Bibliography
| Title: Pontius Pilate and the Sources Secondary Title: CBQ Volume: 53 Pages: 416-438 Type: Journal Article Year: 1991 Abstract: "Opinions vary on the quality of Pontius Pilate's performance as governor of Judaea. There is a divergence, so ist seems, among the three crucial ancient sources: Philo is extremely hostile to Pilate, Josephus comparatively neutral, and the Gospel authors comparatively friendly. It is usually thought possible to reconcile the accounts of Philo and Josephus. This leaves us with a divergence, widely assumed among commentators, beween the Pilate of the Gospels on the one hand and that of Philo and Josephus on the other: the weak, indecisive, accomodating governor of the NT, against the tough, cruel man of the secular sources. Two general approaches are taken to explain this divergence: a) the secular sources are right, the NT has got it all wrong; b) both are more or less right: Pilate did behave in roughly the manner described by the evangelist, because by the time of the crucifixion fo Jesus there were reasons why he had become a changed man. The author examines aspects of these two theses. In his opinion, the examination of the messianic, political context in the first century C.E. provides no grounds for thinking that the evangelists' version of Pilate bears litte or no relation to the truth. Also the other thesis has ist weaknesses. The author concludes that when it comes to describing the details of Pilate's actions and behaviour, the accounts of Philo, Josephus, and the evangelists are substantially in agreement. The Gospel portrait of Pilate, thefore, cannot be used as an argument against the historical verisimilitude of the passion narratives".
"Die Qualität des Pontius Pilatus als Landpfleger von Judäa werden von der Forschung gegensätzlich eingeschätzt. In der Tat divergieren die drei alten Quellen: Philo, Josephus und die Evangelien. Es werden zwei Meinungen vertreten: Die weltlichen Quellen sind im Recht, und das NT irrt oder beide sind mehr oder weniger im Recht. Der Verfasser prüft die verschiedenen Aspekte dieser beiden Hypothesen und versucht, eine dritte zu entwickeln: die christliche Apologetik mag zu einem guten Teil in der neutestamentlichen Darstellung des Pontius Pilatus eine Rolle spielen aber völlig irrig ist sie nicht. Daß Pilatus sich nach dem Sturz des Sejanus gewandelt habe, ist nicht sicher. Nach Auffassung des Verfasser kann der Pilatus des Philo und des Josephus mit dem des NT versöhnt werden. Pilatus spielte seine Rolle gleich vielen seiner Vorgänger und der meisten seiner Nachfolger in der Schaffung der Bedingungen, die zum jüdischen Aufstand führten. Roms Sorglosigkeit in Judäa kam ihm teuer zu stehen".
"Examination of the messianic, political context in the 1st century A.D. provides no grounds for thinking that the Evangelists' vesion of Pontius Pilate bears little or no relation to the truth. Nor is there much evidence for the theory that Pilate had to change his strategy after Sejanus' fall. In fact, there is no fundamental discrepancy between the picture of Pilate in Philo and Josephus and that in the Gospels. The differneces between them merely reflect the editorial views of these authors". - D.J.H. Keywords: Jewish History: Roman Era |