Coins of Pontius Pilate by Jean-Philippe Fontanille and Sheldon Lee Gosline Marco Polo Monographs Shangrila Publications

Translate to French
German

Translate to German
Italian

Translate to Italian

Translate to Portuguese
Spanish

Translate to Spanish

MPM4: The Coins of Pontius Pilate
by Jean-Philippe Fontanille and Sheldon Lee Gosline Bilingual English and French Edition
Contents __________________________________________ [ii-iii] Foreword [iv-vii] Color Plates [2-3] Acknowledgements and Foreword [4] Abbreviations and Preface [5-6] 1: Introduction [7-13] 2: Judea in Pilate's Time [14-16] 3: Jewish Money Before Pilate [17-33] 4: Pontius Pilate : The Person [34-38] 5: How Pilate Coins Differ [39-77] 6: Study of Pilate's Coinage [78-79] 7: Conclusion [80-81] A: Coin Values and Prospects [82-102] B: Pilate's Coins and Turin Shroud [103-105] Table of Classification [106-110] Bibliography [111-176] French Version	ORDER NOW Who was Pontius Pilate? How do his coins relate to Jesus? This book explores how we divide myth from fact! ISBN 0-9677201-4-1 Cloth Bound Price $39.50 US ISBN 0-9677201-5-X Paperback Price $31.00 US Single Orders Volume Orders Excerpt Below
Prof. Fontanille is the leading expert on the coins of Pontius Pilate. Prof. Gosline is a leading historian of the ancient Near East. They work together to provide a vivid study. REVIEWS "World renowned for his Pilate coins research" James Wiles (Coneca President) "Very interesting" Prof. Mahlon H. Smith (Rutgers University, New Brunswick) "A very interesting work" Prof. Timothy J. Madigan (University of Rochester) "An infectious enthusiasm for the subject" James Bakes (Editor, The Journal of CMNS) "Extremely interesting" Anton Marks (World Zionist Org., Webmaster Hagshama Dept) "Highly interesting" Rune Rysstad (Editor Numisma Asloia, Norway) "Very nice and informative" Edgar L. Owen (Numismatist) "Very well written, very informative" Guy Clark (Numismatist) "An excellent work" Jim Thompson (CoinMasters Administrative Vice-President) "In-depth and fascinating" Robert S. Koppelman (Webmaster www.coinsite.com) "A very interesting material" John Smedley (Publisher, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, U.K.) "Fascinating" Frances Arnold (Mc Millan Press, Publishing Director College Division) "A very interesting subject to write about" Fergie Meek (Publisher, Scotland's Past) "Really fascinating" Ian M. Thompson (Christian Focus Publications General Manager) "A remarkable study" (Jean-Marc Doyen, Pub. Bulletin du Cercle d'Etudes Numismatiques) "Interesting and informative" Perry Siegel (Herakles numismatics)

