Pontius Pilate

lighthouse19something

We I read about Jesus' trail, it appears he had more compassion than the Jews. Jesus practicly told he powerless in the matter, that's when Pilate washed his hands and disavowed responabilty for Jesus' death. A clergyman said he had read that Pilate later became a Christian. What are your views.

ozziepost

A clergyman said he had read that later became a Christian

People will believe anything.

Abandoned

Someone wise once said, "People will believe anything."

Narkissos

In the canonical Gospels, especially in the Roman-friendly Luke or in John, Pilatus is not a bad character indeed. The blame is put on the "Jews". This is even more obvious in the Gospel of Peter which discharges him from any guilt (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html). In later tradition Pilatus is often seen as a bad character in the West and a good one in the East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate).

Kaput

Except for the writings of Josephus, there is scant secular information about Pilate. Interestingly, Pilate is considered a saint in the Coptic and Ethiopian churches because of his alleged conversion to Christianity. Read Pontius Pilate -- The Biography of an Invented Man by Ann Wroe.

Leolaia

The Markan passion narrative is quite contrived in portraying Pilate as "reluctantly" going along with the Jews in putting Jesus to death....it is far more likely that the real Pilate would have summarily dispatched any perceived troublemakers without much of any problem, that at least is how Pilate appears in Josephus. Probing beneath the surface of the present pro-Roman passion narrative (note also that Mark's audience was Gentile, and specifically Roman, not Jewish), we see that Jesus was convicted of calling himself "King of the Jews," i.e. sedition, and this fits well with the type of punishment that he received (crucifixion was especially reserved for rebels). That is to say, Jesus was found guilty by the Romans of an offence the Romans cared about. The passion narrative however has Jesus tried by the Jewish religious leaders, and then Pilate submits to the wishes of a mob tho he recognized Jesus' innocence. The declaration of the mob ("his blood be on us and on our children," a mainstay of later antisemitic discourse) places the guilt on the Jews, and Pilate absolves himself of any guilt by washing his hands of the man's blood. Although the Romans were the ones who actually were responsible for Jesus' execution, this portrayal lets them off the hook. The scene is actually based on an exegesis of Deuteronomy 21:1-9 and Psalm 26:5-6 (in fact there is verbatim agreement in the phrasing in some parts). There a heifer is given in an expiatory sacrifice to absolve bloodguilt, and the "council of elders" are supposed to wash their hands with water and then declare: "Our hands did not shed this blood, and our eyes have not seen ... set not innocent blood among your people Israel". In the case of Jesus, he is himself "innocent blood," Pilate washes his hands and makes his declaration of being innocent of Jesus' execution, while the elders and others in the mob take the bloodguilt on themselves, "His blood be on us and on our children," i.e. setting the bloodguilt in Israel.

A Paduan

I would not be at all suprised at a reluctance to go along with nasty fundamentalist whack jobs, regardless of his other "dispatches" of people.

Pilate declared "I'm innocent" but still went along with it - kind of like door to door jws who don't even believe it but have their own needs and agenda to satisfy which they deem more important than the innocent who are affected by their complicity.

------------------------------------------

Don't look at me - I was only holding the ladder.