Bible Review in \"How Pilate

Bible Review

In "How Pilate became a saint," Robin M. Jensen (2003) convincingly makes the case that Pontius Pilate, who is often despised as a persecutor of Jesus Christ, was actually revered by some early Christians as everything from a convert to a man carrying out God's plan. To bolster his argument, Jensen relies on all four gospels, which consistently depict Pilate as proclaiming Jesus' innocence and trying to convince the crowd to set him free. Jensen also focuses on extrabiblical texts and writings by Augustine, who claimed Pilate converted to Christianity, as well as early Christian artwork that depicted Pilate favorably. But while Jensen makes a strong argument that Christians did not always despise Pilate, he misses the opportunity to make a more interesting inquiry into the timing of some of the more positive portrayals of Pilate. Some of the works Jensen draws on to show benevolent representations of Pilate came during and after the historic conversion of the Romans to Christianity. It would have behooved Jensen to at least raise the possibility that the more positive portrayals of Pilate were part of a campaign by early Christians to advance the cause of conversion, or by the Romans to mitigate their guilt for Christ's execution.

The case for Pilate

As Jensen (2003) points out, Pilate is often seen as a villain of the bible, who understood Jesus' innocence, but lacked the moral strength to stand up to a crowd of Jewish subjects and set Jesus free. But there is plenty of evidence that early Christians may have viewed Pilate differently. First, Pilate and his wife are portrayed in all four gospels as being arguably the only people involved in the persecution of Christ who tried to declare his innocence. Jensen cites the Gospel of John, which shows Pilate himself carving the plate that appeared above Jesus' cross, and personally turning Jesus' body over to Joseph of Arimathea. Also, the gospels demonstrate that Jesus advised Pilate to carry forth the persecution, saying it had been foretold by the prophets and was God's will.

In fact, Jensen (2003) argues that Pilate was depicted in early Christian works as a man forced to carry out an unsavory aspect of God's will, like more revered Christian heroes before him. Pilate is represented in a mid-fourth century sarcophagus alongside Abraham and Daniel, and such representations appear in other early-Christian works of art, Jensen argues. Abraham, of course, was asked by God to sacrifice his own son to prove his loyalty - an order later rescinded - and Daniel saved Susannah from persecution for adultery by steadfastly professing her innocence. In short, some early Christians depicted Pilate as part of a line of biblical figures who were injected into unseemly situations to carry forth God's greater plan. Jensen points out that the Greek Orthodox and Coptic faiths even named Pilate and his wife saints.

While the bible's discussion of Pilate ends with the death of Jesus, Jensen (2003) points out that early Christian writings add more detail about his life. Jensen argues that starting in the second century a.D., extrabiblical writings pegged Pilate as an early Christian convert, which is also supported by the writings of Augustine. The Acts of Pilate even tell a tale of Pilate revering - or perhaps even worshiping - Jesus, spreading out a cloak for him to walk on. According to these early stories, Pilate may have played an early, critical role in the eventual conversion of the Romans to Christianity. but, historically, that conversion demands more attention from Jensen. The timing of that conversion - and the attempts to get the Romans to convert - lines up with some of the positive portrayals of Pilate. This begs the question of whether Pilate was used by the early Christians, the Romans, or both as a public relations tool during the conversion process, and whether Pilate's utility helped rehabilitate his image.

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 Christians to advance Pilate's story in a positive light.

Pilate, on the other hand, arguably presented a problem for the Romans as they moved toward conversion. 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.