Malachi151

Does this seem reasonable at all?

How do people account for this? Why would Jews who had been opposed to occupation and who eventually rebelled against the Romans, show loyalty oaths to the Emperor?

What is the point of this in John?

Roger Pearse

My friend, when you have experienced office politics, it will all ring so terribly true. People really do engage in this sort of deceit.

The reason that the Jews are saying "We have no king but Caesar" is that they are *lying* -- and they know this, and Pilate knows it, and both sides know the other knows it. But Pilate is helpless to resist them, when they say it; which is why they say it.

You see this in modern politics all the time. You want to get something done. You find a phrase that the other side will find it hard to argue against. Then you use it, as long as it is convenient. That's what all this "Fighting for peace" stuff is about -- who could be against 'peace' -- that the old Soviet tyranny used to churn out to confuse its enemies while building up its army.

The point is that if they say that, Pilate cannot say "you're lying" as they can then denounce him to Tiberius for encouraging sedition by telling people that Caesar is not their king. They are, in effect, sneering at him, "You know we hate your guts, and we know you that you know, but we have the ear of the emperor and the first step out of line and you'll find yourself up on a charge of maiestas. Now execute this creep -- if you don't, you're setting up a rival emperor, and you'll be crucified head down once our messengers have told that to your gloomy and paranoid boss Tiberius."

They don't have to believe it -- indeed they don't. It's just political manipulation.

Incidentally this is why I am certain that Pilate wrote a report about it all to Tiberius. He probably only mentioned Jesus in passing, but if anyone threatened to report me to my boss, well, I would damn well get my story in first.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Malachi151 and Roger,

8.28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.
18.29 So Pilate went out to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" 18.30 They answered him, "If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over." 18.31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." 18.32 This was to fulfil the word which Jesus had spoken to show by what death he was to die. 18.33 Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" 18.34 Jesus answered, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?" 18.35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?" 18.36 Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." 18.37 Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice." 18.38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him.
18.39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?" 18.40 They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barab'bas!" Now Barab'bas was a robber.
19.1 Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. 19.2 And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; 19.3 they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands. 19.4 Pilate went out again, and said to them, "See, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him." 19.5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" 19.6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him." 19.7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." 19.8 When Pilate heard these words, he was the more afraid; 19.9 he entered the praetorium again and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave no answer. 19.10 Pilate therefore said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" 19.11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." 19.12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar." 19.13 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gab'batha. 19.14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" 19.15 They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."

19.16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.


The entire sequence is meant to exonerate Pilate and blame the Chief Priests of the Jews for the death of Jesus. The text suggests five times that Pilate is not to blame, but the Chief Priests are to blame.

The Jews tell Pilate that Jesus is evil and should be put to death. Pilate doesn't want anything to do with it. They should judge him themselves.

The Jews then tell Pilate that they want to put him to death, but need his approval. Pilate interviews Jesus and finds him innocent.

The Jews still demand that he be killed. There is some kind of custom (unknown historically, but highly theatrical) where Pilate gives the Jews a choice about whom to crucify. They choose Jesus.

Pilate tries a fourth time. He has Jesus roughed up. The Jews aren't satisfied. They must have him killed because they have a law saying that anyone who says they are the son of god must die. Pilate again interviews Jesus. Jesus exonerates Pilate as someone just doing his job, but blames the Jews for his impending death. Pilate again seeks to free Jesus for the fifth time.

The Jews now threaten to accuse Pilate of treason. Only when faced with a threat that could result in his own death does Pilate give in and order the death of Jesus.

It appears clear to me that the author deeply hates the Chief Priests and blames them for the death of Jesus. It appears quite likely to me that Pilate was, in fact, entirely responsible. The entire scene is a rhetorical and theatrical presentation. We may doubt every detail. Did the chief priests hand over Jesus? This is unlikely as the text suspiciously tell us they never entered the Praetorium. The text feels compelled to explain why nobody saw the chief priests inside the Praetorium. The text makes up some nonsense about the Priests not entering because of some cleanliness restriction (unknown historically) Could it be rather, that they were never inside the Praetorium because they never delivered Jesus to Pilate?

