it seems to show that riots and massacres on such occasions were so frequent that it was needless to recount them all. Ewald suggests that the insurrection of which Mark speaks (xv, 7) must have been that connected with the appropriation of the Corban (supra), and that this explains the eagerness with which the people demanded Barabbas’s release. He infers further, From Barabbas’s name, that he was the son of a rabbi ,Abba was a rabbinic title of honor), and thus accounts for the part taken in his favor by the members of the Sanhedrim. See BARABBAS.
(2.) His special Connection with Jesus. It was the custom for the procurators to reside at Jerusalem during the great feasts, to preserve order, and accordingly, at the time of our Lord’s last Passover, Pilate was occupying his official residence in Herod’s palace; and to the gates of this palace Jesus, condemned on the charge of blasphemy, was brought early in the morning by the chief priests and officers of the Sanhedrim, who were unable to enter the residence of a Gentile, lest they should be defiled, and unfit to eat the Passover (Joh 18:28). Pilate therefore came out to learn their purpose, and demanded the nature of the charge. At first they seem to have expected that lie would have carried out their wishes without further inquiry, and therefore merely described our Lord as a (disturber of the public peace); but as a Roman procurator had too much respect for justice, or at least understood his business too well to consent to such a condemnation, and as they knew that he would not enter into theological questions, any more than Gallio afterwards did on a somewhat similar occasion (Act 18:14), they were obliged to devise a new charge, and therefore interpreted our Lord’s claims in a political sense, accusing him of assuming the royal title, perverting the nation, and forbidding the payment of tribute to Rome (Luk 23:3; an account plainly presupposed in John 28:33). It is evident that from this moment Pilate was distracted between two conflicting feelings: a fear of offending the Jews, who had already grounds of accusation against him, which would be greatly strengthened by any show of lukewarmness in punishing an offence against the imperial government, and a conscious conviction that Jesus was innocent, since it was absurd to suppose that a desire to free the nation from Roman authority was criminal in the eyes of the Sanhedrim. Moreover, this last feeling was strengthened by his own hatred of the Jews, whose religious scruples had caused him frequent trouble, and by a growing respect for the calm dignity and meekness of the sufferer. First he examined our Lord privately, and asked him whether he were a king. The question which he in return put to his judge, Sagest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? seems to imply that there was in Pilate’s own mind a suspicion that the prisoner really was what lie was charged with being; a suspicion which shows itself again in the later question, Whence art thou? (Joh 19:8), in the increasing desire to release him (Joh 19:12), and in the refusal to alter the inscription on the cross (Joh 19:22). In any case Pilate accepted as satisfactory Christ’s assurance that his kingdom was not of this world, that is, not worldly in its nature or objects, and therefore not to be founded by this world’s weapons, though he could not understand the assertion that it was to be established by bearing witness to the truth. His famous reply, What is truth? was the question of a worldly-minded politician, skeptical because he was indifferent, one who thought truth an empty name, or at least could not see any connection between and , truth and policy (Dr. C. Wordsworth, Contra. ad loc.). With this question he brought the interview to a close, and came out to the Jews and declared the prisoner innocent. To this they replied that his teaching had stirred up all the people from Galilee to Jerusalem. The mention of Galilee suggested to Pilate a new way of escaping from his dilemma, by sending on the case to Herod Antipas, tetrarch of that country, who had come up to Jerusalem to the feast, while at the same time this gave him an opportunity for making overtures of reconciliation to Herod, with whose jurisdiction he had probably in some recent instance interfered. But Herod, though propitiated by this act of courtesy, declined to enter into the matter, and merely sent Jesus back to Pilate dressed in a shining kingly robe (‘ , Luk 23:11), to express his ridicule of such pretensions, and contempt for the whole business. So Pilate was compelled to come to a decision, and first, having assembled the chief priests and also the people, whom he probably summoned in the expectation that they would be favorable to Jesus, he announced to them that the accused had done nothing worthy of death, but at the same time, in hopes of pacifying the Sanhedrim, he proposed to scourge him before he released him. But as the accusers were resolved to have his blood, they rejected this concession, and therefore Pilate had recourse to a fresh expedient. It was the custom for the Roman governor to grant every year, in honor of the Passover, pardon to one condemned criminal. The origin of the practice is unknown, though we may connect it with the fact mentioned by Livy (v, 13) that at a Lectisternium vinctis quoque dempta vincula. Pilate therefore offered the people their choice between two, the murderer Barabbas, and the prophet whom a few days before they had hailed as the Messiah. To receive their decision he ascended the , a portable tribunal which was carried about with a Roman magistrate to be placed wherever lie might direct, and which in the present case was erected on a tessellated pavement () in front of the palace, and called in Hebrew Gabbatha, probably from being laid down on a slight elevation (, to be high). As soon as Pilate had taken his seat, he received a mysterious message from his wife, according to tradition a proselyte of the gate (), named Procla or Claudia Procula (Evang. Nicod. ii), who had suffered many things in a dream, which impelled her to entreat her husband not t, condemn the Just One. But he had no longer any choice in the matter, for the rabble, instigated of course by the priests, chose Barabbas for pardon, and clamored for the death of Jesus; insurrection seemed imminent, and Pilate reluctantly yielded. But before issuing the fatal order he washed his hands before the multitude, as a sign that he was innocent of the crime, in imitation probably of the ceremony enjoined in Deuteronomy 21, where it is ordered that when the perpetrator of a murder is not discovered, the elders of the city in which it occurs shall wash their hands, with the declaration, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Such a practice might naturally be adopted even by a Roman, as intelligible to the Jewish multitude around him. As in the present case it produced no effect, Pilate ordered his soldiers to inflict the scourging preparatory to execution; but the sight of unjust suffering so patiently borne seems again to have troubled his conscience, and prompted a new effort in favor of the victim. He brought him out bleeding from the savage punishment, and decked in the scarlet robe and crown of thorns which the soldiers had put on him in derision, and said to the people, Behold the man! hoping that such a spectacle would rouse them to shame and compassion. But the priests only renewed their clamors for his death, and, fearing that the political charge of treason might be considered insufficient, returned to their first accusation of blasphemy, and quoting the law of Moses (Lev 24:16), which punished blasphemy with stoning. declared that he must die because he made himself the Son of God. But this title augmented Pilate’s superstitious fears, already aroused by his wife’s dream ( , Joh 19:7); he feared that Jesus might be one of the heroes or demigods of his own mythology; he took him again into the palace, and inquired anxiously into his descent (Whence art thou?) and his claims, but, as the question was only prompted by fear or curiosity, Jesus made no reply. When Pilate reminded him of his own absolute power over him, he closed this last conversation with the irresolute governor by the mournful remark: Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above; therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. God had given to Pilate power over him, and power only, but to those who delivered him up God had given the means of judging of his claims; and therefore Pilate’s sin, in merely exercising this power, was less than theirs who, being God’s own priests, with the Scriptures before them, and the word of prophecy still alive among them (Joh 11:50, Joh 18:14), had deliberately conspired for his death. The result of this interview was one last effort to save Jesus by a fresh appeal to the multitude; but now arose the formidable cry, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend, and Pilate, to whom political success was as the breath of life, again ascended the tribunal, and finally pronounced the desired condemnation.
