Why Would Pilate Care About Jesus

[RugMatic]

Hey Pilate, some Jew vandalized the Temple and when we arrested him a slave was assaulted.

Why would Pilate feel sympathy for Jesus and want to release him as the gospels portray him?

Here's what is known of Pilate: He ruled for 10 years over Judea and Samaria. He allowed Caiaphas, whom his predecessor Valerius Gratus appointed, to remain high priest. He offended some Jews shortly after he became governor on two occasions: He brought some images of Tiberius Caesar and some golden shields to Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. He did this at night in an attempt to be discreet. Around the middle of his tenor he used money from the Temple to build a better aqueduct in Jerusalem. He was fired by the legate of Syria for using brute force to stop a violent Samaritan riot at mount Gerizim.

Pilate seems like a level headed guy to me and ten years is an usually long tenor for a Roman governor. According to Wikipedia most governors of Judea lasted 2-3 years. So Pilate was fairly component.

I can imagine Pilate thinking, geez, the guy flipped some tables and chairs, deal with it yourselves. I can just as easily imagine him thinking, geez, the guy flipped some tables and chairs, crucify him. Any civil disturbance was considered an insurrection, which was what crosses were for.
But I can't imagine Pilate having sympathy for him. You reap what you sow in this hectic, hyper religious region and Pilate knew that all too well.

[JehovahsWitness]

That's why it probably would have been injuria...

CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT


Would Jesus’ Actions Violate Iniuria?

Definition of Iniuria – Under Roman law, iniuria referred to personal affronts such as insult (contumelia), physical assault (manu-forti), or harm to a person’s dignity. It was largely a matter of private law, meaning an individual had to bring a complaint rather than it being a state-level criminal charge.

Would the Romans Have Acted?

Since iniuria was a civil matter, it would have required an individual to bring charges against Jesus, which seems unlikely given the short duration of the event. The Romans were more concerned with political stability than enforcing minor personal grievances, especially in a religious setting where Jewish authorities had significant autonomy.

CONCLUSION While Jesus may have briefly disrupted commerce and movement, this likely did not rise to the level of iniuria under Roman law. His actions were more of a religious and social protest rather than a personal insult or assault, which is what iniuria typically covered. Thus, there was no clear violation of Roman law on this basis alone.

[Purple Knight]

CONCLUSION While Jesus may have briefly disrupted commerce and movement, this likely did not rise to the level of iniuria under Roman law. His actions were more of a religious and social protest rather than a personal insult or assault, which is what iniuria typically covered. Thus, there was no clear violation of Roman law on this basis alone.[/color]

Just because an action is a social protest does not excuse actions done as a part of that protest, which violate another law. The fact that he was protesting doesn't mean he didn't assault anybody. We don't know what would have happened, had Jesus not been arrested. Maybe nobody whose tables were tipped would have brought charges. But seeing as how they were [unjustly] incredibly wealthy and Jesus was bothering them, it's reasonable to expect that they would have done so.

[JehovahsWitness]

. The fact that he was protesting doesn't mean he didn't assault anybody.

There is no record of Jesus assaulting anybody and as pointed out the action as recorded in scripture ... {quote} likely did not rise to the level of iniuria under Roman law{end quote}.

[Purple Knight]

. The fact that he was protesting doesn't mean he didn't assault anybody.

There is no record of Jesus assaulting anybody and as pointed out the action as recorded in scripture ... {quote} likely did not rise to the level of iniuria under Roman law{end quote}.

Certainly tipping someone's table was an insult to them in addition to depriving them of the [to the Romans, probably] rightful use of their property. After that, it was on them to bring charges. Would the Romans have done anything? Well, they did, so we don't have to wonder. Some of them, Pilate included, seemed to think it was piddly and stupid and a waste of Rome's time, but they still arrested him. The fact that they brought him in seemingly extralegally rather than let the victims sue (from your description it seems roughly analogous to how civil suits work in our time) doesn't mean they weren't going to do anything about it if instead, the system had run as intended.

[JehovahsWitness]

Certainly tipping someone's table was an insult to them ....

THE TABLES



QUESTION Under roman law would it have been deemed an offense to overturn a table that was not on state property, on sacred ground or during an official ceremony such as a banquet, if doing so did not result in damage to persons or property, significant loss of earnings or a public disturbance

ChatGPT said:
Under Roman law, if overturning a table occurred outside of state property, sacred ground, or an official ceremony, and caused no damage, financial loss, or public disturbance, it is unlikely to have been considered a legal offense

.

2. Would the Romans Have Acted?

If Jesus had simply overturned tables and left without causing lasting disruption, it is unlikely the Romans would have seen it as a criminal matter. However, the Temple authorities could have used it as part of a broader case against Jesus, framing him as a troublemaker to gain Roman support for his later arrest and trial.

In short, without damage, blasphemy, or unrest, there would be no clear criminal charge under Roman law, but it could have still contributed to his eventual persecution for broader political and religious reasons.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #25]

You had to ask it specifically if it caused no damage to any property or public disturbance, which we know it did because Jesus was running people off with a whip. You flip a table and that is damage, because although slight, you have interfered with the function of the table which must now be righted. The idea that not one single coin was lost in the dirt is incredible.

[JehovahsWitness]

... depriving them of the [to the Romans, probably] rightful use of their property.

Did His Actions Harm the Money Changers?

If no damage were inflicted, could loss of earnings be compensated under Lex Aquilia?

ChatGPT said: Under the Lex Aquilia, compensation was primarily tied to direct physical damage (damnum corpore datum). This means that loss of earnings (lucrum cessans) was generally not covered unless it resulted from actual damage to property, such as the injury or death of a slave who generated income.

[JehovahsWitness]

You had to ask it specifically if it caused no damage to any property or public disturbance, which we know it did because Jesus was running people off with a whip.

Kindly prove what you said above is true.

[JehovahsWitness]

... You flip a table ... you have interfered with the function of the table which must now be righted.

ChatGPT said:
Under Roman law, if overturning a table occurred outside of state property, sacred ground, or an official ceremony, and caused no damage, financial loss, or public disturbance, it is unlikely to have been considered a legal offense

.

[JehovahsWitness]

Some of them, Pilate included, seemed to think it was piddly and stupid and a waste of Rome's time, but they still arrested him.

Jesus was not arrested by the Romans he was arrested (illegally so) by the Jewish authorities.




Neither the merchants nor temple authorities pressed charges for overturning the tables in the temple.

...doesn't mean they weren't going to do anything about it if instead, the system had run as intended.

If the account is to be believed the religious authorities had no interest in seeking damages for Jesus overturning the tables since it was certainly not a capital offence. The account contains their clear statement of intent to have him killed which explains their seeking evidence of more serious offences.