Pilate the villain: an alternative reading of Matthew's portrayal of Pilate

Abstract

Several recent commentaries have assessed Matthew's portrayal of the figure of Pilate in ways that range from having at least some positive characteristic attributed to him to a thoroughly exonerating portrayal. Yet, these views rely on the assumption that Matthew had complete creative control of his representation, unimpeded by the negative traditions concerning the historical figure. This article argues that attributing to Matthew a depiction of Pilate that is in any way positive is incongruent with Matthew's historical context, his view of Jewish Law, as well as numerous internal aspects of his gospel. Rather, it is argued that Matthew crafts a vehemently negative portrayal of Pilate, culminating in 27:24, which would have been recognized as such by and found resonance with his community. An examination of how Matthew modifies and adds uniquely to his source Mark indicates that Matthew was familiar with traditions concerning the historical Pilate, shared a similar--if not even harsher--view, and created a narrative which reflects this.

**********

In recent years several Matthean commentators have assessed Matthew's treatment of Pilate, and in particular verse 27:24, in ways that vary from thoroughly exculpating to primarily condemning. Robert Gundry argues that Matthew gives a resoundingly favorable portrayal of Pilate, a "portrait of Pilate as a Christian" and that his hand washing and declaration of innocence at 27:24 highlight this (561). A more moderate reading of Matthew's treatment of Pilate is that of Davies and Allison, who propose that Matthew depicts a Pilate who, although perhaps wanting to release Jesus, does not exercise his authority to do so, and as such is deemed culpable to some degree by Matthew. Matthew's Pilate, they assert, undertakes a few feeble attempts at releasing Jesus before turning to self-interest. Hence, his denial of his own responsibility in his hand washing and declaration of innocence is understood by Matthew as ironic. Donald Hagner also ascribes to Matthew a portrayal of a somewhat culpable Pilate who relents to the demands of the crowd. Hagner suggests that Matthew's Pilate, although "willing, indeed perhaps inclined" to release Jesus, instead pursues his own interest in striving to please his Judean subjects (824). Hagner asserts that Pilate's hand washing was an attempt to distance himself, yet one which "cannot, however, veil his own complicity, even if reluctant and passive, in the death of Jesus" (826). None of these commentators understand Matthew's treatment of Pilate as overtly polemical, and for each Matthew's Pilate has some redeeming characteristic: he makes an attempt, if half-hearted, to free Jesus (Hagner), or shows reluctance to execute him (Davies & Allison) or even serves as a model of piety who employs a purity ritual to demonstrate this (Gundry). In so doing, these commentators appear to envision Matthew as dealing with Pilate solely as a literary figure, subject only to his editorial manipulations and unconstrained by social memory. Such a view suggests that Matthew was at liberty to do what he wished with the character, and as such could disregard any other perceptions of the historical Pilate. In this article I will argue that Matthew's portrayal of Pilate, as evidenced both by his changes to Mark and especially in his special material, is best understood as giving a strongly negative depiction that would have been understood as such by and found resonance with his community.

Matthew's polemical depiction was prompted by an awareness of the actions of and traditions concerning the historical Pilate. Matthew's depiction culminates in the striking anomaly of a Gentile ruler, notorious for his insensitivity to Judean law and sensibilities, engaging in the motions of a purity ritual described in the Hebrew Bible. Viewing Matthew's depiction as exonerating (as Gundry does) is incongruent with not only the historical context of Matthew and Matthew's view of the Mosaic law, but also with numerous internal aspects of his Gospel. Far from exonerating Pilate, Matthew constructs his depiction of Pilate to evoke memories amongst his community of what they held to be Pilate's unjust actions. Moreover, a negative portrayal of Pilate enabled Matthew to enrich and strengthen several overarching aims of his narrative.

The Force of Social History and Other Depictions of Pilate

As noted, the above commentators all treat Matthew's depiction of Pilate as though he were a literary creation, existent solely within the boundary of Matthew's narrative, and as such free from the inertia of historical memory. While it is true that Matthew's Pilate is in many regards a literary figure, it is erroneous to suppose that Matthew viewed him exclusively as such, or that his audience would agree to just any depiction of Pilate. For, in Matthew's time Pilate was a well-known historical figure: within the Jesus movement as the governor who oversaw Jesus' trial and execution, and within Judean circles as an imperial authority with whom they had had numerous contentions. Indeed, Josephus, a near contemporary of Matthew, depicts a remarkably different Pilate than the one which commentators assert that Matthew did.