Koyaanisqatsi

So why does he repeatedly provoke "the crowd" regarding Jesus' nowhere claimed title, "King of the Jews?" Why does he declare Jesus innocent (thrice) and then keep provoking the crowd--who so loves Jesus at the same time so easily hates him--into confessing that they want Jesus murdered?

"Isn't he your king?"

"No. We have no king but Caesar. Kill him!"

"Why? I have found no crime that he has committed."

"He called himself the King of the Jews."

"No he didn't."

".....Oh.....well.....this guy Ted said he did......"

"Then shouldn't I arrest Ted?"

"NO! KILL JESUS INSTEAD!"

"Why?"

".......ummm....."

"Aren't you the ones that the Sanhedrin so feared that they tried to trick me into going along with their sick plot to murder an innocent man?"

"Yes, but no, but sort of. We're incredibly fickle and not at all the same crowd that was hanging around two days ago."

"Oh....What happened to all of them that so terrified the Sanhedrin two days ago?"

"Shhhh. They're sleeping."

"Oh, ok, well then, why should I murder a man I just officially declared was innocent of all crimes again?"

"Because if you don't, we'll riot."

"......I see.....you mean like you've done before?"

"Yeah, only more so."

"More so than when I anticipated such a riot and had more than sufficient soldiers hidden amongst you that I brutally stopped your riot? You know, according to my job description?"

"Yes, but this time we have something you don't."

"What's that?"

"A completely irrational hatred of the person we've all been lying about."

"Ahh. I....you know what? Fuck it. You want him dead? He's dead."

"Great! And, by the way..."

"Yes?"

"Can you also have all of your soldiers mock him as being something none of us ever claimed he was, including himself? You know, with a crown of thorns that won't mean jackshit to any of us, accept for you and your Roman soldiers?"

"Would that be great?"

"That would be great...."

I'm sorry, was that all "cherry picking?" Care to present a more coherent sequence of events, because it doesn't currently exist in your bible.

:huh:

spin

Where exactly did you get that idea from?

spin

Yeah, holy shit, Koy. But then I think you're getting the swing of things.

You're almost there I think.

Yup. I wasn't attacking your basic stance, just the crap about Pilate.

Jewish apologetic writers singled him out a bit, along with the gospels. Was he any worse than Cumanus?? Infamous? Not according to the Latin writers. They were basically uninterested in Pilate. Forget it. Put the Pilate hype down as being in Judea at the wrong time.

Brutal times require brutal people. It doesn't seem that he was particularly more brutal than a lot of governors. Was he any more brutal than kings of Judea such as John Hyrcanus I, Alexander Jannaeus or Herod? They are the par for the course.

No, it's not a pin in your argument. While he was probably not more brutal than many of the rest, he was a military official who came up through the ranks to be a prefect and those guys didn't muck around. By the nature of the training and the job, he was not someone to be easily manipulated by a crowd. He had his ways of handling crowds, as Josephus recounted.

You can get there without the exaggeration.

Right.

Numerous governors got that route, Koy. I've cited some. But I have indicated that Pilate didn't get any notice in the Roman press for his provincial activities.

Ummm, just Philo and Josephus, Philo writing from Alexandria trying to whip up sympathy for the Jewish cause in Egypt. As I've said, the only witnesses beside the gospels as to Pilate's supposed behaviour are two Jewish apologists.

You're probably not going to get this even with a few million volts to burn it into your brain, Koy. You are running around in circles with the same broken record. Your sources are plainly biased, while the Latin record is notably silent. You're out of your poor little head if you insist that Pilate was "one of the most brutal governors".

And I never said he wasn't. I just said you are saying silly things about Pilate when they weren't necessary.

He was actually only a prefect. And if you remove the "infamous" which I've shown in Latin circles is just wrong, I do agree that Pilate would not have been a pansy who would have buckled in front of a mob.

Do you get that I was not countering your argument?? Naaa, you're too busy getting yourself pissed off over your weak crap about Pilate being "the most", no, well, um, "one of the most", would you believe, "so" brutal? No, I'll stand firm on "one of the most"!?

In fact, you might have noticed I have supported your basic argument, but you're apparently too busy feeling aggressed against to notice it.

Drop there histrionics about Pilate and there would be no problem for me.


spin

Phoenix From Ashes

I wouldn't say provoke. I would say that he is having discourse with the crowd. It seems he is simply telling the crowd what he seems to believe is true. It also seems pretty plain that this "crowd" would not have been made up of the same "crowd" that was proclaiming Jesus King of the Jews (unless there were a fickle few, which fickle human nature certainly allows us to believe in).

Your story was quite Monty Pythonesque and funny, but it doesn't really have much to do with forwarding serious discussion. I'll attempt to take some of the things you seem to be attempting to use to drive home your own points and address them.

This still ignores the fact that there are stories where Pilate was obviously averse to killing a mob when he could easily have done so.

Besides, it is not so much the mob that he might have feared (as I've mentioned) as a possible embassy of religious leaders to Rome to protest Pilate's actions before Caesar, that is allowing a man to go free (nay, actually arguing for him!) who proclaimed himself King (again, this simply follows the biblical text).

This is doing a bit of unwarranted speculation, isn't it? It is quite doubtful that Pilate would have requested such a thing. It is more believable, however, that rough soldiers might have had a bit of fun with Jesus.

First, yes, there was quite a lot of cherry picking in there. Second, it is not my bible. Third, the account seems quite coherent and possible, except to those who desire otherwise. They will usually see whatever they want.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

I got the idea from your posts.

#3955562
Leather goods, which were staple costume items for soldiers, could easily impart impurity and render priests unclean.

#3957180
Leather goods, which were staple costume items for soldiers, could easily impart impurity and render priests unclean.

#3957880
It's not the leather itself but the working in leather. People who wrote scrolls, tephilin (phylacteries) and mezuzot were of professions which would never bring "a sign of blessing" (b.Pes. 50b Bar.). Tanners were a despised profession (b.Kidd. 82a Bar.) along with herdsmen and butchers (M.Kidd. 4.14).

Soldiers were supposed to wash their garments, Num 31:20, which included "every article of skin". Not doing so meant that the person was unclean and would impart impurity. Roman soldiers not being bound by such laws would be in a constant state of impurity.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spin

You conclusion doesn't follow from the premises which you are attempting to use. Take the last one for example, which expressly talks about washing the leather: unwashed implies impure. Butchers deal with dead animals -- yet kosher meat is ok. Tanners worked on the skins of dead animals and the working of the skins made the tanners impure -- yet the product could be used. Working on leather for example could render the leather acceptable, yet the workers were impure. Leather not treated properly, or not cleaned properly in the soldiers' case, would render the leather a source of impurity.

The priest had to maintain purity and so avoided the possibility of becoming unclean. Romans being foreigners have a greater risk of cultic impurity, by not knowing about Jewish ritual purity. Problems relating to leather are just one aspect of the wider problem. For example, a Roman soldier who had not long ago jerked off, would be ritually impure.

Priests tended to live separated lives, because I'm sure that the 'am ha-aretz didn't mind jerking off because they didn't follow ritual purity, so they were off-limits to priests or to anyone who maintained ritual purity as with the Pharisees. Coming into contact with corpses rendered people impure. Drinking impure liquids rendered one impure. Coming into contact with impure people rendered one impure. The priest therefore not only avoided foreigners but much of the local population.


spin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

I did not draw any conclusion. I asked a question. I was simply trying to get you to clarify your position.

It appears that you are saying that the Jewish Priests were like modern day germophobes, like Howard Hughes in "the Aviator", who avoided people and especially foreigners for fear of becoming impure.

Here is the passage from John:
Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas 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.


I had considered that it was the entering of the praetorium that would cause the defiling, not the people inside it. But if it is the people then what difference does meeting them outside make. Wouldn't they still be risking impurity when Pilate (and I assume his bodyguards) went out to meet them?

Also weren't they risking impurity by hanging out with Jesus all night. I mean here was someone who was engaging in what they considered criminal activities. How did they know that he didn't jerk off before his arrest? Hanging out with prostitutes, tax collectors and drunkards, would they not have suspected him of being more impure than Pilate's servants?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spin

This was what you concluded: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that coming into contact with people wearing leather while they work would be considered a source of impurity for Jewish Priests.

You then sought sources from me to support it.

That's what I call attempting to understand what you are trying to deal with.

The passover is one of the most important events in the Jewish cultic calendar. You couldn't afford to miss participation through impurity.

Impure people, impure things. Whatever imparts impurity.

I've never argued for the veracity of the text, only for the credibility of the purity concerns given to the priests in the passage.


spin

Koyaanisqatsi

"Discourse?" That's how you would describe it? The life of a man he has just declared was innocent hangs in the balance, but it's just "discourse" in your eyes?

Why doesn't that surprise me?

How could that be if he has already publicly and therefore officially (as a Roman governor) exonerated Jesus of all crimes; indeed, he goes beyond that to say that he can find no crime that he has committed.

None. That would include Caesar's decree.

First of all, why wouldn't it be? Secondly, where were they during and most definitely after? Third, I didn't say they were the same crowd proclaiming Jesus "King of the Jews" (since no one ever did; that was an accusation against Jesus because Jesus allegedly claimed it; which would also be the only possible criminal act), I asked why were the Sanhedrin terrified of "the crowd" (presumably the same festival crowd that was there two days prior for the Passover) that prompted them to concoct a false charge that Jesus had claimed to be the King of the Jews and then not terrified of the crowd two days later when they allegedly walked among them and somehow convinced them to demand that Pilate murder an innocent man; a man that they evidently did not consider to be the "King of the Jews?"

Where was the fear of the riot from the "other" crowd as the Sanhedrin walked among "a" crowd (that they could have no possible knowledge wasn't "the" crowd) as they cajoled the crowd into murdering an innocent man, before, during and most definitely as their alleged "King" was slowly bleeding to death on a cross with common criminals?

Actually, it does, because it illustrates the absurdity of the alleged sequence of events, demonstrating, IMO, why it never occurred.

How about just addressing the fact that for blackmail to work, Pilate would have to believe "the crowd" had anything to blackmail him with, which he obviously did not? Hence him officially proclaiming Jesus innocent.

"Killing" a mob? Who said anything about killing them? The historical record shows that Pilate had no fear of a riot and instead anticipated such riots (again, as would be consistent with his job description) and took military steps to beat those attempting such unrest into submission.

Happy Spin? I didn't use the word "brutal" this time.

Do you understand what that means, Phoenix? He did not fear a riot, it was his job and training and resolve, apparently, to use (sorry, Spin but it's applicable) brutal military response and not "appeasement" (certainly not appeasement by murdering a man he just officially declared to be innocent just because that's what "the crowd" wanted him to do).

Talk about grounds for blackmail!



As the historical record proves, complaints against Pilate's alleged brutality are what got him recalled to Rome. Can you imagine if one of those complaints was that, instead of putting down a riot, he instead decided to murder a man he had officially (and as a voice of Caesar) just declared innocent? Because he was afraid of the same crowd it was his job to control?

Pilate was not susceptible to blackmail and if "the crowd" rioted (a contingency he surely was prepared for, not just at all times, but particularly, one would assume, during the Passover festival) even threatened to riot, he would simply order his soldiers (both overtly and covertly positioned) to beat the hell out of them. That would be his response; not murdering an innocent man.

That would be far more damning in Rome's eyes, again as the historical record proves.

And not the historical record, nor common sense. He just officially declared that Jesus had not broken any Roman law, Phoenix so he could not have feared that any "embassy of religious leaders" would "rat" him out, or he never would have made the ruling to begin with.

Do you understand that Pilate's word was Roman law in the region? That if he had presided over any such trial (which he likely would not have) that what he officially declared would be as if Rome declared it? That is the power he wielded; that was his mandate from Rome when he was given the post in the first place.

So there would be no fear of blackmail in Pilate's mind, which is the only place it would matter.

Not in the slightest. Once again, it would be the only reason such treatment of an innocent man who "the crowd" had allegedly declared was not their "King" and whom Pilate himself had declared had committed no crime (i.e., had not declared himself to be "King") would occur.

He wasn't their King, he didn't claim to be their King and "the crowd" confirmed he was not their King. So why would the Roman guards mock him as if none of that were true?

From a Roman perspective, they would be murdering a completely innocent man, not a King. If anything, they would have contempt for "the crowd" irrationally demanding that a man who had committed no crime be killed in the worst possible way and certainly some among them would be questioning why the hell Pilate declared Jesus innocent and a free man and then turned 180 degrees around to order his execution, because he feared the crowd it was his job not to.

I would imagine many Romans would consider that to be worthy of reporting to Rome and far more damning.

Why? What possible motive would they have? Their own governor declared him innocent and no one considered him to be a King of anything as had just been publicly and definitively demonstrated.

:huh:

Oh please, Phoenix. It is incoherent and nonsensical and in complete contradiction to any semblance of reality as the historical record proves.

I'm not "seeing" what I want; I'm seeing pure Roman fiction.

You, on the other hand, evidently are seeing only what you want, because you still have not addressed any of the points I've raised, just denied their efficacy.

Do you agree that it is a fact that for blackmail to work, one would have to believe there was something with which they could be blackmailed? Pilate's official declaration that Jesus was innocent would have to be reported to Rome by Pilate regardless of any alleged threat from a crowd, so what exactly could they blackmail him with? Telling Caesar what Pilate's official report of the "trial" would tell him anyway?

:huh:

spin

Ecstatic. ... though "brutal" would not be out of place.


spin