¹ For a penetrating analysis of some of the difficulties of certain critical methods as applied to the discovery of authentic Jesus material in the gospel accounts of his teaching, see Hooker, M. D., ‘Christology and Methodology’, NTS 17 (1970–1971) 480–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 307.Google Scholar

³ R. Bultmann, for example, asserts ‘… die Voraussetzungen, die man machen müβte, um den Bericht als geschichtlich anzusehen – daβ Jesus die Erfüllung von Sach 9,9 inszenieren wollte, und daβ die Menge den Esel sogleich als messianisches Reittier erkannte -, sind absurd’ (Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition [2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931] 281)Google Scholar. He does not go so far as to say that Jesus did not come to Jerusalem, only that the elements of the story which render it notable were probably missing (see also Catchpole, D. R., ‘The “Triumphal” Entry’ [in Jesus and the Politics of His Day; ed. Bammel, E. and Moule, C. F. D.; Cambridge: University, 1984] 319–34).Google Scholar

This approach is countered by the arguments of A. E. Harvey, who believes there is a ‘strong claim to historical reliability’ in the Triumphal Entry narratives; he does not, however, explore the background of Pilate's entry with which this paper is concerned (Jesus and the Constraints of History [The Bampton Lectures, 1980; London: Duckworth, 1982] 120).Google Scholar

⁴ Jesus and Judaism, 306.

⁵ E.g., Fitzmyer, J. A., Luke X–XXIV (AB 28A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 1244–5.Google Scholar

⁶ In what is now perhaps the standard work on Pontius Pilate, Lémonon, J.-P. (Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée. Textes et monuments [Paris: Gabalda, 1981)Google Scholar, deals with the extent of Pilate's judicial authority; however, he does not discuss the issue of Pilate's assize or refer to his coming to Jerusalem with respect to that of Jesus.

⁷ Kinman, B., ‘Pilate's Assize and the Timing of Jesus' Trial’, TynBul 42/2 (1991) 282–95.Google Scholar

⁸ For a recent, thorough discussion of the apparently conflicting accounts of Pilate found in Philo, Josephus and the New Testament, see McGing, B. C., ‘Pontius Pilate and the Sources’, CBQ 53 (1991) 416–38.Google Scholar

⁹ Both Josephus and Philo portray him as an eminently dislikeable man. As to the incident which led to this rancour, Josephus records that shortly after Pilate's appointment in AD 26 ‘when he brought his army from Caesarea and removed it to winter quarters in Jerusalem he took a bold step in subversion of the Jewish practices, by introducing into the city the busts of the emperor that were attached to military standards, for our law forbids the making of images’ (Ant. 18 §55). As a result of this act, scores of Jews went to Caesarea to meet Pilate and demanded that he remove the images. Unwilling at first to do so, he eventually was forced to compromise when he realized the Jews were willing to die rather than allow the standards to go unchallenged. While questions exist regarding the basis of Jewish objections (after all, the images/busts were made by Romans, not Jews), the fact is that Pilate's behaviour had been patently offensive. Philo describes Pilate as ‘naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness …’ vindictive and possessed of a ‘furious temper’ (Leg. §301, 303). He also suggests that Pilate was corrupt, having committed ‘… briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries …’ (ibid., §302). An article by Kraeling, C. (‘The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem’, HTR 35 [1942] 263–89)CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests that Pilate was more misinformed than malicious in the incident; see also McGing, ‘Pontius Pilate’.

¹⁰ F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London: Duckworth, 1977) 28.

¹¹ Emperor, 29.

¹² Emperor, 31.

¹³ This was true for the time of Pilate in which the Roman prefect governed Judaea. Earlier, Herod and Archelaus had appointed high priests (see Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [3 vols.; ed. Vermes, G., Millar, F., Black, M.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973] 2.227–32Google Scholar; also Smallwood, E. M., ‘High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine’, JTS n.s. 13 [1962] 14–34).Google Scholar

¹⁴ ‘The place’ (τòν τόπον) spoken of is either the Temple or Jerusalem, most probably the former (Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John [2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978] 405–6).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Plutarch Vita Luculli 2.5.

¹⁶ Ad Atticum 5.16.

¹⁷ POxy 471 (early second century AD) (Oxyrhynchus Papyri 3 [ed. B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt; London: Oxford University, 1903] 147–51).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Elaborate instructions are given for ‘the speech of arrival’ in honour of a governor visiting a city in Rhetor, Menander (Menander Rhetor [ed. Russell, D. A., Wilson, N. G.; Oxford: University, 1981] §§378–88Google Scholar). Jewish officials were certainly not strangers to the intricacies of Roman diplomacy, having sent embassies to Caesar and his representatives on more than one occasion (Jos. Ant. 17 §§300–14; J.W. 2 §280) and greeted other dignitaries with customary regard (Philo Leg. §297; Jos. Ant. 16 §§12–19; 18 §90; J.W. 2 §297).

¹⁹ Though writing after the New Testament era, Menander Rhetor clearly preserves traditions of a much earlier time (Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, xi-xxxi).

²⁰ Quaestors, whose responsibilities were largely that of financial administration, were not in provinciae Caesaris (cf. ‘Quaestor’, Oxford Classical Dictionary [2nd ed.; Oxford: University, 1970] 906).Google Scholar

²¹ While originally assigned to men holding the imperium in their own right (e.g. consuls, praetors), at a later time emperors gave lesser officials, i.e. those of equestrian rank, the privilege of being accompanied by these attendants (see Millar, F., ‘The Emperor, the Senate, and the Provinces’, JRS 56 [1966] 157Google Scholar; ‘Lictores’, Oxford Classical Dictionary, 609; ‘Lictors’, Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities [2 vols.; London: McIlvaine, 1897] 2.65).Google Scholar

²² Cicero Att. 5.16; 6.1; Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem 1.1.10 (cf. ‘Legate’, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities [3rd ed.; 2 vols.; London: John Murray, 1890–1] 2.25–6)Google Scholar. The governor may also have been accompanied by legates who assisted him in his judicial and administrative duties. There would have been as many legates attached to the governor as there were legions of troops at his disposal; their presence would have hinted at the legionary power which the governor was able to call upon should the need arise.

²³ For a discussion of troop strength, composition and location in Syria-Palestine at this time see Broughton, T. R. S., ‘The Roman Army’ (in The Beginnings of Christianity [5 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1933] 5.427–41)Google Scholar and Schürer, Jewish People, 1.357–91.

²⁴ Schürer, Jewish People, 1.362.

²⁵ J.W. 3 §§93–6; see also Polybius 6.22.1–4; 6.23.1–16.

²⁶ This is clear by virtue of several comments from Cicero. He tells his brother Quintus that it was admirable that in his (Quintus') governorship ‘… men are not trampled underfoot in your progresses, not drained by expenditure …’ (QFr. 1.1.9). Contrasting his restraint with the extortionate ways of his predecessor, Cicero comments ‘So Appius [the former proconsul], having starved the province, let blood, and tried every lowering treatment, hands it to me drained of life …’ (Att. 6.1). He later remarks that ‘the poor towns are relieved that they have had to spend nothing on me, my legates, or a quaestor, or anyone’ (Att. 5.16).

²⁷ One account listing the preparations and supplies needed for the visit of the prefect of Egypt to a city mentions bread, lambs, wine, vinegar, hay, chaff, barley, wood, charcoal, torches, lamps, geese, oil, relishes, cheeses, vegetables, fish and pack asses (Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde [1/2; ed. L. Mitteis, U. Wilckens; Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1912] 415).Google Scholar

²⁸ Cicero mentions the following persons as constituents of a consular entourage: an accensus (QFr. 1.1.13), lictors (Fam. 12.30.7), prefects (Att. 6.1), legates and a quaestor (ibid. 5.15; also Millar, ‘The Emperor, the Senate, and the Provinces’, 157, and Jones, A. H. M., Studies in Roman Government and Law [Oxford: Blackwell, 1960] 119)Google Scholar. Not all the officials from Cicero's list would have accompanied Pilate, since he was himself a prefect, functioned as a quaestor (a financial officer), and was subordinate to a legate (the legate of Syria).

²⁹ Strabo mentions that not all Roman prefects sent to administer justice travelled with armed forces (14.5.6).

³⁰ Other issues which really ought to be addressed here but will not on account of the brevity of the paper include the following: would the acclamations given to Jesus (probably in Aramaic in the Kidron Valley) have been heard and understood by the soldiers? Would the acclamation itself have aroused their suspicion, given its employment at feasts other than Passover? Was the acclamation from Ps 118.25–6 of a liturgical and rather celebratory character or was it a call for divine (or messianic?) intervention? Would Jesus’ coming on an animal have attracted attention? (Most pilgrims walked, but there may well have been others on the way to Jerusalem for business or preparations for the feast who did not walk.)

³¹ For years scholars have debated the season at which Jesus entered Jerusalem. Those who favour Tabernacles include Manson, T. W., ‘The Cleansing of the Temple’, BJRL 33 (1951) 271–82Google Scholar; Smith, C. W. F., ‘No Time for Figs’, JBL 79 (1960) 315–27Google Scholar; and idem, ‘Tabernacles in the Fourth Gospel and Mark’, NTS 9 (1963) 130–46. Passover is viewed as the time of Jesus’ entry by the majority of commentators.

³² Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte (3rd ed.: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 66–98.Google Scholar

³³ The Gospel of St Mark (PGC; London: Black, 1963) 291.Google Scholar

³⁴ For this use of the superlative, see Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur von W. Bauer (6th ed.; ed. K. and B. Aland; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988) 1382–3.Google Scholar

³⁵ Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 410.Google Scholar

³⁶ Luke XXIV, 1250. Similarly, see Evans, C. F., Saint Luke (TPINTC; London: SCM, 1990) 680.Google Scholar

³⁷ Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1977) 526.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Evans, Luke, 680.

³⁹ Awareness of this background does not, of course, prove that Jesus came to Jerusalem as the Gospels record; it does remove one objection to the claim of historical reliability and puts the onus for proof on those who would deny it.

⁴⁰ In addition to NTS's reader, I would like to express my appreciation to Professors John Crook of St John's College, Cambridge and E. A. Judge of Macquarie University, Australia for reading and critiquing earlier drafts of this paper.