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]

While trade was generally prohibited inside temples, nearby commerce—especially if religiously related—was sometimes tolerated. However, violating strict sacred prohibitions could lead to legal or religious consequences



CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT


QUESTION Did Jesus Prevent Free Passage through the temple courtyard?

The Gospels suggest Jesus disrupted commercial activity in the Temple but do not explicitly state that he physically blocked movement in a way that would justify an iniuria claim. If he had merely overturned tables and rebuked the merchants, it would be an act of protest rather than a personal violation against an individual’s dignity or rights.

Had Jesus impeded free passage through the temple courtyard of Jerusalem, would he have been in violation of the Roman law of injuria

ChatGPT said:
The Roman law of iniuria primarily covered offenses related to personal insult, defamation, or physical harm rather than general disruptions of movement. However, if Jesus had physically prevented people from conducting business or passing through the Temple courtyard, there could be some legal debate as to whether his actions constituted a minor civil offense under Roman law

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT continued ...

You said:
in view of the above would Jesus restricting trade in the Jewish temple have been considered illegal under roman law

ChatGPT said: Jesus’ act of driving out merchants from the Jewish Temple (as described in the Gospels) would likely not have been considered illegal under Roman law, but it could have been seen as a religious offense under Jewish law or a public disturbance under Roman governance.

1. Roman Law and Trade on Sacred Ground

As discussed earlier, Roman religious law generally forbade trade within fully consecrated temples (sacra), though some commerce (especially selling sacrificial animals or exchanging money) was tolerated in temple courtyards. The Jerusalem Temple complex included areas that were not fully sacred (such as the Court of the Gentiles), where vendors were allowed to sell animals for sacrifices and exchange foreign currency. If the outer areas of the Temple were not considered fully consecrated under Jewish law, then Roman authorities wouldn’t see trade there as illegal.

2. Did Jesus Violate Roman Law?

No explicit Roman law would have criminalized Jesus’ actions unless:

• He used violence against people (which the Gospels do not suggest).

• He damaged property (overturning tables might have been disruptive but not a serious offense).

• His actions caused a major public disturbance requiring Roman intervention. The Roman governor (Pontius Pilate) and local officials would have been primarily concerned with maintaining public order, not enforcing Jewish religious rules.

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

.

• Roman law primarily addressed actions that caused material harm, violated public order, or offended personal dignity (iniuria). Since your scenario avoids all these factors, there would be no clear basis for legal action.

• However, social customs and personal reputation (existimatio) were crucial in Roman society. Even if not illegal, such an act might be seen as rude or inappropriate, potentially affecting one's social standing, especially if done in front of the wrong people.

You said:
if there was no damage to the tables and no blasphemy or provocation to unrest, would there have been a criminal issue

ChatGPT said: If there was no property damage, no blasphemy, and no provocation to unrest, then under Roman law, it is unlikely that Jesus’ actions in overturning the tables would have constituted a formal criminal offense

1. Roman Legal Perspective : Roman authorities prioritized order and stability, especially in Jerusalem, where religious tensions were high. However, they typically did not interfere in purely internal Jewish religious disputes unless they escalated into disturbances that threatened Roman control.

• No Property Damage (Damnum Iniuria Datum) – If the tables were merely overturned but not broken, and the money could be recovered, there would be no legal grounds for a charge related to destruction of property.

• No Blasphemy or Treason (Maiestas) – Since blasphemy was primarily a Jewish religious concern, it would not have been a Roman legal issue unless it involved a direct challenge to Roman authority (which does not seem to apply in this case).

• No Public Unrest (Vis Publica or Seditio) – The key concern for the Romans would have been whether Jesus’ actions incited a riot or disorder. If there was no violent response, and it remained a brief moment of protest rather than an ongoing disruption, the Romans likely would not have intervened.

.

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.

3. Jewish Law and Temple Authority

The Jewish priestly elite (Sadducees) managed the Temple and had authority over its operations. If they saw Jesus’ actions as a challenge to their authority, they could have reported Him to the Romans as a troublemaker. The Sanhedrin (Jewish council) might have viewed this as a religious offense (not a Roman legal issue), but they had limited power to punish without Roman approval.

4. Roman Perspective on the Temple Incident

The Romans generally allowed local religious customs to be managed by native authorities, as long as they did not threaten public order. Jesus’ actions, while disruptive, did not necessarily amount to a criminal act under Roman law, but if they sparked unrest, the Romans would have seen Him as a potential agitator.

CONCLUSION Jesus’ clearing of the Temple would not automatically be illegal under Roman law, since trade within a sacred space was itself often restricted. However, if His actions were seen as inciting a riot or challenging Temple authorities, the Romans could have viewed Him as a threat to order, which might have contributed to His later arrest and execution.

You said: does the bible account indicate Jesus actions were intended to incite a riot

ChatGPT said: No, the Bible does not indicate that Jesus intended to incite a riot when He cleared the Temple. Instead, His actions appear to be a prophetic protest against corruption and commercialization within a sacred space.

[JehovahsWitness]

A CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT ... continued



QUESTION According to the gospel accounts did Jesus prevent absolutely everyone from crossing the temple courtyard?

ChatGPT said:

No, according to the Gospel accounts, Jesus did not prevent everyone from crossing the temple courtyard. The key passage related to this is found in Mark 11:15-17, where Jesus drives out those buying and selling in the temple, overturns the money changers' tables, and stops people from carrying merchandise through the temple courts. However, this action appears to be directed specifically at commercial activity rather than a blanket prohibition on all movement.

Mark 11:16 states: "And He would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts."

• This suggests that Jesus was preventing the use of the temple as a marketplace or shortcut, but not necessarily stopping all people from passing through. His primary concern was the misuse of the temple, as emphasized in His statement: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of robbers" (Mark 11:17, quoting Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11).

So while He took strong action against commercial activities, the text does not indicate that He stopped worshipers or others from entering for legitimate religious purposes.





Did His Actions Harm the Money Changers?

If they lost business due to his actions, they might have claimed financial harm, but iniuria was not typically about economic losses—it was more about personal insult or assault. Roman commercial laws (such as Lex Aquilia for damages) would have been more relevant if financial loss were claimed.

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.

[Difflugia]

Guilty of no crime? He vandalized the Temple and a slave was assaulted during his arrest? Civil disturbances were regarded as insurrection.

Maybe in your own mind, not according to the Bible.

We had a long discussion about this a few years ago.

The Bible records a number of thing Jesus did in the Temple that violated Roman law. If the Bible accurately recorded Jesus' actions, then he was guilty of crimes.

If that is correct, why did Pilate say he is not guilty?

We can guess, but it doesn't matter. Maybe Pilate didn't know all of the things Jesus did. Maybe he was tweaking the noses of the Sanhedrin. Maybe he didn't think Jesus was worth the effort.

The more salient question is if Jesus didn't do the things that broke Roman law, why are they included in the Gospel stories? We know what actions are listed in the Gospels and we know Roman law.

The Bible records a number of thing Jesus did in the Temple that violated Roman law.

Incorrect.

The last time we had this discussion, you claimed this over and over again without ever supporting your claims. At one point, I listed all of your unsupported claims for reference. Since you seem like you want to pick up where you left off, I'll repeat it here:

Just so we're clear on what you are actually claiming, here are the attempted defenses you've recently made without presenting any sort of justification:

• Broadly stated many times, Jesus broke no law at all.
• Jesus was illegally arrested.
• Overturning the tables of the money changers was not a crime.
• Theft is narrowly defined in Roman law in some way that excludes Jesus' behavior.
• The commerce near the Temple that Jesus halted was against Jewish law and so Jesus' conduct was legal (that's two separate claims, by the way; merely demonstrating the first doesn't demonstrate the second).
• Insulting someone through creative quoting of Jewish scripture is a legally-protected Jewish right.
• Jesus was merely holding a whip, rather than committing violence with it and committing violence while brandishing (but not using) a whip isn't criminal (again, that's two separate claims).
• There is a level of violence that can be committed with a whip that is nonetheless still legal.
• None of Jesus' recorded conduct would be considered injuria under Roman law.

You have supported none of these assertions. You have insisted that your debate opponents provide evidence for their positions and they have done so using multiple sources. You, however, have provided no evidence to either support any of your claims or rebut those of your opponents. The only evidence you have provided of anything is that the Romans allowed local governments some measure of autonomy in their legal affairs, but as that was never in dispute, it's hard to see which claim, either yours or your opponents', you meant to address.

Everyone else has done their homework and indeed much of yours. I made a point, in fact, of finding sources that were freely available to ensure that you have access to them. If the rest of us charitably allow that even one of your claims has merit and there is evidence somewhere out there to support it, it's now up to you to find and present it.

Mark 11:15-16 records several actions that violate Roman law. From Introduction to Roman Law by William Alexander Hunter, pp. 136-137:

Injuria is when a person, either intentionally or by negligence, violates any right that a free man has in respect of his own person . It thus includes a multifarious variety of wrongs, as striking or whipping a man; kidnapping or falsely imprisoning him; reviling a man in public (convicium facere); defaming a man either by words or writing, or even by acts. Thus it was defamation to take possession of a man's goods, as if he were insolvent, when he owed nothing. Again, it was an injuria to enter a man's house against his will, even to serve a summons.

[JehovahsWitness]

The last time we had this discussion, you claimed {snip}

The previous discussion has been corrected and revised: please see new version in this thread posts #10 to 13 above

[Purple Knight]

Guilty of no crime? He vandalized the Temple and a slave was assaulted during his arrest? Civil disturbances were regarded as insurrection.

Tipping over tables, though it probably should be a crime, and Jesus was probably guilty of it (and it was a crime in ancient Rome, regarded as injuria as this debate has been had before, but none of us are ancient Roman judges so this debate is not really resolvable) doesn't exactly deserve death.
(See: viewtopic.php?p=1033572#p1033572 for more info.)
I do not share JW's view that the tipping over tables was not technically a crime. It probably was but I'm not a judge. However, I do admit it was necessary.

