303 Iz virni znans tv eni članek/ Article (1.01) Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly 82 (2022) 2, 303—314 Besedilo pr eje t o/R eceiv ed:09/2021; spr eje t o/ Accep t ed:11/2021 UDK/UDC: 27-277-247.8 DOI: 10.34291/B V2022/02/Naseri © 2022 Naseri, CC BY 4.0 Christoper Naseri »You are no Friend of Caesar«: Threat and Intrigue in the Johannine Account of the Sentencing of Je- sus in John 19:12-16a »Ti nisi cesarjev prijatelj«: grožnje in intrige v Jane- zovem poročilu o Jezusovi obsodbi v Jn 19,12-16a Abstract : The handing o v er of Jesus b y the Johannine Pila t e f or crucifixion in John 19:12-16a ma y be closely link ed t o the implic a tions of the phr ase, »y ou ar e no friend of Caesar« in v 12b. This phr ase harbour s an element of thr ea t and intrigue tha t ma y be politic al and ec onomic al. The aim of this w ork, ther e f or e, is t o iden- tify the thr eat cont ent of the phr ase ‚Friend of Caesar ‘ by undert aking a his t orical- critical analysis of v . 12b in its immediat e narr ativ e cont e xt of John 19:12-16a. The study r eveals that the e xpr ession ‚Friend of Caesar ‘ was used to observe, r ecogniz e and monit or loy alty in the R oman Empir e especially in the sa t ellit e t errit ories su- perintended by the emper or ’ s appointees. T o f ail to be a friend of Caesar ther ef or e mean t dislo y alty and risking one’ s politic al and ec onomic position and lif e. The conclusion is that the Jewish party intriguingly employ ed the s t at ement as a thr eat t o des t abiliz e Pila t e and c ons tr ain him t o hand Jesus ov er f or crucifixion. Keywords : Friend of Caesar , Gospel of John, Kingship, Lese Majes ty , Lo y alty , P assi - on Narr a tiv e Povzetek : Pi l a t o v a i zr o či t e v Je z u sa v smrt s kri ž an j em, k ak o r j o p ri k az u j e Jan e z o v e v ang elij (19,12-16a), je lahk o t esno pov e z ana z implik acijami izja v e »Ti nisi cesarje v prija t elj« v vr s tici 12b. T a po v ed namr eč v sebuje pr vino gr o žnje in in - trig e, ki je lahk o političneg a ali ek onomsk eg a znač aja. Cilj t eg a prispe vk a je pr e- po zna ti v sebino gr o žnje v besedni z v e zi ‚cesarje v prija t elj‘ s pomočjo z g odo vin- sk okritične analiz e vr s tice 12b v neposr ednem pripov ednem k on t ek s tu Jn 19,12- 16a. Študija r azkriv a, da je bila z v e z a ‚cesarje v prija t elj‘ v upor abi z a opaz ov anje, pr epo zna v anje in nadz or ov anje z v es t obe rimsk emu cesarju zlas ti na pridruž enih o z e mljih pod nadz or om ce sar je v ih v isok ih ur adnik o v . N e biti ce sar je v pr ija t e lj je t ak o pomenil o ne z v es t obo – in tv eg anje z a las t en politični in ek onomski po - lo ž aj t er življenj e. Sklepamo , da je judo v sk a s tr an t a izr az upor abila k ot in trig o in gr o žnjo , da bi Pila t a omajala in g a prisilila k izr očitvi Je z usa v smrt s križ anjem. 304 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 Ključne besede : cesarje v prija t elj, Jane z o v e v ang elij, kr alje v anje, ž alit e v v elič ans tv a, z v es t oba, pasijon, pripo v ed 1. Introduction Aft er ha ving conf essed t o the innocence of Jesus on thr ee occasions (18:38; 19:4,6) and a ft er ha ving twice sough t t o r elease Jesus (18:39; 19:12a) the Johan - nine Pila t e la tt erly chooses t o hand Jesus o v er f or crucifixion in 19:16a. Is Pila t e’ s decision in fluenced b y the sug g es tion b y the Je w s in v . 12b: »if y ou r elease this man y ou ar e not a ‚friend of Caesar ‘?« And is the s t a t emen t pr esen t ed as a f orm of thr ea t t o f or ce Pila t e’ s hand? Author s ar e divided in their r esponses t o some of these ques tions . S. Lim iden tifies in the phr ase an a tt emp t b y the Je w s t o sc ape- g oa t Jesus in the t ension be tw een Je wish and R oman authorities. This situa tion he holds c auses Pila t e’ s an xie ty as a judg e (2016, 214). C. K eener sug g es ts tha t Pila t e’ s decision t o hand Jesus o v er w as in f ormed b y his pr e f er ence f or friendship with Cae sar (2012, 1129). L. Riche y e x amine s the me aning of the phr ase , fr ie nd of Caesar ‘ with a vie w t o illumina ting the an ti-R oman polemic in the Johannine p assi on n arr a tiv e (2007, 167). He sug g es ts th a t the r espon se of the Je w s i n 19:12 is a demand f or Pila t e t o choose be tw een lo y alty t o Caesar and his supposition of th e i nn ocence of Jesu s i n 19:6 (2007, 170). R . Br o wn d i scu sses th e p ossi b i l i ty of the e xpr essio n being used as an honorific title during the time of Pila t e or the possibility of its being used in a g ener al sense t o signif y lo y alty t o the emper or (1970, 63). He c oncludes tha t being of the eques trian or der Pila t e w ould ha v e been eligible f or the honour (64). Mos t of the w ork s abov e ar e how ev er c om- men t aries on the Gospel of John, the y do not pa y specific a tt en tion t o particular v er ses. A v ailabl e articles ar e r a ther on the en tir e trial of Jesus in John 18‒19 and on the R oman imperial authority motif in John. It has ther e f or e bec ome necessar y t o s tudy the ph r ase ,friend of Caesar ‘ in the narr a tiv e c on t e x t of John’ s Gospel t o de t ermi n e the thr ea t el emen t tha t w oul d possi bl y ha v e i n fluen ced the deci si on of Pila t e t o accep t t o deliv er Jesus t o the Je w s f or crucifixion. The aim of this s tudy is ther e f or e t o es t ablish the c orr ela tion tha t ma y e xis t in the Johannine narr a tiv e be tw een the phr ase ,friend of Caesar ‘ and Pila t e’ s deci- sion t o crucif y Jesus. In other w or ds, t o iden tif y the e x t en t t o which the ,No friend of Caesar ‘ phr ase in v . 