We read in John 18:37-38 how Pilate poses an inquisitive question on Truth to Jesus : > Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate asked him, “What is truth?” The Evangelist does not record as to what answer Jesus gave to Pilate, but goes on to say: > After he (Pilate) had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no case against him.” It is possible that Pilate posed the question on Truth just to tease Jesus, and did not expect an answer. It is also possible that the Lord knew the futility of explaining to Pilate and therefore, kept mum. Be that as it may, John does not record the answer, nor does he talk of Jesus's silence, whichever may have taken place in response to Pilate's query. My question therefore is: **Why does John the Evangelist *not* record Jesus' response to Pilate's query on Truth?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

According to [this post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8456/what-language-did-jesus-speak) : >Both Aramaic and Hebrew were in use in the Land at the time of Jesus. However, while we cannot say one predominated, we can say that Mishnaic Hebrew was very much a living language used by people of all walks of life in Judea and Galilee. So, maybe we are safe to assume that Jesus spoke these languages. Yet, Pontius Pilate was a Roman, who would have spoken Latin. Would he have been able to speak Hebrew? And as such, in the Gospels' account of Pilate's encounter with Jesus, did they speak in Hebrew? Is there any evidence, or perhaps tradition on this?

In an example of exceptional cases, NIV of Mtt 27:17 reads: > When the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”. < The Gospels sometimes use the nick- names of persons, for instance, Thomas which literally means 'the twin '. Now, Barabbas is a prominent figure in the Passion . The literal meaning of the name is ' Son of the Father, implying that his father was equally or more notorious as a criminal. But, then he was not born a criminal, and the nick-name Barabbas was probably imposed on him after he started showing his true colours! So, what was his given name ? In case Jesus shared his given name with the person nicknamed Barabbas, Pilate in the capacity of the judge in the capital punishment proceedings had to be extremely careful in identifying each of the two convicts before him. Is that the reason why he used the attribute of Messiah for Jesus ? Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views on the topic ?

At Matthew 27: 19 we see the advice given to Pilate by his wife during the trial of Jesus: > While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him. Had Pilate acceeded to the advice his wife, Jesus could not have accomplished His Mission. Was it possible that the dream of Pilate's wife had been induced by The Enemy? What is the take of Catholic Church on the dream of Pilate's wife?

I've been reading on some of the Apocrypha lately and a question arose. Why would people make forgeries of such important texts? I understand that the writers were trying to gain followers to their own theological views, but didn't they feel any remorse on creating false texts? If someone would spend so much time on forging a fake "Gospel according to X" or a fake "Acts", or the "Epistle of Pilate to Tiberius" (which is the one forgery that made this question to arise in my mind) then this person would take his faith seriously enough as to justify such an effort. But then again, how come this author doesn't worry about falsifying what Jesus really said, or what his contemporaries thought about Jesus? I'm really puzzled about this. Thanks to all of you for your replies and God bless you.

We see in Luke 23:22 how Pilate states that he did not find it justifiable to award death sentence to Jesus and would therefore let him off after giving a punishment. Though Luke does not state what punishment was in the mind of Pilate, Jn 19:1 specifies that Jesus was flogged.John goes on to state that Pilate tried to release Jesus, but later gave in to the pressure made by the Jewish leaders who had started blackmailing him by taking Caesar's name. Now, we see Jesus dying earlier than was anticipated, presumably on account of the severe scourging . It is doubtful if crucifixion as a punishment was generally preceded by scourging. The fact that some convicts stayed on the cross for days on end before succumbing to loss of blood and breath, proves otherwise. Reading things together , one can assume that flogging was an additional punishment , that could have been avoided in Jesus' case, given that the Jewish leaders had been demanding crucifixion for him. My question therefore is: Was Jesus sentenced twice by Pilate ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

I've looked at the discoveries of things like the Tel Dan Inscription or the Pilate Stone which testify to the existence of David and Pilate. I read that before such archeological discoveries, the existence of people like King David and Pontius Pilate was disputed. Now, it seems that most scholars accept the existence of David, and all accept Pilate existing from what I've seen. Apparently, starting from somewhere around the 17th century, scholars were arguing against Biblical figures existing. They also argued against the Philistines' existence. Every apologist I encounter who brings up these discoveries starts off by saying "Skeptics used to say 'x', but because of these discoveries, we have evidence that 'y' is true, so they agree with us now." But I cannot find many examples of skeptic scholars in the past who have denied the Philistines, David, Pilate, or many other people whose existence is disputed. Maybe I haven't done enough research. But these attacks on skeptics are found on basically all apologist websites defending the validity of the Bible. Here's one example of such a website from a good defender of the Word: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/a-brief-sample-of-old-testament-archaeological-corroboration/ Could someone point me toward some evidence that the scholars doubted the existence of David, Pilate, and the Philistines back in the day? Thanks.

In Luke 23, Jesus is taken to Pilate and Herod to be tried for his supposed crimes against Rome and the Jews. In verse 12, there's an interesting aside: > ¶ And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. (Luke 23:12 , KJV) Why did Luke include this seemingly random statement in his narrative of Jesus' final hours? Do we know anything about the relationship between Pilate and Herod before Jesus' trial, and why did it change with the trial of Jesus?

I recently learned about [Acta Diurna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acta_Diurna) , which are official notices created by Roman authorities describing legal proceedings and the outcome of trials. It occurred to me that the trial of Jesus before Pilate, and his later crucifixion, would probably have wound up on Acta Diurna, as well as surrounding events such as Pilate freeing Barabbas (part of a yearly tradition). The article on Wikipedia (sadly lacking sources) notes that no originals survive, but that scribes sometimes made copies and sent them to provincial governors. Have any copies of these Acta Diurna referring to Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life survived? If not, are there any surviving works that reference such copies?

The time line is answered as seen in this answered question: [Can John's Passion chronology be reconciled with that of the Synoptics?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5040/can-johns-passion-chronology-be-reconciled-with-that-of-the-synoptics/24895#24895) It seems most reasonable to me. Yet I am still left with the question how could Jesus appear before Pilate twice and also Herod and also be scourged and also carry His cross between 6 am and 9 am?

Just looking to find out if this alleged Letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar is authentic or a later forgery? I don't care how it physically describes Jesus, just want to know how it was found and why it's claimed authentic or not. Thanks.

In the Creed in English we see the mention of Jesus having suffered and died 'under Pontius Pilate' . In my native language Malayalam, the counterpart reference says ' in the days of Pontius Pilate' and that appears to be a direct translation from Syriac language. My question is: how did the original texts of the Creed relate of role of Pontius Pilate in the Passion and death of Jesus ?

In Apostles' Creed , the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor. >I believe in God, the Father almighty, >creator of heaven and earth. > >I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, >who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, >born of the Virgin Mary, >**suffered under Pontius Pilate,** >was crucified, died, and was buried; >he descended into hell. >On the third day he rose again; >he ascended into heaven, >he is seated at the right hand of the Father, >and he will come to judge the living and the dead. > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, >the holy catholic and apostolic Church, >the communion of saints, >the forgiveness of sins, >the resurrection of the body, >and the life everlasting. Amen. My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees? From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because > it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify > the martyrs of Christianity.” > > Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which > is the Mystical Body of Christ. That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the *Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else*? So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

From John 19 (KJV): >19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. > >20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. > >21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. > >22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. The chief priests appear to be protesting at what Pilate has written, presumably because it appears to be affirming what they wish to deny. They ask him write instead that 'he said, I am King of the Jews' - notably they do not ask him to remove the title altogether, or to write a denial. Why does Pilate affirm what he has written?

There is a trend among Christians to put the guilt of killing Jesus on Jews rather than on Romans. Some Christians go as far as to proclaiming Pilate a saint (as did either Ethiopian or Coptic church if I am not mistaken). I wonder is there biblical basis for such whitewashing of Pilate? For example, some people on this site claimed in other answers that if Pilate did not execute Jesus, there would be a popular riot or Pilate could be fired from his position. Is there biblical evidence that this indeed would happen and Pilate acted with no choice?

When Jesus is brought before Pilate, he asks him if he is a king. When Jesus admits that he is Pilate says > “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. > > Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” > > “**What is truth?**” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. *(John 18:37-38)* Does Pilate actually believe Jesus, or is he simply being dismissive of Jesus' "naivite" in assuming there is such a thing as truth? I'd like answers that pull from the tradition of mainstream Christian factions and scripture.

I am confused. Since I know salvation must be attained through the sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus Christ, what were the consequences of the actions taken by Pontius Pilate, for Pilate himself. Did the actions he took leading to the crucifixion of Jesus lead him to heaven or not? Are there any major, recognized commentaries about this,and if so, what do they say?