(Gospel of John 19:17 - 19:43)
Bearing the cross himself, Jesus went out of the city to a hill called the Place of the Skull (or Golgotha, in Hebrew). There the soldiers nailed him to the cross. Two others were crucified with him; they were placed on either side, with Jesus between them. Pilate had posted on the cross an inscription that read, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans." Many people were able to read the inscription because it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek and the location where Jesus was crucified was just outside the city. The chief priests, though, complained to Pilate, "Don’t write ‘King of the Judeans,’ but instead, ‘He who claims to be King of the Judeans’.” But Pilate dismissed their objections. "What I have written, I have written,” he told them.
As soon as the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they helped themselves to his clothes, dividing them evenly between the four of them. Remaining was the undergarment, the tunic. This article was woven from top to bottom and, therefore, had no seam. "Let's not tear it," they decided. "Let's draw lots to see who gets it." And that's what the soldiers did, fulfilling a prophecy that said, "They divided my garments among them and drew lots for my clothing.”
Standing near the cross were Jesus' mother, Mary, her sister-in-law, Mary, who was the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother there with a disciple he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Madam, here is your son!” And to the disciple he said, “Here is your mother." And from that time the disciple would shelter her in his own home.
Shortly after, Jesus, knowing that all had now come to fruition said, in fulfillment of prophecy, "I'm thirsty!" A jar of vinegar was there, and so the soldiers soaked a sponge in the vinegar. They attached the sponge to the end of a hyssop branch and conveyed it to his mouth. After tasting it, Jesus proclaimed, "It is finished!" He bowed his head and expired.
As it was the day of Preparation of the Passover and the following day was to be a special holiday, the religious authorities did not want any bodies left on the crosses. They requested of Pilate that the crucified men have their legs broken and removed from the crosses. The soldiers thus came and broke the legs of one of the men who were crucified with Jesus, and then the other, but when they came to Jesus, they found that he had already died; therefore they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, causing a spurting of blood and water. (An eye witness testified to this factual event. He insists that he speaks the truth, so you can believe him.) These things occurred in fulfillment of Scriptures that prophesied, "None of his bones will be broken," and "They will gaze upon the one that has been pierced."
After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was only a secret follower of Jesus because he feared the religious authorities, asked Pilate if he could take custody of the body of Jesus. With Pilate's permission he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who had visited Jesus by night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, a quantity weighing 100 litras. According to the burial customs of the Judeans, the body was wrapped in linen sheets soaked in spices. Near the place where Jesus had been crucified was a park and in it a new tomb in which no one had been interred. Since it was the day of Preparation before the Hebrew Passover and since the tomb was so near, they laid Jesus to rest there.
Notes
1. Golgotha, or the Place of the Skull, was just outside the Jerusalem city gates. Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, identified in 325 AD what has become the traditional location of Golgotha (or Calvary). Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre there; it is the Christian Quarter of the Old City. Alternative sites have been proposed, including one, on Skull Hill, north of the Damascus Gate, that was famously endorsed by the famous British General Charles George "Chinese" Gordon during his travels in Palestine in 1882, a few years before his death at Khartoum. (Gordon, an evangelical Christian and a believer in reincarnation, also asserted that the earth was enclosed in a hollow sphere with Heaven above Jerusalem and Hell above the Pitcairn Islands and that Eden was on the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean.)
2. That Jesus carried his own cross is scarcely possible. The stake and crossbar would have comprised a very serious piece of timber perhaps weighing as much as 300 pounds. Even a man of Herculean physique would find it a bit dicey carrying such a load especially after being whipped nearly to death. Stakes were usually permanently installed in the place of execution. It seems more likely that Jesus was forced to carry on his back just the crossbar, which would still weigh a 100 pounds or so. Jesus was nailed to the crossbar when he reached the site of execution. (The iron nails would eventually be removed and reused.) Then he was either hoisted to the top of the stake, or, more likely, the stake was lowered and with the crossbar attached, raised into position and secured. Best evidence suggests that the cross would have resembled a capital letter “T,” although it is not certain that the crossbar was, in fact, secured at the top of the stake. If his feet were secured, nailed or tied, or allowed to support the body with a shelf to stand on, it is possible that the nails were hammered through his hands. If not, the nails would have had to go through his wrists. The exact technique used can not be definitively determined; there were several variations on the crucifixion procedure. Victims were generally stripped naked and a man was lucky if his privates were not impaled. It was all intended to be the most excruciatingly painful, cruel, and undignified death possible. Romans reserved it mostly for slaves and rebels, and no free Roman citizen could be crucified. (That is why Paul, a Roman citizen, escaped crucifixion.) Enlightened Romans, such a Cicero, who lived a century before Jesus, deplored its barbarity and many advocated its abolition.
