Toto

Vinnie - please tone down the rhetoric. Notice I speculated on your motives for your argument, but I did not say that you were wrong. I think I have also speculated on motives for liberals to reject the passage as an interpolation. I do not want to argue the case here - the other thread is still open and contains a wealth of arguments.

Vinnie

Again you make assertions about "critical scholarship" which you are incapable of justifying.

I have addressed Koy's problems time and again. Paul and Mark are not necessarily contradictory. There are some arguments, as inoted that the passage is restrictive to certain Jews as well.

[insulting comment deleted - MD]

Vinnie

Toto

Vinnie - I specifically said liberal scholarship.

Do you think that those comments further the discussion?

spin

According to the Marcan story Pilate asks the Jews present what they wanted him to do and they said "crucify him". Pilate eventually gave in to their instructions. There is no problem interpreting this as the Jews being responsible for Jesus's death or the Jews killed him -- even though Pilate was the one who gave the final order. Whether the Thessalonians quote is Pauline or not, it isn't in discord with the Marcan story because it says that the Jews killed Jesus (the mafia boss didn't kill him it was the hired killer) -- unless one wants to be zealously literalist (of the type: the mafia boss didn't kill him it was the hired killer).


spin

Vinnie

I suppose your accusation of my motives really helped further the discussion? I hadn't even posted in this thread!

And critical scholarship is liberal scholarship. Unless you meant revisionist scholars. Revisionism is just as bad as conservatism or mythicism AFAIAC.

Vinnie

rlogan

Hi Spin.

I find this question intractable.

Assume he was crucified by Pilate's order, but no more for the moment.

In order to advance the argument that the "Jews" killed him, does't it need to be demonstrated that imperial Rome took "instructions" from the Sanhedrin or the crowd?

It's pretty unambiguous in later gospels that Pilate could find no crime in Jesus. I find it highly unlikely that Pilate would act as an agent of the Sanhedrin or the crowd.

What would seem more likely is for Pilate to acquiesce to a Jewish stoning for blasphemy. But that would make Mark inaccurate, along with other gospels.

Mark is "slippery" here. He doesn't have Pilate issuing a convictiion for any crime. Barabbas, though, is labelled specifically with the crimes of insurrection and murder. But not Jesus.

If on the other hand if it was for sedition then I find it highly unlikely that Pilate would do any more than crucifying him forthwith. No need for the Sanhedrin or the crowd. There again, Mark must be inaccurate.

At best I think the Sanhedrin turns him over for sedition. Were that the case then it's stretching it more so to say they "killed" him. A literary device perhaps - but stretching it.

Cheers...

Amaleq13

This seems totally at odds with how Josephus portrays Pilate's attitude toward the Jews. In brief, he was a total dick.

If we rely on Josephus, "highly unlikely" is kind.

After holding an illegal (i.e. no prior permission obtained) meeting? Not much more likely than the other scenario, IMHO.

Actually, I'm not sure there is even a real need for Pilate's direct involvement. Did he attend every trial/execution or did he tell his "people" to take care of any troublemakers and not to bother him unless somebody shows up with an army? Which is more consistent with a guy who hides his people among the Jews and has them whip out the clubs when the crowd gets "uppity"?

And that always brings up the question of why they would allow a movement to continue in his name and in the town he was executed? Vinnie has referred to Paula Fredricksen (sp?) as offering a way out but I've got many books ahead of her so I don't know how plausible it is. He hinted that it was because "others" considered him to be the Messiah that he got killed but I'm not sure that will address the issue sufficiently. I would think his followers would still be under suspicion in this scenario and it is difficult to understand why "others" would consider him to be the Messiah unless he was behaving like one.

Vinnie

If others claimed him Messiah it is only tautological to say "he behaved like one" or gave that impression. The point is he never made this claim for himself or posed a threat to Rome himself. Pilate knew this.

Amaleq13

Your second sentence appears to deny the "tautology" of the first. If Jesus never made the claim or behaved consistent with the claim, why would "the people" have considered him to be the Messiah?

It is not "tautological" but simply common sense. Folks didn't go around considering everybody to be the Messiah. The "Messiah" had to specifically do and say things to lead people to such a conclusion.

How can one "behave like the Messiah" yet pose no threat to Rome? If people believed he was the Messiah, then, by definition, he behaved in a way that posed a threat to Rome. This would be consistent with an execution by crucifixion but not consistent with the subsequent establishment of a movement in his name by his former followers.

Your suggestion that Pilate knowingly convicted Jesus wrongly and in agreement with the (apparently illegal) Sanhedrin seems unbelievable in the context of Josephus' descriptions of his interactions with the Jews.

spin

The basic underlying turning of literary characters into real figures that I find in this sort of discussion seems to have short-circuited the job of showing that the figures are in fact real. The Pilate of the gospels (as against the historical person) also is a literary figure just as the Mozart of the film Amadeus is.

Until these figures have been shown to be real, how can you continue to make statements and build assumptions based on their reality?


spin