Ecce Homo

John 19:5-6

So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!" When the chief priests and the police saw him they shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, I found no case against him."¹

alt.

So Jesus came out still wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Look at the man!" When the chief priests and the police saw him they shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, I found no case against him."²

Recently, a certain phrase has been coming up quite a bit, this phrase being "ecce homo", these are the words uttered by Pontius Pilate to the Jews after having Jesus flogged for the Jewish crime of blasphemy. It is Latin for "here is the man", or "behold the man". The job then becomes to decide if Pontius Pilate said these words in reference to Jesus of Nazarene. If he did say them, why did he say them? If he did not say them, why did the writers of the Gospel of John want people to believe that he did? To do this we must first look at the book of John, then at the text in question, and then at the man who said this.

The Gospel of John

The book of John was written very late compared to the other Gospels, the final edition coming out between 100 and 150 ce.³ The sole purpose of the Gospel of John is to establish Jesus as the son of God. It stands apart from the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) in the fact that is is very light in terms of parables and teachings, and God's imperial rule. Jesus performs miracles, as in the other gospels, but there is a curious shift of language from "miracle" to "signs" in Greek. This of course meaning that the things that Jesus does are not just out of the ordinary events, but actual proof that he is incarnate of God.

The striking differences in theology make John difficult to cross-reference with other Gospels, many of the things said in John are exclusive to John. Unfortunately, this does not provide strong scholarly proof that the things that happen in John actually happened. One of the best ways to confirm anything from historic documents is to find proof of events in other documents, this is a difficult task when it comes to the Gospel of John.

However, it should be noted that several discoveries have helped improve the reliability of John a bit. The synoptics focus on what Jesus was doing, while John puts these events in a more historic context, this explains some of the differences of text. Also, the uncovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls brought about the discovery of a text that is very similar to, but much older than John called the Qumran, a wisdom text which contains much of the Greek influence that is so prevalent in John.⁴

John 19:5-6

This verse (see above) is unique to the Gospel of John. The other gospels simply have Pilate order Jesus flogged and the crucified. In this version of the Passion, Pilate offers flogging as an alternative to crucifixion. Pilate is confused about the severity of the punishment that the Judeans request for this rabbi, in all of the Gospels he asks them why Jesus should be put to death. Matthew and Luke take the extra step of having Pilate wash the blood from his hands, a symbolic act to signify the Gentile innocence for the crime of murdering Jesus. John puts in one final step to separate the Gentiles from the "crime" of having Jesus murdered. Pilate offers an alternative punishment, and after this is done he intends to set Jesus free, but the Judeans insist on his crucifixion, even after he is presented to them after being scourged.

This presentation is prophesied in Isaiah 52:14 "Just as there were many who were astonished at him - so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance - so he shall startle many nations..." ⁵This is to say that he will be presented disfigured so badly that it shocks foreign people, or the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. There is a lot of time and energy spent in the Gospels referencing the prophecies of the Messiah in order to prove the divinity of Jesus to the Jews. The extra step taken by Pilate offers a unique opportunity to reference another one of these often cryptic messages taken from the Hebrew Bible.

There are a couple of ways that the text in question can be interpreted. The most obvious way is to assume no tone in what Pilate is saying. "I don't see anything wrong with this guy, we smacked him around a little bit, here he is, all banged up, are you happy now?" Of course, they are not satisfied,even with his marred appearance, and he is condemned by his own people to death. Theologians often focus on Pilate's recognition of the divinity of Jesus. In this context Pilate is making a comparison between Jesus and the Jews. Pilate is presenting Jesus not just as a man, or some man in a disgraced state, he is presenting him as the True Man. He is imploring them to Behold a true Human, and a person of God. But with this interpretation we have to ask about Pilate, and if it was in his character to do such a thing?

Pontius Pilate

We know that Pontius Pilate was a Roman prefect assigned to the area by Tiberius. Josephus writes of him in his History of the Destruction of Jerusalem Book II Chapter 9. Josephus mentions that Pilate nearly caused riots in the streets of Judea. According to Josephus "their Laws (the Laws of the Jews) were nearly trodden under foot"⁶ He then goes on to explain that, in spite of laws against it, Pilate insisted on erecting statues of himself in the walls of the city, and even trying to put his statues in the temple. This blatant disregard for Jewish practice nearly caused a riot. Pilate is generally thought of as a hard and uncaring person. He was power hungry, and tried to crush the will of the Jews.

Basically, from what we know of him, Pilate did not care about Jewish custom, or what the Judeans thought about anything. The Gospels describe his position as politically messy. He was put in an unstable area, and several outbursts by the people he was ruling over had not put him in a positive light in Rome. Crucifixion of Jesus at the request of the Jews was done to keep momentary peace in the city he was ruling. It is possible that he gained some hard experience from his early problem in the city, but we will never know for sure what his intention was in sentencing this teacher to death.

Conclusion

It is difficult to judge the accuracy of certain parts of the Bible, particularly those parts which stand alone and in slight opposition to other parts. The writers of the Bible each had specific intentions to convey to a very large audience. Each word was chosen for a specific reason, and the authors understood that a change of even a single word could have far reaching ramifications for the interpretation of a certain text. The writers of John sought to show Jesus as the true Son of God, a role which is unique to that Gospel. Even the man who sentenced him to death recognized his divinity, however, in sentencing him, Pilate played an important role in the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecies. His presentation of Jesus to the people is not only a part of that fulfillment, but also a final chance for the people of Judea to see Jesus as divine. Their failure to recognize his divinity sealed the fate of the temple and Jerusalem, however, it was necessary for the completion of the crucifixion, the symbolic act of salvation for mankind.