032
I thank Professor Patterson for his thoughtful response, to which several brief comments may be appropriate. I used the word “revisionist” as the neutral term it is for “one who,” according to the dictionary definition, “revises, or favors the revision of, some accepted theory, doctrine, etc.” Professor Patterson’s reappraisal of the Passion story would surely seem a fair example.
Professor Patterson styles me as “a Missouri Synod Lutheran for whom the inerrancy of Scripture is basic.” This is not the case. In conducting historical research, I am never bound by any such presuppositions, but rather search for the evidence as objectively as I can, let the chips fall where they may.
As for the golden shields episode reported by Philo, Caligula’s mad decision to have his statue erected inside the Jerusalem Temple is deemed “similarly offensive” as compared to Pilate’s conduct in the shields affair. Caligula’s, however, was incomparably, dimensionally worse. Scholars puzzle to this day as to why Pilate’s imageless shields should have been offensive to anyone in the first place.
Regarding the aqueduct incident, I have no doubt whatsoever as to its historicity. The violence of the episode, however, seems to have been a case of crowd control gone terribly wrong. Josephus states that Pilate had ordered his troops “not to use their swords,”1 a sparing remark it was not at all necessary for Josephus to introduce if Pilate were such a wretch, and many of the deaths that day were caused by the ensuing stampede.
Professor Patterson also claims that the gospel writers could not possibly have known about several private conversations between Jesus and Pilate and thus must have invented them. This, of course, poses no problem for traditional Christians, who would affirm that after the resurrection Jesus spent 40 days with his followers. Certainly the disciples would have begged to learn all these details. But even if this supernaturalist explanation is disallowed, another will serve equally well: During any interrogation of a prisoner, Pilate would never have been without a Roman guard or guards, and the New Testament records at least three Roman officers of the time who converted to Christianity. One such may well have passed on the information, or even Pilate’s own wife—if the Greek Orthodox are correct in assuming her conversion, for which they reserve October 27 as St. Procula’s Day in their calendar.
Professor Patterson writes: “Maier also believes that Pilate’s unusually long tenure would likely have been due to his sagacity and geniality as a ruler.” I did not—nor ever would—use such terms as “sagacity and geniality” when referring to Pilate. But Emperor Tiberius’s concern that Roman provinces be justly governed is historical fact, as is his record for recalling wayward governors. When a prefect of Egypt once sent in more than the required tribute, Tiberius returned the surplus and commented, “I want my sheep sheered, not flayed.”
Patterson also claims, “The martyrdom of James adds nothing to the case for the historicity of the Christian Passion accounts.” On the contrary, it adds extremely formidable corroboration. The parallels are more than obvious:
Trial and Death of Jesus
The year: 33 A.D.
The victim: Jesus of Nazareth
The prosecutor: Joseph Caiaphas
The judiciary: The Sanhedrin
The judge and his attitude: Pilate reluctant to condemn
Trial and Death of James
The year: 62 A.D.
The victim: James the Just, Jesus’ half-brother
The prosecutor: Ananus, Caiaphas’s brother-in-law
The judiciary: The Sanhedrin
The judge and his attitude: Albinus angry at the lynching
Let it be emphasized again that information about James’s trial derives from a totally non-Christian source: the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
Patterson dismisses this as Ananus wanting “to settle scores with several of his foes, among them James.” What, pray tell, was the “score” involved? Obviously, it was Christianity, as demonstrated also by the early Jewish-Christian historian Hegesippus, who provides a much more detailed account of the martyrdom of James.2
Despite our differences, I must stress that Professor Patterson and I are in total agreement that there is no justification whatsoever for drawing anti-Semitic conclusions because of what happened at the trial and death of Jesus.
I thank Professor Patterson for his thoughtful response, to which several brief comments may be appropriate. I used the word “revisionist” as the neutral term it is for “one who,” according to the dictionary definition, “revises, or favors the revision of, some accepted theory, doctrine, etc.” Professor Patterson’s reappraisal of the Passion story would surely seem a fair example.
