Five Essences: September 2013

Believers sometimes claim that sceptics thought Pilate was a myth, up until an inscription naming him was found in 1961. There are numerous examples of this,

e.g. -

John Warwick Montgomery in "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity"

' Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history. To take but a single, striking example: After the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then, in 1961, came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography. '

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm

or -

"For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure."

http://defendchristianfaith.blogspot.com/2009/02/did-pontius-pilate-actually-exist.html

or -

"How can atheists deny that Herod and Pontius Pilate existed when there are coins that were issued by them ? I have seen them. When they say the Bible is fiction, they would have to also deny numismatic evidence. "

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080209071413AAd4maf

or -

"When critics of the Passion of the Christ argue about Pilate not being historical and Caiaphas being too rabid, they are ignoring Biblical accounts and secular history because they don’t like the Biblical story."

http://www.bible-sermons.org/classes/Passion2.doc

So, what does the record of history actually show ?

Here I list the references to Pilate through the centuries - I have included all the main cites I could find - Christian writers as well as sceptics. If any sceptic had claimed Pilate did not exist, some Christian would surely mention that - in the same way that when early sceptics denied Jesus came in the flesh, we see various Christians insisting he DID so.

Contemporary, early 1st century

Philo Judaeus was a direct contemporary of Pilate, and he refers to Pilate twice in his historical work "On the Embassy to Gaius" :

"Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea."
Clearly Philo thought Pilate was historical.

Late 1st century

Josephus in late 1st century records Pilate numerous times in his two historical books (Wars and Antiquities), e.g. :

"When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."
Clearly Josephus thought Pilate was historical.

Early 2nd century

Tacitus refers to Pilate in his Annals 15.44 around 116 CE :

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,"

Clearly, Tacitus thought Pilate was historical, (although he does get his title wrong.)

Late 1st and 2nd century

Many early Christian books mention Pilate for his part in Jesus' story :

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, The Epistle of the Apostles, The Gospel of Peter, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Acts of Peter and Paul, the various Pilate forgeries, Irenaeus, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria.