To view the English translation, please scroll down to the bottom.
英文有一句諺語 “I wash my hands of (something)”，直譯就是“我洗手把（某件事）清掉”。意思是“我要退出某事，不再承擔責任”。這句諺語的由來出自於基督教新約聖經，羅馬巡撫彼拉多的故事。聖經記載，當猶太人把耶穌交到彼拉多面前受審時，彼拉多查不出耶穌有什麼罪，但又怕猶太民眾起哄。他就在這群群情洶湧的百姓面前洗手，聲稱耶穌最終之死不是因為他的行為，他的手並沒有沾染耶穌的血。而那些一心想要釘耶穌十字架的猶太人，也絲毫不恐懼地把罪名承擔下來，他們齊聲回答：「他的血歸到我們和我們的子孫身上」。於是，彼拉多便命令人，把另一位已被判罪、等候處決的囚犯巴拉巴釋放了。之後，把耶穌帶去鞭打，然後把他釘在十字架上。
多年來，許多歷史學家及聖經學者爭議、討論，為什麼聖經把彼拉多描述成如此無辜、軟弱的巡撫，而將猶太人呈現為終極的惡棍。不僅彼拉多被形容成一名優柔寡斷的長官，保羅·溫特（Paul Winter）博士在他 “On The Trial of Jesus”一書中觀察到，原本嚴厲形象的彼拉多，從馬可福音（公元70年）到馬太福音（公元80年），馬太福音到路加福音（公元85年），接著最後一本約翰福音（公元90年），隨著歷史離發生事件時間越遠，彼拉多的形象也越加顯得得更柔和、更富同情心；同時，猶太人的形象也隨著歷史之演變，變本加厲被描述得越顯兇悍。
大體而言，基督徒對彼拉多單面的刻板印象都來自唯一的源頭—新約聖經。我們來看看在聖經之外的史料中，彼拉多是怎樣被描述。
史學、哲學家斐洛（Philo of Alexandria 公元前25年~公元59年）記載的文獻裡，彼拉多是一個極不願屈服於羅馬帝國統治的頑強巡撫。斐洛嚴厲斥責這位省長“賄賂、殘酷、侮辱百姓、搶劫、肆意傷害”。他還說彼拉多“唯利是圖、性情急躁，經常不經過審理該有的程序，就把肇事者處決 ，有政治暴力傾向，盜竊國家經費，並無止無休地處死那些反抗他的人”（參Stephen J. Patterson著 “The Forgotten Creed: Christianity's Original Struggle against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism”）。
除了斐洛以外，著名的猶太史學家約瑟夫斯（Flavius Josephus 公元37年~100年）對彼拉多也有許多不同的描述。約瑟夫斯說彼拉多對猶太文化絲毫不了解。他經常以武力用事，不尊重猶太人的傳統，好幾次差點造成猶太人大規模的叛亂。當年的羅馬人對他們的皇帝，就是凱撒大帝（Julius Caesar），必須進行一定程度上的敬拜。但凱撒大帝制定了一項政策，特別允許猶太人遵循他們自己的傳統宗教習俗。奧古斯都（Augustus) 繼位之後，繼續遵循並擴展這項政策。 這個措施給猶太教在整個帝國中享有獨特的宗教地位。 眾所周知，猶太人不會向羅馬諸神獻祭或在皇帝像前燒香。在猶太聖經裡，拜偶像之行為是上帝所禁止的，因此猶太人憎恨拜偶像。但羅馬當局相當尊重猶太人的宗教傳統、信仰和習俗，因此不會去為難猶太人。
在彼拉多尚未上任之前的提督，從來沒有在耶路撒冷城內（也就是聖殿所在地）擺設任何羅馬人的塑像或圖像。但彼拉多上任後在這方面特別執著，所以他跟猶太人的衝突層出不窮。猶太人長期請求彼拉多除去城中凱薩大帝的肖像，彼拉多就用武力來威脅鎮壓猶太人，僵持了5天之後，彼拉多才不得不放棄。如歷史學家彼得·謝弗 (Peter Schaefer) 所推斷（參Peter Schaefer著 “Jesus in the Talmud”），如果彼拉多連在微不足道的事上都固執、不願聽取人民投訴，何況再加上他對猶太人的敵意，他還有可能會聽猶太人的申訴、聆聽他們的建議、在意他們擔憂和感受嗎？
約瑟夫斯還寫了另一起結局更血腥事件：彼拉多用耶路撒冷聖殿金庫的資金建造了一條通往耶路撒冷的引水渠道。 當一群抗議的猶太人聚集時，彼拉多派了許多便衣士兵潛入人群。 他一出信號，士兵就一一取出藏在衣服中的棍棒，將許多抗議者活活打死（參Flavius Josephus著 “The Jewish War”）。雖然歷史對彼拉多的記載不是特別多，但無可置的一點是，彼拉多最後因霸道屠殺之罪名，被敘利亞總督維特利烏斯（Vitellius）罷黜了，彼拉多的名字也從此從歷史中消失了。如果今天基督教聖經不存在的話，彼拉多在歷史上只不過會佔一席小註腳的地位罷了。
相比之下，非聖經的歷史資料中的彼拉多是個蠻橫無理、目中無人、傲慢且殘忍的領袖； 然而聖經中的彼拉多缺乏機智，甚至願意將他的權力拱手讓給猶太群眾，是一個推卸責任、搖擺不定的法官。為什基督教聖經對彼拉多的描繪和非聖經歷史資料差距如此大？此差距產生一個非常不幸的後果：2000年來，猶太人因而深受基督徒的仇視和偏見。因為在福音書裡的彼拉多洗了手，福音書裡的猶太人接受了釘耶穌十字架的罪行，基督徒就歸咎於猶太人；換句話說，既然福音書將基督之死的責任，從一個大有權威的異教長官轉移到猶太人身上 （參Eli Kavon拉比，耶路撒冷郵報 The Jerusalem Post： Who was Pontius Pilate?），那基督徒理所當然的將耶穌之死怪罪於猶太人身上。
