Talk:Pontius Pilate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Bloc Quebecois[edit]

"In Canada all members of the Quebec based political party called the Bloc Quebecois party, always wash their hands of their oath of loyalty to the country in a ceremony similar to Pilate. This is allows them to engage in activities detrimental to the entire country. The Bloc Quebecois hold both Pilate and Judas Iscariot to be reflective of their political aims and values." I would really like to see a source on this, I have never heard anything related to this matter, and accusing a political party to engage in detrimental activities to it's country is quite heavy to state, even if this article isn't focused on this matter. C.Delacroix (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up ( Whoever posted that comment made it bigger than what really happened. It is not an established BQ ceremony. There is no actual hand washing ceremony, or mention of Judas or Pontius Pilate. The news article refers to a particular event in 1991 when Gilles Duceppe swore an oath of loyalty in Hull to the people of Quebec (contradicting his sworn oath of the people of Canada when he became a member of parliament), during a ceremony across the river from Ottawa in Hull, QC along with PQ leader Jacques Parizeau. The only mention of 'washing of hands' comes from the journalist, and it is obviously used figuratively. I'm going to assume the person who posted the comment is the owner of this blog: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


battle standards, considered minor deities... Would you say that a Greek Orthodox icon is "considered a minor deity"? Josephus' discussion of Pilate is worth looking at and finding a juicy quote to bring here. Why doesn't somebody do that, instead of making up stuff? Wetman 03:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Making up stuff"‽ Go read Tacitus' Histories, book 3.10, where the Roman battle standards are called bellorum deos. Or read Dio Cassius' Roman History, book 40.18, where he talks about shrines set up to house the eagles. No-One Jones (talk) 03:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Great! But don't tell me! Put it in the article... if you know that that is the act that infuriated Jerusalem's orthodox Jews: shrines set up to house the eagles. I still say there's a good quote in Josephus that's actually about this situation. Could be relevant. Carry on! Wetman 04:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Pilate did a number of things to infuriate the locals, but I think the relevant passage from Josephus is this one (Antiquities, 18.55):

So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images. . .

The stuff about the eagles being minor deities was just a snippet of relevant information; ordinary graven images would have been infuriating, but graven images of Roman gods would have been cause for a riot. --No-One Jones (talk) 04:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How's the text now? I inserted the other Josephus text: we were busy at the same time. Should additional details from Ant. 18.55 be included in the article itself? Wetman 05:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I hesitate to add it to the article, as I don't have a source, but there is a longstanding legend that P.P. was born in Fortingall in Perthshire, the son of a local woman and a Roman emissary of some sort. Anyone got a source for that ? -- Derek Ross

It's one of the early chroniclers who was at great pains to give ol' pagan Britain some impressive classical antecedents: Trojans, Romans, Joseph of Arimathea, Pontius Pilate, etc. Part of the mythology, to be sure. Wetman 16:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This page [1] talks about it. Evidence as thin as the Fairy Flag of Dunvegan, methinks. Still, the rumour abounds, to such an extent that the Royal Scots regiment gets called "Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard" [2] (for equally dodgy reasons). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Somebody should track this tale down. I bet it's in Geoffry of Monmouth (he'd swallow anything). Then we could mention what's been built on this gossamer web. "As legend has it...!" Wetman 04:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This story has led to the suggestion from one joker that his mother must have been either a Guthrie or a Menzies. Ragbin (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews' responsibility etc... till metaphysics[edit]

I do not think this debate belongs in this article. Even though it be true, we are speaking about Pilate, not about the Jews/Church, etc... Am I wrong? Pfortuny 15:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits. I am well educated. I know my history. Pilate did not order the execution of Jesus. He released Jesus to the mob (the Jews) and they killed him. Pilate actually didn't want him to be killed. That's why he was flogged, in an attempt to please the crowd and avoid Jesus's death. I will make the edit again and I trust it will stay that way. -Tom

It won't stay that way, because it's completely bogus. Rhobite 04:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty well-accepted that according to the Bible, the actual execution was carried out by Roman soldiers, not an unruly mob of Jews. Saying that Pilate "gave the order for his crucifixion" is true. Saying that Pilate "realeased him to the Jews who would crucify him" is either completely wrong, or unknowable. Rhobite 05:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is certianly worthy of note that Jesus's execution was carried out by Roman soldiers. It was the Roman Centurian that oversaw the execution. When the man wanted the body, he didn't go to the Sanhedrin, but to the Romans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malomaboy06 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia entry is a report. First report what the canonic N.T. texts actually say. Then report the interpretations of Church fathers, with some quotes. Report how the responsibility-of-Pilate or exoneration-of-Pilate theme developed. Keep Pilate in the foreground: he's the subject here, not anyone else. Don't go over ground that's covered elsewhere: instead link to it. Above all, don't tell us what you think and we won't tell you what we think. It's not a personal essay, it's a report. Okay? --Wetman 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wetman and Rhobite are both Jewish. There is absolutly nothing wrong with that but please do not make the edits biased. Many Jewish people don't like the fact that it was an unruly mob of Jews that crucified Jesus. Sure the Roman soldiers helped but it was the Jews who made them. The Roman soldiers didn't care whether he lived or died. This shouldn't be an issue of religion also because Jesus was Jewish himself. He was killed by his own people. Please stop reverting the article. You can keep saying that Pilate ordered for a crucifixtion but that doesn't make it true. Pilate said "Let me be clean of this innocent blood." and the Jews said "Let his blood be on us and our children." That is what happened. Accept it. Embrace it. Do not say it is bogus. If you don't like what happened in history, you can't change it by writing false reports on wikipedia.

It is inappropriate for you to speculate about my religion or motives for reverting your wildly inaccurate changes. I will continue to revert them. Rhobite 02:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Wetman is a high Episcopalian 10th-generation Yankee of the fanciest kind, actually. Same thing, when it comes to intellectual honesty, actually... --03:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, am I correct to say that my speculations were right? I find nothing wrong with the Jewish people. In fact I have a huge respect for them. They are highly intelligent, and very powerful in world politics. Most of my friends are Jewish. Rhobite it is ok if you are Jewish but please don't deny it. You too Wetman. You will continue to revert and I will continue to change it back. Perhaps we can come to a mutual agreement in not mentioning whether Pilate ordered for the crucifixtion or not?

