“Ecce Homo” means “Behold, the man!” It was Pilate’s statement when he presented Jesus during the trial, apparently appealing to the crowd’s sympathy, though some understand it as contemptuous.
Definition
“Ecce Homo” is Latin for “Behold, the man!” It is the statement attributed to Pilate when he presented Jesus during His trial. The wording is understood by some as an appeal to the accusers’ sympathy and by others as contemptuous ridicule.
Biblical Usage
Pilate spoke the expression concerning Jesus in John 19:5. The supplied material favors the interpretation that Pilate was appealing to the accusers’ sympathies and directing attention to Jesus’ manly qualities, though the alternative interpretation remains noted.
Historical Background
The significance depends partly on how the Greek grammatical form and punctuation are understood. The expression may carry a mild exclamation with emphasis on “the man,” rather than the ordinary punctuation’s stronger emphasis on “behold.”
Historical Bible Dictionaries
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)
<p>ek'-se ho'-mo (idou ho anthropos, "Behold, the man!" Joh 19:5):</p><p>Pilate's statement regarding Jesus during His trial. While the significance of this statement is somewhat debatable, yet there is little doubt, as judged from his attitude and statement immediately following, that Pilate was endeavoring to appeal to the accusers' sympathies and to point out to them the manly qualities of Jesus. The ordinary punctuation which places an exclamation point after "Behold" and a period after "the man" is evidently incorrect if the grammatical structure in the Greek is to be observed, which gives to the second and third words the nominative form, and which therefore admits of a mild exclamation, and therefore of the emphasis upon "the man." Some, however, hold the contrary view and maintain that the utterance was made in a spirit of contempt and ridicule, as much as to say, "Behold here a mere man." See especially on this view Marcus Dods in Expositor's Greek Testament. It would seem, however, that the former of the two views would be sustained by the chief facts in the case.</p><p>Walter G. Clippinger</p>