Some Further Thoughts On the Centurion’s Outcry at the Crucifixion

Casting Lots is the story of the Centurion at the crucifixion.  My novel explores the life of the Centurion both before the crucifixion and after to try to understand why this Roman Army Officer would speak out at the crucifixion proclaiming Jesus, whom he could not have viewed before the crucifixion except as anything other than another enemy of Roman getting what he justly deserved.

In this blog, I will start to examine the language of the outcry as recorded in the three Gospels which document the event.  [As an aside, the Gospel of John does not directly record this event, but has a most interesting passage which reads: “The man who saw it has given testimony and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.”  John 19:35.  Is this the same statement as in Luke 278:48?]

First what is said in each of the Gospels? In the Gospel of Matthew, the Centurion says, “Truly, this was a son of God.”  This is also often translated as: “Truly, this was the son of God.”   In the Gospel of Mark, which scholars believe was written before the other four Gospels, Mark records the Centurion as saying, “Truly, this Man was a son of God” or as “Truly, this Man was the son of God”.  The issue of whether the article is “a” or “the” might be a misleading issue.  In Latin, the language in which presumably the Centurion spoke, there are no articles.  In Homeric Greek and in Koine Greek, there is only one article, which is usually translated as “the”.   In Luke, on the other hand, it is recorded that the Centurion said, “Certainly this was a righteous Man.” or as it is often translated: ““Certainly this was an innocent Man.”

There are things upon which two of these three Gospels agree, but there is only one thing upon which all three agree:  The Centurion made an outcry after the death of Jesus and what he said was so startlingly, so out of character and so amazing that it had to be recorded.   First, two of the Gospels have the Centurion saying that Jesus was a special or extraordinary man (Luke and Mark): whether he was an innocent man or a righteous man or man who is the son of God, he is nonetheless a very special man.  A man so special in his characteristics that the centurion after but a brief while with him recognized him to be such and so proclaimed him to the world.  Remember that at the crucifixion, there were the Disciples of Jesus, his mother and at least three other women, the Roman Army detachment that crucified him, the two thieves, Scribes, Pharisees, as well as a number of other on-lookers.  The Centurion is remarking that Jesus is no ordinary man.  He has been marked by God.  This determination by one who should not care about making that determination rivets our attention.

In two other Gospels, Jesus is either “a” son of God or “the son of God”, but nevertheless the words “son of God” are used (Matthew and Mark).  Any framing by the Centurion of Jesus as being either a son of God or the son of God is utterly shocking.  If Jesus is divine in any sense, then are the charges against him by the Priests, Scribes and Pharisees valid?  How does it come to pass that a Centurion sees Jesus as being innocent, as does Pontius Pilate, and his wife?

Does the fact that the Gospels differ in the recording of what the Centurion said mean that there is a contradiction amongst them?  Not  necessarily.  It is human nature not to remember exactly the words spoken at an event.  If we add in the fact that the Gospels were written certainly years, if not decades, after the crucifixion, then it is more likely that the exact words may have been forgotten.  Nonetheless, the first two Gospels are amazingly the same.

What about the very different utterance recorded by Luke? Is it possible that the Centurion said both things, which is that Jesus was an innocent man and was a son of God?  Certainly, this is quite possible.  This would merely require that the Evangelists emphasized different things because the different utterances struck them as being more meaningful.

 

Some Thoughts on the Centurion’s Outcry at the Crucifixion

In each of  three of the four Gospels, the Centurion at the crucifixion makes an outcry proclaiming Jesus.  In Luke, the Centurion says, “Surely, this was a righteous man.” In both Matthew and Mark, the Centurion says, “Certainly, this man was the Son of God.”

These statements are extremely compelling to me and are the reason why “Casting Lots” was written.  I was listening to a sermon on a completely unrelated topic, when I started to think about these outcries, the circumstances in which they were made,  and their the meaning.

First, I am an attorney.  As an attorney, I did a fair amount of litigation.  I thus had to become familiar with the rules of how you present evidence to a court.

Sometimes,  you might want to use the words spoken by some one who was now not available to come to court for whatever reason.  Of course, the attorney for your opposition would object by saying, “Your honor, that is hearsay.” Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in  court where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone.  For example, if a person testifies in court that “Fred told me that John robbed the store,” it is clear that the person testifying does not know from his or her direct knowledge that John robbed the store.  All that person knows from direct knowledge is that Fred said that John robbed the store.

Testimony that the court finds is hearsay may not be admitted into evidence and the jury is not allowed to hear it.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, that is there are times when for a good reason such testimony may be admitted into evidence, which means the jury can hear it.

One such exception is something known as “admission against interest.”

In California, for example, the relevant statute regarding this matter is as follows:

California’s Evidence Code Section 1230 defines “Declarations against interest” as:

“

Evidence of a statement by a declarant having sufficient knowledge of the subject is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and the statement, when made, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far subjected him to the risk of civil or criminal liability, or so far tended to render invalid a claim by him against another, or created such a risk of making him an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.

 

Here, the Centurion is the declarant.   His statements are the testimony that I would want you, the jury to hear. The Centurion is not now available to testify in court due to his death some two thousand years ago.  Nonetheless, the court would allow this evidence to be not only heard, but also be considered by you, the jury, because these statements were against the Centurion’s pecuniary interest.  What the Centurion is saying is contrary to what his employer, Rome, and his direct supervisor, Pontius Pilate, would want him to say.  The Centurion is in essence speaking against his employer, which is rarely a wise thing to do.

The rationale for admitting these statements into evidence  is that no one would say anything against their pecuniary interest, unless they genuinely believed it to be true.

 

The Historicity of Pontius Pilate-Part V

One writer of antiquity, Pliny the Younger, who wrote about Christianity, did not mention Pontius Pilate. I include him in this article, because some have argued that the absence of commentary by Pliny the Younger is damaging to the case of historicity of Pontius Pilate.

Pliny the Younger was born Gaius Caecilius Cilo in 61 AD in Novum Comum (Como). His mother, Plinia Marcella, was the sister of Pliny the Elder. He was a lawyer, author, and magistrate. Pliny’s uncle, Pliny the Elder, helped raise and educate him. He revered his uncle, who at this time was extremely famous, and provides sketches of how his uncle worked on the Naturalis Historia. Both were witnesses to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 AD, during which the Pliny the Elder died, while Pliny the Younger escaped by boat.

Pliny the Elder made Pliny his adopted son and heir under his will.  Under Roman law, when a person was adopted, their clan name was changed to the clan name of the adopting family and their clan name became a “nickname”.  Hence, Gaius Caecilius Cilo became Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, with Secundus, being an additional nickname.

After being first tutored at home, Pliny went to Rome for further education, where he was taught rhetoric by Quintilian, a great teacher and author, and by Nicetes Sacerdos of Smyrna. Although born an equestrian, he achieved entry into the upper class by being elected Quaestor in his late twenties. Pliny was active in the Roman legal system. He was a well-known prosecutor and defender at the trials of a series of provincial governors, including two governors of Bithynia-Pontus.   This may be ironic in that he later became Governor of Bithynia.  He was a friend of the historian, Tacitus, and employed the biographer, Suetonius, on his staff.  Pliny the Younger was known as a connoisseur of writing and collected a number of authors as friends and colleagues.

Why is Pliny important? He wrote hundreds of letters, many of which still survive, that are of great historical value for the time period.

In one letter, Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan as to whether the “crime” of being a Christian was sufficient justification for a capital prosecution of a Christian:

“The method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel no doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.”

Trajan assured Pliny the Younger that being a Christian was sufficient for a capital prosecution.

Pliny detailed the practices of a Christian as being:

“They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal—but ordinary and innocent food.”

Unfortunately, while all of this is very interesting and gives us a great deal of information about early Christians, it does not bear upon the question of the historicity of Pontius Pilate. Thus, although Pliny is a great source for information about this age, he does not assist us in the quest to determine the historicity of Pilate.  The lack of a mention, however, of Pontius Pilate does not equate to a conclusion that Pontius Pilate did not exist.  The letter contents do not lend themselves to a discussion of Pontius Pilate.  Nor would a mention of Pontius Pilate have been appropriate.  The letter is an official letter from a Governor of a province to the Emperor asking for guidance on the law.  It would have been very out of place for such an official to mention the infamous governor in such a context, as well as of being of no import to the question being raised.  Further, it would have impolite as well as being apolitical.  Pliny the Younger demonstrated throughout his life the ability to thread the political needle and it would have been out of character for him to make a misstep here.

 

 

Ephesus: Jewel of Asia

Library of Celsus

Great Theater of Ephesus-Site of Paul’s Sermon

Street Advertisement for Brothel

Tomb of Memmius, grandson of Sulla

Casting Lots is a tale told against a tableau of ancient Romans cities and landscapes. One of the cities visited is Ephesus, which in Roman times was an important harbor city on the coast of what is now modern Turkey. The city was in a region which was very fertile. It became an extremely important city when Augustus Caesar chose it, over Pergamum, the site of the second largest library in the ancient world, to be the capital of procounsular Asia, a senatorial province, installing a governor there.

In Casting Lots, Pontius Pilate, on his voyage to Judea, as Prefect, sets foot in Ephesus. Ephesus was a large city by 26 AD. Strabo described it as being only second to Rome in importance. Modern estimates of population, however, ascribe only about 56,000 as living there at that time, not the 250,000 as was previously thought.

Ephesus was traditionally a Greek city. In 88 BC Mithridates the Great, King of Pontus, wanting to expel the Romans from Asia began a campaign to conquer the Greek cities. The Asiatic Vespers, which was the slaughter of 80,000 Romans in Asia, was part of this campaign. Rome raised an army under Lucius Cornelius Sulla who defeated Mithridates in 86 BC, which led to Ephesus becoming part of the Roman Empire.

While the Library of Celsus is, perhaps, the signature building of Ephesus, it was begun in 117AD and thus was not in existence when Pilate walked the streets of Ephesus. The façade of the library remains today and is one of the most imposing and awe inspiring remaining Roman ruins. The façade has niches for statutes and can best described as being scenographic. The library was destroyed by an earthquake in 262 AD and, thereafter, the façade was rededicated as a nymphaeum or a monument to the nymphs.

Nonetheless, many imposing building had been erected by 26 AD, with the first and foremost being the Temple of Artemis. This Temple was considered one of the seven ancient wonders of the world, because of its size, about four times as large as the Parthenon and because of its construction as the first monumental building wholly built of marble. On July 21, 356 BC, it was destroyed by fire set by the arsonist, Herostratus, who wanted to immortalize his name at any cost. That was the night of Alexander the Great’s birth, about which Plutarch said that the Goddess was too preoccupied with his birth to worry about her Temple. Also nearby was one of the largest Temples ever erected to Apollo.

Further, the city has one of the best preserved and impressive theatres of the ancient world which would seat 25,000. Erected on Panayir Hill, on Harbor Street, it had a three-story stage. It was the site of the sermon by Paul the Apostle.

The main street, made of marble, leads through a small valley between two imposing hills. Along the main street are an odeon, numerous small temples, and the tomb of Memmius, the grandson of Sulla. Sulla was revered in Ephesus as a savior.

The streets themselves were advertisement billboards. One such advertisement remains today and invites patrons to the brothel.

On the sides of the hills, villas of wealthy Romans abound. Anthony and Cleopatra honeymooned in Ephesus.

Contrasted with this wealth and opulence, is the small home of Mary, the mother of Jesus. For a time she resided in Ephesus, as did the Apostle John, who took care of her.

Sejanus: Patron of Pilate

Pontius Pilate probably came to be Prefect over Judea because of the influence of Sejanus. But who was Sejanus? While Casting Lots does not fully answer this question, Sejanus is both a major character in Casting Lots and an extremely interesting historical personage.

Sejanus’ tria nomina was Lucius Aelius Sejanus. Born into the equestrian class in 20 BC, Sejanus died on October 18, AD 31, at the height of his power and influence, having attained the Consulship.

Born to the powerful Seii clan, he was fortunate to be adopted by the prestigious and more powerful Aelian clan, which counted among its members two recent consuls and a military commander who had earned a triumph. In 2 BC, Sejanus’ adoptive father, Strabo, was appointed the prefect of the imperial bodyguard. Sejanus accompanied Gaius Caesar during his campaigns in Armenia in 1 BC. Then in 14 BC, Sejanus was appointed to the Praetorian Guard and served under his father. With his father’s appointment as Governor of Egypt in 15 BC, Sejanus became Prefect of the Praetorian Guard.

While the Praetorian Guard was established under Emperor Augustus, Sejanus refashioned it to be much more than the mere bodyguard to the Emperor. He transformed it into a powerful and influential branch of the government controlling public security, civil administration, and endowed with a veto over the acts of the Senate. He did this by centralizing the previously scattered nine cohorts of the Guard in one place just outside of Rome, by increasing the nine cohorts to 12, and by placing all of them under his sole command, rather than retaining the prior dual command system.

Sejanus also gained power by his influence over the Emperor Tiberius. In 22 AD, Tiberius began to share power with his son, Drusus. Because Tiberius was growing older, Sejanus hoped to establish himself as the heir apparent, even though Tiberius had a son. To establish himself as the heir apparent, Sejanus eliminated potential political opponents, including the emperor’s son, Drusus. Sejanus seduced Livilla, the wife of Drusus, and conspired with her to kill her husband. Livilla was able to poison her husband such that it appeared he had died of natural causes. So by 23 AD, Sejanus was called “Socius Laborum” (my partner in my toils) by Tiberius and appeared to be the heir apparent.

Sejanus thought the time was ripe for him to marry into the Emperor’s family. He divorced his wife in 23 AD. After waiting a discrete period of time, he then proposed to Tiberius in 25 AD that he marry Livilla. The emperor denied this request, warning Sejanus that he was in danger of overstepping his rank. (This episode appears in detail in Casting Lots.)

Sejanus changed his tactics and proceeded to isolate Tiberius. When Tiberius withdrew to the Isle of Capri in 26 AD, Sejanus was the de facto ruler of the empire. Sejanus’ star continued to rise until the death of Livilla in 29 AD. Her death affected Sejanus and made him undertake a program to remove all opposition. Spies and informers flew throughout Rome providing Sejanus with information which he used in trials against his opponents.

When Tiberius learned of Sejanus’ actions, Tiberius plotted a campaign to undermine Sejanus. He wrote letters to the Senate, some of which praised Sejanus and some of which denounced him. He resigned his consulship forcing Sejanus to do the same. Next, he conferred an honorary priesthood upon Caligula (who unfortunately was one of the few nobles who escaped Sejanus’ net). With these steps, support for Sejanus diminished. Then Tiberius appointed a new head of Praetorian Guard. Finally, Tiberius sent a letter to the Senate which summoned Sejanus to hear the letter read. Sejanus believed he was going to receive an honor. The letter began with a celebration of Sejanus. Then it abruptly changed to an order to arrest and imprison Sejanus. For a time the most influential and feared citizen of Rome, now amidst suspicions of conspiracy against Tiberius, Sejanus was executed, along with his followers.

“Guestpost for Magic City Morning Star: Who was Pontius Pilate Really?”

Shakespeare’s Juliette asked the question: “What’s in a name?” While her answer is pure poetry, names actually tell us a great deal about the person named.

In ancient Rome, most nobles had three names (the ‘tria nomina’), for example, Gaius Julius Caesar. First names were limited to a few, such as Gaius, Marcus, Lucius, and Titus. Unlike in our era, the family name is in the middle, so Gaius Julius Caesar is of the Julii clan. Nicknames were usually in the third position. They were given for interesting or distinguishing bodily features, such as ‘Caesar’, which comes from the Latin word “caesaries” meaning luxuriant hair (here, a family nickname, because both Caesar’s father and grandfather were so named), or for feats accomplished, like Scipio who, by defeating Hannibal conquered Africa, became Scipio Africanus.

Pontius is a distinguished Samnite family name. The Samnite people were a fierce, hardy, and very proud mountain tribe (the modern Abruzzo region). They resisted Rome in several wars. In the Social Wars of 90-88 BC, they were the last holdouts of all the allies. Gavius Pontius, a probable ancestor of Pilate, defeated the Romans at the Battle of Caudine Forks in 321 BC. Reinforcing this view of Pilate as a Samnite is an old tradition of Pilate being born in the town of Bisenti, which dates from Samnite times.

To read the full article please read the Magic City Morning Star at:
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Features_98/Who_was_Pontius_Pilate_Really_By_William_D_McEachern18367.shtml