A spurious offer, clearly. Why not discuss the texts themselves, rather than some anonymous crackerbarrel theologian's personal interpretation. --Wetman 05:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to compromise with someone who is both abrasive and wrong. BTW I submitted an RFC against the anonymous editor, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ Rhobite 05:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

How can you say what you said in that RFC? You compare me with Neo Nazis? Also, you say I attack a race? All I did was compliment the Jewish people. Read the gospels. The mob is yelling "Crucify him, crucify him!" and Pilate says to them "This man has done nothing wrong. I will have no innocent blood on me." and the mob yells "Let his blood be on us and our children. Don't deny something that is written in the bible. What are your sources? BTW I was not responsible for some of the vandalism reported in that RFC. I don't mean any harm to anyone. Please do not treat me like a "problem".

(This user, shifting IP numbers, vandalized the talk page of User:Jag123, 00:43, 14 Mar 2005, deleting the user's text and substituted the following: "Hey fuckhead, the changes I made to the Pilate article were correct and historically accurate whether you agree with them or not. Fuck off bitch. Don't change it again. Go play with your fucking pocket protector you friggin nerd." So much for " Please do not treat me like a "problem"".) --Wetman 06:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... Rhobite 06:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'll say it again because you ignore me. You compare me with Neo Nazis? You say I attack a race? All I did was compliment the Jewish people. Read the gospels. The mob is yelling "Crucify him, crucify him!" and Pilate says to them "This man has done nothing wrong. I will have no innocent blood on me." and the mob yells "Let his blood be on us and our children. Don't deny something that is written in the bible. What are your sources? BTW I was not responsible for some of the vandalism reported in that RFC. I don't mean any harm to anyone.

Wetman, and Rhobite, what are you going to do to me? Ban me? You can't. I'm not vandalizing. I'll keep changing it everytime I sit down to use the internet. Why? Because it's the truth. Stop being stubborn. You know I'm right. Do you guys have something against Christianity? That can be taken very seriously if it is the case.

Also, stop pulling up stupid little vandalisms. Don't say that I am wrong just because you don't like me as an individual. Argue against what I am saying, not against me. (Anonymous contribution from User:

yeah , right--- all that adue about nothing! pilatus was known to be a selfish and cruel military leader, he made too many misjudgments, one was to brake the samarian rebellion, he was also known to have arrested and executed people without a fair trial.. for bein a prelate to the least unimportant province like judea, which gave the romans nothing but worries about jewish abrisings, he couldnt care less, but to get his term over fast. It is very likely tha the early churchfathers were diluting and editing the original trial documents so heavy, that nothing but an obsucre trial was left, ergo all that 'handwashing' and so on... for someone to be executed this way , it would need more then just that, now 'high treason' was considered a crime punished by death, but they were not allowed after a law from augustus to burry their dead then, it was for those one the bird and dogs who did they burrying. Would pilutus do the jews a favour of returning someone they did not care about to them? Or was he afraid to be recorded to tiberius? Soon after this he was called off from judea.

Because Rhobite is either being intellectually dishonest, or feels a need to cover up an event from 2000 years ago, I invite all of you to read this passage: (read Verses 20 - 26). Also, Rhobite, for refusing to look at sources and making personal attacks against someone in what should otherwise be an intellectual argument, you are an epic FAILure. Good Day. -sbf2009, 9/16/2007 12:43 AM

I am legitimately confused as to why this "debate" happened. The gospel texts are pretty clear in their allegations: a mob of jewish people came and grabbed Jesus, took him to the sanhedrin, who took him to Pilate. Pilate basically stated he wouldn't kill Jesus for crimes against Rome, but because the crowd wanted Jesus dead Pilate had his (Roman) soldiers crucify Jesus along with rebels. See Mat. 27:27-37 Neil618 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

These spurious edits represent a regrettable example of how current politically correct dogmas are corrupting sound scholarship and common sense. The main source for Pilate's attitude to Jesus is the Gospel account, and that is exactly what this article correctly and accurately references.Orthotox (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Alleged "bizarre tradition"[edit]

"A bizarre tradition has it that he was born in the Scottish village of Fortingall, site of a Roman camp. The legend claims he was the son of a visiting Roman and a local woman." I have moved this text here, because legends are recorded, if they are to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Where is this alleged legend recorded? --Wetman 15:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding CE here was an oversight[edit]

I am so sorry that – this being a scholarly subject – I routinely used CE, completely overlooking the fact that the article opens with dates in AD. Although I am by no means persuaded of the suitability of AD for this present subject, I am entirely happy to accept how others had started this article and therefore to agree to the deletion of "CE" where I had put it with reference to Josephus, since from the dates of Pilate just mentioned it is obvious even to any previously uninformed reader that Josephus cannot have been a BCE historiographer. I apologise for having accidentally caused a flaring up of the Wikipedia CE -v- AD controversy., 20:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually this article initially used BCE/CE [3]. Jguk, through repeated reversions and date style changes, has managed to convert it to BC/AD. Sortan 17:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, and still more apologies – I had not checked this. – Now, unless the whole article were to be changed back from AD to CE (which would have my whole-hearted support), may I suggest in this particular instance to leave the CE out in order to be consistent. (Just don't anyone decide to use AD in this particular instance, please!!!) – May I also humbly point out that this is a comparatively minor issue considering that the article is crying out for further brushing up. I ought to get on with it myself rather than just criticise the present state; but, sorry, I simply don't have the time. So, just one suggestion that comes to mind right now: in view of the wider interest in the question prefect or procurator (which is a point that merits enlarging in this context), does anyone interested in this article know whether the photo of the Caesarea stone may be reproduced here? Being historical, it may be more helpful to readers than the works of art displayed at present., 21:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Three-dimensional objects always present a problem, since the photograph itself is a copyrightable artifact, not merely a bland record as is that of a painting for instance. A Wikipedioan needs to photograph the stone... --Wetman 08:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Titles and Duties[edit]

I have removed the following statement: "Hence for authors of the late first century, since, by that time, the governor, once again, held the office of procurator, it was assumed that Pilate held the same office and thus they referred to him as a procurator. So their use of the term procurator for the early governors--both in the Greek Gospels and in Tacitus's and Josephus's works was based on their lack of first-hand information on how the title came and went from usage. "

This reads like an apology and is very highly suspect non-NPOV. ---Julien Deveraux 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

New threads on the bottom of talk pages, please. You can add a new thread by clicking the "+" next to the "edit this page" link. You will get a form with spaces for a thread title and text, which will be added to the bottom automatically.
It doesn't strike me as non-NPOV so much, since (I think) it's simply attempting to summarize or re-state some of the preceding material. It's very poorly written though, and requires several readings to determine what exactly it is saying. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Julien, do you mean saying sorry or apology ? Clinkophonist 00:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The references to Pontius Pilate in the Creeds[edit]

This post is a comment on the section Pontius_Pilate#The_question_of_responsibility_for_Jesus.27_death in the main article, whose neutrality is disputed. In particular a sentence has been tagged as POV.

