this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
86 points (97.8% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2831 readers
1027 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Explanation: In the Christian Gospels, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of occupied Iudea, comes off as a reasonable-if-aloof figure. He, in a very Roman fashion, doesn't seem to care much about the religious quarrels of the Iudeans, and seeks legal cause for his actions and inaction. He is eventually pressured into crucifying a man whom he believes does not really merit the harsh punishment by the implicit threat of rebellion.
In other histories, however, Pilate comes off as... less sympathetic. He constantly treads on Jewish norms in favor of Roman norms, threatening the Jewish population and only relenting when sufficient pushback is presented, and in general running roughshod over the provincial Iudeans, including the Iudean king. In one notable incident, Pilate ordered legionaries in plainclothes to gather along with an angry Iudean mob and, at a preordained signal, begin beating the Iudeans with clubs to confuse and disperse them from within.
There is a certain amount of similarity in these depictions, insofar as Pilate is consistently portrayed as without much in the way of understanding or sympathy for Jewish culture, but in the Gospels, he comes off as distant; whereas in other histories, he comes off as more distinctly hostile.
I'm not sure why it says "Flavius and Josephus"; I suspect the original meme-maker meant "Philo and Josephus", a typo confusing Flavius Josephus's full name with another historian of the period.
I mean, propagandawise, the canonical Gospels were adopted after significant revision and approved by the Council of Rome in 382 for Catholics and a smattering of other later dates for other sects and offshoots.
I would likely trust the first century sources of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus over ecumenical dogma, but I'm sure both of those sources have their axes to grind with Rome as well lol.
I'm also inclined to believe them!
Josephus, despite being a former rebel, is generally positive about Roman rule; and Philo of Alexandria was something of a philhellene and a friend of the Emperor Claudius, and thus moderately well-disposed towards Rome.
If THEY both say Pilate was a bit of a pill, I'm thinking he probably was, lol
The dating is important here. The later the gospel, the more Pilate is the good guy. In Marc, the earliest, he's like what ever. John, the latest, he's trying everything, washing his hands in innocence, ...
This has strong implications. If it wasn't Pilate, who else was it? This is early Christian antisemitism at play.
Is there something we can read with this in it?
https://www.julianspriggs.co.uk/pages/Josephus_Philo_Pilate
(be cautioned that Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64 is widely regarded by modern scholars as a later addition to the text by Christians, not an authentic passage of Josephus)