I have now written several articles on this website in which I have presented the evidence that is currently available for the historicity of various figures from ancient times. For instance, I have written entire articles presenting the evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, Alexander the Great, and King David. I also presented the evidence for the historicity of Pythagoras in this article and the historicity of Socrates in this article, although in neither case was historicity the main subject of the article. In this article, I intend to present the evidence for the historical existence of Pontius Pilate.
Although we can never be absolutely, 100% certain about anything in history, we can be about as certain that Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure as we can about anything historical. Furthermore, contrary to the claims you frequently hear from evangelical apologists, no sane historian has ever disputed that Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure. There may have been some kooks at some point who disputed it, but the real historians have basically always agreed that Pontius Pilate existed, since the historical evidence for his existence is so overwhelming.
Background on Pontius Pilate
Judging from his nomen Pontius, Pontius Pilate (whose name in Latin is Pontius Pilatus) was apparently a member of the Pontii, a Roman family of Samnite origin whose members are well-attested in various historical sources. Another famous member of the Pontii was Lucius Pontius Aquila, who was tribune of the plebs in around 45 BC and was later a member of the conspiracy that led to the assassination of Julius Caesar on 15 March 44 BC. By Pilate’s time, the Pontii had evidently risen through the ranks to become members of the equestrian class—the second-highest social class in ancient Rome, second only to the senatorial class.
Pontius Pilate was installed as Roman governor of Judaea in around 26 AD during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (ruled 14 – 37 AD). He was the fifth Roman governor of Judaea. During Pilate’s tenure as governor, the administrative capital of Judaea was the city of Caesarea Maritima, which is where Pilate appears to have spent nearly all his time. Pilate served as governor until he was removed from office as a result of his unnecessary brutality towards his subjects in either 36 or 37 AD near the very end of Tiberius’s reign. He was one of the longest-serving Roman governors of Judaea.
ABOVE: The Death of Caesar, painted in 1865 by the German Academic painter Karl von Piloty. Lucius Pontius Aquila, who shared the same nomen as Pontius Pilate, was one of Julius Caesar’s assassins.
Philon of Alexandria on Pontius Pilate in the Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 AD)
First of all, Pontius Pilate is mentioned in numerous surviving historical sources written by Jewish, Roman, and Christian authors. Our earliest mention of Pilate in a historical source comes from the writings of the Jewish Middle Platonist philosopher Philon of Alexandria (lived c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD), who was a contemporary of Pilate.
In section 38 of his account Embassy to Gaius, which is thought to have been written around 40 AD or thereabouts, only a few years after Pilate’s removal from his position as governor, Philon characterizes Pilate as a cruel and merciless ruler who oppressed the Jewish people. Here is what he says about him, as translated by C. D. Yonge:
“Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you. Pilate was one of the emperor’s lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor.”
“But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: ‘Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.’”
“But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.”
Philon’s account may not be very flattering of Pilate, but it is the earliest historical account we have.
ABOVE: Fictional European engraving dating to c. 1584 depicting how the artist imagined the Jewish Middle Platonist philosopher Philon of Alexandria might have looked. No one knows what he really looked like.
Titus Flavius Josephus on Pontius Pilate in The Jewish War (c. 75 AD)
Our main source of historical information about Pontius Pilate are the extensive surviving writings of the Jewish historian Titus Flavius Josephus (lived c. 37 – c. 100), who mentions Pilate in two separate works. First, Josephus briefly mentions Pilate in Book Two of his book The Jewish War, which was published in around 75 AD. Here is what Josephus says about Pontius Pilate in The Jewish War, Book Two, chapter nine, sections one through four, as translated by William Whiston:
“Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Cæsar that are called ensigns, into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate’s denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immoveable in that posture for five days, and as many nights.”
“On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight: Pilate also said to them, that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Cæsar’s images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.”
“After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamour at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armour with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamour. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.”
ABOVE: Fictional engraving dating to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth-century depicting how the artist imagined the historian Titus Flavius Josephus might have looked. No one knows what he really looked like.
Titus Flavius Josephus on Pontius Pilate in Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 AD)
Josephus describes Pilate’s tenure as governor of Judaea in considerable detail in Book Eighteen of his book Antiquities of the Jews, which was published in around 94 AD. The main section concerning the tenure of Pilate as governor occurs in Antiquities of the Jews Book Eighteen, chapter three, sections one through four. Here is the passage, as translated by William Whiston:
“But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem: to take their winter quarters there; in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Cesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city: whereas our law forbids us the very making of images.”
“On which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there. Which was done without the knowledge of the people; because it was done in the night time. But as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days, that he would remove the images. And when he would not grant their requests, because this would tend to the injury of Cesar; while yet they persevered in their request; on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately; while he came and sat upon his judgment seat. Which seat was so prepared, in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them. And when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them round; and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed. Upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable: and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.”
“[A.D. 28.] But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem; and did it with the sacred money: and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water: and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamour against him; and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man; as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit; who carried daggers under their garments; and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away. But they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on. Who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not. Nor did they spare them in the least. And since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, they were a great number of them slain by this means: and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.”
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross; those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again, the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
The fourth paragraph quoted here (i.e. Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4) is popularly known as the Testimonium Flavianum, which is Latin for “Testimony of Flavius.” Most scholars generally agree that the Testimonium Flavianum has been significantly altered by a later Christian scribe, since the lines “it if be lawful to call him a man” and “He was [the] Christ]” clearly smack of the work of a Christian interpolator.
Some scholars have argued that the entire Testimonium Flavianum may be a later Christian interpolation, but this view has not become widely accepted (or at least not yet). In any case, I will not address those arguments here because they are irrelevant to the question of the historicity of Pilate. There are no doubts concerning the authenticity of sections one through three of the passage quoted above, since those sections speak only of Pilate and make no mention of Jesus.
ABOVE: Ecce Homo, painted between c. 1860 and c. 1880 by the Swiss-Italian Academic painter Antonio Ciseri. The Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 mentions Pilate having condemned Jesus to crucifixion. Although the authenticity of that particular passage is disputed, the three paragraphs before it concerning Pilate’s tenure as governor are agreed to be authentic.
Later on, Josephus describes the incident which resulted in Pilate’s removal from his position as governor in Antiquities of the Jews Book Eighteen, chapter four, sections one through two:
“But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence: and who contrived every thing so, that the multitude might be please. So he bid them to get together upon mount Gerizzim: which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains: and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would shew them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place; because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed; and thought the discourse of the man probable. And as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together. But Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads, with a great band of horsemen, and footmen: who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village: and when it came to an action, some of them they slew; and others of them they put to flight; and took a great many alive. The principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.”
“But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an ambassy to Vitellius; a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria; and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed. For that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans; but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea; and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the Emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome: and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius; which he durst not contradict. But before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.”
Pontius Pilate in early Christian writings (starting c. 70 AD)
In addition to being described in the writings of Philon and Josephus, Pontius Pilate is also described in a number of early Christian writings. He appears in all four canonical gospels, as well as in a number of early apocryphal Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Peter. The earliest surviving gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was probably written sometime around 70 AD—around three decades or so after Pilate’s removal from his position as governor of Judaea.
The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were probably written within the next two or three decades after the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of John was probably written at some point roughly between around 95 AD and around 120 AD. The Gospel of Peter was written sometime probably not very long after the Gospel of John, perhaps at some point in around the middle of the second century AD or thereabout.
It is important to emphasize that none of the gospels are historically reliable; they are, on the contrary, extremely late, untrustworthy, and biased accounts, filled with legends and fabrications. This does not, however, mean that there is nothing in the gospels that is historically true or that the gospels are entirely useless as historical sources.
Indeed, while it is true that the gospels are biased and unreliable, even biased and unreliable sources can still be valuable for historical purposes and can still yield some accurate historical information—if they are treated with the proper skepticism. We therefore should not dismiss the gospels entirely when it comes to examining the evidence for the historicity of Pontius Pilate.
ABOVE: Photograph of the verso side of John Rylands Papyrus P52, the oldest known surviving fragment of a New Testament text, dating to around the middle of the second century AD, containing a portion of the text of the Gospel of John 18:37-38, which is part of the description of Jesus’s interrogation by Pilate
Pilate’s portrayal in the gospels is very interesting to examine. Philon and Josephus both portray Pilate as a cruel, stubborn, and merciless ruler who oppressed and mistreated his subjects, but the gospels consistently portray Pilate in almost exactly the opposite manner; the gospels portray Pilate as a well-intentioned, honest, but weak-willed man who was driven to condemn Jesus to death solely because the people willed it.
The most likely reason why the portrayal of Pilate in the gospels differs so drastically from the portrayal of Pilate found in the writings of Philon and Josephus is because the authors of the gospels were writing with the express intention to convert Greeks and Romans to Christianity. They did not want to portray Pilate negatively because this would send the implication that the Romans were responsible for Jesus’s execution, an implication which might drive off potential converts.