In the same way, when we deconstruct the scene and examine what the author tries to explain away. It becomes apparent that Pilate interogated Jesus twice, finding him guilty both times. The first time Pilate finds him guilty of saying that he was the King of the Jews. PIlate scourges him. The second time, Pilate finds him guilty of saying he was a God (or son of God) and ordered him crucified.

The reference to the chief priests asking for the release of Barabbas (son of the father) suggests that the Jews begged for the release of Jesus and even offered up somebody else to be crucified in his place. Apparently, Pilate rejected this request.

The text is twisting the historical facts to make the chief priests seem bloodthirsty and guilty, while totally exonerating Pilate. It is this that makes the scene so unbelievable. The person with the power to try and execute Jesus doesn't do it and the people without the power to do these things are given the power to do it. We are dealing with a theatrical fiction that turns historical fact upside down.

The same is true with the threat of accusing Pilate of treason against Caesar. The Jews could hardly have accused Pilate of treason for not executing a man he considered innocent. It is Pilate who would have logically accused the Jews of treason against Caesar for protesting his verdict against Jesus. The Jews are forced to accept Jesus' crucifixion or else be accused of having another king besides Caesar.

My conclusion is that the scene is unbelievable because it is a piece of theater that is giving a wildly improbable and anti-Jewish interpretation to a real historical event. The real historical event involved the Roman execution of a popular leader. I explain this in more detail in my book, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities. I now believe that what we are reading in the Gospel of John is an edited version of scenes from a play that was based on the execution of Simon Magus, the Samaritan Magician.

As far as the Soviet Union's position regarding peace and war, the connection to Biblical text is somewhat obscure.

One should remember that the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia by steadfastly opposing World War I. It was not an opportunist position. They all risked death for this anti-war position and many of their members went to jail and were killed resisting the Czar's pro-war apparatus. Their demands for peace was a natural outcome of their position against nationalism and imperialism. The Mensheviks (socialists who supported the war) actually had the opportunist position.

One may argue that it was the primary desire of the Communist Party (U.S.S.R.) to raise the standard of living of the people in the Soviet Union. In this light, the party's consistent calls for international peace for almost 70 years reflected that desire, and their humanist and internationalist worldview.

However, a discussion of such modern and broad-ranging issues seems outside the subject matter at hand and better left to a discussion in a political forum.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Roger Pearse

Recently a jury here in the UK refused to convict the leader of a political party on charges of "inciting racial hatred" (for describing islam as wicked) in a speech to his supporters on evidence obtained by an informer. The response of the establishment was to threaten more laws to get him next time, and to slur the jury as "white". They certainly were left in no doubt that their actions were "disloyal" in refusing to have anything to do with this vile prosecution.

You who are fortunate enough to live in a country where there is free speech perhaps do not realise how little freedom a man has to make the "wrong" decision when the ruler(s) are ever on the look out for signs of "disloyalty". All of us know what sort of creature Tiberius was.

It reminds me of those films of Stalin taking the applause at party conferences in Russia -- everyone cheering wildly and grinning ecstatically -- except for Stalin himself, who, stone-faced, looks from side to side to see if anyone isn't cheering.

But I agree that all this has little to do with the forum. Any of us may write imaginary stories about any passage of history to turn it inside out.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

Or take a dramatic piece of literature and turn it into history.

Koyaanisqatsi

What? You're comparing being under Roman occupation by one of history's most brutal governors (Pilate) to "office politics?"

Are you kidding?

Deceit? This is presumably the same Jewish crowd that the Sanhedrin were so terrified of just two days prior that they supposedly decided to inexplicably get the Romans to kill Jesus to begin with; for fear that if they attempted to kill him (as they supposedly already tried twice before to do, btw) the crowd of Jews would turn on them and kill them.

Beside the fact that if that were true, it would necessarily mean that they do have a King and that King is Jesus (so why would they then want him killed), the most likely reason "they" are saying it is because the authors of the Jesus trial myths are all actually Romans attempting to blame "the Jews" for their own actions (i.e., killing Jesus; a local charismatic and apparently popular seditionist; what we would call a "terrorist").

Helpless? Pontius Pilate, their oppressor is "helpless to resist them?"

You simply must be joking as that is utterly and incontrivertibly preposterous. Pilate, if you'll recall, was so brutal and so anti-semitic that he slaughtered almost an entire town and was recalled to Rome as a result, where, in his shame, he later committed suicide.

Name one instance. The only possible reason I could even begin to think you're serious would be if Pilate was threatening to kill all who say "Jesus is our King, Fuck Ceasar!" Yet, that isn't the story. In fact, the opposite is the case.

Not to mention the fact that there's no such thing as a "King of the Jews" in Judaism. There may have been Jewish Kings, but the phrase "King of the Jews" would have absolutely no meaning to any Jew.

It, too, is only explicable from a Roman misunderstanding of Judaism and serves as further evidence, IMO, that Christianity was either concocted entirely by anti-Judaic (as opposed to anti-semitic) Romans, or rewritten by them later for the same purpose; to undermine Judaism.

But that's just it, why in the hell would the Jewish crowd so feared by the Sanhedrin just two days prior due to their undying love of Jesus now want him killed for no reason?

Such as "He is your king?" Again, there's no such thing and he was not a king.

Only Romans at that time would find such transparent Roman propaganda offensive or a death sentence, and only then if the person were actually a King threatening enough to Ceasar's actual power.

That's right; it's American propaganda designed to illicit fear in Americans using American archetypes. No Iraqi insurgent is going to say something so patently absurd as "We have no President but Bush" while demanding that a supposedly beloved Iraqi holy man be murdered without cause by Americans because he dared to claim that he was "President of Iraq" or "King of the Iraqis" or the like.

Unless he actually were the "King of the Iraqis" with all of the power that wields and even then, for his own people to turn on him so murderously (to the extent of having to collude with their enemy), he would have had to have done something unimaginably horrific to them, not merely walked around with a small group of students talking about loving each other.

In short, he would have had to have been Saddam Hussein, not Jesus the Christ.

That, or, again, the Americans would all have to be ready to kill every single one of them if any of them dared to claim support for the man, which was not the case. Pilate found no crime that Jesus committed and publicly declared him a free man.

So, Pilate declared that Jesus was not an actual King that could theaten Ceasar's power; did not claim himself to be a King; and the crowd confirmed that he was not their "King" (because that would make no sense).

:banghead:

He wasn't their King as Pilate knew and Jesus never claimed to be and there is no such thing as a "King of Jews" in judaism, but even if there were, why would the Romans, let alone Ceasar give one tiny shit about a local rabbi claiming he was the "King of the Jews?" That would be identical to some preacher in Utah claiming he was "President of all Mormons." Who would give a shit, even he were, in fact the "President of all Mormons?"

And what Jew is going to "denounce him to Tiberius for encouraging sedition" against Rome. Jesus wouldn't be seditionist against Jews and Pilate could very easily say to Ceasar (if it ever got so far up the chain of command that Pilate allowed some local rabbi to go around calling himself the "King of the Jews") that it was a religious title that carried no military power to actually threaten anything at all. And then, the only possible "negative" reaction from Ceasar would be to say, "It is too politically risky; kill the man at once" and Pilate would say, "Yes, my Ceasar" and that would be the end of it.

Actual history, however, proves that Rome wouldn't have made such an order, as is evidenced by Pilates recall and public humiliation for his slaughter of the Sammaritans.

I mean, do you actually think about any of this bullshit in any kind of real terms, Roger?

Pilate instilled fear in the crowd he brutally oppressed; not the other way around.

Not a single thing you're saying makes any sense at all and is, in fact, entirely contradicted by the actual historical record (religious cult myths asside).

Who are? The same crowd that so loved and worshipped Jesus just two days prior that the Sanhedrin supposedly feared for their lives if they dared to try and kill Jesus? They are now "sneering" at Pilate and just can't wait to trick him into murdering an innocent man that they supposedly adore?

