1 Kings 9:24-10:13

24 But Pharaoh's daughter went up from the city of David to her own house that Solomon had built for her; then he built the Millo.

25 Three times a year Solomon used to offer up burnt offerings and sacrifices of well-being on the altar that he built for the LORD, offering incense before the LORD. So he completed the house.

26 King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. 27 Hiram sent his servants with the fleet, sailors who were familiar with the sea, together with the servants of Solomon. 28 They went to Ophir, and imported from there four hundred twenty talents of gold, which they delivered to King Solomon.

10:1 When the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, (fame due to the name of the LORD), she came to test him with hard questions. 2 She came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices, and very much gold, and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she told him all that was on her mind. 3 Solomon answered all her questions; there was nothing hidden from the king that he could not explain to her. 4 When the queen of Sheba had observed all the wisdom of Solomon, the house that he had built, 5 the food of his table, the seating of his officials, and the attendance of his servants, their clothing, his valets, and his burnt offerings that he offered at the house of the LORD, there was no more spirit in her.

6 So she said to the king, "The report was true that I heard in my own land of your accomplishments and of your wisdom, 7 but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it. Not even half had been told me; your wisdom and prosperity far surpass the report that I had heard. 8 Happy are your wives! Happy are these your servants, who continually attend you and hear your wisdom! 9 Blessed be the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel! Because the LORD loved Israel forever, he has made you king to execute justice and righteousness." 10 Then she gave the king one hundred twenty talents of gold, a great quantity of spices, and precious stones; never again did spices come in such quantity as that which the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon.

11 Moreover, the fleet of Hiram, which carried gold from Ophir, brought from Ophir a great quantity of almug wood and precious stones. 12 From the almug wood the king made supports for the house of the LORD, and for the king's house, lyres also and harps for the singers; no such almug wood has come or been seen to this day.

13 Meanwhile King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba every desire that she expressed, as well as what he gave her out of Solomon's royal bounty. Then she returned to her own land, with her servants. (1 Kings 9:24-10:13, NRSV)

On September 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 31, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement.

This reading begins with a collection of brief notes about Solomon’s accomplishments. We are told that “Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her own house that Solomon had built for her; then he built the Millo” (1 Kgs. 9:24). According to Lawrence E. Toombs, “millo,” which means “earthen fill” is “a type of construction in which a building, a section of a city, or an entire site was elevated on an artificial platform of earth held in place by one or more walls. The earthen platform is the ‘millo’ and the structure built on the platform is the ‘house of the millo’ (Heb. bêth-millô [Ol0m9-tyBe])” Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. millo). Iain W. Provan says, “Millo [was] probably the terraces supporting the walls and public buildings of Jerusalem” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Kgs. 9:15).

“Three times a year,” it is reported, “Solomon used to offer up burnt offerings and sacrifices of well-being on the altar that he built for the LORD, offering incense before the LORD. So he completed the house” (v. 25). “According to Robert R. Wilson, “This account of Solomon’s other activities probably comes from official archives” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Kgs. 9:15-25).

The narrative moves on to Solomon’s fleet of ships. “King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber, which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom” (v. 26). This was another joint project with Hiram of Tyre. “Hiram sent his servants with the fleet, sailors who were familiar with the sea, together with the servants of Solomon. They went to Ophir, and imported from there four hundred twenty talents of gold, which they delivered to King Solomon” (vv. 27-28). Ziony Zevit says, “Solomon and Hiram undertook a joint venture in a combination of land and sea trade. Hiram provided the seafaring know-how and Solomon granted overland access to the port at Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Eilat. From there, both kings had access to the Red Sea and beyond (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 1 Kgs. 9:26-28). Wilson says, “Because Israel was not known for trading by sea, the fleet represents an attempt to expand Solomon’s economic base” (op. cit., on 1 Kgs. 9:26-28). “Ophir,” he adds, was “a renowned source of gold (Job 22:24; 28:16; Ps. 45:9; Isa. 13:12. It’s exact location is uncertain” (ibid., on v. 28). According to Zevit, the location of Ophir, though “uncertain . . . has been identified with ports or regions in Ethiopia, North Somalia, South Arabia, and even India” (op. cit., on v. 28).