3. It seems credible that the soldiers might confiscate and keep for themselves the clothes of condemned criminals, but why would they want a sweaty, bloody, probably ragged tunic, the underwear of someone who was a non-Roman provincial and, in their eyes, either a criminal or a religious fanatic? Or did rags fetch so a high price on the market that Roman soldiers, who were fairly well paid, would fight over them? It is ambiguous whether lots were drawn for the clothes or if dice were thrown for them. Although dice have been around for thousands of years and comprised a popular form of gambling during the Roman Empire, their use was in fact illegal except during the Saturnalia. It seems plausible that the soldiers, rather than risk drawing the ire of their officer for what would be an infraction, would have simply drawn lots rather than using dice. (Short stick gets the dead guy's underwear!)
4. Present at the crucifixion are Jesus's mother, Mary, another Mary who was probably her sister-in-law or possibly her cousin and not her sister as most translations say. This Mary was probably also the wife of Clopas (Joseph's brother?), although this Mary and Clopas' wife could have been different people. The third (or fourth) woman there was Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalene), a devout follower referred to intriguingly in other gospels. She was probably from a place called Magdala, meaning "tower," although its location is not positively known. It is possible, though, that the term Magdalene could have another meaning. (It should be mentioned that this Mary is definitely not the repentant prostitute, as she has been popularly and incorrectly portrayed.) There is also present an unnamed disciple that Jesus loved. (I thought Jesus loved all his disciples.) This unnamed disciple would take Jesus' mother into his home and treat her as his own mother. Jesus apparently has no money or property to leave her, so she is reduced to having to stay with a stranger. But this is a noble gesture on Jesus’ part surely, seeing that his mother will be provided for while he is enduring a painful death on the cross. Note that when Jesus says to Mary, “Here is your son,” he is not referring to himself, but to the disciple -- who is probably meant to be John, the purported author of this gospel.
5. The two men who were crucified with Jesus are not here named. Traditionally they are thieves, career criminals, or rebels. The highly questionable 4th Century Gospel of Nicodemus identifies them as Dismas and Gestas, but it seems unlikely that their names would only be remembered centuries after the event.
6. The crucified man would endure a process of acute suffering that might take hours, or even days. Breaking the legs of the person being crucified would make him unable to support the body otherwise held up only by the nailed wrists or hands. He would then become unable to breathe and would soon die by asphyxiation. Jesus had already died, but, to make sure, a soldier throws a spear at him, piercing his side. That blood and water spurt out of the wound is, of course, miraculous and symbolic, the blood conveying atonement and the water, purification.
7. The soldier who threw the spear is unnamed in the John, but in Nicodemus he is identified as Longinus, a centurion who converted to Christianity and became a saint. Much was subsequently written of him, but he must be regarded as a strictly legendary personage. The Spear of Longinus, also known as the Holy Lance, or the Spear of Destiny, mentioned only in John, is a relic with much lore attached to it. Several candidates for the original have been revered. One, held for a thousand years in Nuremberg and Vienna, has been the center of several fascinating conspiracy theories involving the Nazis. Recent tests, though, have proven that the spear is a phony, old, but not nearly old enough to be the spear.
8. Practically every incident during the crucifixion occurs in order to fulfill some prophecy, or is it that the story is adjusted to make the prophecies seem to come true? Belief that Jesus is the Messiah partly hinges on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so the narrative, as propaganda, emphasizes this.
9. Joseph of Arimathea, who is presumed to be a wealthy man, claims the body. He is simply identified as a secret follower of Jesus and a friend of another, Nicodemus, but a huge amount of mythic material has been attached to him -- connections to the Holy Grail, his introduction of Christianity to England, his tutoring of Jesus as a boy, and so forth. Joseph is thought by some to be the uncle of Jesus, but the author of John obviously did not think so.
10. Those crucified were usually left to rot on the cross. It would have been very unusual for one to be taken down and given a proper burial. Pilate was, according to the narrative, available to grant Joseph of Arimathea permission to do just that. Good thing, for the resurrection story would have otherwise been more complicated. It is generally assumed that the tomb granted Jesus belonged to this Joseph, but John does not say so, only that the tomb happened to be handy and Joseph purchased it. The burial was hastily arranged, and there doesn’t seem to be anything like funeral held.