The proceedings of Pilate in our Lord’s trial supply many interesting illustrations of the accuracy of the evangelists, from the accordance of their narrative with the known customs of the time. Thus Pilate, being only a procurator, had no quaestor to conduct the trial, and therefore examined the prisoner himself. Again, in early times Roman magistrates had not been allowed to take their wives with them into the provinces, but this prohibition had fallen into neglect, and latterly a proposal made by Caecina to enforce it had been rejected (Tacit. Ann. iii, 33, 34). Grotius points out that the word , used when Pilate sends our Lord to Herod (Luk 23:7), is propria Romani juris vox: nam remittitur reus qui alicubi comprehensus mittitur ad judicem aut originis aut habitationis (see Alford, ad loc.). The tessellated pavement () was so necessary to the forms of justice, as well as the , that Julius Caesar carried one about with him on his expeditions (Sueton. Jul. c. 46). The power of life and death was taken from the Jews when Judaea became a province (Josephus, Ant. xx, 9, 1). Scourging before execution was a well- known Roman practice.
So ended Pilate’s share in the greatest crime which has been committed since the world began. That he did not immediately lose his feelings of anger against the Jews who had thus compelled his acquiescence, and of compassion and awe for the Sufferer whom he had unrighteously sentenced, is plain from his curt and angry refusal to alter the inscription which he had prepared for the cross ( , ), his ready acquiescence in the request made by Joseph of Arimathsea that the Lord’s body might be given up to him rather than consigned to the common sepulchre reserved for those who had suffered capital punishment, an his sullen answer to the demand of the Sanhedrim that the sepulchre should be guarded. (Matthew 23:65, , . Ellicott would translate this, Take a guard, on the ground that the watchers were Roman soldiers, who were not under the command of the priests. But some might have been placed at their disposal during the feast, and we should rather expect if the sentence were imperative.)
(3.) His Eventual Fate. Here, as far as Scripture is concerned, our knowledge of Pilate’s life ends. But we learn from Josephus (Ant. xviii, 4, 1) that his anxiety to avoid giving offence to Caesar did not save him from political disaster. The Samaritans were unquiet and rebellious. A leader of their own race had promised to disclose to them the sacred treasures which Moses was reported to have concealed in Mount Gerizim. Pilate led his troops against them, and defeated them easily enough. The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, now president of Syria, and he sent Pilate to Rome to answer their accusations before the emperor (ibid. 2). When lie reached Rome he found Tiberius dead and Caius (Caligula) on the throne, A.D. 36. Eusebius adds (Mist. Eccl. ii, 7) that soon afterwards. wearied with misfortunes, he killed himself. As to the scene of his death there are various traditions. One is that he was banished to Vienna Allobrogum (Vienne on the Rhone), where a singular monument, a pyramid on a quadrangular base, fifty-two feet high, is called Pontius Pilate’s tomb (Smith, Dict. of Class. Geog. art. Vienna). Another is that he sought to hide his sorrows on the mountain by the lake of Lucerne, now called Mount Pilatus; and there, after spending years in its recesses, in remorse and despair rather than penitence, plunged into the dismal lake which occupies its summit. According to the popular belief, a form is often seen to emerge from the gloomy waters, and go through the action of one washing his hands; and when he does so dark clouds of mist gather first round the bosom of the Infernal Lake (such it has been styled of old), and then, wrapping the whole upper part of the mountain in darkness, presage a tempest or hurricane, which is sure to follow in a short space (Scott, Anne of Geierstein, ch. i). (See below.)
Pilate’s wife is also, as might be expected, prominent in these traditions. Her name is given as Claudia Procula (Niceph. Mist. Eccl. i, 30). She had been a proselyte to Judaism before the crucifixion (Evang. Alicod. c. 2). Nothing certain is known as to her history, but the tradition that she became a Christian is as old as the time of Origen (Hom. in Matthew 35). The Greek Church has canonized her. The dream has been interpreted by some as a divine interposition; by others as a suggestion of the devil, who wished to prevent the Saviour’s death; by others as the unconscious reflection of her interest in the reports which had reached her regarding Jesus. The description of Jesus as that just man ( ), it is remarked by Schaff. recalls the celebrated unconscious prophecy of Plato, in his Republic, as to the who was, after enduring all possible sufferings, to restore righteousness. In the earlier periods, and indeed so long as the commonwealth subsisted, it was very unusual for the governors of provinces to take their wives with them (Senec. Deuteronomy Controv. 25), and in the strict regulations which Augustus introduced lie did not allow the favor, except in peculiar and specified circumstances (Seuton. Aug. 24). The practice, however, grew to be more and more prevalent, and was customary in Pilate’s time. It is evident from Tacitus that at the time of the death of Augustus, Germanicus had his wife Agrippina with him in Germany (Annal. i, 40, 41; comp. iii, 33-59; Josephus, Ant. xx, 10, 1; Ulpian, iv, 2). Indeed, in the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, Germanicus took his wife with him into the East. Piso, the prefect of Syria, took his wife also along with him at the same time (Tacit. Annal. ii, 54. 55). But, says Lardner (i, 152), nothing can render this (the practice in question) more apparent than a motion made in the Roman senate by Severus Caesina, in the fourth consulship of Tiberius, and second of Drusus Caesar (A.D. 21), that no magistrate to whom any province was assigned should be accompanied by his wife, except the senate’s rejecting it, and that with some indignation (Tacit. Annal. iii, 33, 34). The fact mentioned incidentally, or rather implied, in Matthew, being thus confirmed by full and unquestionable evidence, cannot fail to serve as a corroboration of the evangelical history. (Comp. Paulus, Comm. iii, 723; Kuinl, In loc. Mat.; Gotter, Deuteronomy Conjugis Pilati Somnio. Jena, 1704; Kluge, Deuteronomy Somnio Uxoris Pil. Hal. 1720; Herbart, Examen Somnii Uxoris Pil. Oldenb. 1735.)
IV. His Character. The character of Pilate may be sufficiently inferred from the sketch given above of his conduct at our Lord’s trial. By some he has been depicted as one of the worst of tyrants; by others, who have passed to the opposite extreme, his faults have been unduly palliated or denied. Tertullian speaks of him as virtually a Christian at heart (jam pro sua conscienti Christianum, Apol. c. 21); and the Ethiopian Church has even made him a saint. We have no reason to suppose that, so far as his general administration went, it differed greatly from that of the other Roman governors of Judaea. He was a type of the rich and corrupt Romans of his age; a worldly-minded statesman, conscious of no higher wants than those of this life, yet by no means unmoved by feelings of justice and mercy. His conduct to the Jews, in the instances quoted from Josephus, though severe, was not thoughtlessly cruel or tyrannical, considering the general practice of Roman governors, and the difficulties of dealing with a nation so arrogant and perverse. Certainly there is nothing in the facts recorded by profane authors inconsistent with his desire, obvious from the Gospel narrative, to save our Lord. But all his better feelings were overpowered by a selfish regard for his own security. He would not encounter the least hazard of personal annoyance in behalf of innocence and justice; the unrighteous condemnation of a good man was a trifle in comparison with the fear of the emperor’s frown and the loss of place and power. While we do not differ from Chrysostom’s opinion that he was (Chrysost. i, 802, Adv. Judoeos, vi), or that recorded in the Apostolical Constitutions (v, 14), that he was we yet see abundant reason for our Lord’s merciful judgment, He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. At the same time his history furnishes a proof that worldliness and want of principle are sources of crimes no less awful than those which spring from deliberate and reckless wickedness. The unhappy notoriety given to his name by its place in the two universal creeds of Christendom is due, not to any desire of singling him out for shame, but to the need of fixing the date of our Lord’s death, and so bearing witness to the claims of Christianity as resting on a historical basis (August. Deuteronomy Fide et Symb. c. v, vol. vi, p. 156; Pearson, On the Creed, p. 239, 240, ed. Burt, and the authorities quoted in note c).
