1ࠗ༡ᒣ⚄Ꮫ࠘42 ྕ㸦2019 ᖺ 3 ᭶㸧pp. 1-24.

PORTRAITS OF PILATE ACCORDING TO THE
CHRISTIANS’ CANONICAL WRITINGS AND
JEWISH HISTORICAL WORKS
Part four: Pilate in the Narrative of Matthew’s Gospel
Janusz KUCICKI
Introduction

As the one of Synoptic Gospel, the Gospel according to Matthew is a part oflong discussion concerning relationship between three Gospels (Mt; Mk; Lk),
where the most exiting topic regards relationship between the Mark’s Gospel
and the Matthew’s Gospel1. Although tradition places the Gospel of Matthew on
the first place in the New Testament, the resent studies prefer the Gospel of Markas the first written Gospel that serves for Matthew and Luke as one of the sources
for their versions. Depends on the preference, the information concerning theGospel of Matthew may differ, and for this reason, without going into thedetailing explanation we present the basic and very general description of thiswriting. According to the tradition, the author the Matthew’s Gospel is theapostle Matthew, however this tradition is challenged due to the Synoptic
Problem2. The addressers of the Gospel are Palestinian Christian or Christian(both from Gentile and from Jews) living in east parts of Mediterranean Sea,
which also indicates the palace of origin that usually is determined as Palestine
Brief and holistic presentation of the Synoptic Gospels is offered by: C. R. Holladay, A
Critical Introduction to the New Testament, Abingdon Press, Nashville 2005, pp. 39-51.
2 More about the problem of the author of the Matthew’s Gospel, cf. C. Mitch & E. Sri, The
Gospel of Matthew, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids 2010, pp. 16-18.
1

2
or Syria 3 . Concerning the date of composition of the Gospel, it depends ofaccepted authorship of the writing. If the author is the apostle Matthew, it was
written after AD 70, that means after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.
However, if the author differs from the apostle Matthew, the Gospel was
probably written in Ad 80’s or 90’s 4 . Concerning the genre, naturally the
Matthew’s writing is a Gospel, which primal purpose is proclaiming Jesus as theSon of God 5 . Depends on an approach to the Matthew’s Gospel several
structures were presented6. For a purpose of this study, here, we will present
only a structure of narrative regarding the trail of Jesus (Mt 27, 11-26), which isthe basic text for analysis concerning Matthew’s presentation of Pilate. The
pericope (Mt 27, 11-26) can be divided into three parts, where first one concerns
Jesus’ trial before Pilate (Mt 27, 11-14); the second one concerns the Pilate
arguing with Jews (Mt 27, 15-23); and third one concerns a problem of
responsibility for Jesus’ death (Mt 27, 24-26). The structure of the first pericope(Mt 27, 11-14) is: A-B-A1 where A is verse 11 (now Jesus stood before the governor;
and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You say so);
B is verse 12 (but when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not
answer); and A1 are verses 13-14 (then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many
accusations they make against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single
charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed). This structure exposes that themain issue of this pericope is Jewish accusation. The second pericope (Mt 27, 1523) has structure A-B-A1 where A are verses 15-19 (now at the festival the governor

D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, MG, Collegeville 2007, pp. 10-16.
J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, Paternoster Press, Grand Rapids 2005, pp. 14-17.
5 Some scholars attempt to specify the genre.
For some examples, cf. G. R. Osborne,
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Matthew, Zondervan, Grand Rapids 2010, pp.
30-31.
6 For some the most representative structures cf. G. R. Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the
New Testament. Matthew, pp. 40-47.
3
4

3
was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. At thattime, they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. So, after they had gathered,
Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus
who is called the Messiah?" For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had
handed him over. 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) which concerns Pilate’s involvement in election by
the crowd a one prisoner to be freed; B is verse 20 (now the chief priests and theelders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed) whichindicates the Sanhedrin’s influence over the crowd in matter of favoring
Barabbas; and A1 are verses 21-23 (the governor again said to them, "Which of thetwo do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." Pilate said to them,"Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?" All of them said, "Lethim be crucified!" Then he asked, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all
the more, "Let him be crucified!) which expose Pilate’s action in order to free Jesus.
The structure of the second pericope shows that the main focus is the action of
the Sanhedrin. The third pericope (Mt 27, 24-26) has structure A-B-A1 where A
is verse 24 (And when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that ariot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the multitude, saying,"I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves.") exposing Pilate’s denials
of taking responsibility for Jesus’ death; B is verse 25 (And all the people answered
and said, "His blood be on us and on our children!") showing that Jews accept the
responsibility for Jesus’ death, and A1 is verse 26 (Then he released Barabbas forthem; but after having Jesus scourged, he delivered Him to be crucified) indicating that
Romans did the death penalty. The structure of the third pericope indicates theJewish responsibility for Jesus execution. The analysis of the structure ofnarrative concerning Jesus’ trial seems to expose that the main author’s focus, inpositive way, is Jews’ responsibility for rejection of Jesus. Indirectly, in negative

4way, it exposes lack of any responsibility for Jesus’ death on side of the prefect(in particular) and Romans (in general).

