Pi´late, Pon´tius, 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 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. 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 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.
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.
By: Isidore Singer, Isaac Broydé
Fifth Roman procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumæa, from 26 to 36 of the common era; successor of Valerius Gratus. According to Philo ("De Legatione ad Caium," ed. Mangey, ii. 590), his administration was characterized by corruption, violence, robberies, ill treatment of the people, and continuous executions without even the form of a trial. His very first act nearly caused a general insurrection. While his predecessors, respecting the religious feelings of the Jews, removed from their standards all the effigies and images when entering Jerusalem, Pilate allowed his soldiers to bring them into the city by night. As soon as this became known crowds of Jews hastened to Cæsarea, where the procurator was residing, and besought him to remove the images. After five days of discussion he ordered his soldiers to surround the petitioners and to put them to death unless they ceased to trouble him. He yielded only when he saw that the Jews would rather die than bear this affront. At a later date Pilate appropriated funds from the sacred treasury in order to provide for the construction of an aqueduct for supplying the city of Jerusalem with water from the Pools of Solomon; and he suppressed the riots provoked by this spoliation of the Temple by sending among the crowds disguised soldiers carrying concealed daggers, who massacred a great number, not only of the rioters, but of casual spectators.
In spite of his former experience of the sensitiveness of the Jews with regard to images and emblems, Pilate hung up in Herod's palace gilt shields dedicated to Tiberius, and again nearly provoked an insurrection. The shields were removed by a special order of Tiberius, to whom the Jews had protested. Pilate's last deed of cruelty, and the one which brought about his downfall, was the massacre of a number of Samaritans who had assembled on Mount Gerizim to dig for some sacred vessels which an impostor had led them to believe Moses had buried there. Concerning this massacre the Samaritans lodged a complaint with Vitellius, legate of Syria, who ordered Pilate to repair to Rome to defend himself. On the participation by Pilate in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus see Crucifixion; Jesus of Nazareth.
The end of Pilate is enveloped in mystery. According to Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." ii. 7), he was banished to Vienna (Vienne) in Gaul, where various misfortunes caused him at last to commit suicide; while the chronicle of Malalas alleges, with less probability, that he was beheaded under Nero. A later legend says that his suicide was anticipatory of Caligula's sentence; that the body was thrown into the Tiber, causing disastrous tempests and, floodsthat it afterward produced similar effects in the Rhone at Vienne; and that, finally, it had to be consigned to a deep pool among the Alps.
Bibliography:
Josephus, Ant. xviii. 3, § 12;
idem. B. J. ii. 9, §§2-4;
Ewald, Gesch. iv. 594; v. 49-95; vi. 319, 322-332, 343;
Graätz Gesch. iii. 253-271;
Schürer, Gesch. i. 488-492;
Brann, Die Söhne des Herodes, 1873, pp. 1-16;
Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, v. 508 et seq.
PILEGESH (Hebrew, 
; comp. Greek,
By: Emil G. Hirsch, Schulim Ochser, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board.
—Biblical Data:
A concubine recognized among the ancient Hebrews. She enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, while the greatest curse was childlessness, legitimate wives themselves gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, for their own barrenness, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife; and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her. Thus Jacob never forgave his eldest son for violating Bilhah (Gen. xxxv. 22, xlix. 4). According to the story of Gibeah, related in Judges xix., 25,000 warriors of the tribe of Benjamin lost their lives on account of the maltreatment and death of a concubine. Abner, Saul's first general, deserted Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, who had reproached his leader with having had intercourse with Rizpah, the daughter of his royal father's concubine, Aiah (II Sam. iii. 7); and Absalom brought the greatest dishonor upon David by open intercourse with his father's concubines (ib. xvi. 21 et seq.).
The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife. Abraham dismissed his natural sons with gifts (Gen. xxv. 6), and Jacob's sons by Bilhah and Zilpah were equal with his sons by Leah and Rachel; while Abimelech, who subsequently became king over a part of Israel, was the son of Gideon-jerubbaal and his Shechemite concubine (Judges viii. 31). In the time of the Kings the practise of taking concubines was no longer due to childlessness but to luxury. David had ten concubines (II Sam. xv. 16), who, however, also did housework; Solomon had 300 (I Kings xi. 30); and his son Rehoboam had sixty (II Chron. xi. 21).
Bibliography:
Hastings, Dict. Bible. s.v. Marriage;
Stade, Gesch. Isr. i. 385. 636;
Hamburger, R. B. T. s.v. Kebsweib.
E. G. H. S. O.—In Rabbinical Literature:
According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a concubine and a legitimate wife was that the latter received a Ketubah and her marriage was preceded by a formal betrothal ("ḳiddushin"), which was not the case with the former (comp. Rashi on Gen. xxv. 6, and Naḥmanides ad loc.). According to R. Judah (Yer. Ket. v. 29d), however, the concubine also received a ketubah, but without the aliment pertaining to it.
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.
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
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 (
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.
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 Paul’s 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 Christ’s 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 Pilate’s 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 Lord’s 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 Pilate’s 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 Christ’s virtual confession of His Messiahship in Pilate’s presence, when He claimed to be a king.
D. Frew.
- see Judea, Governor’s of
The Roman governor of
Judea, 26–36 a.d. Read Lk. 23:1–3.