The story of Jesus’ trial before Pontius Pilate is well known, but the facts are not completely clear on the role Pilate actually played in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Pilate has often been vilified in the minds of the Catholic people as the one who condemned Jesus to death. This story is told in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but each author provides a different view on Pilate and the events that occurred.
Both Luke and John recount the trial of Jesus, portraying Pilate in a more positive light than Matthew and Mark. Luke and John do this by making Pilate more of a defender of Jesus, making effort to spare his life rather than immediately caving in to the cries for crucifixion. In Matthew and Mark little emphasis is given to Pilate’s declarations of Jesus’ innocence. Instead, Pilate is made to appear weak minded, quickly giving in to the demands of the mob. Pilate never once argues for Jesus’ innocence in either Matthew or Mark. Furthermore, Pilate is shown as questioning Jesus before any charges are even given against him in Matthew and Mark, immediately painting a picture of an unfair trial.
This lack of conviction on Pilate’s part is emphasized by the contrast in Luke and John. The first difference between these two and the books of Matthew and Mark is how the trial starts. The elders among the Jews immediately bring forth their accusations against Jesus, and Pilate listens to these before he begins his questioning. This simple addition gives the feeling of a fairer trial and portrays Pilate in a more professional light. In his credit, Pilate declares Jesus’ innocence three times (Luke 23:4, 14, 22) once he realizes that Jesus has actually committed no crime. Likewise, John follows the theme of three as Pilate tries to release Jesus on three occasions (John 18:39, 19:12, 15); coming to the same conclusion as in Luke that Jesus has done nothing wrong.
The fact that both Luke and John show these acts being performed three times makes Pilate appear as a fair man, as his three actions in both books are the opposite of Peter’s three actions. While Peter, the respected apostle of Jesus, denies knowing Jesus three times, thus abandoning him, Pilate stands up for Jesus three times, attempting to save him from death. The book of Luke even shows Pilate going so far in his attempt to give Jesus his deserved justice by sending him to trial under Herod (Luke 23:8-12). When Jesus is sent back Pilate declares this is further proof of Jesus’ innocence as Herod would have punished Jesus himself if he was found guilty. This behavior does not match the common perception of Pilate being the killer of Jesus, but is in fact most likely more historically accurate. Accounts given of Pilate in history books are not excessive, but what can be gleaned from ancient documents not marred by bias seems to point to him as a relatively fair ruler.
The time he served as governor of Judea did have tension with the Jews, but there are few accounts of violence. Despite this fact, the books of Matthew and Mark put a large amount of emphasis on the poor and violent treatment of Jesus by those serving under Pilate. The book of Matthew recounts Pilate’s soldiers placing the crown of thorns upon Jesus’ head, mocking him as the king of the Jews, spitting upon him as they did so (Matthew 27:27-31). Mark contains an identical story, and both books again mention the mocking of Jesus once he is placed upon the cross. This behavior reflects poorly on the Romans, especially Pilate since he is the one in charge of the soldiers, and brings up feelings of antipathy towards all those involved in the crucifixion of Jesus.
The mocking of Jesus is significantly downplayed in both Luke and John. In Luke, the only mocking that takes place is once Jesus is put upon the cross. The soldiers are only briefly mentioned as mocking him, offering him vinegar and telling him to save himself if he truly is the king of the Jews (Luke 23:36). Similarly, the only mention of mocking in John is a reference to Jesus being scourged (John 19:1). While the mocking is still present, it is not emphasized nearly as much as in Matthew and Mark. In this way there is less to provoke the reader into feeling negatively about the Romans in general. This is one of the ways that Luke and John appear to give a more balanced and historically accurate account of Jesus’ trials.
