The Tomb

[whag]

My dad died when I was 12. Soon after, I remember my mom explaining to me the concept of cremation, saying my dad had requested cremation over burial. I learned later the harsh reality of burial expense. We were a poor family, so I knew my dad’s request had more to do with finances than anything more profound than that; he wanted to save us money.

This recently got me to thinking about Pilate’s granting Jesus permission to be buried rather than the customary practice of leaving criminals convicted of high treason to be eaten by predators. It seems to me unbelievable that he would do that and honor Joseph’s request to donate his tomb to Jesus, which is essentially an implicit way of saying Jesus is innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted.

I’m no expert, so I concede I’ve done no research other than relying on my memory of the story as conveyed in the gospels. But it seems to me it’d be more metal (and reflective of the times) to have the crows eat Jesus’ dead body and have Jesus reconstitute himself three days later.

Why was there a need to paint brutal Pilate as merciful enough to make that special exception? It seems his boss would be more pleased with him had he carried out the traditional crucifixion process.

[alaskazimm]

My dad died when I was 12. Soon after, I remember my mom explaining to me the concept of cremation, saying my dad had requested cremation over burial. I learned later the harsh reality of burial expense. We were a poor family, so I knew my dad’s request had more to do with finances than anything more profound than that; he wanted to save us money.

This recently got me to thinking about Pilate’s granting Jesus permission to be buried rather than the customary practice of leaving criminals convicted of high treason to be eaten by predators. It seems to me unbelievable that he would do that and honor Joseph’s request to donate his tomb to Jesus, which is essentially an implicit way of saying Jesus is innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted.

I’m no expert, so I concede I’ve done no research other than relying on my memory of the story as conveyed in the gospels. But it seems to me it’d be more metal (and reflective of the times) to have the crows eat Jesus’ dead body and have Jesus reconstitute himself three days later.

Why was there a need to paint brutal Pilate as merciful enough to make that special exception? It seems his boss would be more pleased with him had he carried out the traditional crucifixion process.

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head -

1. Pilate thought he was innocent and only had Jesus crucified to avoid a full scale riot, and
2. he wanted to tweak the Jew's noses one last time over the matter since they kind of forced his hand in having Jesus condemned.

[mossrose]

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head -

1. Pilate thought he was innocent and only had Jesus crucified to avoid a full scale riot, and
2. he wanted to tweak the Jew's noses one last time over the matter since they kind of forced his hand in having Jesus condemned.

3. To fulfill prophecy.

[whag]

3. To fulfill prophecy.

Nonparallel construction. The first two items are Pilate doing conscious acts. It’s inconceivable that gentile Pilate would want to consciously fulfill Jewish prophecy. What’d be his motivation?

[JimL]

Nonparallel construction. The first two items are Pilate doing conscious acts. It’s inconceivable that gentile Pilate would want to consciously fulfill Jewish prophecy. What’d be his motivation?

Pilate had no choice. God the father made him do it. It was all part of his plan.

[mossrose]

Pilate had no choice. God the father made him do it. It was all part of his plan.

Way to go, Jim. You got it right.

I know you're being facetious, but you tell the truth here.

[Faber]

There are conflicting view on Pilate as either a ruthless tyrant or a wimp. I did some research a while ago and here is what I found:

The Judge: Pilate was a Roman governor, 26-36 AD. Some sources give him the title of a procurator, an administrative position with financial and legal authority. Others, a prefect, a military commander. The Jewish historian Josephus records a few incidents in his ten years as governor which show us what kind of person Pilate was.

With the intent of eliminating altogether any remaining Jewish self-rule, he moved his army from the palace in Caesarea to Jerusalem, bearing statues of Caesar and Roman Standards under cover of night. Multitudes of Jews, protesting the presence of images within the city, immediately went to Caesarea, demanding that they be removed. For five days they sat outside the palace in protest. On the sixth day Pilate prepared his soldiers to kill them all, upon which the protesters threw themselves upon the ground and exposed their necks for the soldiers. Pilate was forced by their actions to withdraw the emblems from Jerusalem.

The historian Philo of Alexandria describes a similar story. [Philo of Alexandria, Legatio ad Gaium, 299-305.] Pilate ordered gold shields, dedicated to the Divine Augustus, to be taken to Herod’s palace in Jerusalem, supposedly with the intent to annoy the Jews. The Jews in turn petitioned the four living sons of Herod the Great (which included Antipas) to complain to the emperor Tiberius, who then demanded that Pilate remove the shields. Pilate caved in to the emperor’s demands and removed the shields.

On another occasion Pilate ordered the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, and took the sacred treasury of the temple, called korban, to pay for the construction. A crowd of ten thousand Jews protested the use of the korban. Pilate ordered a large number of soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes and armed with concealed clubs, to march into the unarmed crowd and begin beating them. A great multitude were killed, either by the clubs or in the following stampede. These might be the Galileans Jesus mentioned in Luke 13:1, whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. Or maybe Jesus was referring to yet another event. Galileans were citizens of the kingdom of Herod Antipas. This was no doubt a source of the animosity between Antipas and Pilate mentioned in Luke 23:12.

We see in these historical accounts two pictures of Pilate. One is a cruel, ruthless dictator who wouldn’t hesitate to kill those who oppose him, yet we see him cower when his subjects stand up to him or threaten to go to a higher authority. It was Pilate’s responsibility to maintain peace and control in his Province. At times this meant exerting strict control over the people. But at other times that strict control could provide the incentive for them to revolt. This, then, tells us why Pilate gave in to the Sanhedrin so easily when they hinted that he may lose the emperor’s favor (John 19:12).

...

The Next Day: There is no clear transition in the Gospels from the events of Thursday to the events of Friday morning. The only hint is in Matthew 27:19, where we read that Pontius Pilate’s wife tells Pilate, “last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him.” This would suggest that Pilate’s offer to release a criminal was on the day after Jesus’s trials before Pilate and before Herod.

Pilate thought of a second way to avoid the issue. It was Pilate’s policy to release one political prisoner during the festivities. This was probably a way to pacify the Jews. So Pilate assumed that if he offered to pardon Jesus, they would have been thankful. To his surprise, they wanted somebody else pardoned instead.

He then thought that by publicly inflicting Jesus with physical punishment the religious leaders would be satisfied. (John 19:1-4)

Gods Walking Among Us: But they insisted that Jesus be put to death, which Pilate refused to do. Finally they told him (John 19:7) that their insistence was on religious reasons, not political. For the first time, they informed Pilate that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

Unlike them, Pilate seemed to believe the claim. In a panic, he returned back to question Jesus about this and became even more convinced. The idea of gods appearing in human form and even having human women bearing their children was not foreign to the Roman religion. He realized that he was being pressured by the religious leaders into putting to death a god.

Greek mythology told of Heracles (Latin=Hercules), an individual of superhuman strength whose father was a god and whose mother was a human. But possibly greater in Pilate’s mind was another legend. Remember in incident in Paul’s first missionary journey, when he and Barnabas reached the city of Lystra:

When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us." And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. (Acts 14:11-13, NASB)

Ovid was a Roman poet who lived during the early years of Jesus. In his poetry Metamorphoses, he tells a story of an elderly couple named Baucis and her husband Philemon who lived in the Phrygian town of Tyana. One day the gods Zeus and Hermes visited the town, dressed as peasants, seeking a place to spend the night. The people of the town showed no kindness to the visitors and bolted their doors. Finally they came to the cottage where Baucus and Philemon lived. The two gods were welcomed and treated to a fine dinner, during which the hosts realized they were serving the gods. Zeus told the couple that they should flee the town and climb to the top of the nearby mountain, because the city was going to be destroyed by a flood. When the couple reached the top of the mountain, they looked back to see the city entirely destroyed except their cottage, which had been transformed into a palace. [Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid), Metamorphoses, Book VIII.]

Pilate had no intentions on putting a god to death. He told the religious leaders that he would release Jesus. They replied, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar.” (John 19:12) This was intended as a threat. The terms “Friend of Rome” and “Friend of Caesar” were essential titles for anybody holding an official position in Roman government or a foreign leader claiming to be an ally of the Roman Empire. Pilate feared that they would inform Caesar, or maybe the governor of Syria who had oversight of Judea, that he was being disloyal to Rome or protecting Rome’s enemies. (This very thing would be done by the Samaritans six years later.)

Afraid to execute a Hebrew god, afraid to release that god and risk being sent back to Rome and put on trial for treason, Pilate washed his hands of the matter and handed Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, granting them the right, against Roman policy, to execute Jesus themselves.

Judging by his willingness to cave into peoples' demands, his fear that they were going to complain to Caesar again, and his desire to wash his hands of the entire situation (literally), I don't see his decision to be an act of merciful, but just another indication that the Jews had transformed him into a wimp.

[whag]

Pilate had no choice. God the father made him do it. It was all part of his plan.

I was all keyed up to wreck mossy, and you come in with the assist.

herc.gif

[mossrose]

I was all keyed up to wreck mossy, and you come in with the assist.

herc.gif

Do you or Jim ever ask a sincere question? Or are you only interested in trying to "wreck" one of us.

[whag]

There are conflicting view on Pilate as either a ruthless tyrant or a wimp. I did some research a while ago and here is what I found:

The Judge: Pilate was a Roman governor, 26-36 AD. Some sources give him the title of a procurator, an administrative position with financial and legal authority. Others, a prefect, a military commander. The Jewish historian Josephus records a few incidents in his ten years as governor which show us what kind of person Pilate was.

With the intent of eliminating altogether any remaining Jewish self-rule, he moved his army from the palace in Caesarea to Jerusalem, bearing statues of Caesar and Roman Standards under cover of night. Multitudes of Jews, protesting the presence of images within the city, immediately went to Caesarea, demanding that they be removed. For five days they sat outside the palace in protest. On the sixth day Pilate prepared his soldiers to kill them all, upon which the protesters threw themselves upon the ground and exposed their necks for the soldiers. Pilate was forced by their actions to withdraw the emblems from Jerusalem.

The historian Philo of Alexandria describes a similar story. [Philo of Alexandria, Legatio ad Gaium, 299-305.] Pilate ordered gold shields, dedicated to the Divine Augustus, to be taken to Herod’s palace in Jerusalem, supposedly with the intent to annoy the Jews. The Jews in turn petitioned the four living sons of Herod the Great (which included Antipas) to complain to the emperor Tiberius, who then demanded that Pilate remove the shields. Pilate caved in to the emperor’s demands and removed the shields.

On another occasion Pilate ordered the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, and took the sacred treasury of the temple, called korban, to pay for the construction. A crowd of ten thousand Jews protested the use of the korban. Pilate ordered a large number of soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes and armed with concealed clubs, to march into the unarmed crowd and begin beating them. A great multitude were killed, either by the clubs or in the following stampede. These might be the Galileans Jesus mentioned in Luke 13:1, whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. Or maybe Jesus was referring to yet another event. Galileans were citizens of the kingdom of Herod Antipas. This was no doubt a source of the animosity between Antipas and Pilate mentioned in Luke 23:12.

We see in these historical accounts two pictures of Pilate. One is a cruel, ruthless dictator who wouldn’t hesitate to kill those who oppose him, yet we see him cower when his subjects stand up to him or threaten to go to a higher authority. It was Pilate’s responsibility to maintain peace and control in his Province. At times this meant exerting strict control over the people. But at other times that strict control could provide the incentive for them to revolt. This, then, tells us why Pilate gave in to the Sanhedrin so easily when they hinted that he may lose the emperor’s favor (John 19:12).

...

The Next Day: There is no clear transition in the Gospels from the events of Thursday to the events of Friday morning. The only hint is in Matthew 27:19, where we read that Pontius Pilate’s wife tells Pilate, “last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him.” This would suggest that Pilate’s offer to release a criminal was on the day after Jesus’s trials before Pilate and before Herod.

Pilate thought of a second way to avoid the issue. It was Pilate’s policy to release one political prisoner during the festivities. This was probably a way to pacify the Jews. So Pilate assumed that if he offered to pardon Jesus, they would have been thankful. To his surprise, they wanted somebody else pardoned instead.

He then thought that by publicly inflicting Jesus with physical punishment the religious leaders would be satisfied. (John 19:1-4)

Gods Walking Among Us: But they insisted that Jesus be put to death, which Pilate refused to do. Finally they told him (John 19:7) that their insistence was on religious reasons, not political. For the first time, they informed Pilate that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

Unlike them, Pilate seemed to believe the claim. In a panic, he returned back to question Jesus about this and became even more convinced. The idea of gods appearing in human form and even having human women bearing their children was not foreign to the Roman religion. He realized that he was being pressured by the religious leaders into putting to death a god.

Greek mythology told of Heracles (Latin=Hercules), an individual of superhuman strength whose father was a god and whose mother was a human. But possibly greater in Pilate’s mind was another legend. Remember in incident in Paul’s first missionary journey, when he and Barnabas reached the city of Lystra:

When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us." And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. (Acts 14:11-13, NASB)

Ovid was a Roman poet who lived during the early years of Jesus. In his poetry Metamorphoses, he tells a story of an elderly couple named Baucis and her husband Philemon who lived in the Phrygian town of Tyana. One day the gods Zeus and Hermes visited the town, dressed as peasants, seeking a place to spend the night. The people of the town showed no kindness to the visitors and bolted their doors. Finally they came to the cottage where Baucus and Philemon lived. The two gods were welcomed and treated to a fine dinner, during which the hosts realized they were serving the gods. Zeus told the couple that they should flee the town and climb to the top of the nearby mountain, because the city was going to be destroyed by a flood. When the couple reached the top of the mountain, they looked back to see the city entirely destroyed except their cottage, which had been transformed into a palace. [Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid), Metamorphoses, Book VIII.]

