Jesus’ Socratic Trial and Pilate’s Confession in Nonnus’ Paraphrasis of St John’s Gospel

1 Contexts: Classicism and Christianity

The Paraphrasis of St. John’s Gospel (hereafter, Paraphrasis) is a hexametric classicising rendition of the Fourth Gospel in epic style and diction that closely follows the original in content. Its author, Nonnus, was an epic poet from Panopolis (modern Ahkhmim in Egypt) who wrote and published his work in Alexandria in the mid-fifth century. Nonnus’ magnum opus was the Dionysiaca, a forty-eight-book retelling of Dionysus’ ancestry, adventures, and apotheosis that aspires to compete with Homer and the sum of the epic tradition. Whereas in previous centuries scholars clung to the poet’s alleged conversion to Christianity to explain his complex output comprising both Classical and Christian epic, modern scholarship tends to view the Nonnian corpus in terms of conjunction rather than conflict: The Dionysiaca and the Paraphrasis in fact share complementary themes like a fascination with wine, sacred mysteries, and salvation, not to mention, mutatis mutandis, a suffering demi-god as protagonist. This characteristic especially allows the mythological poem to be read as a precursor to the Christian one, with Dionysus prefiguring Christ.^[5]

The dialogue between Classicism and Christianity is pivotal for understanding the revision of the Christian gospels through a classicising lens. Julian’s famous school edict of 362 CE may have given a further impetus to the explosion of biblical classicising verse happening in the fourth century. The gradual conversion of Roman elites to Christianity had created the need for Christian literature that appealed to the pepaideumenoi in language, style, content, and performance. Not only did authors compose ‘new’ poems on Christian themes (e. g., Prudentius’ Peri Stephanon), they also made ‘translations’ of canonical and apocryphal works in classicising meter and style (e. g., the Metaphrasis of the Psalms or Juvencus’ Four Books of the Gospel). These rewritings both stylistically embellish and amplify the original text, and provide an exegetical approach to their models.^[6] Poems such as Nonnus’ Paraphrasis were heavily influenced by works like Cyril’s Commentary on John’s Gospel, resulting in transformations of original works that not only adopted the rhetorical tropes and literary aesthetic of late antique variatio, but incorporated an exegetical intention that lent further meaning to authors’ rhetorical choices. Ultimately, these texts provide invaluable insight into the modes and characteristics of the reception of John’s Gospel in Late Antiquity.

Nonnus’ characterisation of Pilate is affected by this negotiation of Christian faith and Graeco-Roman cultural identity. As we will see, it is Pilate’s paideia that proves instrumental to his conversion.^[7] This revisits the canonical Gospels, where Pilate sentences Jesus, washes his hands, composes the titulus or title, and hands Jesus’ body over to Joseph of Arimathea, who is sometimes joined by Nicodemus.^[8] Still, this sketch of Pilate in the New Testament is rather mild, especially when compared to other contemporary sources that depict the governor as an irascible and difficult man.^[9]

All the evangelists seem to have viewed Jesus’ encounter with Pilate as a confrontation with Rome, and accordingly infused this moment with anti-Roman sentiment.^[10] Even so, Pilate’s role in the drama of salvation was seen as being so crucial that he was even given a special place in the Christian Creed after 381, which located the occurrence of Jesus’ passion sub Pontio Pilato, a politically specific time and space within the scope of the Roman Empire.^[11] Pilate’s judgement also counts as the first interaction between Christianity and imperial Rome, a fact that became very problematic for the Christianised empire, since Jesus’ condemnation by a Roman official could be read as the all-powerful empire’s blindness to the message of the Messiah. Rome’s error was compounded by the fact that other gentiles outside the circle of Jesus’ disciples manifestly believed in Jesus and his message, notably the centurion who features in Matthew 8:5 – 13.

To remedy this problem, certain apocryphal texts explain the tacit conversion of the Empire taking place in Pilate’s praetorium.^[12] These texts also expand on the trial scene, adding defence witnesses and showing Pilate eagerly attempting to deliver justice with more involvement than in his otherwise straightforward stance in the canonical sources.^[13] Apocryphal revisions typically stress the Roman setting of the trial: In the Gospel of Nicodemus 5, the standards of Caesar bow down in front of Christ. This text also shows Pilate’s anxious inquiries about truth (3.2), which he clearly defines as earthly, thus suggesting that he probably did understand the non-earthly character of his interlocutor’s message.

A ‘Socratic’ is found in some apocryphal texts that cast Jesus’ trial as philosophical dialogue of sorts, but with a difference: While Socrates delivered an eloquent apology to his interrogators, Jesus stood silent – a source of astonishment for a Graeco-Roman audience.^[14] The idea of a ‘Socratic trial᾽ of Jesus is early: John’s Gospel probably already encouraged an association between the two ‘philosophers’, their disciples, and their manner of death.^[15] The late first-/early second-century Syriac Letter of Mara bar Serapion is the first extant text to compare Pythagoras, Socrates, and the ‘Wise king of the Jews’, alluding probably to Jesus.^[16] Even if Jesus could not be read as a philosopher in early canonical texts, Paul’s Athens reverberates with Socratic echoes,^[17] and the later apocryphal trials of the apostles are often reminiscent of Socrates’.^[18] Further interchange between the two figures may even be seen in the later Neoplatonic reception of Socrates as a theologian, a possible reaction to the Christian conceptualisation of Jesus as Messiah.^[19] Exegetes such as Justin and Origen stressed the similarities between the two trials, as they offered a shared cultural background that supported Christianity’s apologetic cause:^[20] Origen’s reply to Celsus enquiring why Pilate was not punished like Pentheus for murdering a god shows the governor as merely an instrument, the real culprits being the Jews.^[21] Origen argued that Jesus’ silence was intentional, ensuring that he could fulfil his mission through his death.^[22] Though he was like Socrates, the nature of his mission forced him to act differently and to eschew the parrhesia and sophistry characterising Socrates’ speech.

