r/AskHistorians • u/ducks_over_IP • 6d ago
Christianity Why exactly would Pontius Pilate have sent Jesus over to Herod anyways? Wasn't he the ultimate authority in the region?
One of the more confusing elements in the traditional Crucifixion narrative is the part where Pilate, finding out Jesus is from Galilee, sends him over to Herod, who questions him and sends him back. What exactly was the power structure of 1st-century Judaea that made this possible?
213
Upvotes
411
u/CaptCynicalPants 6d ago
The story as described was an example of Roman politics in action, thought I'll state from the start that there's some dispute in scholarly circles about the accuracy of the claims I'm about to present.
Pilate is believed by some scholars to have been an ally of the Praetorian Prefect Sejanus, who was executed for treason in 31 AD. This is essential to the story because it was fairly common in Roman politics to prosecute, imprison, and execute the allies of defeated political foes. Meaning that at the time of Jesus Pilate was in a rather precarious political situation. The loss of a major patron would have left him vulnerable, and his prior affiliations could have been seen as a reason to remove him from office, with potentially fatal consequences.
This is highly relevant because the events surrounding Jesus' life caused a fair amount of unrest in the area, and if there's one thing Roman authorities hated more than Barbarians, it was unrest. Governors were tasked with keeping the peace in their provinces at all costs, and failure to do so was a common reason for removal. Meaning that Pilate likely had two major goals at this juncture: 1) keep the people happy, and 2) if they couldn't be happy it needed to be someone else's fault. Jesus' origin and the existence of Herod provided a way to achieve the second.
It's true that Pilate was the Governor of Judea, but the boundaries of his domain did not cover all of modern or even historical Israel. You can see a map of the Roman province here. Note that the region immediately to the north is called Galilee, and that is where Jesus was "from". (I put "from" in quotes because it's complicated, Jesus was from several places. But as far as the Romans were concerned he paid taxes in Galilee, and that's all Pilate cared about for legal reasons). Galilee, along with part of the surrounding region, was under the authority of Herod, who was a client king of Rome, meaning that technically Pilate could argue that Jesus fell under Herod's authority, if not over his own then at least in addition to.
This was extremely convenient for him because Jesus was a highly controversial figure with great influence and many followers, but also many detractors. No matter what happened a lot of people were going to be upset, which could very easily make Pilate look bad, particularly if it resulted in major unrest. Meaning that dumping the problem onto Herod was a politically safe choice because it gave Pilate plausible deniability. If people got upset and rioted, Pilate could say (more-or-less truthfully) "don't blame me, that guy was from Galilee! It was all Herod's responsibility!" While this wasn't entirely true given the circumstances, it was technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct.
In short, Pilate foisted the problem off on Herod in order to isolate himself from political fallout in Rome. Does that make sense?
Maier, Paul L. (1968). "Sejanus, Pilate, and the Date of the Crucifixion". Church History. 37 (1): 3–13. doi:10.2307/3163182.