12b c ons titut es blackmail used b y the Je wish party t o in flu - ence Pila t e’ s decision t o hand Jesus o v er f or crucifixion. The s ynchr onic appr oach of e x eg esis is emplo y ed in this w ork; the appr oach s tudies a biblic al t e x t in its pr esen t and final f orm, and wholeness. This me thod permits an assessmen t of the his t oric al, r eligious and social imports of the phr ase ,friend of Caesar ‘ in the narr a tiv e c on t e xt of the Gospel of John with a vie w t o possibly iden tif ying the harbou r ed meaning supposedly in t ended b y the author . The w ork begins b y situa ting v . 12b in the or g aniz a tional fr ame w ork of John 19:12- 16a. It ackno wledg es the cen tr al r ole of v . 12 as the v er se tha t necessit a t ed the narr a t ed action s within the peric ope. The s tudy is then r es trict ed t o a brie f anal - 305 Christoper Naseri - »You are no Friend of Caesar« y sis of v . 12 unde r tw o he ading s: the a tt e mp t b y P ila t e t o r e le ase Je sus (12a), and the r esis t ance fr om the Jew s (12bc). Within this s tudy , an a tt empt is made t o iden tif y the r ela tionship be tw een Pila t e, Emper or Tiberius and his viceg er en t Lu - cius A . Sejanus. This is undert ak en t o es t ablish the possible impact of the disgr ace - ful dismissal of Sejanus b y Tiberius on Pila t e. These summar y analy sis leads up t o a his t oric al s tudy of the phr ase ,friend of Caesar ‘ , and the crime of lese majes ty . The analy sis r e v eals tha t the phr ase ,friend of Caesar ‘ is s ynon ymous with the Asia Minor politic al privileg e e xpr ession ,friend of the king ‘ . It o w es its origin t o the Hellenis tic times and fr om ther e it w as ad- op t e d and adap t e d b y the R oman Empir e. It w as the n use d b y the R oman Empir e t o suit its special needs f or un w a v ering lo y alty and unity t o w ar ds the emper or in its cr a v e t o k eep in check the v as t t errit or y and div er sified pr o vinces under the in fluence and unified authority of R ome. The use of the phr ase in v . 12b is ther e - f or e a figur a tiv e w a y of denoting lo y alty t o the emper or . 2. John 19:12b within the Context of John 19:12-16a John 19:12b belongs t o the peric ope of John 19:12-16a which c ons titut es the fi- nal phase of the lar g er peric ope on the trial be f or e Pila t e in 18:28-19:16a. John 19:12-16a is or g aniz ed in a chias tic pa tt ern AB A 1 thus: A 12abc 12 a Fr om then on Pila t e sough t t o r elease him, b but the Je w s cried out, »If y ou r elease this man, y ou ar e not Caesar ’ s friend. c E v er y one who mak es himself a king opposes Caesar .« B 13-14ab 13 a So when Pila t e hear d these w or ds, b he br ough t Jesus out and sa t do wn on the judgmen t sea t a t a place c alled the St one P a v emen t, and in Ar amaic Gabba tha. 14 a No w it w as the da y of Pr epar a tion of the P asso v er . b It w as about the six th hour . A114c-16 14 c He said t o the Je w s, »Behold y our King!« 15 a The y cried out, »Aw a y with him, a w a y with him, crucif y him!« b Pila t e said t o them, »Shall I crucif y y our King?« c The chie f pries ts ans w er ed, »W e ha v e no king but Caesar .« 16a So he deliv er ed him o v er t o them t o be crucified.« Within this chias tic s tructur e, the e x er cise of the office of the pr e f ect fr om his β ῆμ α i n ‚B ‘ ( v v . 13-14b ) i s san d wi ch ed b y Pi l a t e’ s q u es t t o r el ease Jesu s i n ‚ A ‘ ( v . 12), and his decision t o hand Jesus in f or crucifixion in ‚ A 1 ‘ (v . 16a). Thema tic ally 306 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 the headings ar e thus: A – Pila t e’ s A tt emp t t o R elease Jesus and the Je wish P arty ’ s R esis t ance (v . 12abc), B – The Judg emen t Sea t (v v . 13-14b), and A 1 – The Deci si on t o Crucif y Jesus (v v . 14c-16a). V 12b is the object of in t er es t f or this s tudy . It f orms part of the unit on Pila t e’ s a tt e mp t t o R elease Jesus and the Je wish P arty ’ s R esis- t ance . Vv . 12-16a is the c onclusion of the tr ial nar r a tiv e in John. But while all of v . 12a c onnects v v . 12-16a t o the pr eceding trial narr a tiv es, v . 12bc s t ands as a c a- t aly s t f or the activities narr a t ed within v v . 12-16a, it is pr esen t ed as the turning poin t f or the c onclusion of the trial and the pr emise f or Pila t e’ s arriv al a t a v er dict. 3. Pilate’s Attempt to Release Jesus (v.12a) ἐκ τ ούτ ου ὁ Πι λ ᾶτ ος ἐζή τει ἀ πο λῦσαι α ὐτ ο ν – fr om th en Pi l a t e sou gh t t o r el ea- se him The phr ase ἐκ τ ούτ ου ser v es as a link be tw een v . 12 and v . 11 of the pr e vious peric ope. P on tius Pila t e w as the R oman pr ocur a t or of Judaea fr om AD 25-27 t o AD 35 (McK enzie 1965, 677). Emper or Tiberius or Lucius Aelius Sejanus appoin t - ed him t o his position. Sejanus w as the emper or ’ s in fluen tial viceg er en t who be- tw een 26 and 27 AD t o 31 AD w as r esponsible f or the adminis tr a tiv e de t ails in R ome (Br o wn 1994, 693). As pr e f ect Pila t e had the authority t o sen t ence people t o dea th. The Je w s c ould judg e someone guilty of an off ence ag ains t their la w s but w ould ha v e t o hand such per son t o the pr e f ect f or c on viction. Pila t e seek s f or the sec ond time in the trial t o se t Jesus fr ee fr om the accusa tions br ough t ag ains t him b y the Je w s. The fir s t a tt emp t is in 18:39. His decision is f ounded on his c on - viction of Jesus’ innocence in 18:38 and 19:4, 6. This sec ond a tt emp t is based es- pecially on Pila t e’ s c on v er sa tion with Jesus in v v . 