That the conduct of Pilate was highly criminal cannot be denied. But his guilt was light in comparison with the atrocious depravity of the Jews, especially the priests. His was the guilt of weakness and fear, theirs the guilt of settled and deliberate malice. His state of mind prompted him to attempt the release of an accused person in opposition to the clamors of a misguided mob; theirs urged them to compass the ruin of an acquitted person by instigating the populace, calumniating the prisoner, and terrifying the judge. If Pilate yielded against his judgment under the fear of personal danger, and so took part in an act of unparalleled injustice, the priests and their ready tools originated the false accusation, sustained it by subornation of perjury, and when it was declared invalid enforced their own unfounded sentence by appealing tot he lowest passions. Pilate, it is clear, was utterly destitute of principle. He was willing, indeed, to do right, if lie could do right without personal disadvantage. Of gratuitous wickedness he was perhaps incapable, certainly in the condemnation of Jesus he has the merit of being for a time on the side of innocence. But he yielded to violence, and so committed an awful crime. In his hands was the life of the prisoner. Convinced of his innocence, he ought to have set him at liberty, thus doing right regardless of consequences. But this is an act of high virtue which we hardly require at the hands of a Roman governor of Judaea; and though Pilate must bear the reproach of acting contrary to his own declared convictions, yet lie may equally claim some credit for the apparently sincere efforts which lie made in order to defeat the malice of the Jews and procure the liberation of Jesus.
If now we wish to sum up the judgment of Pilate’s character, we easily see that he was one of that large class of men who aspire to public offices, not from a pure and lofty desire of benefiting the public and advancing the good of the world, but from selfish and personal considerations, from a love of distinction, from a love of power, from a love of self-indulgence; being destitute of any fixed principles, and having no aim but office and influence, they act right only by chance and when convenient, and are wholly incapable of pursuing a consistent course, or of acting with firmness and self-denial in cases in which the preservation of integrity requires the exercise of these qualities. Pilate was obviously a man of weak, and therefore, with his temptations, of corrupt character. The view given in the Apostolical Constitutions (v, 14), where unmanliness () is ascribed to him, we take to be correct. This want of strength will readily account for his failing to rescue Jesus from the rage of his enemies, and also for the acts of injustice and cruelty which he practiced in his government-acts which, considered in themselves, wear a deeper dye than does the conduct which he observed in surrendering Jesus to the malice of the Jews. This same weakness may serve to explain to the reader how much influence would be exerted on this unjust judge, not only by the stern bigotry and persecuting wrath of the Jewish priesthood, but especially by the not concealed intimations which they threw out against Pilate that, if he liberated Jesus, he was no friend of Tiberius, and must expect to have to give an account of his conduct at Rome. That this was no idle threat, nothing beyond the limits of probability, Pilate’s subsequent deposition by Vitellius shows very plainly; nor could the procurator have been ignorant either of the stern determination of the Jewish character, or of the offence he had by his acts given to the heads of the nation, or of the insecurity, at that very hour, when the contest between him and the priests was proceeding regarding the innocent victim whom they lusted to destroy, of his own position in the office which he held, and which, of course, he desired to retain. On the whole, then, viewing the entire conduct of Pilate, his previous iniquities as well as his bearing on the condemnation of Jesus viewing his own actual position and the malignity of the Jews we cannot, we confess, give our vote with those who have passed the severest condemnation on this weak and guilty governor.
The number of dissertations on Pilate’s character and all the circumstances connected with him, his facinora, his Christum servandi studium, his wife’s dream, his supposed letters to Tiberius, which have been published during the last and present centuries, is quite overwhelming. On this point the student may consult with advantage dean Alford’s Commentary; Ellicott, Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord, sect. vii; Neander’s Life of Christ, 285 (Bohn); Ewald, Geschichte, v, 30, etc. See also Miller, Deuteronomy enixiss. Pil. Christ. servand. stud. (Hamb. 1751); Tobler, in Pfenniger, Samml. z. christl. Mag. III, ii, (Zurich, 1782); Niemeyer, Charakt. i, 129 sq.; Paulus, Comment. iii, 697 sq.; Lcke, on John six. Comp. Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. d. bibl. Lit. x, 823; Olshausen, in answer to Tholuck’s low valuation of Pilate, Comment. ii, 504 sq. The reader will find a discriminating analysis in Stier, Reden Jesu, vi, 318-382 (ii, 619 sq. of the American translation), and in Dr. Hanna’s Last Day of Our Lord’s Passion, p. 77-148. See also the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1871, vol. iv.
V. Apocryphal Accounts. We learn from Justin Martyr (Apol. i, 76, 84), Tertullian (Apol. c. 21), Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii, 2), and others, that Pilate made an official report to Tiberius of our Lord’s trial and condemnation; and in a homily ascribed to Chrysostom, though marked as spurious by his Benedictine editors (Hon. viii, in Pasch. viii, 968, D.), certain (Aeta, or Commentarii Pilati) are spoken of as wellknown documents in common circulation. That he made such a report is highly probable, and it may have been in existence in Chrysostom’s time; but the Acta Pilati now extant in Greek, and two Latin epistles from him to the emperor (Fabric. Apocr. i, 237, 298; iii, 111, 456), are certainly spurious. The number of extant Acta Pilati, in various forms, is so Urge as to show that very early the demand created a supply of documents manifestly spurious, and we have no reason for looking on any one of those that remain as more authentic than the others. The taunt of Celsus that the Christians circulated spurious or distorted narratives under this title (Origen, c. Cels.), and the complaint of Eusebius (Hilt. Eccles. ix, 5) that the heathens made them the vehicle of blasphemous calumnies, show how largely the machinery of falsification was used on either side. Such of these documents as are extant are found in the collections of Fabricius, Thilo, and Tischendorf. Some of them are but weak paraphrases of the Gospel history. The most extravagant are perhaps the most interesting, as indicating the existence of modes of thought at variance with the prevalent traditions. Of these anomalies the most striking is that known as the Paradosis Pilati (Tischendorf, Evang. Apoc. p. 426). The emperor Tiberius, startled at the universal darkness that had fallen on the Roman empire on the day of the crucifixion, summons Pilate to answer for having caused it. He is condemned to death, but before his execution he prays to the Lord Jesus that he may not be destroyed with the wicked Hebrews, and pleads his ignorance as an excuse. The prayer is answered by a voice from heaven, assuring him that all generations shall call him blessed. and that he shall be a witness for Christ at his second coming to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. An angel receives his head, and his wife dies filled with joy, and is buried with him. Startling as this imaginary history may be, it has its counterpart in the traditional customs of the Abyssinian Church, in which Pilate is recognised as a saint and martyr, and takes his place in the calendar on the 25th of June (Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 13; Neale, Eastern Church, i, 806). The words of Tertullian, describing him as jam pro sua conscientia Christianus (Apol. c. 21), indicate a like feeling, and we find traces of it also in the Apocryphal Gospel, which speaks of him as uncircumcised in flesh, but circumcised in heart (Evang. Nicod. i, 12, in Tischendorf, Evang. Apoc. p. 236).