The Apostles’ Creed, which in its “Roman Form” (see Old Roman Symbol), dates as far back as the 2nd century, contains the following line:

«[Jesus Christ] Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried»

So, it is either uninformed, or deliberately biased/false, to state, as we find in the main article, that it was only the Nicene Creed (325 CE) that «stated unambiguously that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate».

Unless the present remarks are convincingly rebutted, I will consequently correct the main article, removing the reference to a late (post-Nicene) reference to Pontius Pilate in the Christian Creed. --Miguel de Servet 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New threads at the bottom please, so that everyone can find them. This is the standard convention. To add a new thread easily, click the "+" next to "edit this page". You will get a form prompting you for a thread title and post content, which will be automatically added to the bottom.
Please read the entire paragraph in question in context. It's discussing various historical statements and opinions as to the responsibility of Pilate. It flat-out states that the clause from the Creed was not intended to implicate Pliate, but only to place the Crucifixion in a historical context, and then goes on to explore a couple of different opinions, some one way and some another. Nor does it make any claim as to exclusivity of this clause to Nicaea -- nowhere does it say "only" -- but to the vast majority of Christians, the promulgation of this Creed by the Ecumenical Council lends it an authority that the Apostles' Creed does not possess, and is more universally recognized in consequence. It is not non-NPOV to describe a range of opinions without advocating them, whether you personally like some of those opinions or not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


first of all, thanks for the "New threads at the bottom please" advice. As you and everybody may notice, I have changed the title of this Talk Section (which I have started) from "The responsability of Pontius Pilate" to "The references to Pontius Pilate in the Creeds": which is more appropriate to the issue in point.

You claim that you refer to the Nicean Creed because "the promulgation of this Creed by the Ecumenical Council lends it an authority that the Apostles' Creed does not possess". This is a strongly POV statement, if you dont' mind. Besides, is it not relevant that the references to Pontius Pilate are first found in the Old Roman Symbol, and consequently closer to the Apostolig age, and to the Passion events themselves? This is what I claim. It would be totally senseless that something that is supposed to underline the historicity of Jesus was only attested, all of a sudden, as late as 325 CE!

No it isn't. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. We do not give equal weight to all possible POVs; that's not what NPOV means. Like it or not, there are over two and a half billion Christians who regard (at least on an official level) the Nicene Creed as the first authoritative, definitive creedal statement of the Faith. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Yes there were earlier creeds. None were of such universal acceptance.
But again you mischaracterize the article. It does not claim that this was the first time the clause in question was included in a creed. It's doing nothing but giving a single prominent example. To claim it was saying more than that as phrased is simply reading something into it that isn't there. It could, I admit, be more clearly expressed, and I'll take care of that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's done, so see what you think of it now. It actually needs a couple of {{fact}} tags. C. S. Lewis certainly reflects the opinion that the clause was mainly supposed to provide a historical context, but since he's a western writer that contradicts the claim that western thought largely regards Pilate as guilty. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I was about to reply to you, but not only have you added a new post here, but also modified the “The question of responsibility for Jesus' death” section on the main page.

The point you seem to have missed (understandable, from a EO Christian, but not acceptable as NPOV), is that stressing the reference to Pontius Pilate in the Nicean Creed as the first relevant one, you may certainly say something which as many as 2.5 billion plus Christians are happy to hear, but which, nevertheless, is not historically accurate. Besides, by insisting on "the Nicene Creed as the first authoritative, definitive creedal statement of the Faith", you - unwittingly - underline even more that it is not exactly historical relevance and accuracy that you have in mind in the first place.

Your additional remarks on C. S. Lewis agreeing on Pilate as “historical reference”, his being a “western writer”, and the fact that this “contradicts the claim that western thought largely regards Pilate as guilty” are rather obscure. You must have something else in mind: only by making it explicit, can you make yourself understood.

I am afraid that I will have to make further amends to your revision, to make it totally NPOV, unbiased, and 100% acceptable. It would make sense that you come back here, before embarking another "editing ambush".--Miguel de Servet 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop reading me through your own prejudices. Either that or learn to understand context better than you do now. When I said "the Nicene Creed as the first authoritative, definitive creedal statement of the Faith" I did nothing unwittingly because I was clearly talking about Nicene Christianity. Speaking more generally I called it, "a single prominent example" of the phrase in question.
There's no point in interacting with you any longer. Plainly, you read what you want to read, and never mind was was really being expressed. I have no time for this nonsense, from you or anyone else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone, not long ago, said to me:

You should not contribute to Wikipedia if you're going to be terribly offended by others "trashing" your "laborious" work.

--Miguel de Servet 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Article content is different from talking with someone who merely has the intention of scoring points and making personal attacks rather than working together constructively. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There need not be contrast. I believe that intellectual antagonism and constructive co-operation are both good:

  • intellectual antagonism is not necessarily bad, in fact it is good because it avoids complacency and self-referentiality.
  • co-operation is good implicitly, it is the end goal, it is the very insiration of a joint effort like wikipedia

So, for instance, in the way of competition/co-operation, you are welcome to criticize and/or provide helpful comments at Trinity and Incarnation: two reflections and The Apostles' Creed: text and notes on Father, Son and Holy Spirit

See you --Miguel de Servet 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

when Iudaea reverted to direct Roman rule,

Is this reference to Iudaea a typo for Judaea? Annachie (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Canonisation sources[edit]

Can anyone point me to a reliable source for Pilate's being considered a saint by the Copts and Ethiopians? I googled "saint pilate" and the only sources I readily found looked like hearsay. Thanks. Carl.bunderson 06:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear as if the Church of Ethiopia has much of a web presence. However, among other sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pontius Pilate confirms that he is venerated by the "Abyssinian" (i.e. Ethiopian) Church. They're in communion with the Coptic Church, but I don't believe he's considered a saint among the Copts. The frequent claim that the "Greek Orthodox" venerate him as a saint is erroneous. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am cutting the recently added cite about the Copts. Again, this is a purely Ethiopian tradition. Although they are in communion with the Copts, the Copts do not venerate Pilate as a saint, but confusion on this point has resulted in numerous web references that they do. Not one of them is reliable. See [4] for an explanation. I know this to be correct, and I'm afraid the only cite I will accept to the contrary would be an actual Coptic Synaxarion that lists Pilate. But no such cite exists. He is simply not there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Pilate[edit]

