Pilates Trial (9 h 3 abr 33 ano – 12 h 3 abr 33 ano)

Descrição:

Herod the Great and Jesus Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence
Gérard GERTOUX

The case of Barabbas338 ("son of Papa" in Aramaic) proves that Pilate was the sole authority for the execution of capital punishment involving crimes committed by Jews (Lk 23:32,41). Those sentenced to death remained in prison until their execution (Jewish Antiquities XX:215). According to Seneca (On Clemency II:7), a Roman magistrate could give, in some cases, a "remission" to a convict, taking into account extenuating circumstances. Pilate therefore had the right, as Governor, to grant this grace. In addition, in certain situations, governors, including the emperor himself when he wanted to spare a defeated gladiator who fought well, could take into account the opinion of the crowd to give amnesty or reprieve. The custom to release a prisoner was established by Pilate (from 30 CE) to please the people (Mk 15:6), because during the first years of his legation he had committed several blunders because of his ignorance of local customs, as in the case of banners (Jewish War II:169-174; Jewish Antiquities XVIII:55-59), which had led to a heated climate of misunderstanding with the Jews. To curry favour with the crowds, he then introduced this popular custom. The release of Jesus could have succeeded, Pilate being repugnant to feel manipulated by the high priests. However they managed to turn the crowd that had acclaimed Jesus three days previously (Mk 15:10-11). In addition, Pilate's wife who had a premonitory dream even came to find her husband in court339 during the trial to warn him to spare Jesus (Mt 27:19), which had strengthened the superstitious fear of Pilate. Pilate tried to soften the crowd in order to release Jesus...

Since the scene took place in the courtroom, the soldiers were Roman. The crown of thorns and the purple robe ironically symbolized royalty. By saying: Take him yourselves and crucify him, Pilate acknowledged to the Sanhedrin the right to kill for religious crimes, but when he learnt the exact nature of the crime he was seized with a superstitious fear. Jesus' response was probably with a double meaning because "the one above who has given power" could be the Emperor for Pilate (but God for Jesus) and "the man who handed me" was Caiaphas (but Judah for Jesus).

Apparently the way Pilate managed the trial led to an acquittal that forced the Jews to find a new conviction, especially when Pilate undertook to release Jesus: From that moment Pilate was anxious to set him free, but the Jews shouted: If you set him free you are no friend of Caesar's; anyone who makes himself king is defying Caesar. Hearing these words, Pilate had Jesus brought out, and seated him on the chair of judgement at a place called the Pavement, in Hebrew Gabbatha [High place]. It was preparation of the [Temple] Passover, about the 6th hour [12:00]. Here is your king, said Pilate to the Jews. But they shouted: Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate said: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king except Caesar (Jn 19:12-15). The high priests were thus back to the original charge of lese majeste. This accusation was concerning in principle only Roman citizens who had challenged the dignity of the emperor but from 30 CE Tiberius became particularly sensitive to betrayal and had considerably tightened the law in order to apply it to any enemy, according to Tacitus (Annals II:50, III:38) and Suetonius (Tiberius §§55,58). Designating the emperor by the name of Caesar became common only under Vespasian (69-79), but the province of Judea had anticipated this custom because the coins minted during the reign of Tiberius340 (14-37) were on behalf of Caesar then on behalf of
Tiberius Caesar. The threat of being denounced to Tiberius as an enemy of the Emperor could not be taken lightly by Pilate, especially after 31 CE. In fact, before this date, the Jews had no support from the emperor who had delegated the management of the empire to Sejanus, his co-regent. This executive had been an enemy of the Jews and was most likely a major contributor of troubles they experienced under Tiberius around 28-31 CE. According to Philo, Tiberius asked the provincial governors to have regard for the Jews because the charges against them in the past had proved false (Against Flaccus §§ 1-3; On the Embassy to Caius §§ 159-161). The Emperor had had the weakness to be impressed by a disreputable character. Three indices confirm his role: the Jews began to return into Rome immediately after the killing of Sejanus (October 18, 31 CE) because at the beginning of the reign of Caius, they were quite numerous in this city; the two missteps in Pilate's Judean career (the case of the golden shields and the massacre of the Samaritans) were located after the fall of Sejanus and therefore at a time when there was no more hostility from Rome towards the province of Judea; Finally, Tiberius appeared respectful of national customs.

Pilate finally condemned Jesus to avoid disturbance of public order and especially to preserve his career. He did post a sign indicating the crime341 of lese-majesty [King of the Jews] to preserve an appearance of legality.

Adicionado na linha do tempo:

Data: