Koyaanisqatsi

Well TedM, I haven't gotten in depth yet, but you're still missing the fact that even if such tradition existed, Jesus was declared innocent before Pilate engaged in any alleged tradition, so it's entirely moot.

Jesus was not a criminal at any time under Roman law and therefore could not have been "released" per any alleged criminal release tradition.

:huh:

So, once again we see what I can only conclude is a pro-Roman revisionist mistake (and poorly thought out at that), however necessary. If such a "tradition" did not exist, then you have no disconnect between the Romans and their direct culpability in killing Jesus; you have no blaming "the Jews" (plural, non-specific).

As it is, it's remarkable that "the Jews" were blamed at all, considering the Sanhedrin's attempts failed. The only reason provided by Mark that Jesus was crucified is because Pilate wanted to "satisfy" the crowd of Jewish peasents supposedly "riled" by the Sanhedrin (though without explanation and in direct contradiction to Mark 14:1).

That's it. That is the only explanation for why Pilate incongruously decides to execute an innocent man just after publicly declaring him to have committed no crime (outing the Sanhedrin's collusion, no less, which curiously has no effect at all on the crowd, who in turn miraculously become rabidly anti-Jesus simply by being "riled" by the same people who had just been publicly outed as having colluded with the enemy to get an innocent, popular Rabbi killed).

The even more incongruous freeing of Barrabas ultimately has nothing to do with what happens to Jesus and might as well not be there, other than, as I contend, concocting a "tradition" would be the only way for the pro-Roman author of Mark to effectively distance Rome's actual role.

This apologetic is often raised and I just wanted to take some time here to point out how ridiculous it is. First of all, Jesus never claimed to be "King of the Jews" primarily because no such title exists in Judaism, but even if he did--even if he went around wearing a crowned yarmulke--what would Caesar care and why would he even have been told that some completely insignificant whack job cult member was going around claiming to be the King of the Jews?

Do you think George Bush would give a shit if some religious nutjob in Iraq went around claiming he was the President of Islam?

The only reason any of this nonsense is being entertained by you, TedM, IMHO, is because you think Jesus was God Incarnate and everything that implies. Therefore, all of the gaps--all of the holes--get instantly covered over with that almighty paint brush. Of course Pilate washed his hands, because, even though he was a brutal pagan, he somehow "knew" that Jesus was God Incarnate; the Sanhedrin all wanted Jesus killed because they somehow "knew" that Jesus was God Incarnate (which makes no sense at all of course, unless you first accept that Jesus was, in fact, God Incarnate and that Christians are therefore the new "chosen" ones and not "the Jews"); etc.

See what I'm saying? You're looking back through rose-colored stained glasses .

The only way that Jesus would show up on any Roman's radar (particularly Ceasar's radar) would be if he were the leader of a significant insurgency movement that had done serious damage to the occupying forces; so much so that word of his actions made it all the way to Rome. Once again, that would explain why Jesus was crucified (and mocked and beaten within an inch of his life, supposedly).

Religious nutjobs, however, were quite literally a dinar a dozen in the region (and throughout the Roman Empire) and no claims of being King of anything (even "King of Rome" for that matter, since no such title exists) by said nutjobs would ever reach all the way up the labryinth of power to the Emperor, unless the claimant actually was a King, of course, which Jesus was not.

<inflammtory remark removed>

:thumbs:

TedM

I've tired of this discussion, but I still think that while technically you are correct, the point you are making is just not significant. We'll have to agree to disagree on it.


Again, I see reason why Pilate would care about threats to his patriotism, but we'll have to disagree again on it.

Your humble opinion is incorrect, as I've stated my opinions and they aren't influence by what you suggest. Well, I'm tired of all of this so maybe I'll go across the highway here and have a steakburger ..

take care,

ted

Johann_Kaspar

He was an anti-imperialist freedom fighter figure or what US Imperium calls now a terrorist. To be acknowledged "King of Israel" without being choosen by the Romans for the job was a major crime. Crucifixion was the penalty for the rebels.

Koyaanisqatsi

Not according to any of the gospel accounts. Pilate goes to great lengths to publicly declare not only that Jesus is innocent, but that Pilate can find no crime to charge him with even if he wanted to, thereby publicly exposing the Sandhedrin's attempted collusion with Rome.

It is only after Pilate declares Jesus innocent (repeatedly) that the Sanhedrin allegedly "rile" the now incongruously anti-Jesus crowd into enough of a frenzy, apparently, that it moved their oppressor to officially murder a man he just publicly declared to be completely innocent.

King of the Jews, not King of Israel (unless you meant to use Israel in the Hebraic); a religious cult. Why would a Pagan, self-worshipping Emperor (who considers himself a god) sitting on the golden mountaintop of a vast, near global empire care whether or not some irrelevant, insignificant local Jewish whackjob went around calling himself the "King of the Jews?"

That would be identical to George Bush caring about some homeless guy in Minnesotta saying he was "Emperor of the Leprechauns." He wouldn't give a shit. There is no such title in all of Judaism as "King of the Jews" and Jesus could only have been called that, incorrectly, by the Romans because Jesus was most probably the ring leader of the insurgency group of terrorists and that's why the Romans mock him with a crown of thorns.

For Ceasar to have ever been bothered with any such stupidity, Jesus would have had to have been an actual King; deposed and threatening to regain his actual kingdom through violence against Rome. Jesus was not such a King and Pilate would have known this.

They weren't idiots, you know. Some religious fanatic out in the desert sticks goes around calling himself or his follows call him "King of the Cult" no Roman is going to go, "Oh no! It is blasphemy against Ceasar to call yourself a King! KILL HIM! KILL THE FALSE KING BEFORE CEASAR HEAR'S HIS CLAIM!"

That's not just blatant Hollywood/Christian bullshit, that's patently absurd.

I agree. Which is why Jesus, the radical Rabbi, was arrested by the Romans and crucified by the Romans for seditionist acts against Rome. The only possible role any members of the Jewish Sanhedrin may have played in any of it, would be to inform the Roman officers where Jesus and his terrorists were hiding; aka, Judas.

Rome is therefore the "christ killers" and all of the anti-Judaism that is replete in the New Testament should be removed and official apologies given by at least the Vatican to all Jewish people for Paul's blatant anti-Judaism and the centuries of Jewish persecution it (and the synoptics) have caused.

Note I do not write "anti-Semitism."

Koyaanisqatsi

You don't think it is significant that (according to the synoptics) Pilate publicly declares Jesus to not only be innocent, but that he can find no crime to charge him with, thereby officially affirming that Jesus was is and always shall be a free man and never a criminal under Roman law in almost the same breath that he then completely contradicts all of that and orders him to undergo one of the worst forms of capital punishment Rome had on their books just to "satisfy" the crowd who call out for Barrabas' releast instead of Jesus; Jesus who was not a criminal and therefore not part of the "release" tradition and therefore could not have been "released" anyway, since he already was released by Pilate the first, second and third time he declared Jesus innocent in a ritual that is not chronicled anywhere else in all of Roman recorded history?

You see no incongruity there? No contradictory behavior? I'm sorry, but that's simply not possible. The Sanhedrin trump up charges against Jesus they know are not Roman crimes in order to, what, trick their enemies into doing what they could do at any time they wanted by simply stoning him to death (as they tried previously; twice)?

Think about what the synoptics are trying to tell you happened. The Sanhedrin (all of the teachers and leaders of the Jewish community; plural, non-specific) trump up non-existent charges to try and trick the Romans (their mortal enemy and occupiers) into killing Jesus because the leaders of the Jewish community fear the crowd at the Feast would kill them if they attempted to kill Jesus; Pilate then publicly outs the Sanhedrin's attempted collusion with him (which should have immediately meant the death of the Sanhedrin by such a violent and volatile crowd), publicly declares Jesus innocent and having never committed a crime...

You know what? You're right. Nevermind. It is so blatantly, obviously fake that I simply can't break it down any more simplistically than I have ad nauseam.

We'll just have to agree that you must be operantly conditioned to ignore all of the facts that prove the synoptic account could not possibly have happened the way it was reported; no way, no how.