Do we have any evidence that there has been a serious debate about Pilate's existence? Josephus devotes considerable attention to him, so I would figure that should have done it for most scholars, save the few on the lunatic fringe. If nothing is substantiated, I am going to remove the section and incorporate his stone marking into the main article. Chris Weimer 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's extremely well established that Pilate did in fact exist. The question of Jesus' existence is where you'd find more serious debate, with stronger arguments against his existence than could be produced for Pilate. Fuzzform (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No scholar of whatever ilk has ever argued that Pilate was not historical. That line should be deleted as it feeds a persistent myth. We've repeatedly discussed this in many different forums. Time to put a stop to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Turton (talkcontribs) 11:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a stone inscription of his name dug up a few years ago, and he is mentioned by Tacitus, the Roman historian of the 1st century. Tacitus also mentions him executing the leader of the Christians (subject to a possible meddling with one letter of the word "christians").— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Of course, the Historicity section implies that there is or has been some informed debate on the issue. If no debate exists, then the Pilate Stone would be better off under a "contemporary references" section, which would also include the Tacitus source.` Orthotox (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


An anon removed a Veneration section, I have since updated links and spacing. Just wanted to know if the Veneration section is legit and should be put back. - RoyBoy 800 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's legit, and yes it should have been put back. I have no idea why I didn't see this post sooner. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


"In all New Testament accounts, Pilate hesitates to condemn Jesus until the crowd insists. Some have suggested that this may have been an effort by Early Christian polemicists to curry favor with Rome by placing the blame for Jesus' execution on the Jews. Yet Pilate's ability to be swayed by the crowd and his subsequent unjust decision to execute the innocent man hardly seem complimentary of Rome."

The last sentence seems clearly to be an attempt to retain the Gospels' credibility as divine, Godly documents uninfluenced by worldly goals. It rings as a rebuke, and the interpretation it represents is particular:

1). The flaws spoken of are measured and perceived arbitrarily. 2). How much Rome would care to see it that way is measured and perceived the same way. 3). That someone would expect it possible to portray as perfect a man with the role to carry out Jesus' inevitable death is strange. 4). The point is that they bothered to make him out to be a decent man at all, as well as the methods used to do this.

This is also set up to seem like a Christian rebuke:

"Roman magistrates had wide discretion in executing their tasks, and some readers question whether Pilate would have been so captive to the demands of the crowd (Miller, 49–50). (And see, Nettervile, "Jesus, etc pp. 22-23)[7] Summarily executing someone to calm the situation would, however, have been a tool a Roman governor could have used, and Pilate's reputation for cruelty and violence in secular accounts of the era makes it quite plausible he would have had no hesitation in using this tool."

For all his cruelty, he displayed compassion rare in those situations. It feels like the possibilities are placed in a manner to accomplish the goal I spoke of above.

I, of course, could be wrong. Generally however this article does not feel sufficiently NPOV.

Benjamin Urrutia...[edit]

To quote the current article:

Benjamin Urrutia (a Mormon anthropologist, linguist, and science-fiction writer) therefore argues that the anonymous leader at the incident with the standards in 18.55–59 was probably Jesus, although mainstream historians reject this conclusion as baseless.

Question: Why mention that he is Mormon? This view is not representative of the standard Mormon interpretation of these accounts, nor is it in anyway reflective of this man's renegade notions that he is Mormon. It is almost as though the inclusion of his religion is intended to negate his credibility before his argument is heard, which is beneath Wikipedia. The place to mention his religion (if there is a correct place to do so) is on his page, not this one. Recommended that this is rewritten

Benjamin Urrutia (an anthropologist, linguist, and science-fiction writer) therefore argues that the anonymous leader at the incident with the standards in 18.55–59 was probably Jesus, although mainstream historians reject this conclusion as baseless.

Open to suggestions prior to making the change.

Donosaurs 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


perhaps it's nice to note that in Dutch language, an proverb is often used "to send someone from Pontius to Pilatus" (iemand van Pontius naar Pilatus zenden). It means something like running in circles due to bureaucratic kafkaesque intransparancy. It's a beautiful expression, in my opinion :-) --Selach 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "bureaucratic Kafkaesque intransparancy"? I get the first two adjectives, but I don't see how transparency has anything to do with it. And wouldn't a better word be "opacity", rather than "intransparancy"? I'd like to know more about this phrase; seems interesting. Fuzzform (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Text to consider[edit]

An editor made a contribution to Historicity of Jesus that dealt with Pilate. I am moving that text here, because it was off topic at the article it was placed. Please consider incorporating the text here, if the content isn't already covered:

==Historical evidence for Pontius Pilate, a previously unproven New Testament character==

Modern archeological finds have verified the existence of historical characters found in the Bible of whom there had been no physical proof or evidence for many centuries. During the intervening centuries, for example, the lack of physical evidence or proof of the existence of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate was used as an argument against overall the accuracy of the New Testament, and indirectly, as an argument against the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Pontius Pilate who was the governor of Judea who sentenced Jesus Christ to death by crucifixion. Until 1961, there was no concrete physical evidence demonstrating to historical his existence.

Image:Pilate-inscription 03.jpg
(Limestone block discovered in 1961 with Pilate's tribute in Latin to Tiberius. The words [...]TIVS PILATV[...] can be clearly seen on the second line.)

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of black limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.[1] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44.

The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew c (talkcontribs) 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

The article already includes a section on the Caesarea inscription. The claim was previously made in this article that Pilate's historicity was doubted until the inscription was discovered, but it was removed due to the lack of a reliable source to substantiate it (cf. Historicity of Pilate above). I don't see a reason for adding any of the above to what's already in the article. EALacey 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs more roman empire context[edit]

When I came to this article I wanted to know which emperor ruled during the time of pilate. I had to search long and hard elsewhere to eventually find out. There is no explicit mention of his emperor in this article. I think there should be something at the top. For example:

... was the governor of the Roman Judaea Province from A.D. 26 until 36, during the rule of Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus.

