Sober minded

[Dave Ellis]

Just like a court trial you have to assess all the evidence and that includes personal accounts. Sometimes this is the greatest support especially when no one has any direct evidence in the form of videos or pictures which you can present.

We have no personal accounts, that's part of the problem. However even if we did, personal accounts are typically considered the most unreliable form of evidence.

If we were to accept the bible itself then suddenly we have one of the most comprehensive written about Jesus. The things written about all the surrounding aspects such as the places, people, artifacts, lifestyles, even small things like the small detail about items used and descriptions of things can be very accurate. Archeological discoveries have verified a lot of this so we have to say that what is written about the surrounding aspects of Jesus for the times He lived in have to be from people who lived in those times.

Using your same criteria, we can claim the existence of Spiderman has been proven archaeologically. After all, he lives in New York City, and many places in New York that appear in the comic have been verified to exist.

There's a fairly accurate portrayal of 20th and 21st century American culture in the books as well, so that's just further evidence, right?

The point is, if real people and places exist within a story, that does not provide evidence that the story itself is true.

The way the stories are written doesn't indicate a myth or something made up. Everything that is written about Jesus is written as though there was an historic person named Jesus.

No, actually that's incorrect. Paul (who is our earliest source) is quite emphatic that he speaks with Jesus only in visions and through revelation, and never as a flesh and blood person.

In fact Paul talks openly that the knowledge of Jesus is only revealed through him by scriptural interpretation and revelation, and no human sources at all... which is rather strange if Jesus apparently lead a ministry and had lots of followers about twenty years previously. Paul is largely writing about a Dionysus-like god figure with a strong influence from the Greco-Roman mystery faiths which were widespread in the region at the time. The mystery faiths usually included some kind of saviour god, resurrection, a lord's supper, etc. And yes, Paul writes about the "Lord's supper", not the "last supper" in his letters. The idea gets turned into the last supper in the gospel writings. These are just a few of many examples, however the parallels to the mystery faiths are absolutely undeniable. In short, it's likely Paul created a Jewish version of a mystery faith, and that eventually grew into Christianity.

Biographical information for Jesus only starts to show up in the gospels, which were written at least 20 years after Paul's letters.

There is a lack of evidence for any mystical Jesus or for any other version of Jesus that would have been something to build a myth on. All we have from supporters and critics is written as though they believed there was a historic Jesus. There were different groups around back then. Some such as the Gnostic branches of Christianity would have loved to have made Jesus into the spiritual and mystical God. They would have grabbed any version of of a non historical spiritual version of Jesus and promoted it. But nothing is mentioned and even they are dealing with an historical fleshly man named Jesus.

Actually, that's just flat out false. You even said yourself multiple branches of early Christianity (i.e. the Gnostics) believed Jesus was a divine entity and not a flesh and blood person.

If Jesus had clearly been a flesh and blood person, then how could that debate ever arise, especially in the early stages of Christianity? Theudas was one of the early notable Gnostic thinkers, and was a student of Paul himself. Theudas went on to be Valentinus's teacher, and Valentinius went on to start one of the most widespread Gnostic Christian movements.

Gnostic Christianity continued on for a few centuries until it was declared heretical by the now orthodox sect of Christianity and violently suppressed. But that doesn't mean their views on Paul's writings were wrong.

Similarly, the memory of an earlier, original Christianity which didn't believe in a historical Jesus would have been a killer argument for the many Jewish and pagan critics of Christianity.

How so? Every religion has critics, and many of those critics have well researched and valid arguments. However, many times if someone has faith, then providing them with evidence that they're wrong isn't going to matter. They're going to keep on believing despite the evidence to the contrary

Jesus Mythicists claim this mythic Jesus Christianity survived well into the second or even third century. We have orthodox Christian responses to critiques by Jews and pagans from that period, by Justin Martyr, Origen, and Minucius Felix. They try to confront and answer the arguments their critics make about Jesus - that he was a fool, a magician, a bastard son of a Roman soldier, a fraud etc - but none of these apologetic works so much as hint that anyone ever claimed he never existed.

