this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
86 points (97.8% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

2818 readers
930 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

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

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is there something we can read with this in it?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

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)

[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wouldn't necessarily say the Gospels are sympathetic to Pilate. He's just a minor character in the story, although one with a pivotal role. He has the power to stop Jesus execution but ultimately chooses not to. Why is not made totally clear. Could have been to just keep the crowd happy. Could have been because of the claims by some people that Jesus was "king of the Jews" might not have gone over well in Rome. Could have been other reasons.

Pilate was certainly not opposed to violently suppressing uprisings. He was relieved of his governorship for doing exactly that.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Pilate was certainly not opposed to violently suppressing uprisings. He was relieved of his governorship for doing exactly that.

Yeah, but every time a violent uprising happens, it's a gamble as to whether you'll win - hence why even the most authoritarian rulers still try to avoid uprisings happening in the first place.