11. The myrrh and aloes brought by Nicodemus for the preparation of the body weighed 100 litras, about 75 pounds (some say 100 pounds). The quantity is preposterous. One might drolly question whether Jesus could even rise from his tomb weighed down by strips of spice-soaked linen strips weighing so much. And how did all this stuff cost? Did Nicodemus have a couple slaves to carry it for him? At any rate, it would all be wasted, for Jesus’ body would not need to be perfumed.
12. Most translations say that the tomb was located in a “garden.” I have used the word “park.” In modern usage a garden is commonly a plot of ground where flowers or vegetable are grown. A park is a large area of greenery and that is what is obviously meant here.
Showing posts with label Pontius Pilate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pontius Pilate. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Jesus Appears Before Pilate
(Gospel of John 18:28 - 19:16)
It was early in the morning when Jesus was taken from Caiaphas to the headquarters of the Roman governor of Judea. Those who brought Jesus did not enter the palace, since that would have made them ritually impure and ineligible to participate in the upcoming Passover celebrations. Consequently Pontius Pilate, the governor, went out outside to see them. "What charge are you bringing against this man," he asked them.
"We wouldn't have delivered him to you if he were not a felon," they insisted.
"Well then, take charge of him yourselves and try him by your own laws," Pilate told them.
"But we are not permitted to execute anyone," they declared. (This occurred in order to fulfill what Jesus had prophesied about the manner of his death.)
Pilate went back into his headquarters and summoned Jesus there to question him.
"Are you the king of the Judeans?" he asked him.
"Is that your own question or did others tell you about me?" replied Jesus.
"Am I a Judean?" Pilate rejoined. "Look, your own people, your own religious leaders delivered you to me. What is it that you've done?"
Jesus' answer was: "My kingdom is not a kingdom of this world. If it were, my followers would have fought to prevent my arrest by the Judean authorities. But no, my kingdom is not of the here and now."
"So, you are a king?" Pilate challenged.
"You say that I'm a king. But the reason I was born, the reason I was brought into the world is this: to give voice to the truth. All who love the truth credit my words."
Pilate rejoined, "What is the truth?”
Pilate immediately went out to see the Judeans again and told them, "I find no grounds for charging this man. --- But I understand it is your custom to have me release one prisoner to you during the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release this ‘King of the Judeans’?”
But they all shouted back, "No, not this man. Give us Barabbas instead!" (The Barabbas they referred to was an insurgent.)
And so Pilate had Jesus scourged with a whip. Soldiers fashioned a crown of twisted thorn branches and forced it upon his head. They wrapped a purple robe around him. They repeatedly accosted him, crying, "Hail, the King of the Judeans!" and slapping his face.
Pilate went out again to see the Judeans who had brought Jesus to him and told them, “I am bringing him out to you, so you will see I find no grounds for charging this man.” When Jesus appeared wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate declared, “Behold, the man himself!"
When they saw him, the chief priests and the Temple guards began to yell, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
Pilate told them, "You take him and crucify him. I have no case against him."
The religious leaders explained, “We have our law, and according to that law he must be put to death, because he proclaimed himself to be the Son of God."
When Pilate heard this, he was more alarmed than ever and reentered his palace to questioned Jesus. "Where do you come from?" But Jesus made no response. "Why do you refuse to speak? Don't you realize that I have the power to free you and also the power to crucify you."
Jesus responded, "You would have no power over me except that given to you from above. Therefore, those that handed me over to you are guilty of the greater sin."
From then on, Pilate endeavored to have Jesus released, but the Judean religious leaders chided him, "If you let this man go, you are no ally of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king can only be an enemy to the Emperor."
After they said this, Pilate brought out Jesus to them. Pilate installed himself on a judgment seat called the Stone Pavement (or, in Hebrew, Gabbatha). It was now noon on the day of the Preparation of the Passover. "Behold your king!" he told them.
"Away with Him! Away with him! Crucify him!" they cried.
Pilate asked, "What, crucify your king?"
"We have no king but Caesar!" the chief priests professed.
And so Pilate turned Jesus over to those who would crucify him, and they led Jesus away.
Notes
1. Nothing is said here at all of Jesus' interview with the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he saw after Annas and before Pilate. It is early morning when he is taken to Pilate and noon by the time Pilate delivers Jesus to the Judean religious authorities to be crucified. The Roman governor spent all morning dealing with Jesus, yet the proceedings recounted here would not seem to have taken up much time. One wonders what more was said and done. The flogging might have been a long session and perhaps there may have been several hours from the time was Jesus was sent out to be flogged until Pilate reappeared before the Judean priests and told them a second time he had no criminal case against Jesus.
2. Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman province of Judaea from 26 - 36 AD. Judaea incorporated Judea, Samaria to the north and Idumea to the south, with Jesus' Galilee a separate province. Pilate was of equestrian (and not senatorial) rank. An obscure political figure, little is known of him, although there is much apocryphal biographical material in early Christian texts, as well as much speculation about the degree to which he was guilty of Christ's crucifixion. He was probably born in Italy, but there are legends that variously place his origins in Scotland, Germany, or Spain. Officially, he held the title of prefect, not the lesser title of procurator, as was once thought. His chief duties were to collect taxes and to preserve order while leaving most of the civil administration to local, indigenous institutions. He was in charge of only a small military force of about 3000 men and was answerable to the governor, or legate of Syria, who commanded the major military forces in the region. According the contemporary historian, Philo of Alexandria, he antagonized his subjects by showing insufficient respect for their religious practices and was recalled after harshly suppressing a revolt by the Samaritans. He is briefly mentioned as well by later First-Century historians, the Roman Tacitus and the Judean Josephus. But firm confirmation of his historicity awaited the discovery in 1961 of an inscribed piece of limestone called the Pilate Stone, which mentions his name in the dedication of an early First-Century building in Caesarea Maritima (on the coast, located midway between present-day Haifa and Tel Aviv).
3. The soldiers make a crown of thorns for Jesus to make him a mock king. One would imagine, the thorns, digging into his head, would have been very painful, satisfying the soldiers penchant for cruelty -- making their prisoner suffer pain as well as degradation, adding injury to insult. The purple robe, symbolizing royalty, would have been red-violet in color, not what contemporary Americans generally regard as purple (half-way in hue between red and blue, or even on the blueish side). Scarlet is used in other gospels to describe the robe, but it is likely that the same red-violet color is meant. The Roman senators edged their white robes in purple to denote their class. And the term "born to the purple" is still used -- once in awhile at least. (In ancient times this color was produced by a prized color-fast dye extracted from the murex sea snail.) It is curious that the Roman soldiers, who had no personal interest in the matter or could have had no particular animosity against Jesus, would have gone to so much trouble to mock him. Why waste a purple robe on a criminal? Was there a closet of worn and discarded royal robes handy to use for making fun of prisoners? And the crown of thorns, did they have one on hand, ready for such a purpose? Were there a lot of thorny plants growing around the palace, or did the centurion send out a detail to gather thorn branches? Did he charge one of his men, owning a pair of heavy gloves, to fashion the crown described? (Since a crown suggests something more than just a band, some time and know-how must have needed to make it.)
4. The scourging or flagellation of the Christ is an important part of the Passion drama. (But why did Pilate have Jesus whipped when he was already convinced that Jesus had violated no law, wanted to set him free, and was ready to pardon him?) Flogging was, in fact, not peculiar to the treatment of Jesus, but a mandatory part of the crucifixion execution protocol. The whip used was short handled and sported two or three long leather thongs to which lead balls or bones were fastened. The person struck not only was lacerated by the thongs, but was bruised by the balls or bones. The victim was tied to a post and while his back took the brunt of the flogging most of his body, except perhaps the hands and forearms, would be cut by the whip. This pre-crucifixion ordeal would consist of at least hundred lashes, often many more, depending on not how long the victim could endure it, but on how long the scourger could keep up his strength. (A scourgee would be out of luck if the scourgers worked in shifts, as they sometimes did.) There was no maximum number of lashes that could be administered. The flogging, if it did not actually kill the convicted man, would ensure he would be at least half dead even before he was nailed to the cross. This was, in a way, a small mercy, since the poor chap would consequently suffer less in the prolonged agony of crucifixion. --- The modern notion is that executions should be quick and painless, impersonal, even clinical. But to the ancient way of thinking that would defeat the whole purpose of the thing, which was punishment through suffering. Today, (in the few backward, barbaric places where the death penalty is still in force) the soul marked for execution is given a comparatively painless release, but must endure a lengthy trial, protracted legal appeals, and the purgatory of a decade-long incarceration on death row. The ancients eschewed such subtle psychological torment in favor of physical torture, earthy, raw, and real. A death sentence meant something in those days -- excruciating pain.
