WHO KILLED JESUS CHRIST?

Well now we know where the KKK got their idea for the hoods.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Week_in_Zamora

Christian myth--Pontius Pilate didn't have the authority to try and execute anyone. Tacitus incorrectly describes him as a procurator, and Christians have seized upon this, and used it to dispute the authority of Pilate to have executed someone. However, in 1961, Israeli archaeologists working at the site of Caesarea Maritima on the coast found an ampitheater with a dedicatory inscription to Pontius Pilate. This proves that he really existed, but it also proves that he was a prefect, not a procurator. (The abbreviation "pr." for his title was used both for procurator and for prefect, which accounts for the error on the part of Tactitus; the distinction is significant because a procurator would have had the authority to try and execute someone, while a prefect did not have that authority.) The "province" of Iudaea (Judea in modern English) was a subdistrict of the senatorial province of Syria. The Imperial Legate in Syria would have had the authority to try and execute someone, and only the Legate would have commanded imperial troops. Pilate might, at the most, have had a few thousand locally recruited auxiliary troops, to keep order, but most importantly to guard the trade routes which had a terminus at Caesarea Maritima on the coast. Jerusalem was not on the trade route, and, in military terms, was insignificant. It always bothers Jewish and Christian historians to acknowledge that Jerusalem was unimportant to the Romans, so they simply don't acknowledge it. Jerusalem was only ever important to the Romans when the Jews resisted the imperial authority in arms, and fortified themselves in the city.

For Pilate to have executed the putative Jesus under Roman law, he (the putative Jesus) would have had to have been accused of an offense against the empire, in which case Pilate would have been obliged to have sent him to the Legate in Syria. In fact, local authorities could have condemned him, and ordered his execution--but that makes the entire Pilate episode irrelevant. In the final analysis, the Pilate episode as cobbled together by the "evangelists," who cannot be shown to have been eye-witnesses to any of the events they describe, only serves to provide an outside observer who says that the putative Jesus is innocent of any crime, who "washes his hands" of the event, and yet still executes him--and is therefore a rather clumsy and obvious literary device.

Pilate may well have gone to Jerusalem for Passover, as this was an important event in Iudaea--but he would have kept his head down, because of the unpopularity of the Roman rule. The notion that he would have appeared before a Jewish crowd to condemn criminals is ludicrous. His mission as prefect was to collect taxes and keep the important trade routes open and free of brigands, it certainly was never to stir up controversy in the native population. In fact, Pilate was recalled in 36 CE for having attacked a Samaritan religious procession, in which he claimed that the participants went armed. He was recalled, however, for having interferred militarily in local matters, which was not in his brief. He disappears from history with his recall, until the Christian writers got busy with him and their uninformed imaginations.

But was not crucifixion a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one, to be used for crimes against the Empire?

If the local authorities executed Christ, assuming the local authorities are the Jews, why use crucifixion?

Leaving aside the lack of evidence that such an individual even existed, how do you know that he was crucified? Your evidence is the same evidence which claims that Pilate ordered his execution--which is to say, no evidence at all. I am rather amused here--do you think i'd reject the claims about Pilate, but unquestioningly accept that an execution by crucifixion took place?

Well I'm inclined to believe Jesus was a real person but not of the importance that the Bible gives him. A minor sect leader not worth mentioning by any of his contemporaries but elevated to a position way beyond his worth. I suspect one could look at Billy the Kid and say the same thing, a minor killer, horse and cow thief elevated to an American icon.

I think there was a real Jesus who, because of his bad temper and intolerant attitude, got himself executed. What others made of this dead Jew for whatever motives they had is far different from what he really was. You might say the earliest Christians were the Ned Buntlines' and P.T. Barnums' of their day. They knew that, when it came to religion, there's a sucker born every minute.

And it's that way today.

Very interesting. Thank you.

Tiberius Caesar, who succeeded Augustus in AD 14, appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea in 26 AD. Pilate arrived and made his official residence in Caesarea Maritima, the Roman capital of Judea. Pilate was the 5th procurator of Judea.

The province of Judea, formerly the kingdom of Archelaus, was formed in 6 AD when Archelaus was exiled and his territory transformed into a Roman province. Although it included Samaria and Idumaea, the new province was known simply as Judea or Judaea. It generally covered the S. half of Palestine, including Samaria. Judea was an imperial province (i.e. under the direct control of the emperor), and was governed by a procurator.

The procurator was devoted to the emperor and directly responsible to him. His primary responsibility was financial. The authority of the Roman procurators varied according to the appointment of the emperor. Pilate was a procurator cum porestate, (possessed civil, military, and criminal jurisdiction). The procurator of Judea was somehow under the authority of the legate of Syria. Usually a procurator had to be of equestrian rank and experienced in military affairs.

Under the rule of a procurator cum porestate like Pontius Pilate, the Jews were allowed as much self-government as possible under imperial authority. The Jewish judicial system was run by the Sanhedrin and court met in the "hall of hewn stone", but if they desired to inflict the death penalty, the sentence had to be given and executed by the Roman procurator.

The main charges brought before Pilate about Jesus were political and not religious. Jesus was accused of being a political threat to Rome and to Caesar's authority.


By Warren Carter
Professor of New Testament
Saint Paul School of Theology
Kansas City


"Pilate's enormous "life and death" power should shape how we read the gospel narratives of Jesus' crucifixion. Pilate is not a neutral or weak or minor character. He is not forced to crucify Jesus by the Jerusalem leaders against his will. He crucifies Jesus because it is in Rome's interests to do so, interests he is charged with protecting and furthering."

Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea for the years 26-37CE.

He was Caesar's representative and, as such, was the greatest authority in the land. He had power over life and death. Thus, in the morning, Christ was brought to him for the final verdict. Pilate interviewed Christ and made his power clear to Him:

"Do you not know that I have power to crucify You and power to release You" (John 19:10).

Afterwards, he shared his obvious conclusion with the chief priests: "I find no fault in him." (Luke 23:4).

Though he was convinced of Christ's innocence, and though he tried to dissuade the priests and the crowd from their aim to have Christ killed, he finally relented to the blood-thirsty religious leaders: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it" (Matthew 27:24). The reason why he surrendered to the will of the angry crowd is given to us in the Gospel of John: "The Jews insisted, we have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God. When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid..."(John 19:7-8).

Clearly Pilate's decision was motivated by the fear of a potential revolt. Therefore, to keep the leaders happy, and to prevent a dangerous rebellion, he relented to their request. Thus, though Pilate had the power to prevent Christ's death, he chose to sacrifice an innocent man to keep the peace. Pilate, therefore, was a willing participant and contributed to Christ's death.

Your thesis suffers from the lamentable error that Pilate was not a procurator. He was a prefect, and did not have the judicial power which your Christian friend alleges--and your Christian friend is a suspect source because he has a stake in perpetuating the fairy tales of the "gospels."

The procurator of Judea was somehow under the authority of the legate of Syria.
(Who had been recalled to Rome and remained there for six years)

Pilate was a procurator cum porestate, (possessed civil, military, and criminal jurisdiction).

Tiberius Caesar, who succeeded Augustus in AD 14, appointed Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea in 26 AD. Pilate arrived and made his official residence in Caesarea Maritima, the Roman capital of Judea. Pilate was the 5th procurator of Judea.

The province of Judea, formerly the kingdom of Archelaus, was formed in 6 AD when Archelaus was exiled and his territory transformed into a Roman province. Although it included Samaria and Idumaea, the new province was known simply as Judea or Judaea. It generally covered the S. half of Palestine, including Samaria. Judea was an imperial province (i.e. under the direct control of the emperor), and was governed by a procurator.

Like all members of the Pontius family, Pilate belonged to this equestrian order. We know that the Pontii originated from a region called Samnium in central Italy, which had a reputation for its stubborn resistance to Roman expansionism. The Pontii could boast of a brilliant victory over the Romans (at the Caudine Forks in 321 BCE), had led several armies against Rome in the first quarter of the first century BCE, and prided itself on its resistance to the coup d'état of Julius Caesar. But in the days of Pontius Pilate, this was just the folklore of a family that was now thoroughly Roman. The family may have upheld its military traditions, especially since the emperor Augustus had done his best to stress the military character of the order of the knights.

We may accept as a fact that Pontius Pilate had started his career as a soldier; after all, 'prefect' was a military title, and the Romans were right to demand at least some military experience before one could become governor of a province.

In the Roman Empire, advancement depended on patronage. There has been some scholarly speculation that Pilate was promoted by the powerful commander of the guard of the emperor Tiberius, a man named Seianus. It may be true and is perhaps even plausible, but we simply cannot know.

Before Pilate assumed the governorship of his province in 26 CE, he must have sought advice. We know one of his advisors: the high priest Joseph Caiaphas. Pilate's predecessor Valerius Gratus (tenure of office: 15-26 CE) had been looking for a high priest he could rely on, and had dismissed three high priests before appointing Caiaphas in 18. (It is tempting to link this appointment to the Jewish embassy that in 17 had appealed to the emperor Tiberius for a reduction in the tribute of Judaea. Was Caiaphas rewarded for his tactful behavior in Rome?) Pilate never changed the high priest, which can only mean that he had found in Caiaphas a man who could be trusted.

Besides, there is positive proof that Pilate embarked upon a policy of cooperation. Since there was no Syrian governor to mint coins, Pilate had to do it himself.

He clearly had the power of a Governor. Part of an old inscription of unknown origin does not change the facts of history.

Unfortunate for Christians, "the facts of history" uniformly do not appear in the gospels. For example, your second passage in the post before your last one alleges that Pilate would have executed the putative Jesus in order to avoid a rebellion.



That author relies upon the one gospel which is not a synoptic gospel as it's authority for that statement. However, in that passage, it is alleged (as it is alleged in the synoptic gospels) that the crowd cried for the blood of the putative Jesus. If this were so, what reason did Pilate have to fear that there would be a rebellion? Does that writer (or do you) suggest that Pilate needed to fear that there would be a rebellion if he did not execute the putative Jesus? Do you really suggest that an imperial official would have reacted to the threat of rebellion with fear--with anything other than crushing military force? If he were worried about rebellion in that matter, and if, as you claim, he stood in the place of the imperial legate of Syria, he could call on the power of at least three legions. The Augustan Legion (and Tiberius succeeded Caesar Augustus, and undertook no reform of military practice) numbered 6,000 men, exclusive of auxiliaries. As prefect of Iudaea, Pilate had also at his disposal at least a few thousand locally levied auxiliaries. In total Pilate could call on at least 20,000 troops, and probably more. Yet you suggest to me that he executed an itinerant rabbi out of fear of a rebellion if he did not.

According to Flavius Josephus, Pilate built an acqueduct to Jerusalem with taxes he had collected, and a crowd gathered in the city to protest his actions. Josephus recounts that Pilate then had some of his soldiers dress in civilian garb, and go into the crowd to attack those who shouted at Pilate and to attack them with clubs. You can read about the event in both Jewish Antiquities and The Jewish War by Josephus. Pilate also intentionally (once again, according to Josephus) insulted the Jews by having the imperial standards brought secretly into Jerusalem so that they could be displayed near the temple. Roman records show that Pilate was eventually recalled (after which he disappears from history) because he ordered his auxiliaries to attack a religious procession of the Samaritans on the pretext that as their regalia included weapons, they were contemplating rebellion. Yet you would have me believe that he feared rebellion, so he had an itinerant rabbi executed at the behest of the mob.

You see, this is why the gospels look like so much bullshit historically. Not only do they make gross errors of historical fact (such as describing Pilate as a procurator, or claiming that Caesar Augustus ever held a census to count people who were not Roman citizens), but they are full of hilarious contradictions and completely implausible claims.

As for the absence of the Legate in Syria, i can find no confirmation of that, so i would be interested to know your source for that claim.

By the way, when Pilate brought the imperial standards into Jerusalem, knowing that this would insult the Jews, and when he built an aqueduct with taxes he had collected from the Jews, and when he had his troops attack a Samaritan religious procession, is that what you call evidence that there is ". . . positive proof that Pilate embarked upon a policy of cooperation?"

While you're floundering around in your Pilate fairy tales, and trying to come up with a source for the absence of the imperial legate in Syria, can you provide me with some evidence, from a source other than the gospels, that there was an eclipse and an earthquake on the eve of the sabbath of Passover in that year?

Set, as always your words are wise, and as such, I will gladly accede to your request. I read about the 'absence of the Legate in Syria', in of all places, a bookshop in Lyons France. However, it was the discussion I had later, which brought the memory to mind. I shall return, when I can make an acceptable ripost.

That's OK, although i suspected your contention. Vitellius became the imperial legate in Syria in 37 CE. If there had been no legate for six years, that means that the legate was recalled or absented himself in about 31 CE. By the calendar currently used, your boy Jeebus was born in 4 BCE, and if executed at age 33, was executed no later than the spring of 30 CE, and probably in 29 CE. Either way, there would have been a legate in Syria at that time--unless you contend that said legate was absent, but returned before being replaced by Vitellius. I have been unable to verify that there was no imperial legate in Syria in 29 or 30 CE. I do not contend that the absence of evidence means that there was a legate there then, only that i know of no reliable source for that.

I researching the coins struck by Pilate, i have found Christian allegations that these coins were minted in 29, 30 and 31 CE. However, at numismatic sites which i have found, it is said that the Greek inscription on the coins only states that the coins were minted under authority of Tiberius Caesar, and in years which correspond to 30 or 31 CE. That leaves us in the misty realm when there was such an hiatus of the Syrian legate, which is not established (yet, i don't deny that you can verify your information and date it).

I would still, however, advance the argument of the improbability of a contention that Pilate, who both before and after the alleged execution of the putative Jesus showed himself to be contemptuous of and willing to injure or insult the Jews, would have suddenly and briefly feared a rebellion if he did not execute an itinerant rabbi, thereafter returning to his vicious ways.

By the way, the reason i would place the date of the alleged execution of the putative Jesus no later than 30 CE, and more likely in 29 CE is that the birth date in December is not at all established, and very pointedly, was a date borrowed from the popular Mithraic cult, at some later date. In fact, after they had executed the King in 1649, the Puritans of the English Parliament refused to adjourn for "Christmas," because they claimed it was only the date of a pagan feast, and they knew of no reason to assume that it actually was the birth date of their Jesus.

Frankly, although i don't insist upon, i'd place the date of the execution, if it actually ever occurred, of the putative Jesus, if he actually ever existed, in 29 CE.

The first is the lack of a Syrian legate for the first six years of Pilate's term of office. Tiberius appointed L. Aelius Lamia to the post but kept him in Rome, presumably trying out a form of centralized government.

This may not have been altogether successful as subsequent legates governed from the Syrian capital, Antioch. (See Tacitus, Annals 1.80, 6.27, 32; Suetonius, Tiberius 63). The implication of this is that for the early part of his governorship Pilate had no legate on hand in Syria on whom he could call in an emergency. Unlike his predecessors, Pilate could not rely on the immediate support of the legions in case of unrest. This would mean that Pilate was more than usually dependent on his auxiliaries and that any potential uprising had to be put down quickly before it could escalate. A second distinctive feature of Pilate's governorship is that, unlike his predecessor Gratus who changed the High Priest four times in his eleven years, Pilate made no change to the incumbent of the High Priesthood. This was presumably not out of any wish to respect Jewish sensitivities but rather because he found in Gratus' last appointee, Caiaphas, a man who could be relied on to support Roman interests and who could command some respect amongst the people.


Literary Sources. Specific events from Pilate's governorship are recorded in the writings of six first century authors - Josephus, Philo and the four Christian evangelists.

Josephus
By far our greatest amount of information comes from the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus who composed his two great works, the Antiquities of the Jews and the Jewish War, towards the end of the first century. Important as Josephus' accounts are, however, they can only be used with a certain amount of caution. Apologetic and rhetorical motives have shaped each narrative to a large extent, particularly his desire to impress on other nations the futility of revolt against Rome, his attempt to stress the antiquity of Judaism, and his endeavour (in the Antiquities) to put some of the blame for the Jewish revolt on the Roman governors of Judaea. (For more information on Josephus' biases see particularly the works of Rajak, Bilde and Cohen below).

In all, Josephus describes four incidents involving Pilate. His earlier work, the Jewish War, describes Pilate's introduction of iconic standards into Jerusalem and his construction of an aqueduct for the city. The Antiquities repeats these two stories (with slightly different emphases) and adds two more - the story of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth and an incident involving Samaritans which eventually led to Pilate's removal from the province.

The Standards (War 2.169-174, Antiq 18.55-59) Josephus accuses Pilate of deliberately bringing standards containing offensive effigies of Caesar into Jerusalem by night. The Antiquities account goes so far as to accuse Pilate of deliberately wanting to subvert Jewish practices. Seeing what had happened, the Jewish people flocked to Caesarea and surrounded Pilate's house for five days, imploring him to remove the standards. When Pilate eventually encircled the people with his troops, they declared that they were willing to die rather than see their ancestral laws contravened. Amazed at their devotion, Pilate had the standards removed.

Josephus has clearly allowed his rhetorical concerns to influence this story, particularly the description of Pilate's deliberate provocation and the people's unflinching devotion to their ancestral religion. Yet it may be possible to piece together something of the historical event behind the narrative.

Due to its position at the beginning of the accounts in both the War and the Antiquities, most scholars assume that this incident took place early on in Pilate's term of office, perhaps as early as winter 26 CE. A squadron could not be separated from its standards; if new standards were brought into Jerusalem that meant that an entirely new squadron was being stationed in Jerusalem, one which had not been used in the city previously. As a military prefect, Pilate's interest would have been in the troops themselves and their strategic positioning; the particular emblems on their standards would not have been particularly important. As a new governor, Pilate may not even have realised that this particular cohort would cause offence in Jerusalem because of its standards. Or, if he had been warned, it might have seemed absurd to him that troops which could be deployed in Caesarea could not be moved to Jerusalem.

The account gives the impression of a new governor anxious to take no nonsense from the people he is to govern. The fact that he was willing to reconsider the position and did eventually change the troops shows a certain amount of prudence and concern to avoid unnecessary hostilities.
The Aqueduct (War 2.175-177, Antiq 18.60-62) Again Josephus accuses Pilate of deliberately attempting to arouse hostilities, this time by using temple money to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem. Matters came to a head during a visit of Pilate to Jerusalem when the people rioted and many were killed.

As with the previous incident, Josephus' bias is evident, particularly in his description of Pilate's motivations. The building of an aqueduct for the city was surely a commendable undertaking, one which would have benefitted the inhabitants enormously. The point of conflict seems to have been around the use of temple money (or corbonas) for the project. Pilate must have had the co-operation (whether voluntary or forced) of Caiaphas and the temple authorities whose duty it was to administer the treasury; if he had taken the money by aggression Josephus would surely have mentioned it. Some light may be thrown on the matter by m.Shek 4.2 which allowed the use of surplus money from the treasury to be used for `all the city's needs'. The dating of this ruling is uncertain but it is possible that a similar allowance was made in the first century.

If so, Pilate's use of surplus money for improving the city's water supply would have presumably been permitted. What may have led to hostilities, however, was if Pilate had begun to demand more than simply the surplus for his building venture. The War's use of the verb exanaliskon in 2.175, whilst perhaps over-exaggerated, may imply that Pilate began to demand ever increasing amounts, draining temple supplies and treating the treasury as his own personal fiscus. The date of this incident is unknown.

The Execution of Jesus of Nazareth (Antiq 18.63-64) This passage, recorded only in the Antiquities, is generally referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars are generally agreed that it has suffered at the hands of later Christian interpreters and that the original wording is now lost. Given the context, the original text probably recorded another disturbance in the time of Pilate, centring on Jesus or his followers after his death. As it now stands, the Testimonium Flavianum adds little to our picture of the historical Pilate. He is shown working closely with the Jewish hierarchy to eliminate a common threat. It may also be significant that he has only the messianic leader executed and not his followers, a fact which may show a dislike for excessive violence. This event is usually dated to either 30 or 33 CE on the basis of astronomical and calendrical information derived from the gospels.

The Samaritan Uprising and Pilate's Return to Rome (Antiq 18.85-89) According to the Antiquities, a messianic figure stirred up the Samaritans to climb Mt Gerizim with him. They assembled in a nearby village carrying weapons and prepared to ascend the mountain. Before they could get very far, however, Pilate had his men block their route and some were killed. Many prisoners were taken and their leaders put to death. Later, the council of the Samaritans complained to Vitellius, the legate of Syria, about Pilate's harsh treatment. Vitellius sent his friend Marcellus to take charge of Judaea and ordered Pilate to Rome. Pilate hurried to Rome but reached the city after Tiberius' death (March 37 CE), suggesting that he was ordered to leave the province in the first few weeks of 37 CE.

In view of the fact that the Samaritans appear to have been armed as they undertook their trek up Mt Gerizim, Pilate's actions do not appear to be unnecessarily severe. Any Roman prefect neglecting to deal with such an uprising would surely have been failing in his duty. As in the previous incident, only the ringleaders were executed.

What happened to Pilate in Rome is unknown. The fact that the new emperor, Gaius, did not reappoint him does not necessarily indicate an unfavourable outcome to his trial. After eleven years in Judaea, Pilate may have accepted another commission.

Philo of Alexandria.
A fifth incident from Pilate's term of office is described in Philo's Legatio ad Gaium, an incident in which Pilate set up gilded shields in Jerusalem (Legatio 299-305). Although written only a few years after Pilate's departure from Judaea, this work is highly polemical in nature. The story is part of a letter, supposedly from Agrippa I to Gaius Caligula, in which the Jewish king attempts to persuade the emperor not to set up his statue in the Jerusalem temple. Philo uses all the drama and rhetoric at his disposal to cast Pilate in a particularly brutal light and to contrast him with the virtuous Tiberius, an emperor who (unlike Gaius) was intent upon preserving the Jewish law.

Pilate is described as corrupt, violent, abusive and cruel (§§ 301, 302). He is accused of intentionally annoying the Jewish people by setting up gilded shields in Herod's palace in Jerusalem. These shields contained no picture but only an inscription stating the name of the dedicator and the name of the person to whom they were dedicated. When the significance of this inscription was widely known, the people chose four Herodian princes to appeal to Pilate on their behalf and ask for the removal of the shields. When Pilate refused, they threatened to send an embassy to Tiberius. According to Philo, this worried Pilate enormously because of the atrocities committed throughout his governorship. The embassy went ahead and Tiberius upheld the Herodian complaints, ordering Pilate to remove the shields to the temple of Augustus at Caesarea.

Although Philo's picture of the ruthless Pilate is obviously over-exaggerated in accordance with his rhetorical aims, there is clearly some basis to the story. The most important starting point for any reconstruction is the shields themselves. Such honorific shields were common in the ancient world; generally they would contain both a portrait and an inscription (Pliny, Natural History 35; Tacitus, Annals 2.83; Res Gestae Divi Augusti 34). Pilate's shields were of this type, but even Philo has to admit that they differed by the fact that they contained no images. This suggests that, rather than deliberately acting against the Jewish law, Pilate took steps to avoid offending the people. Furthermore, they were set up inside the Roman governor's praetorium in Jerusalem, surely the most appropriate place in the city for such shields.

If this event occurred after the commotion caused by the introduction of iconic standards narrated by Josephus, then Pilate's behaviour was both understandable and prudent. He wanted to honour the emperor without antagonising the people. Where he went wrong, however, was in the wording of the inscription. This would have contained both Pilate's name and that of Tiberius. In official inscriptions the emperor was referred to as: Ti. Caesari divi Augusti f. (divi Iuli nepoti) Augusto pontifici Maximo. The reference to the divine Augustus could have been seen as offensive by some Jews, particularly when it was situated in the holy city. That not everyone found this immediately offensive is suggested by Philo's description of the Jewish reaction which is rather oddly put in § 300; it seems to give the impression that the wording of the inscription was generally known before its significance was realised. This reconstruction fits in well with the final part of the story.

If Pilate had set out to be deliberately provocative, it is extraordinary that he would allow an embassy to go to Tiberius and inform the emperor of his atrocities. If, however, the shields were designed to honour the emperor and Pilate had deliberately tried to avoid offence by omitting images, his decision to allow Tiberius to adjudicate makes perfect sense.
The date of this incident is uncertain, but it probably occurred after the incident with the standards.

The Gospels
The trial of Jesus of Nazareth before Pontius Pilate is described in all four gospels (Mt 27.1-26, Mk 15.1-15, Lk 23.1-25 and Jn 18.28-19.16a). Although Matthew and Luke - and quite possibly John - used Mark's version as a source, each of the trial narratives is quite different and reflects the concerns of their own particular early Christian community. Similarly, the portrayal of Pilate in each is significantly different. It is often assumed that Pilate is a ``weak'' character in the gospels in contrast to the ``harsh'' prefect of the Jewish sources. When the gospels are read more closely and in a first century context, however, this generalisation does not hold. In Mark's gospel, Pilate's repeated references to ``the King of the Jews'' and then ``your king'' seem calculated to embitter the crowd who shout all the more for Jesus' execution.

In the same way in John's Gospel, Pilate orders the execution of Jesus only when he has pushed ``the Jews'' into declaring Caesar to be their only king (19.15f). Pilate is weak in Luke's gospel and it is this weakness which allows Jesus' opponents to have their own way. Nevertheless, as a Roman judge, Pilate's three-fold declaration of Jesus' innocence serves an important apologetic point in the two-volume work Luke-Acts. In Matthew's narrative Pilate plays a secondary role, the emphasis is rather on Jesus' Jewish protagonists. Pilate is often referred to not by name but by the rather vague title hegemon, perhaps indicating that for Matthew he is representative of other Roman judges before whom members of his community may be forced to stand trial.

Texts
(taken from the Loeb editions)
War 2.169-174
Pilate, being sent by Tiberius as procurator to Judaea, introduced into Jerusalem by night and under cover the effigies of Caesar which are called standards. This proceeding, when day broke, aroused immense excitement among the Jews; those on the spot were in consternation, considering their laws to have been trampled under foot, as those laws permit no image to be erected in the city; while the indignation of the townspeople stirred the countryfolk, who flocked together in crowds. Hastening after Pilate to Caesarea, the Jews implored him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to uphold the laws of their ancestors. When Pilate refused, they fell prostrate around his house and for five whole days and nights remained motionless in that position. On the ensuing day Pilate took his seat on his tribunal in the great stadium and summoning the multitude, with the apparent intention of answering them, gave the arranged signal to his armed soldiers to surround the Jews.

Finding themselves in a ring of troops, three deep, the Jews were struck dumb at this unexpected sight. Pilate, after threatening to cut them down, if they refused to admit Caesar's images, signalled to the soldiers to draw their swords. Thereupon the Jews, as by concerted action, flung themselves in a body on the ground, extended their necks, and exclaimed that they were ready rather to die than to transgress the law. Overcome with astonishment at such intense religious zeal, Pilate gave orders for the immediate removal of the standards from Jerusalem.

Antiq 18.55-59
Now Pilate, the procurator of Judaea, when he brought his army from Caesarea and removed it to winter quarters in Jerusalem, took a bold step in subversion of the Jewish practices, by introducing into the city the busts of the emperor that were attached to the military standards, for our law forbids the making of images. It was for this reason that the previous procurators, when they entered the city, used standards that had no such ornaments. Pilate was the first to bring the images into Jerusalem and set them up, doing it without the knowledge of the people, for he entered at night.

But when the people discovered it, they went in a throng to Caesarea and for many days entreated him to take away the images. He refused to yield, since to do so would be an outrage to the emperor; however, since they did not cease entreating him, on the sixth day he secretly armed and placed his troops in position, while he himself came to the speaker's stand. This had been constructed in the stadium, which provided concealment for the army that lay in wait.

When the Jews again engaged in supplication, at a pre-arranged signal he surrounded them with his soldiers and threatened to punish them at once with death if they did not put an end to their tumult and return to their own places. But they, casting themselves prostrate and baring their throats, declared that they had gladly welcomed death rather than make bold to transgress the wise provisions of the laws. Pilate, astonished at the strength of their devotion to the laws, straightway removed the images from Jerusalem and brought them back to Caesarea.

War 2.175-177
On a later occasion he provoked a fresh uproar by expending upon the construction of an aqueduct the sacred treasure known as Corbonas; the water was brought from a distance of 400 furlongs. Indignant at this proceeding, the populace formed a ring round the tribunal of Pilate, then on a visit to Jerusalem, and besieged him with angry clamour. He, foreseeing the tumult, had interspersed among the crowd a troop of his soldiers, armed but disguised in civilian dress, with orders not to use their swords, but to beat any rioters with cudgels. He now from his tribunal gave the agreed signal. Large numbers of the Jews perished, some from the blows which they received, others trodden to death by their companions in the ensuing flight. Cowed by the fate of the victims, the multitude was reduced to silence.

Antiq 18.60-62
He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of 200 furlongs. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in. He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers t he prearranged signal. They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faint-heartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising.

Antiq 18.63-64
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Antiq 18.85-89
The Samaritan nation too was not exempt from disturbance. For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, who in an encounter with the firstcomers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.

When the uprising had been quelled, the council of the Samaritans went to Vitellius, a man of consular rank who was governor of Syria, and charged Pilate with the slaughter of the victims. For, they said, it was not as rebels against the Romans but as refugees from the persecution of Pilate that they had met in Tirathana. Vitellius thereupon dispatched Marcellus, one of his friends, to take charge of the administration of Judaea, and ordered Pilate to return to Rome to give the emperor his account of the matters with which he was charged by the Samaritans. And so Pilate, after having spent ten years in Judaea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refuse. But before he reached Rome Tiberius had already passed away.

Legatio 299-305 (Translated by E. M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandini Legatio ad Gaium, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1970)

Pilate was an official who had been appointed procurator of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honouring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honour the dedication was made. But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike. When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted, `Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honour to the Emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy'. This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behaviour, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity.

So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius' firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could. What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself. For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea (the city named Sebaste after your great-grandfather), to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honour of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved.

Later References to Pilate:
Church tradition portrayed Pilate in increasingly favourable terms. In the second century Gospel of Peter, Jesus is condemned not by Pilate but by Herod Antipas. Tertullian asserted that Pilate was a Christian at heart and that he wrote a letter to Tiberius to explain what had happened at Jesus' trial (Apology 21). Eusebius cited a tradition that Pilate had committed suicide in the reign of Gaius Caligula out of remorse for his part in Jesus' condemnation (Hist. Eccl. 2.7.1). The fourth or fifth century Gospel of Nicodemus (which contains the Acts of Pilate), though far from ``Christianising'' Pilate, also depicts the governor as more friendly towards Jesus than any of the canonical gospels. Pilate was canonised by the Coptic and Ethiopic churches.