期盼我們無論是屬於哪個宗教信仰，我們都能夠謹慎、不盲從自己所信的 、並盡所能的去考察歷史的準確性。當一個宗教信仰在不知情或無知的情況下，去譴責、排擠那些無辜者，導致他們受到迫害和毀滅時，我們必須深刻的檢討省思自己和自己的信仰，而不是隨波逐流讓歷史的惡性循環繼續延續下去（參 Christopher Klein 著 “Why Did Pontius Pilate Have Jesus Executed?” ）。
Pilate Washing His Hands
The English proverb "I wash my hands of (someone or something)" means “ I want to refuse to have anything more to do with someone or something.” This proverb originates from the New Testament of the Christian Bible in the story of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor.
The Bible records that when the Jewish people brought Jesus before Pontius Pilate for trial, Pilate couldn't find any wrongdoing in Jesus but was afraid of the crowd's unrest. In front of the passionate crowd, he symbolically washed his hands, declaring that Jesus's ultimate death was not due to his actions, and his hands were not stained with Jesus's blood. The Jewish people who were determined to crucify Jesus fearlessly took the blame upon themselves, saying, "His blood be on us and on our children."
As a result, Pontius Pilate ordered another prisoner, Barabbas, who had already been sentenced to death, to be released. Later, Jesus was flogged and then crucified.
Over the years, many historians and Bible scholars have disputed and discussed why the Bible portrays Pontius Pilate as so innocent and indecisive as a governor, while presenting the Jewish people as ultimate villains. Not only that, but Dr. Paul Winter observed in his book "On The Trial of Jesus" that the originally stern image of Pontius Pilate, from the Gospel of Mark (around 70 CE) to the Gospel of Matthew (around 80 CE), then to the Gospel of Luke (around 85 CE), and finally the Gospel of John (around 90 CE), with the passage of time, Pilate's image also appears to become gentler and more sympathetic. At the same time, the image of the Jewish people has evolved over history, being described as increasingly fierce in various accounts.
In general, Christians' one-sided and stereotypical impression of Pontius Pilate primarily comes from the New Testament of the Bible. Let's take a look at how Pilate is described in historical sources outside of the Bible.
In the writings of the historian and philosopher Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE - 59 CE), Pilate is portrayed as a stubborn governor who was highly reluctant to submit to Roman imperial rule. Philo strongly condemns this provincial governor, accusing him of bribery, cruelty, insulting the people, plundering, and arbitrary violence. He describes Pilate as someone who was solely driven by personal gain, had a quick temper, often executed culprits without proper legal proceedings, displayed a tendency towards political violence, embezzled state funds, and relentlessly put to death those who resisted him (See Stephen J. Patterson's book "The Forgotten Creed: Christianity's Original Struggle against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism.")
Apart from Philo, the renowned Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE) also provides various descriptions of Pilate. Josephus states that Pilate had little understanding of Jewish culture, frequently resorted to force, showed disrespect for Jewish traditions, and almost incited large-scale Jewish uprisings on several occasions. During that time, Roman authorities required reverence for their emperor, Julius Caesar, to a certain extent. However, Julius Caesar had instituted a policy that specifically allowed Jewish people to adhere to their own traditional religious customs. Augustus continued and expanded this policy after succeeding him. This measure granted a unique religious status to Judaism throughout the empire. It was well-known that Jews would not offer sacrifices to Roman gods or burn incense before the emperor's image. Idol worship was strictly prohibited in the Jewish scriptures, and Jewish people detested it. However, Roman authorities respected Jewish religious traditions, beliefs, and customs, and they did not seek to trouble the Jewish people in this regard.
Before Pontius Pilate took office as prefect, no Roman images or statues were placed within the city of Jerusalem (where the Temple was located). However, once Pilate assumed his position, he was particularly insistent on this matter, leading to frequent conflicts with the Jewish people. Jewish residents repeatedly requested Pilate to remove the image of Caesar from the city, and Pilate responded with threats and force, leading to a five-day standoff before he ultimately gave in. As historian Peter Schaefer speculates (See Peter Schaefer's book "Jesus in the Talmud.") if Pilate was so stubborn and unwilling to listen to the people's complaints on minor matters, it becomes even less likely that he would have been attentive to Jewish appeals, concerns, and sentiments, given his animosity towards them.
Josephus also records another bloodier event: Pilate used funds from the treasury of the Jerusalem Temple to construct an aqueduct leading to Jerusalem. When a group of protesting Jews gathered, Pilate sent many plainclothes soldiers into the crowd. Upon his signal, the soldiers drew clubs concealed in their clothing and brutally beat many of the protesters to death. While historical records about Pilate are not particularly extensive, one indisputable fact is that Pilate was eventually removed from office by the Syrian governor Vitellius on charges of tyrannical slaughter. Pilate's name disappeared from history thereafter. If it weren't for the existence of the Christian Bible today, Pilate would have been a relatively minor figure in history.
In contrast, the portrayal of Pontius Pilate in non-Biblical historical sources paints a picture of a ruthless, arrogant, and cruel leader. However, the Pilate depicted in the Christian Bible lacks cunning, and he is even willing to relinquish his authority to the Jewish crowd, appearing as an irresolute judge who shirks responsibility. Why is there such a significant disparity between the depiction of Pilate in the Christian Bible and non-Biblical historical records? This disparity has had a very unfortunate consequence: for over 2,000 years, Jews have suffered from the hatred and prejudice of Christians. Because in the Gospels, Pilate washed his hands, and the Jews in the Gospels accepted the blame for crucifying Jesus, Christians naturally placed blame on the Jews. In other words, since the Gospels shifted the responsibility for Jesus' death from a powerful non-Jewish official to the Jews, Christians have (See Eli Kavon, Rabbi, in "The Jerusalem Post" article "Who was Pontius Pilate?") by default, blamed the Jews for Jesus' death.
Hopefully, regardless of our religious beliefs, we can be cautious, not blindly follow our own faith, and do our best to examine the accuracy of history. When a religious belief condemns and ostracizes the innocent in ignorance, leading to their persecution and destruction, we must deeply reflect on ourselves and our faith, rather than perpetuating the vicious cycle of history (See Christopher Klein's article "Why Did Pontius Pilate Have Jesus Executed?").
Comentarios