If you used to read my blog before, and were wondering what I’ve been up to, let me just update you that I’m studying again, in Moore Theological College. And here’s one reason why I’ve been busy lately, namely my assignment. Thankfully this one is not part of the assessments, and was just an exercise for us to get used to writing essays. I still haven’t got the feedback, so not sure how well it was, but you can read and see whether you are convinced by what I wrote :]
Compare and contrast the pictures of Pilate presented by Mark’s Gospel and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk 18, 55-62.
When one reads Mark’s Gospel, it can easily be classified as a biographical account on a person called Jesus Christ. It is full of stories of what Jesus did and said, especially in His last few years, leading to His death. Yet, there is a big gap on Jesus’ life that is missing from this biography of Jesus, for instance the birth of Jesus and His childhood. It can be classified as a theology book, given the many teaching and saying one can find about God. Yet, there is a lot more about God that is not said in this book. It can be classified as an historical account, given that the events in this story did happen in a particular place at a particular time in history. Yet, this story is only regarding one person who lived in history, and not about a group of people or a culture that has shaped the world as we know it today.
It can be said that Mark’s Gospel has its own genre, with biography, theology, and history, all mixed into a story regarding this person who is called Jesus Christ. It is certainly an historical account of the life (and death) of Jesus, written with a theological agenda behind it. Having said that, how should one approach Mark’s Gospel from the historical point of view? Does the theological agenda behind Mark’s Gospel change or distort the historical accounts of the events? And how would historical account in Mark’s Gospel (which is driven by a theological agenda) be different or similar with other historical account, like Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews?
This essay seeks to compare and contrast particularly the pictures of Pilate presented by Mark’s Gospel and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and secondly to draw a conclusion of what can be learned from such comparison.
In both Mark’s Gospel and Antiquities of the Jews, Pilate is presented as a ruler of the people in Judea. Pilate is said to be the procurator of Judea in Antiquities of the Jews (AJ 18.55). In Mark’s Gospel this is less clear , but one can see that Jesus was brought by the elders, the scribes, and the whole Council to Pilate in order for him to pass the death sentence (Mk 15:1). At that time the Jews were under the Roman Empire, therefore the Jewish leaders couldn’t pass the death sentence themselves after they condemned Jesus as deserving death, and needed to ask Pilate (as the leader of the people in Judea) to pass the death sentence to Jesus. There are also more details in Mark’s Gospel regarding the innocence of Pilate in passing the death sentence to Jesus (Mk 15:10, 14), while Josephus was very brief in saying that Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross at the suggestion of the Jewish leaders (AJ 18.63).
Another similarity that one can find regarding Pilate in both historical accounts is his relationship with the Jews. This similarity is more subtle than the previous one, but one can still see a similarity coming up in the way Pilate treated the Jews in both accounts. When he was faced with a possibility of rebellion and sedition, Pilate was always ready to put an end to it, as Josephus mentioned in the story of Pilate bringing a current of water to Jerusalem, and how he silenced the Jews who didn’t agree with his decision (AJ 18.60-1). In Mark’s Gospel, Mark made a mention of Barabbas who was put to prison because of his involvement in the insurrection (Mk 15:7).
It is also interesting to note that in his relationship with the Jews, Pilate respected their religion, as Josephus mentioned that he was deeply affected by their firm resolution not to violate their laws (AJ 18.59). And one can also see this idea in Mark’s Gospel when Pilate was willing to crucify Jesus at the suggestion of the Jewish leaders and the crowds, even when he himself was convinced that Jesus didn’t do anything evil in regards to the Roman laws (Mk 15:3, 11-15). Although his willingness to crucify Jesus could also be explained by the fact that he was always ready to put an end to the possibility of the rebellion of the Jews, and the easiest way of doing this was to satisfy the crowds (Mk 15:15), even though it means he has to crucify Jesus.
One subtle difference between Mark’s Gospel and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews in regards to the writing about Pilate, is that Pilate is less prominent in Mark’s Gospel, and was mentioned only at the time of Jesus’ death. Yet, in his writing regarding Jesus’ death, Mark mentioned more details regarding Pilate’s understanding of Jesus as being innocent, while Josephus was very brief. Probably this is in line with Mark’s theological agenda that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and He died as an innocent man, as a ransom for the sins of many. While Josephus agenda was to write the history of the Jews, in which Pilate as the ruler of Judea would be quite prominent compared to Mark’s Gospel. And yet, Josephus was not interested in much details regarding Pilate’s involvement in Jesus’ death.
In conclusion, after reading and comparing Mark’s Gospel and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, one can see the similarities of the historical accounts in both documents, and yet also see the subtle differences in the details that both authors chose to include or leave out in their writings, in this essay regarding the pictures of Pilate that was presented in both documents. The similarities and the subtle differences suggest that both documents are historical accounts, but written with certain emphasis that helps the readers to see the different purposes of the writings. Their agenda and purpose of the writings didn’t result in the distortion of the historical accounts, but resulted in the different emphasis and historical details that they chose to include or leave out in their writings. Comparing both historical documents can challenge the readers to carefully investigate the reason for the different emphasis in Mark’s Gospel, and therefore adds to one’s understanding of the message Mark wanted to communicate in his writings. This exercise of comparing Mark’s Gospel and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews can be repeated with different historical persons or events that are found in both documents, and one can assume that the findings will be similar to the conclusion of this essay.
References
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus (William Whiston, trans.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987 [updated edition]), pp. 479–80