SOURCES
Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: his Life, his Works and their Importance, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 2, Sheffield Academic Press (1988).
Blinzler, J. `Pilatus, Pontius', LTK 8 (1963), cols 504-5.
Bond, H.K. `The Coins of Pontius Pilate: Part of an Attempt to Provoke the People or to Integrate them into the Empire?', JSJ (1996).
Brandon, S.G.F. Jesus and the Zealots, Manchester University Press, Manchester (1967).
Cohen, S.J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome, E.J. Brill, Leiden (1979).
Davies, P.S. `The Meaning of Philo's Text about the Gilded Shields' JTS 37 (1986), pp 109-114.
Doyle, A.D. `Pilate's Career and the Date of the Crucifixion' JTS 42 (1941), pp 190-193.
Eybers, I.H. `The Roman Administration of Judaea between AD 6 and 41, with special reference to the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate', Theologica Evangelica (1969), pp 131-46.
Fascher, E. `Pilatus, Pontius', PW 20 (1950), cols 1322-1323. Fuks, G. 'Again on the episode of the gilded Roman shields at Jerusalem' HThR 75 (1982), pp 503-7.
Garnsey, P. `The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors', JRS (1968), pp 51-9. _________. and Saller, R. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture, Duckworth, London (1987).
Goodman, M. The Ruling Class of Judaea, CUP, Cambridge (1987).
Hedley, P.L. `Pilate's Arrival in Judaea' JTS 35 (1934), pp 56-7.
Hennig, D. L. Aelius Seianus, C.H. Beck'sche, Munich (1975), pp 160-79.
Hoehner, H. Herod Antipas, SNTS, Monograph Series, CUP (1972).
Holzmeister, U. `Wann war Pilatus Prokurator von Judaea?', Bib 13 (1932), pp 228-32.
Jones, A.H.M. `Procurators and Prefects in the Early Principate', in Studies in Roman Government and Law, Blackwell, Oxford (1960), pp 115-25.
Kraeling, C.H. `The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem', HTR 35 (1942), pp 263-89.
Lémonon, J.P. Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée: textes et monuments, Études bibliques, Gabalda, Paris (1981).
Maier, P.L. `The Episode of the Golden Roman Shields at Jerusalem' HThR 62 (1969), pp 109-21.
McGing, B. `Pontius Pilate and the Sources' CBQ 53 (1991), pp 416-38.
McLaren, J. Power and Politics in Palestine, JSNT Supp Series 63, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield (1991).
Millar, F. The Roman Near East, 31 BC - AD 337. Harvard University Press, London (1993).
Pflaum, H.G. Les Procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire Romain, vols I-III, Adrien Maisonneuve, Paris (1950).
______ Les Carrières Procuratoriennes Équestres sous le Haut-Empire Romaine, Paul Geuthner, Paris (1960), Supplement (1982).
Rajak, T. Josephus: the Historian and his Society, Duckworth, London (1983).
Saller, R.P. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, CUP, Cambridge (1982).
Sandmel, S. `Pilate, Pontius', IDB (1962), vol 3, pp 811-13. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, vol I, T & T Clark Ltd, Edinburgh (1973).
Schwartz, D.R. `Josephus and Philo on Pontius Pilate', The Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983), pp 26-45.
_____ `Pontius Pilate's Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Antiquities, Books 18-20', Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen (1992), pp 182-201.
_____ `Pontius Pilate', ABD (1992), vol 5, pp 395-401.
Sherwin-White, A.N. `Procurator Augusti', PBSR 15, New Series 2, (1939), pp 11-15.
Smallwood, E.M. `The Date of the Dismissal of Pontius Pilate from Judaea', JJS 5 (1954), pp 12-21.
_____ `Some Notes on the Jews under Tiberius', Latomus 15 (1956), pp 314-29.
_____ `High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine', JTS 13 (1962), pp 14-34.
_____ The Jews under Roman Rule: from Pompey to Diocletian, E.J. Brill, Leiden (1976).
Stauffer, E. `Zur Münzprägung und Judenpolitik des Pontius Pilatus', La Nouvelle Clio 1-2 (1949-50), pp 511ff.
_____ Die Pilatusinschrift von Caesarea Maritima, Erlanger Universitätsreden, N.F. 12, Erlangen (1966).
Spiedel, M.P. `The Roman Army in Judaea under the Procurators', in Roman Army Studies, vol 2, Franz Steiner, Stuttgart (1992).
Vardaman, E.J. `A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as Prefect', JBL 81(1962), pp 70-1.
Winter, P. `A Letter from Pontius Pilate' in NT 7 (1964), pp 37-43.
On the Gospels:
Blinzler, J. `Der Prozeß Jesu' (1951); ET: The Trial of Jesus, Mercier Press, Cork (1959).
Brown, R.E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, Doubleday, New York (1994).
Cassidy, R.J. and Scharper, P.J. Political Issues in Luke-Acts, Orbis Books, New York (1983).
Cassidy, R.J. John's Gospel in New Perspective, Orbis Books, New York (1992).
Esler, P.F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology, CUP, Cambridge (1987).
Rensberger, D. Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John, SPCK, London (1989), {First published in the USA by Westminster Press, Philadelphia (1988) as Johannine Faith and Liberating Community}.
Winter, P. On the Trial of Jesus, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin (1961).



I hope that answered some if not all of the points you raised. You are quiet correct in that, Jesus the leader of a small sect, was condemned by the ruling sect who saw him as a threat to their power, but it was Pilate who acquiesced to their demand.


"can you provide me with some evidence, from a source other than the gospels, that there was an eclipse and an earthquake on the eve of the sabbath of Passover in that year?"

Interesting question and one which I have never heard before. I will see if I can find any reference to such an event.

It is only the gospels, and later Christian sources who wish to support the validity of scripture who claim that Pilate executed the putative Jesus. In fact, historical records are mute on the subject of the very existence of this man, let alone his execution, until the Christian sect was well established. Christian sources are suspect precisely because they have a stake in attempting to substantiate a gospel story which is nowhere else supported. The supposed passage in Tacitus about the fire at Rome is almost certainly an interpolation from the 16th century, especially as the passage scans perfectly with the interpolation removed. Even that passage simply notes the existence of such a sect, and does not serve to confirm that the putative Jesus ever existed, or that the execution as described in the gospels took place. There is also the passage in Flavius Josephus which reputable scholars consider an interpolation, not the least of the reasons being that Josephus was a devout Jew and a Pharisee, and would never have described anyone as having been the messiah.

If you wish, i'll be more than happy to track down sources about the claim that the passages in Tacitus and Josephus are interpolations.

Once again, when you look at the passages of Josephus (except for the suspect passage) and the passages in Philo, they show a Pilate for whom it would be completely out of character to have submitted to the will of the mob in such a matter, and who would never would have submitted to the pressure of the High Priest or the Sanhedrin. Futhermore, the Pilate who emerges from Josephus and Philo was a man contemptuous of the Jews, not someone who would have truckled to them.

I find the entire argument unconvincing, and continue to point out that prefects did not have summary judicial powers, and Pilate would at the least been obliged to seek imperial guidance in an allegation of someone fomenting rebellion, without direct evidence that the accused had done so.

The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius

This is found in the Greek Acts of Peter and Paul and as an appendix to the Gospel of Nicodemus in Latin. The translation is from M. R. James as given in Quasten's Patrology, vol. 1, p. 117.

Pontius Pilate unto Claudius, greeting.
There befell of late a matter which I myself brought to light (or, made trial of): for the Jews through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with fearful judgements of their own fault; for whereas their fathers had promises (al. had announced unto them) that their God would send them out of heaven his holy one who should of right be called their king, and did promise that he would send him upon earth by a virgin; he then (or this God of the Hebrews, then) came when I was governor of Judea, and they beheld him enlightening the blind, cleansing lepers, healing the palsied, driving devils out of men, raising the dead, rebuking the winds, walking upon the waves of the sea dry-shod, and doing many other wonders, and all the people of the Jews calling him the Son of God: the chief priests therefore, moved with envy against him, took him and delivered him unto me and brought against him one false accusation after another, saying that he was a sorcerer and did things contrary to law.

