Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Book Reviews
Chapter 4 investigates Mark’s Pilate. Carter’s reading begins at Mark 15:1, where
the Jerusalem elite hand over to their ally Pilate the rebel Jesus, after he has been found
guilty of blasphemy. Pilate’s actions in the following verses, 15:1–15, are said to establish
his control over the scene’s participants; they comply with him in ways “consistent with
the imperial dynamics of the scene” (p. 73). Citing these and additional verses, Carter
emphasizes the clash between the Roman view and Jesus’ vision of a just society based
on divine mercy and life-giving purpose (p. 61). Conspicuously absent from the discussion
is the centurion whose confession of Jesus on the cross as the son of God (15:39)
indicates a Markan development beyond Carter’s dichotomy of Roman and Christian
social orders.
Carter finds in Matthew’s Gospel the same dichotomy of social orders; Pilate is
said to embody a system of domination while service is the key to Jesus’ realm. Both
characters, Carter notes, are given titles such as governor and king, but for vastly different
reasons. At Jesus’ trial (Matt 27:11–26), Pilate is said to manipulate the crowd into
readily accepting responsibility for Jesus’ death. The manipulation peaks when Pilate’s
handwashing induces the common cry, “His blood be on us” (27:24–25). The exchange
is said to reflect “the ruling elite’s control over the people in this imperial situation”
(p. 97).
Arrogance and ignorance characterize Luke’s Pilate, according to Carter. His view
challenges that of a weak Pilate who succumbs to the demands for Jesus’ crucifixion
even though the accusations appear to be groundless (Luke 23:4). Carter maintains that
Pilate, in dismissing the ostensibly harmless Jesus, is arrogant and unaware that the
divine purpose at work in Jesus and his followers threatens the Roman Empire and its
status quo. Carter amply demonstrates the threat by discussing the countercultural
facets of Christianity that Luke highlights. Less secure is the view that Pilate’s arrogance
leads him to underestimate Jesus; the claims that Pilate “seems” arrogant and “seems”
blind to the dangers that Jesus poses (p. 119) are somewhat subjective and unlikely to
convince all readers.
In reading John’s Gospel, Carter focuses on the trial (chs. 18–19), which he subdivides
into seven scenes. In each scene irony is said to prevail as Pilate’s coercive exercise
of imperial power coincides with Jesus’ appearing as a king portending God’s rule over
all things, including the Roman Empire. John’s Pilate, in Carter’s analysis, plays the role
of spiteful antagonist opposite Jesus and as well Jesus’ detractors, the Jerusalem elite.
The view of Pilate in this chapter is consistent with that found throughout the book: far
from being weak and indecisive, Pilate rules with power that is derived from the Roman
Empire and exercised in the shadow of irony.
This and the other views in the book are expressed cogently and clearly. In sum,
the book achieves its aims and reads well. There is but one noteworthy shortcoming: no
indexes. Topical and scriptural indexes would assist readers wanting to explore more
fully the issues raised by Pilate’s actions. Even without indexes, however, Carter’s book
is highly serviceable to undergraduates and will be of interest to those engaged in socialscientific
criticism of the NT.
369
Richard J. Bautch
St. Edward’s University, Austin, TX 78704