WHAT THREAT? There is no such title "King of the Jews" and even if there were such a legitimate title, what would Pilate care? Jesus was not an actual King with any kind of power to wage war against Rome. It would be identical--IDENTICAL--to your local minister deciding one day to call himself "President of the Druids." Other than professional mental healthcare officials, who would ever care or even give one tiny baby shit about such a compeltely and utterly meaningless title?

I'm sorry, but there can simply be no other answer than some sort of residual, at least, brainwashing from your days in the Christian cult or around the Christian cult or living in a Christian cult influenced area (such as I know St. Louis to be), because if you replaced the name "Jesus" with "Bob" you would instantly see that nothing in the synoptic trial sequence makes any common sense; historical sense; internal sense; any sense at all.

I'll join you. In sight, the deprogramming must be right .

Koyaanisqatsi

Check your PM's for an answer to your question.

TedM

Yes, I think it is a plausible scenario given what we can reasonably conclude about the situation and characters of the time. Sorry you think that is beyond common sense, but that's what I think.

take care,

ted

Koyaanisqatsi

:banghead:

Can't....let it....go....can't....let it.....go....

Ok. Let's break down the sequence of alleged events:

1. Just two days before "the Feast" where Pilate will perform the alleged "release tradition" the Sanhedrin fear the crowd at "the Feast" would turn against them if they killed Jesus
2. Instead of simply stoning Jesus to death (the third time) while they have him in custody and after they have had an all night trial of their own (yet another historically inaccurate event), for absolutely no logical or legal reason, the Sanhedrin then decide to collude with their mortal enemies and occupiers and attempt to fool Pilate into killing Jesus by trumping up a charge against Jesus that everyone knows full well is not a Roman crime (ignoring the fact, once agin, that blasphemy is a Jewish crime and as such the punishment--stoning--is not just allowed under Roman law, but the Sanhedrin have already tried to stone Jesus to death twice prior)
3. Pilate betrays the Sanhedrin, however, and publicly outs their collusion with their enemy to the crowd at the Feast (which should have meant their immediate deaths by such a volatile, terrifying crowd) and finds Jesus not just innocent of the Sanhedrin's false accusations, but Pilate can find no crime that Jesus has committed
4. Jesus, therefore, is as he had always been; a free man and never a criminal according to Roman law
5. Pilate then commences with the "release tradition" and frees a presumably Jewish convicted murderer/insurrectionist in answer to the crowd's selection
6. For no apparent reason, Pilate then asks the crowd what he should do with Jesus (a man he just declared innocent of all charges and therefore free so such a question would never have been asked)
7. The Sanhedrin, apparently, somehow predicted that Pilate would betray them and declare Jesus innocent, so they had obviously arranged a backup plan to have what must have been dozens if not hundreds of plants in the audience to convince the very same crowd they feared just two days ago that Pilate should crucify Jesus--a man he just found publicly innocent of all phony charges brought against him by the very same Sanhedrin, thereby implicating them all as Roman conspirators against their own people--for no reason. Let's repeat that: The crowd that the Sanhedrin just two days before feared would kill them all for killing Jesus, for no explicable reason, not only turns against Jesus, but jumps in bed with the Sanhedrin (regardless of the fact that they had just been exposed by Pilate as being Roman conspirators) and speaks apparently with one unified voice "Crucify Jesus;" no rhyme, no reason, they loved him so much that just two days ago they would have killed their leaders and high priests for even thinking about killing Jesus, thereby forcing the Sanhedrin to collude with their enemies, but today, right now, just after publicly witnessing the Sanhedrin's role in the attempted false imprisonment of their beloved Rabbi and having heard Pilate repeatedly declare him to be innocent of all charges, rile them up and all of that not only dissappears, but it is as if it never existed
8. Pilate, wishing to "satisfy" the crowd he was there to rule by military force and for no other reason given, does what the crowd wants and crucifies a man he just officially and publicly declared had committed no crime at all and was in fact a free, innocent man

That about covers it, I think. The basics anyway.

