Welcome.
However do note is a geographically small area and has a heavy contingent. In addition to the Roman regulars you would have had local militia and also Herod’s troops. The original Bible actually describes soldiers from three separate participating in the events.
i) The Arresting group, Temple Guards, and local militia, most likely local toughs jumped up.
ii) The troops who mocked Jesus and scourged him; Herod’s men.
iii) The actual execution party; 4 soldiers and one officer, Roman Auxillaries. These are the guys who played dice and later were impatient to get back to the city, probably since they were under orders to get back ASAP, it being Passover and the city being very tense.
There is another very interesting thing to all this. Lucius Aelius Sejanus. Prefect of the Pretorian guard in Rome. He was the Emperor Tiberius’s favourite and one of the most able and influential men in Rome. Until he got too big for his boots, was overthrown and executed.
How does this link to the period and place under discussion. Well, Sejanus was executed in 31AD. He also had lots of proteges, one of them was a man called Pontius Pilate. Who had had own issues around the time of 31 AD. There is no way of knowing, but Pilates reluctance and desire to basically fob the issue off to anyone he could find does seem out of character, Could it be that this was since he himself had a good chance of having an appointment with an executioner in the near future
ETA: lost most of the above post this is what I wanted to write
There is another very interesting thing to all this. Lucius Aelius Sejanus. Prefect of the Pretorian guard in Rome. He was the Emperor Tiberius’s favourite and one of the most able and influential men in Rome. Until he got too big for his boots, was overthrown and executed.
How does this link to the period and place under discussion. Well, Sejanus was executed in 31AD. He also had lots of proteges, one of them was a man called Pontius Pilate. Who had had own issues around the time of 31 AD. There is no way of knowing, but Pilates reluctance and desire to basically fob the issue off to anyone he could find does seem out of character, Could it be that this was since he himself had a good chance of having an appointment with an executioner in the near future? An interesting thought. It is true that Pilate became less overtly anti-Jew *after [/ISejanus’s fall, before he seemed to take pleasure in baiting Jews, this change is recorded and noted in Philo and Josephus. Sejanus was a known anti-Semite and that was one of the charge placed against him (the Romans had a bit of a weird stance on long established religions, basically they respected them while putting them down).
Also the Gospels state that one of the things the crowd accused Pilate of when he said he was inclined to release Jesus was that he was no friend of Ceaser or (Amicus Ceaser. Which would be a weird thing to say to a Roman Prefect; unless there was reason behind it; such as one man who is trying to avoid being implicated with a recent power-grabbing upstart, do the Gospels record a long forgotten political dispute
And concerning Tiberius: In case you should ever entertain the notion that Tiberius, for his part, was *not *a jackass, just keep this in mind.
Wow, you could write yourself a novel if you keep going with that. I don’t have that talent, though. I’m a simple sort of chap, see. As far as I’m concerned, there’s not much need to overthink this. I’m still just calling bullshit on the whole portrayal of Pilate in the Gospels. The Gospel writers are selling Christ to Romans, and every week they’re coming up with a better weekend special.
And, yes, I’m gasp calling bullshit on something in the Bible. But it’s not about the Bible, particularly. I’ll call bullshit on anyone and everyone, myself included. I’m an equal opportunities sort of guy in that regard.
BTW, there’s no need for that sales pitch anymore. Today’s Romanophiles don’t *mind *the notion that the Romans were homicidal enough to kill Jesus. Heck, they prefer them that way. Wait, maybe that came out wrong. But you know what I mean.
Look, what I mean is, we seem to agree on the following at this stage:
Judea had something of an issue going on, in the first half of the first century, with messianic rabble-rousers, both violent and non-violent.
These were seen as threats to Roman rule. A number of them were executed by the Roman authorities.
This is consistent with a relatively large Roman military presence.
A Roman prefect or procurator would not hesitate to execute such a person.
Jesus would have been perceived by the Roman authorities as such a person. (Whether he was one or not isn’t really relevant. I’m sure one can argue about that until one resembles a Smurf, and I’m not saying he was. This is just about the Roman perception.)
Pilate, in particular, was, under normal circumstances, not reluctant to execute such messianic rabble-rousers. If anything, he had an itchy trigger finger, which eventually contributed to him being removed from his position.
Right? Tell me if I got any of those wrong. But if these hold - ah! Why, then, was Pilate seemingly so reluctant to execute Jesus, and had to be dragged into doing it, kicking and screaming? Syntax error, danger Will Robinson.
It seems to me that you’re trying to reconcile these points with another one:
The Gospels writers wouldn’t tell a lie, surely?
So what you’re apparently proposing now, it seems, is some kind of coincidence. Pilate was reluctant for unrelated reasons, see. He had an off day, basically. Maybe it had to do with, I dunno, a forgotten dispute involving Sejanus. Again, basically a coincidence. He wouldn’t have had this problem, on another day, with some *other *messianic rabble-rouser. It just happened to be a thing with Jesus.
I have no need for point 7, so I don’t have that problem. And besides, “lie” is such a nasty word. Propagandizing? Fictionalizing? Selling to Romans? Hey, how about: Not exactly writing history?
The thing is that its not about the accuracy of the text. Most people (and I include myself) are hung up on interpretation of the actions of the persons in the text and thus the writers. Some people say Pilate is hardly a man not to send people to cross, what we know of him otherwise suggests quite the opposite. Ergo, they must have written this to make nice with the Roman audiences they were preaching to. Thats a valid interpretation as any. Of course, another interpretation is *Pilate was a man in the cross hairs of the Court in Rome, and this situation was one with no plausible good outcome for him, so he chose what he thought the least bad one (for himself) when he was forced to act and he “reluctantly” acquiesced *. Hell, the Sanhedrin itself was not unanimous per the Gospels, two members Joseph and Nicodemus dissented, and per history we know that august body was choke full of factions, so Pilate would not have relished having to chose one over the other that could lead to nothing but grief, espeically with his superiors.
Am I more inclined to interpretation no 2? Sure. Do I think those who follow no 1 are totally off their rockers? No. But I do think there is much more of a stretch, a bureaucrat trying to cover his ass is more likely than future preachers trying to play nice to another audience (who may or may not take the story written as being flattering anyway).
Incidentally, here is an excellent summary of the political position in Rome and how it related to Pilate. Long story short, Tiberius had stated that Anti-Semitism was no longer kosher (!) ;), and Pilate being a dude who had dabbled in it intensely, was already in hot water even before he was introduced to Jesus Christ.
AK: Oh, right. I’m with you. I see what happened here. You’re trying to answer the completely wrong question.
Your line of thinking, as far as I can tell, goes like this:
Jesus was, or was perceived to be by the Jewish religious authorities, a threat to said Jewish authorities. However, Jesus was not, and was not perceived to be by Pilate, a threat to Roman rule. This is basically the Gospel version.
The question you’re trying to answer is:
Why, then, did the understandably reluctant Pilate finally agree to execute Jesus? He would, after all, not normally have given in to the wishes of the Jewish religious authorities.
Answer: Oh, it must be because of Sejanus and so forth.
This argument involves the following part: Jesus was not, and was not perceived to be by Pilate, a threat to Roman rule.
This is a completely different discussion from the one I thought we were having. I thought we agreed on my earlier point 5: Jesus would have been perceived by the Roman authorities as a threat to Roman rule. Was I wrong about that?
Meanwhile, while you ponder that, can I rant some more about Reza Aslan? I’m looking through *Zealot *again, and Aslan can sure be the worst guy to have on one’s side sometimes. See, the more I re-read this book, the more I want to punch him, and his vividly painted pictures. So, Pilate. I don’t want to drag aldiboronti into this, but as he said about Pilate:
Here’s Aslan in *Zealot *, setting up an image of Pilate for use later:
Hang on, BTW. I just noticed this now. Does he actually say “southern Rome”? What, like, somewhere near the Aventine? I don’t think that means what he thinks it means. Here’s a handy map, for anyone unfamiliar. Samnium is a region in south-central Italy. Very odd. But, never mind, let’s continue:
So, Pilate is basically a semi-barbarian, then? I bet he had tattoos. When was this? Last week, right?