Something like that to put the man pilate and his story into context with the rest of roman history. Everyone uses the timeline of rulers as a ruler! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll change it if it hasn't been changed already. See below for relevant comments of mine. Fuzzform (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Responsibility for Jesus' death" is a mess[edit]

The "Responsibility for Jesus' death" subsection assumes way too much knowledge and reads biased.

"Pilate hesitates to condemn Jesus until the crowd insists" - What crowd, when?

"his subsequent unjust decision to execute the innocent man hardly seem complimentary of Rome." - Who says it was unjust, and why? What was Jesus allegedly innocent of? People were executed in Roman territories all the time, since when is another execution "hardly complimentary", and why is that relevant?

The entire final paragraph reads like it has very little to do with Pilate's "Responsibility for Jesus' death". The start is going nowhere fast and is talking about things that happened hundreds of years after Pilate's death. Only toward the end is this paragraph barely tied into Pilate.

This is a poor and unprofessional section that needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They are bible quotes, written to be unclear for some reason. God must have been pissed. Zark424 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In which Church(es) is Claudia a saint?[edit]

First this article says that Claudia is a saint in the Coptix Orthodox Church, and then it says she's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Which is it? (Could someone have elided the two Churches?) Or is she considered a saint in both Churches? Spontaneous generation 8:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "Palestine"[edit]

In the heading of "Duties," and in other places in the article, the word "Palestine" is used to refer to the area of ancient Israelites. This is a misuse of the words, because "Palestine" was only first used after circa 70 AD, when the Romans renamed Judea after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt and destroying the Temple in Jerusalem.

I suggest that we use another word instead of "Palestine", as this term is historically inaccurate in this context. (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How come inaccurate if Herodotus calls the region Palestine in his Histories, written before 400BCE? The Lawless One (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To be correct within the historical context, Pilate was the Procurator of the Roman Province of Iudea (Governor of Judea, the Latin alphabet doesn't have a "j", so "i" is used). The two bolded terms are what should be used in this article (Iudea being far more correct than Judea). The events being written of in this article took place during the Roman occupation of Iudea. Iudea was a part of the Roman Empire, hence, "Province" of Iudea (which entails a position of Procurator/Governor). Not long after Pilate left, the Jewish Rebellion began, but was squashed by Vespasian (the first time, anyway), thus leading him to a position where he could rally support for his attempt at becoming Emperor. Ok, I'm getting off topic slightly... Fuzzform (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, Fuzzform, that you may not be distinguishing between Latin orthography (Iudaea if you were quoting a passage actually in Latin) and a long-established Anglicization (Judea). The Latin spelling requires the diphthong -ae-, which is optional in English. It strikes me as pretentious to use the Latin form with a word that has centuries of use in English -- should we call him "Iulius Caesar" in a modern English biography? And, as I said, in Latin it would be Iudaea, not Iudea. Also, though I'm not correcting the name of the province here, the adjective "Palaestinus" appears in more than one work by Ovid (died 17 A.D.), so it is demonstrably not true that the geographical term Palestine only came into use after 70 A.D. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pilate in The Master and Margarita and derived works[edit]

Pilate was portrayed in Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita as deeply regretful for having had any part in the execution of Jesus (or Yeshua, as he is known in the novel). He argues with the local religious leader (the high priest of Judea, Joeseph Kaifa) about which of the "criminals" should be freed for the Nisan holiday. Pilate proceeds to threaten Kaifa with Roman military action when the priest chooses Barraban to be freed, instead of Yeshua. Pilate's remorse leads him to have Judas (who betrayed Yeshua to the Jewish authorities) killed. (This last part obviously is in conflict with Biblical descriptions, in which Judas kills himself.) At one point in the novel, Pilate muses that perhaps Judas killed himself. Overall, Pilate is portrayed as extremely sympathetic to Jesus and his cause, but is unable to save him due to the danger of ruining his own career. He later has a dream in which Yeshua forgives him, and tells him that the execution never took place.

One should recognize that most of Bulgakov's sources were non-Biblical, or at least, non-canonical. For example: The Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate, David Strauss's and Farrar's biographies of Christ, Tacitus's Annals, Flavius Josephus, etc.

As for the Rolling Stones song... The title itself ("Sympathy for the Devil"), the description of the devil as "a man of wealth and taste", and the line "hope you guess my name", all point to Bulgakov's version of the Devil. In The Master and Margarita, the Devil goes by the name Woland (he hides his name, and true identity, until the omnipotent narrator later tells us), he is indeed a man of wealth and taste (as evidenced by his appearance and behavior throughout the novel), and is certainly not depicted as evil (he even helps the two main characters reunite - only those who are rude to him are punished). Hence the title of the song - have some sympathy for a man who isn't really as bad as he is usually depicted. Keep in mind that this is all in reference in the M&M, not the general conception of the Devil, but Bulgakov's envisioning of the Devil.

Hope this is useful commentary. I can give page citations for the first paragraph, but we'll need a secondary source for my analysis of the Rolling Stones' song. Also, some of the info in the first paragraph might be used in the M&M article itself.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Theme Song[edit]

While I don't know as though having the minute reference to Pilate in the Nextwave theme song is necessary, it does appear to be there. I'm not sure how best to cite it, but here is a link to some lyrics for the song: Schu1321 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Pilate washing his hands[edit]

I have to say I think the section on Pilate washing his hands betrays an obvious bias and is in need of some revisions.

This [Pilate washing his hands] may have been an effort by Early Christian polemicists to curry favor with Rome by placing the blame for Jesus' execution on the Jews and exonerate the largely Italian Roman Empire. It would have been difficult to spread the "new" religion around the Roman Empire if a main event was the state sanctioned murder of Jesus, thus portraying Rome and its officials as the wrongdoers.

The first sentence is mere speculation and should be eliminated entirely. The second sentence only elaborates on what is already speculation by assiging motives to the writers of the biblical accounts. Are we accepting the canonical gospel account of Pilate washing his hands as having some historical value? Perhaps the writers of the gospel accounts recorded that Pilate washed his hands simply because he did.