8-11 t o which the t empor al se- quence phr ase ἐκ τ ούτ ου r e f er s. The in fin itiv e v erb ἀπο λῦσαι denot es t o gr an t acquitt al, t o se t fr ee, while the imperf ect ἐζή τει denot es ‚ t o find a w a y or a tt emp t ‘ . Placed t og e ther the tw o v erb s under sc or e the sensitivity and w eigh t of the trial f or Pila t e. The lif e or dea th of Jesus a t this momen t is in the hands of Pila t e and ther e f or e the need t o be scru- pulous (Ger s-Uphaus 2020, 22). The seriousness of this is r e flect ed in the seeming flip- flopping b y Pila t e who seek s t o plac a t e the Je w s (18:39) and a t the same time off er s Je sus the opportunity t o de f end himself and pr o vide him with e vidence t o insis t on his innocence (19:10). 4. Resistance from the Jews (v. 12bc) οἱ δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐκ ραύγα σαν λέγον τες: ἐὰν τ οῦτ ον ἀπο λ ύσῃς, οὐκ εἶ φί λ ος τ οῦ Καίσαρος: π ᾶς ὁ βα σι λέια ἐαυτ όν ποιῶ ν ἀν τι λέγ ει τ ῷ Καίσαρι. But the Je w s cried out sa ying: »If y ou r elease this man, y ou ar e not a friend of Caesar; e v er y one who mak es himself a king is ag ains t Caesar .« 307 Christoper Naseri - »You are no Friend of Caesar« The a tt emp t b y Pila t e t o r elease Jesus is me t with s tiff opposition fr om the Je w s who politic ally spin the c ase b y appar en tly putting Pila t e ins t ead on trial. »If y ou r elease this man, y ou ar e no Friend of Caesar .« 12b While the case against Jesus by the Jews was initially a religious one about Judaism and Jesus’ claim to divinity, the perception by them of Pilate’s sympathetic stance on Jesus forces them to spin it into a political one around the sovereignty of the emperor. Jesus is accused in v. 7 of claiming to be Son of God; Caesar as emperor is considered and revered as the divine son of god (Cuss 1974, 31). B y claiming t o be the Son of God Jesus has placed himself a t the same le v el with Caesar as king and divine. His char g es of claim t o kingship ar e alr eady implied in the ques tion b y Pila t e »ar e y ou the king of the Je w s?« (18:33). Thus in v . 12c Jesus is depict ed b y his Je wish br other s as k ing s t anding ag ains t the e mpe r or ἀν τι λέ γ ε ι τ ῷ Κ αίσ αρι the only r e c og niz e d k ing in the empir e and under whose r eign all mus t submit. 4.1 The Crime of Lese Majesty and the Friend of Caesar The v erb ἀν τι λέ γ ω denot es »speaking ag ains t, t o c on tr adict, or oppose« (Bauer , Dank er and Arndt 2000, 89). It is used her e in t erms of opposition (Isaiah 65:2). As thr one claiman t Jesus is opposing Caesar and acting ag ains t him. Those who pr es- e n t the mse lv e s as k ing ag ains t the e mpe r or and those who t oler a t e the m ar e e n- emies of the emper or and guilty of the crime of lese majes ty . Lèse-Majesté is from the La tin laesa majestas, which lit e r ally me ans , injur e d maje s ty ‘ . It is the cr ime of a ffr on t ag ains t a so v er eign po w er , acting ag ains t the dignity or so v er eign ty of a r eigning monar ch or a s t a t e. B y declaring himself king and being tr ea t ed as one, Jesus is thus c onsider ed guilty of this crime (12c) and Pila t e is equally accused of the same crime f or a tt emp ting t o r elease Jesus (12b). The title Καίσαρος, ,Caesar ‘ w as originally a pr oper name of the Julian f amily , not ably of Julius Caesar , and of Augus tus (Lk 2:1). It la t er de v eloped in t o a title r e f erring t o , the Emper or ‘; it is oft en used in the Ne w T es t amen t t o under sc or e the legitima t e and so v er eign po w er of politic al authority (Dunn 1975, 269). Jesus’ claim as king arr og a t es t o him an authority tha t pit ches him ag ains t the so v er - eign ty of Caesar . The Je wish c ounsel no w politic ally pr esen ts Jesus be f or e Pila t e as persona non grata, a thr ea t t o the emper or and the emper or ’ s authority o v er the Je w s (Acts 17:7). If Pila t e is lo y al t o Caesar he should ther e f or e c onsider Jesus’ action tr easonable and c on vict and crucif y him other wise he w ould be pe titioned t o the emper or as not being , the friend of Caesar ‘ . 4.1.1 The Friend of Caesar and its Hellenistic Origin The phr ase φί λ ος τ οῦ Καίσαρο ς is tr aced t o the Idumaean king Her od the Gr ea t. During the dec ades of ma t erial pr osperity of his r eign and imperial f a v our fr om the emper or Oct a vian Her od chose t o s tyle himself as ,Friend of R ome ‘ and ,Fri- end of Caesar ‘ t o under sc or e his lo y alty as a clien t king t o his R oman o v erlor ds (Smallw ood 1976, 71). In the c on t e x t of P ales tine during the time of Jesus, the 308 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 use of the phr ase in Judaea under the R oman rule w as ther e f or e oft en f or the e xpr ession of allegiance t o the emper or and the empir e of R ome. In r ela tion t o the F ou rth Gosp el, the phr ase is R oman. Ther e ar e, ho w e v er , some O T similariti - es in the LXX: »the king ’ s friend« (1 Chr 22:33), »the friend of the king« (1 Macc 15:32), »the friend of He z ekiah« (Pr o v 25:1), »the king ’ s friends« (Dan 3:27). 1 Macc 14:40 uses the e xpr ession with specific r e f er ence t o the R oman r epublic when it alludes t o ,friends and allies and br other s ‘ of the R omans. This usag e has some similarities with the in t ended sense in John 19:12 though without r e f er - r ing spe cific ally t o A ugus tus and his e mpir e (Riche y 2007, 167). In Ma tthe w 7: 3// Luk e 7:34 Jesus is addr essed as »a friend of t a x c ollect or s and sinner s« mer ely in a descrip tiv e sense t o under sc or e his associa tion with t a x c ol lect or s and sinner s. Abr aham is giv en the name φί λ ος θεοῦ ,friend of God‘ in James 2:23. The same James uses the phr ase a ‚friend of the w orld‘ as s ynon ym f or an ‚enem y of God‘ in 4 : 4 . The ty pic al J ohannine usag e of φί λ ος τ οῦ Κ αίσ αρ ος has no sc r ip t ur al par alle l and c an be tr aced ins t ead t o the Hellenis tic and la t er R oman period. 4.1.1.1 The Hellenistic Origin The title οἱ βα σι λέως φί λ οι w as c ommonly and s tr a t egic ally used f or politic ally privileg ed positions in Asia Minor be f or e the R oman c onques t (Riche y 2007, 167). It w as pr e dominan tly use d with v ar ious shade s of me aning during the He lle nis tic period under the Seleucids and Lagids (Spicq 1959, 239‒45). T o be the ,king ’ s fri- end‘ a ttr act ed gr ea t privileg e tha t sub sequen tly de v eloped in t o a c omple x s y s t em of title c onf ermen t t o r e flect the degr ee of in timacy with the king (Cuss 1974, 45). While the king used the s y s t em t o win lo y alty , the bene ficiaries sa w it as an opportunity f or po w er , pr es tig e, and politic al and ec onomic g ains tha t ar ose fr om associa ting with the kings. It g a v e the bene ficiaries eas y acce ss t o the kings e v en in the earlies t hour s of the da y . It is r eport ed tha t Hermeias the chie f minis t er of king An tiochus III w as mur der ed while An tiochus III w as t aking his medic ally r e - c ommended morning w alk acc ompanied b y »those of the king ’ s friends who w er e pri v y t o th e pl ot« (P ol yb i u s, Histories V . 56, 10). The ki ng ’ s fri end s acc omp an i ed the king during his journe y s and shar ed his s tr ess and mis f ortunes. And Senec a is not ed t o ha v e r emark ed cynic ally tha t the king had diff er en t gr ades of friends; the fir s t class friends and the friends of the sec ond class, the y w er e ne v er true friends, but only c ollabor a t or s who had a number f or pa ying homag e t o the king (Senec a, De Beneficiis VI. 34, 1). The king r eceiv ed some of these friends priv a t e - ly , some in small gr oup s, while other s en masse. Fr om this Hellenis tic usag e, the title w as adop t e d and adap t e d as amicus Augusti b y the R om ans unde r A ug us tus f or the special needs and politic al machina tions of the empir e. 4.1.2 The Friend of Caesar in the Roman Empire The R oman adoption of this Hellenis tic politic al s y s t em in tr oduced v arious chang es t o the title. These included the r ecep tion of official and semi-official functions tha t w e r e or ig inally not par t of the He lle nis tic pr actice . The La tin f or m amicus Augusti or amicus Caesaris w as e xt ended t o include member s of the imperial f amily . It w as 309 Christoper Naseri - »You are no Friend of Caesar« e ff e ctiv e ly use d b y the R omans and be c ame v e r y popular dur ing the fir s t ce n tur y as an ho norific title of privileg e giv en t o the friends of the em per or s who »w er e admitt ed in t o this gr oup of the emper or ’ s ‚friends ‘ as a mark of gr a titude f or their lo y alty and support t o w ar ds their so v er eign« (Cuss 1974, 48). T o be a friend of th e emp er o r th er e f o r e a ttr act ed en vi ab l e p o l i tic al an d r el i gi o u s p ri vi l eg es gr ea tl y c o v e t ed a t the time. It w as this gr oup of friends ar ound the emper or who t aking adv an t ag e of their un f e tt er ed access t o the emper or Domitian or ches tr a t ed a plot and killed him in AD 96 (Cuss 1974, 49). The emper or c on f err ed this title also on some of his closes t friends who w er e equally giv en pr o vinces t o super vise. Thus P omponius Flac cus and L. Piso n described b y the emper or as the closes t friends w er e giv en the pr o vince of S yria and the Pr e f ectur e of the t o wn r espectiv ely (Su - etonius, Tiberius. 42, 3). Pila t e is thus lik ely t o ha v e been giv en the pr o vince of Judaea as the friend of Tiberiu s or of Sejanus in r ec ompense f or his amiable ser - vice and pr onounced lo y alty t o the imperial c ause (Cuss 1974, 48). It w as ther e f or e a title c on f err ed in the R oman Empir e as a mark of imperial gr a- titude on per sons f or their f aith ful and lo y al ser vices and dispositions t ow ar ds the emper or . T o be the emper or ’ s friend thus mean t t o ser v e him and t o enjoy his f a v o- ur (Zums t ein 2016, 710). The R oman Empir e sa w the title as an ins trumen t a t the ser vice of imperial pr opag anda in the e x er cise of soft pow er , a ttr acting , cultiv a ting , and managing loy alty , and e x er cising authority within its c onquer ed t errit ories. This w as used in t andem with the imperial r eligious cult of w or shipping the emper or as divine son of g od »t o unit e the v as t R oman empir e b y a c ommon bond of lo y alty t ow ar ds the per son of the emper or , link ed with the per sonific a tion of the pow er of R ome« (Cuss 1974, 32). This cult of the Divi and the g enius of the living emper or w er e made mos t popular especially during the time of Augus tus, as a c oncession f or the tr adition of the Helleniz ed E as t. It bec ame a unif ying f or ce tha t permitt ed the R omans t o iden tify the friends and enemies of their emper or among the v aried na tionalities within its fr on tier s. It w as thus one of the necessary ins trumen ts in the hands of the R oman Empir e t o enlis t its adher en ts in the manag emen t and c onso- lida tion of the enormous pow er it wielded ov er its v as t t errit ories (S yme 1954, 264). It is within this c on t e xt of the R oman Empir e’ s ques t f or lo y alty fr om its c onque - r ed t errit ories in the use of thi s title tha t the Her odian c onne ction with the title in r ela tion t o R ome is t o be es t ablished. Her od the Gr ea t publicly laid claims t o this title and used it as an e xpr ession of his un f e tt er ed lo y alty t o the emper or in r e turn f or es t abl i shi ng and pr eser vi ng hi s authori ty and dynas ty i n Judaea. S ub- sequen t Her odi an successor s main t ained this tr adition of lo y alty t o the emper or . Agrippa f or e x ample w as in r e turn f or lo y alty honour ed b y Gaius Caligula and sub- sequen tly Claudius with a king dom lar g er than his gr andf a ther ’ s. He ruled the king dom in submission t o R ome as »Gr ea t king , Friend of Caesar and Friend of R ome« (Smallw ood 1976, 192; Riche y 2007, 169). 4.1.3 Pilate and Sejanus, and the Threat of Lese Majesty Pila t e’ s position as the pr ocur a t or of Judaea is link ed t o his r e la tionship with Lu - ci u s S ej an u s ( Ri ch e y 2007, 169) . S ej an u s w as a d yn ami c y o u n g man wh o g ai n ed 310 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 the admir a tion of emper or Tiberius. He w as a R oman noble and had access t o po w er a t an early ag e when he t ook char g e of the da y -t o-da y adminis tr a tion of the e mpir e w hile Tibe r ius r e tir e d t o the pe ninsular of the isle of Capr i. His posi- tion as almos t the c o-emper or t o Tiberius g ained him the privileg e of appoin ting pr e f ects t o the numer ous pr o vinces under the empir e; one of these pr e f ects w as tha t of Ale x andria (Br own 1994, 693‒695; Riche y 2007, 169). Pila t e is lik ely t o ha v e been another of Sejanus’ appo in t ed pr e f ects and a clien t of Sejanus (Spicq 1959, 239‒245; Schnack enbur g 1982, 262). As a clien t of Sejanus, Pila t e ma y pr obably ha v e been num ber ed among ‘t he friends of Caesar ’ (T acitus, Annals 6.8). Br o wn, how e v er , c autions ag ains t the h ypothe tic al na tur e of this c onnection be tw een Sejanus and Pila t e (1994, 844). It be c ame e v ide n t tha t Se janus w as plotting ag ains t the impe r ial f amily and on the gr ou nds of tr easonable ambitions he los t the c on fidence of Tiberius and w as killed on 18 Oct ober , 31 f or lese-majes ty (Br o wn 1994, 693). His dea th put a t risk all his appoin t ees who w er e c onsider ed his lo y alis ts. Mos t of these lo y alis ts w er e alr eady s tripped of their r esponsibilities, and the onus w as ther e f or e on the r e - maining ones t o pr o v e b y their activities tha t the y w er e lo y al t o Tiberius. Giv en tha t, based on the da ting abo v e, Pil a t e is li k ely t o ha v e been a lo y al is t or ‚fri end of Sejanus ‘ and mindful of wha t had be f allen his pa tr on, he had the w eigh t of w orking the tigh t r ope of not be tr a ying an y lack of lo y alty t o the emper or Tiberi - us (Riche y 169). K eener (2012, 1128) sug g es ts tha t pr o vincial g o v ernor ship positions w er e al - w a y s f or men of sena t orial r ank s who alw a y s aspir ed t o higher offices. This aspi - r a tion w as oft e n th w ar t e d b y un f a v our able r e por ts t o the e mpe r or ag ains t the m. Pila t e on his part w as mor e vulner able bec ause he w as of a lo w er r ank b y birth but r ose t o the position b y gr ace fr om Sejanus (1128). Lik e all g o v ernor s, an y abu - se of office c ou l d be c on si der ed a tr easonabl e off ence and r el easi n g one accused of c on t es ting Caesar ’ s position w as mor e tr easonable. Philo not es tha t Her od A g r ippa pr e se n t e d P ila t e as an in fle xible , c or r up t and cr ue l le ade r who had much t o hide fr om his R oman superior s (Embassy 38, 301). Pila t e had once back ed down a t the thr ea ts of denuncia tion fr om the Je wish aris t ocr a ts when he planned t o tink er with Her od’ s palace in Jerusalem (38, 301‒302). Acc or ding t o Philo’ s Agri - ppa, thi s thr ea t of sending an e mbass y t o the emper or e x asper a t ed Pila t e, made him v er y f earful tha t his v enality , his violence, r obberies, assaults, abusiv e beha- viour , fr equen t e x ecutions of un tried per sons and his endless sa v ag e f er ocity w er e g oing t o be e xposed (38, 302). On the basis of an appeal t o Tiberius b y the Je w s, Pi l a t e w as on ce h umi l i a t ed b y th e emp er o r f o r th e v er y f act th a t h e a tt emp t ed t o fiddle with the tr aditions of the people (38, 304‒305). Fr om these descrip tions b y Philo , it is e viden t tha t the Je wish leader s r epea t e- dly c on fr on t ed Pila t e with thr ea ts of denuncia tion t o the emper or . Smallw ood not es tha t fr om Josephus’ acc oun t of the squabble be tw een the Je w s and Pila t e about the ‚s t andar ds and the medallion bus ts of the emper or ‘ (AJ 28, 55‒59) the Je w s w er e equally a w ar e tha t though brut al and s tubborn Pila t e w as vulner able when ma t ched with equal s tubbornness and thr ea t (1976, 161‒162). Pila t e on his 311 Christoper Naseri - »You are no Friend of Caesar« part w as ther e f or e alw a y s an xious about his wr ong doings being e xposed b y an y embass y t o his unpr edict able emper or and made e ff orts t o pr e v en t such denun - ci a tio n s. Th u s e v en i f th er e w er e n o c on n ection b e tw een Pi l a t e an d S ejan u s, Pi - la t e alr eady under s t ood fr om these pr e vious e xperiences of humilia tion, the po - litic al, ec onomi c and e xis t en tial implic a tions of his being denounced b y Tiberius. 5. The Threat Element of the Phrase ,Friend of Caesar‘ on Pilate The s t a t emen t »y ou ar e no friend of Caesar« used of Pila t e by the Je w s in v . 12b f or seeking t o r elease Jesus denot es dislo y alty . It implies tha t if Pila t e r eleases Jesus w ho is pr e se n t e d as the e ne m y of Cae sar , he is e qually ag ains t Cae sar and doe s not pr ot e ct the in t e r e s t of the e mpe r or (Ge r s-U phaus 2020, 22). The Johannine Je wish authorities w er e c onscious of the subtle ty surr ounding the r ela tionship be- tw een the R oman emper or or his r epr esen t a tiv es and the tr aditions of the Je w s. Meier not es tha t the High Pries ts w er e oft en bur dened with the r esponsibility of main t aining this balance be tw e e n the e x e r cise of the po w e r s of the e mpe r or and the pr eser v a tion of the tr aditions of the Je w s (2001, 296). The y w er e oft en e xpe cting fr om the e mpe r or s minimum of c once ssion and r e spe ct f or the ir tr adi- tions. This qualifies f or wha t Ma tjaž Mur šič Klenar describes as the necessity of c ohabit a tion (2020, 575). The Johannine Je wish authorities w er e ther e f or e a w ar e of the need f or an emper or t o be s ympa the tic t o w ar ds the pr eser v a tion of their tr aditions (Philo , Embassy 38:301). The y w er e c onscious of R oman emper or s’ in - t oler ance of dislo y alty fr om subor dina t es and c ollabor a t or s, lik e Sejanus. The y w er e c on v er san t with Pila t e’ s wr ong doings and abuse of authority and of Pila t e’ s f ear f or his wr ong doings, especially of these being e xposed (38, 302). The y w er e c onscious of the f act tha t Pila t e w ould do much t o mak e sur e he w as not pe ti- tioned t o the emper or Tiberius especially about his abusiv e beha viour s. The y w er e equally a w ar e tha t their r esis t ances ha v e oft en br ok en Pila t e’ s s tubbornness and r esolv e e v en a t the c os t of liv es (Smallw ood 1976, 161‒162). Armed with these vu l n er ab i l i ties o f Pi l a t e, an d a w ar e th a t Pi l a t e w as til tin g t o w ar d s r el easi n g Jesu s, the Je w s used the »y ou ar e no friend of Caesar« figur e as a v eiled thr ea t t o f or ce Pila t e’ s hand and g e t crucifixion f or Jesus. Thus a w ar e of wha t had bec ome of Sejanus, and mindful of pr e vious humilia - tions suff er ed, Pila t e pr e f err ed t o pr eser v e his position and lif e and bo w t o pr es- sur e fr om the Je w s b y handing Je sus o v e r f or cr ucifixion. P ila t e , the r e f or e , unde r - s t o o d fr o m h i s p r e vi o u s e xp eri en ces th e i mp l i c a tio n s o f th e r e f er en ce t o C aesar in John 19:12b as a thr ea t t o hi s lif e and politic al ambition. Th e thr ea t, ther e f or e, help s Pila t e t o pla y along with the Je w s and pr ot ect the in t er es t of the emper or and pr e se r v e his lif e and offi ce (Ge r s-U phaus 2020, 23). The thr e a t w as the r e f or e of a particular signific ance f or Pila t e in r ela tion t o his in timacy with the emper or . This in timacy w as f or Pila t e mor e v aluable than the Je wish squabble about a cer - t ain kingship pr et ender (Jossa 2002, 119). If Pila t e, ther e f or e, had the title of 312 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 ,friend of Caesar ‘ c on f err ed on him, he w ould b y virtue of the thr ea t be c onsid- er ed un f aith ful and s tripped of the title and the office. If it w as not c on f err ed on him, the thr ea t w as then used t o e xpr ess the f act tha t he w ould be guilty of dis - lo y alty as Caesar ’ s r epr esen t a tiv e f or f a v ouring a per son who w as ag ains t Caesar . The thr ea t elemen t of the phr ase c onsis ts especially in the f act tha t if Pila t e f ails t o c oncede t o the demand t o crucif y Jesus the Je wish authority will bring his e x - cesses t o the a tt en tion of the e mper or and c on vince the emper or t o s trip him of his office and e v en risk his lif e. Thus when c on fr on t ed with the v eiled thr ea t (accusa tion) b y the Je w s of dis- lo y alty t o Caesar Pila t e quickly c apitula t ed and handed Jesus o v er t o be crucified. Pila t e g a v e in f or f ear of ha ving his inadequacies e xposed and c onsequen tly losing his in timacy with the emper or (Dodd 1963, 120). The thr ea t fr om the Je wish lead- er ship of not being a ‚friend of Caesar ‘ implied dislo y alty and w as ther e f or e an unc oncealed ps y chologic al pr essur e on Pila t e’ s f ear of losing his v ery en viable s t a tus as ,amicus Augus ti‘ . It w as a politic al blackmail used as a trump c ar d t o twis t his arms (Zums t ein 2016, 710) and br eak his r esis t ance t o the cr o w d’ s insis t ence on handing o v er Jesus f or crucifixion. 