According to another legend (Mrs Pilati, in Tischendorf’s Evang. Apoc. p. 432), Tiberius, hearing of the wonderful works of healing that had been wrought in Judaea, writes to Pilate, bidding him to send to Rome the man that had this divine power. Pilate has to confess that he has crucified him; but the messenger meets Veronica, who gives him the cloth which had received the impress of the divine features, and by this the emperor is healed. Pilate is summoned to take his trial, and presents himself wearing the holy and seamless tunic. This acts as a spell upon the emperor, and he forgets his wonted severity. After a time Pilate is thrown into prison, and there commits suicide. His body is cast into the Tiber, but as storms and tempests followed, the Romans take it up and send it to Vienne. It is thrown into the Rhone; but the same disasters follow, and it is sent on to Losania (Lucerne or Lausanne?). There it is sunk in a pool, fenced round by mountains, and even there the waters boil or bubble strangely. The interest of this story obviously lies in its presenting an early form (the existing text is of the 14th century) of the local traditions which connect the name of the procurator of Judaea with the Mount Pilatus that overlooks the lake of Lucerne. The received explanation (Ruskin, Modern Painters, v, 128) of the legend, as originating in a distortion of the descriptive name Mons Pileatus (the cloud-capped), supplies a curious instance of the genesis of a myth from a false etymology; but it may be questioned whether it rests on sufficient grounds, and is not rather the product of a pseudocriticism, finding in a name the starting-point, not the embodiment of a legend. Have we any evidence that the mountain was known as Pileatus before the legend? Have we not, in the apocryphal story just cited, the legend independently of the name? (comp. Vilmar, Deutsche Nationalliteratur, i, 217). The extent to which the terror connected with the belief formerly prevailed is somewhat startling. If a stone were thrown into the lake, a violent storm would follow. No one was allowed to visit it without a special permission from the authorities of Lucerne. The neighboring shepherds were bound by a solemn oath, renewed annually, never to guide a stranger to it (Gessner, Descript. Mont. Pilat. [Zurich, 1555], p. 40). The spell was broken in 1584 by Johannes Mller, curd of Lucerne, who was bold enough to throw stones and abide the consequences (Golbery, Univers pittoresque de la Suisse, p.327). It is striking that traditions of Pilate attach themselves to several localities in the south of France (comp. Murray’s Hand-book for France, Route 125).
But whatever we may think of these legends, or even of the apocryphal works that have come down to our own times, there can be little doubt that the original documents referred to by the early Church fathers were genuine (Hencke, Opusc. A cad. p. 201 sq.). Such is the opinion of Winer (Realwrterb.). Lardner, who has fully discussed the subject, decides that it must be allowed by all that Pontius Pilate composed some memoirs concerning our Saviour, and sent them to the emperor (vi. 610). Winer adds, What we now have in Greek under this title (Pilate’s Report; see Fabricii Apocr. i, 237, 239; iii, 456), as well as the two letters of Pilate to Tiberius, are fabrications of a later age. So Lardner: The Acts of Pontius Pilate, and his letter to Tiberius, which we now have, are not genuine, but manifestly spurious. We have not space here to review the arguments which have been adduced in favor of and against these documents; but we must add that we attach some importance to them, thinking it by no means unlikely that, if they are fabrications, they are fabricated in some keeping with the genuine pieces, which were in some way lost, and the loss of which the composers of our actual pieces sought as well as they could to repair. If this view can be sustained, then the documents we have may serve to help us in the use of discretion to the substance of the original Acts. At all events, it seems certain that an official report was made by Pilate; and thus we gain another proof that these things were not done in a corner. Those who wish to enter into this subject should first consult Lardner (ut sup.), and the valuable. references he gives. See also Altman, Deuteronomy Epist. Pil. ad Tiber. (Bern. 1755); Van Dale, Deuteronomy Orac. p. 609 sq.; Schmidt, Einleitung ins N. T. ii, 249 sq. Of especial value is Hermansson, Deuteronomy Pontio Pilot. (Upsala, 1624); also Burger, Deuteronomy Pontio Pilat. (Misen. 1782). The latest work on the subject is that of Lipsius, Die Pilatus-Acten, kritisch untersucht (Kiel, 1871). See ACTS OF PILATE.
On the general subject of this article, the reader may refer to Germar, Docetur ad loca P. Pilati facinora coet. (Thorun, 1785); Lengheimich, Deuteronomy Pilati patris: (s. I. 1677); Gotter, Deuteronomy Conjugis Pilati Somnio (Jen. 1704); Kluge, Deuteronomy Somnio Uxoris Pilati (Hal. 1720); Herbart, Examen Somnii Ux. Pil. (Oldenb. 1735); Distell, Deuteronomy Solute Uxoris Pilati (Alt. 1772); Moonier, Deuteronomy Pilati in Causa Servat. agendi ratione (1825); Warneck, Pont. Pil. ein Gemlde (Goths, 1867); Theol. and Lit.Tournal. April, 1861. Hase, in his Leben Jesu, p. 203, 205 (third ed.), affords valuable literary references on this, as on so many other N.T. subjects. See also the monographs referred to by Volbeding, Index Programmatum, p. 58, 59. See JESUS CHRIST.
Pilate’s Staircase. This celebrated staircase is contained within a little chapel near the church of St. John Lateran, at Rome. It consists of twenty- eight white marble steps, and it is alleged by Romanists that this is the holy staircase which Christ several times ascended and descended when he appeared before Pilate, and that it was carried by angels from Jerusalem to Rome. Multitudes of pilgrims at certain periods crawl up the steps of this staircase on their knees, with rosaries in their hands, and kissing each step as they ascend. On reaching the top, the pilgrim must repeat a short prayer. The performance of this ceremony is regarded as peculiarly meritorious, and entitling the devout pilgrim to a plenary indulgence. It was during this act of devotion that Martin Luther, then a monk, was startled by the remembrance of the text, The just shall live by faith. He instantly saw the folly of such performances; and fleeing in shame from the place, became from that time a zealous reformer. By the Romanists this staircase is called Scala Santa, or holy staircase.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Pilate, Pontius
probably connected with the Roman family of the Pontii, and called “Pilate” from the Latin pileatus, i.e., “wearing the pileus”, which was the “cap or badge of a manumitted slave,” as indicating that he was a “freedman,” or the descendant of one. He was the sixth in the order of the Roman procurators of Judea (A.D. 26-36). His headquarters were at Caesarea, but he frequently went up to Jerusalem. His reign extended over the period of the ministry of John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ, in connection with whose trial his name comes into prominent notice. Pilate was a “typical Roman, not of the antique, simple stamp, but of the imperial period, a man not without some remains of the ancient Roman justice in his soul, yet pleasure-loving, imperious, and corrupt. He hated the Jews whom he ruled, and in times of irritation freely shed their blood. They returned his hatred with cordiality, and accused him of every crime, maladministration, cruelty, and robbery. He visited Jerusalem as seldom as possible; for, indeed, to one accustomed to the pleasures of Rome, with its theatres, baths, games, and gay society, Jerusalem, with its religiousness and ever-smouldering revolt, was a dreary residence. When he did visit it he stayed in the palace of Herod the Great, it being common for the officers sent by Rome into conquered countries to occupy the palaces of the displaced sovereigns.”
After his trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was brought to the Roman procurator, Pilate, who had come up to Jerusalem as usual to preserve order during the Passover, and was now residing, perhaps, in the castle of Antonia, or it may be in Herod’s palace. Pilate came forth from his palace and met the deputation from the Sanhedrin, who, in answer to his inquiry as to the nature of the accusation they had to prefer against Jesus, accused him of being a “malefactor.” Pilate was not satisfied with this, and they further accused him (1) of sedition, (2) preventing the payment of the tribute to Caesar, and (3) of assuming the title of king (Luke 23:2). Pilate now withdrew with Jesus into the palace (John 18:33) and examined him in private (37,38); and then going out to the deputation still standing before the gate, he declared that he could find no fault in Jesus (Luke 23:4). This only aroused them to more furious clamour, and they cried that he excited the populace “throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee.” When Pilate heard of Galilee, he sent the accused to Herod Antipas, who had jurisdiction over that province, thus hoping to escape the difficulty in which he found himself. But Herod, with his men of war, set Jesus at nought, and sent him back again to Pilate, clad in a purple robe of mockery (23:11, 12).
Pilate now proposed that as he and Herod had found no fault in him, they should release Jesus; and anticipating that they would consent to this proposal, he ascended the judgment-seat as if ready to ratify the decision (Matt. 27:19). But at this moment his wife (Claudia Procula) sent a message to him imploring him to have nothing to do with the “just person.” Pilate’s feelings of perplexity and awe were deepened by this incident, while the crowd vehemently cried out, “Not this man, but Barabbas.” Pilate answered, “What then shall I do with Jesus?” The fierce cry immediately followed. “Let him be crucified.” Pilate, apparently vexed, and not knowning what to do, said, “Why, what evil hath he done?” but with yet fiercer fanaticism the crowd yelled out, “Away with him! crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate yielded, and sent Jesus away to be scourged. This scourging was usually inflicted by lictors; but as Pilate was only a procurator he had no lictor, and hence his soldiers inflicted this terrible punishment. This done, the soldiers began to deride the sufferer, and they threw around him a purple robe, probably some old cast-off robe of state (Matt. 27:28; John 19:2), and putting a reed in his right hand, and a crowd of thorns on his head, bowed the knee before him in mockery, and saluted him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” They took also the reed and smote him with it on the head and face, and spat in his face, heaping upon him every indignity.
Pilate then led forth Jesus from within the Praetorium (Matt. 27:27) before the people, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, saying, “Behold the man!” But the sight of Jesus, now scourged and crowned and bleeding, only stirred their hatred the more, and again they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” and brought forth this additional charge against him, that he professed to be “the Son of God.” Pilate heard this accusation with a superstitious awe, and taking him once more within the Praetorium, asked him, “Whence art thou?” Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate was irritated by his continued silence, and said, “Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee?” Jesus, with calm dignity, answered the Roman, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.”
After this Pilate See med more resolved than ever to let Jesus go. The crowd perceiving this cried out, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend.” This settled the matter. He was afraid of being accused to the emperor. Calling for water, he washed his hands in the sight of the people, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person.” The mob, again scorning his scruples, cried, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” Pilate was stung to the heart by their insults, and putting forth Jesus before them, said, “Shall I crucify your King?” The fatal moment had now come. They madly exclaimed, “We have no king but Caesar;” and now Jesus is given up to them, and led away to be crucified.
By the direction of Pilate an inscription was placed, according to the Roman custom, over the cross, stating the crime for which he was crucified. Having ascertained from the centurion that he was dead, he gave up the body to Joseph of Arimathea to be buried. Pilate’s name now disappears from the Gospel history. References to him, however, are found in the Acts of the Apostles (3:13; 4:27; 13:28), and in 1 Tim. 6:13. In A.D. 36 the governor of Syria brought serious accusations against Pilate, and he was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where, according to tradition, he committed suicide.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Pilate, Pontius
plat, plat, ponshi-us ( , Pontios Peilatos):
1.Name and Office
2.Pilate’s Procuratorship
3.Pilate and Jesus Christ
4.Pilate in Tradition and Legend
5.Character of Pilate
LITERATURE
1. Name and Office:
The nomen Pontius indicates the stock from which Pilate was descended. It was one of the most famous of Samnite names; it was a Pontius who inflicted on a Roman army the disgrace of the Caudine Forks. The name is often met with in Roman history after the Samnites were conquered and absorbed. Lucius Pontius Aquila was a friend of Cicero and one of the assassins of Julius Caesar. The cognomen Pilatus indicates the familia, or branch of the gens Pontius, to which Pilate belonged. It has been derived from pileus, the cap worn by freedmen; this is improbable, as Pilate was of equestrian rank. It has also been derived from pilum, a spear. Probably the name was one that had descended to Pilate from his ancestors, and had long lost its meaning. The praenomen is nowhere mentioned. Pilate was 5th procurator of Judea. The province of Judea had formerly been the kingdom of Archclaus, and was formed when he was deposed (6 AD) Speaking roughly, it took in the southern half of Palestine, including Samaria. Being an imperial province (i.e. under the direct control of the emperor), it was governed by a procurator (see PROCURATOR; PROVINCE). The procurator was the personal servant of the emperor, directly responsible to him, and was primarily concerned with finance. But the powers of procurators varied according to the appointment of the emperor. Pilate was a procurator cum porestate, i.e. he possessed civil, military, and criminal jurisdiction. The procurator of Judea was in some way subordinate to the legate of Syria, but the exact character of the subordination is not known. As a rule a procurator must be of equestrian rank and a man of certain military experience. Under his rule, the Jews were allowed as much self-government as was consistent with the maintenance of imperial authority. The Sanhedrin was allowed to exercise judicial functions, but if they desired to inflict the penalty of death, the sentence had to be confirmed by the procurator.
2. Pilate’s Procuratorship:
We have no certain knowledge of Pilate except in connection with his time of rule in Judea. We know nothing of his birth, his origin, or his earlier years. Tacitus, when speaking of the cruel punishments inflicted by Nero upon the Christians, tells us that Christ, from whom the name Christian was derived, was put to death when Tiberius was emperor by the procurator Pontius Pilate (Annals xv. 44). Apart from this reference and what is told us in the New Testament, all our knowledge of him is derived from two Jewish writers, Josephus the historian and Philo of Alexandria.
Pilate was procurator of Judea, in succession to Gratus, and he held office for 10 years. Josephus tells (Ant., XVIII, iv, 2) that he ruled for 10 years; that he was removed from office by Vitellius, the legate of Syria, and traveled in haste to Rome to defend himself before Tiberius against certain complaints. Before he reached Rome the emperor had passed away. Josephus adds that Vitellius came in the year 36 AD to Judea to be present at Jerusalem at the time of the Passover. It has been assumed by most authorities (so HDB and EB) that Pilate had departed before this visit of Vitellius. They accordingly date the procuratorship of Pilate as lasting from 26 to 36 AD. As against this view, yon Dobschutx points out (RE under the word Pilate) that by this reckoning Pilate must have taken at least a year to get to Rome; for Tiberius died on March. 16, 37 AD. Such delay is inconceivable in view of the circumstances; hence, von Dobschutz rightly dates the period of his procuratorship 27-37 AD. The procurator of Judea had no easy task, nor did Pilate make the task easier by his actions. He was not careful to conciliate the religious prejudices of the Jews, and at times this attitude of his led to violent collisions between ruler and ruled.