EXCERPTS

CHAPTER FOUR
Pontius Pilate, The Person
 
THE SOURCES
Manuscript sources containing references to Pontius Pilate are sparse, nearly always giving him a supporting role in the passion.  One listing (www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons2_n2/pilate.html) provides his dates as c. 19 B.C.E.  to c. 38 C.E., but should only be treated as speculative.  Principally drawn from Jewish and Christian texts, sources are sufficient to attempt a reasonably realistic character sketch.  Helen Bond (http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/articles/pilate.html) compiled one of the most complete online resources for the study of Pilate sources, including an extensive bibliography.  
  By far, our greatest information corpus comes from the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus who composed his two great works, the Antiquities of the Jews and the Jewish War, toward the end of the first century.  In all, Josephus describes four incidents involving Pilate.  His earlier work, the Jewish War, describes Pilate's introduction of iconic standards into Jerusalem and his construction of an aqueduct.  The Antiquities repeats these two stories (with slightly different emphases) and adds two more - the story of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth and an incident involving Samaritans, which eventually led to Pilate's removal.  Important as Josephus?accounts are, they can only be used with some caution.  Apologetic and rhetorical motives shaped each narrative, particularly his desire to impress other nations of the futility of revolt against Rome, his attempt to stress the antiquity of Judaism, and his endeavor (in the Antiquities) to put some blame for the Jewish revolt on the Roman governors. 
  The canonical Christian gospels reveal a Pilate who was something of a well-meaning blunderer, who would not take responsibility for executing a man with whom he could not find fault.  But, the occasion of Jesus' trial reveals the quick mind of an accomplished administrator.  The circumstances opened the door for Pilate to strengthen his support from Jewish religious leaders by seeming to follow their will, develop positive relations with Herod, appear magnanimous to the people by releasing Barabas, and make a powerful public example of anyone who wanted to be "King of the Jews".  It must have seemed like a perfect day as prefect, but history was to prove otherwise.  According to the CE, Pilate was a type of worldly man, knowing what is right and anxious to do it, if it can be done without personal sacrifice of any kind, but yielding easily to pressure from those whose interest it is that he should act otherwise.  He would have gladly acquitted Christ, and even made serious efforts to, but gave way when his own position was threatened. 
  The trial of Jesus of Nazareth before Pontius Pilate is described in all four gospels (Mt 27.1-26, Mk 15.1-15, Lk 23.1-25 and Jn 18.28-19.16a).  This event is usually dated to either 30 or 33 C.E. on the basis of astronomical and calendrical information derived from the gospels.  Although Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark's version as a source, each trial narrative is quite different, reflecting the concerns of their own particular early Christian community.  Josephus' account (Ant. XVIII, 63-64) is generally referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum.  
  Scholars are generally agreed that it has suffered at the hands of later Christian interpreters and the original wording is now lost.  Given the context, the original text probably recorded another disturbance in the time of Pilate, centering on Jesus or his followers after his death.  As it now stands, the Testimonium Flavianum adds little to our picture of the historical Pilate.  He is shown working closely with the Jewish hierarchy to eliminate a common threat.  It may also be significant that he has only the messianic leader executed and not his followers, a fact which may even show a dislike for excessive violence.  The most significant Christian sources are contained in the New Testament.  An incident mentioned in St. Luke (12:1) of the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate mingled with sacrifices, is not elsewhere referred to, but is quite in keeping with other authentic events of his rule.  One wonders, however, whether the lapse of time, separating the most ancient sources from the facts themselves, has been put to good account by hands desiring to accentuate or mitigate certain possibilities, with a view to political, ideological or theological aims.  For example, in John's Gospel, his report of vacillations in Pilate's dialogues with the mob seems too contrived to be considered authentic history.  In Mark's gospel, Pilate's repeated references to "the King of the Jews" and then "your king?seem calculated to embitter the crowd who shout all the more for Jesus' execution.  In the same way John's Gospel, has Pilate order his execution only when he has pushed "the Jews" into declaring Caesar to be their only king (19:15f).  Pilate is weak in Luke's gospel and it is this weakness that allows Jesus' opponents to have their own way.  The CE suggests that Pilate was anxious that no further hostile reports should be sent to the emperor concerning him.  The portrait of Pilate that follows takes these factors into account. 

Other events of Pilate's governorship are not very important, as the CE notes.  We owe the main Jewish references concerning Pilate to the historian Flavius Josephus and the philosopher Philo, who were both his contemporaries.  Philo (Ad Gaium, 38) speaks of him as inflexible, merciless, and obstinate.  Jews hated him and his administration, for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their susceptibilities.  Some standards bearing the image of Tiberius, which he had set up in Jerusalem, caused an outbreak that would have ended in a massacre, had Pilate not relented.  Due to the account position at the beginning of both the War and the Antiquities, most scholars assume this incident took place early in Pilate's office, perhaps as early as the winter of 26 C.E.  
  A squadron could not be separated from its standards; if new standards were brought into Jerusalem that meant an entirely new squadron was being stationed there, one that had not been used in the city previously.  As a military prefect, Pilate's interest was in the troops themselves and their strategic positioning; the particular emblems on their standards would have been of no importance.  As a new governor, Pilate may not even have realised that this particular cohort would cause offence in Jerusalem because of its standards.  Or, if he had been warned, it might have seemed absurd to him that troops, which could be deployed in Caesarea, could not be moved to Jerusalem.  The account gives the impression of a new governor anxious to take no nonsense from the people he is to govern.  That he was willing to reconsider, and did eventually change the troops, shows prudence and concern to avoid unnecessary hostilities. 
  At some later date, Tiberius ordered Pilate to remove gilt shields, which had resulted in a public outcry when he had set them up in Jerusalem.  The account we have is from Philo of Alexandria's _Legatio ad Gaium_ (Legatio 299-305).  Although written only a few years after Pilate's departure from Judaea, this work is highly polemical; Philo describes Pilate as corrupt, violent, abusive and cruel (§§ 301, 302).  Philo accused him of intentionally annoying the Jewish people by setting up these gilded shields in Herod's Jerusalem palace.  While the shields contained no picture, the inscription referred to the emperor as: Ti. Caesari divi Augusti f.  (divi Iuli nepoti) Augusto pontifici Maximo.  Reference to the divine Augustus was seen as offensive by some Jews, particularly when situated in the holy city.  Once the significance of this inscription was widely known, four Herodian princes asked for their removal.  When Pilate refused, they threatened to send an embassy to Tiberius.      
  According to Philo, this worried Pilate enormously because of the atrocities committed throughout his governorship.  The embassy went ahead and Tiberius upheld the Herodian complaints, ordering Pilate to remove the shields to the Caesarean Temple of Augustus.  
  Although Philo's picture of the ruthless Pilate is rhetorically over-exaggerated, there is clearly some basis to the story.  The most important historical reconstruction starting point is the shields themselves.  Such honorific shields were common in the ancient world; generally they contained both portrait and inscription (Pliny, Natural History 35; Tacitus, Annals 2.83; Res Gestae Divi Augusti 34).  Pilate's shields were of this type, but even Philo admitted that they differed by containing no images.  This suggests that, rather than deliberately acting against Jewish Law, Pilate took steps to avoid offending the people.  Furthermore, they were set up inside the Roman governor's praetorium in Jerusalem, surely the most appropriate place in the city for such shields.  If this event occurred after the commotion caused by the introduction of iconic standards, narrated by Josephus, then Pilate's behavior was both understandable and prudent.  He wanted to honor the emperor without antagonising the people.  Where he went drastically wrong, however, was in the inscription's wording.  