Pilate had no intentions on putting a god to death. He told the religious leaders that he would release Jesus. They replied, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar.” (John 19:12) This was intended as a threat. The terms “Friend of Rome” and “Friend of Caesar” were essential titles for anybody holding an official position in Roman government or a foreign leader claiming to be an ally of the Roman Empire. Pilate feared that they would inform Caesar, or maybe the governor of Syria who had oversight of Judea, that he was being disloyal to Rome or protecting Rome’s enemies. (This very thing would be done by the Samaritans six years later.)

Afraid to execute a Hebrew god, afraid to release that god and risk being sent back to Rome and put on trial for treason, Pilate washed his hands of the matter and handed Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, granting them the right, against Roman policy, to execute Jesus themselves.

Judging by his willingness to cave into peoples' demands, his fear that they were going to complain to Caesar again, and his desire to wash his hands of the entire situation (literally), I don't see his decision to be an act of merciful, but just another indication that the Jews had transformed him into a wimp.

Some good points here. Gold star for you for composing it yourself!

If the Jews were that influential in communicating bad reports to Caeser, and clearly thirsty for Jesus' ultimate humiliation, couldn't they also report that Pilate granted full burial rites to Jesus instead of completing the process? Completion would satisfy the Sanhedrin and further ensure they wouldn't go blabbing to Caeser. It also strikes the right balance between wimp and tyrant while being unencumbered by needless controversy.

[whag]

Do you or Jim ever ask a sincere question? Or are you only interested in trying to "wreck" one of us.

1) Don't take me seriously. That was a joke!
2) Don't pretend you don't like occasional wreckage.

(And, truth be told, your answer is bad.)

[mossrose]

1) Don't take me seriously. That was a joke!
2) Don't pretend you don't like occasional wreckage.

(And, truth be told, your answer is bad.)

Carry on, then.

[Sparko]

Some good points here. Gold star for you for composing it yourself!

If the Jews were that influential in communicating bad reports to Caeser, and clearly thirsty for Jesus' ultimate humiliation, couldn't they also report that Pilate granted full burial rites to Jesus instead of completing the process? Completion would satisfy the Sanhedrin and further ensure they wouldn't go blabbing to Caeser. It also strikes the right balance between wimp and tyrant while being unencumbered by needless controversy.

This is just my opinion. But I believe that even the Sanhedrin would want to allow a burial of a fellow Jew, even if they thought he was a heretic, if not only to try to keep the peace among Jesus' followers. And I believe Joseph of Arimathea was a pretty influential person in that society (he was a member of the Jewish Council Mark 15:43 ) so it is doubtful they would want to go against him. After all they thought they had gotten what they wanted: Jesus eliminated.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There are conflicting view on Pilate as either a ruthless tyrant or a wimp. I did some research a while ago and here is what I found:

The Judge: Pilate was a Roman governor, 26-36 AD. Some sources give him the title of a procurator, an administrative position with financial and legal authority. Others, a prefect, a military commander.

He was a Praefectus as the inscription on the "Pilate Stone" makes clear.

[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIÉUM[...PONTI]US PILATUS[...PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E[...FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]

The title of procurator for the governor changed under Claudius. As for Pilate's character as cited by Josephus and Philo we need to bear in mind a possible degree of bias on the part of both writers. I would suggest that Pilate was a man doing a difficult job in a difficult province. That he remained in post for some ten years is indication that he was getting it right insofar as the emperor was concerned.

As to the rest of your post about Pilate it is delightfully naive. If Pilate was so convinced of Jesus' innocence he could have had the prisoner removed to Caesarea for further interrogation. I would also point out that the hand washing was not a Roman custom.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/disp...55CD55D693FC84

The gesture among Hebrews was not an indication that the person would have nothing more to do with the matter, but implied a renunciation of responsibility for what happened (Deut. 21: 6). When Pilate is said to have washed his hands during the trial of Jesus (Matt. 27: 24), this is probably a piece of Christian tradition which had developed in order to shift the main responsibility for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews. Such a gesture is not known to have been practised by Romans.

.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head -

1. Pilate thought he was innocent and only had Jesus crucified to avoid a full scale riot, and
2. he wanted to tweak the Jew's noses one last time over the matter since they kind of forced his hand in having Jesus condemned.

See my comment to Faber above.