Early to mid-fourth-century sarcophagi exist which depict Jesus as a philosopher, thus giving his trial by Pilate an apologetic and triumphal overtone. Junius Bassus’ sarcophagus, for example, shows several scenes from the passion sequence that contrast Jesus’ earthly and divine rulership, including Pilate, who is regally depicted on the top left. These include Jesus’ triumphal entry to Jerusalem and a representation of Christ enthroned in glory giving the law.^[23] This is part of a larger trend of fourth-century visual reworkings of the trial scene that focus on the regal representation of Pilate in apposition to the enthroned Lord. With the conversion of the Roman elites to Christianity, the question of Pilate’s accountability became one of interest to Christian authors. John Chrysostom portrayed Jesus as being in fact a talented interlocutor who only failed vis-à-vis Pilate because time was lacking.^[24] Cyril’s Commentary presents Pilate anxiously inquiring about the crime Jesus allegedly committed, fearing for his position and Caesar’s retribution while Jesus increasingly starts to win over his incredulous judge.^[25] Further, Cyril depicts Pilate as hard of hearing and blind, thus a priori unable to recognise the truth, regardless of Jesus’ efforts.^[26] Cyril ultimately places the most emphasis on the problematic trilingual title ‘King of the Jews’, which he understands as an early confession of the Lord’s triumph across the ecumene and a foreshadowing of his universal rule.^[27]

Pilate and his deeds appear in a positive light in the works of several exegetes. John Chrysostom read Pilate’s inscription ‘King of the Jews’ as a quasi-apology.^[28] Gregory of Nazianzus invited newly-baptised converts to stick to their faith with the obstinacy that Pilate stood by his inscription.^[29] Consequently, while the realia of the story could not be altered, Pilate’s judgement became entangled with the broader plan of salvation, and his stance required explanation, if not justification. When Nonnus composed his verse translation of the Fourth Gospel in the mid-fifth century, his audience’s expectations would have been formed by these earlier revisions, both apocryphal and exegetical, including the portrayal of Pilate found in visual sources. Nonnus’ choice of epic hexameter as his poetic medium would have also elevated audience expectations as to the validity of the final product. In what follows I focus Nonnus’ further innovations vis-à-vis John’s Gospel and its late antique interpretation, especially as concerns Pilate’s late antique characterisation.

2 The Late Roman Judge

The language Nonnus uses to describe Pilate as an ideal ruler and judge makes the Nonnian trial an intense courtroom drama in which the governor exhaustively attempts to defend Jesus. In Matthew 27:24, Pilate rinses his hands in front of the people; in the Gospel of Nicodemus, he does so in front of the sun, an act of Roman piety.^[30] Since the Fourth Gospel does not contain a similar scene, Nonnus meticulously crafts the image of the governor as a fair judge. This is an adaptation with which the poet’s audience would have been familiar, both from classical (i. e., Homeric) and classicising (i. e., late antique panegyric, pagan and Christian) sources, and with which they could relate from examples in their own society. In addition, Nonnus’ incorporates apocryphal material, adding a further Romanised touch to the trial of Jesus, and evokes the positive Eastern traditions about Pilate. From such a portrayal, Pilate emerges as an idealised late antique Roman noble whose good intentions are more than obvious. Nonnus highlights the disproportionate nature of Pilate’s task, since the defendant was not simply a maligned man, but God himself. How then to best present this ruler-judge to the audience?

In John’s Gospel, Pilate can be read as exemplifying earthly concepts of rulership which contrast with the Messiah’s eternal and soteriological kingship. In the Paraphrasis,^[31] Nonnus’ turns Pilate into the epitome of the ideal ruler and judge using language that recalls the treatment of Homeric leaders, wielding sceptres and sanctioned by Zeus.^[32] In the first century CE, Dio Chrysostom wrote that good kings should be like Agamemnon, shepherd of the people (ποιμὴν λαῶν), an opinion reiterated by Themistius in the fourth century to Theodosius I.^[33] Nonnus raises Pilate to the level of a Homeric chieftain: He is introduced as a proud leader (αὐχήεις ἡγεμών)^[34] and a ruler (ὄρχαμος ἀνήρ),^[35] an allusion to the Iliadic rulers of peoples (ὄρχαμοι λαῶν).^[36] He is quick (ταχυεργός, ταχύμητις)^[37] and quick-witted (ὀξύς), but also short-tempered (ὀξύς), jumping up from his throne during the trial, an echo of his reaction in the Gospel of Nicodemus.^[38] Such Homeric characteristics can be found in late antique encomiastic poetry for rulers contemporary with Nonnus, as in an epigram for a duke of Egyptian Thebaid that employs the word ὄρχαμος.^[39] Accordingly, these titles elevate Pilate beyond his historical office and draw a regal portrait of the man, one that has similarities with his image on late antique sarcophagi.

Wisdom was also a classical feature of a good ruler. Themistius, echoing Dio, saw the good ruler as embodying justice.^[40] In Christian thought, these characteristics were seen as being exemplified in figures such as Moses-as-lawgiver and David-as-judge.^[41] In the Paraphrasis, Pilate is explicitly depicted as a wise judge, a σοφὸς δικασπόλος.^[42] Moreover, such epic language was frequently used in panegyric for actual judges. Marinella Corsano shows, for example, that terms such as θέμιστες are recurrent in the Christian poetry of Gregory of Nazianzus.^[43] Gregory presents Marcian, a δικασπόλος, using recognisably ‘Homeric’ terminology, which his contemporaries would have understood as a reflection of the secular foundation of his administration. Gregory also uses personifications, like Θέμις and Δίκη, to legitimise his portrayals. In a similar way, Nonnus’ readers would have been able to see in Pilate not only a historical and biblical figure, but also an administrative representative of Roman elites, enabling a further sympathetic reading of him.^[44]

To show Pilate’s justice at work, the Paraphrasis noticeably revises the courtroom elements of the scene. Following the Gospel of Nicodemus, the epic poem, in a formidable amplification of a single Johannine line,^[45] describes the crowd of the Sanhedrin as prosecutors (Paraphrasis 18.130: κατήγορος ἑσμός) and rephrases the question as follows:

John 18:29:

ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Πειλᾶτος ἔξω πρὸς αὐτοὺς καὶ φησίν, τίνα κατηγορίαν φέρετε κατὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου?