With this background, the narrative turns to the visit of “the queen of Sheba” (10:1-3). “When the queen of Sheba heard of the fam of Solomon (fame due to the name of the LORD),” we are told, “she came to test him with hard questions” (v. 1). Sheba is “the Hebrew spelling of the South Arabic name Saba, an area of great wealth (Isa. 60:6; Jer. 6:20; Ezek. 2;7:22-25)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Sheba, no. 4). People of Saba, or Seba were known as Sabeans. According to Roger S. Boraas,

From the evidence of archaeological work begun in 1762 and continuing to this day . . . it is clear that the Sabeans occupied the portion of southwest Arabia that is today the land of Yemen. It was comparatively well watered and fertile but the resources were augmented by extensive irrigation facilities (as at Marib). The Sabeans’ location was also fortunate for trade development. . . . While Sabean history is only sketchily known, its Semitic inhabitants successfully developed caravan trade by the tenth century B.C. as evidenced by the visit of the queen of Sheba to Solomon (1 Kings 10:1-13; 2 Chron. 9:1-12). (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Seba, Sabeans)

The narrator tells us that the Queen of Sheba “came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices, and very much gold, and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she told him all that was on her mind” (v. 2). According to Ziony Zevit, “the story [of the queen’s coming] tells [implies?] that the queen came to meet a potential trading partner” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 1 Kgs. 10:1). As the story continues, “Solomon answered all her questions; there was nothing hidden from the king that he could not explain to her” (v. 3). She was most certainly duly impressed. “When the queen of Sheba had observed all the wisdom of Solomon, the house that he had built, the food of his table, the seating of his officials, and the attendance of his servants, their clothing, his valets, and his burnt offerings that he offered at the house of the LORD, there was no more spirit (H1Ur, rûach) in her” (vv. 4-5). According to Provan, she “was left breathless (there was no more spirit in her, v. 5) by Solomon’s magnificence” (op. cit., on 10:1-13).

The queen says that Solomon measures up to his reputation, as “she said to the king, ‘The report was true that I heard in my own land of your accomplishments and of your wisdom, but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it. Not even half had been told me; your wisdom and prosperity far surpass the report that I had heard’ ” (vv. 6-7). “The focus,” says Provan, by which he apparently means the focus of the narrator as much or more than that of the queen, “is again on the benefits royal wisdom brings to the royal court, and particularly to Solomon himself, rather than on any benefit to the people (vv. 7-8). “Happy are your wives!” exclaims the queen. Happy are these your servants, who continually attend you and hear your wisdom!” (v. 8). While praising Solomon’s virtues, she gives credit to Israel’s God. “Blessed be the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel! Because the LORD loved Israel forever, he has made you king to execute justice and righteousness” (v. 9). And the queen honors Solomon with expensive gifts. “Then she gave the king one hundred twenty talents of gold, a great quantity of spices, and precious stones; never again did spices come in such quantity as that which the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon” (v. 10)

In a parenthetical reference, we are told that “the fleet of Hiram, which carried gold from Ophir, brought from Ophir a great quantity of almug wood and precious stones. From the almug wood the king made supports for the house of the LORD, and for the king's house, lyres also and harps for the singers; no such almug wood has come or been seen to this day” (vv. 11-12). According to Zevit, “Information about almug wood and how it was used dates the Ophir venture to within a few years of Solomon’s initial arrangement with Hiram. These verses interrupt the account of the queen’s visit” (op. cit., on vv. 11-12). Provan says, “Almug [is] a wood of uncertain species” (op. cit., on v. 12); but it has been called “a special kind of wood, perhaps red sandalwood (Pterocarpus santalinus). . . . The parallels [to 1 Kgs. 10:11-12] in 2 Chron. 2:7 and 9:10-12 have algum, perhaps by transposition of two letters. The occurrence of a similar word in Ugaritic (almg) suggests that the spelling in Kings is correct” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. almug).

The narrative returns to the queen’s visit, and tells us that, “King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba every desire that she expressed, as well as what he gave her out of Solomon’s royal bounty. Then she returned to her own land, with her servants” (v. 13). According to Provan, it was “the worldwide fame of Solomon, which attracted foreigners to his court (4:34), [that] also brought the queen of Sheba” (op. cit., on 10:1-13). Zevit says, “The story of the que3en’s visit to Solomon continues the them e of wisdom and wealth (3:12-13). It interrupts the report of his trading venture, which continues in 10:14, and was inserted because of its thematic connection to the international business ventures” (op. cit., on 10:1-13).

James 3:1-12

            A Warning for Teachers; Bridling the Tongue

3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4 Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits.

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7 For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no one can tame the tongue--a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh. (James 3:1-12, NRSV)

On November 18, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), comments were repeated from September 28, 2008 (the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from September 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, 2007), comments that were repeated from September 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, 2007). The comments were combined with revision and supplement on November 21, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), with comments of earlier dates, as noted there. The combined comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

In this reading James begins with a warning for teachers. “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (Jas. 3:1). The continuation with warnings about improper speaking has relevance for all of us, but especially for teachers. James B. Adamson explains the warning for teachers:

In the Jewish Diaspora congregations [i.e. among those whom James addresses] there was an order of ‘teachers,’ which this passage suggests was in danger of being overrun by unworthy members and candidates. . . . Apparently James himself was a member of the order: ‘we shall be adjudged. . . . though a few [later manuscripts] and versions emend to the second person to soften this inclusiveness. This chapter, though not formally addressed to this order, is specially aimed at them: vv. 1-12 caution the sincere against the constant danger of sinning with the tongue, a danger inseparable from the teaching profession. (The Epistle of James, NICNT, 1976, p. 140)

James makes some concession to human weakness. “For all of us make many mistakes,” he says. “Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle” (v. 2). According to Cain Hope Felder, “The comment on the human tendency to make . . . mistakes, appears to qualify the earlier insistence on the goal of perfection (1:4)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jas. 2:2). James presents the analogy of using a “bridle” and “bits” to control a horse. “If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies” (v. 3). By analogy, if one controls his tongue, he controls his life, his teaching, in the present context. Another analogy compares the tongue to a ship’s rudder. “Or look at ships,” says James: “though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits” (vv. 4-5a).

The metaphor shifts from the ship to the forest fire. “How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!” (v. 5b). James emphasizes the fire analogy. “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature (troco;n th:V genevsewV, trochon tēs genesōs (‘Or wheel of birth’ NRSV text note b), and is itself set on fire by hell” (v. 6). Cain Hope Felder comments on “a series of analogies [which] develops the argument: horses (v. 3), ships (v. 4), forest . . . fire (v. 5),” and what he calls “the peculiar reference ([NRSV] note b) to the wheel of birth (a Hellenistic philosophical concept for the transmigration of souls)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jas. 3:3-7). Martin Dibelius comments at length on this phrase, which he says originates in “Orphic notions of the cycle of becoming and passing away”:

The soul cannot perish, and so long as it is not sanctified and purified it must repeatedly be born from death to a new earthly existence. Therefore the goal of Orphic sanctification is to bestow salvation from this fate, freedom from the cycle. (James; A Commentary on the Epistle of James, rev. by Heinrich Greeven, transl. by Michael A. Williams, Hermeneia–a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, 1976, in an excursus on “The Cycle of Becoming,” p. 196, cf. pp. 196-198)

But Dibelius does not attribute this understanding of the phrase to James.

But it must be kept in mind that in his use of this term Jas. is signifying little more than ‘life,’ perhaps with a pessimistic overtone such as others of the period heard in the words ‘Necessity’ ( =Anavgkh see Philo) and ‘Fate’ (EiJmarmevnh [Heimarmenē], see Simplicius). Therefore, the adoption of an originally Orphic expression by an author such as ours can be understood. . . . Hence, the derivation of this term from more remote religious circles–India or Babylon [as some do]–may be rejected. (ibid., p. 198)

James adds another analogy: “For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue–a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas. 3:7-8). Felder sees the phrase “taming the tongue [as] amplifying the pairing of “not bridling the tongue” and “deception” in 1:26, while intensifying the critique of those who disregard the need to control their speech (cf. Sir 5:10-14)” (op. cit., on v. 8).

James knows that the tongue may be used well, or used very badly. “With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing” (vv. 9-10a). James deplores this situation. “My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so” (v. 10b). He illustrates with two further analogies, the first a comparison with a spring of water. He asks, “Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water?” (v. 11). Dibelius rejects understanding this as “an allegorical reference to the human being in the word ‘spring’ (phghv [pēgē]) and to the mouth in the word ‘opening’ (ojphv [opē]), [although this] has seemed to be a quite natural interpretation. Such an allegorical interpretation is superfluous, since by it the thought is at most made more confusing and is in no way clarified” (op. cit., on Jas. 3:11). James’s second analogy is biological. “Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh” (v. 12). Compare Jesus’ saying about figs: “Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush” (Lk. 6:44; cf. Mt. 7:16).

As James turns to another topic, “Wisdom from Above” (subheading, Kurt Aland and others, The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, on Jas. 3:13-18), he admonishes: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom” (v. 13). The warnings in this chapter are especially appropriate for teachers. According to Warren A. Quanbeck and Pheme Perkins, “Two besetting sins of the teacher are rebuked: intemperate speech (vv. 1-12) and arrogance (vv. 13-18 [from tomorrow’s lesson])” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Jas. 3:1-18). Teaching is an essential function within society in general as well as in the church. Pray that we may do it in a proper spirit, with dedication both to truth and to the well-being of those with whom we work.

Mark 15:1-11

            Jesus Before Pilate

15:1 As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. 2 Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" He answered him, "You say so." 3 Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 Pilate asked him again, "Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you." 5 But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.

6 Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. 7 Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8 So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9 Then he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. (Mark 15:1-11, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from September 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One):

As noted yesterday, the relationships among the four Gospels’ passion narratives are rather complex. For the accounts of Jesus before Pilate and related episodes, see the separate file, Pilate. Those interested may find recent comments on Matthew’s version of these events in the Archives for July 25 and 26, 2008 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), recent comments on Luke’s version in the Archives for July 1 and 2, 2009 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), and recent comments on John’s version in the Archive for February 5, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two). The following comments are derived for the most part from the previous comments on Matthew and Mark:

From the parallel accounts, it would appear that Matthew, Mark and Luke are following the same time line. “As soon as it was morning,” says Mark, “the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate” (Mk. 15:1). Matthew’s report is similar, but clearly states that “all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death” (Mt. 27:1, cf. v. 2). Both Gospels have previously reported the interrogation of Jesus by the Council (Mk. 14:55-65; Mt. 26:59-68). But Luke has no report of a trial during the night, so when he says, “When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council” (Lk. 22:66), he presents a daytime version of the trial before the Council (Lk. 22:66-71; cf. Mk. 14:53-65; Mt. 26:57-68; cf. comments on Sept. 3, Monday of this week). David L. Tiede says, “In Luke the trial before this body [the Council, or Sanhedrin] occurs during the day . . . and has none of the fierce charges or verdicts of Mt. 26:61, 65-66 or Mk. 14:58, 63-64” (HarperCollins Study Bible, 1^st ed., 1993, on Lk. 22:66; cf. Tiede and Christopher R. Matthews in the 2^nd ed., 2006). It is often pointed out that a nighttime trial would be contrary to Jewish law, as codified in the Mishnah. But Raymond E. Brown says, “there is no reason to suppose that Jews of A.D. 30 would have strictly observed procedures not codified until two centuries later in the Mishnah, the rabbinical collation of oral law interpreting the Bible” (cited by Richard N. Ostling, “Why Was Christ Crucified?” Time, Monday, April 4, 1994, on the Internet at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980467,00.html, accessed again Sept. 1, 2009).

John tells us that the council members “did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover” (Jn. 18:28b), a point not mentioned in the other Gospels, who report that Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples the night before. Mark continues with Pilate’s question to Jesus. “Are you the King of the Jews?” and Jesus’ response, “You say so” (Mk. 15:2), which, after a report of the death of Judas (Mt. 27:3-10, not included by the others), Matthew also presents (Mt. 27:11;). For details on Matthew’s report of the death of Judas, see the comments noted above in the Archive for July 25, 2008. The accusations of Jesus presented to Pilate come from the “chief priests” (Mk. 15:3), or “the chief priests and the elders” (Mt. 27:12). Luke begins with the accusations, which lead directly to Pilate’s question. “They [i.e. ‘The assembly [that] rose as a body,’ Lk. 23:1] began to accuse him, saying, ‘We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king’ ” (Lk. 23:2). Then Luke comes to Mark’s initial question by Pilate and Jesus’ response (v. 3). When Jesus does not respond to the charges, Mark and Matthew report that Pilate is “amazed” (Mk. 15:5; Mt. 27:14). In Luke’s account, Pilate immediately says, “I find no basis for an accusation against this man” (Lk. 23:4). David Tiede and Christopher R. Matthews see here “The first of a series of affirmations of Jesus’ innocence by Rome (see vv. 14-15, 22, 41, 47; see also Acts 3:14; 7:52)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 23:4). We might add a series of affirmations of Paul’s innocence by Roman authorities in the Book of Acts (e.g., by Gallio, Acts 18:14-15, the Tribune Claudius Lysias, Acts 23:29, and Festus, Acts 25:25).

At this point, after noting the insistence of Jesus’ accusers (Lk. 23:5), Luke tells us that Pilate, upon hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, refers Jesus to Herod Antipas, but fails thereby to “pass the buck,” as it were (Lk. 23:6-12). At this point in John there is an extensive conversation between Jesus and Pilate (Jn. 18:29-38; 19:8-15), most of which is not included in the other Gospels. In Luke, when Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate, Pilate reaffirms Jesus’ innocence (Lk. 23:13-16). Mark proceeds immediately to Pilate’s offer to release a prisoner, as he was used to doing at the festival (Mk. 15:6; cf. Mt. w27:15), clearly expecting to release Jesus in this way. But the crowds demand Barabbas instead (Mk. 15:8-11), the man who “was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection (v. 7). In Matthew, after “a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas” is mentioned (Mt. 27:16), Pilate puts the question to the gathered crowd, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” (v. 17).. In Mark the question is merely, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” (Mk. 15:9; cf. Jn. 18:39). According to Matthew, Pilate has been warned by his wife, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him” (Mt. 27:19). Krister Stendahl (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, sec. 694 e, p. 796 on Mt. 27:19), points to two features of Matthew’s version of this scene that are not found in the other Gospels, the dream and the warning from his wife, and his demonstration of “how he has no guilt in Jesus’ execution,” that is, his washing his hands (v. 24), which point to “a tendency” to blame the Jews. All the Gospels say that the crowds called for release of Barabbas and crucifixion of Jesus (Mt. 26:21-22; Mk. 15:11,13; Lk. 23:18, 20; Jn. 18:40; 19:12, 15). Matthew and Mark blame the leaders, “the chief priests” (Mk. 15:11), “the chief priests and elders” for persuading the crowds “to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed” (Mt. 27:20; cf. Mk. 15:11). When Pilate protests, “Why, what evil has he done?” (Mt. 27:23a; Mk. 15:14a; Lk. 22:22a), cf. “Shall I crucify your king?” (Jn. 19:15a), the crowd insists: “But they shouted all the more, ‘Let him be crucified’” (Mt. 27:23b; cf. Mk. 15:14b; Lk. 23:23). And so, as Luke puts it, “So Pilate gave his verdict that their demand should be granted” (Lk. 23:24).

Some ascribe the description in the Gospels of Pilate’s hesitation before condemning Jesus (Mk. 15:9-10; cf. Mt. 27:17-20; Jn. 18:39) to a Christian tendency “to take the blame away from the Romans and put it on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities” (C. M. Tuckett, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 919, on Mk. 15:1-15). Tuckett explains further: The picture of Pilate here as weak and vacillating, anxiously trying to please the Jews, in no way squares with what we know from elsewhere of the man, viz., a cruel tyrant who would have not had the slightest compunction in executing an odd Jew or two to keep the peace.” But Raymond E. Brown has a rather different assessment of the evidence:

Outside Christian tradition the picture of Pilate given by Josephus is not favorable; Philo’s depiction is extremely hostile, and even Roman sources do not ennoble Pilate. Most often this harsh portrayal has been accepted as history over against Christian amelioration, but now revisionist scholars are being more cautious. They point out that the Roman historian Tacitus disliked the equestrian class to which Pilate belonged and did not always do justice to members of that class who held public office. In his Ant. Josephus added to the Pilate stories hostile details absent from the earlier War, thus raising the issue of accuracy and veracity. (Brown, The Death of the Messiah, I, 697).

Compare selections from a review of Helen Bond, Pontius Pilate in history and interpretation (Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), reviewed by Elizabeth Amanda Howey (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-09-19.html, accessed again Sept. 1, 2009; you may have to cut and paste the URL):

Having placed Pilate in context, B. then approaches her textual sources. Her primary concerns are the two images of Pilate derived from academic interpretations of the Jewish and Christian texts. Readings of Jewish source material invariably portray Pilate as a headstrong individual given to insensitivity and poor judgement. His period of control is marked by acts of deliberate anti-Semitic provocation and tyrannical suppression.

Traditional sources for such interpretation are Philo's Legato ad Gail, Josephus' War and the Antiquities of the Jews. Traditional interpretation of these since Schurer's Geschichte des Judischen Volkes have afforded great credibility to these accounts of heavy handed, insensitive behaviour. Stauffer and Smallwood in particular have combined textual interpretation with study of numismatic designs to argue for a conscious anti-Semitic policy in Pilate's government.

B. overturns such readings, arguing that they are indicative of shallow and generalised readings of a more complex situation. In her re-reading of the incident of the Aniconic shields in the Legatio, B. argues that Philo's gloss of political rhetoric and theological motivation exaggerates the malicious intent in an otherwise carefully planned act of Imperial piety. B. cites in particular Pilate's avoidance of Imperial imagery, limited inclusion of inscription material and placement of shields in buildings reserved for Roman administration and activity.

Again, in her discussion of Josephus, B. concentrates on the historical subtext of the pieces, not their accusations. The concluding image of Pilate is once again favourable. B. accepts that Pilate was by no means infallible. He was certainly not above utilising forcible measure of control, as the extracts concerning the Temple funds and the Samaritan uprising indicate. But equally in the account of the Imperial standards, B. provides valid evidence of a flexible Governor willing to extend a certain leniency to his subjects.

Raymond E. Brown does not go so far as to conclude that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ hearing before Pilate are “historical,” but with a couple exceptions–“Both John and Luke are stylized in having Pilate three times declare Jesus innocent–he says, “the NT descriptions of Pilate with their variations are not patently implausible. . . . the theory that the Gospels exculpate the Romans by creating a totally fictional, sympathetic Pilate has been overdone” (The Death of the Messiah, I, 704).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net