The following description of Jesus’s trial before Pilate in given in the Gospel of Mark 15:1–15, as translated in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):
“As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ He answered him, ‘You say so.’ Then the chief priests accused him of many things. Pilate asked him again, ‘Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.’ But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.”
“Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, ‘Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?’ For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. Pilate spoke to them again, ‘Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?’ They shouted back, ‘Crucify him!’ Pilate asked them, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they shouted all the more, ‘Crucify him!’ So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.”
The Gospel of Matthew 27:24–26 goes even further and has Pilate actually make a display of literally washing his hands, telling the crowd that his hands are clean of Jesus’s blood. The Jews shout back at him, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Here is the passage in question, as translated in the NRSV:
“So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.’ Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’ So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.”
The authors of the gospels therefore sought to absolve Pilate of all blame for Jesus’s crucifixion and instead explicitly pin the blame directly on the Jewish people. Thus, Pilate is shown in the gospels as determined to exonerate Jesus, but forced by popular opinion to condemn him to death instead.
This effort by the gospels writers to exonerate Pilate and vilify the Jews has unfortunately provided plenty of fuel for centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. For the past 1,700 years at least, one of the foremost accusations against the Jewish people has been that they were responsible for Jesus’s crucifixion.
ABOVE: Christ and Pilate, painted in 1890 by the Russian Realist painter Nikolai Ge, depicting a famous scene from the Gospel of John 18:28–38
Publius Cornelius Tacitus on Pontius Pilate in the Annals (c. 116 AD)
Pontius Pilate is also very briefly mentioned by the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (lived c. 56 – c. 120 AD) in Book Fifteen, section 44 of his historical work Annals, which he wrote in around 116 AD. Tacitus mentions Pilate in the context of describing the consequences of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Tacitus records how the emperor Nero blamed the fire on the Christians. He then goes on to briefly explain the origins of Christianity. In doing so, Tacitus happens to mention Pontius Pilate as having been the one who sentenced Jesus to be crucified.
Unfortunately, unlike Josephus, Tacitus tells us very, very little about Pilate. Here is the full extent of Tacitus’s testimony concerning Pilate, as translated by J. Jackson for the Loeb Classical Library:
“Therefore, to scotch the rumour [that he deliberately caused the Great Fire of Rome], Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.”
Tacitus goes on for at least another paragraph describing in great detail some of the horrific ways in which Nero sentenced Christians to be executed, but I will not quote the remainder of the passage, since Tacitus makes no reference to Pilate after this point.
Tacitus’s mention of Pilate is somewhat useful for establishing Pilate’s historicity, but is of very little help when it comes to historical information about the man.
ABOVE: Modern fictional statue of the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus from outside the Austrian Parliament Building in Vienna. As with all the other historians I have mentioned, no one knows what Tacitus really looked like.
The Pilate Stone
In addition to all the unambiguous textual evidence in favor of Pontius Pilate’s historical existence, there is also some archaeological evidence. Pilate’s name occurs in at least two separate inscriptions dating to his time as governor of Judaea. The better known of these inscriptions is the Pilate Stone, a block of carved limestone that was discovered in 1961 in the ruins of the city of Caesarea Maritima. It bears an inscription with the following words in Latin:
“[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIÉUM
[…PONTI]US PILATUS
[…PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[…FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]”
This has been translated as:
“To the Divine Augusti, [this] Tiberieum
[…Ponti]us Pilatus,
[…Pref]ect of Judaea
[…has d]e[dicated].”
This inscription is clearly a dedication by Pontius Pilate to the “Augusti” (i.e. the deceased Roman emperor Augustus and his wife Livia).
Evangelical apologists love claiming that, prior to the discovery of the Pilate stone, those awful, skeptical, liberal scholars had gone around claiming that Pilate never existed and that the discovery of the Pilate stone proved them wrong. For instance, here is an article that was published in May 2018 by Deseret News, a Mormon news outlet based in Salt Lake City, which claims the following:
“Until the summer of 1961, absolutely no archaeological evidence existed that would demonstrate that Pontius Pilate, a pivotal figure in the New Testament gospels, ever really existed. Some literary sources mention him — including a few brief allusions in Jewish material (e.g., Josephus) and in late Roman chronicles (e.g., Tacitus) — but no administrative records survive from him and no genuine letters of his have been preserved. Plenty of Roman ruins exist in Israel, but none bears his name, and a historical Pilate isn’t required to account for them.”
[…]
“But did he really even exist? Critics eager to dismiss the New Testament Gospels as imaginative fiction (along with their accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) were only too happy to point to the lack of evidence for Pilate as support for their broader dismissal.”