So Pilate went out to them and said, ‘What accusation do you bring against this man?’

 

Paraphrasis 18.139 – 45:

νηοπόλους δ’ ἐρέεινεν ὀφειλομένῳ τινὶ θεσμῷ

μῦθον ἀπαιτίζων φονίης ἐπιμάρτυρα φωνῆς·

‘ποῖον ἔπος φθέγγεσθε κατήγορον ἀνέρι τούτῳ;

τίς πρόφασις θανάτοιο; τί τηλίκον ἤλιτεν ἀνήρ;

ποῖον ἔπος φθέγγεσθε κατήγορον ἀνδρὸς ὀλέθρου;’

And he started questioning the temple keepers, as was his legal duty,

demanding a word of testimony to justify their calling for murder:

‘What word of accusation do you speak against this man?

What is the pretext for his death? What grave sin has he committed?

What word of accusation do you speak for this man’s doom?’

The wording used here recreates a courtroom scenario in which the accusers are driven by envy and malice. Envy shadowed the trials of philosophers and sophists, starting with that of Socrates.^[46] The Nonnian Pharisees are portrayed as jealous, and are perceived as such by Pilate, a characterisation that derives from the Synoptic Gospels, rather than from John.^[47] A parallel to Nonnus’ motifs of the jealous accusers and the harried plaintiff can be found in the Gospel of Nicodemus.^[48] The legal terminology of the passage remains standard, even though Nonnus expands upon John’s word κατηγορία:^[49] Pilate’s inquiry about the pretext for the sentence of death (πρόφασις θανάτου) has parallels in legal prose and the progymnasmata.^[50] In an overall sense, Nonnus reworks Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus to cast it as a late antique trial scene.^[51] Nonnus also shows his sensibility to what is at stake in putting a god on trial: He redeploys the term ἐπιμαρτυρέω,^[52] usually used in epic to designate the gods as witnesses,^[53] to ironically draw attention to the plight of Jesus, here the god against whom mortals have dared to bring charges.^[54] Similarly ironic is Nonnus’ allusion to the risk of committing hybris when Pilate, at Paraphrasis 18.144, asks about the extent of Jesus’ sin/guilt (τί τηλίκον ἤλιτεν): Used from Aeschylus to Callimachus to depict human insolence,^[55] the verb ἀλιταίνω was also used in Christian poetry to refer to sin.^[56] Jesus’ accusers thus appear as sinning, both in a Christian sense and in an epic sense, disrupting the natural hierarchies between earthly and divine power. The epic language Nonnus employs heightens the drama of the Christian tale, as it is not any unjustly slandered human facing trial, but a sinless omniscient god.

3 A Socratic Dialogue on Kingship and Truth

In Nonnus’ version of the trial scene, Jesus leads the conversation, transforming it from a purely legal interrogation into a philosophical dialogue about kingship, with a characteristic Socratic overtone. The first important step towards a revision of John’s trial in the Paraphrasis is the signposting of the dialogue into a series of interrogative snapshots. The comparisons below show how the Paraphrasis builds up suspense, tightens the dialogue, and restages the moment as a vivid mutual exchange:

Par. 18.158: Ἰησοῦν δ’ ἐκάλεσσε καὶ εἴρετο μάρτυρι μύθῳ·

Jo 18:33: ἐφώνησεν καὶ εἶπεν

Par. 18.159 – 60: εἰρομένῳ … εἶπεν … εἴρετο

Jo 18:34: ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς

Par. 18.163: καὶ ἴαχεν ὄρχαμος ἀνήρ

Jo 18:35: ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Πιλάτος

Par. 18.167: ἄναξ δ᾽ἀντίαχε μύθῳ

Jo 18:36: ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς

Par. 18.174: καὶ Πιλάτος πάλιν εἶπεν ἀμοιβαίῃ τινὶ φωνῇ

Jo 18:37: εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος

Par. 18.175: καὶ ἀντιάχησεν Ἰησοῦς

Jo 18:37: ἀπεκρίθη

Par. 18.180: καὶ Πιλάτος θάμβησε καὶ ἔμπαλιν εἴρετο μύθῳ

Jo 18:38: λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος

Par. 19.41: Ἰησοῦν δ’ ἐρέεινε τὸ δεύτερον ἠθάδι μύθῳ

Jo 19:10: λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος

Par. 19.43 – 4: κοίρανος ὄμματα πῆξε καὶ οὐ Πιλάτῳ στόμα λύσας | ἀντίδοτον μύθοισιν ἀμοιβαίην πόρε φωνήν.

Jo 19:9: δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀπόκρισιν οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ.