On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he caused them to bring with them their ensigns, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in privily by night, put their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. For five days he refused to hear them, but on the sixth he took his place on the judgment seat, and when the Jews were admitted he had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews thereupon flung themselves on the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to slay so many, yielded the point and removed the ensigns (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, iii, 1; BJ, II, ix, 2, 3).
At another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (korban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, iii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 4).
Philo tells us (Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii) that on other occasion he dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod in honor of the emperor. On these shields there was no representation of any forbidden thing, but simply an inscription of the name of the donor and of him in whose honor they were set up. The Jews petitioned him to have them removed; when he refused, they appealed to Tiberius, who sent an order that they should be removed to Caesarea.
Of the incident, mentioned in Luk 13:1, of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, nothing further is known.
Josephus (Ant., XVIII, iv, 1, 2) gives an account of the incident which led to Pilate’s downfall. A religious pretender arose in Samaria who promised the Samaritans that if they would assemble at Mt. Gerizim, he would show them the sacred vessels which Moses had hidden there. A great multitude assembled in readiness to ascend the mountain, but before they could accomplish their aim they were attacked by Pilate’s cavalry, and many of them were slain. The Samaritans thereupon sent an embassy to Vitellius, the legate of Syria, to accuse Pilate of the murder of those who had been slain. Vitellius, who desired to stand well with the Jews, deposed Pilate from office, appointed Marcellus in his place, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome and answer the charges made against him before the emperor. Pilate set out for Rome, but, before he could reach it, Tiberius had died; and it is probable that, in the confusion which followed, Pilate escaped the inquisition with which he was threatened. From this point onward history knows nothing more of Pilate.
3. Pilate and Jesus Christ:
The shortest and simplest account of Pilate’s dealings with Jesus Christ is given in the Gospel of Mark. There we are told that Jesus was delivered to Pilate; that Pilate asked Him if He was the king of the Jews, receiving an affirmative answer; that, to Pilate’s surprise, Jesus answered nothing to the accusations of the chief priests; that Pilate tried to release Jesus according to an ancient custom; that the multitude, in spite of the protest of Pilate, demanded the release of Barabbas, and cried out that Jesus should be crucified; that Pilate scourged Jesus and delivered Him to be crucified; and that Jesus, when He had been scourged and mocked, was led away to be crucified. Mark tells further how Joseph of Arimathea begged of Pilate the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that Jesus died so quickly, and questioned the centurion about it. Pilate’s surprise and question are peculiar to Mark. Being satisfied on this point, Pilate granted the body to Joseph. Matthew adds the dream and message of Pilate’s wife (Mat 27:19); it also tells how Pilate washed his hands before the people, disclaiming responsibility for the death of Jesus, and how the people accepted the responsibility (Mat 27:24 f); also how Pilate granted a guard for the tomb (Mat 27:62-66). Luke alone narrates the sending of Jesus to Herod (Luk 23:6-12), and reports Pilate’s three times repeated asseveration that he found no fault in Jesus (Luk 23:4, Luk 23:14, Luk 23:22). John gives by far the fullest narrative, which forms a framework into which the more fragmentary accounts of the Synoptics can be fitted with perfect ease. Some critics, holding that Mark alone is trustworthy, dismiss the additional incidents given in Matthew and Luke as apologetic amplifications; and many dismiss the narrative of Jn as wholly unworthy of credence. Such theories are based on preconceived opinions as to the date, authorship and reliability of the various Gospels. The reader who holds all the Gospels to be, in the main, authentic and trustworthy narratives will have no difficulty in perceiving that all four narratives, when taken together, present a story consistent in all its details and free from all difficulty. See GOSPELS. It should be noted that John evidently had special opportunities of obtaining exacter knowledge than that possessed by the others, as he was present at every stage of the trial; and that his narrative makes clear what is obscure in the accounts of the Synoptics.
The parts may be fitted together thus: Jesus is brought to Pilate (Mat 27:2; Mar 15:1; Luk 23:1; Joh 18:28). Pilate asks for a specific accusation (Joh 18:29-32). Pilate enters the praetorium, questions Jesus about His alleged kingship, and receives the answer that He rules over the kingdom of truth, and over the hearts of men who acknowledge the truth. Pilate asks: What is truth? (reported briefly in Mat 27:11; Mar 15:2; Luk 23:3, and with more detail Joh 18:33-38). Pilate brings Him forth (this is the only detail that needs to be supplied in order to make the harmony complete, and in itself it is probable enough), and many accusations are made against Him, to which, to Pilate’s surprise, He makes no reply (Mat 27:12-14; Mar 15:3-5). Pilate affirms His innocence, but the charges are repeated (Luk 23:4 f). Pilate sends Him to Herod, who in mockery clothes Him in shining raiment, and sends Him back (Luk 23:6-12). Pilate declares that neither Herod or himself can find any fault in Him, and offers to scourge Him and let Him go (Luk 23:13-16; Joh 18:38). Pilate offers to release Jesus in accordance with an ancient custom (Mat 27:15-18; Mar 15:6-10; Joh 18:39). Pilate’s wife sends him a message warning him not to harm Jesus because she has suffered many things in a dream because of Him (Mat 27:19). The people, persuaded thereto by the chief priests and elders, choose Barabbas, and, in spite of the repeated protests of Pilate, demand that Jesus shall be crucified (Mat 27:20-23; Mar 15:11-14; Luk 23:18-23; Joh 18:40). Pilate washes his hands before the people, and they take the guilt of the deed upon themselves and their children (Mat 27:24 f). Pilate releases Barabbas and orders Jesus to be scourged (Mat 27:26; Mar 15:15; Luk 23:24 f). Jesus is scourged and mocked, buffered and spit upon (Mat 27:27-31; Mar 15:16-20; Joh 19:1-3). Pilate again declares the innocence of Jesus, brings Him out, and says: Behold the man! The chief priests and officers cry out: Crucify him! They accuse Him of making Himself the Son of God. Pilate, becoming more afraid at this saying, once more interviews the prisoner in the praetorium. He again tries to release Him, but is accused of treachery to the emperor. Overborne by this, Pilate sits on the judgment seat (see GABBATHA), and says: Behold your King! Again the cry goes up: Away with him, crucify him! Pilate says: Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered with a final renunciation of all that God had given them, saying: We have no king but Caesar (Joh 19:4-15). Pilate sentences Jesus and gives Him up to be crucified, and He is led away (Mat 27:31; Mar 15:20; Luk 23:26; Joh 19:16). Pilate writes a title for the cross, and refuses to alter it (Joh 19:19-22). The Jews ask of Pilate that the legs of the three who were crucified might be broken (Joh 19:31). Joseph of Arimathea begs the body of Jesus from Pilate (Mat 27:57, Mat 27:58; Mar 15:42 f; Luk 23:50-52; Joh 19:38). Pilate is surprised that Jesus has died so soon, and questions the centurion (Mar 15:44). He gives up to Joseph the body of Jesus (Mat 27:58; Mar 15:45; Joh 19:38). The chief priests and the Pharisees obtain permission from Pilate to take precautions against any theft of the body of Jesus (Mat 27:62-66).
