Furrowed Brow wrote:If Jesus was attracting large multitudes across the region this is always going to be of interest if not a concern of the regional governor of any empire. Pilate's general disinterest signals he had no strong opinions about Jesus because he had not bothered to find out. It looks more like Pilate is not worried about those multitudes (which is hard to figure) or he does not know of them (and is incompetent) or the crowds were not so big to have registered on the consciousness of the governor of Judea.
I think your first option is the most likely - Pilate was not worried about the multitudes – when we consider the evidence. The reason was simply that these were peaceful gatherings. It’s not as though the Jews
only gathered in large numbers when they were considering an insurrection; as though a large crowd of Jews was a tell-tale sign to Pilate that insurrection was afoot. The Jews gathered peacefully in large numbers regularly. Some examples would be 1) Sabbath Temple gatherings 2) the annual Feast of Unleavened Bread would have seen, over the course of a week or so, thousands of Jews descend upon Jerusalem every year 3) the crowds John the Baptist attracted.
A suggestive case example is found in the second chapter of Acts where Luke tells of the day of Pentecost not long after Jesus death. A large crowd of at least 3,000 Jews listened to Peter preach about Jesus right under Pilate’s nose in Jerusalem. The crowd itself may have been larger since 3,000 was the number which converted. In this recounting from Luke there isn’t even a hint the Roman authorities had knowledge of the gathering let alone any evidence they were concerned.
So I don’t see how, when we survey the evidence, it follows necessarily that a charismatic Jewish rabbi who could capture the attention of thousands with his preaching would be enough to concern Pilate thereby registering on his consciousness. Especially when we consider the nature of Jesus’ preaching was peaceful. Heck, Jesus even encouraged his listeners to pay taxes to Rome.
When we see Pilate taking an interest in large crowds it was when there was some indication of potential uprising. Two notable examples come to us from Josephus’
Antiquities (ch. 18). The first was where Pilate crushed a large rebellious crowd of ten thousand who had “made a clamour against him.� Pilate’s men, who had cloaked themselves amongst the Jews, launched a surprise attack on the crowd and “an end was put to this
sedition,� says Josephus. The second was where Pilate had a band of Samaritans slain. But Josephus also tells us this group of Samaritans was armed.
In the end I think fundamentally you are still arguing a non-sequitur. As though Pilate’s knowledge of the details of Jesus’ life is somehow the litmus test for the scope of Jesus’ fame. Something along the lines of, if Pilate didn’t know about Jesus, then Jesus wasn’t famous. Arguing from Pilate is simply a very poor argument.
Pilate's job was to know what was going on in Judea and if he was competent to also have an understanding of the region.
Pilate’s
job was to ensure taxes were collected and Roman rule remained intact. So long as taxes were paid and Roman rule wasn’t under direct threat the Romans generally allowed the Jews to get on with life as usual. That included gathering in large numbers to practise their religion.
If you were chief of police there is an expectation you would have a good knowledge of what was going in your county and would be abreast of events in neighbouring counties.
This of course presumes Pilate had the resources to be aware of every event or gathering in his region and neighbouring ones. I’m not so sure he did. He had a large area to cover.
You are also presuming Pilate had an interest in doing his job well. I’m not so sure about that either. Judea was a backwater fringe Roman province. Not a very prestigious posting. We have to wonder why Pilate was posted there. Certainly not where one would expect the best and brightest to be posted. When we further consider that Pilate was eventually removed from his position by higher Roman authorities we have two reasons to think Pilate wasn’t the cream of the Roman crop so to speak.
Well that is the point. Given his position and given the claims about the multitudes it is strange Pilate only vaguely heard of Jesus. That is the curious point.
I don’t think this is so strange. I think I’ve already provided ample justification for thinking Pilate would not have known the details of Jesus’ ministry yet still have heard of him, if only vaguely.
Yes there probably was a disconnect with Pilate disrespecting the Jews. But Jewish or not it is surprising a Roman governor was not interested in large crowds. Luke 13:1-2 tells use Pilate killed some Galileans. Jesus talks of this.