Par. 19.45 – 6: καὶ Πιλάτος βαρύμηνιν ἀπερροίβδησεν ἰωήν | οὔ με τεοῖς ἐπέεσσιν ἀμείβεαι;

Jo 19:11: λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· Ἐμοὶ οὐ λαλεῖς;

Par. 19.49: καί οἱ Χριστὸς ἔλεξεν ἀγήνορα κόσμον ἐλέγχων

Jo 19:11: ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς

Nonnus’ ingenuity in rendering John’s λέγει and its cognate terms is here evident. His style reflects the late antique aesthetics of poikilia, but the highlighting of the dialogic-related terms – e. g., ἴαχεν-ἀντιάχησεν, ἀμοιβαίῃ φωνῇ, πάλιν, ἔμπαλιν, τὸ δεύτερον – amplifies the Gospel text, and allows for a deeper understanding of the interlocutors’ personal and emotional engagement (θάμβησε). It is characteristic, for example, that in the second interrogation, when Nonnian Pilate explodes (ἀπερροίβδησεν ἰωήν), this is because Jesus breaks the communication contract, foregoing his ‘usual reply’ (ἠθάδι μύθῳ), and remains silent, facing the floor (ὄμματα πῆξε καὶ οὐ […] στόμα λύσας). The significance of the break is emphasised through Nonnus’ continued use of dialogic terms: (19.44) ἀντίδοτον, ἀμοιβαίην, φωνήν; (19.46) οὔ ἀμείβεαι. Pilate’s explosion follows his disillusionment with respect to Jesus’ prior dialogic approach, as the latter foils his interlocutor’s expectations before Pilate can reach the truth.^[57] The exchange develops into an emotionally charged philosophical dialogue between unequal parties, since the god-man leads the way to the truth. Where the dialogue fails, this is because of the deliberate silence of its mastermind; yet silence in the Paraphrasis does not impinge on the revelation of truth.

Throughout the poem, Nonnus is concerned with the theme of Christian truth and its revelation. Pilate, as the epically styled governor, is the last character in Nonnus’ text to be shown being drawn from darkness into light or truth when in dialogue with Jesus Christ. Nonnus uses this motif across the poem for Jesus’ interlocutors, starting with Nicodemus:^[58] This is one way in which the author shows an important predilection for Ringkomposition. In Book 3 of the Paraphrasis, Jesus praises those “who come willingly towards the light”, in a profound gloss of the Fourth Gospel, where only the nocturnal setting is mentioned.^[59] From a generic perspective, the Nicodemus episode sets the tone for Jesus’ subsequent exchanges, as part of an overarching didactic plot shifting between light and darkness.^[60] However, this programmatic retelling of John 3 is also marked by stark Socratic reminiscences: Expanding on the birthing imagery found in John, the poem alludes to spiritual baptism as the antitype of human birth, “in the imitative form of women’s labor”.^[61] Baptism in spirit “is perfected, in the vapor of self-born spirit, | is life-sustaining spirit, unmidwifed, | the spontaneous offshoot of a born-again labour.”^[62] The poet emphasises the female agency in (re)birth, in contrast to the more neutral γεννάω and its derivatives in John,^[63] thus evoking a kind of transcendental Platonising maieutic (ἀμαιεύτῳ θεσμῷ). Thus, in dialogue with Pilate, it is not surprising to see Jesus feigning Socratic ignorance:

John 18:34

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· Ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ σὺ τοῦτο λέγεις ἢ ἄλλοι εἶπόν σοι περὶ ἐμοῦ;

Jesus answered, ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’

 

Paraphrasis 18.158 – 63:

Ἰησοῦν δ’ ἐκάλεσσε καὶ εἴρετο μάρτυρι μύθῳ·

αὐτὸς Ἰουδαίων βασιλεὺς πέλες; εἰρομένῳ δὲ

εἴκελος ἀγνώσσοντι θεηγόρος εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς,

εἴρετο γινώσκων ζαθέῃ φρενί· τοῦτο πιφαύσκεις

αὐτόματος σκηπτοῦχον Ἰουδαίων με καλέσσας,

ἠέ σοι ἄλλος ἔειπε; καὶ ἴαχεν ὄρχαμος ἀνήρ·

[Pilate] summoned Jesus, and asked with a testifying voice:

‘Are you yourself the king of the Jews?’ To His examiner,

divinely-speaking Jesus said, as if He did not know,

though He knew in His holy mind, and He asked: ‘Do you proclaim

and call me the scepter-wielding king of the Jews of your own accord

or did someone else tell you?’ And the governor cried […]

Jesus here appears to be leading his interlocutor, through sheer divine wisdom (ζαθέῃ φρενί), into confessing (albeit implicitly) the truth (μάρτυρι μύθῳ).^[64] The repetition of protestations of knowledge and of lack of knowledge (εἴκελος ἀγνώσσοντι […] γιγνώσκων, the last two at the same metrical position) is important for the characterisation of Jesus.^[65] This kind of feigned ignorance from a god-man corresponds to the late antique reception of Socratic irony as being not deceptive sophistry but rather a pedagogical tool for leading the interlocutor to a higher intellectual and psychic contemplation.^[66] Simultaneously, Jesus utters a provocation that is not highlighted in John: The cluster πιφαύσκεις αὐτόματος comes close to requiring a personal declaration from Pilate of his free will, thus pressuring him more than John’s reflexive formulation at 18:34: ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ σὺ τοῦτο λέγεις. This notion, of a self-initiated quest for the truth, is also important for Socrates’ disciples: In the Apology, young people follow the philosopher of their own accord, as “good men should be attracted to good men”.^[67] In a Platonising context, the teacher who simulates ignorance does so that students will extract the truth that is already in him; this is exactly the way in which Jesus challenges Pilate.^[68] On the whole, this Socratic representation of Jesus is fundamental for understanding the gradual disclosure of key revelatory terms in the Paraphrasis, in an exchange that the author casts as a philosophical and theological dialogue.

The dialogue takes as its topic the question of earthly versus celestial rulership. Pilate was traditionally depicted as fearing Caesar’s reaction should Jesus’ alleged kingship become a threat to Rome. Though the theme of Caesar’s anger imperilling the governor’s situation and affecting his decision remains in Nonnus,^[69] the poem seems more interested in developing the Johannine contrast between earthly and Messianic kingship.^[70] Discussions of ideal rulership were a staple of imperial declamation: Some famous examples include Dio’s encounter with Trajan and Apollonius’ alleged confrontation with Domitian, both of which were later imitated by the martyr’s and the bishop’s parrhesia.^[71] The Nonnian revision casts Jesus as a leader with a much greater potential than that of the governor. Thus, whereas epic language was used to depict Pilate as a just earthly ruler, the same language is carefully redeployed to exalt Jesus’ twofold kingship, both earthly and celestial. While the governor is described as ἠγεμών or ὄρχαμος ἀνήρ, the poem emphatically calls Christ ἄναξ, a title evoking Agamemnon’s supremacy among the Achaeans.^[72] Nonnus also maintains John’s rare mentions of βασιλεύς, a term used sparingly in the Gospel outside the trial narrative.^[73] After the resurrection, the poem refers to Christ as ὄρχαμον κόσμου.^[74] Additionally, the term σκηπτοῦχος, which Christ uses at 162, has a Messianic tinge, while also evoking the authority of the Homeric judge-lords.^[75] The language used to describe Jesus’ alleged earthly kingship may have made Pilate more uncomfortable, hence justifying his fears that Jesus might be a threat to Caesar.

Νonnian Jesus goes to great lengths to highlight the differences between earthly and divine rule. Expanding on John, Nonnus writes a digression that features the qualitative adjectives ‘earthly’ and ‘not earthly’, at Paraphrasis 18.168 – 78: οὐ χθονίη […] οὐ πέλον ἐκ κόσμου μινυώριος […] εἰ γαιήιος […] εἰ κόσμοιο […] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν ἔην βασιλήιος ἀρχή.^[76] The need to understand the rather arcane Johannine ‘of this/the world’ or ‘of here’ as potentially meaning ‘the earthly realm’ is revisited in the apocryphal traditions on Pilate and in the writings of later exegetes, who, like Nonnus, opted for a clearer formulation.^[77] Nonnian Jesus prompts his interlocutor to imagine what divine kingship would be by focusing on something the judge knows, earthly kingship. This Jesus goes so far as to evoke the image of himself as the leader of an armed campaign in Paraphrasis 18.171 with the phrase ἐνόπλιον ἀγῶνα, versus his more vague mention in John of the ‘retinue’ or ‘followers’ (ὑπηρέται) who would protest his arrest.^[78] As in the apocryphal narrative, Nonnus reshapes John’s text so that it underscores the danger of an uprising against Caesar, led by a leader to rival him.^[79] Interestingly, Cyril also offers a parallel source for the idea of a conflict incited by Jesus in the form of a ‘riot’ (ἄνταρσις), which he presents as one of the Pharisee’s accusations against Jesus.^[80] The political threat posed by a potential rival ‘king’ thus gives an extra realistic and historic justification to Pilate’s decision, and the Nonnian version states this explicitly.^[81]

A similar late antique conceptualisation of the powers and behaviours characterising earthly kingship can be found in Nonnus’ reworking of Jesus’ rendition to the authorities. In Nonnus’ version, the supposed armed revolt would have prevented Jesus from becoming a ‘betrayed/handed-over slave’.^[82] A comparable formulation is found in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which also Romanises the trial scene.^[83] A late antique reader of Nonnus’ account would have understood the term μεταχείριος ἔκδοτος (Paraphrasis 18.172) to refer to the arrest of a slave. The concreteness of the hand imagery (μετά + χείρ) in this expression is evocative of the literal powers of touch and possession exercised by state actors over their prisoners, and would have conjured Pilate’s most famous gesture, the washing of his hands, thus contributing to a holistic and positive portrait of the judge. From an exegetical standpoint, the mention of slavery revisits the Pauline idea that Jesus took the form of a slave as means of redemption.^[84] The Paraphrasis emphasises the contrasts between the grandeur of kingship, whether earthly or divine, and the abjection of humiliation, in part in order to underscore the radical nature of Jesus’ position: καὶ Πιλάτος πάλιν εἶπεν ἀμοιβαίῃ τινὶ φωνῇ / ἦ ῥά νυ κοίρανός ἐσσι; (Paraphrasis, 174 – 5). Pilate uses the title κοίρανος instead of ἄναξ or βασιλεύς, a noun used for both mortals and immortals, and which Nonnus evidently chose because of its alliteration with the koine κύριος, ‘Lord’.^[85] This is a case of variation which may also indicate Pilate’s gradual understanding of the identity of his interviewee. Pilate, vested with earthly power and informed by its workings, sees in Jesus an oxymoron, the sublime king who is yet a slave. To Pilate’s insistent inquiries, Jesus expands in a revelatory digression:

John 18:37 – 8:

εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· Οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι. ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ· πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος· Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια; Καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν πάλιν ἐξῆλθεν πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους […]

Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘you say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’ After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again […]

 

Paraphrasis 18.176 – 81:

        […] καὶ ἀντιάχησεν Ἰησοῦς·

καὶ γενόμην εἰς τοῦτο καὶ ἤλυθον, ὄφρα κεν αἰεὶ

μάρτυς ἐτητυμίης πανθελγέος ἀνδράσιν εἴην

καὶ πᾶς, ὃς προβέβουλεν ἀληθείης ζυγὸν ἕλκειν,

γλώσσης ἡμετέρης ἀψευδέα μῦθον ἀκούει.

καὶ Πιλάτος θάμβησε καὶ ἔμπαλιν εἴρετο μύθῳ·

ἀτρεκίη τί πέλει; καὶ ἑὸν θρόνον ὀξὺς ἐάσας

δώματος ἐκτὸς ἔβαινε καὶ ἔννεπεν ἄφρονι λαῷ,

νηοπόλους δ’ ἤλεγξεν· ἐγὼ πολυειδέι μύθῳ

κρίνας αἴτιον οὐδὲν ἐν ἀνέρι τῷδε δοκεύω·

‘I was both born and have come for this purpose: to always be

a witness of all-beguiling truth for men;

and whoever prefers to bear the yoke of truth,

listens to the honest word of my tongue.’

And Pilate was astounded, and inquired again with this word:

‘What is truth?’ And, swift, he left his throne,

marched outside the building, and told the senseless multitude,

reproving the temple keepers: ‘With manifold words I

examined him, and do not see any guilt in this man.’

In contrast with the corresponding passage in John, the Nonnian Jesus does not throw the title and the question back to Pilate, and he refrains from speaking in riddles.^[86] Jesus instead confirms his identity as a Lord, challenges the governor’s juridical proficiency, and presents him with a choice (προβέβουλε),^[87] just as earlier he tested his free thinking (αὐτόματος). Jesus appears as a more successful interlocutor than he does in the Fourth Gospel, corresponding to other late antique readings of the passage that focused on Jesus’ eloquence, regardless of his interlocutor’s final decision.

The secular or earthly understanding of kingship developed by Nonnus in the trial episode has an added Platonising appeal: Just as Jesus drew Nicodemus to the light, with Pilate, Jesus draws men to the ‘all-beguiling truth’ (πανθελγέος ἐτητυμίης).^[88] The similarity is underlined by parechesis, here a signal of an etymological link between (παν)θελγ(έος) and ἕλκ(ειν). The cluster has an erotic charge, consistent with the Platonist idea of the soul’s attraction to ideal concepts.^[89] Additionally, the words used for describing truth in this passage are placed in ascending order, from ἐτητυμίη to ἀληθείη, leading to Pilate’s final question (ἀτρεκίη τί πέλει). Nonnus lists the truth-related nouns from the most to the least usual, suggesting Pilate’s gradual process of understanding Jesus’ tutorial.^[90]

Free will is paramount, however, for illumination to take place. Earlier, Jesus prompted Pilate to act on his personal conviction (αὐτόματος), just as in Book 3 he praised those who came to the light of their own volition (αὐτοκέλευστος). Now, Jesus presents Pilate with the disposition that those who follow him must embody: πᾶς ὃς προβέβουλε. Nonnus’ phrasing contrasts strongly with the oracular wording in John, which describes Pilate as not ‘of the truth’, a phrase that does not imply active engagement on the judge’s part. In John, Pilate poses his final question ironically, and leaves the praetorium without waiting for an answer.^[91] His seemingly flippant attitude is what led Francis Bacon to famously describe him as jesting, not wishing to learn. In the Gospel of Nicodemus 4.3, Pilate is given one more chance to inquire about the possibility of an earthly truth, a revision that shows his wish to comprehend while still being unable to perceive Jesus’ revelation. In Nonnus, Pilate appears amazed at the response (18.180: θάμβησεν), a reaction not reported in the Gospel (19:38: τοῦτο εἰπὼν πάλιν). This innovation from Nonnus is compatible with his overall portrayal of Pilate as an interlocutor with a Socrates-like Jesus, a teacher attempting to lead his student, Pilate, to a truth already within him. Amazement on the part of the student is a necessary component of maieutic pedagogy: Socrates, for example, praises Theaetetus for his amazement, as wonder leads to knowledge.^[92] With wonderment as a prelude to Pilate’s question, he seems to have been on the right track for revelation to take place. Pilate’s exit in the poem occurs early in the same verse (181, penthememere), showing him to be restless, perhaps more eager to fulfil his political duty than to become a follower of the Socrates-Jesus.

4 Pilate’s Confession

Nonnian Pilate too will have to deliver Jesus to the crowd, even if he does so against his will and against all justice. Pilate’s reticence was an idea already found in Cyril’s Commentary, where the bishop says that Pilate was goaded by the Pharisees οὐχ ἑκών,^[93] although this is not enough for Cyril to absolve him of guilt for Jesus’ murder.^[94] During the interrogation, Jesus had questioned Pilate’s accountability, inquiring whether he had asked the question of Jesus’ kingship independently (αὐτόματος), or because of hearsay. The governor’s final decision, as portrayed in Paraphrasis 19.83, reveals his reluctance to condemn Jesus to death, and hints at his tacit conversion to Jesus’ message: Χριστὸν ἑκὼν ἀέκων ἀδίκῳ παρέδωκεν ὀλέθρῳ (‘whether he willed it or not, he delivered Christ to His unjust doom’).^[95] The Homeric oxymoron ἑκὼν ἀέκων evokes Zeus’ unwilling surrender to Hera: It was a popular wording in antiquity, even emended, as it was thought to be inappropriate for the divine. Porphyry, in discussing the Homeric passage, argues that individuals may act impulsively, yet willingly, i. e., while their mental state desires otherwise.^[96] Nonnus’ use of ἑκὼν ἀέκων can therefore be seen to underline Pilate’s state of inner conflict in a way that is absent from the text of John’s Gospel. Jesus’ deliberate self-sacrifice (ἑκούσιον πορείην)^[97] also stresses the importance of that theme in the poem and contrasts with Pilate’s hesitancy. Compared to the Pharisees, whose deliberate murderous intent (θελήμονες) is made clear in Nonnus’ text,^[98] Pilate appears sympathetic, a man whose circumstances ultimately humanise him.

Pilate indeed gets another chance to exercise his free will and express his opinion when he writes the titulus:

John 19:19 – 22:

ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ· ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον· Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 20 τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς· καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί. 21 ἔλεγον οὖν τῷ Πιλάτῳ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων· Μὴ γράφε· Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐκεῖνος εἶπεν Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰμί. 22 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Πιλᾶτος· Ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα.

Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’. Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, ‘Do not write, “The King of the Jews”, but, “This man said, I am King of the Jews.”’ Pilate answered, ‘What I have written I have written’.

 

Paraphrasis 19.101 – 4; 107 – 8; 114 – 5:

καὶ Πιλάτος θηητὸν ἐπέγραφε μάρτυρι δέλτῳ

γράμμα, τόπερ καλέουσι Λατινίδι τίτλον ἰωῇ.

ἦν δὲ σοφῷ καλάμῳ τετυπωμένον· οὗτος Ἰησοῦς,

οὗτος Ἰουδαίων βασιλεὺς Γαλιλαῖος Ἰησοῦς.

[…]

ἢν δὲ μιῆς παλάμης νοερῷ κεχαραγμένον ὁλκῷ

Αὐσονίῃ γλώσσῃ τε Σύρων καὶ Ἀχαΐδι φωνῇ.

[…]

καὶ Πιλάτος φάτο μῦθον ἀπηνέας ἄνδρας ἐλέγχων·

ἔγραφον ἀσφαλέως, τόπερ ἔγραφον.

And Pilate inscribed a conspicuous engraving on a testifying

tablet, which in the Latin tongue they call ‘titulus’ [‘title’];

and the pen imprinted on it wisely: ‘This man is Jesus,

this man is Jesus of Galilee, king of the Jews.’

[…]

and it was incised by the intelligent drawing of a single palm

in the Ausonian language and in the Syrian and the Achaean tongue.

[…]

And Pilate spoke this word, reproving the cruel men:

‘I wrote with certainty that which I wrote.’

The adjective Nonnus uses to characterise Pilate’s writing, θηητόν (θηητὸν γράμμα), underlines the importance of the public nature of the inscription: with it, Pilate’s assessment of Jesus is broadcast to the nation. Nonnus’ wording for the tablet, as ‘witnessing’ (μάρτυρι δέλτῳ), evokes his earlier description of John the Baptist’s oral confession, placed in Jesus’ mouth: ‘but He himself, through the proclaiming mouths of God-tongued men, gave living testimony (μαρτυρίην […] πόρε δέλτῳ), in alternate books’.^[99] Most intriguingly, Nonnus uses the same formula in Book 20 to refer to the output of John the Evangelist, the quintessential witness of truth.^[100] Terms used for the titulus (μάρτυρι δέλτῳ, τετυπωμένον)^[101] are, moreover, reclaimed in Nonnus’ first epic signature, the sphragis of the poem. By conspicuously linking Pilate’s written ‘confession’ with other truth-bearing narratives, including that of John the Evangelist and of Nonnus himself, this line makes the titulus a pars pro toto of the poem. Pilate’s writing of truth becomes a mise-en-abyme for the poet’s and the evangelist’s work, and associates Pilate’s confession, that of a gentile, with the writings of the evangelist, and ultimately of the poet – an apologetic confession.^[102]

With these connections in mind, Nonnus embellishes the effort Pilate requires to write on the tablet. He insists on the noetic character of Pilate’s action by using words that attribute wisdom to both the pen (σοφῷ καλάμῳ) and to the hand that wielded it (νοερῷ ὁλκῷ). The noetic undertones of the passage and the word ὁλκός in particular, convey once more the text’s Platonist tinge: In the Republic, philosophy is the study which draws the soul from darkness into light and from experience into being.^[103] Nonnus shows a similar adherence to the Platonistic pull (ἕλκω) of Christian truth throughout the poem. Pilate also shares the notion of effort in writing with the evangelist, as ὁλκός can be understood as ‘trailing’ or ‘dragging’: In Paraphrasis 20.139, John inscribes (χάραξε) the miracles and his confession on his tablet; in Paraphrasis 21.137 and 141, he writes (κατέγραφε) and inscribes (χαράξῃ) his books. Pilate’s meticulous inscription (19.101: ἐπέγραφε) is a comparable work, inscribed on a tablet and meant to resound for eternity. Finally, the governor reaffirms (ἔγραφον ἀσφαλέως) his account more emphatically in the Paraphrasis than he does in John.^[104] While in the gospel text he appears flippant, or at best harried by dealing with demands spanning a cultural divide, in Nonnus he is ‘certain’ (ἀσφαλέως) of his words. Mutatis mutandis, Pilate’s testimony is that of the poet-evangelist as well. The simple truthfulness of what the tablet says is juxtaposed with the Pharisees’ chaotic post-factum requests that the tablet be emended to indicate that the title ‘king’ is a falsehood.^[105] Pilate’s titulus emerges in Nonnus’ account not as a jest or a hasty scribble, but as a conscious declaration. Like in the case of stone inscriptions, his writing in Nonnus intends to be monumental. Pilate thus becomes a kind of apostle in the drama of salvation, proclaiming the truth even before witnessing the resurrection.

Nonnus departs significantly in this respect from Cyril’s exegetical guide, the Commentary. We saw above that some Christian exegetes found a seed of truth in the title and even interpreted it as a kind of apology. Yet, in Commentary 3.56, the Alexandrian bishop shows a Pilate unable and unwilling to see the truth, a stance that Nonnus does not replicate. Instead, the poet refutes the Cyrilline text by showing a Pilate who acts more deliberately than not – he is both ἑκών and ἀέκων, rather than completely benighted, as in Cyril. In a similar manner, Nonnus revisits the parallel passage from Colossians^[106] which Cyril references to describe the titulus as the legal contract guaranteeing God’s salvation for mankind; the tablet acts as a seal on its own contract when it is nailed to the cross.^[107] Claudia Rapp has wonderfully explained the Christian fascination with metaphors of sealing and stamping as instrumental in the shaping of Christian identity.^[108] Nonnus, for his part, underscores Pilate’s role as author, rather than mere scribe of the titulus, whereas in Cyril, Pilate is an unwitting amanuensis to the Saviour’s truth. This is an original exegetical twist, as Cyril denies the judge’s conscious participation in the salvation plan,^[109] while Nonnus supports it.

What Pilate confesses through his inscription is precisely the topic of his exchange with Jesus: kingship. In the titulus, Jesus is proclaimed king in three languages – Aramaic, Latin, and Greek, a fact that is not taken ironically in the Paraphrasis.^[110] The Nonnian version highlights its universalist concerns by explaining the Latin translation of the Greek word γράμμα at 101: γράμμα τόπερ καλέουσι Λατινίδι τίτλον ἰωῇ. Nonnus’ connection of the two languages, absent in John, shows the importance of translation for the Roman Empire, but also the importance of both Greek and Latin for the promulgation of the Christian message. Following the Christian exegetes who saw in this inscription a foreshadowing of Christ’s earthly as well as celestial rulership, the Paraphrasis shows Pilate finally reaching the desired truth in the moment he writes the inscription. By having Christ proclaimed as earthly king, a culmination of the poem’s messianic and celestial insinuations, the text firmly establishes Jesus’ kingship as being both earthly and divine. This is Pilate’s act of confession, even if he reaches the truth and publishes it in writing through a somewhat clumsy process. Jesus’ hexametric maieutic has ultimately produced a fine confirmation of faith from the governor.

Nonnus’ poem takes a gentile perspective,^[111] and accordingly uses the gentile Pilate’s participation in salvation, even if only implicitly, to emphasise the universality of the Christian faith. Pilate’s proclamation of Jesus’ kingship is his most important textual contribution to posterity, an outcome that makes his dialogue with Jesus successful. Pilate’s intervention in the trial can be explained as a means to proclaim truth to the nations: His condemnation of Jesus was necessary, not only because Jesus’ death was a precondition of his salvific mission, but also because Pilate’s inscription constituted the first written expression of Christian truth, a sign that it would subsequently spread throughout the world. Nonnus further alludes to the universal aim of Christianity with the mention of Galilee in the titulus. Pilate’s inscription of ‘Galilee’ rather than ‘Nazareth’ underscores his inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation. That the governor in Nonnus ‘rejoicingly’ gives up Jesus’ body for burial,^[112] is a further exegetical proof that he is a gentile convert to Christ.

5 Conclusions

The Paraphrasis offers a late antique retelling of John which, like modern Johannine scholarship, explores the impact of Graeco-Roman culture on the evangelist. The representation of Pilate as a judge in a quest for truth depends on each era to redefine, whether jesting for Francis Bacon, powerless for Agamben, or fully committed to truth, as in Nonnus. Above all, the Paraphrasis offers an important glimpse into the late antique reception of John’s Gospel. There would be no need to retell the Fourth Gospel were there nothing to add or restate: Thus Nonnus’ embellished recasting of the Gospel of John can be seen to address several exegetical questions with its apologetic aims. Nonnus’ answer to the pressing question of why Rome was so blind to the message of the Messiah is that it in fact was not. The comments on the governor’s mental and emotional state portray him as a more human character and make him more relatable to the audience. By the fifth century, the apologetic use of the judgement scene aimed to explain the reasoning behind Jesus’ condemnation by a representative of Rome. The long-owed apology, as embodied in Nonnus’ text, was not to justify Jesus’ silence and meekness before Pilate, as in Origen, but focused rather on his parrhesia and deliberate self-sacrifice. The reworking of the trial as a philosophical dialogue evokes the popular Christian association of Jesus’ trial with that of Socrates, but Nonnus takes the similarities further: Nonnian Jesus, by reemploying Socratic technics such as maieutic, feigning ignorance, challenging personal responsibility, and inducing amazement, improves upon earlier Socratic versions of Jesus that stumbled over his lack of parrhesia. In this poem, it is Jesus’ eloquence that implicitly leads Pilate to the desired truth. The trial scene is thus transferred from first-century Judaea to a fifth-century metropolis, like Alexandria. Pilate’s eagerness to understand and his ultimate confession imply a triumphal understanding of Christ’s lordship.

The Homeric and Platonising intertextualities Nonnus places into the trial also depict the gentile Pilate positively and prompt the late antique reader to identify with him. The classicising models and themes used to address the topic of rulership, such as the ideal ruler and the wise judge, are found both in Homer and in panegyric, and are part of the late antique discourse on rulership as refashioned by Roman elites. We saw above that both Pilate and Jesus are designated with epic epithets used for Homeric chieftains and successful late antique rulers. The analysis also revealed a careful selection of terms used for Pilate and for Jesus respectively: The first is an ὄρχαμος and a σοφὸς δικασπόλος, but ultimately it is the latter who is proclaimed king and Lord, ἄναξ, κοίρανος. The lordship of Christ is thus described with vocabulary used for late antique panegyric. Additional philosophical themes, such as the issue of free will, sin, or types of anagogic learning, eventually enable Pilate to better apprehend the revelation, which is disclosed in a language spoken by the imperial elite. In the Nonnian reading of John 18 – 9, the erudite gentile, as embodied in Pilate, balances paideia, philosophy, and faith, and can reach truth, thanks to the fact that his interlocutor, Christ, speaks in the same cultural idiom. Nonnian Jesus indeed speaks in a Socratic language to which elites could relate. In the case of Pilate, now presented as a late antique magister, paideia could be seen as instrumental to conversion. Thus, if in Nonnus the judge must convict Jesus, it is no longer due to his failure to comprehend the revelation, but rather because of the divine plan. Roman elites and Nonnus the poet could identify themselves with Pilate and unproblematically proclaim their confession and eventual salvation.

Pilate’s crucial role in the enactment of salvation is made most evident in his inscription of the titulus, which functions as the judge’s confession and as a testimony of faith. The act of writing words of truth, meant to endure for all time, functions at a metaliterary level as a model for the poem. Following a tradition stretching back to Tertullian and Eusebius, while also alluding to the apocryphal tradition, Nonnus transformed Pilate into an early convert, even an apostle avant-la-lettre. The title Pilate places on Jesus’ cross becomes the ultimate confession of Jesus’ eternal kingship, both ‘in this world’ and beyond. In the fifth century, Rome and its emperor had been Christian for almost two centuries. The ‘confession’ of the title, recorded in a trilingual inscription by a Roman governor, is a prolepsis of the conversion of Rome, and hints at the universalist aspirations of the imperial church. Nonnus’ Roman governor, with whom he associates both John the Evangelist and Nonnus the poet, could not be a negative model; Pilate in the Paraphrasis is an active instrument in the Christianisation of the nations. Indeed, what he wrote was written well, καλῶς γεγραμμένον.