:smack:
That’s right, folks. Those Samnite Wars were a long time ago. The third and final one ended in 290 BC, when Rome was, at a stretch, a very nascent empire. And even for *that *period, the impression you’re getting here is a caricature. Pilate was an equestrian! Which Aslan does go on to say, but at that point, this image of “stone and blood and brutal men” is already in your head. Look, if Pilate was a dick, which he might or might not have been, being of Samnite descent had nothing to do with it. There’s no reason to think of him as anything other than a Roman official. That, is, I suppose, unless you’re the kind of person who really enjoys regional stereotyping, and hey, maybe Texans are all rugged cowboys who ride horses to work, go yee-haw, and fire guns in the air every two seconds, too. But as far as I’m concerned, he was just a guy doing his job. Which is probably all we need to know, anyway.
Side note: And don’t anyone tell me: “Oh, yeah? What about the Colline Gate? Them there Samnites, they’re always the same…” Just don’t. I’ll punch you.
Mostly. I don’t think Pilate would have thought of him as a threat, except indirectly. The Romans of that dealt with all sorts of religious types promising the world and beyond. Jesus’s message would not have alarmed them, like it would have alarmed at least some of the Sanhedrin., compared to some of what the Romans encountered, it was benign; "render unto Ceaser?
So, in short, the hypothesis that Jesus would have been seen as a threat by the Romans is one that I find difficult to accept.
Jesus could call up angry crowds; how could any Roman administrator find that other than threatening? Not “They’re going to kick us out of Judea” but “they might burn down a few marketplaces.” In Roman terms, that’s well worth crucifying a guy for.
Right, gotcha. But do you agree with my bullet points 1-4? Which are the same as Aslan’s point, that the Romans were, in fact, seeing other messianic upstarts around this time as threats? Even some that were not directly violent? And that they would, indeed, often execute such people?
I guess the question is what one loses, if one accepts the notion that Pilate would have been perfectly willing and able to execute Jesus on his own accord.
Assumptions:
The Romans surely wouldn’t execute someone as cuddly as Jesus, right?
Sure they would. Actually, I’m not sure why this need this much explaining. Look there are two parties to consider here. Jesus, and Romans. Depending on your notions about Jesus, it may seem like casual brutality. And, frankly, Jesus isn’t my area of expertise. But have you met the Romans? It’s not like they’re incapable of casual brutality. This whole thing seems pretty consistent with the same kind of Roman attitude that will see them hit smack in the face by the Great Revolt in 66. And, you know, we’re basically in the colonies, which makes casual brutality even more likely. Even more recent colonial powers, who, even if they behave more civilized at home, have, as someone put it, been known to let their pants down in the colonies. It’s the same attitude that led Roman soldiers to flog Boudica and rape her daughters, sparking a major revolt in Britain, as I said.
So you lose the notion that “Romans are nice”. But we don’t *have *that notion. The original intended audience of the Gospels might not have been too keen to have their penchant for casual brutality thrown in their face. So, there’s a problem. But what do we care? We’re not Romans.
The Lord and Savior can’t be someone we executed, right? That’s silly. So, again, there’s a problem. Someone else must be blamed.
Let’s stick on the Jews. Hey, that worked. Let’s keep sticking it on the Jews.
Wait, isn’t Jesus a Jew, too?
Yes. Different thread. Actually, how about me massively downplay that? Hey, that worked. Let’s keep massively downplaying that.
But now I’m getting confused. As I said, we’re not Romans. Let’s move on.
The Gospel writers wouldn’t invent a narrative featuring a reluctant Pilate to explain why the Romans executed the Lord and Savior, right?
My answer: Of course they would. It’s probably not even on my Top Ten list of blatant nonsense in the Gospels.
Now, review:
Points 1-3 should no longer be issues for us. As I said, we’re not Romans. The sticking point, then, I suspect, is the notion that Gospel writers might invent things.
Oh, I am down on the point that they had no problem inventing things. They absolutely did the Gospel writers. I am just less sure that they invented *this *aspect, i.e Pilate wanting nothing to do with the whole matter initially and later going along with it out of weakness, of character/expediency. That seems to be to be plausible.
On Boudicca, yeah sure, but the official Roman in Rome response to the local authorities decision to inflict rape and whipping seem to have been, dude what the fuck??? Ok, that was mostly what Tacitus wrote, that guy always had a soft spot for the barbarians.
[QUOTE=Trinopus]
Jesus could call up angry crowds; how could any Roman administrator find that other than threatening? Not “They’re going to kick us out of Judea” but “they might burn down a few marketplaces.” In Roman terms, that’s well worth crucifying a guy for.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. An obviously it resonated with Pilate, since he did issue a death sentence, after being prodded. This thread is speculation on his motivations for arriving at that decision.
I don’t mean to casually dismiss all that, but, as I said, I think you’re trying to answer the completely wrong question. And furthermore, from your link, right off the bat:
This is the kind of completely nonsensical sentence that should make you just stop reading right there, because it falls into the category of “not even wrong”. And frankly, you strike me as smart enough to already know that.
I’m not even sure how to parse it. The Judean governorship of Pontius Pilate was not a major socio-political development, nor did it have anything to do with such a thing. It was a guy being prefect of a relatively unimportant place. Neither was the “emergence of Jesus Christ” a “major development during the reign of Tiberius”. Pilate never met Jesus, the Christ. If he met anyone, it was “Jesus, who again?”, as I think someone put it upthread. It’ll be a while yet before this episode morphs into a major development, as you well know. And as for how recognizable Jesus, or for that matter Pilate, is at that point… well, that’s why we’re here, isn’t it?
Or partly why we’re here. I thought we were talking about Constantine.
Well, why, then? Gut feeling? Hey, if so, I’m cool with gut feelings. But are you sure it’s not an upset stomach in this case? You know, as a wise man once said: Sometimes, it’s plausibility. But other times, it’s just gas.
Well this far out we have no way of knowing unless Mrs Pilate’s diaries are discovered Dear Diary, Pontius really messed up yesterday morning…. But a lot of the claim that he would not have hesitated to act is predicated upon him being a stoic True Roman ™, who would not under any circumstances refuse to execute any threat to Rome. On the other hand when you read the depiction of him in Philo and Josephus (especially Philo), he comes across as a bully and a psychophant. He was appointed due to sucking up to the man in power in Rome (Sejanus) and delighted in acting petty in Judea . Until he was told off by his superiors, specifically by Tiberius himself.
In the Gospels he comes across as a spineless functionary; which is basically the impression you get in the historical texts, guy talk a big game, but becomes meek whenever confronted by people who won’t back down, hell one of the Gospels (John maybe?) has the Priests heavily hinting that they will go over his head if he does not act.
I am not Christian, I have no belief in the crucifixion or resurrection. I just find the comparison of multiple historical texts (and the Gospels are those) to be fascinating.
Well, maybe. But if so, the same thing goes for tons of people in the Roman world. Welcome the wonderful world of Roman hiring policy, known as patronage, or the patron-client system. Sucking up to men in power to get favors would have been as natural to a Roman as breathing. You know that scene from The Godfather? “On my daughter’s wedding day…” That’s Roman society, on all levels, except that for the Romans, it was much more in the open, accepted, and expected.
Sejanus would have had two bazillion clients. *Everyone *would have been sucking up to him, because Roman society was stuffed to the gills with sycophantic jackasses. It’s structural.
This, BTW, is one of those things that is often mentioned as a problem in the Late Republic (which is before the time we’re in, obviously), which the Principate is a fix, or at least a workaround, for. One of the major advantages of centralizing power, and having an emperor on top (at least ideally, but sometimes you get jackasses like Sejanus butting in), is that everyone, and I mean everyone, would suck up to the same people, in a predictable sort of way. This is much preferable to them sucking up to different people. Now, in fairness, I think that this can get blown out of proportion by people looking to explain why the Late Republic was such a cluster***k. But is it in there? Sure.
I’ll explain, yeah? In a city state, which the Roman Republic originally was, patronage works fine. Favors are like currency. Your son needs a job? I have an uncle who owes me a favor. He runs a taberna. Now *you *owe *me *a favor. Hey, I’m standing for election as aedile. You’ll vote for me, your friend, right? OK, when I say “works fine”, it’s probably not an ideal to aspire to for a meritocratic and democratic society. But the Romans seemed happy with it.
In the Late Republic, though? For one thing, you get Marian-style armies. The *general *is the Godfather for his troops. Hey, I recruited a legion, and, BTW, I totally didn’t ask the senate first. They now need land after their service. The Senate doesn’t like the idea, because they see this as handing out land to poor schmucks, which is their least favorite thing. Hmm, how to solve this. Hey, troops? I’ll do you a favor: I’ll get you land. But *you *have to do *me *a favor in return. You have to fight for me in a civil war.
