Pontius Pilate's Personal Logs

dirtywick

Philosopher
dirtywick
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
9,151
I've been talking with someone in a position of authority on the topic of religion. We were discussing the Gospel of Matthew as evidence to historically confirm the life of Jesus Christ. One of the pieces of evidence presented was the tablet with Pontius Pilate's inscription, but briefly mentioned were his personal logs which apparently mention Jesus Christ. I've never heard of these, among other pieces of data presented, but I was wondering if anyone else has and if so what they say.

-edit-

I should add that I've looked a fairly reasonable amount and haven't found any mention of them besides from this source.
 
Last edited:
It was only recently that a monumental inscription bearing his name was found (in Caesarea, perhaps?). Before that it was not known for sure whether he was a real person or not.
 
Gday,

shadron said:
It was only recently that a monumental inscription bearing his name was found (in Caesarea, perhaps?). Before that it was not known for sure whether he was a real person or not.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that anyone ever considered Pilate to be non-historical. In fact, it's quite clear Pilate was a real person, even from the earliest times.

But one of the common anti-Myther memes found on the 'net lately is that before the inscription was found (in 1961, 50 years ago) Pilate was considered to be a myth, but now it's known otherwise. As if that somehow impinges upon the Jesus Myth argument.

Here's my essay on the subject -


Did any sceptics ever consider Pilate a myth?

Believers sometimes claim that sceptics thought Pilate was a myth, up until an inscription naming him was found in 1961. There are numerous examples of this,
e.g. -
John Warwick Montgomery in "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity"
' Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history. To take but a single, striking example: After the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then, in 1961, came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography. '
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
or -
"For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure."
http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot.com/2009/02/did-pontius-pilate-actually-exist.html
or -
"How can atheists deny that Herod and Pontius Pilate existed when there are coins that were issued by them ? I have seen them. When they say the Bible is fiction, they would have to also deny numismatic evidence. "
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209071413AAd4maf
or -
"When critics of the Passion of the Christ argue about Pilate not being historical and Caiaphas being too rabid, they are ignoring Biblical accounts and secular history because they don’t like the Biblical story."
http://www.bible-sermons.org/classes/Passion2.doc


So, what does the record of history actually show ?
Here I list the references to Pilate through the centuries - I have included all the main cites I could find - Christian writers as well as sceptics. If any sceptic had claimed Pilate did not exist, some Christian would surely mention that - in the same way that when early sceptics denied Jesus came in the flesh, we see various Christians insisting he DID so.

Contemporary, early 1st century
Philo Judaeus was a direct contemporary of Pilate, and he refers to Pilate twice in his historical work "On the Embassy to Gaius" :
"Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea."
Clearly Philo thought Pilate was historical.

Late 1st century
Josephus in late 1st century records Pilate numerous times in his two historical books (Wars and Antiquities), e.g. :
"When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor. "
Clearly Josephus thought Pilate was historical.

Early 2nd century
Tacitus refers to Pilate in his Annals 15.44 around 116 CE :
"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,"
Clearly, Tacitus thought Pilate was historical, (although he does get his title wrong.)

Late 1st and 2nd century
Many early Christian books mention Pilate for his part in Jesus' story :
Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, The Epistle of the Apostles, The Gospel of Peter, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Acts of Peter and Paul, the various Pilate forgeries, Irenaeus, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria.
Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

3rd century
Porphyry's fragments mentioned Pilate as historical.
Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate :
Acts of Andrew, Acts of Peter and Andrew, Acts of Thadeus, Acts of Thomas, Against Novatian, Acta Pilati, The Teaching of Simon Cephas in Rome, The Clementina, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus, Origen, Peter of Alexandria, Tertullian.
Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

4th century
Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate :
The Constitution of the Holy Apostles, The Doctrine of Addai, The Gospel of Nicodemus, Ambrose, Aphrahat, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim of Syria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gennadius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Lactantius, Macarius Magnes, Optatus of Miletus, Palladius of Helenopolis, Rufins.
Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

5th century
Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate :
Aurelius Prudentius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Cassian, Leo the Great, Moses of Chorene, Philoxenus, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Theodoret.
Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

6th and 7th century
Several Christian works and writers mention Pilate :
Aurelius Prudentius, Cyril of Alexandria, John Cassian, Leo the Great, Moses of Chorene, Philoxenus, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Antiochus Strategos, John Nikiu.
Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

~9th century
The Anglo Saxon Chronicle mentions Pilate as historical :
"A.D. 26. This year Pilate began to reign over the Jews."

10th century
Various forged books about Pilate appear (e.g. The Death of Pilate) - all based on him being historical. No mention of any sceptics who claim he was a myth.

11th, 12th, 13th centuries
Various Christian books mention Pilate :
St Anselm, Giraldus Cambrensis, Barlaam and Ioasaph, Thomas Aquinas,.
Each of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.

14th century
Dante mentions Pilate as historical in his Inferno.
The Travels of John Mandeville refer to Pilate as historical.
Chaucer mentions Pilate.
Henry Suso mentions Pilate as historical.
Julian of Norwich does too.
No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth.

16th century
Edmund Spencer's "The Faerie Queen" mentions Pilate.
James Arminius mentions Pilate as historical.
John of the Cross mentions Pilate as historical.
Christopher Goodman's "How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed" mentions Pilate as historical.
Teresa of Avila mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth.

17th century
Shakespeare mentions Pilate as historical.
Blaise Pascal mentions Pilate as historical.
Francis Bacon mentions Pilate as historical.
John Locke mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptics who claimed he was a myth.

18th century
Dupuis mentions Pilate as historical in his sceptical book which argues Christ was a myth :
' Those who have “fabricated” it, have added thereto fictitious events, not only at known places, as all the ancient poets have done in the fables of Hercules, Bacchus, Osiris, &c., but also at an epoch with well known names, such as the age of Augustus, of Tiberius, of Pontius Pilate, &c.; which does not prove the real existence of Christ, but only that the sacerdotal fiction is posterior to that epoch; and of this we have no doubt. '
Edward Gibbon mentions Pilate as historical in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
Thomas Paine mentions Pilate as historical in his sceptical book.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

19th century
Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" mentions Pilate as historical.
Strauss' famous and sceptical "Life of Jesus Crtically Examined" mentions Pilate as historical.
Renan's famous and sceptical "The Life of Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

Early 20th century
Albert Schweitzer's famous and sceptical "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" mentions Pilate many times as historical.
Gerald Massey the mythicist mentions Pilate as historical.
John E. Remsberg's sceptical "The Christ" mentions Pilate as historical.
Joseph Wheless' sceptical "Forgery in Christianity" mentions Pilate as historical.
M.M. Mangasarian's sceptical "The Truth about Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical.
Marshall Gauvin's sceptical "Did Jesus Christ really Live?" mentions Pilate as historical.
Shirley Jackson Case's critical "The Historicity of Jesus" mentions Pilate as historical.
Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity" mentions Pilate as historical.
G.R.S. Mead's "Did Jesus live 100 BC?" mentions Pilate as historical many times.
Kirsopp Lake's "Landmarks" mentions Pilate as historical.
Walter Cassels "Supernatural Religion" mentions Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

Mid 20th century
Alvin Boyd Kuhn's sceptical "Who is this King of Glory" mentions Pilate as historical.
Maurice Goguel's sceptical "Jesus the Nazarene - Myth or History?" has Pilate as historical.
Alfred Loisy "The Bith of the Christian Religion" has Pilate as historical.
Edgar J. Goodspeed's "An Introduction to the New Testament" has Pilate as historical.
Edward Carpenter's "Pagan and Christian Creeds : Their Origin and Meaning" has Pilate as historical.
No hint of any sceptical claims that Pilate was a myth.

1961
An inscription is found mentioning Pilate's name - the first archeological evidence for Pilate.

After 1961
Christian apologists start claiming that before the inscription was found Pilate was considered by sceptics to have been a myth.

Summary
There is NO evidence anywhere that anyone ever considered Pilate a myth.
We have dozens of references to him from almost every century, even including contemporary accounts. Every single one considers him historical.
Even the sceptics who argued Jesus was a myth agree that Pilate was historical.
Not one believer in history ever mentions anyone claiming Pilate was a myth.

Conclusion
The claim that any sceptics ever said Pilate was a myth is totally FALSE.


Kapyong
 
Last edited:
Kapyong said:
Gday,



There is no evidence that anyone ever considered Pilate to be non-historical. In fact, it's quite clear Pilate was a real person, even from the earliest times.
Click to expand...

What was his rank?
 
Ah,
thanks gumboot.
Dozens of references, some obscure, and I missed the most obvious one.
:-)

K.
 
Last edited:
Yes, what about them? Let's say that tomorrow, we uncover Pilate's judicial records, and on page 43, we find an entry....
"Jewish rabble-rouser name of Jesus brought before me today. Tried to fob him off on the crowd, but they'd have none of it. Dealt with him in the usual manner of seditionists."

So...? Good evidence of a historical Jesus. Which most scholars accept anyway.

Says absolutely nothing about anything else.
 
Kapyong said:
Gday,
shadron said:
It was only recently that a monumental inscription bearing his name was found (in Caesarea, perhaps?). Before that it was not known for
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that anyone ever considered Pilate to be non-historical. In fact, it's quite clear Pilate was a real person, even from the earliest times.

But one of the common anti-Myther memes found on the 'net lately is that before the inscription was found (in 1961, 50 years ago) Pilate was considered to be a myth, but now it's known otherwise. As if that somehow impinges upon the Jesus Myth argument.

Here's my essay on the subject -


Did any sceptics ever consider Pilate a myth?

Believers sometimes claim that sceptics thought Pilate was a myth, up until an inscription naming him was found in 1961. There are numerous examples of this,
e.g. -
John Warwick Montgomery in "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity"
' Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history. To take but a single, striking example: After the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then, in 1961, came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography. '
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm
or -
"For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure."
http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot.com/2009/02/did-pontius-pilate-actually-exist.html
or -
"How can atheists deny that Herod and Pontius Pilate existed when there are coins that were issued by them ? I have seen them. When they say the Bible is fiction, they would have to also deny numismatic evidence. "
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209071413AAd4maf
or -
"When critics of the Passion of the Christ argue about Pilate not being historical and Caiaphas being too rabid, they are ignoring Biblical accounts and secular history because they don’t like the Biblical story."
http://www.bible-sermons.org/classes/Passion2.doc


So, what does the record of history actually show ?
Here I list the references to Pilate through the centuries - I have included all the main cites I could find - Christian writers as well as sceptics. If any sceptic had claimed Pilate did not exist, some Christian would surely mention that - in the same way that when early sceptics denied Jesus came in the flesh, we see various Christians insisting he DID so.

[lots and lots of refs of Pilate, from 1st-20th centuries]

1961
An inscription is found mentioning Pilate's name - the first archeological evidence for Pilate.

After 1961
Christian apologists start claiming that before the inscription was found Pilate was considered by sceptics to have been a myth.

Summary
There is NO evidence anywhere that anyone ever considered Pilate a myth.
We have dozens of references to him from almost every century, even including contemporary accounts. Every single one considers him historical.
Even the sceptics who argued Jesus was a myth agree that Pilate was historical.
Not one believer in history ever mentions anyone claiming Pilate was a myth.

Conclusion
The claim that any sceptics ever said Pilate was a myth is totally FALSE.

Kapyong
Click to expand...

Well, I guess the evidence shows me to be a Christian apologist, then. I should go and hang my head in shame. My Dad would be really disappointed.
 
Dear Diary,

Gosh, what a day. Some religious types had a bit of a fracas, and there was a court case about it, but I think I solved everything with a minimum of fuss all around. I doubt anybody will remember anything about this business, or that I was in any way involved. Also: it's tacos for dinner tonight! An able end to an able day for an able administrator.

Love, PP
 
dirtywick said:
I've been talking with someone in a position of authority on the topic of religion. ... but briefly mentioned were his personal logs which apparently mention Jesus Christ. I've never heard of these, among other pieces of data presented, but I was wondering if anyone else has and if so what they say.
Click to expand...

Acts of Pilate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Pilate



dirtywick said:
I've been talking with someone in a position of authority on the topic of religion.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Dear Diary,

Gosh, what a day. Some religious types had a bit of a fracas, and there was a court case about it, but I think I solved everything with a minimum of fuss all around. I doubt anybody will remember anything about this business, or that I was in any way involved. Also: it's tacos for dinner tonight! An able end to an able day for an able administrator.

Love, PP
Click to expand...

Clearly a forgery. The word taco had not been invented yet.
 
gumboot said:
Who cares?
Click to expand...

Well since it's his position that gets him mentioned rather than say his ability to make ballon shapes what that position actualy was is of some significance.
 
geni said:
What was his rank?
Click to expand...


Praefectus Iudaeae - or is this a trick question? This is what he's titled on the stone from Caesarea Maritima. In any case, whether he was called a praefectus or a procurator is irrelevant. In the context of a governor of a small province, his duties and powers were the same.
 
Last edited:
TX50 said:
Praefectus Iudaeae - or is this a trick question? This is what he's titled on the stone from Caesarea Maritima. In any case, whether he was called a praefectus or a procurator is irrelevant. In the context of a governor of a small province, his duties and powers were the same.
Click to expand...

The relivance is that his title is where the belief people were sceptical about his existance comes from. The bible doesn't exactly square with the standard histories. Tacitus is now considered to have been in error though.
 
Last edited:
Pontius Pilate's Personal Logs




Actually, I am really not intersted in a histoical/semihistorical figure's digestive problems, thank you!!!
 
As an aside, is it really pronounced "PIE-lat" or "PIE-late," or is it more properly "pee-LA-tay" or "PEE-luh-tay?" I've often wondered....
 
slingblade said:
As an aside, is it really pronounced "PIE-lat" or "PIE-late," or is it more properly "pee-LA-tay" or "PEE-luh-tay?" I've often wondered....
Click to expand...

I've often seen people write Pilot instead of Pilate, so I figured they may be homophones. And they are. I looked them up.
 
Thanks. I had figured it should have been "pee-LAH-tay," and hadn't thought about it ending with "tus," but it makes more sense to me now. Carry on. :)
 
Dear Diary,

Dreary day trying lots of cases and sending them on to the Romans for crucifixion.

On the upside I thought of a really great idea for an exercise program.
 
MG1962 said:
Oh really - so mister (or miss) smarty pants, why did they all speak English in the Life Of Brian?
Click to expand...
.
It's the language of the Bibble, of course. Never seen any in any other language.
 
But, to get back to the OP question, there is no such thing as anyone having the diary of Pontius Pilatus.
 
geni said:
The relivance is that his title is where the belief people were sceptical about his existance comes from. The bible doesn't exactly square with the standard histories. Tacitus is now considered to have been in error though.
Click to expand...
Understatement of the year ;)
 
HansMustermann said:
But, to get back to the OP question, there is no such thing as anyone having the diary of Pontius Pilatus.
Click to expand...

I think Judy Blume wrote a book that took the form of Pilate's diary. It's called "Are You There, God? It's Me, Pontius, And I'm Really, Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Sorry, Okay?"
 
dirtywick said:
I've been talking with someone in a position of authority on the topic of religion. We were discussing the Gospel of Matthew as evidence to historically confirm the life of Jesus Christ. One of the pieces of evidence presented was the tablet with Pontius Pilate's inscription, but briefly mentioned were his personal logs which apparently mention Jesus Christ. I've never heard of these, among other pieces of data presented, but I was wondering if anyone else has and if so what they say.

-edit-

I should add that I've looked a fairly reasonable amount and haven't found any mention of them besides from this source.
Click to expand...

First, I'd ask him if he thinks that finding evidence of the existence of Richard Nixon is evidence that Forest Gump was an historical figure.

Then I'd challenge him to produce these personal logs.
 
Bikewer said:
Yes, what about them? Let's say that tomorrow, we uncover Pilate's judicial records, and on page 43, we find an entry....
"Jewish rabble-rouser name of Jesus brought before me today. Tried to fob him off on the crowd, but they'd have none of it. Dealt with him in the usual manner of seditionists."

So...? Good evidence of a historical Jesus. Which most scholars accept anyway.

Says absolutely nothing about anything else.
Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect that if such a case existed, and we ever find a court record or such a diary, it should be a lot more spectacular than that. The story as described in Mark, and largely copied from there by all later gospels, is very unbelievable.

For a start, Judaea wasn't formally an integral piece of Roman territory, but a formally autonomous vassal kingdom. Any internal cases for someone who isn't a Roman citizen, would be tried by the local authorities, by the local laws. Or, should I say, by the Law.

You can see for example in Acts -- which is probably fiction, but seems to have known or researched the historical setting pretty well -- how they don't send Peter or Stephen or whatever to the Romans. If they had a problem with someone preaching heresy, they were quite good at getting that someone stoned themselves, and the Romans didn't give a damn about that. And in other places, really. E.g., they didn't need the Romans to get rid of John The Baptist.

Basically the fate of a Jewish peregrinus (a resident without Roman citizenship) would have been more like in the Talmud version: they'd tie him to a stick and stone him to death.

There is no believable reason why the local religious authorities would hand over jurisdiction of a faith matter to the Romans. Not just because, basically: why risk Pilate setting him free if you want Jesus dead and can sentence him yourself? But also because already the population was getting increasingly rebellious over the deference to the Roman heathens. Handing over even the religious cases to the Romans, would just rile the zealots even more.

There are only two believable situations where they'd have to give him over to the Romans:

1. if Jesus were actually a Roman citizen.

It probably sounds like "problem solved, then" but it isn't. Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion, no matter what their crime was. It occasionally happened, if you went out of your way to make an enemy out of the governor, but it was an illegal abuse of power, and really, as heinous and illegal a crime as you could hope to commit, short of starting a revolt. Pilate wouldn't have committed such a criminal act just to appease the local rabble.

2. if Jesus were an escaped slave owned by a Roman citizen. Which, really, squares even less with the gospel narratives.

And then, of course, is the possibility that he was caught by the Romans in the first place, for doing something they didn't like, and the local authorities never had any say in it.

So, really, if there was a historical Jesus that got nailed, WTH did he do to earn a crucifixion? Was he some leader of a sicarii group? (Nasty Yahweh-fanboy fellows who tended to stab people even just for cooperating at all with the Romans.) An actual rebel trying to set himself up as king of the Jews? Or what?
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
An actual rebel trying to set himself up as king of the Jews? Or what?
Click to expand...

This might be more consistent with the apocalyptic movement(s) that John the Baptist and Jeshua ben Joseph would have been members of. Although these groups often differed greatly in the details, they were all pretty much in agreement that a descendent of King David would come to expel the invaders and establish in independent state once more under the rule of the House of David. Whether Jeshua claimed to be this messiah or simply claimed to be preparing the way for him would likely make little difference to the Roman authorities. They'd had serious problems with apocalyptic revolts in the past (and would have further problems in the future) such as the Zealot rebellion started by Judas of Galilee in 4 BCE. Even the slightest hint that Jeshua ben Joseph might have been involved with such a movement movement would very likely have led to his swift and public execution.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Dear Diary,

Gosh, what a day. Some religious types had a bit of a fracas, and there was a court case about it, but I think I solved everything with a minimum of fuss all around. I doubt anybody will remember anything about this business, or that I was in any way involved. Also: it's tacos for dinner tonight! An able end to an able day for an able administrator.

Love, PP
Click to expand...

You should have seen the one from three days later:

Dear Diary,

Well, something rather remarkable occured today: Bigus Dickus made it through our nightly gorging without needing a trip to the vomitorium. His face was as swollen and purple as a lot of the Jewish prisoners we torture--hilarious!

There was another thing, what was it...oh yeah, at about 1pm all the dead emerged from their graves and walked around town for an hour or so. Too bad the local baths were under repair because they smelled something foul, yikes!

XOXO, PP
Click to expand...
Folks back then had an interesting approach to recording events. The things they didn't consider worth writing down...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom