BINGHAMTON, N.Y. -- The arrest and execution of Christ is a 2,000-year-old story retold in countless ways, through art, liturgy and theology.
Surprisingly, much remains unknown. Binghamton University History Professor Nathanael Andrade’s new book, , addresses some of these gaps with a focus on the Roman legal system. The book was released March 5.
“It basically reconstructs the most plausible interpretation of what happened at Jesus’ trial, based on what we know about legal culture in the Roman provinces, particularly Roman Syria, and Judea,” said Andrade, a historian who specializes in ancient Rome.
In the decades before Jesus’ lifetime and in the centuries that followed, Roman courts held millions of trials, all with the same basic legal apparatus.
At the center of Jesus’ trial is the Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, who sentenced the mysterious preacher to an agonizing form of execution typically reserved for those who defy the Roman state. The New Testament Gospels are unclear about the charges that Pilate weighed and portray the Roman official as believing in Jesus’ innocence.
Instead, the Gospels shift responsibility to the chief priests and the crowd in Jerusalem. This blame-shifting has fed antisemitic sentiments through the centuries, justifying the Christian persecution of Jews.
And it’s most likely inaccurate to boot. Andrade’s research restores judicial agency to Roman authorities, who were the legal decision-makers in the province.
Pontius Pilate, real and imagined
Pilate, a native of Italy, was a Roman elite of the equestrian rank — a typical background for an Empire-appointed governor in Judaea.
“His main job is really to maintain peace within his district, and to that end, to identify criminal behavior or people that could be construed as ‘evil,’ that is, pitted against the existing political order,” Andrade explained.
To fulfill his duties, the governor coordinated with other powers in the province — among them, royals from the Herodian dynasty and the chief priests of the Temple of Jerusalem. Ultimately, as the Empire’s representative in the region, Pilate was tasked with making real-time decisions about how to maintain civic stability, including the use of repressive violence.
The Gospels compare Jesus to Barabbas, a fellow prisoner implicated in a local outbreak of violence; both were likely accused of sedition. Andrade thinks it’s unlikely that Jesus was an armed insurrectionist himself, although he was ultimately executed alongside bandits.
“I think Jesus was engaging in confrontational behavior and Messianic preaching at the Temple precinct, which could have triggered factional violence,” he theorized. “I think that explains why the chief priests and Pilate had an interest in apprehension.”
While the Gospels depict the chief priests as having selfish motivations, these officials had a moral obligation to ensure safety at the Temple precinct during peak holidays. To add to the complexity, governors weren’t legal professionals and often made decisions in the absence of clear regulatory statutes. Another governor may have treated Jesus differently, whether finding him not guilty, or convicting him but administering something other than capital punishment.
“I would say one of Pilate’s principal motivations is not to ruin his own career,” Andrade said. “Ultimately, he does wield violence in a way that undermines his career and is recalled back to Rome.”
That later incident concerned a march of Samaritans to their holy site on Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans were armed in reaction to Pilate’s pattern of repressive behavior.
The prefect responded true to form, massacring the movement. Then, the story takes another turn: Samaritan leadership reported him to his own superior, the governor of Syria, who recalled Pilate to Rome to stand trial. In a quirk of fate, Emperor Tiberius died before Pilate reached the city.
“That’s the last we hear of him,” Andrade said. “He doesn’t seem to get another appointment after that.”
Ultimately, the rehabilitation of Pilate’s character in the Gospels and apocrypha, which portray him as a Christian convert, is based not on history but on political expediency.
The late first century and thereafter were marked by significant Judean insurgencies against the Empire, including the First Jewish Revolt in which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, Andrade explained. Meanwhile, Jesus’ followers continued to live under the Empire’s rule, facing the suspicion of Roman authorities.
To protect themselves from persecution, early Christians sought to differentiate themselves from those who rebelled against the Empire.
“I think they’re making the argument that we’re not doing anything to undermine municipal authority or Roman authority,” he said. “They’re basically reworking earlier gospel traditions to claim that if there were people who wanted to commit violence against Jesus’ followers, they were really only Jews who haven’t accepted Jesus as Messiah, not Roman governors seeking to negate criminal activity.”
RSS