6. Conclusion The phr ase ,friend of Caesar ‘ in John 19:12 pla y s an import an t r ole in the Johan - nine narr a tiv e on the handing o v er of Jesus b y Pila t e t o the Je w s f or crucifixion in John 19:12-16a. A his t oric al analy sis of the phr ase r e v eals tha t it c an be tr aced t o the Hellenis tic e xpr ession οἱ βα σι λέως φί λ οι used in Asia Minor t o denot e the p o l i tic al l y p ri vi l eg ed p o si tio n s o f a sel ect f e w wh o en j o y ed th e f a v o u r o f th e ki n g. It w as used as a c omple x s y s t em of title c on f ermen t t o win lo y alty f or the king; while the bene ficiaries sa w it as an opportunity f or politic al and ec onomic g ains. This s y s t em w as adop t ed b y the R omans fr om the time of Augus tus and used as amicus Augusti or amicus Caesaris f or the same g arnering of lo y alty . The Johan - nine usag e r e flects this same sense of lo y alty incumben t on those who w er e a t the ser vice of the emper or . It ho w e v er has some r emot e similarities with a f e w e xpr essions in the LXX; the closes t being the ,friends and allies and br other s ‘ of the R omans in 1 Macc 15:32. T o cease t o be the ,friend of Caesar ‘ ther e f or e im- plied not being lo y al t o the emper or , renuntiatio amicitiae . Such sho w of dislo y al - ty implied losing one’ s politic al office and e v en risking one’ s o wn lif e, as w as the c ase with Pila t e’ s men t or Sejanus. The use of the phr ase b y the Je w s w as ther e - f or e m e an t t o be a r e m inde r t o P ila t e tha t if the y de nounc e d him t o the e m pe r or of f a v ou ring the enem y of the emper or his office as pr e f ect and lif e w ould be a t risk. He w as ther e f or e t o choo se be tw een being a friend of the enem y of Caesar or the friend of Caesar b y pr ot ecting the in t er es t of Caesar . It w as a thr ea t and a bait; a politic al blackmail t o f or ce Pila t es hand. Ruffled b y this thr ea t fr om the Je wish c ounsel, Pila t e bo w ed t o politic al pr es- sur e fr om the Je w s b y handing in Jesus f or crucifixion. He thus c onsi der ed a Je wi- 313 Christoper Naseri - »You are no Friend of Caesar« sh dissiden t king-pr e t ender , and the squabble ar ound Jewish na tional r eligion un w orth y of his loss of the c on fidence of Caesar and c onsequen tly his lif e and position as pr e f ect. Pila t e’ s surr endering of Jesus f or crucifixion w as ther e f or e in - fluenced b y the linking of the trial t o the authority of the emper or and c onsequen- tly the lo y alty of the g o v e r nor t o the e m pe r or . This w as be c ause »t o shut his e y e s t o the f act tha t Jesus did ha v e a f ollo wing and had made cert ain de finit e, though some wha t v ague r e f er ences t o his king dom w ould sho w a lack of in t er es t in the c oncerns of Caesar« (Cuss 1974, 44). The use of the phr ase b y the Je w s highligh t ed the ing enuity of the Je wish c o- uncil who f eeding on the vulner able side of Pila t e t ook adv an t ag e of the en tir e leg al and politic al situa tions and turned them ma ximally in their f a v our (Bammel 419) b y e x t orting a sen t ence of the crucifixion fr om Pila t e. The use of the phr ase be tr a y s an e leme n t of in trigue be c ause ha ving e xhaus t e d their lis t of accusa tions an d g e tting a r epl y of i n nocence fr om Pi l a t e, the Je wi sh party deci ded t o pl a y the politic al c ar d b y t apping on the f ear s and vulner ability of Pila t e t o f or ce his hand. A thr ea t bec ause if he f ailed t o c oncede t o the demand t o crucif y Jesus the y w ould c on vince the em per or t o s trip him of his office and c onsequen tly e v en c ondemn him to death. References Bammel, Ernst . 1 9 8 4 . T h e T r i a l b e f o r e Pi l a t e. I n : Er n s t B a m m e l a n d C . F . D M o u l e , e d s . Jesus and the Politics of His Day , 4 1 5 – 45 1 . C a m b r i d ge : C a m b r i d ge U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Barrett, C. K. 1 97 8 . The Gospel According to St. John . 2n d e d . Ph i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r Pr e s s . Bauer, Walter. 2000. A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Litera- ture . C h i c a go : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a go Pr e s s . Bernard, J. H. 1 999 . A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of John . V o l . 3 . E di nb ur gh : T & T C l ar k . Brandenburger, Egon. 1 975. St a u r o s . I n : C o l i n B r o w n , e d . The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . V o l . 1, 39 1 – 4 3 0 . G r a nd Ra pids : Zo nd e r v a n . Brown, Raymond E. 1 97 0 . The Gospel according to John XIII-XXI. N e w Y o r k : D o u b l e d ay . – – –. 1 9 9 4 . The Death of the Messiah . V o l . 1 . L o n d o n : C a s s e l l . Bruce, F. F. 1 9 8 4 . Re n d e r t o C a e s a r . I n : Er n s t B a m - m e l a n d C . F . D . M o u l e , e d s . Jesus and the Politi- cs of His Day , 2 49 – 2 6 3 . C a m b r i d ge : C a m b r i d ge U n iv e r s it y P r e s s. Culpepper, R. Alan . 1 9 8 3 . Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. P hi l a d e l p hia : F o r t r e s s Pr e s s . Cuss, Dominique. 1 97 4 . Imperial Cults and Hono- rary Terms in the New Testament. F i r b o ur g : F i r b o u r g U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Dodd, Charles Harold . 1 9 6 3 . The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. C amb r i d g e : C amb r i d g e U n iv e r s it y P r e s s. Dunn, James. 1 975. K a i s a r . I n : C o l i n B r o w n , e d . The New International Dcitionary of New Testmant Theology . V o l . 1, 2 6 9 – 2 70 . G r a n d Ra pids : Zo nd e r v a n . Gers-Uphaus, Christian . 2020 . T h e F i g u r e o f Po n - t u s Pi l a t e i n J o s e p h u s C o m p a r e d w i t h Ph i l o a n d t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n . Religions 11, n o. 6 5 : 1 – 2 4 . Jossa, Giorgio. 