Did Pontius Pilate Wash His Hands of the Crucifixion of Christ?

My column of June 20,

Let me explain that these three columns are not concerned with Christianity, to which I devoted my columns of 12/27/02 (

My recent three columns are concerned with anti-Semitism, provoked, in particular, by the "big lie" that Christ was crucified by "the Jews" and not by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate in strict accordance with Roman law.

First of all, several readers had never heard that under Roman law Christ was a criminal, subject to crucifixion. They ask me to give them a reference/citation supporting this statement.

There is no need to go to a special library and read the relevant texts. The fact has been recorded in reference books, and it is significant that none of the readers knows this. In its entry "Crucifixion,” my Britannica (1970, p. 825) first presents an elaborate description of crucifixion in the Roman Empire, and it is amazing how all the details match those of the crucifixion of Christ and two robbers.

During Christ’s life there had been thousands of Roman crucifixions in Judea – the "job" had been worked out by Roman soldiers to the minutest detail. Then my Britannica says who was crucified by Roman law: "political or religious agitators, pirates, slaves,” etc.

Why did political or religious agitators come first in this list? The Roman Empire had to fight for its territorial integrity. The Jewish wars of independence were so fierce that they shook the Roman Empire and finally prompted it to destroy Israel. Such wars were instigated, in the opinion of Rome, by political and religious agitators, such as Christ, who said that he was the king of the Jews – a political statement.

On the other hand, the Jews were not afraid of any religious "agitators." The Talmud is a collection of such "agitators" – every rabbi expresses HIS opinion, and Christ was one of the "opinionated rabbis." Incidentally, some opinions expressed in the Talmud are similar to those of Christ.

As for "political agitation" against Rome, Jews were fiercely for the liberation of Judea from Rome and, even if Christ had been engaged in political agitation, that would not have frightened Jews as it did Rome, afraid of the Jewish struggle for independence.

Christ was a "religious agitator" (a "proselytizing heretic"). Pilate suspected him also of "political agitation," and in Judea, seething with a fierce "national liberation struggle," it was not easy for a Roman procurator to draw a hard and fast line between religious and political agitation. For Pilate, Christ was a typical criminal case of religious-political agitation to be punished by crucifixion as per Roman law.

Now, many readers quote to me in their e-mails the Gospels, according to which Pilate crucified Christ just to please "the Jews," allegedly hating him like poison. The assertion that the authors of the four Gospels deviated from the truth in order to preserve their lives as long as possible while spreading Christianity throughout the territory of the Roman Empire moved some readers to double indignation:

"How dare you insinuate that the authors of the Gospels tell anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!"

and

"How dare you insinuate that the evangelists could deviate from the truth to preserve their lives!"

Well, ever since the days of the Roman Empire, many Westerners have been thinking in terms of heroics – a young man should proudly march under bullets in the name of our king, our country, our faith, our freedom, or whatever. But in the Gospels the Disciples of Christ fled when Christ was arrested, and Peter lied out of fear three times that he did not know Christ. This absence of heroics makes the Gospels alive even 2,000 years after the birth of Christ.

Incidentally, in their deviations from the truth to shift the blame from Pilate to "the Jews," the evangelists had at least this justification: They tried to preserve their lives to be able to spread Christianity in the territory of the Roman Empire before they were killed, while Peter had no such justification when he lied three times that he did not know Christ.

According to Matthew in the New International Edition of the Holy Bible, 27:24, 25: "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere [that is, he could not persuade "the Jews" that Christ was "innocent"], but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man’s blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!'

"All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'"

Here a reader may expect that Pilate told his soldiers curtly to take Christ away or even just waved them to do so. But no! Pilate "had Jesus flogged [in his presence] and handed him over [with washed hands] to be crucified."

Note that only Matthew describes the colorful hand-washing scene, which led to the phrase "to wash one’s hands of" in all languages of Christendom. The other three evangelists did not say a word about it. Did all three of them go temporarily blind simultaneously?

As a Jew, Matthew knew this Jewish hand-washing custom, but he did not know that it was not a Roman custom and so Pilate would not have used it to salve his Roman conscience.

However, even as a Jewish custom it had a different meaning. When a corpse was found, and several Jews were under suspicion, they washed their hands as equivalent to pleading not guilty. (See Deuteronomy 21:17: "And they shall ... say, Our hands have not shed this blood. ...")

Matthew turns this Jewish custom inside out: Pilate had Christ flogged in his presence, handed him over to be crucified, and washed his hands to prove that he was innocent of crucifying Christ!

This is like a defendant, charged with murder in a court of justice, pleading not guilty, and then proceeding, right there in the courtroom, to murder his victim in the most ruthless way.

As for "the Jews," they shouted, according to Matthew: "Let his blood be on us and on our children."

This is a Jewish curse. A Jew curses a murderer: Let the blood of the victim be on him and on his children! But here "the Jews" cursed themselves to prove that Pilate was innocent. The three other evangelists did not mention the curse – evidently, all three of them went temporarily deaf at the same time.

Finally, it is absurd to suppose that "the Jews" could tell Pilate what to do. Pilate would have declared this a riot, a rebellion, an uprising, and made mincemeat out of "the Jews." Let us remember that ere long the Roman Empire killed more than a million Jews and threw the others out of Judea.

Also, Pilate was recalled to Rome for his excessive mass cruelty, not for his kindness, righteousness, liberalism, conscience, saintliness, nobility and obedience to "the Jews," allegedly hating Christ, nobody knows what for, as their worst enemy to be crucified by the Romans, and not just beheaded by Herod Antipas, as the Jewish custom prescribed.