The Acts of Pilate: Evidence for Jesus?

The Acts of Pilate: Evidence for an Historical Jesus?

Bruce Monson

JOHN:
One of the folks sent me a book [The Acts of Pilate] to give to you. I've put it in the inner office mail and you should get it sometime this set. I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know a lot of it's contents. The guy who gave it to me said that in your letter to Roy you mentioned there is no record in secular history about Jesus and the miracles He did. The book is in response to that.

BRUCE:
Your friend would do himself a great service by not falling for the rhetoric he sees in Josh McDowell books and others of its type--he might save himself some embarrassment in the future.

The first thing your friend needs to understand is the distinctions between (1) unbiased secular confirmation versus apologetic Christian propaganda; and (2) contemporary writings versus late writings. The so-called "Acts of Pilate" is, I'm almost embarrassed to mention, a CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHAL WORK that was composed in the early 4th century! It was created to fill the voids left out in the canonical gospels and to convey anti-Jewish sentiments.

You will typically find this apocryphal work within The Gospel of Nicodemus, which also includes the further fantastic accounts of Christ's Descent into Hell and the Paradosis, the latter of which actually makes Pilate into a martyred Christian convert (which is silly); and worse, makes Caesar himself proclaim to Pilate, before having him executed (which also did not happen), that Jesus is the "Messiah" and "the true God", which is ridiculous, not to mention historically impossible. For one thing, Caesar Tiberius and Pilate never had the opportunity for such a "trial" and dialogue because Tiberius died before Pilate ever reached Rome--whoops!; second, neither Tiberius, nor any other Roman Caesar for more than three hundred years would make such claims as he is made to say--the very things that he would himself have had people executed for due to it's direct challenge to Roman authority (i.e., his own authority!). Tiberius didn't know who Jesus was, nor would he have cared.

Furthermore, even if Jesus was a real person who really was executed by Pilate, there STILL wouldn't be any "official" record of it from Pilate since Jesus wasn't even a Roman citizen (e.g., he had no rights) and his case would be just one more in a long history of short order executions performed by this tyrannical governor. There was neither the resources nor inclination for such cases to be brought before Caesar, and there is simply no evidence that the results of criminal trials of non-citizens would be sent to Rome! Josephus tells us that Varus crucified 2,000 after the death of Herod, and that Felix, governor of Judea from CE 52, crucified "innumerable" offenders. Other governors were just as bad. So should we also expect to find the details of each of these victims documented in the permanent records, or even at all?

Here's another problem: If the execution of Jesus was really the undoing of Pilate that Christian apologists proclaim, then why is it that Josephus, in his parallel accounts about Pilate in The Jewish War and Antiquities, makes no mention at all of this Jesus fellow? Did it just slip his mind? Did it slip everyone's minds?

Apocryphal Works Everywhere!

There are dozens of Christian apocryphal works in existence that didn't make it into the official canon [4th century] (more than fifty, in fact), but that doesn't make them unbiased (an understatement if there ever was one) and it certainly does not make them contemporary. It's interesting though that as long as it suits the Christian agenda they will selectively quote from these apocryphal works in order to strengthen a particular point they wish to convey, but then they will turn around and ignore all the embarrassing problems this creates for them when the other, less savory, parts of those works are used against them. For example, I will bet dollars to donuts that you would never accept what the Gospel of Phillip has to say about Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene [63:32-64]:

"...the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] ... They said to him, 'Why do you lover her more than all of us?' The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as (I love) her?" (my emphasis)

Or how about this nice one from the Gospel of Thomas (which is every bit as well attested as the canonical gospels):

Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (my emphasis)

Or how about other exuberant tales of Jesus' early childhood as portrayed in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Consider this one from chapter 4:

Later he [the young Jesus] was going through the village again when a boy ran by and bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, "You won't continue your journey." And all of a sudden he fell down and died ... The parents of the dead boy came to Joseph and blamed him, saying, "Because you have such a boy, you can't live with us in the village, or else teach him to bless and not curse. He's killing our children!" (my emphasis)

Jesus killing children? My goodness, that's not very nice! But then again, Jesus isn't very nice to those outside his inner circle of followers even in the canonical gospels (contrary to popular belief, the Jesus of the gospels was anti-family, not pro-family), so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to find him portrayed in such manner in the apocryphal gospels as well.

I could easily go on with dozens of such examples here, but this should suffice to demonstrate my point. So why do you selectively accept certain aspects of apocryphal Christian works (such as The Acts of Pilate) but deny the unsavory parts of those works that paint Jesus in a less than desired light?

Do you see the problem, John?

Bruce Monson

	The Acts of Pilate: Evidence for an Historical Jesus?	Home
	Bruce Monson
	JOHN: One of the folks sent me a book [The Acts of Pilate] to give to you. I've put it in the inner office mail and you should get it sometime this set. I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know a lot of it's contents. The guy who gave it to me said that in your letter to Roy you mentioned there is no record in secular history about Jesus and the miracles He did. The book is in response to that. BRUCE: Your friend would do himself a great service by not falling for the rhetoric he sees in Josh McDowell books and others of its type--he might save himself some embarrassment in the future. The first thing your friend needs to understand is the distinctions between (1) unbiased secular confirmation versus apologetic Christian propaganda; and (2) contemporary writings versus late writings. The so-called "Acts of Pilate" is, I'm almost embarrassed to mention, a CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHAL WORK that was composed in the early 4th century! It was created to fill the voids left out in the canonical gospels and to convey anti-Jewish sentiments. You will typically find this apocryphal work within The Gospel of Nicodemus, which also includes the further fantastic accounts of Christ's Descent into Hell and the Paradosis, the latter of which actually makes Pilate into a martyred Christian convert (which is silly); and worse, makes Caesar himself proclaim to Pilate, before having him executed (which also did not happen), that Jesus is the "Messiah" and "the true God", which is ridiculous, not to mention historically impossible. For one thing, Caesar Tiberius and Pilate never had the opportunity for such a "trial" and dialogue because Tiberius died before Pilate ever reached Rome--whoops!; second, neither Tiberius, nor any other Roman Caesar for more than three hundred years would make such claims as he is made to say--the very things that he would himself have had people executed for due to it's direct challenge to Roman authority (i.e., his own authority!). Tiberius didn't know who Jesus was, nor would he have cared. Furthermore, even if Jesus was a real person who really was executed by Pilate, there STILL wouldn't be any "official" record of it from Pilate since Jesus wasn't even a Roman citizen (e.g., he had no rights) and his case would be just one more in a long history of short order executions performed by this tyrannical governor. There was neither the resources nor inclination for such cases to be brought before Caesar, and there is simply no evidence that the results of criminal trials of non-citizens would be sent to Rome! Josephus tells us that Varus crucified 2,000 after the death of Herod, and that Felix, governor of Judea from CE 52, crucified "innumerable" offenders. Other governors were just as bad. So should we also expect to find the details of each of these victims documented in the permanent records, or even at all? Here's another problem: If the execution of Jesus was really the undoing of Pilate that Christian apologists proclaim, then why is it that Josephus, in his parallel accounts about Pilate in The Jewish War and Antiquities, makes no mention at all of this Jesus fellow? Did it just slip his mind? Did it slip everyone's minds? *Apocryphal Works Everywhere!* There are dozens of Christian apocryphal works in existence that didn't make it into the official canon [4th century] (more than fifty, in fact), but that doesn't make them unbiased (an understatement if there ever was one) and it certainly does not make them contemporary. It's interesting though that as long as it suits the Christian agenda they will selectively quote from these apocryphal works in order to strengthen a particular point they wish to convey, but then they will turn around and ignore all the embarrassing problems this creates for them when the other, less savory, parts of those works are used against them. For example, I will bet dollars to donuts that you would never accept what the Gospel of Phillip has to say about Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene [63:32-64]: "...the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] ... They said to him, 'Why do you lover her more than all of us?' The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as (I love) her?" (my emphasis) Or how about this nice one from the Gospel of Thomas (which is every bit as well attested as the canonical gospels): Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (my emphasis) Or how about other exuberant tales of Jesus' early childhood as portrayed in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Consider this one from chapter 4: Later he [the young Jesus] was going through the village again when a boy ran by and bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, "You won't continue your journey." And all of a sudden he fell down and died ... The parents of the dead boy came to Joseph and blamed him, saying, "Because you have such a boy, you can't live with us in the village, or else teach him to bless and not curse. He's killing our children!" (my emphasis) Jesus killing children? My goodness, that's not very nice! But then again, Jesus isn't very nice to those outside his inner circle of followers even in the canonical gospels (contrary to popular belief, the Jesus of the gospels was anti-family, not pro-family), so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to find him portrayed in such manner in the apocryphal gospels as well. I could easily go on with dozens of such examples here, but this should suffice to demonstrate my point. So why do you selectively accept certain aspects of apocryphal Christian works (such as The Acts of Pilate) but deny the unsavory parts of those works that paint Jesus in a less than desired light? Do you see the problem, John? Bruce Monson