“In June 1961, however, while working in the Mediterranean seaside ruins of Caesarea Maritima, a team led by the Italian archaeologist Antonio Frova found a sizable piece of limestone — slightly more than 0.8 meters wide and somewhat less than 0.7 meters high — that bears the name of ‘Pontius Pilatus.’”
You can find similar claims made in other articles elsewhere.
These repeated assertions that mainstream scholars once doubted the historical existence of Pilate are completely false. Sure, it is possible that there may have been a few misguided kooks well outside the realm of mainstream scholarship who had seriously questioned Pilate’s existence, but real, mainstream scholars had always accepted that Pilate was a historical figure. And, frankly, the historical sources covering Pilate’s reign are actually a lot stronger evidence of Pilate’s existence than the measly inscription on the Pilate Stone.
The Pilate stone did, however, give us one very important piece of information about Pontius Pilate: his title. You see, Tacitus had described Pilate as the “procurator” of Judaea, but the Pilate stone calls him the “prefect” of Judaea. Prior to the discovery of the Pilate stone, there had been debate about what Pilate’s actual, official title was, since, aside from Tacitus’s description of him as “procurator,” it was assumed that the early governors of Judaea had, in fact, only held the title of “prefect.” The Pilate stone showed that Tacitus was wrong about Pilate’s official title and that Pilate was indeed only a prefect, nor a procurator.
ABOVE: Photograph of the Pilate Stone in situ, where it was discovered in 1961 in the ruins of Caesarea Maritima, which was the administrative capital of Judaea at the time of Pilate
ABOVE: Photograph of the Pilate Stone at its current location on prominent display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem
The Pilate Ring
In late November 2018, a small, copper-alloy ring that had been discovered at the site of Herodeion in 1969 was identified as bearing the inscription “ΠΙΛΑΤΟ” (Pilato), which is clearly a form of the name Πιλάτος (Pilátos), which is the Greek version of Pilate’s name
There are two different ways this inscription could be interpreted. It could be interpreted as a clipped form of ΠΙΛΑΤΟ[Υ] (Pilato[u]), which would be the genitive singular form of Πιλάτος. Thus, according to this interpretation, the inscription would read, “Of Pilate” or “Belonging to Pilate.” Alternatively, however, the inscription could be interpreted as a misspelling of ΠΙΛΑΤΩΙ, which would be the dative singular form of Πιλάτος. Thus, the inscription would read “For Pilate” or “To Pilate.”
Naturally, media outlets went wild, claiming that the ring in question had belonged to none other than Pontius Pilate himself and that it had been his personal signet ring, worn on his very own finger! Contrary to what new outlets have reported, though, we have no evidence that the ring itself was actually Pilate’s personal ring. It certainly has Pilate’s name on it, but it is much more probable that the ring belonged to one of Pilate’s scribes, servants, or administrators rather than to the governor himself.
For one thing, it is unlikely that the governor of Judaea would have worn such a small, simple ring made of a copper-alloy. Pontius Pilate was arguably the most powerful man in Judaea at the time; he could easily have afforded fancier jewelry than this. This ring is more the sort of thing that a scribe or lower-level administrator who worked for Pilate might have worn. In any case, regardless of who actually wore it, the ring does serve as archaeological evidence for Pilate’s existence.
ABOVE: On the left is a photograph of the ring with Pilate’s name inscribed on it taken by C. Amit from the IAA Photographic Department. On the right is a drawing of the ring by J. Rodman.
Conclusion
Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure who is attested in multiple accounts written by Jewish and Roman historians. Although Philon’s mention of Pilate in his Embassy to Gaius is the earliest, Josephus’s accounts of Pilate in his books The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews are the most valuable from a historical perspective because Josephus gives us a lot more information about Pilate than Philon does.
The descriptions of Pilate in the gospels are unreliable and do not match what is known about Pilate from historical sources. Nonetheless, these accounts should not be dismissed as entirely useless. Tacitus’s brief mention of Pilate is noteworthy and of some use for establishing Pilate’s historicity, but not really helpful when it comes to finding historical information about the man.
In addition to the historical sources, Pilate’s name is also attested in two known surviving contemporary inscriptions. His name appears in the inscription on the Pilate Stone as well as in the inscription on the Pilate Ring. There may be other surviving inscriptions that contain Pilate’s name that have not yet been discovered.
In short, there is a wealth of overwhelming evidence that Pontius Pilate was a real man who served as governor of Judaea from roughly 26 AD until around either 36 or 37 AD.