5. Pontius Pilate is portrayed inconsistently and unbelievably -- sympathetic to Jesus, mocking Jesus, afraid that Jesus might be divine, dismissive of the priests, catering to the priests. He is courteous enough to go out of his palace to see the Judean religious leaders who did not wish to enter it because by doing so it would make them ritually impure. Pilate seems diplomatic, tactful, and gracious. They are obviously pestering him, wanting him to deal with a matter he believes is either outside his authority or too trivial for him to waste his time with. But he accedes to their wishes. He takes the trouble to interrogate Jesus, twice. He fails to see that Jesus has committed any crime and tries his best to convince the Judean priests to let him go free. But since Jesus is being charged with blasphemy, a religious violation and a capital offense, and the Romans have allowed the Judeans to freely practice their faith and enforce their religious customs as they see fit, Pilate concludes it is not his right to interfere. If they want Jesus crucified, he will not stop them, especially when he is convinced by the Judean priests that it is in Rome's interest that he do so. --- Pilate seems to have an ambivalent attitude toward Jesus. He addresses him politely, seems favorably impressed with him, and is more than willing to help him. Jesus, though, is unconcerned about saving himself. He is surly to Pilate, disrespectful, and unappreciative of the consideration the governor lends him. Pilate is baffled by this and put off. In the end he probably comes to view Jesus as a harmless crank who unfortunately must come to a tragic end. While there is a case to made from his remarks and reactions that he suspects that Jesus might really be the Son of God, it is unlikely that a pagan and a Roman would come to that conclusion, especially after so brief and unrevealing an interview. He is surely in jest when referring to Jesus as "King of the Judeans" (not Jews: the term is a misnomer, anachronistic, and without meaning in the 1st Century.) By bringing out Jesus with his crown of thrones and purple robe, he continues the taunting and mockery begun by his soldiers. That he would allow and even participate in such contemptibly barbaric and extra-legal treatment of a prisoner, though, strains credibility; it is very unlikely that a Roman governor would stoop to such behavior (or bother to stoop to it). In the end, Pilate’s character is molded to suit the demands of the narrative, his role in the Passion Play. That the author of John, writing more than a hundred years after the fact, would accurately divine Pilate’s character and motivations is a bit much to expect.
6. Barabbas is sometimes termed a bandit, but rebel, revolutionary, malcontent, insurgent would be more accurate a translation. (Nothing is really known of the man, even whether he existed or not.) The custom of a prisoner release on the Passover is referred to nowhere outside the gospels. It is quite obviously a dramatic invention, the purpose of which is show the temper of the Judean religious authorities and populace who preferred to save the life of some unsavory, violent person rather than the Son of God. It is inconceivable that the Roman governor would have subscribed to such a practice, especially Pilate who was probably fed up having to cater to Judaic traditions -- even if such a tradition existed, which it did not. Roman law and its administration may have been harsh, but it was not whimsical. Everything was done by the book, even crucifixions. Also, it is not credible that the Roman governor would have appeared before a group of Judeans and solicited their input on his actions. That would have been demeaning to his position. Pilate probably had little to do with and wanted to have little to do with the high priest and the Sanhedrin, the religious council. The high priest, Caiaphas, had been approved by him, but had been originally appointed by Pilate's superior in Syria. Roman rule of Judea was at this time very low key: the Empire simply wanted its tax money and an absence of civil discord. Pilate would have spent most of time in his administrative capital, Caesarea Maritima, although it is possible he might have been in Jerusalem during the Passover to ensure there was no disorder during the celebrations.
7. Jesus claims the purpose of his life is to bring the truth to the world. Pilate asks what is the truth. When he does so he is not posing some profound, philosophical enquiry. He is not asking what the truth means, simply what Jesus' truth consists of, that is, what is his message. He does not wait for a response, though, probably fearing his ear will be bent by the rant of a fanatic.
8. The author of John records dialogue between Jesus and Pilate that could be known only to the two men. Did someone conduct a post-crucifixion interview of Pilate in which he revealed what he and Jesus talked about? Jesus could not have told his disciples, or anyone else what he said to Pilate, unless he did so after his death. If divine inspiration was the source for the content of their conversations, then why do the gospels disagree and contradict each other? In historical novels the author must invent dialogue for his characters. Is this not being done here?