Or you get social revolutionaries like Tiberius Gracchus. As tribune, he’ll get land for the disenfranchised poor. But now, *they *owe *him *a favor. What’s the favor? Vote him tribune for an illegal new term. Everyone benefits, right? Well, the senate didn’t think so. They thought of it as the revolution coming. Tiberius was beaten to death with broken off chair legs from the senate house.
Or you get Pompey. He romps through the East, kicking out kings, and putting new client kings on thrones. BTW, he totally didn’t ask the Senate first. Now those client kings owe *him *a favor, and every one of *their *subjects owe *them *a favor, because their king is *their *Godfather, and they suck up to him, and hey presto, before you know it, the entire gosh-darned Eastern Mediterranean owes Pompey the Great a personal favor.
OK, so we have to run a vast empire with this crapola going on. That’s what the Principate does: It tells people: “OK, we clearly can’t make you stop this here economy of favor-trading and Godfathering. But we don’t want these gang wars (which is one way of looking at much of the trouble in the Late Republic) breaking out. So let’s at least agree that everyone has the same Godfather: The Emperor.”
Or, as I said, sometimes you get jackassas like Sejanus butting in. “Hey, look, the Emperor is on Capri, and he’s not taking calls, because he’s Tiberius. Who do we suck up to now, then? Oh, Sejanus. Very well.” Sejanus is of course a super interesting guy, and one of the creepiest characters in the Julio-Claudian period, since he basically creates a position for himself which is suspicious as all get out. And one of the most suspicious things about it is that it, in part, involves him being The Guy You Suck Up To. He’s the Semi-Official Imperial Hoover of Suckuppery. Of course, it didn’t work out all that well for Sejanus in the end, as soon as Tiberius looked up from his pornography on Capri, had a light bulb moment, and began to wonder why his prefect was hoarding all those favors.
Or at least that’s one way of looking at things. But in any case, this here tenuous link with Sejanus, if it’s not simply total garbage, isn’t Pilate being involved in some imperial power play. You can throw a pebble on any street in the vicinity of a governor’s office, and you’ll hit someone sucking up to Sejanus. I mean, who else should he suck up to? And he’s not going to be sucking up to no one, because who does that? Well, the unemployed, at this time. Was Pilate facing a treason trial? No, I don’t think so. What are you going to do, have treason trials for every employee in the imperial bureaucracy?
And even if he had been, what would the trial and execution of some two-bit messianic troublemaker called Jesus of Nazareth have to do with that? Your take: Oh, it’s all very important and conspiratorial. It’s part of a major development, see. My take, which, frankly, I think is a more sober one: Nothing. Literally nothing. It’s just gas.
Did Pilate’s behavior change after the fall of Sejanus? Well, before it, he was handing out harsh, no-nonsense justice in Judea, right? And after it, he was handing out harsh, no-nonsense justice in Judea. So, I’m fucked if I see it. Did he have some dark night of the soul somewhere in there, where his plan to use Jesus as a vehicle for the destruction of Judaism or something (your link is the most incoherent crapfest I’ve ever read, so apologies if I got that wrong), was thwarted by his sudden realization that oh! no! he had to hand out a death sentence against this self-proclaimed King of the Jews, a man clearly innocent of crimes against Rome, after taking into consideration the minor and very fine point that he was guilty as all get out of crimes against Rome? Since that doesn’t make a lick of sense, I’m going with “no”.
Or at least that’s how I read this from your link:
To “save his own skin”? A few points:
Tiberius didn’t stop existing while Sejanus was around, he was in the bath or on Capri.
Sejanus wouldn’t have tolerated crimes against Tiberius either (with the possible exception of crimes Sejanus himself was committing).
Neither of those guys were consulted on this. Nothing about this affair involves anything above the provincial management level (if that, depending the exact status of Judea). What, do you think Tiberius or Sejanus gave a flying hoot about Jesus of Nazareth, or ever heard his name? This is not an important event in the Roman Empire! Stop trying to drag famous people into it! They’re busy with important things, like plotting and reading pornography!
4: If it’s a “crime against Tiberius himself” (i.e., sedition or treason) then nail him up. What’s the problem? We already did two of these guys today, and they’re getting crucified right next to him, What’s for lunch?