Pilate is mentioned three times in Acts: in a speech of Peter (Act 3:13), in a thanksgiving of the church (Act 4:27), and in a speech of Paul (Act 13:28). He is also mentioned in 1 Timothy (1Ti 6:13) as the one before whom Christ Jesus witnessed the good confession.
4. Pilate in Tradition and Legend:
Eusebius, who lived in the 4th centuries, tells us (Historia Ecclesiastica, II) on the authority of certain Greek historians that Pilate fell into such calamities that he committed suicide. Various apocryphal writings have come down to us, written from the 3rd to the 5th centuries, with others of a later date, in which legendary details are given about Pilate. In all these a favorable view is taken of his character; hence, the Coptic church came to believe that he became a Christian, and enrolled him among the number of its saints. His wife, to whom tradition gives the name of Claudia Procula, or Procla, is said to have been a Jewish proselyte at the time of the death of Jesus, and afterward to have become a Christian. Her name is honored along with Pilate’s in the Coptic church, and in the calendar of saints honored by the Greek church her name is found against the date October 27.
We find not unkindly references to Pilate in the recently discovered fragment of the Gospel of Peter, which was composed in the 2nd century. In the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus, which belongs to the 4th or 5th century, we find in the first part, called the Acts of Pilate, a long account of the trial of Jesus. It tells how the standards in the hall of judgment bowed down before Jesus, in spite of the efforts of the standard-bearers, and others who attempted it, to hold them erect. It tells also how many of those who had been healed by Jesus bore testimony to Him at the trial (see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS). There has also come down to us, in various forms (e.g. in the Acts of Peter and Paul), a letter, supposed to be the report of Pilate to Tiberius, narrating the proceedings of the trial, and speaking of Jesus in the highest terms of praise. Eusebius, when he mentions this letter, avers that Tiberius, on perusing it, was incensed against the Jews who had sought the death of Jesus (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 2). Elsewhere (Historia Ecclesiastica, IX, 5) he recounts that under Maximin forged Acts of Pilate, containing blasphemies against Christ, were circulated with consent of the emperor. None of these, if they ever existed, have come down to us. In the Paradosis Pilati we read that Caesar, being angry with Pilate for what he had done, brought him to Rome as a prisoner, and examined him. When the Christ was named, all the gods in the senate-chamber fell down and were broken. Caesar ordered war to be made on the Jews, and Pilate, after praying to Jesus, was beheaded. The head was taken away by an angel, and Procla, seeing this, died of joy. Another narrative, of late date, recounts that Pilate, at his trial, wore the seamless robe of Jesus; for this reason Caesar, though filled with anger, could not so much as say a harsh word to Pilate; but when the robe was taken off, he condemned Pilate to death. On hearing this, Pilate committed suicide. The body was sunk in the Tiber, but such storms were raised by demons on account of this that it was taken up and sunk in the Rhone at Vienne. The same trouble recurred there, and the body was finally buried in the territory of Losania (Lausanne). Tradition connects Mt. Pilatus with his name, although it is probable that the derivation is from pileatus, i.e. the mountain with a cloud-cap.
5. Character of Pilate:
Philo (Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii) speaks of Pilate in terms of the severest condemnation. According to him, Pilate was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as obstinate. Philo calls him a man of most ferocious passions, and speaks of his corruption, his acts of insolence, his rapine, his habit of insulting people, his cruelty, his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending and most grievous inhumanity. This is very highly colored and probably much exaggerated; certainly the instances given do not bear out this description of the man. Much of what he says of Pilate is in direct opposition to what we learn of him in the Gospels. There he appears to us as a man who, in spite of many undoubted faults, tries hard to conduct the trial with fairness. Pilate had the ethics of his class, and obviously tried to act up to the standard which he had formed. There was in him, however, no deep moral basis of character, as is shown by the utter skepticism of his question, What is truth? When he found that the doing of strict justice threatened to endanger his position, he reluctantly and with a great deal of shame gave way to the demands of the Jews. He sent Jesus to the cross, but not before he had exhausted every expedient for saving Him, except the simple and straightforward one of dismissing the case. He had the haughtiness of the dominant race, and a profound contempt for the people over which he ruled. This contempt, as we have seen, continually brought him into trouble. He felt deeply humiliated at having to give way to those whom he utterly despised, and, in the manner of a small mind, revenged himself on them by calling Christ their king, and by refusing to alter the mocking inscription on the cross. It is certain that Pilate, in condemning Jesus, acted, and knew that he acted against his conscience. He knew what was right, but for selfish and cowardly reasons refused to do it. He was faced by a great moral emergency, and he failed. We rest on the judgment of our Lord, that he was guilty, but not so guilty as the leaders of the chosen people.
Literature.
The Gospels; Philo, Legatio ad Caium; Josephus, Josephus, Antiquities and BJ; the Annals of Tacitus; Eusebius, HE; Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, and for the Gospel according to Peter, volume IX of the same series err, New Testament Apocryphal Writings (Temple Bible Series), gives the text of the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Gospel of Peter.
There is a great mass of literature on the subject, but there is no English monograph on Pontius Pilate. In German there is G.A. Muller, Pontius Pilatus der funfe Prokurator von Judaa (Stuttgart, 1888). See also the various articles on Pilate in books of reference on the New Testament, notably RE (von Dobschiitz), HDB (G. T. Purves), DCG (A. Souter), and Encyclopedia Biblica (W. J. Woodhouse). For the name of-Pilate see the articles on Pontius Pilatus et les Pontii by Ollivier in Review Biblical, volume V. For the Apocryphal Gospels see article on Gospel of Nicodemus in HDB, also article Apocryphal Gospels, in the supplementary volume of HDB; Orr, New Testament Apocryphal Writings; Zahn, Geschichte des New Testament Kanons; Harnack, Altchristliche Litteraturgeschichte. For the trial of Jesus see Lives of Christ by Keim, Edersheim, Stalker, Andrews and others; Taylor Innes, Trial of Jesus Christ, a Legal Monograph, 1899; and for the historical background, Schurer, HJP.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Pilate, Pontius
Pilate, Pontius, was the sixth Roman Procurator of Judea (Mat 27:2; Mar 15:1; Luk 3:1; John 18-19), under whom our Lord taught, suffered, and died (Act 3:13; Act 4:27; Act 13:28; 1Ti 6:13; Tacit. Annal. xv. 44). The testimony of Tacitus on this point is no less clear than it is important; for it fixes beyond a doubt the time when the foundations of our religion were laid. The words of the great historian are: ‘The author of that name (Christian) or sect was Christ, who was capitally punished in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate.’
Pilate was the successor of Valerius Gratus, and governed Judea, as we have seen, in the reign of Tiberius. He held his office for a period of ten years. The agreement on this point between the accounts in the New Testament and those supplied by Josephus, is entire and satisfactory.
Pilate’s conduct in his office was in many respects highly culpable. Josephus has recorded two instances in which Pilate acted very tyrannically (Antiq. xviii. 3. 1; comp. De Bell Jud. ii. 9. 2, sq.) in regard to the Jews. He conducted himself with equal injustice and cruelty to the Samaritans also. His own misconduct led the Samaritans to take a step which in itself does not appear seditious or revolutionary, when Pilate seized the opportunity to slay many of the people, not only in the fight which ensued, but also in cold blood after they had given themselves up. ‘But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan Senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, now President of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those who had been slain. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome to answer before the Emperor to the accusation of the Jews, Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but, before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead’ (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 4. 2). This removal took place before the Passover, in A.D. 36, probably about September or October, A.D. 35; Pilate must, therefore, as he spent ten years in Judea, have entered on his government about October, A.D. 25, or at least before the Passover, A.D. 26, in the twelfth year of Tiberius’s sole empire.
