Pilate and the Roman conversion

To this day, Pilate is not seen as a hero to all sects of Christianity, and arguably with good reason. In short, he is not Abraham, nor Daniel,. Abraham did not kill his son, and Daniel successfully stopped the persecution of Susannah. Pilate, by contrast, was in a position to halt the execution of Jesus, but did not. The fact that he believed in Jesus' innocence, which is well documented, arguably means little when one considers that he did not act on his moral convictions to save Jesus' life. Perhaps Pilate was little more than a pawn in a greater plan by God, and therefore deserves a pass from those who would revile him, but there could be more to attempts by early Christians to portray him favorably.

It is important to remember that Emperor Constantine in the fourth century converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, and that this movement had been afoot by the early Christians practically since the death of Christ. The time period of the conversion lines up directly with some of the evidence presented by Jensen (2003), such as sarcophagus images from the fourth century and the writings of Augustine, who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries. Even some of the earlier writings, such as the second-century accounts of Pilate's conversion, were arguably during conversion attempts. At any rate, one must consider that these historical events made Pilate an important figure to the Christians and the Romans. From the perspective of the early Christians, if Pilate really was a convert, he would have helped the Christians make an argument for converting Rome. Pilate helped the Christians frame the religion as larger than the cult or breakaway sect of Judaism it was viewed as during its early days. Christianity encompassed more than just a handful of zealots - it also became the religion of choice for a Roman leader who came to know Jesus personally. It could have been to the advantage of early...

As Jensen (2003) points out, Pilate's career ended badly, with a recall to Rome for a variety of transgressions. But he was still a Roman, and he did still permit the execution of the figurehead of Rome's new religion. The Romans would have had a clear interest in portraying Pilate favorably, and doing whatever was possible to lessen his guilt for the execution of Jesus. The Romans would have been less concerned that reducing Pilate's guilt would place greater emphasis on the role of the Jews, who were the other actors during the persecution process. At any rate, the Romans would benefit by a reduction in Pilate's culpability for Jesus' death.
Conclusion

In short, Jensen (2003) makes a convincing argument that, at the very least, Christians have been historically conflicted over how to view Pontius Pilate. Although he is despised by some as a man who acted out of cowardice in failing to prevent Jesus' execution, some early Christians saw him as carrying out God's work. Pilate may have even become a Christian himself.

But the writings and works of art Jensen (2003) uses to advance his argument that Pilate was viewed positively by early Christians were often created during a period of great change in the Roman Empire. As the Romans converted to Christianity, both the early Christians and Romans would have benefited from a more positive portrayal of Pilate. In conclusion, while Jensen makes an interesting case that Pilate has not been universally despised throughout Christian history, he missed an opportunity to more fully consider how the Roman conversion to Christianity could have affected positive representations of Pilate.

Works Cited

Jensen, R.M. (2003). "How Pilate became a saint." Bible Review, 19.6 (Dec. 1993).