But I, believing that these things were so, having scourged him, delivered him unto their will: and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards upon him. But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day: yet so much was the malice of the Jews kindled that they gave money to the soldiers, saying: Say ye that his disciples stole away his body. But they, though they took the money, were not able to keep silence concerning that which had come to pass, for they also have testified that they saw him arisen and that they received money from the Jews. And these things have I reported (unto thy mightiness) for this cause, lest some other should lie unto thee (Lat. lest any lie otherwise) and though shouldest deem right to believe the false tales of the Jews.




Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII

CHAPTER 4.

HOW THE SAMARITANS MADE A TUMULT AND PILATE DESTROYED MANY OF THEM; HOW PILATE WAS ACCUSED AND WHAT THINGS WERE DONE BY VITELLIUS RELATING TO THE JEWS AND THE PARTHIANS.

1. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there (12) So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. 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 accusations of the Jews. So 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.

3. But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover.



Josephus' Antiquities 18.4.2:

"But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. 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 accusations of the Jews. So 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."


The Non-Christian Evidence for the Crucifixion:

Habermas divides the non-Christian evidence for the historical Jesus into six general sources of ancient testimony: ancient historians; government officials; other Jewish sources; other Gentile sources; gnostic sources; and other lost works. Not all of these sources are relevant and so again I will be making a selection rather than dealing with every one of Habermas' points. Of the ancient historians, I will discuss Tacitus and Josephus; of the other Jewish sources, the Talmud and Tol'doth Jeshu; of the relevant other Gentile sources, Lucian and Mara Bar-Serapion; of the relevant other lost works, Phlegon.

Habermas is confident that the evidence provided by these authors and writings sufficiently establishes the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus in first century Palestine. If this is the case, it would follow that the Mythicist would have to seriously consider adopting a new explanation of the evidence for the resurrection.

The Annals of Tacitus (ca. AD 55-120) is a history written around AD 115, covering the period from Augustus' death (AD 14) to the death of Nero (AD 68). In one of its passages, Tacitus mentions "Christus":
Christus, from whom the name ["Christians"] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular (p.188; citing Tacitus, 15.44)

From the Jewish historian Josephus (ca. AD 37, 38-97), Habermas finds evidence in the Antiquities, noting that this source is earlier in composition than Tacitus' Annals, dating from around AD 90-95. Josephus' writings contain two references to Jesus: the second and longer of these is known as Testimonium Flavianum and mentions the crucifixion:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly.

He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared (Wells 1991, p.143; citing Loeb Classical Library, Antiquities 18:3).(29)

While Habermas admits that Christian interpolation is responsible for some of this passage, he thinks there are good reasons to consider most of the text genuinely Josephan. First, he thinks there is no textual evidence against the passage, and "there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus" (p.193). Second, "leading scholars on the works of Josephus" have judged this portion of Antiquities to be written in the style of Josephus (ibid). Thirdly, in 1972 Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem released a study on an Arabic manuscript containing a shorter version of the passage; the wording of this Arabic version is different from the traditional text of Testimonium Flavianum and its content is much more plausibly attributed to a Pharisee like Josephus.

It reads as follows:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders (Charlesworth, p.95).

Habermas thinks that none of the reasons for rejecting the authenticity of the traditional passage apply to this Arabic text: he agrees with the author of Jesus Within Judaism -- James Charlesworth -- concerning this Arabic manuscript, whom he cites as saying, "We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus" (p.195; citing Charlesworth, p.96). From this evidence, Habermas insists that there are good reasons to only modify "questionable words" in the passage (ie. words suspected of Christian modification or interpolation) and attribute the gist of the passage to Josephus. Habermas notes there is nothing prima facie unusual about this text originating from Josephus as he would simply have been repeating what was considered "common knowledge" in his day, i.e. AD 90s (p.196).


There we have it; admission from Pilate, which answers the original question of this thread. As for the date of the execution; that must have been close to his recall to Rome and the rule of Claudius.

First, Pilate was recalled in 36 CE, so if you call seven years close to the date when he is recalled, perhaps you are correct. However, no date later than 29 CE is plausible for the alleged execution.

As for the "confession," i already pointed out that scriptural sources are suspect, not only because they were written so long after the events by those who were not eye-witnesses, but because they have a stake in perpetuating a belief in events as they are described in the gospels, without regard to whether or not there actually is reliable historical evidence that the events took place, or took place as described.

For your non-christian sources, i've already alluded to them, and i don't have the time right now, but if you like, i'll be more than happy to come back later to post links to discussions of the christian interpolations by reputable scholars. For example, you have pasted a reference to the passage in Tacitus. There are several problems with it, even if it is genuine, which is unlikely. One objection is that it has tacitus referring to Christians and Christ at a time when even the members of the cult did not refer to themselves as Christians, and when the Greek term Christos was not yet adopted. The second objection is that even the badly managed christian insertion of the interpolation doesn't confirm that your boy Jeebus ever existed, only that there was such a cult. Finally, it provides absolutely no evidence about an alleged execution or any part which Pilate may have had in it.

If you want to keep going down this road, you could save me a lot of trouble by just doing the searches yourself. Search for "Tacitus+interpolation," search for "Josephus+interpolation," etc. None of what you have presented is convincing, because these are christian sources, or references to what reputable scholars consider to be later christian interpolations in non-christian sources. And the non-christian sources to which you refer don't support the Pilate/execution story.

Oh well-- we had better forget it then. Setanta is an authority on these matters. He read it in an impressive book.