Easter Candy and Pontius Pilate

Already they’re selling Easter candy in my local Eckerd. At the rate we’re going, they’ll be keeping all the holiday decorations and special items around all year long!

The Easter candy reminded me of an article I wrote a few years back that, it turns out, I’ve never posted on this blog, so I’ve decided to correct that omission.

On a number of occasions I’ve encountered arguments to the effect that the actions in the gospels attributed to Pontius Pilate during the trial of Jesus are contrary to what is known about Pilate’s personality and couldn’t possibly be accurate. Interestingly enough, I consider the described actions quite reasonable and even likely for the historical reasons outlined below. Now I’m not referring to specific details but rather to the three main points upon which all the gospels agree.

1. That Pilate was the judge at the trial.
2. That Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
3. That ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution.

What do we know about the man reputed to have given the orders for the crucifixion of Jesus? Surprisingly enough, the answer is quite a bit based upon the histories written at the time and some inferences derived from what is known about Roman Government, Roman Society and Judea in the early part of the first century.

Judea was a third class province, below the dignity of someone of Senatorial rank to govern. As a result it was assigned to a Prefect of Equestrian rank. The Equestrians were the lower nobility of Rome and a Prefect was a military rather than a civilian title. In contrast, the neighboring Province of Syria would have been governed by a Roman of Consular rank, the highest crust of the Roman upper nobility.

Pilate probably had some military experience to his credit and in fact was very likely more of a soldier than a politician. His new command appears to have consisted of 5 auxiliary infantry cohorts plus a small wing of auxiliary cavalry. Since the main mission of this force would have been to keep the local brigands under control, it’s also likely that each infantry cohort had a cavalry detachment. So the total force would have been about 3,500 men, some 2,500 infantry and 1,000 cavalry. These were 2nd rate Romans troops and small in number. They could handle bandits and minor disturbances, but in any major insurrection Pilate would have been in serious trouble.

While technically independent, Pilate would normally have been under the guidance, and protection, of the Consular Legate of Syria who had 4 Roman Legions at his disposal plus auxiliaries for something like 30,000 troops. In the event of real trouble, Pilate would have had to appeal to the Syrian Legions for help. He just didn’t have the manpower, especially considering even the small force he had was split between Jerusalem, Caesarea and patrolling the countryside.

Normally he would have been under the Syrian Governor’s guidance and protection, but during the first 6 years of Pilate’s command there was no Syrian governor in Antioch. Tiberius seems to have been experimenting with a sort of remote rule and the governor of Syria was in Rome! Since it’s unlikely that anyone on the spot in Syria had the authority to move the Syrian Legions to Judea without directions from Rome, Pilate must have been feeling a tad exposed.

In addition to his inability to rely on any immediate help from Syria in the event of an emergency, Pilate’s rule is marked by another unique circumstance. While Gratus, his predecessor as Prefect, replaced the Temple High Priest four times in his eleven year rule, Pilate stuck with the man he found in the office when he arrived, Caiaphus. One can only speculate why, but one can be pretty sure it was related to some type of quid pro quo agreement. Pilate may not have been a true politician, but he wasn’t stupid either and as an officer would have recognized an ally when he saw one.

That Pilate was more of a soldier than a politician is demonstrated by his first mistake early in his term as Prefect. Given the small force at his disposal, his first concern would have been the strategic placement of the few troops he had. That led him to redeploy a cohort from Caesarea to Jerusalem. Unfortunately he chose one whose standards carried an image of the emperor. Despite Josephus’ claims that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert Jewish practices and law, it appears to most historians more like a beginner’s mistake. Either Pilate was unaware of Jewish practices or, as a hard nosed military type, found it hard to believe the standards were really going to cause a problem. He was wrong, they did, and the next thing he knew several thousand Jews had appeared in Caesarea demanding that the standards be removed. Pilate had the good sense to back down and exchange cohorts; his small force would have been quickly overwhelmed in a general uprising which is what this appeared to be on the verge of becoming.

This brings us to Good Friday and the trial of Jesus. Let’s recap for a second and keep a few things in mind.

1. Pilate was most likely more of a soldier than a politician.
2. Pilate had a relatively small force of about 3,500 men.
3. Pilate could expect no immediate help from the Syrian Legions in the case of real trouble.
4. Pilate probably had a mutually beneficial quid pro quo arrangement with Caiaphas.

Pilate was the Judge at Jesus's Trial
At first blush it appears a little strange that the Roman governor would preside at the trial of a Jewish peasant. It appears strange because the word “governor” implies to us a high ranking political authority. But Pilate was a Prefect, a military officer and at the time, technically, the commanding officer in Jerusalem.

At any other time except Passover, the decision of what to do about Jesus would probably have fallen to the commander of the Jerusalem garrison who was more than likely an ex-senior centurion that had managed to be promoted to command of the auxiliary cohort. But at this time Pilate, as the senior officer on the spot, was the commander of the garrison so it’s very likely that he would in fact have to be the man to pass judgment. Who else would there be? That’s how military command works

Pilate was hesitant to execute Jesus
Pilate probably traveled from Caesarea with a cohort as escort. Added to the cohort permanently stationed at Jerusalem, that would have given him about 1,200 troops and he was surrounded by 50,000 or more pilgrims, all of them armed! I say they were armed because given the problems with bandits in Judea, travelers were allowed to travel armed and invariably did. Even the Essenes, religious ascetics, carried weapons when they traveled. The crowd would have had daggers, swords and clubs certainly, perhaps even bows.

No amount of training could make up for that kind of numerical disparity. Should things erupt, Pilate was in a hopeless military position and, as a soldier, he would know it. Given the situation, and his past experiences with the Jews, of course he was hesitant; he would have been a complete idiot not to be hesitant!

Ultimately Pilate agreed to the execution
Obviously, since Jesus was in fact executed, but why? The trial occurred at least 5 years into Pilate's rule and he had been working with Caiaphas since the beginning. He would know by now when he could rely on the High Priest and when he couldn't.

What Caiaphas would have realized was that this was the perfect opportunity to head off a future problem. The crowd had dispersed, the pilgrims were focusing on the holiday preparations, and if they moved quickly, it would all be over before the population realized what was happening.

Its unlikely Pilate viewed Jesus as much of a threat; he would be more concerned about the 50,000 armed pilgrims! But for Caiaphas, Jesus's antics in the Temple would have been a direct threat, not only to his authority, but to a very lucrative source of cash. Based on their quid pro quo relationship and Caiaphas's superior understanding of the Jews, it's not to difficult to believe that the High Priest would have convinced Pilate that executing this troublemaker was the smart, as well as the safer, decision.


Now, one other point needs to be addressed, which is exactly how did folks find out what took place? The trial may not have been terribly public as that would have focused the pilgrims on what was occurring (exactly the opposite of what Caiaphas and Pilate would want!), but it probably wasn't kept all that secretive either. There would have been servants, most of them Jews, as well as soldiers around, able to eavesdrop on what was going on. They would have talked and it's not surprising that the gist of the proceeding could be learned by anyone that was interested. Later the gospel writers, with expansion and embellishments undoubtedly, recorded what had occurred.

It's not terribly important that the gospels may add imaginative details. What is important is that the core of the events, Pilate was the judge; Pilate was initially hesitant to act, Pilate ultimately agreed to the execution, appear quite reasonable under the circumstances and might very well be accurate!

Surprise, surprise! Yet again the gospels indicate that they might very well be far more accurate as historical documents than some scholars and historians are willing to give them credit for.

I don't have a problem with the Bible as a historical document nor do I have a problem with it as a source of wisdom. It's the idea that it is the infallible source of law and morality that I reject.