1. Introducing Pilateκαὶ δήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. (Mt 27,
2)
They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor.
(Mt 27, 2)Matthew for very first time introduces Pilate as the governor, even if this title
was reserved in strict technical meaning for the Roman official ruling theprovince of Syria, which Judea was only one of the part7. In fact, Pilate was aprefect – a commander of auxiliary Roman troops, who takes responsibility for
maintaining an order in Judea, which de facto including the collecting of taxes
and protecting the Cesare’s properties in this region 8. Prefect was in Judea a
representing the governor of Syria Province, to whom was subordinated9. For
this reason, his prerogatives were limited, and inhabitances of Judea have rights
to apple to the governor of Syria, when they found the decision of a prefect tobe unjust. It forced a prefect to cooperate to some extensive with local
administration, which in case of Judea was represented by the elite related to theJerusalem Temple. Since, the local administration was semi-independent(mostly in matter concerning religious and cultural issues) they may make plans,

Similar to Luke’s narrative (Lk 3, 1), but contrary to Mark’s narrative where the title is not
used (Mk 15, 1).
8 G. R. Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Matthew, p. 1010.
9 The date of Pilate’s administration of Judea (26-36 AD) as prefect is known to us from
Josephus Flavius’ account concerning the prefects and procurators of Judea (BJ 2.169-170),
among whom Pilate is the fifth in group of prefects.
7

5
decisions or judgements in limits of their powers, but all of them must be
approved by the prefect. The trial of Jesus is one of these cases, where theSanhedrin within the Jewish trail, after founding Jesus guilty, condemned him
to death (Mt 26, 66), but this decision has to be approved by the Pilate10. He is
the person who will have to make a decisive sentence, which makes him theagent taking the main responsibility for Jesus’ fate.

2. A trial before Pilate (Mt 27, 11-14)11Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος· καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ

ἡγεμὼν λέγων· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη· σὺ λέγεις.
12καὶ ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων

οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο.
καταμαρτυροῦσιν;

1314τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· οὐκ ἀκούεις πόσα σουκαὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲ ἓν ῥῆμα, ὥστεθαυμάζειν τὸν ἡγεμόνα λίαν.
11(Mt 27, 11-14)

Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, "Are you

the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You say so." 12 But when he was accused by
the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, "Do
you not hear how many accusations they make against you?" 14 But he gave
him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly
amazed. (Mt 27, 11-14)


10

Between the narrative concerning the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Mt 26, 57-68) andthe information regarding handing Jesus to the prefect (Mt 27, 2), Matthew placed anarrative concerning Peter’s denial of Jesus (Mt 26, 69-75) and between the information
about handing Jesus (Mt 27, 2) and a narrative concerning Jesus’ trial before Pilate (Mt 27,
11-54) he placed a narrative about Judas’ suicide (Mt 27, 3-10). Including of these two cases
does not be accidental, rather it is a preparation for comparative layout, which presents
Pilate in context of the disciples’ attitude. Note, that the narrative regarding Judas’ death
is included only in Matthew’s Gospel.

6
Mt 27, 2 indicates that Jesus hands were bound, which another way to say that
He was arrested. For this reason, the narrative regarding the Jesus’ trail before
Pilate, starts directly with the prefect’s question that indicates rather advance
point of the trial than its beginning. Matthew omitted not only a casual greeting
but also the presentation of the initial Jewish accusation against Jesus 11 .
According to the author’s narrative, Pilate already knows that Jesus is accusedof claiming to be the King of Jews, which suggests that an accusation with
sufficient argumentation has been presented to him. Did it contain only this one
particular crime, or had it been more complex list of Jesus’ crimes? It is possiblethat the accusers named more than one crime, which is supposition based of
casual trial presiding known to us from many records regarding the trials before
Romans officials. Even if we accepted that it was an exceptional case, and theaccusation concerns initially only the one crime, verse 12 suggests that later the
Jewish authorities presents other crimes in order to strengthen the initiallyaccusation or in order to present more convicting accusations 12 . Matthew’s
account focuses on the accusation that is presented to the reader from Pilate’s
perspective that is exposed in his question “are you the King of Jews”? It
indicates that Pilate understood the Jewish accusation in strictly political sense.
We do not know if Jews presented their accusation against Jesus in such a way,
but Matthew’s narrative strongly suggests this option. Certainly, Jesus did nottake this question in the same way as Pilate, since His answer although in bit
puzzling manner but His answer is much closer to meaning “yes” than meaning“no”. Never in the Gospel of Matthew, has Jesus in direct speech presentedHimself as the Messiah, however in the passion narrative, He two times was

11
12

For proper from of presentation an accusation compare Ac 14, 1-9 as an example.
The second possibility is not support by the text, however is it still possible, since
Matthew’s narrative focuses only on the accusation with the strongest sounding politicalconnotation.

7
asked about His Messianic dignity, and in all cases, He answered in the same
way13. It gives us a hint to understand a meaning of Jesus’ answer to Pilate’squestion, since based on answer given in Mt 26, 64 the Sanhedrin found Him
guilty in the same way should be interpreted His answer to the prefect14. Defacto Jesus’s answer was most probably understood by Pilate as a confirmationof the charge.
In Mt 27, 12 Matthew gives an account that specify Jesus attitude toward Pilate
from His attitude toward the Sanhedrin. Jesus answered to Pilate’s question, but
He stayed silence toward Jewish accusations, which probable did not differ
much from these used during the trial before the Sanhedrin, but probably theypresented them in stronger political context. The reason for Jesus’ silence stays
mysteries, since no information allowing to make convincing statement
regarding this matter was provided by the author. For this reason, aninterpretation of Jesus’ silence became a subject of less or more convincing
theory. In our opinion, if the accusation presented by Jews during the trial before
Pilate does not differs in meritum from these presented in Mt 26, 59-66, Jesus has
nothing to add to that He had said already during the trial before the Sanhedrin.
Although less possible and hardly supported by text, however still possible istheory that attitude of Jesus’ who do not offend the Jews before the Gentile,
contrasts sharply with attitude of Jews, who harshly accused and handed Himto the Gentile15.

The two cases concern Jesus’s trials; first the trial before the Sanhedrin (Mt 26, 64) andsecond during the trial before Pilate (Mt 27, 11). Additionally, the same answer (you say so)
is given to the question of Judas (Mt 26, 25). D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 388.
14 As in Mt 26, 64 Jesus agrees with indirectly implicated Him messianic dignity, so in Mt 27,
11 He agrees with Pilate’s unaware statement regarding His kingship.
15 As rather unconvincing interpretation, we found theory of Nolland, who wrote “Heaccepts his situation and refuses to fight back”. J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, pp. 11621163. The reason for our position is that Matthew does not presents Jesus as one, who lost
hope or one who is not in control of entire situation. The theological message of the13

8

The strange in the eyes of Pilate attitude of Jesus caused his reaction (Mt 27,
13). This rhetorical question (do you not hear how many accusations they makeagainst you?) exposes more than one aspect of Pilate’s character. This question
indicates that to passive attitude of Jesus toward the initial accusation, Jewish
answer with definitive attack, where all possible accusations were probably
presented in order strength an advantage they have already won and to securea final victory. It also indirectly suggests that the new accusation only strengthen
the position of the Sanhedrin and deeply weaken a Jesus’ one. It seems, that
according to Mathew to this situation Pilate answered with attitude not freefrom emotional involvement of the judge. Pilate’s question verbally expresses
his doubt concerning kind of physical deafness on Jesus side (do you not hear…),
but here it should be taken rather in figurative sense expressing great
astonishing on the prefect side. Although it is impossible to answer questions if
it was a first time in Pilate’s carrier when he met an accused showing so passive
attitude during facing his accusers, or he was simply surprised by theimportance of accusations, however he was deeply convinced that Jesus’s
should take an action in order to protect Himself 16. It seems that according toMatthew, Pilate met a great challenge that questions his Hellenistic values,
which underline, among others, natural right to protect one’s own life. Pilate
was a soldier with simple common sense that, in time of danger, if you do notprotect you own life it would be taken from you by your opponents. We canassume that Pilate was convinced that Jesus’ should take action defending
himself, which indirectly indicates that was some chance for Jesus’ success.

periscope (cf. Is 53, 7) should be stresses more than socio-psychological approach. D. A.
Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, Thomas Nelson, Mexico City 1995, pp. 818-819.
16 Osborne suggests that Pilate could be also angered by Jesus’ attitude. G. R. Osborne,
Exegetical Commentary, p. 1016.

9
Verse 14 shows that Jesus not only does not take any actions expected by Pilate,but He event to not bather Himself to talk to the prefect. Considering the legal
context of the event (Jesus is judging by Pilate), we could expect that Jesus’silence would works not only against Him, since the lack of defense was usuallyinterpreted as confirmation of guiltiness, but also as offence toward the judge17.
However, the second one is probably not a message intended by Matthew. The
message expressed by the author in verse 13 in form of question, now is repeatedin form of direct statement. Pilate was amazed (despite the fact if this amaze
regards only Jesus’ attitude toward Jewish accusation or also Jesus’ attitude
toward Pilate), which must be consider as rather surprising attitude for soldier
who has seen much. It seems that Jesus maid a great impression on Pilate, which
would explain the prefect’s attempt to save Jesus, who made any attempt to save
Himself18.
In Matthew’s version of narrative regarding the trial before Pilate, the prefectis not only a main agent of the event but also the author’s particularly focus. This
special interest in Pilate’s attitude has much common with Matthew’s evaluationof the prefect, which is built not on comparative approach (Pilate versus Jewish)
but on positive perspective on him.

3. A Passover’s custom (Mt 27, 15-18)
5Κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν εἰώθει ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἀπολύειν ἕνα τῷ ὄχλῳ δέσμιον ὃνἤθελον. 16 εἶχον δὲ τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον λεγόμενον [Ἰησοῦν] Βαραββᾶν.
17συνηγμένων οὖν αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος· τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω

H. K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge 1998, p. 130.
18 Patte takes Pilate’s amaze as expression of his positive attitude toward Jesus. D. Patte, The
Gospel According to Matthew. A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia 1987, p. 378.
1710ὑμῖν, [Ἰησοῦν τὸν] Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον χριστόν; 18 ᾔδει γὰρὅτι διὰ φθόνον παρέδωκαν αὐτόν. (Mt 27, 15-18)
15

Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner forthe crowd, anyone whom they wanted. 16 At that time they had a notorious
prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. 17 So after they had gathered, Pilate said tothem, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who
is called the Messiah?" 18 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they
had handed him over. (Mt 27, 15-18)

From verse 15 the narrative jumps directly to Pilate’s attempt to free Jesus,
without indication of the final result of the trial. It suggests that the trail did notends with positive decision for Jesus, which can be supposed from verse 14
where Pilate’s amaze possibly was caused by a manner Jesus lost against His
accusers. It is possible to assume that this stage of Matthew’s narrative exposes
Pilate’s personal attempt to free Jesus19. From this reason, Matthew writes about
Pilate’s costume to free a prisoner during the time of Passover feast, without
connecting it directly with the Passover feast as one of events connected to thisfestival20. Pilate is in control of situation, he initiates the event, and he gives thepeople a right to make a choice who will be grounded with the prefect’s mercy.
Verse 16 exposes a new information concerning a fact that Romans captured
a man well known for his criminal activities. Matthew gives also his full name,
Jesus Barabbas 21 . However, the verse is not just a short, laconic but still

Some scholars think that the costume was Pilate’s own invention. D. A. Hagner, Matthew
14-28, p. 822.
20 Matthew’s account feats better to non-biblical sources that mentions some local officials,
who practiced such customs in way similar to this presented in the narrative. Cf.
Josephus, Ant 20:208-209; 2015.
21 Some manuscripts omit the name Jesus (cf. Byzantine Codex). Cf. J. Nolland, The Gospel ofMatthew, p. 1168-1169.
19

11informative sentence, but it is very skillfully crafted sentence containing
indirectly this kind of information, which cannot be said in direct manner 22. First,
Matthew says that “they have” instate of “Roman captured”. Second, he says
about “notorious prisoner” instate of “rioter against Rome”. Third, he gives thefull name of the prisoner, which is a crucial information for interpretation of therest of narrative, since both candidates for Pilate’s mercy had the same name(Jesus). It seems that Matthew consciously used euphemistic approach toannounce important but “sensitive” information. Did he this in order to avoid
potential problems from side of Romans, or to omit any information that would
doubt Pilate’s virtues23. We favor the second possibility, and arguments for thiswill be presented during the following analysis.
In verse 17, Pilate presents to the crowd two candidates from whom they haveto choose one. Pilate did this in form of open question, with clearly indication of
the name for each candidate. He gives to the crowd a right to decide about a life
for one, and consequently a death for another. Matthew approach topresentation the event again seems to be little bit strange for few reasons24. First,
readers are not informed (until verse 17) that Jesus will be opponent to Barabbas,
which creates effect of surprise stimulated by fact that in verse 16 the focus was
put on Barabbas and not on Jesus. Second, he presents a full name of Barabbas(the second time) and full name of Jesus (for the first time). Third, in presentationof Jesus, Matthew’s Pilate says, “Jesus who is called Christ” (the Messiah), which

Bond rightly noted that presentation of Barabbas (also it applies to presentation of Jesus)
is “completely depoliticized”, and all event is settled more in socio-religious context rather
than in political context. H. K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, p. 128.
23 In this case, a focus is Pilate’s way of performing the office of the prefect.
24 Gundry recognizes verse 17 as the Matthew’s attempt to presents Pilate in pro-Jesus light.
R.H. Gundry, Matthew. Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, Eerdmans Publisher,
Grand Rapids1982, p. 561.
22

12
was rather quit controversial title among Jews25. Forth, Matthew’s Pilate does
not suggest his will to the crowd, allowing the event to run in any direction,
since no arrangements were undertaken. Taking to consideration these reasons,
it is possible to deduce that according to Matthew, Pilate failed to recognize areal state of things.
The last statement seems to be attested by verse 18, where Matthew indicates
Pilate’s knowledge regarding a real reason for handing Jesus to him. Does herealized the reason during the trial or the knowledge came from other sources?
we really don’t know; however, it seems that he had possessed this knowledge
before he presented two candidatures to the crowd. If so, Matthew’s narrative
may indirectly show Pilate as very naive ignorant, who is not capable to predictpossible development of situation based on possessed knowledge. However,verse 18 is rather a postpone explanation for Pilate’s action described in verse
17. If so, Pilate presents two candidatures in order to save Jesus called Messiah,
even Matthew had no desire to indicate it directly.26.

4. A dram of Pilate’s wife (Mt 27, 19)19Καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνὴαὐτοῦ λέγουσα· μηδὲν σοὶ καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ ἐκείνῳ· πολλὰ γὰρ ἔπαθονHere we refer to underspending of title “Messiah” by common people, who mostly
thought about Messiah in category of powerful leader who will liberate Jewish nation fromsuppressing Roman power. T.H. Robinson, The Gospel of Matthew, Hodder and Stoughton,
London1951, p. 228.
26 Since the name Jesus means God is salvation and both candidatures have this name, ispossible to assume kind of Matthew’s theological cryptography in this very laconic
narrative of Jesus’ trial. Barabbas is a one potential way for Jewish salvation understood as
the liberation from the enemy by using power and force, and Jesus of Nazareth is thesecond way for Jewish salvation understood as the liberation from hatred and sin by favor
love and forgiveness. Matthew’s Pilate let Jews to decide the way they will follow.
25

13σήμερον κατ᾽ ὄναρ δι᾽ αὐτόν. (Mt 27, 19)
19

While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Havenothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal
because of a dream about him."(Mt 27, 19)Verse 19 obviously interrupts narrative concerning presentation of two
candidatures to the crowd (Mt 27, 15-18. 20-26). Not only this, but also its containis unique account restricted only to Matthew’s Gospel27. Unnamed Pilate’s wife
gives him a waring, which is a result of her own experience, namely some suffers
she had been touched. It took place during here sleep, and the reason for itsomehow were directly connected to Jesus of Nazareth. Indirectly, Matthew
suggests that Jesus in some way was a reason for her suffering. It is safe tosuppose that the suffering took shape of nightmare, this kind which disturbs not
only a sleep but also deeply influenced our unconsciousness causing several
passible negative sensations like fear, panic, sadness, depression and manyothers. This experience of Pilate’s wife was so intensive that provoked her action
to waring her husband, but it would be probably too much assume that she
suffered from kind of revelation, since no sign characteristic of biblicalrevelation (even during the sleep) is recorded28.

Rather, Matthew presents theevent in way characteristic of non-monotheistic religion’s system, namely
institution of oracles, which were based on divine inspiration. The oracle ofPilate’s wife contains one message for her husband and one juridical (inmeaning) statement. The message “μηδὲν σοὶ καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ ἐκείνῳ” - havenothing to do with that innocent man takes a direct meaning, which is not so fare
Naturally it alarms us to special function, which this verse takes in Matthew’s narrative
regarding the trial of Jesus.
28 Scholars usually points to a socio-religious function of dreams in the ancient times and see
in Matthew’s narrative kind of divine intervention. Cf. G. R. Osborne, ExegeticalCommentary, p. 1018.
27

14from taking an obligation force. Pilate should not involve himself incondemnation of Jesus, even he is siting “on the judgment seat”, which obligated
him to pass the verdict29. This circumstance makes the massage to be something
more than just suggestion. This, at least, strong request contains to arguments,
where first one cocnerns inocense of Jesus (juridical level), and the second one a
trouble she has already experionsed (personal level)30. Since, the personal levelis placed after the juridical level, the information cocnerning the saferring ofPilate’s wife can be interpretate as indication of possible consequenses in case
Pilate would involve in condemnation of Jesus.


5. Pilate contra the crowd (Mt 27, 20-23)20Οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεισαν τοὺς ὄχλους ἵνα αἰτήσωνταιτὸν Βαραββᾶν, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν ἀπολέσωσιν. 21 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἡγεμὼν εἶπεναὐτοῖς· τίνα θέλετε ἀπὸ τῶν δύο ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· τὸν Βαραββᾶν.
22λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος· τί οὖν ποιήσω Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον χριστόν;λέγουσιν πάντες· σταυρωθήτω. 23 ὁ δὲ ἔφη· τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν; οἱ δὲπερισσῶς ἔκραζον λέγοντες· σταυρωθήτω. (Mt 27, 20-23)
20

Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for

Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. 21 The governor again said to them, "Whichof the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." 22
Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called theMessiah?" All of them said, "Let him be crucified!" 23 Then he asked, "Why,29
30

This part of the message explains a contain of narrative included in verse 24.
Matthew used adjective τῷ δικαίῳ which can be translated as “righteous” or “innocent”.
Osborne for theological reason prefers “righteous” (Matthew’s theological message toreaders), however “innocent” feats better to literary context of verse 19. G. R. Osborne,
Exegetical Commentary, p. 1019.

15
what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified!"(Mat 27, 19-23)

Verse 20 goes back to narrative Mt 27, 15-18 which was interrupted by anotherlayer (v. 19). Matthew, after indicating in verse 18 that Pilate was aware of theSanhedrin’s true intention, now is given arguments proofing the statement ofverse 18. The Sanhedrin influenced the crowd not only to opt for Barabbas but
also to demand death for Jesus of Nazareth. In this way, the author indicatesthat the main aim of the Sanhedrin was not to free Barabbas but to put to death
Jesus31. Probably, for this reason, Matthew does not write much about Barabbas
himself32.
After creating in verses 18 and 20 necessary background for progressing thenarrative, Matthew in verse 21 turn back to dialog between Pilate and the crowd,
which starts with repeating the question presented in verse 17, similar inmeaning but simplified by omitting the names of the candidatures 33 . Thisaffirmative question (who would be freed) is answered by affirmative answer
that it is Barabbas whom the crowd wants to be released34.
After clarifying positive aspect of the problem (who should be freed),
Matthew’s Pilate without any sign of emotional reaction precedes with negative
aspect of the problem.
In verse 22, Pilate askes the crowd about Jesus fate. It may suggest that for
him, rejection of Jesus in favor for Barabbas did not automatically mean Jesus’s
condemnation to the death. Second time, Pilate puts positive question to theIt naturally makes them to be blame for Jesus crucifixion. C. Mitch & E. Sri, The Gospel ofMatthew, p. 354.
32 Harrington is on opinion that a death of Jesus is a consequence of the Sanhedrin’s will torelease Barabbas. D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 388.
33 J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 1174.
34 In this way Matthew exposes a natural approach in regarding to both candidatures.
31

16
crowd allowing them to decide also a fate of the one who was rejected 35. Thistime, he uses the name of subject in way identical to that of verse 17. Still there
is not a truck of emotional involvement of Pilate, who seems to clarify thenegative aspect of the problem, possible with some hope that Jesus also may findsome favor from side of the crowd. Contrary to possible expectation of Pilate,the crowd demanded the crucifixion for Jesus called Christ, which was thereaction that not only surprised Pilate but also caused his emotional reaction
exposed in the next question.
In verse 23 for the very first time Matthew’s Pilate openly shows his emotion
and pro-Jesus’s attitude, which the most probably was caused by negative
answer to very generous offer of Pilate that the crowd also may decide the fateof the second candidature. Pilate’s dements for naming crimes committed byJesus stayed unanswered. The crowd, that take part in juridical prerogative ofPilate to judge the prisoner, showed no mercy36. If Pilate hoped that the crowd
shows the mercy, his calculation failed. If Pilate hope that the crowd will take afull responsibility for Jesus’s death, he won. However, it is probably no matterof what actually Pilate thought but rather the matter of Matthew’s narrative
strategy and aim in presentation of Pilate. Concerning the following narrative,
we can suppose that Matthew wants to place whole responsibility for Jesus’
death only on all Jews, and clearly excluding consciously any evilly motivatedaction of the prefect.

6. Pilate’s handwashing (Mt 27, 24-26)

24

35
36

ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Πιλᾶτος ὅτι οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον θόρυβος γίνεται,J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 1175.
Matthew used imperfect ἔκραζον to indicate that the crowd repeatedly yelled for Jesus’s
crucifixion. R.H. Gundry, Matthew, p. 564.

17
λαβὼν ὕδωρ ἀπενίψατο τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέναντι τοῦ ὄχλου λέγων· ἀθῷός εἰμιἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τούτου· ὑμεῖς ὄψεσθε.

25καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πᾶς ὁ λαὸςεἶπεν· τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν. 26 τότε ἀπέλυσεναὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας παρέδωκεν ἵνασταυρωθῇ. (Mt 27, 24-26)
24

So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was

beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd,
saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." 25 Then thepeople as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" 26 So
he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him overto be crucified. (Mt 27, 24-26)

Verse 24 starts a subsection (Mt 27, 24-26) in the narrative regarding Jesus’
trial, which can be called “Matthew’s pro-Pilate approach” and which iscontinuation of verse 19 37 . First, Matthew presents reason for Pilate’s action,
where he informs that the prefect’s logical arguing with the crowd brought noresults, but quiet contrary, situation seems to go out of hand, heading forpossible much serious consequences 38. As the prefect, Pilate already has had
experience of people apprising against him, which forced him to use the force
and caused him troubles with his superior. For this reason, Matthew’s Pilate
makes a symbolical gustier of washing the hand with simultaneous statementthat he disagrees with their will, which indirectly is a confession of Jesus’
innocent39. By saying “I am innocent of this man's blood” Pilate excluded himself
from the responsibility for the crowd’s verdict, which is exactly the attitude
Both, Mk 27, 19 and Mk 27, 24-25 are exclusively Matthew’s material.
Pilate’s question for the reason for the crowd dement, probably was interpreted as an
attempt undermine the will of the crowd, which was sufficient reason for exposing theirdissatisfaction or even more, their antagonistic filing toward the Roman official.
39 R.H. Gundry, Matthew, p. 565.
37
38

18
request from him by his wife (Mt 27, 19)40. However, he goes even much far
saying also “see to it yourselves” which means he led the crowd to do according
to their will. Does it mean that he in the end refused to pass the sentence(precisely, to confirm the sentence passed by the crowd), and in this way makethe trial go back to the within Jewish issues? The answer to this question
depends on how we will interpret the next two verses (Mt 27, 25-26).
Verse 25 seems to give a positive answer to the last question, since the all Jews
take full and exclusive responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion, when they say, “hisblood be on us and on our children”. On the one hand this statement makes them
to be the only one who will bear a responsibility for the decision and allconsequences that may be a result of the decision 41. Consequently, this excludes
Pilate from any responsibility and consequences. On the other hand, the crowd
is making the decisions not only about releasing of Barabbas but also about thefate of the one who was not released, even if it was not a part of the Pasovercostume. Consequently, the trial of Jesus in the end finished with no sentencefrom side of Pilate, instead it turned into a kind of the crowd’ lynch. However,the crowd by using the idiom, do not confess its own guiltiness but only

Herrington is on opinion that Pilate here follows rather Jewish custom (Deut 21, 6-9; Is 1,
15-16) then a Roman one. D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 389. However, inHellenistic literature there are signs of similar custom. Cf. G. R. Osborne, ExegeticalCommentary, p. 1020.
41 This idiom “his blood be upon us” indicates taking of responsibility for someone death, and
it is often used in the Old Testament texts (cf. Lev 20, 9; Deut 19, 10; Josh 2, 19; 2 Sam 1, 16;
Ezek 18, 13). Matthew adds “and on our children” which makes the idiom to be understoodin two possible ways. First, it can be taken as indication of all Jews, which may besupported by the fact that the author exchanged term “the crowd” found in Mt 27, 10 (theparticular approach) for term “people” in Mt 27, 25 (the generalization), which usuallyindicates the whole Israel, as the historic people of God. Second, it can make limitation
regarding the responsibility and consequences, which are limited only to the twogenerations (those who demand Jesus’ death and their children), but do not apply to thewhole Jewish nation. D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, pp. 389-390.
40

19
expresses the readiness to take a full responsibility for the decision 42. Verse 25 if
it stays alone, puts all responsibility for Jesus’ death on the Jews, and at the sametime makes Pilate free from responsibility or guiltiness43.
However, verse 25 is not the last in the narrative of Jesus’ trail, it is followedby verse 26, where Matthew informs that Pilate acts according to will anddecision of Jews, namely he freed Jesus Barabbas for them, and ordered to
crucify Jesus of Nazareth. Such the ending of the narrative leaves the reader withreflection that that the Sanhedrin achieved the desired aim, namely after
sentenced Jesus to death (Mt 26, 66) and the trial (not free from some difficulties),
they on expenses of the people (all Jews) were satisfied by Romans executing
the death penalty44. The readers of Matthew’s Gospel are aware about the factthat Jesus was crucified by Romans, but the responsibility for rejection of the
Messiah lies on Jesus’ countrymen (the Jews).

7. Jesus’ body (Mt 27, 57-58)57Ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας,τοὔνομα Ἰωσήφ, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ· 58 οὗτος προσελθὼντῷ Πιλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. τότε ὁ Πιλᾶτος ἐκέλευσενἀποδοθῆναι. (Mt 27, 57-58)
57

When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph,

who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the bodyof Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. (Mt 27, 57-58)

This indicates determination of the crowd. Probably, for the readers, the idiom indicatesthat the crowd confess the guiltiness. J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 1178.
43 In our opinion it is a basic axiom in Matthew’s presentation of Pilate in particular and theJesus’ trail in general. D. Patte, The Gospel According to Matthew. p. 380.
44 J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1988, p. 124.
42

20
The last narrative where Pilate’s name appeared is Mt 27, 57-58, which
concerns releasing of Jesus body and a burial. Matthew starts with presentationof Joseph from Arimathaea, which comparing to similar in contain but
drastically different in details an account of Mark, is consciously modified inorder to achieve a particular aim. According to Matthew, Joseph is a disciple ofJesus (v. 57), and not the member of Sanhedrin with sympathetic attitude toward
Jesus’ teaching according to Mark’s presentation of Joseph45. Here, the action ofJoseph is not viewed as an act of courage, like it is presented in Mark’s version46.
Matthew’s Joseph just goes to Pilate and ask for body of man, who was officiallycrucified (according to information place on the cross -Mt 27, 37) because of

the Sanhedrin’s accusation that He claimed to be the King of Jews (Mt 27, 11)47.
All these juridical and socio-political aspects creating a necessary backgroundfor interpretation of information given in Mt 27, 57-58 were consciously omitted
by Matthew48. For this reason, Matthew’s account contains any sign of a problem
connecting to asking for body of Jesus and receiving it. According to Matthew’s
narrative, Pilate without any questions or doubts (which are exposed in Mark’s
narrative – Mk 15, 43-45) just makes the order to release the body to Joseph.
Taking to consideration the crime for which Jesus (officially – Mt 27, 37) was
crucified, and the Roman regulation regarding a treatment of those who wereInstead, Matthew described Joseph as “a reach man” which may indicate person ofimportant social status, without forward specification. R.H. Gundry, Matthew, p. 580.
These two presentations do not contradict each other, rather they show different perspective
on Pilate as well as different aim in presentation of the prefect.
46 Some scholars are on opinion that Joseph action was marked by some risk, since it was notconmen practice for the prefect to give this kind of favor. Cf. F.V. Filson, The Gospel
According to St. Matthew, A&C Black, London 1975, p. 298. However, this opinion isstrongly influenced by Mark’s version of the narrative concerning the Joseph request,
rather than Matthew’s version on the same issue.
47 Note, that this aspect was raised only in the Sanhedrin’s accusation of Jesus before Pilate(Mt 27, 11), but is constantly absent in narrative regarding Pilate facing the crowd (Mt 27,
15-26).
48 G. R. Osborne, Exegetical Commentary, pp. 1048-1049.
45

21
sentenced for political issues, even if we respect the prefect’s rights to act withconsiderable freedom in cases involving no-Roman, the Pilate’s decision in
general and its presentation by Matthew in particular must raise tremendous
surprise on side of readers sharing the Christian faith. Since, the case of Joseph
must be taken as extraordinary rather than casual one, however still passible one,its presentation, especially if we compare it to Mark’s approach, exposes
possible message for readers, which in are opinion has much common with way
the author understood and wants to present the person of the prefect. This lastrecorded by Matthew, the act of good will from the side of prefect, which is not
the only one in narrative concerning the Jesus’s trail, seems to be the final line inpainting a picture of Pilate in his narrative.

8. Characteristic of Mathew’s presentation of PilateConcerning the narrative of Jesus’s trial, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospelof Matthews show strikingly deep similarities, which usually are explained by
Matthew’s depends on the Mark Gospel 49 . The same applies to narrative
concerning the Pilate, where Matthew seems to heavily depends on Mark’s
version, however it does not mean just rewired the Mark’s account regarding
the fifth prefect of Judea. Probably, working on the Mark’s material, Matthew
used two devises in order to change and adopted the source material inaccordance with his own theological conception and his perception of Pilate (orhis desire to present a new perspective of Pilate). The first device is grammar.
Matthew often without changing the source narrative in literary sense, by using
49

According to the tradition the Gospel of Matthew was written prior to the Gospel of Mark,however recently in favor is a theory of a reverse order (Mark first and then Matthew). For
short introduction to this long and vigorous debate that occupied scholars in second halfof twenty century (the problem is called “the Synoptic Gospels”), cf. G. R. Osborne,
Exegetical Commentary, pp. 33-38.

22
grammar changed the understanding of the material. Changing tenses of verbs,
replacing words with semantically similar one, omitting or adding words, werethe most frequent “innovations” that he used working on the source 50 . The
second device used by Matthew to modify a meaning of the source’s narrative
are passages added by Matthew, which for purpose of this study we call“Matthew’s layer”. It refers to tow passages in Matthew’s narrative concerning
Jesus’ trial. They are material regarding the Pilate’s wife (Mt 27, 19) and Pilate’s
washing hands (Mt 27, 24-25), which can’t be found elsewhere in the Synoptic
Gospels. Appearance of something unusual, comparing to already existing
things, naturally strongly suggests the author will to contribute something new
to the sources. In our opinion, the Matthew’s narrative regarding Jesus’s trial issuch a case, however majority of scholars, most probably following the matrix
that Matthew follows Mark in his narrative concerning Jesus’ trail, don’t pay
sufficient attention to a fact that similarity in narrative does not automaticallymeans similarity in meaning. The consequence of this approach is common
conviction that Matthew presents Pilate in the same way as Mark does, even if
they are aware of “the Matthew’s layer”. The final conclusion concerning the
Pilate, is that Matthew like Mark put responsibility for Jesus’ death on side ofJews, but he does not freed Pilate from sharing part of responsibility for thedeath of Jesus. To this conclusion we can’t agree. We are on opinion that
Matthew puts all responsibility for Jesus death on Jewish side, which is strongly
supported by Mt 27, 25 (a part of “Matthew’s layer”), but he completely freed
Pilate from responsibility for Jesus’s death, which is supported by Mt 27, 24 (apart of “Matthew’s layer”). The stronger argument is the “Matthew’s layer”
where Matthew literary exposes Jews taking responsibility for Jesus’ death (Mt50

Brilliant and extensive analysis of these changes can be found in the commentary of R.
Gundry. R.H. Gundry, Matthew, pp. 550-585.

23
27, 25) and Pilate who is not taking responsibility for Jesu’s death (Mt 27. 24).
However, in the Matthew’s narrative there is another aspect that support theidea that he freed Pilate from any responsibility. In Mt 27, 19 the Pilate wife
directly exposes that Jesus is the righteous. In indirect way the same idea waspresented by Pilate in his question “what evil has he done?” which in negative way
indicates Jesus as the righteous51. On the one hand, Pilate and his wife in some
way recognized Jesus as the righteous (in sense of innocent), on the other hand
the Sanhedrin (Mt 26, 65-68) and all people (Mt 27, 25) to the last moment did
not accepted Jesus as the righteous (in sense of Messiah).
Helen Bond thinks that “the Matthean Pilate plays a much less significant role
within the Roman trial scene than the Markan Pilate”52 since the main concern of
the author is rejection of Jesus by people. Concerning Matthew’s main concernof the trial narrative, we agree with Bond, however in regarding to presentationof Pilate, we hold a different opinion. In Mark’s narrative of the trial, Pilate as aperson is on little concern, but Pilate attitude to Jesus is one of the mostimportant Mark’s layers, which is used by the author as position to anotherMark’s layer concerning Jewish attitude toward Jesus. Structure of Mk 15, 6-15
proofs that Mark is not interested in Pilate himself or the Sanhedrin itself but in
attitudes of both groups toward Jesus, which in Mark’s narrative is presented inmanner favoring Pilate. For Mark, Pilate is only an instrument to achieve his aim.
However, Matthew narrative of the trial is strongly build around the person of
the prefect, mostly but not exclusively due to the “Matthew’s layer” sinceaccording to the structure of the narrative Mt 27, 11-26 Pilate is presented as theprotagonist 53 . In fact, Matthew’s narrative presents Jesus as the object, who
It is on less importance if the term “righteous” takes here theological meaning (to be rightbefore God) or socio-juridical (to be innocent).
52 H. K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, p. 136.
53 As the protagonist, Pilate is presented in: Mt 27, 11. 13-14. 15-18. 19. 21-23. 24. 26, which
creates majority of the narrative.
51

24
generated ground for presentation of two main subjects of narrative, on the one
side Pilate and on the other side the Sanhedrin (Mt 27, 11-14) and the people (Mt27, 15-26). It is important to note that the subjects opposing Jesus are changing
through progressing narrative from particular (the Sanhedrin) to general(people = all Jews), and at the same time Pilate stays the protagonist throughout
the whole narrative. In Matthew’s narrative of the trial, Pilate is on criticalimportance, since it is the prefect, whom Matthew wants to totally free from
responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion54.
It is possible to discuss if the Matthew’s approach is correct in accordance tosocio-juridical standards of that times, but the real question concerns reason forchoosing this approach. Considering the background and aim of the Matthew’s
Gospel and using by the author the tittle “governor” instead of appropriate for
Pilate tittle “prefect” allows us to suppose that Matthew wants to convince thereaders that rejection of the Messiah is within Jewish matter, and Romans playin this event no more than instrumental rule.

54

Mt 27, 26 does not makes Pilate responsible for Jesus’ death, it makes him executor of thepenalty decided first by the Sanhedrin (Mt 26, 66) and then by all people (Mt 27, 25).