RBL 11/27/2000 Bond, Helen K.

Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 100 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. xxvi + 249, Cloth, $59.95, ISBN 0521631149.

Robert J. Karris St. Bonaventure University St. Bonaventure, NY 14778

The major aim of Bond's work is to see how this real historical figure (Pontius Pilate) was used by various Jewish and Christian authors of the first century C.E. as a literary character in their writings. How do Philo, Josephus and the four gospels portray Pilate and what rhetorical concerns have shaped these interpretations of the governor? In particular, have these differing literary presentations of the Roman prefect been influenced by their authors' attitudes towards the Romans with whom they have come in contact?" (p. xvii; emphases mine). Her methodology is to treat Philo and Josephus first, for "the bulk of what we can reconstruct of the historical Pilate is derived from their accounts (p. xix). About the gospels Bond writes: "After a consideration of the general themes in each evangelist's passion narrative, each chapter will give a more detailed description of how the writer concerned presents the prefect as a literary character, asking how a first-century reader would have understood and interpreted Pilate's actions. When this has been established we will ask whether the portrayal of Pilate in each case gives any indication as to the author's attitude towards the Roman state, and what kind of readers might have found this useful" (p. xx). In these statements of aim and methodology we glimpse a deficiency in this monograph, for they outline the author's plan of study and do not really provide a methodology. For example, there is no serious engagement with the considerable literature, at least on this side of the Atlantic, about rhetorical criticism, reader-response criticism, implied authors and implied audiences, the uses of irony in depicting a literary character, and the strengths and weaknesses of redaction-criticism. Along the way Bond

This review was published by RBL 2000 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

will provide some clues about her positions on these general issues of methodology, but there is no initial or sustained consideration of these important matters. What do we know of the Pilate of history? He was of equestrian rank and was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from 26-37 C.E. During the first six years of Pilate's tenure the Syrian legate Lamia was in Rome. Thus, Pilate would have had great difficulty in contacting him if he needed the support of his legions. This situation "would mean that any potential uprising had to be put down quickly before it could escalate" (p. 15). From Philo's Legatio ad Gaium 299-305 we learn that Pilate set up gilded aniconic shields honoring Tiberius in Herod's palace in Jerusalem. Bond dates this event to the troubled times shortly after the death of Sejanus in 31 C.E. and views it as the action of a prefect intent on showing his loyalty to the Emperor. Philo interprets Pilate's action in the traditional stereotypical polemic he uses against "corrupt governors" who are against the Law and Judaism. In his Jewish War 2.169-177, Josephus describes two events involving Pilate: his introduction of iconic standards into Jerusalem and his appropriation of Temple funds to build an aqueduct in the city. Josephus interprets these two events in accordance with his foremost rhetorical aim in the War "the insistence that resistance against Rome is futile and only passive acceptance of Roman rule can produce harmony amongst subject peoples" (p. 62). Josephus depicts Pilate as loyal to Rome, intent on preserving law and order, flexible in the face of a religious demonstration, averse to excessive bloodshed, and a relatively able governor. In his Jewish Antiquities 18.55-89, Josephus details four narratives involving Pilate: the standards, the aqueduct, the execution of Jesus, "a wise man," and an incident involving Samaritans that culminated in his departure to Rome at the order of Vitellius. In a statement that blends Josephus's historical account with his interpretation, Bond writes, "although he (Pilate) governs with a certain degree of competency, he sets himself against the Jewish Law and is eventually sent back to Rome by Vitellius to answer for his crimes" (p. 93). With these analyses of Philo and Josephus providing the core of the historical Pilate, Bond treats each of the four gospels. A common viewpoint that the Pilate of Jewish sources is harsh and aggressive whereas the Pilate of Christian sources is weak and vacillating is too simplistic. Indeed, the evangelists are quite diverse in their presentations of Pilate. For example, the Pilate of Mark's Gospel is "a skillful politician, manipulating the crowd to avoid a difficult situation, a strong representative of imperial interests. This picture of a strong, domineering governor ties in well with the element of persecution behind Mark's gospel" (p. 205). Of Matthew she writes: "The portrayal of the prefect is

This review was published by RBL 2000 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

secondary to Matthew's interest in showing the Jewish crowd rejecting its Messiah and accepting responsibility for this action, suggesting that for Matthew's community relations with Judaism were more serious and urgent than relations with Rome" (pp. 205206). For Luke "Pilate plays an important role as the representative of Roman law who declares Jesus innocent. Yet, like the governors before whom Christians are made to stand trial in Acts, he is of a rather dubious character . . . . In contrast, John's Pilate is manipulative, derisive and sure of his own authority . . . . In John's presentation, Pilate is allied with the hostile 'world' which rejects Jesus" (p. 206). This is a good and helpful study. Bond's treatment of the gospels might have engaged more widely with literary critical studies, such as Jerry Camery-Hoggatt's Irony in Mark's Gospel and might have entered into a more comprehensive dialogue with studies on the passion narratives, for example, Donald Senior's four volumes. More consideration might also have been given to those who view Luke's situation as one of persecution. A chart setting out the six interpretations of the historical Pilate would aid readers in sorting through their diversity.

This review was published by RBL 2000 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.