That's also not true. Going back to your own example of Gnostic Christianity, numerous sects believed Jesus Christ was a celestial being of sorts, and never existed in the flesh and blood.

As for secular historical records, there is no mention whatsoever of Jesus from contemporary sources. In fact this is something early Christian church fathers like Origen criticized historians of the period about (supposedly not stopping to think there might have been nothing to write about on the topic).

On that note, the 1st century is rather well documented, and there were a number of credible Roman historians in the area at the time Jesus was purported to have preached and built his ministry. Despite these historians listing numerous cult leaders, purported messiahs, scandals, etc not one of them ever mentions Jesus.

You could argue that they were not writing about him because they didn't believe in him, however that's not tenable. If anything if that was the case we'd have expected them to write the narrative from a critical pro-roman perspective. They'd have recorded him just as another false messiah who was crucified. But we don't even have that, which is rather telling.

If a whole branch of Christianity existed that claimed just this, why did it pass totally unnoticed by these critics? Clearly no such earlier "mythic Jesus" proto-Christianity existed - it is a creation of the modern Jesus Mythicist activists to prop up their theory.

It didn't pass totally unnoticed by critics at all. There was a ton of theological debate, and when the now orthodox Christianity got the upper hand politically, they had all the gnostic books banned and burned, and Gnostic Christians put to death. That's not exactly "going unnoticed".

The main reason non-Christian scholars accept that there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin of the Jesus story is that the stories themselves contain elements that only make sense if they were originally about such a preacher, but which the gospel writers themselves found somewhat awkward. As noted above, far from conforming closely to expectations about the coming Messiah, the Jesus story actually shows many signs of being shoehorned into such expectations and not exactly fitting very well.

As for the gospel writers, there is no doubt they're attempting to create a biography of sorts for a flesh and blood Jesus. That doesn't mean their stories are true though... the gospels were written 40-80 years after the fact, by anonymous authors who never met Jesus. Their accounts contain numerous examples of "miracles" and other stories that were commonly attributed to other gods at the time as well that came long before Jesus. There's huge amounts of Zoroastrian and Mithraic influence in the gospel narratives, among other religions practised at the time. Virtually the entire gospel narrative has been lifted from the pre-existing myths of other religions.

There are several other elements in the gospels like this. The Gospels of Luke and Matthew go to great lengths to tell stories which "explain" how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem despite being from Nazareth, since Micah 5:2 was taken to be a prophecy that the Messiah was to be from Bethlehem. Both gospels, however, tell completely different, totally contradictory and mutually exclusive stories (one is even set ten years after the other) which all but the most conservative Christian scholars acknowledge to be non-historical.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The question then arises: why did they go to this effort? If Jesus existed and was from Nazareth, this makes sense. Clearly some Jews objected to the claim Jesus was the Messiah on the grounds that he was from the insignificant village of Nazareth in Galilee and not from Bethlehem in Judea - John 7:41-42 even depicts some Jews making precisely this objection. So it makes sense that Christian traditions would arise that "explain" how a man known to be a Galilean from Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth - thus the contradictory stories in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew that have this as their end.

If, however, there was no historical Jesus then it is very hard to explain why an insignificant town like Nazareth is in the story at all. If Jesus was a purely mythic figure and the stories of his life evolved out of expectations about the Messiah then he would be from Bethlehem, as was expected as a Messiah. So why is Nazareth, a tiny place of no religious significance, in the story? And why all the effort to get Jesus born in Bethlehem but keep Nazareth in the narrative? The only reasonable explanation is that Nazareth is the historical element in these accounts - it is in the story because that is where Jesus was from. A historical Jesus explains the evidence far better than any "mythic" alternative.
An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus (Part 2 of 2) | Strange Notions

Why is that a problem? Jesus could have been said to have been raised in any town. If anything it could serve as a very good argument to answer why nobody in Bethlehem had ever heard of this Jesus fellow.

In fact, given that line of thought a backwater town that nobody paid attention to would appear more credible. That doesn't even have to be purposefully orchestrated, people would have known he wasn't in Bethlehem, so they would have had to have written about where he came from. Nazareth is as good a place as any.

There's a number of objections to the whole Nazareth part of the story, but either way the claim he was raised in a different town doesn't in any way provide evidence that the story is true (or false for that matter). It's insignificant either way.

So it is the little things like this that make the bible itself more realistic. When you add this to the archeological discoveries and the non biblical support of other historians plus the many people who are claiming to be witnesses and are appealing directly to us that this is the truth you begin to wonder how can this all be made up.

There are no archaeological discoveries that confirm anything about the Jesus narrative, likewise there's no extra-biblical sources that confirm the Jesus narrative either.

There are supposed accounts of witnesses, however every religion has that. Why are your "witnesses" more credible given that the only written accounts we have were from people who were not direct eyewitnesses.

Then there are the 2nd generation disciples who were closely associated with the original disciples who also testify the same. You begin to think its a bit to much to start saying this is some sort of elaborate hoax and well orchestrated fraud.

I'm not saying it's an elaborate hoax or orchestrated fraud. I'm saying Christianity got its start the same way many other religions did. As I said before, the basis for Christianity can be found in various other pagan religions. Reading the new testament in chronological order (Paul's letters first) shows a much different narrative. Jesus starts as a mystical being who was revealed through Paul and no other human source. A few decades later the belief that Jesus was flesh and blood was incorporated into the belief and eventually became the dominant view of Christianity.

I'm not trying to argue this was a purposeful elaborate hoax, I'm saying over time elements of other religions were incorporated into various early Christian sects, and the "orthodox" view of Christianity is the one that eventually won out over the various "heretical" forms.

The legend of Robin Hood came about under similar circumstances. Various pre-existing mythic "outlaw hero" stories eventually coalesced around a single figure. Odds are there probably wasn't a "real" Robin Hood either, although it's possible there might have been a guy the stories were later attributed to. However, we have no real evidence to show there was a Robin Hood.

It should be pointed out though, that the Robin Hood legend is also set in a real place (Sherwood Forest) and contains real historical figures (Richard the Lionheart for example). That's not evidence the story is true however.

This is why most scholars believe that there was a man named Jesus who was a preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilot.

This is another scriptural problem. Pilate found no guilt with Jesus, he was convicted by the Sanhedrin. Therefore if he was legitimately executed, it would have been based on Jewish law, not Roman. That means Jesus should have been stoned to death, not crucified.

Add to this that there was a big movement around that time especially soon after Jesus was crucified and claimed to have risen from the dead. Many garnered courage and stood for their beliefs and then went of to be martyred themselves. The Christian movement spread fairly quick despite being something the Romans didn't exactly want.

That's a popular tale among Christians, however actual historical records from the era flatly contradict that story. Christianity was largely a fringe cult within Roman society for a couple centuries. Christianity didn't start to gain widespread numbers or influence until the Roman Empire started to falter in the 4th century.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your conspiratorial thinking goes much further than I had realized.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is another scriptural problem. Pilate found no guilt with Jesus, he was convicted by the Sanhedrin.

That doesn't quite accurately describe it.

"In all gospel accounts, Pilate is reluctant to condemn Jesus, but is eventually forced to give in ...
Pilate agrees to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, after the Jewish leaders explained to him that Jesus presented a threat to Roman occupation"

Pilate may not have thought Jesus was guilty, but he nevertheless condemned him to death by crucifixion. I get the sense that the Sanhedrin was subtly (or not so subtly) threatening Pilate by saying "we'll tell your boss [Caesar] that you're looking the other way while a Jewish king gathers support for a rebellion."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually if you read the article and checked out the site its from an atheist.

I don't care who it is from. But the whole courtroom analogy is something that I have heard from some Christian Apologist. Maybe it was Lee Strobel.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

That doesn't quite accurately describe it.

"In all gospel accounts, Pilate is reluctant to condemn Jesus, but is eventually forced to give in ...
Pilate agrees to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, after the Jewish leaders explained to him that Jesus presented a threat to Roman occupation"

Pilate may not have thought Jesus was guilty, but he nevertheless condemned him to death by crucifixion. I get the sense that the Sanhedrin was subtly (or not so subtly) threatening Pilate by saying "we'll tell your boss [Caesar] that you're looking the other way while a Jewish king gathers support for a rebellion."

The Jews had Pilate by the short hairs, they held power over him due to some early strategic blunders in his governance of a people that he did not understand. But he knew the trial was a sham and that Jesus was innocent, but Pilate was a coward, he decided to let the crowd decide as a cop out.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That doesn't quite accurately describe it.

"In all gospel accounts, Pilate is reluctant to condemn Jesus, but is eventually forced to give in ...
Pilate agrees to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, after the Jewish leaders explained to him that Jesus presented a threat to Roman occupation"

Pilate may not have thought Jesus was guilty, but he nevertheless condemned him to death by crucifixion. I get the sense that the Sanhedrin was subtly (or not so subtly) threatening Pilate by saying "we'll tell your boss [Caesar] that you're looking the other way while a Jewish king gathers support for a rebellion."

Which stands in direct conflict with any other historical writing of Pilate.

From any other source, Pilate is depicted as a ruthless and confident "military dictator" type of governor. He had a history of deliberately finding out what the occupied Jewish people wanted, and doing the exact opposite just to show them who was in charge.

He was the type of guy that had the Sanhedrin directly threatened him as is depicted in the bible, he'd have had them all killed.

This view of him is not only historically accurate, but it follows common sense. 1st century Judea was a turbulent province of vital strategic importance to the Roman Empire, that was seething with rebellion. They would not have sent some "nancy boy" governor who couldn't stand up to the locals or who was afraid of being "told on" (as if Rome would have actually cared).

His term as governor ended in 36AD when he was recalled to Rome after he slaughtered thousands of Samaritan Pilgrims. This was not some weak kneed governor who could be pushed around. He ruled by the sword and violently put down anyone who called his authority into question. The gospel narrative is laughable when you compare it to every secular historical source.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The Jews had Pilate by the short hairs, they held power over him due to some early strategic blunders in his governance of a people that he did not understand. But he knew the trial was a sham and that Jesus was innocent, but Pilate was a coward, he decided to let the crowd decide as a cop out.

That whole narrative is ridiculous as well. As if a Roman military governor would run around weak kneed, afraid to make a decision and submit himself to the will of the crowd. Not to mention the fact that this very same crowd only shortly before "witnessed miracles" and lovingly celebrated in the streets about their messiah's arrival in Jerusalem, and now for some unexplained reason wanted him dead. It's utterly absurd.

 

[Colter]

That whole narrative is ridiculous as well. As if a Roman military governor would run around weak kneed, afraid to make a decision and submit himself to the will of the crowd. Not to mention the fact that this very same crowd only shortly before "witnessed miracles" and lovingly celebrated in the streets about their messiah's arrival in Jerusalem, and now for some unexplained reason wanted him dead. It's utterly absurd.

It wasn't the common Jew that Pilate was beholden to.

One might consider this scenario:

Paper 185 - The Trial Before Pilate | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

 

[Dave Ellis]

It wasn't the common Jew that Pilate was beholden to.

One might consider this scenario:

Paper 185 - The Trial Before Pilate | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

Consider it in what way?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't care who it is from. But the whole courtroom analogy is something that I have heard from some Christian Apologist. Maybe it was Lee Strobel.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Probably, Strobel was an attorney and he used to preach at a church I attended.

Interesting dude, to say the least.

 

[Colter]

Consider it in what way?

In the sense that a Roman governor might be politically motivated. The UB presents a plausible explanation for Pilates behavior.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In the sense that a Roman governor might be politically motivated. The UB presents a plausible explanation for Pilates behavior.

Except it isn't plausible. Every historical account of him apart from the gospels portray a man who ruled with an iron fist. Furthermore if he didn't have the ability to stand up to the locals, Rome would have sent someone else to do his job.

 

[Colter]

Except it isn't plausible. Every historical account of him apart from the gospels portray a man who ruled with an iron fist. Furthermore if he didn't have the ability to stand up to the locals, Rome would have sent someone else to do his job.

It's entirely plausible, Pilate was human not a Hollywood creation. It was because of his heavy handed ness on some accessions that he ended up compromised. Pilate would eventually commit suicide.

But bearing in mind that you are motivated by an agenda to discredit Jesus and the narratives surrounding him, one can see the need to type cast Pilate into an inflexible mold.

 

[stevevw]

We have no personal accounts, that's part of the problem. However even if we did, personal accounts are typically considered the most unreliable form of evidence.

Well as far as I can see we do have personal accounts. The gospels, the other books of James, Peter and the books of Paul. The gospels and other books like James and Peter are speaking in the first person. Some even state that this is my account of what happened as a witness and I am writing it down. Now we can analyze all this and assess it and then look for loop holes or support that its true. But because we were not there and cant be 100 sure we have to take it on trust.

So its easy to reject it if you choose not to believe in the first place. You will look for things to show its false and can see everything in a negative way. This can also happen as a believer so at the end of the day what else can you do. But this is the same for all history just about. But like I said the bible is such a large body of work written on that time which is a rare thing in itself.

Using your same criteria, we can claim the existence of Spiderman has been proven archaeologically. After all, he lives in New York City, and many places in New York that appear in the comic have been verified to exist.

There's a fairly accurate portrayal of 20th and 21st century American culture in the books as well, so that's just further evidence, right?

The point is, if real people and places exist within a story, that does not provide evidence that the story itself is true.

No name one person who we can know was a real person like Paul or Josephus or Any one of the disciples or 100s of other people that write about Jesus who are real people for spider man in those comics. Show me one item that has been found in the ground that can verify the times and places of when those things happened about Jesus in the comics.

The comics are fictitious and even the things in it are fiction. The only thing that is correct is the places it talks about. But that is a one dimensional aspect that is not taking into consideration the many other supports that have been found or written.

No, actually that's incorrect. Paul (who is our earliest source) is quite emphatic that he speaks with Jesus only in visions and through revelation, and never as a flesh and blood person.

In fact Paul talks openly that the knowledge of Jesus is only revealed through him by scriptural interpretation and revelation, and no human sources at all... which is rather strange if Jesus apparently lead a ministry and had lots of followers about twenty years previously. Paul is largely writing about a Dionysus-like god figure with a strong influence from the Greco-Roman mystery faiths which were widespread in the region at the time. The mystery faiths usually included some kind of saviour god, resurrection, a lord's supper, etc. And yes, Paul writes about the "Lord's supper", not the "last supper" in his letters. The idea gets turned into the last supper in the gospel writings. These are just a few of many examples, however the parallels to the mystery faiths are absolutely undeniable. In short, it's likely Paul created a Jewish version of a mystery faith, and that eventually grew into Christianity.

This is what the video with Dr Richard Carrier also said. But this is no the case. This is what many atheists use which is a distortion of the truth. Paul does speak about Jesus in the flesh clearly. There is no doubt that Paul understands that Jesus was a real person and He walked the earth with the disciples. He was crucified and rose from the dead.

Paul writes that once when he went to Jerusalem, “I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19).

Paul acknowledges that James, together with Peter (Cephas) and John, was one of the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9).

And this is not Paul’s only reference to the “brothers” of Jesus. He also asked: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas [Peter]?” (1 Cor. 9:5). So Jesus had “brothers” who were distinct from the apostles and other major Christian leaders such as Cephas/Peter.

Paul also tells us that Jesus was “descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3) and “born of woman, born under the Law [of Moses]” (Gal. 4:4). This clearly indicates Jesus’ birth as a Jew who belonged to the lineage of David (and who, as well, had both flesh and a woman as his mother).
All this indicates that Jesus was a real, historical individual.


In 1 Thessalonians, commonly regarded as one of the earliest New Testament documents, Paul writes that the Jews “killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out” (1 Thess. 2:14-15).
He also states “that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed” instituted the Eucharist and told his followers to perform it (1 Cor. 11:23-25) and afterward was “buried” (1 Cor. 15:4).
And, in 1 Timothy he writes that Jesus “made the good confession...in his testimony before Pontius Pilate” (1 Tim. 6:13).

Biographical information for Jesus only starts to show up in the gospels, which were written at least 20 years after Paul's letters.

Yes but the gospels were not something that just came to the writers 20 years on. They were either talked about as the Jewish tradition was to verbally pass these stories on in teachings or some parts would have been written down already. Its just that someone had finally decided to put them together in a book. But the point is if it did happen and was talked about them the main core of the stories would have been strong and clear and preserved. You dont forget something like this. But also the early church was still growing and being persecuted so it wasn't something they could promote. Plus we dont know what else was written as Jerusalem was completely destroyed along with a lot of literature.

I will answer the rest later as I am a bit busy at the moment.

Steve.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's entirely plausible, Pilate was human not a Hollywood creation. It was because of his heavy handed ness on some accessions that he ended up compromised. Pilate would eventually commit suicide.

But bearing in mind that you are motivated by an agenda to discredit Jesus and the narratives surrounding him, one can see the need to type cast Pilate into an inflexible mold.

Ah, I see, I disagree with your view because it doesn't line up with historical records, and for that I have an "agenda to discredit Jesus". That's known as an Ad Hominem Fallacy.

The bottom line is the gospel narrative is utterly absurd when compared to historical record, and common sense. If Pilate really was as he's described in the bible, he'd never have even got the job of governor of Judea. If he somehow managed to get it, he'd have quickly been recalled. A governor tasked with keeping order couldn't possibly survive being pushed around by the locals.

 

[Colter]

Ah, I see, I disagree with your view because it doesn't line up with historical records, and for that I have an "agenda to discredit Jesus". That's known as an Ad Hominem Fallacy.

The bottom line is the gospel narrative is utterly absurd when compared to historical record, and common sense. If Pilate really was as he's described in the bible, he'd never have even got the job of governor of Judea. If he somehow managed to get it, he'd have quickly been recalled. A governor tasked with keeping order couldn't possibly survive being pushed around by the locals.

Britannica on Pilate:

"Josephus’s references appear to be consistent. They seem to picture a headstrong, strict, authoritarian Roman leader who, although both rational and practical, never knew how far he should go in a given case. He provoked both Jews and Samaritans to riot. Josephus tells us that “in order to abolish Jewish laws,” and with the intent of diminishing privileges Jews had hitherto enjoyed, Pilate ordered his troops to encamp in Jerusalem and sent them into the city with images of the emperor attached to their ensigns. When the Jews demonstrated in Caesarea, Pilate’s city of residence, he threatened them with death unless they desisted; but when the Jews showed their readiness to die, he ordered the images removed. Josephus states his inferential judgment that Pilate “was deeply affected with their firm resolution,” suggesting his own strength of character."​

 

[Dave Ellis]

(On speaking of Pilate) "Naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless, he committed acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims and constant and most galling savagery."

- Philo of Alexandria


"Extremely offensive, cruel and corrupt"

- Josephus



On that note, Josephus also documents numerous examples of Pilate massacring scores of Jews who attempted to get in his way. One example was during a demonstration he had a team of soldiers go out in disguise and blend in with the protesters. Then on his order they pulled daggers and slaughtered everyone, protesters and innocent bystanders alike.

Basically, the fastest way to get killed in ancient Judea was to try to tell Pilate what to do, yet the gospels try to claim the Sanhedrin was playing him like a fiddle and had him worried and scared about what they might do to him. From a historical context, it's utterly absurd.

