Talk:Pontius Pilate/Archive 1

Deity?

battle standards, considered minor deities... Would you say that a Greek Orthodox icon is "considered a minor deity"? Josephus' discussion of Pilate is worth looking at and finding a juicy quote to bring here. Why doesn't somebody do that, instead of making up stuff? Wetman 03:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Making up stuff"‽ Go read Tacitus' Histories, book 3.10, where the Roman battle standards are called bellorum deos. Or read Dio Cassius' Roman History, book 40.18, where he talks about shrines set up to house the eagles. No-One Jones (talk) 03:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great! But don't tell me! Put it in the article... if you know that that is the act that infuriated Jerusalem's orthodox Jews: shrines set up to house the eagles. I still say there's a good quote in Josephus that's actually about this situation. Could be relevant. Carry on! Wetman 04:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pilate did a number of things to infuriate the locals, but I think the relevant passage from Josephus is this one (Antiquities, 18.55):

So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images. . .

The stuff about the eagles being minor deities was just a snippet of relevant information; ordinary graven images would have been infuriating, but graven images of Roman gods would have been cause for a riot. --No-One Jones (talk) 04:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How's the text now? I inserted the other Josephus text: we were busy at the same time. Should additional details from Ant. 18.55 be included in the article itself? Wetman 05:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alleged "bizarre tradition"

"A bizarre tradition has it that he was born in the Scottish village of Fortingall, site of a Roman camp. The legend claims he was the son of a visiting Roman and a local woman." I have moved this text here, because legends are recorded, if they are to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Where is this alleged legend recorded? --Wetman 15:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding CE here was an oversight

I am so sorry that – this being a scholarly subject – I routinely used CE, completely overlooking the fact that the article opens with dates in AD. Although I am by no means persuaded of the suitability of AD for this present subject, I am entirely happy to accept how others had started this article and therefore to agree to the deletion of "CE" where I had put it with reference to Josephus, since from the dates of Pilate just mentioned it is obvious even to any previously uninformed reader that Josephus cannot have been a BCE historiographer. I apologise for having accidentally caused a flaring up of the Wikipedia CE -v- AD controversy. 86.136.135.70, 20:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually this article initially used BCE/CE [1]. Jguk, through repeated reversions and date style changes, has managed to convert it to BC/AD. Sortan 17:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and still more apologies – I had not checked this. – Now, unless the whole article were to be changed back from AD to CE (which would have my whole-hearted support), may I suggest in this particular instance to leave the CE out in order to be consistent. (Just don't anyone decide to use AD in this particular instance, please!!!) – May I also humbly point out that this is a comparatively minor issue considering that the article is crying out for further brushing up. I ought to get on with it myself rather than just criticise the present state; but, sorry, I simply don't have the time. So, just one suggestion that comes to mind right now: in view of the wider interest in the question prefect or procurator (which is a point that merits enlarging in this context), does anyone interested in this article know whether the photo of the Caesarea stone may be reproduced here? Being historical, it may be more helpful to readers than the works of art displayed at present.
86.136.135.70, 21:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Three-dimensional objects always present a problem, since the photograph itself is a copyrightable artifact, not merely a bland record as is that of a painting for instance. A Wikipedioan needs to photograph the stone... --Wetman 08:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Titles and Duties

I have removed the following statement: "Hence for authors of the late first century, since, by that time, the governor, once again, held the office of procurator, it was assumed that Pilate held the same office and thus they referred to him as a procurator. So their use of the term procurator for the early governors--both in the Greek Gospels and in Tacitus's and Josephus's works was based on their lack of first-hand information on how the title came and went from usage. "

This reads like an apology and is very highly suspect non-NPOV. ---Julien Deveraux 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

New threads on the bottom of talk pages, please. You can add a new thread by clicking the "+" next to the "edit this page" link. You will get a form with spaces for a thread title and text, which will be added to the bottom automatically.

It doesn't strike me as non-NPOV so much, since (I think) it's simply attempting to summarize or re-state some of the preceding material. It's very poorly written though, and requires several readings to determine what exactly it is saying. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Julien, do you mean saying sorry or apology ? Clinkophonist 00:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Canonisation sources

Can anyone point me to a reliable source for Pilate's being considered a saint by the Copts and Ethiopians? I googled "saint pilate" and the only sources I readily found looked like hearsay. Thanks. Carl.bunderson 06:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear as if the Church of Ethiopia has much of a web presence. However, among other sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pontius Pilate confirms that he is venerated by the "Abyssinian" (i.e. Ethiopian) Church. They're in communion with the Coptic Church, but I don't believe he's considered a saint among the Copts. The frequent claim that the "Greek Orthodox" venerate him as a saint is erroneous. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am cutting the recently added cite about the Copts. Again, this is a purely Ethiopian tradition. Although they are in communion with the Copts, the Copts do not venerate Pilate as a saint, but confusion on this point has resulted in numerous web references that they do. Not one of them is reliable. See [2] for an explanation. I know this to be correct, and I'm afraid the only cite I will accept to the contrary would be an actual Coptic Synaxarion that lists Pilate. But no such cite exists. He is simply not there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Veneration?

An anon removed a Veneration section, I have since updated links and spacing. Just wanted to know if the Veneration section is legit and should be put back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's legit, and yes it should have been put back. I have no idea why I didn't see this post sooner. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Urrutia...

To quote the current article:

Benjamin Urrutia (a Mormon anthropologist, linguist, and science-fiction writer) therefore argues that the anonymous leader at the incident with the standards in 18.55–59 was probably Jesus, although mainstream historians reject this conclusion as baseless.

Question: Why mention that he is Mormon? This view is not representative of the standard Mormon interpretation of these accounts, nor is it in anyway reflective of this man's renegade notions that he is Mormon. It is almost as though the inclusion of his religion is intended to negate his credibility before his argument is heard, which is beneath Wikipedia. The place to mention his religion (if there is a correct place to do so) is on his page, not this one. Recommended that this is rewritten

Benjamin Urrutia (an anthropologist, linguist, and science-fiction writer) therefore argues that the anonymous leader at the incident with the standards in 18.55–59 was probably Jesus, although mainstream historians reject this conclusion as baseless.

Open to suggestions prior to making the change.

Donosaurs 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Text to consider

An editor made a contribution to Historicity of Jesus that dealt with Pilate. I am moving that text here, because it was off topic at the article it was placed. Please consider incorporating the text here, if the content isn't already covered:

==Historical evidence for Pontius Pilate, a previously unproven New Testament character==

Modern archeological finds have verified the existence of historical characters found in the Bible of whom there had been no physical proof or evidence for many centuries. During the intervening centuries, for example, the lack of physical evidence or proof of the existence of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate was used as an argument against overall the accuracy of the New Testament, and indirectly, as an argument against the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Pontius Pilate who was the governor of Judea who sentenced Jesus Christ to death by crucifixion. Until 1961, there was no concrete physical evidence demonstrating to historical his existence.

Image:Pilate-inscription 03.jpg
(Limestone block discovered in 1961 with Pilate's tribute in Latin to Tiberius. The words [...]TIVS PILATV[...] can be clearly seen on the second line.)

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of black limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum. This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44.

The inscription is currently housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where its Inventory number is AE 1963 no. 104. Dated to 26–37, it was discovered in Caesarea (Israel) by a group led by Antonio Frova.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew c (talk • contribs) 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

The article already includes a section on the Caesarea inscription. The claim was previously made in this article that Pilate's historicity was doubted until the inscription was discovered, but it was removed due to the lack of a reliable source to substantiate it (cf. Historicity of Pilate above). I don't see a reason for adding any of the above to what's already in the article. EALacey 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

References

In which Church(es) is Claudia a saint?

First this article says that Claudia is a saint in the Coptix Orthodox Church, and then it says she's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Which is it? (Could someone have elided the two Churches?) Or is she considered a saint in both Churches? Spontaneous generation 8:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pilate in The Master and Margarita and derived works

Pilate was portrayed in Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita as deeply regretful for having had any part in the execution of Jesus (or Yeshua, as he is known in the novel). He argues with the local religious leader (the high priest of Judea, Joeseph Kaifa) about which of the "criminals" should be freed for the Nisan holiday. Pilate proceeds to threaten Kaifa with Roman military action when the priest chooses Barraban to be freed, instead of Yeshua. Pilate's remorse leads him to have Judas (who betrayed Yeshua to the Jewish authorities) killed. (This last part obviously is in conflict with Biblical descriptions, in which Judas kills himself.) At one point in the novel, Pilate muses that perhaps Judas killed himself. Overall, Pilate is portrayed as extremely sympathetic to Jesus and his cause, but is unable to save him due to the danger of ruining his own career. He later has a dream in which Yeshua forgives him, and tells him that the execution never took place.

One should recognize that most of Bulgakov's sources were non-Biblical, or at least, non-canonical. For example: The Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate, David Strauss's and Farrar's biographies of Christ, Tacitus's Annals, Flavius Josephus, etc.

As for the Rolling Stones song... The title itself ("Sympathy for the Devil"), the description of the devil as "a man of wealth and taste", and the line "hope you guess my name", all point to Bulgakov's version of the Devil. In The Master and Margarita, the Devil goes by the name Woland (he hides his name, and true identity, until the omnipotent narrator later tells us), he is indeed a man of wealth and taste (as evidenced by his appearance and behavior throughout the novel), and is certainly not depicted as evil (he even helps the two main characters reunite - only those who are rude to him are punished). Hence the title of the song - have some sympathy for a man who isn't really as bad as he is usually depicted. Keep in mind that this is all in reference in the M&M, not the general conception of the Devil, but Bulgakov's envisioning of the Devil.

Hope this is useful commentary. I can give page citations for the first paragraph, but we'll need a secondary source for my analysis of the Rolling Stones' song. Also, some of the info in the first paragraph might be used in the M&M article itself.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs more roman empire context

When I came to this article I wanted to know which emperor ruled during the time of pilate. I had to search long and hard elsewhere to eventually find out. There is no explicit mention of his emperor in this article. I think there should be something at the top. For example:

... was the governor of the Roman Judaea Province from A.D. 26 until 36, during the rule of Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus.

Something like that to put the man pilate and his story into context with the rest of roman history. Everyone uses the timeline of rulers as a ruler! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.153 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll change it if it hasn't been changed already. See below for relevant comments of mine. Fuzzform (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

perhaps it's nice to note that in Dutch language, an proverb is often used "to send someone from Pontius to Pilatus" (iemand van Pontius naar Pilatus zenden). It means something like running in circles due to bureaucratic kafkaesque intransparancy. It's a beautiful expression, in my opinion :-) --Selach 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "bureaucratic Kafkaesque intransparancy"? I get the first two adjectives, but I don't see how transparency has anything to do with it. And wouldn't a better word be "opacity", rather than "intransparancy"? I'd like to know more about this phrase; seems interesting. Fuzzform (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Theme Song

While I don't know as though having the minute reference to Pilate in the Nextwave theme song is necessary, it does appear to be there. I'm not sure how best to cite it, but here is a link to some lyrics for the song: http://forum.newsarama.com/archive/index.php/t-54283.html. Schu1321 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Pilate washing his hands

I have to say I think the section on Pilate washing his hands betrays an obvious bias and is in need of some revisions.

This [Pilate washing his hands] may have been an effort by Early Christian polemicists to curry favor with Rome by placing the blame for Jesus' execution on the Jews and exonerate the largely Italian Roman Empire. It would have been difficult to spread the "new" religion around the Roman Empire if a main event was the state sanctioned murder of Jesus, thus portraying Rome and its officials as the wrongdoers.

The first sentence is mere speculation and should be eliminated entirely. The second sentence only elaborates on what is already speculation by assiging motives to the writers of the biblical accounts. Are we accepting the canonical gospel account of Pilate washing his hands as having some historical value? Perhaps the writers of the gospel accounts recorded that Pilate washed his hands simply because he did.

While we are speculating it is entirely likley that Pilate used symbolizm that his audience would understand. It is FAR MORE likely that Pilate knew something of Jewish law and washed his hands to symbolize his being innocent of shedding inocent blood – a symbolizm the Jews of his day would have recognized from Deuteronomy 21:6-9

Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, and they shall declare: "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Accept this atonement for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, O LORD, and do not hold your people guilty of the blood of an innocent man." And the bloodshed will be atoned for. So you will purge from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have done what is right in the eyes of the LORD. - Deuteronomy 21:6-9

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.74.234 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortingall

I hesitate to add it to the article, as I don't have a source, but there is a longstanding legend that P.P. was born in Fortingall in Perthshire, the son of a local woman and a Roman emissary of some sort. Anyone got a source for that ? -- Derek Ross

It's one of the early chroniclers who was at great pains to give ol' pagan Britain some impressive classical antecedents: Trojans, Romans, Joseph of Arimathea, Pontius Pilate, etc. Part of the mythology, to be sure. Wetman 16:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page [3] talks about it. Evidence as thin as the Fairy Flag of Dunvegan, methinks. Still, the rumour abounds, to such an extent that the Royal Scots regiment gets called "Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard" [4] (for equally dodgy reasons). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Somebody should track this tale down. I bet it's in Geoffry of Monmouth (he'd swallow anything). Then we could mention what's been built on this gossamer web. "As legend has it...!" Wetman 04:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This story has led to the suggestion from one joker that his mother must have been either a Guthrie or a Menzies. Ragbin (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Responsibility for Jesus' death" is a mess

The "Responsibility for Jesus' death" subsection assumes way too much knowledge and reads biased.

"Pilate hesitates to condemn Jesus until the crowd insists" - What crowd, when?

"his subsequent unjust decision to execute the innocent man hardly seem complimentary of Rome." - Who says it was unjust, and why? What was Jesus allegedly innocent of? People were executed in Roman territories all the time, since when is another execution "hardly complimentary", and why is that relevant?

The entire final paragraph reads like it has very little to do with Pilate's "Responsibility for Jesus' death". The start is going nowhere fast and is talking about things that happened hundreds of years after Pilate's death. Only toward the end is this paragraph barely tied into Pilate.

This is a poor and unprofessional section that needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.153 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They are bible quotes, written to be unclear for some reason. God must have been pissed. Zark424 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Primary Sources

So we have an article that mentions Pilate in the Gospels, Pilate in the Apocrypha, Pilate in Fiction, Pilate in Stone. It would be nice to have a section on Pilate in Tacitus and Josephus, wouldn't it? Rwflammang (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A Few Missing Things?

1. Independent of Jesus's trial and crucifixion, Jesus responds to an account that Pilate mingled the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices, mentioned in Luke 13:1. This should go in the canonical gospel section. 2. What about the account of the Jews refusing to modify their worship to please Pilate, and instead being ready to die? Is this in Josephus, and is it reliable? If so, wouldn't this bear mentioning? 3. Less important, but still perhaps noteworthy, is the movie Jesus(2000), where Gary Oldman plays Pilate. This version of Jesus's life features Oldman's Pilate as actually wanting Jesus dead, but pretending to be reluctant about it for show.

If I get a chance, I will see about at least the first thing I mentioned.John ISEM (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of "Pilatus"

Another possible origin of the cognomen Pilatus was the name given to a hat worn by the devotees of the Dioskouroi. The Castorian cult was well established throughout the empire and persisted will into the 5th Century AD particularly among the Dacian and Sarmatian soldiers throughout the frontiers of the empire. The name Pileatus was used as a cognomen by the descendants of Burebista of Dacia whose decendants are known to have been soldiers who were stationed in Judea, Britain, Spain, Gaul, and Germany.

Nonsense, and a self-contradicting one. Tne adjective formed from the "hat" (pilleus), as it is anyways written below, is "pileatus" (or "pilleatus"), not "pilatus". Mamurra (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Trivia", irrelevant or otherwise

User:PiCo on 25 July 2009 has deleted legends about Pilate as "Trivia" and the Scottish legend (of which more under "Fortingall" above) is further demoted to "Irrelevant Trivia". Unless a separate page on "Legends about Pilate" is to be created, their deletion is a trifle arrogant (like some other editing of the article). The legends will be well known in the localities from whence they spring, and one or more might be true. Ragbin (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pontious Pilate "ordered crucifixtion" a deceptive half-truth.

I am proposing that the current 'ordered crucifixtion" is a deceptive [[half-truth], true yet part of the truth.

By reading the link below it appears that Pilate was bullied into the crucifixtion by the people involved...it does not follow the logical concequences of his statement..."I find no fault..."

"and the man who while he could not find fault in Jesus was swayed and bullied by the chief priests, officials and crowd to authorize the crucifixion. "

The blame should be put on the chief priests, officials and crowd, and or included in the paragraph.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it with "who authorized his crucifixion". This is sufficient, we don't need to go into overdetail about what happens in the Gospels in the intro (it could perhaps be expanded in the future).--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good improvement. might add a adjective, ie ...?

I just heard that Pontius Pilate was born in southern Italy, in a province by the name of Abuzzi.

I will look for a source.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

References

The references to Pontius Pilate in the Creeds

This post is a comment on the section Pontius_Pilate#The_question_of_responsibility_for_Jesus.27_death in the main article, whose neutrality is disputed. In particular a sentence has been tagged as POV.

The Apostles’ Creed, which in its “Roman Form” (see Old Roman Symbol), dates as far back as the 2nd century, contains the following line:

«[Jesus Christ] Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried»

So, it is either uninformed, or deliberately biased/false, to state, as we find in the main article, that it was only the Nicene Creed (325 CE) that «stated unambiguously that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate».

Unless the present remarks are convincingly rebutted, I will consequently correct the main article, removing the reference to a late (post-Nicene) reference to Pontius Pilate in the Christian Creed. --Miguel de Servet 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New threads at the bottom please, so that everyone can find them. This is the standard convention. To add a new thread easily, click the "+" next to "edit this page". You will get a form prompting you for a thread title and post content, which will be automatically added to the bottom.

Please read the entire paragraph in question in context. It's discussing various historical statements and opinions as to the responsibility of Pilate. It flat-out states that the clause from the Creed was not intended to implicate Pliate, but only to place the Crucifixion in a historical context, and then goes on to explore a couple of different opinions, some one way and some another. Nor does it make any claim as to exclusivity of this clause to Nicaea -- nowhere does it say "only" -- but to the vast majority of Christians, the promulgation of this Creed by the Ecumenical Council lends it an authority that the Apostles' Creed does not possess, and is more universally recognized in consequence. It is not non-NPOV to describe a range of opinions without advocating them, whether you personally like some of those opinions or not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Csernica:

first of all, thanks for the "New threads at the bottom please" advice. As you and everybody may notice, I have changed the title of this Talk Section (which I have started) from "The responsability of Pontius Pilate" to "The references to Pontius Pilate in the Creeds": which is more appropriate to the issue in point.

You claim that you refer to the Nicean Creed because "the promulgation of this Creed by the Ecumenical Council lends it an authority that the Apostles' Creed does not possess". This is a strongly POV statement, if you dont' mind. Besides, is it not relevant that the references to Pontius Pilate are first found in the Old Roman Symbol, and consequently closer to the Apostolig age, and to the Passion events themselves? This is what I claim. It would be totally senseless that something that is supposed to underline the historicity of Jesus was only attested, all of a sudden, as late as 325 CE!

No it isn't. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. We do not give equal weight to all possible POVs; that's not what NPOV means. Like it or not, there are over two and a half billion Christians who regard (at least on an official level) the Nicene Creed as the first authoritative, definitive creedal statement of the Faith. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Yes there were earlier creeds. None were of such universal acceptance.

But again you mischaracterize the article. It does not claim that this was the first time the clause in question was included in a creed. It's doing nothing but giving a single prominent example. To claim it was saying more than that as phrased is simply reading something into it that isn't there. It could, I admit, be more clearly expressed, and I'll take care of that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's done, so see what you think of it now. It actually needs a couple of {{fact}} tags. C. S. Lewis certainly reflects the opinion that the clause was mainly supposed to provide a historical context, but since he's a western writer that contradicts the claim that western thought largely regards Pilate as guilty. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Csernica:

I was about to reply to you, but not only have you added a new post here, but also modified the “The question of responsibility for Jesus' death” section on the main page.

The point you seem to have missed (understandable, from a EO Christian, but not acceptable as NPOV), is that stressing the reference to Pontius Pilate in the Nicean Creed as the first relevant one, you may certainly say something which as many as 2.5 billion plus Christians are happy to hear, but which, nevertheless, is not historically accurate. Besides, by insisting on "the Nicene Creed as the first authoritative, definitive creedal statement of the Faith", you - unwittingly - underline even more that it is not exactly historical relevance and accuracy that you have in mind in the first place.

Your additional remarks on C. S. Lewis agreeing on Pilate as “historical reference”, his being a “western writer”, and the fact that this “contradicts the claim that western thought largely regards Pilate as guilty” are rather obscure. You must have something else in mind: only by making it explicit, can you make yourself understood.

I am afraid that I will have to make further amends to your revision, to make it totally NPOV, unbiased, and 100% acceptable. It would make sense that you come back here, before embarking another "editing ambush".--Miguel de Servet 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop reading me through your own prejudices. Either that or learn to understand context better than you do now. When I said "the Nicene Creed as the first authoritative, definitive creedal statement of the Faith" I did nothing unwittingly because I was clearly talking about Nicene Christianity. Speaking more generally I called it, "a single prominent example" of the phrase in question.

There's no point in interacting with you any longer. Plainly, you read what you want to read, and never mind was was really being expressed. I have no time for this nonsense, from you or anyone else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone, not long ago, said to me:

You should not contribute to Wikipedia if you're going to be terribly offended by others "trashing" your "laborious" work.

--Miguel de Servet 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Article content is different from talking with someone who merely has the intention of scoring points and making personal attacks rather than working together constructively. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There need not be contrast. I believe that intellectual antagonism and constructive co-operation are both good:

• intellectual antagonism is not necessarily bad, in fact it is good because it avoids complacency and self-referentiality.
• co-operation is good implicitly, it is the end goal, it is the very insiration of a joint effort like wikipedia

So, for instance, in the way of competition/co-operation, you are welcome to criticize and/or provide helpful comments at Trinity and Incarnation: two reflections and The Apostles' Creed: text and notes on Father, Son and Holy Spirit

See you --Miguel de Servet 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

when Iudaea reverted to direct Roman rule,

Is this reference to Iudaea a typo for Judaea? Annachie (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate and the death of Jesus Christ

what did PP have to do with the death of christ? well when jesus was brought to him he did nnot want to deal whith him and he asked " did he commit a crime or a sin " the answer was that he commited a sin and PP said that that was not his area so he should not have the task of dealing with him! there is more in about an hour so dot go anywhere guys and ill be right back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.sterne (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deserves To Be a Featured Entry

This article on Pilate is very well done and attractive, the balance has been obtained. I was really impressed by the coins and tribute stone to Tiberius. Very striking stuff.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i have heard of this tale and i found it very interestingg infact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.sterne (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "Palestine"

In the heading of "Duties," and in other places in the article, the word "Palestine" is used to refer to the area of ancient Israelites. This is a misuse of the words, because "Palestine" was only first used after circa 70 AD, when the Romans renamed Judea after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt and destroying the Temple in Jerusalem.

I suggest that we use another word instead of "Palestine", as this term is historically inaccurate in this context.

35.11.158.40 (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How come inaccurate if Herodotus calls the region Palestine in his Histories, written before 400BCE? The Lawless One (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To be correct within the historical context, Pilate was the Procurator of the Roman Province of Iudea (Governor of Judea, the Latin alphabet doesn't have a "j", so "i" is used). The two bolded terms are what should be used in this article (Iudea being far more correct than Judea). The events being written of in this article took place during the Roman occupation of Iudea. Iudea was a part of the Roman Empire, hence, "Province" of Iudea (which entails a position of Procurator/Governor). Not long after Pilate left, the Jewish Rebellion began, but was squashed by Vespasian (the first time, anyway), thus leading him to a position where he could rally support for his attempt at becoming Emperor. Ok, I'm getting off topic slightly... Fuzzform (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, Fuzzform, that you may not be distinguishing between Latin orthography (Iudaea if you were quoting a passage actually in Latin) and a long-established Anglicization (Judea). The Latin spelling requires the diphthong -ae-, which is optional in English. It strikes me as pretentious to use the Latin form with a word that has centuries of use in English -- should we call him "Iulius Caesar" in a modern English biography? And, as I said, in Latin it would be Iudaea, not Iudea. Also, though I'm not correcting the name of the province here, the adjective "Palaestinus" appears in more than one work by Ovid (died 17 A.D.), so it is demonstrably not true that the geographical term Palestine only came into use after 70 A.D. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this all?

Is the piece of stone discovered in 1961 the only evidence outside of the Bible and Josephus that Pilate existed? I've seen mentioned elsewhere that there are records of Pilate's rule, specifically all the 'stuff' he would have done (including the occasional execution perhaps?), but have never seen any evidence for anything like that. So, if there is evidence for Pilate outside of the stone and Josephus, it must be put in. Masternachos (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The stone is the only ancient inscription discovered so far that directly refers to Pontius Pilate. The main sources of information on Pilate are Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the New Testament. There are no surving Roman records that refer to Pilate (the 'stuff' refered to above). Ther are Roman coins dating from this time, but they generally include the name of the reigning emperor, not Pilate 84.93.187.127 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical scholars bit

The part that states that skeptical scholars basically don't believe a word of the gospels is very POV and not appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.16.67 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, it's a POV which is reliably source to the opinion-holders. Standard on WP. Is this simply the impulse which denies everyone the right to criticise christianity? BillMasen (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Judaea?

Why does this article use the spelling Judaea for the Roman province? That's not the spelling used by most modern historians. Instead, Iudaea is used, as distinct from Judea proper. Iudaea was not Judea, instead it was an amalgamation of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Judaea is ambiguous, it could stand for Judea proper or the Roman Iudaea province.

H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in AD 6, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea."

75.15.193.145 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should get Judaea (Roman province) renamed first. If that's what the article is called, that what it should be called here. "Most modern historians" is a slippery term. --JaGa^talk 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An interesting point has been raised on Talk:Judaea (Roman province); the user pointed out a slew of recent historians that used "Judaea" but couldn't find ones using "Iudaea". Do you have any other English references besides this 1976 book? If not, I'm taking it out per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. --JaGa^talk 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaea may be a common spelling, but modern historians use the spelling Iudaea to avoid confusion with Judea. 36,000 Google books results for "Iudaea". 75.14.217.143 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just have to mention, how hilarious that you would threaten to remove a reference to Ben-Sasson's book on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Clearly you know what you're talking about. 75.14.217.143 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Judeaea is the ENGLISH form of this name. I think it's about as simple as that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's spelled Judaea and it is a common English word. However, the problem is that it is ambiguous, it could stand for Judea proper or it could stand for the Roman province created in 6. Because of the ambiguity in the term Judaea, modern historians use the spelling Iudaea. Get it? 75.14.217.143 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get this. "Judaea" was a Roman province that was named for, er, "Judaea," the place where the Jews lived. If you want to spell one "Iudaea" and one "Judea", I suppose you have the right to do that, but it's totally arbitrary. Just because one term can have multiple meanings doesn't meant that we invent arbitrary orthographic distinctions to distinguish the two meanings. john k (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"We" (wikipedia editors) didn't invent it. Iudaea is the technical term in use among modern historians. Wikipedia has the option to ignore that fact or not. 75.14.217.143 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidently, historians "invent arbitrary orthographic distinctions" all the time, examples: Yehud Medinata, not Judaea (Persian province); Kingdom of Judah, not Judaea (Biblical kingdom); Hasmonean kingdom, not Judaea (Hasmonean); Syria Palaestina, not Judaea (Roman province after 135). 75.14.217.143 (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am dubious that "Yehud Medinata" is in anything like common use in English. (There are 2 google books results for it, and none in Google Scholar). "Judah" is the term used in the King James Bible, and is the most common name in English, so that is hardly innovative or controversial. "Syria Palaestina" is a completely different name, as is "Hasmonean kingdom." "Iudaea" is just a different spelling of "Judea." john k (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, 3/4 of your google book results for "Iudaea" disappear when you restrict the search to works in English. Even then, many of the results appear to be direct quotes from Latin sources, not usage by the author. "Judaea" has over ten times as many results as "Iudaea" in Google Books, and many of them seem to refer to the Roman province. john k (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Iudaea is the technical term in use among modern historians specifically for the Roman province of 6 to 132, as you say it specifically comes from the Latin term in use by the Romans. Wikipedia has the option to ignore that fact or not. 75.14.217.143 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You can keep repeating this, but it's not really true. Iudaea is the term used by some historians for the Roman province of 6 to 132. Many other historians use "Judaea" for this province. john k (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Iudaea is the technical term. Its use tells you it's specifically about the Roman province from 6 to 132. Judaea is ambiguous but probably more common in general use such as TV documentaries and such. 75.14.217.143 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if wikipedia keeps the special wikipedia construction "Judaea (Roman province)", you still need to explain the use of "Iudaea" in technical references. Or do as User:JaGa suggests and censor those references from wikipedia. Hey, if it's not in wikipedia, it doesn't exist, right? 75.14.217.143 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Era notation:default CE/BCE

The very first edit on 2002 October 18 used CE. That makes CE/BCE the default for this article absent any consensus to the contrary.--JimWae (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bloc Quebecois

"In Canada all members of the Quebec based political party called the Bloc Quebecois party, always wash their hands of their oath of loyalty to the country in a ceremony similar to Pilate. This is allows them to engage in activities detrimental to the entire country. The Bloc Quebecois hold both Pilate and Judas Iscariot to be reflective of their political aims and values." I would really like to see a source on this, I have never heard anything related to this matter, and accusing a political party to engage in detrimental activities to it's country is quite heavy to state, even if this article isn't focused on this matter. C.Delacroix (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up (http://en.calameo.com/read/0001117903d119c2296bb). Whoever posted that comment made it bigger than what really happened. It is not an established BQ ceremony. There is no actual hand washing ceremony, or mention of Judas or Pontius Pilate. The news article refers to a particular event in 1991 when Gilles Duceppe swore an oath of loyalty in Hull to the people of Quebec (contradicting his sworn oath of the people of Canada when he became a member of parliament), during a ceremony across the river from Ottawa in Hull, QC along with PQ leader Jacques Parizeau. The only mention of 'washing of hands' comes from the journalist, and it is obviously used figuratively. I'm going to assume the person who posted the comment is the owner of this blog: http://gilles-duceppe-treason-tour-2010.blogspot.com/2010/04/duceppe-disavows-his-oath-of-allegiance.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.47.85 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

pontius pilatus a l'origine de la creation de la palestine

pontius pilatus prefet de judée ayant le souhait d'effacer toute traces des traditions juives eu aussi la bonne idée de remplacer "la terre de judée" terre des juifs par une nouvele denomination en hebreux qui indiquait bien que cette terre etait désormais celle des envahisseurs "philicha" donc la palestine. confirmation sur le site de cesarée en israel, ville créée par pontius pilatus prefet de judée ou de palestine comme il preferait la nommer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.21.139 (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

problematic sources

It is problematic to treat the gospels, whose aim was to spread a religion, in the same way as other historical sources are treated. So when the only source for Pilate's "What I have written, I have written" is a gospel, we cannot treat it as fact. It is an obvious way of underlining that the writer of the gospel considers Jesus as king. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Pontius

Is it /ˈpɒntʃəs/? I pronounce it /ˈpɒnʃəs/. I am English and have never heard it pronounced with a "ch" in it.31.52.175.244 (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets not beat around the bush

It is clear that this man ordered the death of Jesus. If he has declared him innocent, he would not have died on the cross. Even though he washed his hands, the blood of Jesus is on his hands and no others. Pilate had sole authority as governor. Wallie (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant to the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.3.79 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beat around the Bush? Howabout roman prefects not being involved in local judiciary procedures? As a source of (mis)information the article has merit on the idea of Pilatus, but from a historical roman view it is absurd. The fact someone even added in the myth of the iron shafts of Pilum bending is a huge discredit to this article alone. It needs to be rewritten in many places. 71.197.68.99 (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

What all are overlooking (including Christians for 2,000 years) are the obvious 'elephants standing in the middle of the room' proofs that Pilate indeed had no wish to execute Jesus, and was maneuvered int the act by the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem:

What is never mentioned is why Pontius Pilate and the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem never had arrested and “interrogated” members of the Jesus Sect as to the disposition of Jesus’ body. Why is that? This question just entered my mind recently. The Roman and Jewish authorities in Judea would have been duty bound to arrest and interrogate, so why didn’t they?

For Pontius Pilate, the answer to his inaction goes back three years to the early ministry of Jesus. In the Gospel of John Jesus, during His first year of ministry, spends an entire seven months in Pilate’s jurisdiction. Now Pilate was not a Roman proconsul who sat back and allowed events to overtake him. Pilate had an excellent network of agents who informed him of any possible trouble makers, especially if those possible troubles involved religion. So the question is, why did Pilate allow Jesus to wonder about for seven months within his jurisdiction, where Jesus was being quite conspicuous agitating and spreading His message?

The only answer can be that Pilate naturally came to the conclusion, based on the reports from his agents that were monitoring Jesus, that Jesus was indeed a Jewish God. Remember, Romans believed not just in their gods, but had no barriers in believing in other people’s gods. This explains why Pilate is hesitant to condemn Jesus when Jesus is brought before him, and only condemns Jesus when backed into a corner by the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem. Now you know why Pilate refused to interrogate members of the Jesus Sect in order to locate Jesus’ body.

So then, why didn’t the Jewish Elders arrest and interrogate members of the Jesus Sect in order to locate Jesus’ body, for they certainly didn’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah?

Well, they didn’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah before Jesus was executed by the Romans, however they would soon change their minds on Jesus’ claims, as proven by their inaction to take proper policing actions to recoup Jesus’ body.

You see, the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem also had agents monitoring Jesus and his followers, maybe even some of the same agents that were reporting to Pilate. The reason the Jewish Elders didn’t arrive at the same conclusion early on about Jesus’ true nature as Pilate did, is that they had one crushing handicap that clouded their objectivity: Rome. “What will Rome do if we proclaim Jesus the Messiah?” would have been in the backs of their minds. This crushing fear, when compounded by the fact that Pontius Pilate was a Roman proconsul not known to be distracted by Roman notions of mercy or nobleness, would have weighed heavily on their minds, leading them to condemn Jesus.

In fact, the Jewish Elders of Jerusalem did send out arrest warrants for members of the Jesus Sect, but the agents with the warrants returned with something else other than Jesus Sect members. What would that be? Fantastical accounts of watching the 2,000 members of the Jesus Sect (Paul mentions 500 eyewitnesses to seeing Jesus alive after His Roman execution, but Jewish custom of the day only counted adult males) all interacting with an invisible presence: Jesus! The Jewish Elders who condemned Jesus would then have bowed their heads in despair and realized what they had done, which is why Jesus on the cross said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.”

We also have the doubly inexplicable behavior by Pilate when he again fails to move on Jesus when Jesus returns to Judea for the last time, two years after His last major visit there. On Palm Sunday Jesus proceeds towards Jerusalem with a mob, and Pilate does nothing either then or quietly later when Jesus is relatively alone! Is it just me or has the Christian faith these past 2,000 years missed these "elephants standing in the middle of the living room" proofs that Pilate too knew Jesus to be a deity?173.73.134.86 (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All your personal theories are interesting, if lacking in verifiability, but is there a point specifically about this page somewhere in here or are you just soap-boxing? Ckruschke (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Acts of Pilate

The article says, "The 4th century apocryphal text that is called the Acts of Pilate..." However, at the bottom of the section it says, "Justin the Martyr – The First and Second Apology of Justin Chapter 35- "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." The Apology letters were written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the Roman Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161."

Now one can clearly see the disingenuous nature of the "Higher Scholarship" when dating the Gospels.

Now, "Jesus was one in a series of Jewish religious-political rebels bent on destroying the Roman empire and the status quo at Jerusalem in the name of the kingdom of God. These Jewish messiah-figures described by the Jewish historian Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (especially in Books 17, 18 and 20) often used religious symbols and traditions to gain a popular following and to begin an uprising. The Roman governors dealt with them swiftly and brutally."

The Acts of Pilate precisely confirms why Pontius Pilate refused to arrest Jesus when Jesus was in his jurisdiction on at least two occasions (the first visit to Pilate's jurisdiction lasting seven months) causing mob spectacles. These mob-based upsetting of the Roman Peace were not tolerated, yet with Jesus Pilate does nothing. Why? Pilate had agents watching Jesus, and they would have informed Pilate about Jesus. It was the agents'-based reports that prompted Pilate to allow Jesus to upset the Roman Peace. And what was in those reports that restrained Pilate's hands? Obviously that Jesus was a deity, otherwise Pilate would have done what he always did in such circumstances involving religious-based disturbances: arrest and execute without trial the person responsible for the mob disturbances.

Even when the Jewish Elders cornered Pilate when they sent Jesus to him for adjudication, Pilate is STILL reluctant to condemn Jesus. Why? Why would Pilate have a problem executing (even without adjudication) a man that the previous Sunday (Palm Sunday to Christians) caused another mob spectacle? The Acts of Pilate confirm very well as to why Tiberius in the Acts is recorded to have petitioned the Roman Senate to make Jesus a deity.173.73.128.208 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit that you'd like to make to the page or are you just soap-boxing? Ckruschke (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Pilate in Jewish Literature: Philo of Alexandria

Folks, I'm closely reading the passage about Pilate in Philo, translated by F. H. Colson, published by Harvard University Press, (c) 1962 and reprinted in hardcover in 1991. I'm not seeing the quotes that are included in the article. The article currently says: "According to Philo, Pilate was 'inflexible, he was stubborn, of cruel disposition. He executed troublemakers without a trial.' He refers to Pilate's 'venality, his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, endless savage ferocity.'"

Philo describes an incident in which Pilate was chastened by Tiberius after antagonizing the Jews by setting up gold-coated shields in Herod's palace. The closest I can find to the first quote is this: "[H]e, naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness." But there's nothing in this passage about executing troublemakers without a trial. The closest thing to the second quote is: "[H]e feared that 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 supreme grievous cruelty." I'll change the language to these quotes unless anyone objects. - The Interloafer (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I went ahead and did this. If anyone thinks I acted too rashly please say so. -The Interloafer (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the historical references are known forgeries with the exception of the gospels, which are not historical references of any kind. I love Wikipedia, but this page is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.210.195 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Show your love by identifying your reliable sources. —ADavidB 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hristo Shopov

I deleted the phrase "(his first language)" from the entry. I don't think anyone alive today has Latin as a primary language. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Either the subject [The Pilate Stone] or related Wiki articles anachronistic?

(I made this query on the article about the Pilate Stone. However, because that article gets far fewer views than the main article on Pilate, I’m taking the liberty of reposting it here as I think it touches on an important point of historical accuracy within the two articles as well as that of Livia’s which requires clarification. Thank you.)

The article [The Pilate Stone] states that the stone contains a dedication to the deified Augustus and Livia. The article also states that the stone is contemporary to Pilate’s lifetime. However, the Wikipedia article states that Pilate died around (I assume that “c.” stands for circa) AD 37, and the article on Livia states that she wasn’t defied until AD 42 under her grandson, the emperor Claudius. Can anyone reconcile this apparent conflict? Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Pontius Pilate

Cyberbot II has detected links on Pontius Pilate which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Pilate in later fiction

I have heard of a novel or short story in which Pilate is dining with an emperor and is asked about the crucifixion of Christ to which he responds along the lines of "I don't remember". If anyone knows of this tale could you please add? Thanks.

PCB 10/25/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.43 (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Anatole France's short story The Procurator of Judaea. It is listed under the Portrayals in literature section. Muzilon (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added a mention of W.P. Crozier's 1928 novel, Letters of Pilate to His Friend Seneca. Crozier wrote this as a fictionalised account of what he imagined Pilate might have written, but a few gullible people online have cited the book as an authentic record of correspondence! Muzilon (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Historicity of Pilate

Do we have any evidence that there has been a serious debate about Pilate's existence? Josephus devotes considerable attention to him, so I would figure that should have done it for most scholars, save the few on the lunatic fringe. If nothing is substantiated, I am going to remove the section and incorporate his stone marking into the main article. Chris Weimer 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's extremely well established that Pilate did in fact exist. The question of Jesus' existence is where you'd find more serious debate, with stronger arguments against his existence than could be produced for Pilate. Fuzzform (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No scholar of whatever ilk has ever argued that Pilate was not historical. That line should be deleted as it feeds a persistent myth. We've repeatedly discussed this in many different forums. Time to put a stop to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Turton (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a stone inscription of his name dug up a few years ago, and he is mentioned by Tacitus, the Roman historian of the 1st century. Tacitus also mentions him executing the leader of the Christians (subject to a possible meddling with one letter of the word "christians").— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.250 (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Of course, the Historicity section implies that there is or has been some informed debate on the issue. If no debate exists, then the Pilate Stone would be better off under a "contemporary references" section, which would also include the Tacitus source.` Orthotox (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Jews' responsibility etc... till metaphysics

I do not think this debate belongs in this article. Even though it be true, we are speaking about Pilate, not about the Jews/Church, etc... Am I wrong? Pfortuny 15:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits. I am well educated. I know my history. Pilate did not order the execution of Jesus. He released Jesus to the mob (the Jews) and they killed him. Pilate actually didn't want him to be killed. That's why he was flogged, in an attempt to please the crowd and avoid Jesus's death. I will make the edit again and I trust it will stay that way. -Tom

It won't stay that way, because it's completely bogus. Rhobite 04:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty well-accepted that according to the Bible, the actual execution was carried out by Roman soldiers, not an unruly mob of Jews. Saying that Pilate "gave the order for his crucifixion" is true. Saying that Pilate "realeased him to the Jews who would crucify him" is either completely wrong, or unknowable. Rhobite 05:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is certianly worthy of note that Jesus's execution was carried out by Roman soldiers. It was the Roman Centurian that oversaw the execution. When the man wanted the body, he didn't go to the Sanhedrin, but to the Romans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malomaboy06 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia entry is a report. First report what the canonic N.T. texts actually say. Then report the interpretations of Church fathers, with some quotes. Report how the responsibility-of-Pilate or exoneration-of-Pilate theme developed. Keep Pilate in the foreground: he's the subject here, not anyone else. Don't go over ground that's covered elsewhere: instead link to it. Above all, don't tell us what you think and we won't tell you what we think. It's not a personal essay, it's a report. Okay? --Wetman 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wetman and Rhobite are both Jewish. There is absolutly nothing wrong with that but please do not make the edits biased. Many Jewish people don't like the fact that it was an unruly mob of Jews that crucified Jesus. Sure the Roman soldiers helped but it was the Jews who made them. The Roman soldiers didn't care whether he lived or died. This shouldn't be an issue of religion also because Jesus was Jewish himself. He was killed by his own people. Please stop reverting the article. You can keep saying that Pilate ordered for a crucifixtion but that doesn't make it true. Pilate said "Let me be clean of this innocent blood." and the Jews said "Let his blood be on us and our children." That is what happened. Accept it. Embrace it. Do not say it is bogus. If you don't like what happened in history, you can't change it by writing false reports on wikipedia.

It is inappropriate for you to speculate about my religion or motives for reverting your wildly inaccurate changes. I will continue to revert them. Rhobite 02:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wetman is a high Episcopalian 10th-generation Yankee of the fanciest kind, actually. Same thing, when it comes to intellectual honesty, actually... --03:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, am I correct to say that my speculations were right? I find nothing wrong with the Jewish people. In fact I have a huge respect for them. They are highly intelligent, and very powerful in world politics. Most of my friends are Jewish. Rhobite it is ok if you are Jewish but please don't deny it. You too Wetman. You will continue to revert and I will continue to change it back. Perhaps we can come to a mutual agreement in not mentioning whether Pilate ordered for the crucifixtion or not?

A spurious offer, clearly. Why not discuss the texts themselves, rather than some anonymous crackerbarrel theologian's personal interpretation. --Wetman 05:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to compromise with someone who is both abrasive and wrong. BTW I submitted an RFC against the anonymous editor, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/67.86.174.158. Rhobite 05:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

How can you say what you said in that RFC? You compare me with Neo Nazis? Also, you say I attack a race? All I did was compliment the Jewish people. Read the gospels. The mob is yelling "Crucify him, crucify him!" and Pilate says to them "This man has done nothing wrong. I will have no innocent blood on me." and the mob yells "Let his blood be on us and our children. Don't deny something that is written in the bible. What are your sources? BTW I was not responsible for some of the vandalism reported in that RFC. I don't mean any harm to anyone. Please do not treat me like a "problem".

(This user, shifting IP numbers, vandalized the talk page of User:Jag123, 00:43, 14 Mar 2005, deleting the user's text and substituted the following: "Hey fuckhead, the changes I made to the Pilate article were correct and historically accurate whether you agree with them or not. Fuck off bitch. Don't change it again. Go play with your fucking pocket protector you friggin nerd." So much for " Please do not treat me like a "problem"".) --Wetman 06:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• And the user also just vandalized the RfC page on their original IP: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/67.86.174.158. RickK 06:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... Rhobite 06:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'll say it again because you ignore me. You compare me with Neo Nazis? You say I attack a race? All I did was compliment the Jewish people. Read the gospels. The mob is yelling "Crucify him, crucify him!" and Pilate says to them "This man has done nothing wrong. I will have no innocent blood on me." and the mob yells "Let his blood be on us and our children. Don't deny something that is written in the bible. What are your sources? BTW I was not responsible for some of the vandalism reported in that RFC. I don't mean any harm to anyone.

Wetman, and Rhobite, what are you going to do to me? Ban me? You can't. I'm not vandalizing. I'll keep changing it everytime I sit down to use the internet. Why? Because it's the truth. Stop being stubborn. You know I'm right. Do you guys have something against Christianity? That can be taken very seriously if it is the case.

Also, stop pulling up stupid little vandalisms. Don't say that I am wrong just because you don't like me as an individual. Argue against what I am saying, not against me. (Anonymous contribution from User:67.86.174.158)

yeah , right--- all that adue about nothing! pilatus was known to be a selfish and cruel military leader, he made too many misjudgments, one was to brake the samarian rebellion, he was also known to have arrested and executed people without a fair trial.. for bein a prelate to the least unimportant province like judea, which gave the romans nothing but worries about jewish abrisings, he couldnt care less, but to get his term over fast. It is very likely tha the early churchfathers were diluting and editing the original trial documents so heavy, that nothing but an obsucre trial was left, ergo all that 'handwashing' and so on... for someone to be executed this way , it would need more then just that, now 'high treason' was considered a crime punished by death, but they were not allowed after a law from augustus to burry their dead then, it was for those one the bird and dogs who did they burrying. Would pilutus do the jews a favour of returning someone they did not care about to them? Or was he afraid to be recorded to tiberius? Soon after this he was called off from judea.

Because Rhobite is either being intellectually dishonest, or feels a need to cover up an event from 2000 years ago, I invite all of you to read this passage: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&version=31 (read Verses 20 - 26). Also, Rhobite, for refusing to look at sources and making personal attacks against someone in what should otherwise be an intellectual argument, you are an epic FAILure. Good Day. -sbf2009, 9/16/2007 12:43 AM

I am legitimately confused as to why this "debate" happened. The gospel texts are pretty clear in their allegations: a mob of jewish people came and grabbed Jesus, took him to the sanhedrin, who took him to Pilate. Pilate basically stated he wouldn't kill Jesus for crimes against Rome, but because the crowd wanted Jesus dead Pilate had his (Roman) soldiers crucify Jesus along with rebels. See Mat. 27:27-37 Neil618 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

These spurious edits represent a regrettable example of how current politically correct dogmas are corrupting sound scholarship and common sense. The main source for Pilate's attitude to Jesus is the Gospel account, and that is exactly what this article correctly and accurately references.Orthotox (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and vindicating Pilate

This article places far too little emphasis on the fact that the canonical evangelists, especially John and Matthew, and the later apocryphal writers, and later Christians whole made Pilate a saint, were motivated by hatred of the Jews. Sure, it is mentioned here and there, but always as though 'twere a minority view held by some. This whitewashing is pretty sick... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing item in the "portrayals in music/literature" section

In Macbeth Act II, Scene II, line 88, Lady Macbeth says, "A little water clears us of this deed", in reference to how she doesn't want to take full responsibility for Duncan's murder. This is a clear reference to Pilate for several reasons and I hope that someone more competent than I would add it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.171.125 (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace

I don't believe we have any citation whatsoever, that claims to state where he was born.Wjhonson (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM means Jesus the Nazarean the King of the Judeans

Perhaps history's greatest example of Classical Latin was written by Pontius Pilate on the placard placed above the Cross: IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM translated into Jesus the Nazarean the King of the Judeans. 2601:589:4700:2390:C129:9F7B:16E0:CDCC (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pontius Pilate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929112715/http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/masterpiece/2002/01/14/sympathy/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/masterpiece/2002/01/14/sympathy/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Pilate

According to the article itself, it is likely that Pilate was born a Roman citizen, in central Italy. As such, Latin is indeed his native language. Why, then, do we pronounce his second name "Pilot"? Shouldn't it be "Pi-lah-tay", as is standard according to the regulations of Latin phonology? AuburnAttack21 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Because we are stupid Americans. Mis-pronouncing words/names is our "thing"... Ckruschke (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Pilate is anglicized, like Terence, Virgil, Pompey, Livy, etc. That is why we pronounce it as we do. If you want the Latin form, it is Pilatus. Seadowns (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate and the death of Jesus Christ

what did PP have to do with the death of christ? well when jesus was brought to him he did nnot want to deal whith him and he asked " did he commit a crime or a sin " the answer was that he commited a sin and PP said that that was not his area so he should not have the task of dealing with him! there is more in about an hour so dot go anywhere guys and ill be right back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.sterne (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

....He is best known today for adjudicating on the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.

This lead is misleading. It mixes real historical facts with the Christian myth. The above sentence implies that the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a historical fact, which by no means is the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this claim? Alweth (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, I don't need to provide a source that supports the claim that crucifixion of Jesus Christ was NOT a historical fact. In contrast, if someone wants to prove that crucifixion was a historical fact, they are supposed to provide some source (except gospels and other Christian mythological books, and the books that are based on them, which, obviously, are not historical documents).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if you compare a description of Pilate by Josephus and by gospels, it is clear they are speaking about two totally different persons: a real historical Pilates was a ruthless and arrogant ruler, who totally disregarded Jewish religious traditions, and whose activity eventually lead to Jewish uprising. In contrast, Christian Pontius is totally different person. Obviously, the Christian myth about Pilates was created long after his death, an by the people who were living long after the events that ostensibly happened in Judea in 33 AD, and who were living outside of that area. That is in a complete agreement with the modern historical views on the origin of Christianity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the article's structure is misleading. In contrast to Christian literature, Jewish literature can be considered as historical sources: to them, Pilate was just a historical figure (in the same way as Tiberius). In contrast, for Christians, Pilate is a part of their mythology (clearly, his dialogue with Christ, as well as all his other actions, is a later invention, and all what Gospels say about Pilate have no independent confirmation in historical literature). In connection to that, it is quite necessary to separate the historical image of Pilate as a real figure from the fictitious character described in Gospels. To this end, Christian sources should be separated from all other sources, and the sections should be renamed accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

POV

"In all New Testament accounts, Pilate hesitates to condemn Jesus until the crowd insists. Some have suggested that this may have been an effort by Early Christian polemicists to curry favor with Rome by placing the blame for Jesus' execution on the Jews. Yet Pilate's ability to be swayed by the crowd and his subsequent unjust decision to execute the innocent man hardly seem complimentary of Rome."

The last sentence seems clearly to be an attempt to retain the Gospels' credibility as divine, Godly documents uninfluenced by worldly goals. It rings as a rebuke, and the interpretation it represents is particular:

1). The flaws spoken of are measured and perceived arbitrarily. 2). How much Rome would care to see it that way is measured and perceived the same way. 3). That someone would expect it possible to portray as perfect a man with the role to carry out Jesus' inevitable death is strange. 4). The point is that they bothered to make him out to be a decent man at all, as well as the methods used to do this.

Luke 13:1 is an exception which brings out the opposite and is overlooked. See [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:9c60:122a:159b:fcd0:2c02:dc0a (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is also set up to seem like a Christian rebuke:

"Roman magistrates had wide discretion in executing their tasks, and some readers question whether Pilate would have been so captive to the demands of the crowd (Miller, 49–50). (And see, Nettervile, "Jesus, etc pp. 22-23)[7] Summarily executing someone to calm the situation would, however, have been a tool a Roman governor could have used, and Pilate's reputation for cruelty and violence in secular accounts of the era makes it quite plausible he would have had no hesitation in using this tool."

For all his cruelty, he displayed compassion rare in those situations. It feels like the possibilities are placed in a manner to accomplish the goal I spoke of above.

I, of course, could be wrong. Generally however this article does not feel sufficiently NPOV.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.176.213 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Historicity confirmed by Pilate stone"

Why is the historicity of Pilate's existence being so closely tied to the Pilate stone in this article? He is mentioned independently in multiple non-Christian written sources. Normally this would be more than enough to establish his historicity. Moreover, the link used to establish that the stone establishes his historicity, to the Israel Museum, says nothing about how it establishes his historicity. Is there a particuar reason why the article ties it so closely to this stone? Was it debated at some point?--Ermenrich (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed these claims. The article could also use with a brief summary of Pilate's mention in Tacitus.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Per these example sources, Pilate's existence had been questioned before the stone was found in 1961: Deseret News [6], CNN [7] —ADavidB 00:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Deseret News is a reliable source for this information, especially given the lack of any mention of critics by name. I sincerely doubt it was ever a mainstream position, and if it was, it should be easy to find reliable academic sources to this effect. The CNN news does not appear to say anyone questioned Pilate's existence, merely that it confirms some details of the New Testament and is significant for being from Pilate's lifetime. The title looks like a bit of sensationalism.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've posted a request for help on the issue over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Pilate Stone and Pilate's historicity.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I came here because of that message. Yes, the claim that there is or was doubt over Pilate's existence would need support from reliable academic sources, and Deseret News and CNN wouldn't qualify.

Looking at it comparatively, there are times and places where the existence of historical figures can best be proved, or can only be proved, from inscriptions. To take an example, the actual existence of Solomon is hard to prove: the known written sources come from many centuries later and are not necessarily independent of one another. The find of a conclusive inscription would be great news. The early Roman Empire period is different, and in fact there are multiple independent near-contemporary sources mentioning Pilate. It's a distinction that might have been missed by those writers on Deseret News and CNN. Andrew Dalby 08:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Improvements to article

Looking over the article (beyond the historicity of Pilate issue above), I've noticed some areas that definitely need improvement:

• 1) No assessment is given of whether the portrayal of Pilate in the Gospels is thought by historians to represent historical reality (my brief reading on the subject indicates that it is generally not);
• 2) there seems to be quite a bit of POV in various parts of the article (use of words like "alleged" before the Gospel's biases, strange archaicized phrases such as "Whatever it be that some modern critics want to deduce from those differences")
• 3) as a specific example of some strange writing, the section on Pilate's questioning of Jesus parries various translations against each other without referring to the original Greek: "Pilate's main question to Jesus was whether he considered himself to be the King of the Jews in an attempt to assess him as a potential political threat. Mark in the NIV translation states: "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "It is as you say", Jesus replied. However, quite a number of other translations render Jesus' reply as variations of the phrase: "Thou sayest it." (King James Version, Mark 15:2); "So you say". (Good News Bible, Mark 15:2). Whatever degree of confirmation modern interpreters would derive from this answer of Jesus," The Greek is "sy legeis" (in Luke anyway, can't find my Greek NT), which is probably more relevant than how it is translated in three different versions;
• 4) the article use the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek in some references to the original statements by Pilate in the Gospels in other places;
• 5) no mention is given of what exactly Tacitus or any other non-Jewish historian has to say about Pilate;
• 6) coins were minted by Pontius Pilate in Judaea, but these find no mention in the article;

Now I intend to try to rectify a few of these things, but anyone who is more knowledgeable about Rome/Roman Judaea in the first century or Biblical historiography in general is more than welcome to help.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"sy legeis" More accurately, "σὺ λέγεις". See: http://users.sch.gr/aiasgr/Kainh_Diathikh/Kata_Mathaion_Euaggelio/Kata_Mathaion_Euaggelio_kef.27.htm

"σὺ" translates to "you", "The person addressed". The Modern Greek equivalent is "εσύ" See: https://glosbe.com/el/en/συ and https://www.wordreference.com/gren/συ and https://www.wordreference.com/gren/εσύ

"λέγεις" 2nd person, singular present form of the verb "λέγω". See here for other grammatic forms of the same verb: https://moderngreekverbs.com/lego.html and http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=le%2Fgeis&la=greek&prior=ti/ and http://sphinx.metameat.net/sphinx.php?paradigm=-x!zp-p_9

"λέγω" translates to "say", "tell", "to communicate verbally or in writing". See: https://glosbe.com/el/en/λέγω and https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/en-el/λέγω/ and https://lsj.gr/wiki/λέγω

The speaking character in this dialogue, Jesus, responds to Pilate here. "You are saying this", "You are telling this". In other words, the character does not admit to having said whatever Pilate accuses him of. Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich. In my opinion, the article must clearly separate Pilates as a historical person and Pilates as a literature character. Taking into account that all Christian sources were written about 100 after the events they describe (and taking into account that these events had never occurred in reality) it would be silly to expect the description of Pilates in Gospels to have any connection with reality. Moreover, the authors of Gospels, obviously, tried to convey the idea that even Roman officials considered the accusations of Christ laughable, and so the responsibility for Christ death rests on local people of Jerusalem. Therefore, they didn't care about accurate reproduction of a portrait of a person who died a century ago. And, frankly speaking, they couldn't have done that, because I doubt they had more information about Pilates that we do.

In connection to that, the article should be clearly separate Pilates as a historical figure (we know not much about him) and Pilates as a literature character. I mean Gospels, Master and Margarita and our literature sources. That would allow us to get rid of various alleged etc., because Gospels are not more biased than other fiction books: they just describe another reality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Format of this article

I'm thinking it would make more sense to have a biography section on Pilate, as we do for other historical figures from classical antiquity, rather than the current format, where Pilate is discussed as portrayed in various historical/archaeological sources. Compare the articles for Josephus, Julius Caesar, or pretty much any other figure from the period. The biography could note sources and scholarly theories and disagreements as it went along, rather than spreading the portrayal out among all the various narratives. The current approach seems to be suggesting an equivalence between Philo and Josephus and the Bible to a much greater extent than seems advisable, for one thing.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I've begun work on a rewrite of the article. Those interested in contributing are free to help over at User:Ermenrich/sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Portrayals

Hidden comment says "See talk page before editing the next three sections". Anyone knows what I should look at? My current intent is to go through it and cite or remove stuff if I can't find a decent secondary source.

Possible versions of this is that it remains reasonably as-is, it can be made shorter like Otto_Skorzeny#In_fiction or moved to a seperate article like Cultural depictions of Belshazzar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I really have no idea why that tag is there. If you look over at User:Ermenrich/sandbox I've started work on a portrayal that only talks about works that are mentioned in reliable sources, as Pilate appears in any depiction of the passion and most portrays are not likely to be all that notable.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks magnitudes better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

However, do not exclude this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Update on Rewrite

The rewrite of the article is nearing completion. I'm currently awaiting a (hopeful) inter-library loan of a book on Pilate in the Ethiopian tradition to round-out things some more.

Additionally, if anyone knows good sources for Pilate in: film, literature, post-medieval art, and non-Western European art (for instance, on Orthodox icons), I would love to hear about them. I've searched long and mostly fruitlessly for sources dealing with him in more than one place.

As before, the draft can be found in my sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I have launched the rewrite. The book on Pilate in Ethiopia could take quite a long time to arrive, and its info can probably be added piecemeal to the article. I also should be receiving a few more things that could be used to add to the film, literature, and possibly art sections.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead section length

The lead section has six paragraphs, whereas the maximum target is generally four. Perhaps some of these paragraphs can be trimmed and combined? —ADavidB 18:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll get on it later today. Probably the archaeology paragraph can be summarized and placed in the life section, and the "continued importance" paragraph could be appended to the end of the first short paragraph, while the scholarly views section could go with a slightly trimmed "life" pagraph.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How's it look now?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Good! Thanks —ADavidB 19:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

I noticed the article has been significantly changed during last month, and these changes are definitely not an improvement. Let me re-iterate:

We should never mix Pilates as a real historical figure with Pilates as he was described in Gospels

Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character. Clearly, the information about real Pilates is very limited, and everything else is just literature. The article must tell that clearly. A good example is this PhD thesis, where a real historical sources are separated from Christian literature.

I am going to revert all recent changes and restore the old article structure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory is a minority opinion. All the reliable sources I have used describe Jesus as a historical person. I have collected a very extensive bibliography on the subject. Just look at the works cited. In fact, the work by Helen Bond you cite above is IN the bibliography. Her opinions on the historicity of Jesus's trial, which she does not in any way question, are taken into account.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have posted about this about both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Almost all historians agree Jesus was a real person.★Trekker (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to quote from Bond, who you said is the example we should follow:

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 alsoby the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44). (p. 1)

Bond does indeed do a source by source examination of various historians, but that is not the way that Jean-Pierre Lémonon, Alexander Demandt, or Paul Maier do it, and there is no reason why Wikipedia should not be able to have a normal biography of Pilate. The paucity of sources is noted, but when the text says the Gospels are sources, I am citing reliable sources. In the section on the crucifixion I note that scholars do not believe the Gospels contains exactly what happened and various explanations for discrepancies between the Gospel accounts and other sources. To revert this entire edit, which has sourced this entire formerly unsourced article and replaced literally all the text, just because you ascribe to the Jesus myth theory, would frankly be an act of vandalism.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The article does a great job of making clear what historical or biblical sources are used for each statement of fact. Which specific part are you worried about? Urg writer (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I object not to the content itself, but to the way it is presented. How can the "Life" section tell about trial and execution of Jesus? Since a real person cannot interact with an imaginary person (for they can interact either if they both are real or they both are imaginary), the article implies Christ was a real historical person, and, therefore, it represents a minority view (that Christ really existed) as a mainstream view.

This structure looks as ridiculous as the Richard I of England would look if we included the tales of Robin Hood into the "Captivity, ransom and return" section.

The actual story should be as follows:

1. What we know about Pilates from historical sources (their number of sources is very limited, we really know almost nothing about him)

2. What we know about Pilates from Christian literature (we know a lot, but all of that has no relation to a historical figure).

3. How other literature (including the modern one) describes him.

Instead, you mix mythology and real historical facts and completely confuse a reader. By the way the single sentence in Annales (15.44) about Christ is very likely to be a IV century addition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If I use information from the gospels, that's because reliable sources do so. Or do you know more than Alexander Demandt, Helen Bond, and Daniel Schwartz, who are each the sources for the use of the gospels in those various areas and each of whom discusses the historical Pontius Pilate, or any of the other scholars who discuss the historical crucifixion in particular?

You may think that the sentence in the Annals is a fabrication, but that is not how a majority of reliable sources describe it. See Tacitus on Christ and any of the authors in the bibliography.

You clearly don't understand the Christ myth theory: the Christ myth theory, which is a minority opinion among scholars, argues that Jesus did not exist. This article follows the mainstream view, which is that did exist and was executed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Julius Caesar claimed to be descendant of the Godess Venus, and everyone in that time accepted that, historians as well, we don't assume that Caesar was a made up character just because he and other writers belived in "fairy tales". The bible and other religious texts are not just "fiction literature" (you seem to think "literature" in general means fiction. But all writing is literature.)★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, be serious. Almost every noble family in Rome or Greece claimed their ancestor was some god. That is just mythology, and noone presents that as a real fact of their biography.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Romans belived in their Gods just as much as modern people belive in theirs. You seem to confuse the idea that accepting Jesus as a real person also means we have to accept that God was also his father. This is false.★Trekker (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whereas we must stick with what reliable sources say, we are totally free to chose article's structure that conveys the information in the most optimal way. And you must agree that the current structure of this article breaks all rules of logic. Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus. In addition, since Christianity has deep roots in our culture, and a myth about Pilates is one of the core myths, a lot of sources, which are reliable from other points of view, mention this myth without going into details. However, they have much less weight that specialized sources that analyze the 15.44 fragment specifically.

And, by the way, how can Tacitus know anything about Jesus if the earliest Christian source (Book of Revelation), written in 95 AD, tells nothing about his death? Christian mythology formed after Tacitus died, so it is very unlikely he could write it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your insistence that no one who is not Christian believes that Jesus was a real person defies all logic. Just look at Historicity of Jesus. The leading historical Jesus scholars such as John Maier and Bart Ehrman are both atheists. Furthermore, the Book of Relevation is one of the last Christian biblical texts to be written. Just read some reliable sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There are some authors who claim a man whose name was Jesus really existed, however, that man has no relation to Jesus Christ Gospels are talking about (if you say otherwise you are Christian). And, again, really good study demonstrate there were no Jesus and no Christianity during almost whole 1st century.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

False.★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So you want us to ignore mainstream widely accepted consensus because........? No reason pretty much. I'm an atheist and I accept Jesus existed, same way I accept Caesar was real, even if I don't belive their devine parenthood.★Trekker (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What consensus? That Pilates really ordered to crucify Jesus?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The consensus that Jesus existed.★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Really?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, really.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Had he been crucified, and after three days revived?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The article nowhere claims he was resurrected, nor do historical Jesus scholars say this. But the crucifixion is accepted as historical fact by the overwhelming consensus of scholars. Crucifixion does not necessarily lead to resurrection as far as I know.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere does it says he was revived. Stop making nonsense claims.★Trekker (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am glad you agree that non-theological literature agrees that were no resurrection, and Gospels were incorrect in that aspect. However, if Gospels cannot be trusted regarding resurrection, why should be they treated as a historical source in other aspects?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:RS do.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Same reason we accept all other ancient sources, bcause they're all we have and it was common place back in the day to speak of Gods as if they were real. You will find fantastical tales in any old text.★Trekker (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

★Trekker, real historians never accept sources, they use them keeping in mind that each of them is lying to some degree. And the major historian's skill is the ability to identify grams of truth in tons of lye.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Also the consensus that he was executed on Pontius Pilate, as reflected in any of the sources found here, including Helen Bond who you choose to bring up.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I provided a source (out of many) that tells the single sentence from Tacitus was IV century fake. Authenticity of Flavius mention of Jesus is also not confirmed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No you didn't. Bond says the opposite and she's the only source you've provided. Nor does the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate depend entirely on Tacitus. Take it up at Tacitus on Christ.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For your convenience, I reproduce the abstract in full:

Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you actually read what Ermenrich wrote? Not everything hinghes on freaking Tacitus.★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You keep bringing this up as if that would change the near universal consensus of modern historians. You're not getting it your way, ok, no one here is going to support your idea.★Trekker (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt there is a reason to speak about "the near universal consensus of modern historians". The numbers mean nothing: if we count the number of people who believe in Christ, we could conclude there is an almost universal consensus among people that Christ was the God. However, we don't write that, don't we? Indeed, a large number of authors, including historians, reproduce the myth about Christ when they write about other subject. Some authors are Christians, so, being historians, they still believe in Christ. However, we are speaking about specialised studies that discuss specifically this issue: "did Jesus Christ really exist, and when Christianity formed?" In Christian tradition, Apocalypse is the last canonical source. According to scientific views, it is the earliest one. Christianity started to form at the end of 1st century, and even some person named Jesus really existed in Judea, all information about him would be completely lost during bloody revolts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Good to know random man on Wikipedia knows better than almost the entire field of experts on one of the most widely discussed subjects of all time. Get this: you're not going to get it your way, no one who's opinion Wikipedia values agrees with you.★Trekker (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, only random man on Wikipedia can make a decision about article's structure. "Experts" are just sources that we are free to organize in whatever way to preserve logic. The content must be based on reliable sources, that is true. However, the decision about the structure of an article is made by us, not by "experts".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. We even have a tag that says "needs input from an expert".★Trekker (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Your insistence that the Book of Revelation is the earliest Christian text just shows how little you know about what WP:RS say about early Christianity. Your argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:RS say Jesus exists. That is the consensus view.

Is it possible you're playing a prank on us and trying to enact the beginning of The Master and the Margarita?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, what Berlios was saying is exactly what modern science ways about Christ. In contrast, you are literally taking words fron Woland's mouth.

By the way, if you are using Mattew or Mark as a source, why cannot you use Bulgakov? From the literature point of view, it is written much better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The quality of the writing is entirely a matter of opinion and utterly irrelevant. I don't know if you're trying to be funny.★Trekker (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact, WP:RS do not agree with Berlioz. Nor do they support using Master and Margarita as a reliable source, obviously.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, some sources. Others fully agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No. It's not "some" it's the vast majority. And why are you claiming below it doesn't matter if most agree since they're wong anyway but up here you're claiming it maters its only "some"?★Trekker (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no. Many general sources tell this story, but only few of them analyse it in details. Only these sources are relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources that "deal with it specifically" are cited in the article and support the historicity of the crucifixion. Stop making stuff up.--Ermenrich (talk)

The fact that he seems to be arguing that there is no Muhammad denialism make me wonder if he is indeed joking.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article is of a much better quality than the previous version (in terms of sourcing and layout), and it would be a shame for all that effort to be removed. The article does a good job explaining to the readers the limits of our knowledge of Pilate's life, and when the Gospels are referenced readers are told the extent to which scholars consider such sources as accurate or not. This is no different then how we treat other ancient documents--we rely on what the reliable sources say about them. Ltwin (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Our job is not to pile mythology and historical facts together. We must create a logical structure that causes no cognitive dissonance and does not promite religious views in secular Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not our job. Our job is to write from a neutral point of view, as described in the Wikipedia:Five pillars:

"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

Ltwin (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. We report what reliable sources say. Nothing else.★Trekker (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you reread WP:NPOV and WP:RS, Paul Siebert. You are clearly blinded by your own opinion that Jesus is a myth and not particularly knowledgeable about what reliable sources say about his historical existence or early Christianity.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you also doubt Siddhartha Guatama and Muhammed were real? Because Wikipedia treats those article the same we do Christian articles.★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstood the difference between Islam and Christianity. In the former, Muhammed was a human, and he really existed, he was a historical figure, and Hegira was a real historical event, and Muhamed left real descendants, and there is no disputes among Muslims, atheists and historians about his existence. A disagreement starts when we discuss if he really traveled to heavens on Burak's back, and if Koran was inspired by Allah. In contrast, according to Christianity, Jesus was God. And that is a big difference. Christians never agreed Jesus was just a human.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether Christians "agree" with it is irrelevant. Historians agree that Jesus was a person.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have misunderstood nothing. And you are wrong, there are people, just the same as you, who whelmingly deny that Muhammad was a person based on nothing else but the fact that they are offended that religions they don't agree with have basis in real events.★Trekker (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, I don't deny Mohammed was a real person. Importantly, that fact can be, theoretically, checked. Accordin to historical sources (not only Muslim ones), Mohammad left descendants, so it is possible to analyze their genome and to find a common ancestor. And it is (theoretically) possible to find a piece of original Mohammad's cloth with traces of his blood, and to sequence it and to compare with the gemones of his descendants. That can be theoretically done, and that will not shake Muslim religion (who will not object this genome belongs to Muhammad), and will not convince atheists that Allah really exists.

In contrast, if (let's consider this hypothetical situation) a Shroud of Turin were real, the traces of blood on it belong to Jesus. It will be possible to sequence his genome and find his relatives (according to Gospels, he had siblings). Will the Church acknowledge it? Definitely not, because that would be a fatal blow to Christianity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I never once accused you of denying that Muhammad was real.★Trekker (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Muhammad and Gautama were humans who started new religions. The only difference between them and us was that that they discovered some wisdom. We can argue if this wisdom was true or false, and if they really existed, but the very fact of their existence looks logically incontroversial both for atheists and Muslims/Buddhists. That doesn't work for Jesus who was not a human but a god. Therefore, you are either a Christian who believe he was the God, or you are atheist/agnostic, who believe he was a human, which means Gospels are correct only partially. But if they are incorrect regarding resurrection, what is the reason to trust to them in other aspects? Tacitus and Josephus are too unreliable (the info was most likely added later during copying by some Christian monk).

In connection to that, it would not be a violation of the rules of logic to write in the article about some historical person that he met Muhammad (if this person was Arab and he lived in Arabia during Muhammad's time). A man can interact with a man. But it would be totally ridiculous if we write the same about some real Roman and Christ as he was described in Gospels. I cannot understand why this simple idea is so difficult to understand.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess we can't cite Cicero either. After all, he wrote about noble Romans having decent from Gods.★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You make one serious logical mistake: a serious non-religious author can write that some real historical figure claimed having a decent from some god. However, no serious author can write about some historical figure that he was specking with a god who came to him to his room and looked as a humble mortal. That immediately makes his writing a mythology book, not a historical source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you know who Cicero is?★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So why did you reply with a heap of irrelevant nonsense?★Trekker (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You are aware that that's not what happens in the gospels, right? And it's irrelevant anyway. WP:RS treat them as documents containing historical information, whether you think they do doesn't matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Some sources treat them as documents containing some historical information. Other sources say otherwise.

In addition, as I already noted, I have no objection to the text itself, I object to the way it is organized. And, whereas the text must strictly stick with what RS say, the decision about the article's structure is made by us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of WP:RS treat them as containing historical information. I don't know what you're reading, but it's clearly very far outside the mainstream.

And I'd say there is a firm consensus that there is nothing wrong with the structure of the article. Jesus existed. He got crucified by Pilate. Deal with it.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I can agree that the Old Testament is used by many authors as a source of historical information (despite a fact that there were no Exodus, and excavations revealed no traces of the First Temple). However, I doubt New Testament can be a source of historical data because it tells virtually nothing about life of Judea or Roman empire: it is focused only in Jesus and laymen around him. The same events could have happen in any other province of the Empire. Therefore, I doubt serious historians can find anything useful in Gospels.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

For the last time: your opinion is irrelevant. You have found no WP:RS to back up your claims. The article is sourced to them. Stop.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. You may be interested to read Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses37/2 (2008): 271–292. I've just found that, but it seems this author totally supports what I am saying. I obtained it via this search string, and all previous hits were total garbage. Note, according to the author, Muslim scholars are much less influenced by religious dogmas than Christian ones....--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Jesus not existing is a fringe theory and is considered pseudohistory.★Trekker (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, which Jesus? A son of the God, who walked upon the Sea of Galilee, Jesus Christ a man described in the Four Gospels, Jesus from apocryphic sources, or just Jeshua Ha-Nozri, some philosopher from the town of Gamla. Each of them was a totally different person, and they all could not exist simultaneously. And we left Gnostic Christ beyond the scope...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, Caesar left no biological children behind to trace to him. That is a poor argument for if people existed or not.★Trekker (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Which idea are you trying to demonstrate by that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That your arguments are terrible.★Trekker (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Then refute them. Your responces are not a refutation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I already have. Several times. You don't even seem to know that there is debate over if Muhammed was a real person...... How am I even supposed reason with you?★Trekker (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, read carefully what I write: as I wrote, it is not important whether Muhammad was a real person or not, the point is that in both scenarios the story where Muhammad's interaction with real historical persons is described look logically non-controversial. And the reason is that Mohammad (no matter if he was a real person of just imaginary) was a human, not a god.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

...so you think someone has to be a god in order to be crucified???--Ermenrich (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, not. I am pretty sure Pilates crucified many people, some of them could be philosophers who were telling some odd stories. The problem is that the story about this particular philosopher (Jesus) is known only from Gospels (Josephus and Tacitus didn't tell anything about him, because that information was added later). And, in connection to that, we have a broad spectrum of opinia: some sources (Christian literature and the writings of historians who are standing on Christian positions) say the facts regarding Pilates and Jesus are absolutely correct (and these views are popular among non-historians), other authors believe that Gospels are correct only partially (Jesus was just a human, and resurrection, conversion of water into vine, and other miracles had never taken place), and some sources believe this story was written more than 100 years after alleged Jesus death. And, frankly speaking, how can you tell to which extent Gospels can be trusted? And, by the way, if you believe it is universally accepted that what Gospels say about Pilates is true, you are supposed to demonstrate it with sources. I already provided sources that demonstrate it is not universally accepted, so I expect you either to show that my sources have been refuted or to show they are fringe or obsolete. You haven't done that so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What sources? The whole article is full of WP:RS that accept that pilate crucified Jesus. You have provided no sources showing otherwise. Your personal opinion is not important. Stop this nonsense and WP:LETITGO.--Ermenrich (talk)

Leaving Gospels beyond the scope, we have just Tacitus and Josephus. No other source say about crucifixion. I provided a source that questions Tacitus, and it seems I provided a source saying that the fragment from Josephus is an earlier addition. I also provided a source that demonstrates that the authors who study "historicity" of Jesus are more affected by the Christian dogma than their colleagues who study Mohammad. You haven't provided any evidence saying these sources are unreliable or fringe. Listen, Christian literature is so abundant, and the number of Christians among historians is so high that it is not a big problem to find tons of sources that reproduce the same myth. However, the fact that many people believe in Christ doesn't make their view on Christianity a mainstream scholarly view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Except you're wrong, about all of that. A human being being described as a God or as someone who interacted with a God does not affect the reliability of if they existed or not. Did you know Julius Caesar became a God after his death and a supernatural being in Norse mythology? Tons of historical figures became Gods in religions, this is not a hard concept to understand.....★Trekker (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are speaking seriously. Let me ask you something. Consider two statements:

1. "He was proclaimed to be the God by his compatriots."
2. "He became the God"

Now answer the following questions:

1. Do you see a difference between these two statements?
2. If you see the statement #2 in a history book, can you really trust to other facts described in this book?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

. Can we please keep new responses at the bottom of the thread so this is not so hard to read?

Paul Siebert, you are trying to dispute the historicy of Jesus and the crucifixion based on WP:original research, which you now very well is not allowed. WP:RS say both are historical. Your attempts to discredit the sources as Christian are not convincing. You dont have to like it, but you need to let this go.--Ermenrich (talk)

Good idea.

Original research imply addition of some text to the article's main space. In contrast, I am not proposing to change it significantly, I propose to restore the old article's structure, which has nothing in common with original research. By the way, I agree that the new version of the article looks better, and it is more readable. The problem is that it contradicts to elementary logic and implicitly promotes a Christian concept of Jesus.

I already provided sources that say scholars that study Jesus are significantly influenced by a Christian dogma. By the way, Bond you are refering to is just a PhD thesis (PhD in theology, by the way). I am not sure an opinion of a theologist has much weight when we discuss if Jesus really existed: for any theologist, this is an indisputable fact. In addition, she never analyzed this issue, she just says that in the introduction. I've just asked a question on WP:RSN about that.

In addition, Bond doesn't examine the question about authenticity of Tacitus words about Jesus, she just state Tacitus said that (quite understandable for a theologist).

In general, to use PhD thesis in theology as a proof of Jesus existence is a nice step ;). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is the final paragraph from Richard Carrier's article:

"For all these reasons in combination I believe we should conclude the suspect line was probably not written by Tacitus, and was most likely interpolated into its present position sometime after the middle of the 4th century a.d. More likely Tacitus was originally speaking of the Chrestians, a violent group of Jews first suppressed under Claudius, and not the Christians, and accordingly did not mention Christ. We should so conclude because alternative explana tions of the evidence require embracing a long series of increasingly improb able assumptions. So the line should be rejected as spurious, or at least held in reasonable suspicion. And this conclusion should now be taken into account when assessing the evidence for Christ and Christianity, and also when trans lating and interpreting Tacitus and the events following the burning of Rome under Nero. The whole passage in Annals 15.44 should instead be considered as possible evidence supplementing Suetonius on the matter of "Chrestus the instigator" and Jewish unrest at Rome."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just going to weigh in very quickly, and state that disputing the general consensus of historians as to the basic issue of Jesus' historicity isn't what this article is about. You seem to be constructing an elaborate web of reasons why the historical consensus can be completely disregarded, which veers perilously close to a fringe theory. If you're still arguing that the Gospels can't be used as sources because they were written from a religious perspective, that's simply wrong. Nearly all writing from antiquity, and indeed most works written before the 20th century assume various religious perspectives, but we don't dismiss all Greek and Roman historians as sources for that reason. Try to remember, we're reporting what was said, and what scholars can infer about Pontius Pilate from it, not deciding whether Jesus was truly the son of God. Just because the writers were proclaiming Jesus' divinity doesn't mean that we can safely dismiss everything they may have to say about Pilate. P Aculeius (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please be more specific. You write "If you're still arguing that the Gospels can't be used as sources because they were written from a religious perspective, that's simply wrong," but that is wrong. Everything depends on context. They can be used as a source about some aspects of life in Eastern Mediterranean in 1-2nd centuries AD, but they cannot be used as a source about real (historical) Pilates. By the way, you must agree and Pilates described in Gospels and Pilates described by Tacitus or Josephus are two different persons.

Regarding the alleged historical consensus, there is a consensus among Christian historians, but we are not supposed to write from that perspective, and I provided an example of a modern secular analysis of Tacitus. Please, be careful with throwing accusations of pushing fringe theories. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's now very clear what Paul Siebert, ★Trekker, and Ermenrich think about this issue. It doesn't sound like any of you are going to change your minds and the discussion is beginning to get a bit acrimonious. We need a consensus and that requires the voices of other editors. So can I ask you three to stop posting on this matter for (say) two days and wait to see what other users think? Does that seem like an acceptable suggestion? Furius (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Furius, thank you for your intervention. The problem is that consensus is not a vote. Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. In that sense, it doesn't matter how many users voice their opinion: as soon as legitimate concerns are not addressed, we cannot speak about any consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine. But I honestly think this is a waste of time for anyone. Paul Siebert is clearly just stonewalling an ignoring every single thing anyone is telling him. Truth is we can't go against consensus from pretty much all historians just because he doesn't like it. He should accept that and move on with his life.★Trekker (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that in a discussion with you I am facing literally just the single thing: the argument that Jesus was a real person, which you repeatedly present without providing any sources. The only your logical argument (about Mohammad) I already addressed, and refuted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave this alone for a few days to get more opinions. I would, however, like to point out that Helen Bond, who Siebert originally brought up, has an entire chapter on the historical trial of Jesus. Her dissertation is published by Cambridge University Press. All of the scholars who discuss the historical crucifixion, whom Paul Siebert keeps falsely claiming are merely "Christian scholars" rather than, I guess, real ones, are similarly qualified and form a clear scholarly consensus for inclusion of the event as historical.--Ermenrich (talk)

Yes, for historical reasons, Cambridge University Press publishes PhD theses in Theology. However, I didn't find any analysis of authenticity of the Tacitus fragment in her thesis, she just takes this document and discusses its content, leaving the authenticity issue beyond the scope. In addition, to cite a theological work in a discussion about authenticity of the passage about Christ is tantamount to the citing some creationist work as a proof of the thesis that the intellectual design concept is universally accepted.

And, last but not least. You accused me of providing no sources. I presented reliable sources, published in peer-reviewed journals, and presented the analysis of your sources. I would like to see at least a single comment on my sources. And, by the way, it would be good if you withdrew your accusations (you accused me of engaging in oiginal research and unfamiliarity with sources, which, as I demonstrated, is not the case). --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You're trying to dismiss the entirely scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus based on one article that argues that the passage in Tacitus is a later addition. That's the definition of WP:OR.

Anyway, we're letting it rest a few days, remember?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. I provided very reliable sources published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals that fully support my claim. Therefore, what I am doing is by no mean an original research, and you demonstrate blatant unfamiliarity with our content policy. If you disagree with that, ask a question at WP:NORN.

Yes, I agree to make a pause for a couple of days, but your groundless accusations of OR are a separate topic, and they are not related to the Pilates issue. Taking into account that the Tacitus passage is one out of two non-Christian sources the whole literature about the Jesus trial rests upon, the article that provides a detailed analysis of it and questions its authenticity is a solid proof of the lack of scholarly consensus, and to claim opposite you must provide very serious arguments (which you failed to do). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm replying to you. Your source doesn't claim that the historicity of Jesus depends on Tacitus, nor is its conclusion that the passage is not authentic the dominant one in the field, as can be seen at these articles and books that cite it: [8], [9], [10]. Your claims that 1) one article proves that the Tacitus is not authentic, 2) that therefore Jesus cannot have been historical constitue WP:OR.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am a little bit confused. It looks like you attached wrong links: the sources you provide totallu debunk what you are saying and fully confirm what I am saying. Thus,

1. Shaw says literally "A conventional certainty is that the first state-driven persecution of Christians happened in the reign of Nero and that it involved the deaths of Peter and Paul, and the mass execution of Christians in the aftermath of the great fire of July 64 c.e. The argument here contests all of these facts, especially the general execution personally ordered by Nero. The only source for this event is a brief passage in the historian Tacitus. Although the passage is probably genuine Tacitus, it reflects ideas and connections prevalent at the time the historian was writing and not the realities of the 60s." That means that there is no consensus about Tacitus: there was some conventional wisdom (actually, cultivated by Church), which has been challenged (by this source, and by others, including the ones provided by me). In addition, this source directly says Tacitus is the only source historicity of Jesus is based upon (exactly what I am saying), and THAT is a consensus (if you disagree, prove the opposite).
2. your second source says that the Tacitus passage is "the most controversial", and concludes that it is partially a later Christian interpolation (ref to Carrier; that is the very source I cited previously, and the fact that your source cites the one provided by me demonstrated my source is not fringe, but mainstream), and some of them are anachronism (Tacitus was writing about 33 year events based on his later experience). Again, this source fully confirm what I am saying, and it does not support your claim about some alleged consensus.
3. Ivan Prchlík, your third source says that Tacitus is tellind the story that he probably learnt "from Christian followers of some other than the received tradition, whom he could have tried during his proconsulship of Asia." In other words, the only conclusion that can be drawn from that Tacitus passage is that in late 1st century, when Tacitus was writing his Annals, there was Christianity in Asia, and the story about Christ had already been composed. However, nobody disputes this fact.

Let me reiterate: Your last source literally says Tacitus passage is authentic, but it contains information that was obtained by Tacitus from some early Christian whom he interrogated in Asia, and that person was some early Christian. Do you really believe the passage that reproduces a story told by some early Christian is an independent proof of historicity of Jesus?

Again, your own sources work against you: two of them openly say Tacitus was telling a story he heard in late 1st century, and the third one cites the source provided by me and reproduces the thesis about 4th century addition. In addition, whereas you are right, and my "source doesn't claim that the historicity of Jesus depends on Tacitus" the source provided by you directly claims that. Do I need other evidences to prove you are wrong?

Lastly, even if my claim is based at a single source (which is not the case: as you can see, your sources also support it) that allows you to accuse me of pushing minority views at most, but not in engaging in original research. Read our content policy.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not being one of those addressed, I'll briefly add to my previous remarks: the notion that the Gospels can't be used as sources for an article about Pontius Pilate is bizarre, absurd, and fundamentally unscholarly. It's like excluding the entire body of scripture as a source for the life of Jesus, or Moses, or excluding the Koran as a source for the life of Mohammed. The fact that the authors had their own perspective or purposes for writing, and that we're not obliged to share those views, does nothing to change the fact that such sources are inherently relevant, and frankly vital to any scholarly article on the topic. Excluding early Christian writings on the topic because they were written by Christians is utterly perverse, to say nothing of ignoring scholarly consensus on the grounds that many of the scholars are themselves Christians! The idea that you may exclude all evidence of a widely-accepted thing simply because you can find someone to dispute the authenticity or veracity of each item, or because everyone who accepts it must be biased and therefore unreliable, is the very definition of a fringe theory. At the risk of being accused of an ad hominem attack, I find it even harder to take such arguments seriously from someone who can't even be bothered to spell the man's name right, but who is instead railing against the historicity of a form of exercise. And with that, I wash my hands of the matter. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, if you look at the sources provided by me you will see that the scholars who study Mohammed approach this issue from much more scientific positions than those who study Christ, and they use Koran much more cautiously. By the way, I am not sure Koran contains more information about Mohammad (btw, it is one of accepted transcriptions, along with Mohammed) than Gospels about st. Matthew: they both are considered the authors of these texts, and they write nothing about themselves. At least, the sources Wikipedia currently uses say Koran provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography. Regarding Moses, I would be glad to see a source that seriously discusses his historicity (actually, I don't think any serious historian believes in historicity of Exodus), and they prefer to speak about him in a folk-tale context. As you can see, your arguments work against you.

You all refer to some "scholarly consensus" without providing any evidences. "Scholarly consensus" about some topic implies that no work is being published in reputable journals or university press that challenge this topic. To demonstrate that there is no scholarly consensus about some topic, it is enough to provide a source that says otherwise (which I have already done). In contrast, to prove there is a consensus is much more challenging task: you have to prove the works I cite are fringe, which you failed to do so far. In other words, if you present a source that claims there is a consensus on, e.g. Jesus, and I present the source saying there is no consensus, I CAN write "there is no consensus", but you CAN'T write there is. You can do it only in a situation if multiple sources are provided that EXPLICITLY say my source is unreliable and fringe. That is how Wikipedia works, and no local consensus on this page can overrule it.

In summary, I sustained my burden of evidence, you haven't. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

break

Actually, I am grateful to Ermenrich for this discussion. That prompted me to read more about Tacitus, and I realised the actual situation is more complex. Three (not two as I thought before) points of view currently exists on that passage.

1. The passage about Jesus is authentic, and it is an independent confirmation of historicity of Jesus (in addition to the four Gospels). The proponent of this view is a theologist Bond.
2. The passage was written by Tacitus, but he obtained this information from some early Christians, who already existed when Annals were being written (i.e. at the beginning of the 2nd century). Therefore, it is not an independent confirmation of historicity of Jesus, just a reproduction of some early version of the myth about Christ. Among the authors advocating this idea are Shaw and Ivan Prchlík.
3. The passage is a 4st century addition, and it is not authentic. This idea can be found in this source. All those source are provided by Ermenrich (thank you for that; it was an interesting reading). In addition, other sources (such as Carrier, vide supra), say the same.

And, it seems there is an universal consensus that Tacitus is the cornerstone the whole theory about historicity of Jesus rests upon (Shaw says that unequivocally).

All of that creates a good framework for rewriting the Tacitus related articles, which I am going to do soon. That does not imply any source will be removed, just rearranged to bring everything in system. And, as we can see only the authors who fall in the #1 category can be used as a support for historicity of Jesus, which means there is absolutely no ground for speaking about consensus about this issue.

Thank you everyone for fruitful discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you do that, you're not just ignoring existing scholarly consensus and presenting your personal point of view in violation of WP:NPOV, but also casually disregarding WP:CONS with respect to an issue of high importance to the encyclopedia. It's obvious that you consider yourself to be an expert on this topic, but substituting your interpretation of your preferred sources, while disregarding all the sources with which you disagree on various pretexts that can largely be summed up as, "these sources are unreliable because they assert something I disagree with and are written by people who are obviously biased", falls afoul of pretty much every rule and policy of editing there is—beginning with WP:TRUTH. Please don't try to close the discussion by summarizing other people's opinions in such a way that makes it sound like they support your position when they clearly don't, giving yourself the last word on the matter. If you follow up with this proposed course of action, you're simply going to find yourself reverted and reported for disruptive editing, so I strongly advise you to reconsider whether this is a productive direction in which to focus your energies. P Aculeius (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am presenting three different and mutually exclusive points of view found in the sources provided by my opponents (which means I even didn't select sources, so a possibility of cherry-picking is totally ruled out). What "consensus" can we speak about in that situation? Moreover, what I am saying is supported by the sources that, according to Ermenrich, are mainstream. If a reference to NPOV is pertinent in this situation, it is more relevant to you, not to me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop harping on about the freaking fake passage! Historians know it's 99% sure to be forged, they still belive Jesus existed and that the Bibles texts contain historic information. Nothing you say on this talk page will change anyones mind or affect how historians accept Jesus existence. Historians and experts already know every single thing you've pointed out and far more! I say this for the last time:

No one who's oppinion matters to Wikipedia agrees, with you. You will not get it your way. Your view is a minority view which is considered pseudohistory.★Trekker (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think 99% is some exaggeration, but I am glad you agree Tacitus can hardly be used as a proof of historicity of Jesus. What else is remaining? Just the four Gospels, because everything else is just derivative sources.

Regarding "historicity" of Gospels, please, answer the following qiestion:

As we know, about 50 aporcyphal Gospels exist that describe the events that allegedly occurred in 30s in Judea totally differently. Four of them were selected by a Christian bishop Irenaeus who lived more than one hundred years after the events those Gospels describe, and who had no additional information about those events. What is the reason to believe that he selected "correct" Gospels?

The answer that he was inspired by the God cannot be accepted for obvious reason. Printing the answer in bold does not make it more convincing.

And, if "historians and experts already know every single thing I've pointed out", than you will easy show me how do they address these arguments and reconcile them with the idea of historicity of Jesus. It would be much more productive if you demonstrated that with sources and quotes instead of typing totally unsupported sentences in bold.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

As we've told you many times, look at Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory as well as the WP:RS cited there before continuing to argue, from your own reasoning, therefore WP:OR, that the gospels cannot be used as historical sources.

I'm done debating this with you. If you do what you say you want to do, P Aculeius has already told you what will happen.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Although these two articles are currently Augean stable, one of them says: "Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted."

And, please, stop threatening me, this is a secular encyclopaedia, and we don't need religious propaganda here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Presenting widley held opinions of historians is not "religious propaganda". And no one has threatened you, a warning is not a threat.★Trekker (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Presenting just one out of a wide spectrum of opinia as a universally accepted truth is a religious propaganda. And I am still waiting for your answer to a question addressed to you...--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the first time I see such a dedicated stonewaller. I think you can remove the "This user assumes good faith" from your profile. Accusing people you disagree with of spreading "religious propaganda" is assuming bad faith, you know.

As a firm atheist, I see nothing wrong with the current article. Every ancient author had religious bias, from Herodotus to the gospels, etc. That doesn't mean that we cannot use these works for writing about historical events and characters. Even if there are *some* scholars who think that Jesus didn't exist, the overwhelming majority think he existed, and Wikipedia must follow the latter. T8612 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

T8612, I do assume good faith, and I am really grateful to Ermenrich for giving me an opportunity to read more on that subject. Moreover, I realized I was partially wrong, and in reality a part of scholars still believe the Tacitus passage about Christ is authentic (although many of them conclude he just reproduced a story told by some early Christian). For me, that is a new information, and I am glad I found it. However, assumption of good faith does not imply we should accept poor quality arguments only because the person saying that is acting in a good faith. If you look through this discussion, you may notice overwhelming majority of the arguments of my opponents look like "There is a consensus that ....., so please stop arguing". Virtually no sources are presented to support their claim, and no attempts to address my arguments. Their arguments are of very poor quality, but my analysis of them is totally ignored. I edited different articles in different topics, but I was very rarely having so low quality discussion at other talk pages.

Your own words demonstrate you do not understand my arguments. You write "Every ancient author had religious bias, from Herodotus to the gospels, etc. That doesn't mean that we cannot use these works for writing about historical events and characters," however, I am not arguing about that. There is a big difference between using some source and trusting it. Thus, no reasonable historian trust Herodotus when he provided figures of Persian army, nobody believes in his description of early history of Asia Minor or Mesopotamia, but his description of the battle of Marathon is more trustworthy. Similarly, no serious historian trust Old Testament's story of Exodus (which never took place), but the Book of Maccabees is rather trustworthy. Similarly, the Gospels can and should be used as a source about early Christianity, however, only few religious authors sincerely believe they were written by witness, and they adequately describe a situation of Judea in 30s. In reality the Gospels were written in late I early II century, and not in Judea. The fact that tons of apocryphal gospels exist, including the texts that look almost like gospels, but do not mention Christ, but mention Orpheus or Hermes Trismegistus in the same context is a clear demonstration that creation of the Gospels was a continuous evolutionary process when old Greek and Egyptean cults melt together and, after mixing with Socratic and Seneca philosophy gave raise to various gnostic cults and after that to canonical Christianity. I am surprised I have to explain these simple and obvious things, and I am really disappointed that (i) my arguments are just ignored and, simultaneously, (ii) I am accused of being ignorant and not prone to arguments (sic!).

An example of my argument that was totally ignored is a question about the four gospels. I'll reproduce it again, for your convenience, and, since I am assuming good faith, I respectfully beg you to address this question.

"The four Gospels were selected out of ca 75 others (I am pretty sure there were much more, but we know only about ca 75) by a Christian bishop who lived a century after the events they describe. All of them were very different, and Irenaeus selected four of them, which, according to him, were the most authentic. What is the reason to believe his decision was correct, and the For Gospels are more trustworthy than, e.g. the Gospel of Marcion?"

By the way, even the Wikipedia article about this gospel provides a well balanced description of its origin: a traditional (i.e. theological) view, saying that Marcion was derived from Luke by removal some passages, and more rational, scientific view that says Luke was created based on Marcion by adding more details. Indeed, Marcion says Christ was the god (not human) who came from heavens (an old idea that can be found in many old religions), and there was no continuity between him and Elohim. In contrast, Luke presents more developed concept, and a comparative analysis of these and other documents shows a gradual evolution of the concept of Christ that finally gave rise to a totally new religion.

If we assume that the Four Gospels are historical documents, we implicitly assume two facts: (i) creation of Christianity was a single act, and the originator of this religion was a single person (presumably, Jesus); (ii) apocryphal gospels are distortion of the original Christ's story. This is a totally unnatural and non-scientific idea, and that is not how religion emerge. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's all in good faith (the words occur so frequently above that they must be true) but it's bringing no benefit to the encyclopedia. Andrew Dalby 09:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

I saw this mentioned on Doug Weller's talkpage. I am uninvolved in this article and have never edited it. From the outside looking in at this long discussion, it seems clear that the consensus is against Paul Siebert. Therefore I suggest that he either accept that or create an RFC on one of the major points he is promulgating. Second, I would like to point out that directly citing the Gospels as a source would seem to be non-RS; however (1) using a citation wherein historians or scholars have said/acknowledged a Gospel says something, or (2) stating in the wiki article that historians or scholars state that the Gospels are one of the few sources on Pilate's life (howsoever fallible it/they may be) -- either or both of these is entirely acceptable and indeed necessary in this article. As long as a passage from the Bible is not directly used as the sole citation of any claim in this article, that's fine. By the way, I believe, from the looks of it, that if Paul Siebert continues to extend his longwinded objections which lack consensus, he could be considered as editing disruptively and tendentiously on this talkpage -- as, at 67,000 bytes so far, the discussion has become overlong and very repetitive. Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this talk page popping up on my watchlist, but haven't wanted to get involved. We seem to have a single editor insisting that the article reflect his own point of view, and refusing to accept that other editors disagree, and by consensus reject his view. It's going beyond a content issue into a behavioural one. William Avery (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and if it continues it should be reported at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see the case for getting more editors involved to test the existing consensus first, too. William Avery (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

To comment more explicitly than I did above, it's necessary (as Softlavender says) to tell the reader what the sources say: well, the second paragraph of the lead already outlines this. The phrases "Jewish historian ... and writer", "Christian Gospels", "Roman historian" already serve as warnings that the sources may have biases. The word "controversially" already hints that there may be interpolated text in the case of one or both historians. In so few words, it could all hardly be done better. The main text follows up appropriately. There could always be improvements to make, but this extended discussion is simply not necessary. Andrew Dalby 11:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with that. Please stop now, Paul Siebert! And it's a bit late for an RFC now, with a wall of text here already. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I admit my posts are redundantly lengthy. Moreover, during this discussion, I realized the problem is broader, so majority of what was discussed belongs to other talk pages. There seems to be a fundamental problem with a bunch of Christianity related articles, and I am going to discuss this issue elsewhere.

I also would like to add the following. One of the reason I had to repeat my arguments was that there was no adequate responce to them. Just one example:

1. In this post Ermenrich claims I am wrong and provides three sources that allegedly support their viewpoint.
2. In response, I provide a detailed analysis of these three sources and demonstrate they are in a full accordance with what I am saying, and they directly contradict to what Ermenrich says.
3. There were NO response from Ermenrich. Instead, they reiterated his groundless accusations of engaging in original research and suggested me ... to read sources (sic!). You guys must agree that in a situation when my arguments that I make after having read sources are totally ignored, this advice look like a mockery.

In general, I am surprised with a low level of discussion. On other talk pages, participants have a good habit to support their statements with concrete arguments that are verifiable (are supported by sources). In contrast, here I see mostly "there is no consensus". Let me reiterate, consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise, and by no means it is a vote. I see no attempts to address my legitimate concern, and an overwhelming numerical superiority does not make your position stronger than mine. By the way, in this discussion, my position has modified, which demonstrate I am ready to compromise, which cannot be said about my opponents.

I am going to take a break and to think what should I do with the bunch of Christianity related articles. I'll also think about a proper formulation of the RfC question, a possibility of mediation, and, if necessary, arbitration. Since my position is based on concrete high quality reliable sources, it is at least as strong as the position of those who refer to some anonymous consensus, no matter how numerous they are.

Anyway, thank you all for having drawn my attention to this subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of getting this going again, I'm going to reply to that. I sincerely hope you actually do stop now, as every single person involved has been telling you to. We are not obliged to discuss your personal theory that the authenticity of a passage in Tacitus determines whether or not Jesus actually existed. We have a whole article on the subject that it is well sourced. You simply dismiss scholarly consensus on the matter as "by Christians". I also suggest you hold off on your plans to rewrite all our Jesus-related articles, as you will be acting against both scholarly consensus and the consensus of the project. And with that I hope the subject is closed. Can someone actually close this discussion?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, as I already explained, I've realised the discussion about historicity of Jesus is hardly relevant to this talk page.

Moreover, it was not me who started this discussion, and I realise that was a mistake to allow me to became drawn into it, so, please, stop. If you want, let's discuss it elsewhere.

Your advice to "hold off on your plans to rewrite all our Jesus-related articles" looks suspiciously close to WP:OWN, which is disruptive.

Finally, the example I presented in my previous post demonstrates that you may believe the sources support your claims, whereas in reality they say otherwise (it this particular case, your sources directly contradict to what you say, and support what I am saying). Therefore, I have no reason to believe the articles you are referring to are really well sourced, and the sources have not been misinterpeeted. I need to check it before we continue, and that may take long. The above example also demonstrates that you may misunderstand what the sources say, and what is the real scholarly consnesus about that subject (if there is any consensus). However, to make a conclusion, I have to analyse these articles in details, so I am not ready to talk about that right now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not OWN if every other single person agrees with the person that you should knock it off.★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The major objection of those who joined this discussion recently was that the discussion is redundantly long, and I already agreed that lengthy discussion about historicity of Jesus and the Gospels (which was started not by me) just distracts us from editing, because the issue I was going to discuss was completely different.

The length of the discussion was a result of your refusal to address my arguments (instead you both were citing some alleged "consensus"). This is an example of multiple-editor ownership.

By the way, I already wrote I am going to examine sources in more details before I continue. In contrast, you demonstrate no intention to do that, you already know you are right. Whose position is more productive?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your constant accusations on other editors is not going to do you any favours. This has so far been a clear case of DONTGETIT on your part. The people here who have opposed you have done nothing but urged you to stop trying to force fringe theories, which you have refused to do repeatedly. You're attempting to shift blame now by trying to claim that since you have (supposedly) finally decided to "examine sources in more details" that it's other people who are being unreasonable or difficult.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What "constant accusations" are you talking about? My "accusations" are a response to your accusations of pushing fringe theories etc. However, this is a very serious accusation, and outstanding claims require outstanding evidences. I provide sources that support my claims, you provide nothing. If you disagree, I am ready for mediation, arbitration, whatever. Moreover, I am even do not insist I am totally right (as I already mention, I changed my view, partially, as a result of this discussion), I already explained I am going to read more on that subject.

Moreover, if you will continue to claim I am pushing fringe views without providing serious evidences (a support by other users is not an evidence) I will consider it as a personal attack and will act accordingly.

You guys know in advance that you are right, and you even do not bother to address my arguments and sources (thus, Ermenrich is still refusing to comment on my analysis of the sources provided by them, which demonstrate I was right and he was wrong). The fact that local consensus supports you does not make you right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

As Paul Siebert has continued to argue here, I've taken this to WP:ANI.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Good. Already responded. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my position to a broader audience.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

They will tell you to stop like everyone here already has.★Trekker (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede picture and AD/BC vs. CE/BCE

Can we put an older picture of Pilate in the lede? The current one is from the 19th century and doesn't have much to do with the Roman Empire. I'd prefer Pilate Stone, or the 6th century mosaic. (some articles in "Art, literature, and film" are also missing). T8612 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I dislike the current lede image because it shows Pilate from behind. If we do the mosaic I could replace it in the art section with the contemporary Rossano Gospels, which might be a good lede image too actually.

And thanks for that link, I didn't know there was a whole category! I'm trying to limit what I add to things mentioned specifically in RS, since Pilate is in anything that involves the passion.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bit late replying, and I know I'm not really involved with this article, so my opinion isn't really that important. But I like the current lead image. The luminous effect on the toga is a wonderful way of drawing attention to the central figure, despite the fact that you can't see his face—which I'm sure is quite deliberate; how often in art does this happen? And for a figure whose face you can't see, it's amazing that he's still the focus of the painting, even though Christ is standing right behind him and being gestured to, giving the painting its title! I really think it's an amazing picture for all that. By comparison, all of the other images in the article look rather dull to me, even though they're all quite nice individually. P Aculeius (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't speaking of the aesthetic value of the painting; I just questioned its relevance to illustrate a Roman governor, while we have much older pictures. T8612 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm cool with whatever most people want to do on the lede image. And P Aculeius, no reason to apologize for commenting if you aren't "really involved" in the article. If there's been been one good thing that's come of the recent unpleasantness, it's that lots of editors are scrutinizing and improving this page!--Ermenrich (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the images again, the mosaic is quite nice; certainly the most striking of the other images at a glance. But since clearly neither is from life, I'm still inclined toward the more aesthetically pleasing one for the lead. Also, just a suggestion—it's your rewrite, so it's your choice—but I'd rather revert the era from CE to AD. I'm not a Christian, but AD is traditional, and more widely understood; to me CE gives the impression of whitewashing over history—changing the name to make it appear secular—which seems disingenuous, since it's based on the very same thing. I'm not saying that's your intention; just why CE rubs me the wrong way, sort of like "Freedom Fries" and "Liberty Cabbage". P Aculeius (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:Era, the earliest version of the article uses CE [11]. It was apparently changed to AD at some point after that, so I think unless someone can find either a good reason to change it to AD or a discussion where it was already convincingly discussed, it should stay CE per MOS:VAR. I absolutely get your point on it being kind of pointless to use CE to refer to the same events as AD, but it has become the academic standard in Classics (can't speak to Biblical/historical Jesus/Christian history studies) and the use of "Anno Domini" is vehemently objected to by some people as containing a statement of belief in the divinity of Christ.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That is essentially in the US (or North America, ok). It is much less common in the UK & other places. With a household name like this, there will be quite a few of the average 2,365 readers per day who have no clue what BCE or CE mean. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak as to "the academic standard", although having read three Roman histories last year I note that Mary Beard uses CE, but Anthony Everitt and T.J. Cornell both use BC/AD (fortunately I had them sitting next to the computer for reference). And of course all older literature does. Personally I think very few people are actually offended by it; I think the idea that it's offensive to non-Christians is an "academic myth". As for this article, I peeked out of curiosity. It was created with CE in 2002, but changed to AD during major revisions in April of 2004. I didn't take the time to see if it stayed there all of the time since, so it may or may not have. But it's really your choice as you substantially rewrote the article, and the article history isn't determinative. So if you want to stick with CE, that's okay. As you know, I take stick dropping quite seriously at the moment... P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair the person who said he was offended was an academic ;-). Johnbod, I wasn't aware of a difference in British usage, thanks for mentioning it. What does everybody else think?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the Americans who have the "different" usage! Was the Beard book a US edition? On best-selling books, it may be one of the things they change for an American printing along with the spelling. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd assume so, the UPC on the back had US/Canada pricing on it, and the first blurb inside was from the New York Times. Is the era style different in British editions? I'd have assumed it was the author's choice. P Aculeius (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. It may be author's choice, especially with a big name, but publishers may have a house style, as some journals do. After this, I did edits at Common Era, & there's this talk section. It's fairly clear to me that whatever publishers do, the big museums in both US and UK have stayed with BC, eg in the US the MMA, Cleveland Museum of Art, Getty, LACMA. The British ones are the same. I'd imagine they find the wider public isn't ready for CE. See English Heritage's note on their Stonehenge site: "It might seem strange to use a Christian calendar system when referring to British prehistory, but the BC/AD labels are widely used and understood.". Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the British Museum Press had BC and prefixed AD (e.g. "AD 79") in 2013. Beard has BCE/CE in the UK editions of SPQR (Profile Books, 2015) and the US edition of The Roman Triumph (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), but a UK edition of her Confronting the Classics (Profile Books, 2014) has BC/AD, possibly influenced by the house styles of the periodicals that first published those reviews and essays. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I found this story interesting, including the comments from museology pundits - in 2013 the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) in Ottawa, which had previously switched to BCE/CE, decided to change back to BC/AD in material intended for the public, while retaining BCE/CE in academic content, see "Museum of Civilization putting the ‘Christ’ back in history as BC and AD return", by Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press, National Post, 27 February, 2013. I imagine research, which museums will certainly have done, shows that too many of the general public simply don't understand BCE/CE. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I remain biased toward CE/BCE, I guess because of my academic training (having the (Jewish) classics prof tell an anecdote about a contributer on an edited volume who refused to change from AD/BC despite being told it was house style and offended the prof makes an impression!). Since my own work focuses on the Middle Ages I don't have to use either convention very often though, so it's more of a passive bias. Pilate is obviously most important to/famous in Christianity, but he was a governor of a Jewish province. I understand the arguments from the other side though. If we can get a few more people to chime in either way it would help.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Back in the early days of Wikipedia, there was a significant fight over the very subject of AD/BC vs. CE/BCE. It all came to a head when some jerk decided to unilaterally change CE/BCE to AD/BC on a number of articles without prior notice, which (understandably) upset a number of people. I won't rehash all of the discussion from then -- although many thoughtful things were said in favor of each style -- but I think there are two principles that emerged from it that should always be kept in mind: (1) For some articles, one style is more appropriate (e.g. CE/BCE for Jewish & Islamic topics); & (2) it never hurts to ask first & discuss the matter -- even if no one objects -- because it is the polite thing to do. Concerning this article, I feel the matter of AD/BC vs. CE/BCE has been discussed enough here that the lead editor should feel empowered enough to decide which one to use. -- llywrch (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pilate's supposed suicide

This is generally well handled, but I have two small issues with the article as it stands.

The statements of Origen and Celsus (one Christian, one not), who agree that God did not punish Pilate, are much stronger evidence on his later life than the suicide story which Eusebius, a far later and fervently Christian author, reports as a tradition. Therefore, I would say, Eusebius doesn't deserve to be in the lead: possibly Origen and Celsus do.

The three apocryphal texts that also report his suicide, mentioned in this article at the end of the "Apocrypha" section, are hard for the reader to begin to evaluate because there are no links and no indication of when these texts might have been written. None of them has an article on the English Wikipedia. Or am I mistaken? (Perhaps I'd better write something. I found a helpful web page here.) Andrew Dalby 12:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I was unable to find links on those three apocryphal texts - I think some of them may get subsumed into the Gospel of Nicodemus (which is really more of a collection of texts than a single text).

I originally put Eusebius in the lead because I guess historians used to believe him and he's sort of the starting point for discussions of what happened to Pilate. But I certainly see your point and am more than willing to rewrite the lede accordingly.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to both my points! I am about to create articles about those three texts, which are indeed linked with the Gospel of Nicodemus but seem to have separate existences. Andrew Dalby 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now created pages on Vindicta Salvatoris and Cura sanitatis Tiberii; I intend to do Paradosis Pilati soon. Andrew Dalby 15:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Length of section on crucifixion

I just trimmed the crucifixion section down by one paragraph (which was mostly made up of the portrayal in the gospels - some of the same information can still be found in the "Legacy" section). I wonder if it isn't still too long though. Then again, most people will be reading this page because of the crucifixion, so it is probably good to give them a longer exposition on it. What does everyone else think?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is about the right length at the moment; there's nothing in it that isn't focussed on Pilate. I wouldn't want it to be any shorter. Furius (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What would this article need to be a GA or FA?

I've never gone through a GA or FA review before, and I am wondering: what do other editors think that this article would still need in order to pass one?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pilate as Coptic Saint

I'm just going to collect links here so that people stop removing this from the article: The Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox Church venerates Pilate as a saint.[12] In the Coptic and Ethiopian Church, Pilate and his wife were canonized as saints [13] In the Egyptian Coptic church and also in the Ethiopian Orthodox church, Pilate's death is placed on the calendar of saints [14] [Pilate] the popular saint of the Copts [15] This is just what I was able to find on a quick search online. I know that Helen Bond and Hourihane also bring this up, and I have an entire article about it that I never bothered to add to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In French:

Cette note constitue d'abord une retractation, car nous avions trop vite affirrne quelque part dans cette revue qu'on ne pouvait parler d'une reelle veneration de Pilate cornme un saint dans l'Eglise copte.' Les temoignages de l'onomastiquee ne paraissaient pas suffisants; le silence du sanctoral copte et le caractere tardif d'un hymne liturgique isole n'amelloraient guere la situation. Or, un document de valeur inestimable, publie depuis plusieurs annees mais qui nois etait reste inaccessible, vient combler les lacunes historiques et lever tous les doutes, puisqu'aussi bien il atteste pour la fin du Xlls siecle l'existence d'une eglise consacree a Pilate dans le Delta. Il vaut done la peine de reouvrir Ie dossier et d'en exposer ici les pieces aujourd'hui connues. (p. 411)

This note is at first a retraction, because we had too quickly stated somewhere in this review that we could not speak of a real veneration of Pilate as a saint in the Coptic Church. ' The testimonies of onomastics did not appear sufficient; the silence of the Coptic sanctoral and the late character of an isolated liturgical hymn did little to improve the situation. However, a document of inestimable value, published for several years but which was still inaccessible, fills the historical gaps and remove all doubts, since it also attests at the end of the twelfth century to the existence of a church consecrated to Pilate in the Delta. It is therefore worthwhile to reopen the file and to present here the pieces known today. (p. 411)

From: Philippe Luisier, De Pilate chez les Coptes, in Orientalia christiana periodica 62 (1996), 411-426.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate (born c. 20-10 BC, died c. 39 CE)

I added... Pontius Pilate[a] (born c. 20-10 BC, died c. 39 CE) 73.85.200.233 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No reliable sources say this, so I'm removing it.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record, if it had have had a reliable source you should have used "c. 20-10 BCE, died c. 39 CE" or "c. 20-10 BC, died c. 39 AD". Never mix BC with CE (or BCE with AD). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Epistles of Ignatius

Ignatius of Antioch does mention Jesus being crucified during the governorship of Pilate. The consensus of these Epistles are more in favor for their authenticity, and ancient writers do refer to him as a disciple of John the Apostle. Joseph Lightfoot argured extensively in favor for their authenticity after the discovery of the Middle Recension (authentic). — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Leafing through Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist, it seems that Ignatius's epistles and 1 Timothy (which is attributed to Paul but considered a Pseudo-Pauline epistle by modern scholars) are two Christian attestations of Pilate's execution of Jesus that seem to be independent of the Gospels. I'm not sure if/how we should incorporate that information into the article though.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich Where in Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist does he state that Ignatius's Epistles are Pseudo-Pauline? Or are you just referring to 1 Timothy? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm referring to 1 Timothy alone, sorry for not being clear.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It took me some time to find a source that gives a date to the authenticity of his epistles, most sources just say "authentic". In Paul Trebilco's Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius page 631, 105 - 110AD. And specifically which epistles mentioned Pilate are Trallians, Magnesians and Smyrnaeans as stated in Jonathan F. Bayes's The Apostles' Creed: Truth with Passion page 79. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I really thought someone would've added the content mentioned above when I started this discussion, didn't happen...sad emoji 😔. I did it anyway, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone could elaborate the info in Jonathan F. Bayes's source, P79. I think it would best be added after the last paragraph of the sub-section "Trial and execution of Jesus" and there's no need to add Bayes's source, it's already in the article. Thnx. Jerm (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Jerm, the reason I personally never added anything was that Ignatius doesn't actually add any additional information - Ehrman says that he appears to be a source independent of the gospels, but Ignatius says nothing except that Pilate executed Jesus. Potentially we could add that bare mention to the place where we mention sources on the crucifixion at the beginning of the Trial section, if I can relocate the pages in Ehrman (no longer have the physical volume).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I understand, but he's probably one of the earliest sources that mentions Pilate outside of the gospels. Plus someone of his stature in Christianity would at least be note-worthy. Jerm (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman alleged content from Mark 15:15

Therefore, the text should be specified for educational, non-religious reasons.2601:447:4100:C120:513B:52D3:C564:8269 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

But you are using it to make an argument, see WP:VERIFY and the discussion on primary sources, plus the footnote. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I am using it point out an encyclopedic fact. That policy does not contradict my edit, as it's verified through the direct source. That policy specifically refers to verification through reliable sources and it doesn't get any more reliable than the actual text.2601:447:4100:C120:513B:52D3:C564:8269 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't use a primary source to contradict the opinion of a scholar, no matter how wrong you think their interpretation might be.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)