Wouldn't the "first step" be the public acquittal, where Pilate declares three times that he can find no crime that Jesus has committed?

And, again, why in the hell would any Roman take the ridiculous claim that Jesus was a King seriously enough to charge Pilate for anything at all?

"Creep?" Where did this mythical crowd of Jesus hating Jews suddenly spring from and why the hell would they think so poorly of him that they would demand (and if you're right threaten) their oppressors with such an action if they didn't kill a man that a Roman governor just publicly declared had committed absolutely no crime whatsoever?

Once again, nothing in this narrative (including the "trial" and subsequent Passover "Releasing of the Criminal") remotely corresponds to anything in the historical record. It is entirely Roman fiction; propaganda to make it look like the Roman occupation wasn't so bad and that "the Jews" were all to blame for what the Romans did to a beloved local Rabbi "freedom fighter."

Written by Romans, for Romans, using Roman archetypes that had no equal in Jewish archetypes, other than in the Messiah myths of the OT. And they didn't even get any of those right, as there are several different Messiahs and the one supposedly referencing Jesus describes a Messiah that comes to literally, bodily free all of the Jewish people (God's chosen); kill all of their enemies (and those among them who were not deemed holy enough by each other; the non "annointed" ones) and consume the area in floods and fire as some sort of horrific cleansing ritual, apparently, as a precursor to God himself (Yahweh, not the Messiah) to arrive in Jerusalem for all eternity.

Who was not, in fact, a rival emperor, as Pilate and Tiberius and any other Roman with half a brain stem would immediately recognize and laugh off.

Wow! Would this be the same "gloomy and paranoid boss" that supposedly delivered the messge to Pilate that Rome was recalling him for his genocidal brutality against the Jews?

That never happened and even if it did, would have absolutely no effect at all on Pilate, Tiberius or any other Roman leader. They would laugh it off in the same way Bush would if anyone claimed to be "President of the Mormons." Or, for that matter, "President of the United States."

:huh:

Probably, and the report would read: "Captured leader of local terrorist insurgent group publicly executed as an example to all who dare to attack Rome."

And most likely several follow up reports along the lines of, "Local insurgent terrorist group growing; martyred leader's name chanted as a killing ritual; we must kill them all as none will renounce their religion; am going to start with the Sammaritans to preserve our precious, bodily fluids."

And then some forty years later, that's exactly the situation the Romans found themselves in when they decided Pilate's genocidal approach was, in fact, necessary.

Gee, isn't it amazing how actual, logical sequential events like I have laid out perfectly explain what most likey went on in our real world with real people; and the mythological explanation not only makes no sense, but is internally contradictory, inconsistent with known facts, and has historically required brutal military action over centuries to enforce its belief?

But why let little things like reality or facts dissuade you, right?

And how would your boss take it if your story was, "I killed a completely innocent man after holding a trial and officially declaring him innocent of all charges, because I was afraid of the people we conquered and enslaved, because they might tell you that he claimed to be 'Boss of all Mormons', even though I discovered in the trial that he never made such a claim; that there is no such thing as 'Boss of all Mormons;' and he wasn't, in fact, the boss of all Mormons?"

:huh:

spin

This is extremely naughty, PhilosopherJay. One of the few believable indications in that gospel and you dismiss it out of hand as "some nonsense", when it is far from nonsense, given the Jewish literature, eg much of the book of Leviticus. For example if someone spat on a priest's garment the priest would be impure until evening. The priest responsible for leading the scapegoat into the wilderness would be impure until evening and needed requisite ablutions. The high priest could not go into a room with a dead person without making himself unfit for duty. Ritual purity was essential to Jewish life. Ritual baths have been excavated throughout Jerusalem of the era. Jews defied Rome over purity matters: one just needs to think of the shields issue.

The silly story of the denarius with the head of Caesar on it is unthinkable: give unto Caesar, etc. The coins of Pilate's time in Judea were shekels and prutahs. Pilate's coins had no heads on them. They had neutral symbols on them so as not to incur unrest through graven imagery.

Naturally priests would not enter places where Roman soldiers frequented. Soldiers worshipped pagan gods and had pagan symbols -- even the standards would have been considered pagan symbols because they often referred to the emperor or to gods. Leather goods, which were staple costume items for soldiers, could easily impart impurity and render priests unclean.

One of the most important feasts of the year was near and priests could not afford to render themselves impure and disqualify themselves from participating in their rostered duties.

Practising Jews of the era took purity extremely seriously. The Mishna deals with ritual purity in various places and the contexts tend to date back to the temple period. Purity was such a big issue. The Dead Sea Scrolls is another source of purity indications, and the scrolls obviously came from Jerusalem, from the temple environs, the scroll leaders being sons of Aaron, sons of Levi, ie priests.

There is nothing nonsensical about priests concerned with purity issues, PhilosopherJay.


spin

aa5874

Do you determine what is history and what is imaginary? It is evident that the Christian Bible is not credible, but yet some believe they can resolve contradictions with what they feel is the best plausible explanation.

As long as the credibility of the Bible cannot be resolved, it is very difficult to come to any meaningful conclusion about any event or character.

The story of the trial cannot be even verified to have occured, yet some want to know what was said during that unverified incident. It is obvious to me that it will be futile and speculative and will not resolve anything.

spin

Pilate was one of history's most brutal governors?? This is just hyperbole, Koy. Pilate was no more brutal than any governor of his time. Reading his deeds in Josephus, one finds him relatively accommodating, despite Josephus's packaging of him as a bad guy. The issue of the shields, AJ 18.3.1, shows Pilate ready to tread carefully, removing the offending shields. He carried out at least one improvement to the city, working on an aqueduct; this act caused the wrath of the people for some reason, but their actions were not transparent. He didn't take the cash from the temple treasury otherwise Josephus would have accused him of doing so, as Josephus had no love for Pilate. When his soldiers quelled the arrising strife, they "inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered" (AJ 18.5.2 - 18.62). Pilate may not have been anything out of the ordinary as a governor.


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

Which, to the Jews under his rule, would pretty much be like saying he was no more brutal a Gauleiter than any other Nazi Kommandant. The point is that he does stand out in the historical record as being "one of" the most brutal governors and certainly not someone to have been afraid of the people he ruled.

"At another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (qorban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled." (Josephus, Jewish War 2.175–177; Ant. 18.60–62)

Doesn't look like a crowd of Jews (even actively clamoring against him) much riled his feathers.

:huh:

After he refused and was ordered to so by Tiberius and even then he had them moved (to Caesarea, his home town, if memory serves).

The "some" reason was most likely because Pilate started taking too much cash from the Jewish coffers.

He all but did (see quote above); regardless, the ubiquitous "crowd of Jews" evidently thought so, which is the most likely reason they rioted (as Pilate evidently predicted they would, which is why he put undercover soldiers in the crowd to beat them into submission when they, or if they did).

How could building a much needed aquaduct cause an anticipated riot, if it were not for something criminal Pilate was consciously doing?

:huh:

So it wasn't Pilate's anticipatory order of a smackdown that's in question; it's that his pitbulls once unleashed got out of control? Blame the soldier, not the order?

Tell that to the countless Jews he ordered beaten, tortured and killed (that would include Jesus, btw, just after publicly declaring him innocent) and the multitudes who apparently complained so convincingly to the Roman legate of Syria that he was ordered recalled to Rome (apparently on moral grounds), where, legend has it, he committed suicide.

That extraordinary action alone (the recall due to complaints from his own people) would tend to corroborate my claim that he was "one of" the most brutal governors. Unless you can think of other instances where the local complaints would cause such a humiliating action to a Roman official?

Would you be happier if I called him one of the most infamous, brutal Roman governors? The fact remains that the real Pilate would not have behaved in the manner the gospels claim he did. Nor, for that matter, would some mysterious "crowd of Jews" that seems to appear inexplicably out of nowhere evidently "lying" (as Roger would have us believe) about Jesus not being their King; a King, no less, that they then want to threaten Pilate into murdering for them, for no reason.

:huh: