- 1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
- 2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto them, Thou sayest it. 3 And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
- 4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. 5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
- Compare: Matthew 27:12,11-14; Luke 23:1-5; John 18:28-38
Jesus’ Roman Trial
Jesus’ appearance before Pontius Pilate presents the reader with at least as many historical problems as did Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin. Almost nothing here is historically plausible, but historical accuracy was probably not Mark’s goal: there were larger theological and political objectives to pursue.
Why was Jesus taken before Pilate to begin with? According to chapter 15, Jesus was “convicted” by the Jewish authorities of blasphemy. Ignoring the fact that he didn’t technically blaspheme, the punishment for such a charge was stoning — something the Jews may have been able to carry out themselves. The Roman authorities would only have been annoyed at having to be dragged into an internal Jewish dispute.
Why was Pilate in Jerusalem? Pilate’s headquarters were located at Cesarea Maritima, not Jerusalem, but his presence here is one of the few plausible points of the narrative. This was Passover, a major pilgrimage holy day, and there were large numbers of Jews suddenly in the city. Jews had in the past exhibited a tendency to revolt against Roman rule, especially on the basis of religious extremism, so it’s credible that Pilate and some of his troops would have travelled here as well in order to ensure that order was maintained.
Why does Pilate ask Jesus if he is the “King of the Jews”? Now we are finally getting to the real purpose behind this trial. Jesus wasn’t accused of this by the Jewish authorities, but the accusations levied by the Sanhedrin would have been irrelevant to the Romans. Claims of royalty, however, would have interested them greatly. If Jesus were claiming to be King of the Jews, he would have posed a threat to their own authority. The Romans wouldn’t have balked at executing a political dissident or troublemaker.
If this was the real reason for Jesus’ execution, why does Mark make a big show about his being tried and convicted by the Jewish authorities? It’s plausible that they could have held some sort of hearing about him, but by making an official trial out of it Mark is able to shift a significant amount of blame away from the Romans and towards the Jews. This served Mark’s purposes because he was part of a Christian community dealing with significant pressure from the Romans — by insisting that they weren’t blaming the Roman authorities for Jesus’ death, they could appear to be good and loyal citizens.
This also answers the question of why Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a vacillating and indecisive ruler. None of the passages in Mark about Pilate are historically credible. In an age known for its violence and cruelty, the Romans had perfected the use of violence for political and social purposes. In a political system where the exercise of violence was a standard feature, Pilate stood out from his peers for his cruelty — in fact, he was recalled to Rome in 36 CE for abuse of power and excessive cruelty.
The Pontius Pilate who actually existed would not have hesitated to execute one more troublesome Jew if he thought it would preserve order. Even if Jesus had been no more than a madman with no appreciable following that made him a threat, Pilate would likely have executed him just to set an example.
The only plausibly kind thing that might be speculated about Pilate in this situation is if the Temple priests had tried to bring Jesus before him with a laundry list of exclusively religious crimes — in such a case, Pilate may have exhibited disinterest and a reluctance to get involved. It’s unlikely, though, that the priests would have been so careless. If they brought Jesus before Pilate, they would have included a list of political charges he would have cared about.
An interesting parallel is established here between this encounter with Pilate and Jesus’ earlier encounters with demons. Previously, the demons represented evil forces that were willing to acknowledge Jesus’ true identity. Pilate, too, represent forces of evil and he also acknowledges Jesus’ identity — though in an off-handed manner.