Setting aside what we do know historically from extra-biblical accounts (that you provided, however selectively), I must say with no hyperbole intended, it is categorically impossible that the above sequence of contradictory events could have ever occurred.

That is not my opinion, btw; that is universally true in all possible worlds including the possible world in which the above could be true!

:huh:



Sorry.

Now let's arrange everything according to the most likely historical timeline:

1. Jesus is the leader of a radical, popular Jewish sect that constitute the most dangerous elements of a growing insurrectionist movement against the Roman occupiers
2. He is either caught, or someone sells him out to the Romans (Judas; some member of the Sanhedrin; Barrabas, which would explain why his name exists at all and why he is involved in the Roman version of the events--aka, GMark--which probably meant that he was actually freed just like we do today, as the result of a plea bargain for naming Jesus)
3. Because Jesus is the Osama Bin Laden of his day, the Romans make a public spectacle out of his crucifixion; adorning him with a crown of thorns while calling him the "King of the Jews," which is meaningless to Jews, but perfectly in keeping with idiot Roman soldier mentality (think drunk Frat boys thinking they are insulting someone, but getting the culture all wrong and instead thinking the way a Roman would think)
4. Jesus is crucified, dies and is burried
5. His death turns Jesus into a martyr for the insurrectionist cause, which grows in number as a result and they all fight "in Jesus' name" (words that would echo throughout history)
6. This insurrection grows so strong and so disruptive, that finally Rome is forced to implement a huge progrom in 70 C.E. and wipe out the whole damn city to the best of their abilities

I'll stop there as the next logical, real-world steps are off topic.

TedM

I admire your persistance, so I'll reward you with a final response. You may have the last word.

The crowd the Sanhedrin feared likely would have been those following Jesus at the time, which would be different than the makeup of the crowd at the trial. Remember to that Jesus WAS taken when away from a crowd, and that at the trial, the crowd sided with the chief priests because new information about Jesus was presented: He had blasphemed God. These differences can reasonably explain both the changes in the Sanhedrin's "fear" of the crowd and the reactions from the crowds that the Sanhedrin expected. Therefore the behavior of the Sanhedrin with respect to the crowds is reasonably explained.


The decision to not stone Jesus and to collude with the Romans can explained reasonably by the hypothesis that the Sanhedrin still wanted the support of a crowd, as well as a scapegoat, as well as the possibility that the Romans also had some interest in arresting Jesus as a political problem. The prior stoning attempts only shows that the Sanhedrin was once bolder than they were at Passover, which is reasonably explained also. As for the charge against Jesus, it is reasonable that he was presented as a political troublemaker which would concern both Jews and Romans alike.


Pilate's original betrayal of the Sanhedrin requires no explanation if we assume he wasn't part of the plan to arrest Jesus (though some colluding Romans may have been). His "outing" of the collusion is just a declaration of his conclusion. It is not reasonable to assume that the crowd, which hadn't been stirred up much yet would have decided to kill their religious leaders for bringing an innocent but controversial man to court!


Ok.

It is reasonable to release a non-threatening prisoner if there was a pre-existing tradition, due to pressure from the emperor, as seen in Philo's account. It is only reasonable for Pilate to release a convicted murderer/insurrectionist if he had a strong motivation to do so. One would be to expose the hypocracy of the chief priests "supposed" Roman allegiency by getting them to clamor for the release of such a man, along with a decision to re-arrest the man later. So, in this case, a reasonable explanation is possible, though of course not supported. It is possible that Barabbas was actually a non-threatening criminal (perhaps in for a minor robbery. John (who has the most insider-like observations) calls him a robber and says nothing of his being a muderer or insurrectionist).


The reason was that the crowd was pressuring Pilate to find Jesus guilty. Pilate knew he could simply change his mind and find a crime in Jesus since that was within his own power. As such, he offers his release "as though" he had made that decision.


I already addressed the crowd response. Chief priests can be very persuasive, especially on such a serious charge of blasphemy. No plants were needed, nor a prediction of their need.


It is reasonable to believe that the crowd would trust they chief priest claim of blasphemy before they would trust the Roman claim of innocence of a crime. Thus, the need to come back and tell him that their (Jewish) law says that Jesus' blasphemy is punishable by death. The crowd reaction makes sense.


Ok. let's do it carefully now...

Nope. No need to assume same crowd.


No, the reason for a more neutral crowd is clear: he was accused by their own trusted religious leaders to have blasphemed God


No, not this crowd.

The only possible collusion was in the arrest--something Pilate may have been unaware of. And, yes, fear of the crowd of followers explains a nighttime arrest.

You are assuming things here that may not be true, so your conclusions may be invalid. I've addressed them already, above.


Pilate's change of heart can be reasonably explained by the change in the perceived threat to him. Two threats:

1. The threat of a complaint to the emperor about a political troublemaker who set himself against both the rulers of Judea and Rome itself. Whether this was true or not or believed by Pilate or not is not the issue. The issue is that Pilate very well could have perceived this threat, since it is implied ("If you release this man, you are not aCaesar's friend"), and since the Jews had already caused trouble for Pilate by complaining to the emperor about him once before, according to Pliny. This threat was real.

2. The military threat from the crowd that was getting worked up against Pilate himself during Passover. As pointed out elsewhere, Pilate may well have been at a military disadvantage against a huge Passover crowd. Even if he wasn't, it was a confontation easily avoided: Just kill the man and release the other.


Since we are talking about why behavior of all the persons involved is or is not reasonable, I think it is helpful to use the extra-biblical accounts as well as alternative explanations which can be used to reasonably explain what might on the surface seem unreasonable.

Again, I intend for this to be my last response, and am willing to really let you have the last word this time.

ted

Koyaanisqatsi

So the Sanhedrin fear a different crowd that will attend the Feast?

Read your bible, young man...

The Feast of the Unleavened Bread is the exact same Feast that Pilate interrupts to proceed with the "release tradition" that never happened:

Pilate has no problem at all referring to Jesus as "King of the Jews" it was out of "envy" that the chief priests handed Jesus over to him.

Envy!



Clearly pro-Roman nonsense as it implies that Pilate knows that Jesus is somehow divine; it assumes Jesus, at the very least, is more popular than the Sanhedrin, and yet....there's that same crowd the Sanhedrin feared so much that they colluded with their mortal enemy...

No mention of the chief priests saying "He is a blasphemer! Crucify him!" No mention of Pilate calling him a blasphemer. No mention (conveniently) of the Sanhedrin declaring Jesus to be a blasphemer the night before and yet, did not immediately stone him to death as they had tried twice before.

Blasphemy, by the way, is not a Roman crime and Pilate does not ask Jesus whether he was God; he asks if he was "king of the Jews," which, again, would have absolutely no meaning at all to any Jewish person living in the region then or now. There is no such thing as a "King of the Jews;" that is obviously a Roman misunderstanding (as all of the Old Testament references so clearly are in Mark, btw, but I digress).

Once again, no problem at all with calling him the "king of the Jews" and no problem at all with the crowd calling him the "king of the Jews." Why? Because no such title exists and he was not a King and therefore no bullshit about Ceasar wanting him killed for daring to call himself a King.

It is out of envy that the Sanhedrin wanted Pilate to arrest and punish Jesus, which can only mean that Jesus was (a) very popular with the crowd at the Feast (as the Sanhedrin feared) or (b) the implication that Pilate and the Sandhedrin knew Jesus to be of some kind of divine stature and that is the reason they do what they do (i.e., Roman apologist/anti-Judaism propaganda).

Why? No mention of blasphemy. No pro-Jesus shouts; no pro-Jesus riots; no just plain old ordinary, "Hey, he's innocent, you just said so, let him go and let's kill our Sanhedrin for conspiring with our mortal enemy and slave masters to kill a completely innocent man."

Just a mindless "Crucify him" for no coherent reason at all.

Patently absurd sequence of events that assumes Jesus' "special" divinity, of course, and that Pilate recognizes this specialness and understands immediately that the Sanhedrin could too and that's why they were doing this, but for the crowd--that dastardly, one minded crowd....

It is cult propaganda of the worst kind, poorly written by a Roman to revise history and destroy Judaism.

There, that's my "last" word.