There are other sources that may offer clues about Pilate, however their validity is questionable.  The tendency, already discernible in the canonical gospels, to lay stress on the efforts of Pilate to acquit Christ, and thus pass as lenient a judgment as possible, goes further in some apocryphal gospels, and led later to the claim that he actually became a Christian.  Tertullian asserted that Pilate was a Christian at heart and that he wrote a letter to Tiberius to explain what had happened at Jesus' trial (Apology 21).  Church tradition portrayed Pilate in increasingly favorable terms.  The Abyssinian Church reckons him a saint, and assigns June 25th to him and to Claudia Procula, his wife.  The belief that she became a Christian goes back to the second century, as found in Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv).  The Greek Church assigns her feast on October 27th.  Tertullian and Justin Martyr both speak of a crucifixion report (not extant), sent by Pilate to Tiberius, from which an extensive corpus of apocryphal literature is credited.  Some were Christian in origin (ie: Gospel of Nicodemus), others were pagan, but all perished. 
  In the apocryphal Life of Jesus in Arabic (XL, 2-8), date and hour of Jesus' trial is given as "Thursday, the 30th of March at 9 AM." Pilate is referred to in a lacuna, followed by his denial of responsibility for putting an innocent man to death.  The text goes on to discuss a visit by Joseph of Arimathea at sunset to collect the body.  The second century Gospel of Peter (I, 3 ff) presents this visit in more detail and Joseph is called "friend of Pilate".  It goes on with Pilate addressing Herod Antipas as "my brother", in familiar rather than formal protocol.  In Gospel of Peter, Jesus is condemned by Herod Antipas, not by Pilate.  Eusebius cited a tradition that Pilate committed suicide in the reign of Gaius Caligula out of remorse for his part in Jesus' condemnation (Hist.  Eccl.  2.7.1).  
  The Book of the Resurrection by Bartholomew (II, 2) curiously identifies Joseph as a relative of Judas Iscariot.  These relationships provide additional details for underlying motives to a rather bare-bones narrative in the canonical Gospels, if they are valid.  
  Overall, the apocryphal references to Pontius Pilate view him in one of two ways.  He is either seen as being fully responsible for the crucifixion, or is totally left out of the narrative and thus fully exonerated.  The Syriac Doctrine of the Apostle Adda?(74-75) places the entire responsibility of Jesus' crucifixion and a resulting Jewish revolt on Pilate.    
  Accordingly, it reports that King Abgar of Edessa wrote to Tiberius to learn about the fledgling Christian movement and learned, in reply that Pilate had written a report to his superior, the Governor "Olbinus" [sic; Albinus is correct] about crucifying someone.  The crucifixion resulted in a Jewish revolt, and Pilate was thus removed from office.  
  Connections between Jesus' trial and Pilate's own death are found elsewhere.  One source (www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2 /people_n2/ppersons2_n2/pilate.html) states that a few years after the crucifixion, Pilate was ordered back to Rome to stand trial on the charge that he executed men without any proper trial.  Pilate may have killed himself on orders from Emperor Caligula.  This differs slightly from Josephus, who states that Pilate was removed directly due to the Samaritan Revolt at Mount Gerizim (Ant. XVIII, iv, 1-4).  Curiously, in a brief Greek document known as the Judgment (Paradosis) of Pilate, it was Tiberius who removed him from office as a result of this Jewish uprising and he ordered a high level official named "Albius" to decapitate Pilate.  It is likely that this was the Olbinus mentioned in the Doctrine of the Apostle Addai, and perhaps even the same Albinus who took over as Procurator of Judaea (62-64 C.E.) under Nero at the time of the First Revolt.  The Gospel of the Apostles (9) identifies the passion as taking place in the days of Pontius Pilate and "The prince Archelaus" not Herod Antipas, which is odd because Archelaus was reportedly banished to Vindobona (Vienne) in Gaul by then (Ant. XVII, xiii, 2).
  It is just as interesting to consider the instances where Pontius Pilate is intentionally omitted from the narrative.  The Acts of the Apostles Peter and Simon (VIII, 1-9: A), refers to Jesus as being crucified at the will of Herod Antipas, having been delivered directly to him by Caiaphas.  Thereby, Pilate was fully exonerated from his role in the events.  Elsewhere, the text indicates that there was a friendship between the early Christians and a certain Marcellus, who may have been the Pilate’s successor, Marcellus Marullus (36-41 C.E.), or even a relative.  The _Erits apocryphes chritiens_ (EAC: 1068) suggests Granius Marcellus, mentioned in the introduction of Tacitus (Annales, I, 74).  In any case, the composition reveals a desire to shift blame for Jesus' crucifixion away from the Roman hierarchy.  Likewise, the Acts of Thomas (XXXII, 3) removes Pilate from any responsibility regarding the crucifixion.  This composition states that Caiaphas and Herod Antipas incited this injustice against a "just judge".
  Curiously, "just judge" alludes to Pilate's question, "What is truth?"  From Rabbinic works, we can cite the Babylonian Talmud, the Toledot Yeshu, or the letter of Mara to Serapion.  In both Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, Pilate is referred to as "Haman," or "Aman".  This ironic use of the term "Haman" refers at least back to the time of Queen Esther.  In general, "amen" means "Amen", "Sso be it", "in truth? even "the just one" from the noun "amunah" "truth"  Philo of Alexandria, citing a letter from Herod Agrippa I to Caligula, denounced corruption, violence and brutality attributed to Pilate by the Jews, who had given him the ironic nickname of "Haman" Leg.).  Haman is also Josephus' ideal type for a foreign tyrant (Ant.  XI, vi, 5 ff), although he never called Pilate by that nickname.  (It must also be remembered that many historians believe that Philo exaggerated the bad nature of Pilate's character.) The juxtaposition of this nickname for Pilate with his question to Jesus, "What is truth?"(John XVIII, 37), was most certainly evident to the early Christian community.  
  From the Christian side of the argument, there are many other interesting apocryphal works such as the Acts of Pilate or the Relationship between Pilate and Tiberius; but these writings, though they may include valuable historical facts which were omitted elsewhere, come too long after the events, and their biased reconstruction of the facts is really too obvious for them to be used in the framework of any bid to reconstitute history.  The fourth or fifth century Gospel of Nicodemus (which contains the Acts of Pilate), though far from "Christianising" Pilate, also depicts the governor as more friendly toward Jesus than any canonical gospel.

TOP