While we are speculating it is entirely likley that Pilate used symbolizm that his audience would understand. It is FAR MORE likely that Pilate knew something of Jewish law and washed his hands to symbolize his being innocent of shedding inocent blood – a symbolizm the Jews of his day would have recognized from Deuteronomy 21:6-9

Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, and they shall declare: "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Accept this atonement for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, O LORD, and do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent man." And the bloodshed will be atoned for. So you will purge from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the LORD. - Deuteronomy 21:6-9

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not beat around the bush[edit]

It is clear that this man ordered the death of Jesus. If he has declared him innocent, he would not have died on the cross. Even though he washed his hands, the blood of Jesus is on his hands and no others. Pilate had sole authority as governor. Wallie (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant to the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beat around the Bush? Howabout roman prefects not being involved in local judiciary procedures? As a source of (mis)information the article has merit on the idea of Pilatus, but from a historical roman view it is absurd. The fact someone even added in the myth of the iron shafts of Pilum bending is a huge discredit to this article alone. It needs to be rewritten in many places. (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What all are overlooking (including Christians for 2,000 years) are the obvious 'elephants standing in the middle of the room' proofs that Pilate indeed had no wish to execute Jesus, and was maneuvered int the act by the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem:

What is never mentioned is why Pontius Pilate and the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem never had arrested and “interrogated” members of the Jesus Sect as to the disposition of Jesus’ body. Why is that? This question just entered my mind recently. The Roman and Jewish authorities in Judea would have been duty bound to arrest and interrogate, so why didn’t they?

For Pontius Pilate, the answer to his inaction goes back three years to the early ministry of Jesus. In the Gospel of John Jesus, during His first year of ministry, spends an entire seven months in Pilate’s jurisdiction. Now Pilate was not a Roman proconsul who sat back and allowed events to overtake him. Pilate had an excellent network of agents who informed him of any possible trouble makers, especially if those possible troubles involved religion. So the question is, why did Pilate allow Jesus to wonder about for seven months within his jurisdiction, where Jesus was being quite conspicuous agitating and spreading His message?

The only answer can be that Pilate naturally came to the conclusion, based on the reports from his agents that were monitoring Jesus, that Jesus was indeed a Jewish God. Remember, Romans believed not just in their gods, but had no barriers in believing in other people’s gods. This explains why Pilate is hesitant to condemn Jesus when Jesus is brought before him, and only condemns Jesus when backed into a corner by the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem. Now you know why Pilate refused to interrogate members of the Jesus Sect in order to locate Jesus’ body.

So then, why didn’t the Jewish Elders arrest and interrogate members of the Jesus Sect in order to locate Jesus’ body, for they certainly didn’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah?

Well, they didn’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah before Jesus was executed by the Romans, however they would soon change their minds on Jesus’ claims, as proven by their inaction to take proper policing actions to recoup Jesus’ body.

You see, the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem also had agents monitoring Jesus and his followers, maybe even some of the same agents that were reporting to Pilate. The reason the Jewish Elders didn’t arrive at the same conclusion early on about Jesus’ true nature as Pilate did, is that they had one crushing handicap that clouded their objectivity: Rome. “What will Rome do if we proclaim Jesus the Messiah?” would have been in the backs of their minds. This crushing fear, when compounded by the fact that Pontius Pilate was a Roman proconsul not known to be distracted by Roman notions of mercy or nobleness, would have weighed heavily on their minds, leading them to condemn Jesus.

In fact, the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem did send out arrest warrants for members of the Jesus Sect, but the agents with the warrants returned with something else other than Jesus Sect members. What would that be? Fantastical accounts of watching the 2,000 members of the Jesus Sect (Paul mentions 500 eyewitnesses to seeing Jesus alive after His Roman execution, but Jewish custom of the day only counted adult males) all interacting with an invisible presence: Jesus! The Jewish Elders who condemned Jesus would then have bowed their heads in despair and realized what they had done, which is why Jesus on the cross said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.”

We also have the doubly inexplicable behavior by Pilate when he again fails to move on Jesus when Jesus returns to Judea for the last time, two years after His last major visit there. On Palm Sunday Jesus proceeds towards Jerusalem with a mob, and Pilate does nothing either then or quietly later when Jesus is relatively alone! Is it just me or has the Christian faith these past 2,000 years missed these "elephants standing in the middle of the living room" proofs that Pilate too knew Jesus to be a deity? (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All your personal theories are interesting, if lacking in verifiability, but is there a point specifically about this page somewhere in here or are you just soap-boxing? Ckruschke (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Primary Sources[edit]

So we have an article that mentions Pilate in the Gospels, Pilate in the Apocrypha, Pilate in Fiction, Pilate in Stone. It would be nice to have a section on Pilate in Tacitus and Josephus, wouldn't it? Rwflammang (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A Few Missing Things?[edit]

1. Independent of Jesus's trial and crucifixion, Jesus responds to an account that Pilate mingled the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices, mentioned in Luke 13:1. This should go in the canonical gospel section. 2. What about the account of the Jews refusing to modify their worship to please Pilate, and instead being ready to die? Is this in Josephus, and is it reliable? If so, wouldn't this bear mentioning? 3. Less important, but still perhaps noteworthy, is the movie Jesus(2000), where Gary Oldman plays Pilate. This version of Jesus's life features Oldman's Pilate as actually wanting Jesus dead, but pretending to be reluctant about it for show.

If I get a chance, I will see about at least the first thing I mentioned.John ISEM (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of "Pilatus"[edit]

Another possible origin of the cognomen Pilatus was the name given to a hat worn by the devotees of the Dioskouroi. The Castorian cult was well established throughout the empire and persisted will into the 5th Century AD particularly among the Dacian and Sarmatian soldiers throughout the frontiers of the empire. The name Pileatus was used as a cognomen by the descendants of Burebista of Dacia whose decendants are known to have been soldiers who were stationed in Judea, Britain, Spain, Gaul, and Germany.

Nonsense, and a self-contradicting one. Tne adjective formed from the "hat" (pilleus), as it is anyways written below, is "pileatus" (or "pilleatus"), not "pilatus". Mamurra (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Trivia", irrelevant or otherwise[edit]

User:PiCo on 25 July 2009 has deleted legends about Pilate as "Trivia" and the Scottish legend (of which more under "Fortingall" above) is further demoted to "Irrelevant Trivia". Unless a separate page on "Legends about Pilate" is to be created, their deletion is a trifle arrogant (like some other editing of the article). The legends will be well known in the localities from whence they spring, and one or more might be true. Ragbin (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pontious Pilate "ordered crucifixtion" a deceptive half-truth.[edit]

I am proposing that the current 'ordered crucifixtion" is a deceptive [[half-truth], true yet part of the truth.

By reading the link below it appears that Pilate was bullied into the crucifixtion by the people does not follow the logical concequences of his statement..."I find no fault..."