To be put out of his government by Vitellius, on the complaints of the people of his province, must have been a very grievous mortification to Pilate; and though the emperor was dead before he reached Rome, he did not long enjoy such impunity as guilt permits; for, as Eusebius states, he shortly afterwards made away with himself out of vexation for his many misfortunes.
Owing to the atrocity of the deed in which Pilate took a principal part, and to the wounded feelings of piety with which that deed has been naturally regarded by Christians, a very dark idea has been formed of the character of this Roman governor. That character was undoubtedly bad; but moral depravity has its degrees, and the cause of religion is too sacred to admit any spurious aid from exaggeration. It is therefore desirable to form a just conception of the character of Pilate, and to learn specifically what were the vices under which he labored. For this purpose a brief outline of the evangelical account seems necessary. The narratives on which the following statement is founded may be found in John 18-19; Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23.
Jesus having been betrayed, apprehended, and found guilty of blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrim, is delivered to Pilate in order to undergo the punishment of death, according to the law in that case provided. This delivery of Jesus to Pilate was rendered necessary by the fact, that the Jews, though they retained for the most part their laws and customs, both civil and religions, did not possess the power of life and death which was in the hands of the Roman governor. Pilate could not have been ignorant of Jesus and His pretensions. He might, had he chosen, have immediately ordered Jesus to be executed, for He had been tried and condemned to death by the laws of the land; but he had an alternative. As the execution of the laws, in the case at least of capital punishments, was in the hands of the Roman Procurator, so without any violent straining might his tribunal be converted into a court of appeal in the last instance. At any rate, remonstrance against an unjust verdict was easy and proper on the part of a high officer, who, as having to inflict the punishment, was in a measure responsible for its character. And remonstrance might easily lead to a revision of the grounds on which the verdict had been given, and thus a cause might virtually be brought, de novo, before the Procurator: this took place in the case of our Lord. Pilate gave Him the benefit of a new trial, and pronounced Him innocent.
This review of the case was the alternative that lay before Pilate, the adoption of which speaks undoubtedly in his favor, and may justify us in declaring that his guilt was not of the deepest dye.
That the conduct of Pilate was, however, highly criminal cannot be denied. But his guilt was light in comparison of the criminal depravity of the Jews, especially the priests. His was the guilt of weakness and fear, theirs the guilt of settled and deliberate malice. His state of mind prompted him to attempt the release of an accused person in opposition to the clamors of a misguided mob; theirs urged them to compass the ruin of an acquitted person by instigating the populace, calumniating the prisoner, and terrifying the judge. If Pilate yielded against his judgment under the fear of personal danger, and so took part in an act of unparalleled injustice, the priests and their ready tools originated the false accusation, sustained it by subornation of perjury, and when it was declared invalid, enforced their own unfounded sentence by appealing to the lowest passions. Pilate, it is clear, was utterly destitute of principle. He was willing, indeed, to do right, if he could do right without personal disadvantage. Of gratuitous wickedness he was perhaps incapable, certainly in the condemnation of Jesus he has the merit of being for a time on the side of innocence. But, he yielded to violence, and so committed an awful crime. In his hands was the life of the prisoner. Convinced of his innocence he ought to have set him at liberty, thus doing right, regardless of consequences. But this is an act of high virtue which we hardly look for at the hands of a Roman governor of Judea; and though Pilate must bear the reproach of acting contrary to his own declared convictions, yet he may equally claim some credit for the apparently sincere efforts which he made in order to defeat the malice of the Jews and procure the liberation of Jesus.
If now we wish to form a judgment of Pilate’s character, we easily see that he was one of that large class of men who aspire to public offices, not from a pure and lofty desire of benefiting the public and advancing the good of the world, but from selfish and personal considerations, from a love of distinction, of power, of self-indulgence; being destitute of any fixed principles, and having no aim but office and influence, they act right only by chance and when convenient, and are wholly incapable of pursuing a consistent course, or of acting with firmness and self-denial in cases in which the preservation of integrity requires the exercise of these qualities. Pilate was obviously a man of weak, and therefore, with his temptations, of corrupt character. This want of strength will readily account for his failing to rescue Jesus from the rage of his enemies, and also for the acts of injustice and cruelty which he practiced in his governmentacts which, considered in themselves, wear a deeper dye than does the conduct which he observed in surrendering Jesus to the malice of the Jews. And this same weakness may serve to explain to the reader how much influence would be exerted on this unjust judge, not only by the stern bigotry and persecuting wrath of the Jewish priesthood, but specially by the not concealed intimations which they threw out against Pilate, that, if he liberated Jesus, he was no friend of Tiberius and must expect to have to give an account of his conduct at Rome. And that this was no idle threat, Pilate’s subsequent deposition by Vitellius shows very plainly; nor could the procurator have been ignorant either of the stern determination of the Jewish character, or of the offence he had by his acts given to the heads of the nation, or of the insecurity, at that very hour, when the contest between him and the priests was proceeding regarding the innocent victim whom they lusted to destroy, of his own position in the office which he held, and which, of course, he desired to retain. On the whole, then, viewing the entire conduct of Pilate, his previous iniquities as well as his bearing on the condemnation of Jesusviewing his own actual position and the malignity of the Jews, we cannot, we confess, give our vote with those who have passed the severest condemnation on this weak and guilty governor.
That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius of the condemnation and punishment of Jesus Christ, is likely in itself, and is confirmed by the voice of antiquity. Lardner, who has fully discussed the subject, decides that ‘it must be allowed by all that Pontius Pilate composed some memoirs concerning our Savior, and sent them to the emperor.’ These documents have in some way been lost, and what we now have under the title of the Acts of Pontius Pilate and his letter to Tiberius, are manifestly spurious, though they have probably been fabricated in some keeping with the genuine pieces, the loss of which the composers of the existing documents sought as well as they could to repair.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Pilate, Pontius
Roman governor of Judaea
Mat 27:2; Luk 3:1
Causes slaughter of certain Galileans
Luk 13:1
Tries Jesus and orders His crucifixion
Mat 27; Mar 15; Luk 23; Joh 18:28-40; Joh 19; Act 3:13; Act 4:27; Act 13:28; 1Ti 6:13
Allows Joseph of Arimathaea to take Jesus’ body
Mat 27:57-58; Mar 15:43-45; Luk 23:52; Joh 19:38
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
PILATE, PONTIUS
Roman governor of Judea
Luk 3:1; Luk 13:1; Mat 27:2; Mat 27:13; Mat 27:24; Mar 15:2; Mar 15:15; Luk 23:4; Luk 23:12
Joh 18:35; Joh 19:1; Joh 19:8; Joh 19:22
— “The Ruler who sought to shirk Responsibility”, in the trial of
Christ
By turning him over to Jewish authorities
Joh 18:31
By sending him to Herod
Luk 23:7
By proposing to inflict a minor penalty
Luk 23:22
By directing attention to Barabbas
Mat 27:17
By a hypocritical ceremony
Mat 27:24