Yes but we aren’t told how many or the circumstances under which they were killed by Pilate. At best this confirms what we already know about Pilate. That is, he was known to be violent.
Any decent governor would be alert to clamping down on even the hint of dissension. Whilst Jesus may not have concerned himself with Roman affairs Pilate had a responsibility to make sure any preacher drawing large crowds was not going to arouse the multitude against Roman rule. It was his job to know.
I think the bolded is the key. There was
no hint of dissension from Jesus. Certainly not a militant one anyway. And that would be what Pilate would want to know as a soldier charged with maintaining Roman rule. Or at least that would be the kind of information that if it were to make its way back to Pilate would certainly be enough stimulus to cause Pilate to take a keen interest in the details about Jesus. You’d be hard pressed indeed to make the argument Jesus was advocating such a thing. So Pilate may have caught wind of some charismatic miracle working rabbi capable of drawing a crowd. This information alone, without the accompanying and all-important key that a threat against Roman rule was arising, simply wouldn’t have registered with Pilate as anything worth expending resources on.
Mark 15:7 tells us Barabbas was in prison with insurrectionists. So there you have it. There was insurrection afoot.
Not from Jesus though. And that’s the salient point.
Whilst more attuned Herod does not seem too concerned with the multitudes accumulating on his patch. Flavius Josephus reported that Herod killed John because of his fear of the hold John held over the people. This sounds realistic and would also be the basic motivation of any governor to keep an eye on preachers drawing large crowds. Who knows what they may preach against you?
I think the example of John the Baptist works against your argument quite well. In fact, it may falsify it altogether. Here, with John, we have an example of a charismatic Jew capable of drawing large crowds very similar to what we have with Jesus. In addition, John and Jesus were not only likely related but they were preaching a similar message. Indeed, John was the one who prepared the way. With that in mind, consider that we have no evidence, whatsoever, that Pilate (or Roman authorities) took any interest in John at all. Now why is that if Pilate had motivation to “keep an eye on preachers drawing large crowds�? Probably because there was no direct threat to
Roman rule in the case of John, just like with Jesus. Herod was interested in John, of course, for personal reasons. And as I said earlier Pilate became interested when he thought Jesus might be a threat to Roman rule. In other words, it would seem a Jewish preacher who could draw large crowds wasn’t itself enough to get the attention of the Roman authorities. Apparently, that phenomena wasn’t unprecedented. Nor was it evidence of potential insurrection.
It also appears Jesus was a curiosity to Herod not an acute problem. He does not seem worried about what the people may think like he was with John. Indicating the support Jesus could draw to him was smallest threat than the numbers who had followed and listened to John. Herod was happy to make a joke out of Jesus and send him back to Pilate.
I think you may be overlooking the salient point here which in turn is leading to an erroneous conclusion. We have evidence that Herod moved on John because John
openly stood against Herod. In other words, Herod had
direct evidence that John may be a threat. This wasn’t the case with Jesus. Though Herod may have had some suspicions since John and Jesus may have been related.
Well yes exactly. Herod did not walk on water nor raise people from the dead and he did not draw large crowds from all over the Levant.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Remember it was you who defined
fame along the lines of
being well known. You said,
�Pilate's ignorance of Jesus' ministry - the fact he did not know he was from Galilee – signals Jesus was not well known (as in not that famous).� Now it seems you may be shifting the definition of
famous to something along the lines of one who performed miracles.
Herod didn’t need to do anything miraculous to be well known. He was the ruler of the region. You aren’t seriously suggesting that Herod was
less known in the region and neighboring ones than Jesus are you? Surely we can say Herod was at least as famous as Jesus if not even more so. So again I ask, where are the narratives dedicated to the telling of Herod’s life story written during his life time?
There is Pilate's stone that gives physical evidence to the existence of Pilate so maybe Pilate is a better example.
Sure the Pilate Inscription. Something we might expect for a Roman governor. But where are the narrative’s written during Pilate’s lifetime dedicated to his story? Or any number of notable figures who in their day were probably just as
famous as Jesus. In other words, your historical methodology breaks down under scrutiny. Near silence in the historical record from the contemporaries of famous people in antiquity is more the norm than the exception.
