Pilate’s Reticence
Pilate’s Reticence
The Romans usually allowed internal religious matters to be handled by Jewish courts,202 hence Pilate’s reticence to accept the case at first (Jn 18:31a), so long as no capital charge is offered, makes sense on legal grounds. But what is known of Pilate’s personality and the situation’s political demands has raised questions about this scenario.
The narrative portrays those who brought the charge as quite insistent that Jesus be executed, and this behavior is hardly surprising given the situation portrayed. What is instead striking is Pilate’s reticence to pronounce sentence; if no Roman citizens were involved, one might expect most governors to act quickly at the local aristocracy’s request.203 The Gospels show that Pilate did indeed act fairly quickly, but they also report his reluctance to do so.
Thus some scholars question whether the Pilate of the Gospels is “in character” with the Pilate known to us from other sources.204 Pilate executed people without trial; it was excessive use of capital punishment that ultimately cost him his office.205 His earlier plundering of the temple treasury to support an aqueduct206 and particularly his recent issue of coins bearing an insignia of the divine emperor207 blatantly demonstrated his insensitivity to local Jewish concerns. (Pilate was an ethnocentric colonialist governor, but his injustice is quite believable in view of even harsher cases of provincial exploitation and maladministration.) 208 From what Philo and especially Josephus show us of Pilate’s character, any reticence to accept the local leaders’ recommendation would be more out of spite for them than out of concern for justice.209
Yet this reticence may not be unhistorical.210 As corrupt as the later governor Albinus was, he dismissed Joshua ben Hananiah from further punishment (after a scourging reportedly bared his bones) once he took him to be insane, hence harmless.211 The Gospels do have important apologetic reasons for emphasizing Pilate’s reticence,212 but Pilate may have had good reason for political concern if he erred in judgment.213 Philo notes the anti-Jewishness of Pilate’s patron, Sejanus.214 If Sejanus was executed on October 19, 31 CE,215 it is not impossible (though not extremely likely) that some premonitions of his impending weakness might have been felt a year and a half earlier at the likely time of Jesus’ trial near Passover of 30 CE.216 If one dates the crucifixion to 33 CE, the second most accepted date, Pilate’s position had certainly become much less secure.
More clearly Pilate, like most provincial officials,217 was probably politically ambitious, hence would not unnecessarily and deliberately generate bad reports about himself.218 In contrast with many of his peers in office, being only an equestrian left him especially vulnerable apart from Sejanus’ patronage.219 More to the point, Pilate had already incurred the hatred of the Jewish people,220 and on some other occasions had backed down to pacify them,221 especially if threatened with appeal to the emperor.222 Thus Pilate was not only cruel but, like many bullies, fearful of exposure to those in authority over him.223
If anything, this situation might require Pilate in time to become more rather than less cooperative with the more powerful of his subjects (cf. Jn 19:12- 13); to fail to prosecute a potential revolutionary, accused by the leaders of his own people, could lay Pilate himself open to the charge of maiestas.224 Even the suspicion of treason could be fatal under the current emperor Tiberius,225 and despite Sejanus’ patronage he likely would not risk it. Further, although Jesus may have proved politically innocuous,226 cooperation with the local aristocracy would be more politically advantageous than concern for this non-Roman provincial; that Pilate survived as governor until 36 CE,227 long after his patron’s demise, suggests that he had belatedly acquired some political savvy. Even a better governor might have executed a non-citizen potential troublemaker with minimal evidence, especially under pressure from local leaders.228 This was, after all, the provinces, not Rome.
In any case, the hearing before Pilate is brief, and the execution swift (a few hours later).