"and the man who while he could not find fault in Jesus was swayed and bullied by the chief priests, officials and crowd to authorize the crucifixion. [2]"

The blame should be put on the chief priests, officials and crowd, and or included in the paragraph.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it with "who authorized his crucifixion". This is sufficient, we don't need to go into overdetail about what happens in the Gospels in the intro (it could perhaps be expanded in the future).--Cúchullain t/c 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good improvement. might add a adjective, ie ...?

I just heard that Pontius Pilate was born in southern Italy, in a province by the name of Abuzzi.

I will look for a source.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pilate in later fiction[edit]

I have heard of a novel or short story in which Pilate is dining with an emperor and is asked about the crucifixion of Christ to which he responds along the lines of "I don't remember". If anyone knows of this tale could you please add? Thanks.

PCB 10/25/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Anatole France's short story The Procurator of Judaea. It is listed under the Portrayals in literature section. Muzilon (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added a mention of W.P. Crozier's 1928 novel, Letters of Pilate to His Friend Seneca. Crozier wrote this as a fictionalised account of what he imagined Pilate might have written, but a few gullible people online have cited the book as an authentic record of correspondence! Muzilon (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Deserves To Be a Featured Entry[edit]

This article on Pilate is very well done and attractive, the balance has been obtained. I was really impressed by the coins and tribute stone to Tiberius. Very striking stuff.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have heard of this tale and i found it very interestingg infact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.sterne (talkcontribs) 11:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate and the death of Jesus Christ[edit]

what did PP have to do with the death of christ? well when jesus was brought to him he did nnot want to deal whith him and he asked " did he commit a crime or a sin " the answer was that he commited a sin and PP said that that was not his area so he should not have the task of dealing with him! there is more in about an hour so dot go anywhere guys and ill be right back!

Pontius Pilate and the death of Jesus Christ[edit]

what did PP have to do with the death of christ? well when jesus was brought to him he did nnot want to deal whith him and he asked " did he commit a crime or a sin " the answer was that he commited a sin and PP said that that was not his area so he should not have the task of dealing with him! there is more in about an hour so dot go anywhere guys and ill be right back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.sterne (talkcontribs) 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this all?[edit]

Is the piece of stone discovered in 1961 the only evidence outside of the Bible and Josephus that Pilate existed? I've seen mentioned elsewhere that there are records of Pilate's rule, specifically all the 'stuff' he would have done (including the occasional execution perhaps?), but have never seen any evidence for anything like that. So, if there is evidence for Pilate outside of the stone and Josephus, it must be put in. Masternachos (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The stone is the only ancient inscription discovered so far that directly refers to Pontius Pilate. The main sources of information on Pilate are Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the New Testament. There are no surving Roman records that refer to Pilate (the 'stuff' refered to above). Ther are Roman coins dating from this time, but they generally include the name of the reigning emperor, not Pilate (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical scholars bit[edit]

The part that states that skeptical scholars basically don't believe a word of the gospels is very POV and not appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, it's a POV which is reliably source to the opinion-holders. Standard on WP. Is this simply the impulse which denies everyone the right to criticise christianity? BillMasen (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Why does this article use the spelling Judaea for the Roman province? That's not the spelling used by most modern historians. Instead, Iudaea is used, as distinct from Judea proper. Iudaea was not Judea, instead it was an amalgamation of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Judaea is ambiguous, it could stand for Judea proper or the Roman Iudaea province.

H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in AD 6, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea." (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should get Judaea (Roman province) renamed first. If that's what the article is called, that what it should be called here. "Most modern historians" is a slippery term. --JaGatalk 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
An interesting point has been raised on Talk:Judaea (Roman province); the user pointed out a slew of recent historians that used "Judaea" but couldn't find ones using "Iudaea". Do you have any other English references besides this 1976 book? If not, I'm taking it out per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --JaGatalk 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaea may be a common spelling, but modern historians use the spelling Iudaea to avoid confusion with Judea. 36,000 Google books results for "Iudaea". (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just have to mention, how hilarious that you would threaten to remove a reference to Ben-Sasson's book on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Clearly you know what you're talking about. (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Judeaea is the ENGLISH form of this name. I think it's about as simple as that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's spelled Judaea and it is a common English word. However, the problem is that it is ambiguous, it could stand for Judea proper or it could stand for the Roman province created in 6. Because of the ambiguity in the term Judaea, modern historians use the spelling Iudaea. Get it? (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get this. "Judaea" was a Roman province that was named for, er, "Judaea," the place where the Jews lived. If you want to spell one "Iudaea" and one "Judea", I suppose you have the right to do that, but it's totally arbitrary. Just because one term can have multiple meanings doesn't meant that we invent arbitrary orthographic distinctions to distinguish the two meanings. john k (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"We" (wikipedia editors) didn't invent it. Iudaea is the technical term in use among modern historians. Wikipedia has the option to ignore that fact or not. (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidently, historians "invent arbitrary orthographic distinctions" all the time, examples: Yehud Medinata, not Judaea (Persian province); Kingdom of Judah, not Judaea (Biblical kingdom); Hasmonean kingdom, not Judaea (Hasmonean); Syria Palaestina, not Judaea (Roman province after 135). (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am dubious that "Yehud Medinata" is in anything like common use in English. (There are 2 google books results for it, and none in Google Scholar). "Judah" is the term used in the King James Bible, and is the most common name in English, so that is hardly innovative or controversial. "Syria Palaestina" is a completely different name, as is "Hasmonean kingdom." "Iudaea" is just a different spelling of "Judea." john k (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, 3/4 of your google book results for "Iudaea" disappear when you restrict the search to works in English. Even then, many of the results appear to be direct quotes from Latin sources, not usage by the author. "Judaea" has over ten times as many results as "Iudaea" in Google Books, and many of them seem to refer to the Roman province. john k (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Iudaea is the technical term in use among modern historians specifically for the Roman province of 6 to 132, as you say it specifically comes from the Latin term in use by the Romans. Wikipedia has the option to ignore that fact or not. (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You can keep repeating this, but it's not really true. Iudaea is the term used by some historians for the Roman province of 6 to 132. Many other historians use "Judaea" for this province. john k (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Iudaea is the technical term. Its use tells you it's specifically about the Roman province from 6 to 132. Judaea is ambiguous but probably more common in general use such as TV documentaries and such. (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if wikipedia keeps the special wikipedia construction "Judaea (Roman province)", you still need to explain the use of "Iudaea" in technical references. Or do as User:JaGa suggests and censor those references from wikipedia. Hey, if it's not in wikipedia, it doesn't exist, right? (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pilate in Jewish Literature: Philo of Alexandria[edit]

Folks, I'm closely reading the passage about Pilate in Philo, translated by F. H. Colson, published by Harvard University Press, (c) 1962 and reprinted in hardcover in 1991. I'm not seeing the quotes that are included in the article. The article currently says: "According to Philo, Pilate was 'inflexible, he was stubborn, of cruel disposition. He executed troublemakers without a trial.' He refers to Pilate's 'venality, his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, endless savage ferocity.'"

Philo describes an incident in which Pilate was chastened by Tiberius after antagonizing the Jews by setting up gold-coated shields in Herod's palace. The closest I can find to the first quote is this: "[H]e, naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness." But there's nothing in this passage about executing troublemakers without a trial. The closest thing to the second quote is: "[H]e feared that if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supreme grievous cruelty." I'll change the language to these quotes unless anyone objects. - The Interloafer (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I went ahead and did this. If anyone thinks I acted too rashly please say so. -The Interloafer (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the historical references are known forgeries with the exception of the gospels, which are not historical references of any kind. I love Wikipedia, but this page is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Show your love by identifying your reliable sources. —ADavidB 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Era notation:default CE/BCE[edit]

The very first edit on 2002 October 18 used CE. That makes CE/BCE the default for this article absent any consensus to the contrary.--JimWae (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

pontius pilatus a l'origine de la creation de la palestine[edit]

pontius pilatus prefet de judée ayant le souhait d'effacer toute traces des traditions juives eu aussi la bonne idée de remplacer "la terre de judée" terre des juifs par une nouvele denomination en hebreux qui indiquait bien que cette terre etait désormais celle des envahisseurs "philicha" donc la palestine. confirmation sur le site de cesarée en israel, ville créée par pontius pilatus prefet de judée ou de palestine comme il preferait la nommer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

problematic sources[edit]

It is problematic to treat the gospels, whose aim was to spread a religion, in the same way as other historical sources are treated. So when the only source for Pilate's "What I have written, I have written" is a gospel, we cannot treat it as fact. It is an obvious way of underlining that the writer of the gospel considers Jesus as king. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Pontius[edit]

Is it /ˈpɒntʃəs/? I pronounce it /ˈpɒnʃəs/. I am English and have never heard it pronounced with a "ch" in it. (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Acts of Pilate[edit]

The article says, "The 4th century apocryphal text that is called the Acts of Pilate..." However, at the bottom of the section it says, "Justin the Martyr – The First and Second Apology of Justin Chapter 35- "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." The Apology letters were written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the Roman Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161."

Now one can clearly see the disingenuous nature of the "Higher Scholarship" when dating the Gospels.

Now, "Jesus was one in a series of Jewish religious-political rebels bent on destroying the Roman empire and the status quo at Jerusalem in the name of the kingdom of God. These Jewish messiah-figures described by the Jewish historian Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (especially in Books 17, 18 and 20) often used religious symbols and traditions to gain a popular following and to begin an uprising. The Roman governors dealt with them swiftly and brutally."

The Acts of Pilate precisely confirms why Pontius Pilate refused to arrest Jesus when Jesus was in his jurisdiction on at least two occasions (the first visit to Pilate's jurisdiction lasting seven months) causing mob spectacles. These mob-based upsetting of the Roman Peace were not tolerated, yet with Jesus Pilate does nothing. Why? Pilate had agents watching Jesus, and they would have informed Pilate about Jesus. It was the agents'-based reports that prompted Pilate to allow Jesus to upset the Roman Peace. And what was in those reports that restrained Pilate's hands? Obviously that Jesus was a deity, otherwise Pilate would have done what he always did in such circumstances involving religious-based disturbances: arrest and execute without trial the person responsible for the mob disturbances.

Even when the Jewish Elders cornered Pilate when they sent Jesus to him for adjudication, Pilate is STILL reluctant to condemn Jesus. Why? Why would Pilate have a problem executing (even without adjudication) a man that the previous Sunday (Palm Sunday to Christians) caused another mob spectacle? The Acts of Pilate confirm very well as to why Tiberius in the Acts is recorded to have petitioned the Roman Senate to make Jesus a deity. (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit that you'd like to make to the page or are you just soap-boxing? Ckruschke (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Pronunciation of Pilate[edit]

According to the article itself, it is likely that Pilate was born a Roman citizen, in central Italy. As such, Latin is indeed his native language. Why, then, do we pronounce his second name "Pilot"? Shouldn't it be "Pi-lah-tay", as is standard according to the regulations of Latin phonology? AuburnAttack21 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Because we are stupid Americans. Mis-pronouncing words/names is our "thing"... Ckruschke (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hristo Shopov[edit]

I deleted the phrase "(his first language)" from the entry. I don't think anyone alive today has Latin as a primary language. (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Either the subject [The Pilate Stone] or related Wiki articles anachronistic?[edit]

(I made this query on the article about the Pilate Stone. However, because that article gets far fewer views than the main article on Pilate, I’m taking the liberty of reposting it here as I think it touches on an important point of historical accuracy within the two articles as well as that of Livia’s which requires clarification. Thank you.)

The article [The Pilate Stone] states that the stone contains a dedication to the deified Augustus and Livia. The article also states that the stone is contemporary to Pilate’s lifetime. However, the Wikipedia article states that Pilate died around (I assume that “c.” stands for circa) AD 37, and the article on Livia states that she wasn’t defied until AD 42 under her grandson, the emperor Claudius. Can anyone reconcile this apparent conflict? Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Pontius Pilate[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Pontius Pilate which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and vindicating Pilate[edit]

This article places far too little emphasis on the fact that the canonical evangelists, especially John and Matthew, and the later apocryphal writers, and later Christians whole made Pilate a saint, were motivated by hatred of the Jews. Sure, it is mentioned here and there, but always as though 'twere a minority view held by some. This whitewashing is pretty sick... Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing item in the "portrayals in music/literature" section[edit]

In Macbeth Act II, Scene II, line 88, Lady Macbeth says, "A little water clears us of this deed", in reference to how she doesn't want to take full responsibility for Duncan's murder. This is a clear reference to Pilate for several reasons and I hope that someone more competent than I would add it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ The word Tiberieum is otherwise unknown: some scholars speculate that it was some kind of structure, perhaps a temple, built to honor the emperor Tiberius.
  2. ^ John 19 - The Trial of Chrirt