9. Given the situation and his position, Pontius Pilate could hardly act differently than he did, nor, in truth, could the Judaic priests, since they could not jeopardize their position by leaving unpunished a blasphemer and false prophet, especially one who made the claim that he was the Son of God. The narrative, though, throws most of the guilt upon the Judean, Judaic religious establishment who condemned Jesus. By the time the gospels were written, decades after the death of Jesus, Christianity was emerging as a universal religion and was no longer a sect of Judaism. Gentile converts were many and were entering leadership positions in what would be the Christian Church. It was, therefore, important to separate Christianity from conventional Judaism and to cast as villains those who had rejected Jesus and adhered to conventional Judaic beliefs. "The Jews killed Jesus" would be a propaganda myth that would weigh upon a race and a religion like a curse for two thousand years.
It was early in the morning when Jesus was taken from Caiaphas to the headquarters of the Roman governor of Judea. Those who brought Jesus did not enter the palace, since that would have made them ritually impure and ineligible to participate in the upcoming Passover celebrations. Consequently Pontius Pilate, the governor, went out outside to see them. "What charge are you bringing against this man," he asked them.
"We wouldn't have delivered him to you if he were not a felon," they insisted.
"Well then, take charge of him yourselves and try him by your own laws," Pilate told them.
"But we are not permitted to execute anyone," they declared. (This occurred in order to fulfill what Jesus had prophesied about the manner of his death.)
Pilate went back into his headquarters and summoned Jesus there to question him.
"Are you the king of the Judeans?" he asked him.
"Is that your own question or did others tell you about me?" replied Jesus.
"Am I a Judean?" Pilate rejoined. "Look, your own people, your own religious leaders delivered you to me. What is it that you've done?"
Jesus' answer was: "My kingdom is not a kingdom of this world. If it were, my followers would have fought to prevent my arrest by the Judean authorities. But no, my kingdom is not of the here and now."
"So, you are a king?" Pilate challenged.
"You say that I'm a king. But the reason I was born, the reason I was brought into the world is this: to give voice to the truth. All who love the truth credit my words."
Pilate rejoined, "What is the truth?”
Pilate immediately went out to see the Judeans again and told them, "I find no grounds for charging this man. --- But I understand it is your custom to have me release one prisoner to you during the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release this ‘King of the Judeans’?”
But they all shouted back, "No, not this man. Give us Barabbas instead!" (The Barabbas they referred to was an insurgent.)
And so Pilate had Jesus scourged with a whip. Soldiers fashioned a crown of twisted thorn branches and forced it upon his head. They wrapped a purple robe around him. They repeatedly accosted him, crying, "Hail, the King of the Judeans!" and slapping his face.
Pilate went out again to see the Judeans who had brought Jesus to him and told them, “I am bringing him out to you, so you will see I find no grounds for charging this man.” When Jesus appeared wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate declared, “Behold, the man himself!"
When they saw him, the chief priests and the Temple guards began to yell, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
Pilate told them, "You take him and crucify him. I have no case against him."
The religious leaders explained, “We have our law, and according to that law he must be put to death, because he proclaimed himself to be the Son of God."
When Pilate heard this, he was more alarmed than ever and reentered his palace to questioned Jesus. "Where do you come from?" But Jesus made no response. "Why do you refuse to speak? Don't you realize that I have the power to free you and also the power to crucify you."
Jesus responded, "You would have no power over me except that given to you from above. Therefore, those that handed me over to you are guilty of the greater sin."
From then on, Pilate endeavored to have Jesus released, but the Judean religious leaders chided him, "If you let this man go, you are no ally of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king can only be an enemy to the Emperor."
After they said this, Pilate brought out Jesus to them. Pilate installed himself on a judgment seat called the Stone Pavement (or, in Hebrew, Gabbatha). It was now noon on the day of the Preparation of the Passover. "Behold your king!" he told them.
"Away with Him! Away with him! Crucify him!" they cried.
Pilate asked, "What, crucify your king?"
"We have no king but Caesar!" the chief priests professed.
And so Pilate turned Jesus over to those who would crucify him, and they led Jesus away.
Notes
1. Nothing is said here at all of Jesus' interview with the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he saw after Annas and before Pilate. It is early morning when he is taken to Pilate and noon by the time Pilate delivers Jesus to the Judean religious authorities to be crucified. The Roman governor spent all morning dealing with Jesus, yet the proceedings recounted here would not seem to have taken up much time. One wonders what more was said and done. The flogging might have been a long session and perhaps there may have been several hours from the time was Jesus was sent out to be flogged until Pilate reappeared before the Judean priests and told them a second time he had no criminal case against Jesus.
2. Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman province of Judaea from 26 - 36 AD. Judaea incorporated Judea, Samaria to the north and Idumea to the south, with Jesus' Galilee a separate province. Pilate was of equestrian (and not senatorial) rank. An obscure political figure, little is known of him, although there is much apocryphal biographical material in early Christian texts, as well as much speculation about the degree to which he was guilty of Christ's crucifixion. He was probably born in Italy, but there are legends that variously place his origins in Scotland, Germany, or Spain. Officially, he held the title of prefect, not the lesser title of procurator, as was once thought. His chief duties were to collect taxes and to preserve order while leaving most of the civil administration to local, indigenous institutions. He was in charge of only a small military force of about 3000 men and was answerable to the governor, or legate of Syria, who commanded the major military forces in the region. According the contemporary historian, Philo of Alexandria, he antagonized his subjects by showing insufficient respect for their religious practices and was recalled after harshly suppressing a revolt by the Samaritans. He is briefly mentioned as well by later First-Century historians, the Roman Tacitus and the Judean Josephus. But firm confirmation of his historicity awaited the discovery in 1961 of an inscribed piece of limestone called the Pilate Stone, which mentions his name in the dedication of an early First-Century building in Caesarea Maritima (on the coast, located midway between present-day Haifa and Tel Aviv).
3. The soldiers make a crown of thorns for Jesus to make him a mock king. One would imagine, the thorns, digging into his head, would have been very painful, satisfying the soldiers penchant for cruelty -- making their prisoner suffer pain as well as degradation, adding injury to insult. The purple robe, symbolizing royalty, would have been red-violet in color, not what contemporary Americans generally regard as purple (half-way in hue between red and blue, or even on the blueish side). Scarlet is used in other gospels to describe the robe, but it is likely that the same red-violet color is meant. The Roman senators edged their white robes in purple to denote their class. And the term "born to the purple" is still used -- once in awhile at least. (In ancient times this color was produced by a prized color-fast dye extracted from the murex sea snail.) It is curious that the Roman soldiers, who had no personal interest in the matter or could have had no particular animosity against Jesus, would have gone to so much trouble to mock him. Why waste a purple robe on a criminal? Was there a closet of worn and discarded royal robes handy to use for making fun of prisoners? And the crown of thorns, did they have one on hand, ready for such a purpose? Were there a lot of thorny plants growing around the palace, or did the centurion send out a detail to gather thorn branches? Did he charge one of his men, owning a pair of heavy gloves, to fashion the crown described? (Since a crown suggests something more than just a band, some time and know-how must have needed to make it.)
4. The scourging or flagellation of the Christ is an important part of the Passion drama. (But why did Pilate have Jesus whipped when he was already convinced that Jesus had violated no law, wanted to set him free, and was ready to pardon him?) Flogging was, in fact, not peculiar to the treatment of Jesus, but a mandatory part of the crucifixion execution protocol. The whip used was short handled and sported two or three long leather thongs to which lead balls or bones were fastened. The person struck not only was lacerated by the thongs, but was bruised by the balls or bones. The victim was tied to a post and while his back took the brunt of the flogging most of his body, except perhaps the hands and forearms, would be cut by the whip. This pre-crucifixion ordeal would consist of at least hundred lashes, often many more, depending on not how long the victim could endure it, but on how long the scourger could keep up his strength. (A scourgee would be out of luck if the scourgers worked in shifts, as they sometimes did.) There was no maximum number of lashes that could be administered. The flogging, if it did not actually kill the convicted man, would ensure he would be at least half dead even before he was nailed to the cross. This was, in a way, a small mercy, since the poor chap would consequently suffer less in the prolonged agony of crucifixion. --- The modern notion is that executions should be quick and painless, impersonal, even clinical. But to the ancient way of thinking that would defeat the whole purpose of the thing, which was punishment through suffering. Today, (in the few backward, barbaric places where the death penalty is still in force) the soul marked for execution is given a comparatively painless release, but must endure a lengthy trial, protracted legal appeals, and the purgatory of a decade-long incarceration on death row. The ancients eschewed such subtle psychological torment in favor of physical torture, earthy, raw, and real. A death sentence meant something in those days -- excruciating pain.
5. Pontius Pilate is portrayed inconsistently and unbelievably -- sympathetic to Jesus, mocking Jesus, afraid that Jesus might be divine, dismissive of the priests, catering to the priests. He is courteous enough to go out of his palace to see the Judean religious leaders who did not wish to enter it because by doing so it would make them ritually impure. Pilate seems diplomatic, tactful, and gracious. They are obviously pestering him, wanting him to deal with a matter he believes is either outside his authority or too trivial for him to waste his time with. But he accedes to their wishes. He takes the trouble to interrogate Jesus, twice. He fails to see that Jesus has committed any crime and tries his best to convince the Judean priests to let him go free. But since Jesus is being charged with blasphemy, a religious violation and a capital offense, and the Romans have allowed the Judeans to freely practice their faith and enforce their religious customs as they see fit, Pilate concludes it is not his right to interfere. If they want Jesus crucified, he will not stop them, especially when he is convinced by the Judean priests that it is in Rome's interest that he do so. --- Pilate seems to have an ambivalent attitude toward Jesus. He addresses him politely, seems favorably impressed with him, and is more than willing to help him. Jesus, though, is unconcerned about saving himself. He is surly to Pilate, disrespectful, and unappreciative of the consideration the governor lends him. Pilate is baffled by this and put off. In the end he probably comes to view Jesus as a harmless crank who unfortunately must come to a tragic end. While there is a case to made from his remarks and reactions that he suspects that Jesus might really be the Son of God, it is unlikely that a pagan and a Roman would come to that conclusion, especially after so brief and unrevealing an interview. He is surely in jest when referring to Jesus as "King of the Judeans" (not Jews: the term is a misnomer, anachronistic, and without meaning in the 1st Century.) By bringing out Jesus with his crown of thrones and purple robe, he continues the taunting and mockery begun by his soldiers. That he would allow and even participate in such contemptibly barbaric and extra-legal treatment of a prisoner, though, strains credibility; it is very unlikely that a Roman governor would stoop to such behavior (or bother to stoop to it). In the end, Pilate’s character is molded to suit the demands of the narrative, his role in the Passion Play. That the author of John, writing more than a hundred years after the fact, would accurately divine Pilate’s character and motivations is a bit much to expect.
6. Barabbas is sometimes termed a bandit, but rebel, revolutionary, malcontent, insurgent would be more accurate a translation. (Nothing is really known of the man, even whether he existed or not.) The custom of a prisoner release on the Passover is referred to nowhere outside the gospels. It is quite obviously a dramatic invention, the purpose of which is show the temper of the Judean religious authorities and populace who preferred to save the life of some unsavory, violent person rather than the Son of God. It is inconceivable that the Roman governor would have subscribed to such a practice, especially Pilate who was probably fed up having to cater to Judaic traditions -- even if such a tradition existed, which it did not. Roman law and its administration may have been harsh, but it was not whimsical. Everything was done by the book, even crucifixions. Also, it is not credible that the Roman governor would have appeared before a group of Judeans and solicited their input on his actions. That would have been demeaning to his position. Pilate probably had little to do with and wanted to have little to do with the high priest and the Sanhedrin, the religious council. The high priest, Caiaphas, had been approved by him, but had been originally appointed by Pilate's superior in Syria. Roman rule of Judea was at this time very low key: the Empire simply wanted its tax money and an absence of civil discord. Pilate would have spent most of time in his administrative capital, Caesarea Maritima, although it is possible he might have been in Jerusalem during the Passover to ensure there was no disorder during the celebrations.
7. Jesus claims the purpose of his life is to bring the truth to the world. Pilate asks what is the truth. When he does so he is not posing some profound, philosophical enquiry. He is not asking what the truth means, simply what Jesus' truth consists of, that is, what is his message. He does not wait for a response, though, probably fearing his ear will be bent by the rant of a fanatic.
8. The author of John records dialogue between Jesus and Pilate that could be known only to the two men. Did someone conduct a post-crucifixion interview of Pilate in which he revealed what he and Jesus talked about? Jesus could not have told his disciples, or anyone else what he said to Pilate, unless he did so after his death. If divine inspiration was the source for the content of their conversations, then why do the gospels disagree and contradict each other? In historical novels the author must invent dialogue for his characters. Is this not being done here?
9. Given the situation and his position, Pontius Pilate could hardly act differently than he did, nor, in truth, could the Judaic priests, since they could not jeopardize their position by leaving unpunished a blasphemer and false prophet, especially one who made the claim that he was the Son of God. The narrative, though, throws most of the guilt upon the Judean, Judaic religious establishment who condemned Jesus. By the time the gospels were written, decades after the death of Jesus, Christianity was emerging as a universal religion and was no longer a sect of Judaism. Gentile converts were many and were entering leadership positions in what would be the Christian Church. It was, therefore, important to separate Christianity from conventional Judaism and to cast as villains those who had rejected Jesus and adhered to conventional Judaic beliefs. "The Jews killed Jesus" would be a propaganda myth that would weigh upon a race and a religion like a curse for two thousand years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)