This chapter focuses on the political and social realities of Judea and Galilee in the first century. Special attention is paid to the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and its importance for understanding the New Testament.

Our earliest surviving literary reference to Pontius Pilate is found within the writings of the diaspora Jew, Philo of Alexandria. His Embassy to Gaius (or Legatio ad Gaium) describes how Pilate offended against the Jewish Law by setting up aniconic shields in Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders appealed to Tiberius who ordered Pilate to remove them (§§ 299–305). The incident is found within a letter supposedly from Agrippa I to Gaius Caligula, attempting to dissuade the Emperor from setting up his statue in the Jerusalem Temple (§§ 276–329). However, modern scholars are agreed that the letter as we now have it is clearly the work of Philo himself. It is perfectly feasible that Agrippa wrote a letter to Gaius and also that Philo, who was in Rome at the time, knew something of its contents. Yet, in accordance with historiography of his day, Philo has presented the letter in his own stylistic terms.

Philo's account of Pilate is historically important in that, although belonging to Egypt, he was a contemporary of the events which he relates in Palestine. He would also have had access to reasonably reliable information through his family connections with Agrippa. However, Philo's ‘historical’ writings, comprising the Embassy to Gaius and the In Flaccum, are marked by strong rhetorical and theological concerns. This is particularly prominent in his assessment of the character and actions of Roman Emperors and officials. Therefore, whilst Philo's account of Pilate doubtlessly contains a core of historical fact, his description of Pilate's character and intentions has very likely been influenced by his rhetorical objectives.

Virtually all scholars are in agreement that John's gospel was written for a Christian community which had recently and traumatically broken away, or been expelled, from the Jewish synagogue. There are points of similarity here with Matthew's gospel in that, despite the Jewishness of many parts of the gospel, the author is vehemently hostile towards his Jewish neighbours. The work seems to presuppose the fall of the Temple in 70 ce but, since the discovery of the Rylands papyrus, cannot be later than about 100–10. Most scholars are agreed that a date of roughly 85–95, that is, the reign of Domitian, would fit well with the circumstances to which the gospel is addressed.

Locating this community is not an easy task. Suggestions have ranged from Alexandria, Antioch (or elsewhere in Syria) to Batanaea or lower Galilee. Ephesus, however, is the traditional place of authorship and this city has several points in its favour. First, though few would hold that the author of John's gospel also wrote Revelation, the two works may have come from the same general location and Revelation explicitly mentions Ephesus (1.11, 2.1). There was also a strong and influential Jewish community in Ephesus which seems to have been engaged in bitter disputes with the Christian community (Rev. 2.9). Furthermore, Ephesus was the capital of the Roman province of Asia and this dominant Roman regime would explain John's interest in Jesus' Roman trial. Though none of these points is conclusive and certainty is impossible, the following discussion will take Ephesus as the general area of composition.

The gospel narratives refer to two incidents involving Pilate – the slaughter of the Galileans in Luke 13.1 and the trial of Jesus of Nazareth in all four. The possible historical events behind these narratives will be discussed in this chapter.

Historical events behind Luke 13.1

Nothing further is known of this incident, either from biblical or non-biblical sources, and the reference to it here in Luke is extremely brief. We are told only that Pilate has mingled the blood of some Galileans with their sacrifices. Since there is no trace of this in the works of Josephus who, as a former commander of Galilee, might be expected to have a particular interest in the fate of Galileans, several scholars have suggested that Luke has misreported another event from first-century Palestine. Virtually all known events from Pilate's term of office have been proposed.

C. H. Kraeling thought that Luke was actually referring to the time when Pilate brought military standards into Jerusalem (JW 2.169–74, Ant. 18.55–9). But, as we saw earlier, that incident led to a relatively peaceful protest in Caesarea which ended without bloodshed. A. T. Olmstead linked Luke 13.1 with the aqueduct protest (JW 2.175–7, Ant. 18.60–2). There is, however, no indication in Josephus that those caught up in the protest were Galileans; the natural assumption is that they were Judaean subjects of Pilate. J. Wellhausen suggested that the incident should be linked to the Samaritan uprising (Ant. 18.86–7).

Pontius Pilate was the fifth governor of the Roman province of Judaea, holding office from 26–37 ce. The small province had been brought under Roman rule only two decades earlier. The events which led to this, however, go back another decade still to the death of Herod I in 4 bce.

In the final codicil of his will, the king divided his kingdom between three of his sons: Philip and Antipas received a quarter each; the remaining half, including Judaea, was to go to Archelaus. Since Herod I was a vassal king, or rex socius, it lay with Augustus either to ratify the will as it stood or to appoint another successor. Both Archelaus and Antipas journeyed to Rome: Archelaus anxious to have his succession ratified; Antipas to plead for the greater legitimation of an earlier will in which he had been named as sole heir. The two Herodians were joined by a group of relatives who, according to Josephus, openly supported Antipas but whose real purpose in appearing before the Emperor was to secure direct Roman rule over the former kingdom. This sentiment was shared by yet another delegation composed of fifty delegates from Judaea, supposedly joined by eight thousand Jews living in the capital, who pleaded with Augustus to unite their country to Syria and to entrust the administration to the Syrian legate. Clearly Josephus would have us believe that both the people and the nobility of Judaea would prefer to be governed by Romans rather than a successor of Herod.

That Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate, the fifth prefect of the imperial Roman province of Judaea, is one of the surest facts of Christianity; it is attested not only by the earliest Christian traditions but also by the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44). As the judge of Jesus, Pilate has earned an important place both in the New Testament and Christian creeds and also in popular imagination. The picture of an official washing his hands in an attempt to avoid responsibility and the eternally unanswerable question ‘What is truth?’ (John 18.38) are inextricably linked with Pilate, even by those who profess little or no Christian commitment.

In view of Pilate's significance it is not surprising to find many varied treatments of the historical governor over the last century, both on an academic and on a popular literary level. Two factors generally have influenced these presentations. First of all, the sources at the historian's disposal are relatively thin and those which are available appear to give contradictory views of Pilate. The Jewish writers Philo and Josephus describe Pilate in negative terms; a harsh, cruel man who was the enemy of the Jewish nation. The Christian gospels, however, are generally interpreted as presenting a governor who, although weak and indecisive, recognized the innocence of Jesus and attempted to save him from execution. To a large extent any reconstruction of the ‘real Pilate’ has depended upon the relative value set upon each source by the historian.

Pontius Pilate is one of the few New Testament characters about whom we have two lengthy descriptions coming from roughly contemporary non-biblical sources. The material concerning him, therefore, affords us an interesting opportunity to assess the way in which all these sources, both biblical and non-biblical, treat historical characters. How far did each writer feel bound by historical events? How far has each allowed his own particular bias to influence his portrayal of Pilate?

This study has examined all six sources in turn – Philo, Josephus and the four gospels. In each case it has become apparent that the author's portrayal of Pilate has been influenced to a great extent by his own particular theological, apologetic and/or community situation. Yet despite the strongly interpretative nature of the sources, it has been possible to piece together something of the historical Pilate.

As the prefect of Judaea from 26 to 37 ce, Pilate was charged with maintaining law and order in the imperial province, overseeing legal matters and supervising the collection of taxes. The issue of coinage also fell within his duties. Archaeological evidence shows that Pilate, unlike other governors of Judaea, minted coins containing both Jewish and Roman designs. Although the pagan designs may not have been particularly offensive, the coins do seem to reflect a tendency to want to bring Judaea into line with other Roman provinces. Despite its size, the province presented many difficulties; not least was the fact that it was composed of different ethnic groups, each with its own religious sensitivities.