Ultimately this is a part of a larger issue, that of civil disobedience and its proper limits. If we all know the moneychangers are doing something wrong, but they simply park there and do it, and none of us can dislodge them without violent action or at least threat of violence (such as with a whip) then are we to do that?

If the answer is no then anyone may do anything wrong, hurt anyone as he pleases, as long as he is nonviolent about it. Because unless he is violent, then we may not use violence to dislodge him. Modern society suffers from this. For example, health insurance companies kill tends of thousands of people per year by denying or delaying legitimate claims, and then, whoops, they don't have to pay out, because the person died. We all know this is wrong but they are allowed to continue to do it, because they do it nonviolently, and so, we assume, nobody may use violence to dislodge them.

I think if any one of us puts ourselves in Pilate's shoes and look at Jesus as per the story, we will see someone who is being punished extremely harshly (even if the crime is legitimate) precisely because he was engaging in civil disobedience, without which we get a horrible, corrupt system where anyone is allowed to harm anyone else as long as they do it nonviolently.

[1213]

... we know Roman law.

Why should I believe you know it better than Pilate?

[JehovahsWitness]

Tipping over tables ... was a crime in ancient Rome, regarded as injuria as this debate has been had before...

Please note my corrections and revisions above posts #10 to 13 above

• FREE PASSAGE ROMAN LAW --> injuria posts #11

• OVERTURNED TABLES (PROPERTY DAMAGE) ROMAN LAW --> Damnum Iniuria Datum posts #12

• PUBLIC UNREST ROMAN LAW --> Vis Publica or Seditio posts #12

• LOSS OF EARNINGS ROMAN LAW --> lucrum cessans posts #13

• LOSS OF BUSINESS ROMAN LAW --> Lex Aquilia posts #13

• DEFAMATION ROMAN LAW --> Convicium Facere posts #19 (below)

If there is a law you feel was implicated in Jesus actions in the temple that I have not considered please feel free to mention it by name and I will do further research


Regards,

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[JehovahsWitness]

MATTHEW 21v 12, 13 NWT

Jesus entered the temple and threw out all those selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.+ 13 And he said to them: “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a cave of robbers.”

A CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT ... continued

QUESTION If Jesus words were not directed to any one individual (but to a group action) and did not nor were they intended to lead to public disturbance, would he have broken the law convicium facere

ChatGPT said:
If Jesus' words were not directed at any one individual but rather at a collective action (e.g., critiquing the practice of money-changing in the Temple as a whole) and were neither intended to nor did they lead to public disturbance, then it is unlikely that His actions would have constituted convicium facere under Roman law.

Why This Would Not Constitute Convicium Facere


Lack of Personal Defamation

Roman convicium required a clear element of personal insult or public shaming directed at specific individuals.
If Jesus’ words were aimed at condemning a general practice rather than personally attacking the money changers, it would not meet the legal standard.

No Intent or Resulting Public Disorder

If His actions did not cause an actual riot or public unrest, it would be harder to argue that He was creating a disturbance. Roman authorities were more concerned with maintaining order than policing moral or religious critiques.

Freedom of Speech in Religious Contexts

Rome generally allowed religious leaders to preach and critique societal behavior as long as it didn’t incite sedition. If Jesus’ statements were seen as a theological critique rather than a political provocation, they would not fall under Roman legal concern.

CONCLUSION Without a personal insult, a formal accusation from an injured party, or a public disturbance, Jesus' actions would not fit the strict legal definition of convicium facere. Instead, the opposition to Him likely stemmed from religious authorities rather than Roman legal enforcement.

[Purple Knight]

You said:
in view of the above would Jesus restricting trade in the Jewish temple have been considered illegal under roman law

ChatGPT said: Jesus’ act of driving out merchants from the Jewish Temple (as described in the Gospels) would likely not have been considered illegal under Roman law, but it could have been seen as a religious offense under Jewish law or a public disturbance under Roman governance.

1. Roman Law and Trade on Sacred Ground

As discussed earlier, Roman religious law generally forbade trade within fully consecrated temples (sacra), though some commerce (especially selling sacrificial animals or exchanging money) was tolerated in temple courtyards. The Jerusalem Temple complex included areas that were not fully sacred (such as the Court of the Gentiles), where vendors were allowed to sell animals for sacrifices and exchange foreign currency. If the outer areas of the Temple were not considered fully consecrated under Jewish law, then Roman authorities wouldn’t see trade there as illegal.

That's why it probably would have been injuria, because despite not causing any overt physical damage (but see below) Jesus was interfering with what the Roman authorities presumably thought the merchants had every right to do - interfering with their legal rights.

That said, I don't fully accept that turning over a table does not count as damage. A broken table can be repaired, and a flipped one can be righted, so the only difference between them is the degree of labour required from the owner to undo the action, because either way, a table not in its upright and unbroken state is unusable. The idea that not even one coin was lost in the dirt when people were being chased by whips, is a stretch.

Note that I'm on Jesus's side in this case. Sometimes, people have to do what's right, even if it's illegal. It's the when, how, and why of that that's difficult.

And it's not hard to see why Pilate might have sympathy. You don't have to affirm someone's legal right to flip tables to balk at the idea that it deserves death.