2002. Il processo di Gesù. Br e sci a : Paideia. Keener, Craig. 201 2. The Gospel of John. V o l . 1 . G r a n d R a p i d s: B a ke r A c a d e m i c . Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. 1 93 6 . Evangile selon saint Jean . P a r i s: L e c o ff r e & J. G a b a l d a e t C i e. Lim, Sung. 201 6 . B i o p o l i ti c s i n t h e T r i a l o f J e s u s ( J o h n 1 8 :2 8 - 1 9: 1 6 a ). Expository Times 1 2 7 , n o. 5: 2 0 9 –216 . Louw, Johannes, and Eugene Nida . 1989. Greek-Engli- sh Lexicon of the New Testament based on Seman - tic Domains. 2 nd ed. New Y ork: United Bible S ociet y . McComiskey, Thomas. 1 97 6 . B ē m a . I n : C o l i n B r o w n , e d . The New International Dictionary of 314 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 New Testament Thology. Vol. 2, 3 6 9 –3 7 0 . G r a nd Ra pids : Zo nd e r v a n . McKenzie, John L. 1 9 6 5. Dictionary of the Bible. M i l w a uk e e : B r u c e P ub li sh i n g C o m p an y . McLaren, James. 1 9 9 1 . Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of thier Land 100 BC–AD 70. Sh effie ld : Sh effie ld A c a de - mic Press. Meier, John. 20 01 . A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus . V o l . 3 . N e w Y o r k : D o u b l e d ay . Moloney, Francis. 1 9 9 0 . J o h a n n i n e T h e o l o g y . I n : R ay m o n d B r o w n , J o s e p h A . F i t zmy e r , a n d R o l a n d E. M u r p hy , e d s . The New Jerome Bibli- cal Commentary , 1 4 1 7 – 1 4 2 6 . En g l e wo o d C l i ff s: P r e n ti c e Hall . Morris, Leon. 1 9 9 5. The Gospel According to John. G r a n d R a p i d s: W m Ee r d m a n s . Muršič Klenar, Matjaž . 2020 . Po s s i b i l i ti e s o f D i a l o - g u e i n t h e M o d e r n S e c u l a r S o c i e t y . Bogoslovni vestnik 8 0, n o. 3 :5 75 – 5 8 4 . h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 4 2 9 1 / b v 2020 /0 3 / mu r s i c Panimolle, Salvatore. 1 9 8 4 . Lettura pastorale del vangello di Giovanni . B o l o g n a : Ed izi o n e D e h o - niane. Philo, 1962. On the Embassy to Gaius: General Index. T r a n s l a t e d b y F . X . C o l s o n . L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y 3 7 9 . C a m b r i d ge , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i - t y Pr e s s . Polybius. 1 92 2. Histories V. 56. 10 . T r ansl at e d b y W . R . P a t o n . L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y 3 . C a m b r i d - ge , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Rad, Gerhard von . 1 9 6 4 . ‚ M e l e k ‘ a n d ‚ m a l k û t ‘ in t h e O T . I n : G e r h a r d K i tt e l , e d . Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . V o l . 1, 5 6 5 – 5 7 1 . G r a n d R a p i d s: W m Ee r d m a n s . Rensberger, David. 1 9 8 4 . T h e Po l i ti c s o f J o h n : T h e T r i a l o f J e s u s i n t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l . Journal of Biblical Literature 10 3, n o. 3 :39 5 – 4 11 . h tt p s: / / d o i .o r g / 10 . 2 3 07 / 3 2 6 078 0 Richey, Lance. 2007. Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John . W a s h i n g t o n : C a t h o l i c B i b l i c a l A s s o c i a ti o n o f A m e r i c a . Schmidt, Karl. 1 9 6 4 . T h e W o r d G r o u p ‚ b a s i l e u s‘ i n t h e N T . I n : G e r h a r d K i tt e l , e d . Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. V o l . 1, 5 7 6 – 5 93 . G r a n d R a p i d s: W m Ee r d m a n s . Schnackenburg, Rudolf . 1 9 8 2. The Gospel accor- ding to John. V o l . 3 . L o n d o n : B u r n s & O a t e s . Seneca. 1 935. Moral Essays. V o l . 3, De Beneficiis. T r a n s l a t e d b y J. W . B a s o r e. L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y 3 10 . C a m b r i d ge , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i - t y Pr e s s . Smallwood, E. Mary . 1 97 6 . The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. L e i d e n : E. J. B r i ll . Smith, D. Moody . 1 9 9 5. The Theoogy of the Go- spel of John . C a m b r i d ge : C a m b r i d ge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Spicq, P. Claude. 1 9 5 9 . Agapè dans le Nouveau Testament. V o l . 3 . P a r i s: G a b a l d a . Suetonius. 1 9 1 4 . Lives of the Caesars. V o l . 1, Julius Augustus ; Tiberius ; Gaius ; Caligula. T r ansl at e d b y J. C . R o l f e. L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y 3 1 . C a m - b r i d ge , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Sweet, J. P. M. 1 9 8 4 . T h e Z ea l o t s a n d J e s u s . I n : Er n s t B a m m e l a n d C . F . D M o u l e , e d s . Jesus and the Politics of His Day , 1 – 9 . C a m b r i d ge : C a m - b r i d ge U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Syme, Ronald. 1 9 5 6 . S o m e Fr i e n d s o f C a e s a r . The American Journal of Philology 7 7 , n o. 3 :2 6 4 – 2 7 3 . h tt p s : / / d o i. o r g / 1 0 . 2 3 0 7 /29 2 29 0 Tacitus. 1 93 7 . The Annals : Books 4–6; 11-12 . T r a n - s l a t e d b y J. J a c k s o n . L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y 3 1 2. C a m b r i d ge , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor . 1 9 93 . A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testa- ment . R o m a : Po n ti fi c i o I s ti t u t o B i b l i c o. Zumstein, Jean. 201 6 . Das Johannesevangelium: Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 2 . G ö tti n ge n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u pr ech t.