 

[Colter]

By the time Jesus went on trial and was brought before Pilate, the governor had already created political tensions with the Jews that would lead to confliction within Pilate as Jesus was a notorious agitator against Pilates enemies among, Jewish authorities.

Pilate in Jewish literature[edit]

"In chronicling the history of the Roman administrators in Judaea, ancient Jewish writers Philo and Josephus describe some of the other events and incidents that took place during Pilate's tenure. Both report that Pilate repeatedly caused near-insurrections among the Jews because of his insensitivity to Jewish customs.

Josephus notes that while Pilate's predecessors had respected Jewish customs by removing all images and effigies on their standards when entering Jerusalem, Pilate allowed his soldiers to bring them into the city at night. When the citizens of Jerusalem discovered these the following day, they appealed to Pilate to remove the ensigns of Caesar from the city. After five days of deliberation, Pilate had his soldiers surround the demonstrators, threatening them with death, which they were willing to accept rather than submit to desecration of Mosaic law. Pilate finally removed the images.[36][37]

Philo describes a later, similar incident in which Pilate was chastened by Emperor Tiberius after antagonizing the Jews by setting up gold-coated shields in Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. The shields were ostensibly to honor Tiberius, and this time did not contain engraved images. Philo writes that the shields were set up "not so much to honour Tiberius as to annoy the multitude". The Jews protested the installation of the shields at first to Pilate, and then, when he declined to remove them, by writing to Tiberius. Philo reports that upon reading the letters, Tiberius "wrote to Pilate with a host of reproaches and rebukes for his audacious violation of precedent and bade him at once take down the shields and have them transferred from the capital to Caesarea."[38]

Josephus recounts another incident in which Pilate spent money from the Temple to build an aqueduct. Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them and, when Jews again protested his actions he gave the signal for his soldiers to randomly attack, beat and kill – in an attempt to silence Jewish petitions.[39]

In describing his personality, Philo writes that Pilate had "vindictiveness and furious temper", and was "naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness". He writes that Pilate feared a delegation of the Jews might send to Tiberius protesting the gold-coated shields, because "if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty".[38]

Pilate's term as prefect of Judaea ended after an incident recounted by Josephus. A large group of Samaritans had been persuaded by an unnamed man to go to Mount Gerizim in order to see sacred artifacts allegedly buried by Moses. But at a village named Tirathana, before the crowd could ascend the mountain, Pilate sent in "a detachment of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, who in an encounter with the firstcomers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential."[40] The Samaritans then complained to Vitellius, Roman governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome to explain his actions regarding this incident to Tiberius. However, by the time Pilate got to Rome, Tiberius had died."[41]
​

Pontius Pilate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's absolutely correct, however again the historical account (even what you have cited) does not line up with the gospel narrative of Pilate. The gospel narrative has him as a weak, ineffectual worrywart that's scared to make a decision.

Rather than make a pronouncement in the gospels, Pilate instead bows down, and "washes his hands" of the whole situation. That is not the type of person reflected in Josephus or Philo's writings. In those writings, he has no problems sending innocent people off to die. If Jesus was put forward as a threat to the Romans, the real Pilate would have had no problems killing him just to be safe.

Of course, that's leaving out the absurd crowd aspect of the story. This is the same crowd that days earlier hailed him as the messiah, the king of the Jews, witnessed miracles first-hand, and partied in the streets when he arrived.

This is the same crowd that the Jewish High Council had to avoid in fear of angering them when they supposedly arrested him the night before and committed a historically ridiculous illegal trial by night.

Yet, even though the high council feared the mob the night before, now the mob would rather have Jesus put to death over a nefarious murderer and rebel? And for that matter, if Barabbas was indeed a rebel with Roman blood on his hands as the gospels say, then Pilate would never have allowed him to be released.

That of course is leaving out the fact that no such tradition to release a prisoner on passover ever happened, either in Jewish culture or Roman law. The whole thing is made up.

When you break the story down and look at it objectively, it's absurd.