Koyaanisqatsi

I reallized that after I posted, but thought the point should be reiterated for Jesus, too. He cries when he's not clarified.

So there you have it. A convicted murderer/insurrectionist. What do we call those people today? Oh yes, terrorists.

So, if Mark is to be believed, then Pilate let a convicted terrorist--who had, in the course of his crimes against Rome no doubt murdered Roman citizens and/or (worse) Roman soldiers--go free because a crowd of Jews asked him to, and executed a man he had just publicly declared had never been a criminal because he feared the crowd.

No. That could not and never did happen. Unless you're talking about Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

TedM

Mark 15:6 "Now at the feast he (Pilate) used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked."

I don't have much problem with the believability of THIS statement because it is IMO similar to what we see today when communist countries release political prisoners. I don't think the idea is laughable as you do nor an indication of 'fiction' as Amaleq has said. It's basically 'throwing the dog a bone' to appease it for the time being, which is not the same as acting out of fear. Rather it is a practical action. And it is the same reason given for crucifying Jesus. I might add also that Passover would have been an ideal time for such an appeasement. It was a very nationalistic time which would have increased the odds of an uprising involving a significant percentage of the Jewish male population. Releasing one man favored by the Jews would have been a politically savvy move on the part of the Romans.

As for releasing a man who had murdered in an insurrection, that is harder to believe, and may reflect an apologetic exaggeration or false rumor. The actual offense could have been less dramatic.

As for your point about Jesus not being eligible for release prior to a conviction, I don't have a problem with the idea of such a 'technical' violation. It seems a very minor argument.

I have a hard time believing that the 'release' story would have been repeated by Matthew and the others if it was as ludicrous an idea as you and Amaleq seem to think. Matthew 'corrects' some minor things elsewhere that don't jive with Jewish custom. Do you really think he would let such a 'laughable' idea slip by here? We aren't talking about a wild miracle, which can be attributed to God. We are talking about a claim to a historical event. How do you explain the acceptance of this story by those who know the Jewish culture and the times a lot better than you?

I'm trying to limit my time here, so won't be responding much for a while. Thanks to all for your thoughts on this issue.

ted

Toto

Please give some documentation for this. Some non-violent political prisoners have been released by various countries due to OUTSIDE diplomatic pressure or exchanges of prisoners, but not as a sop to the populace.

Can you show that this story was accepted as historical by people familiar with the Jewish culture - namely Jews? How do you explain the rejection of this story by Jews?

Amaleq13

What modern communist countries do is entirely irrelevant to the known practices of Roman governors and the specific descriptions of Pilate's attitude/behavior toward his Jewish population. I can only assume you have still not conducted any research into this issue with regard to the former or you would know that nothing like this is reported anywhere by anyone. As I have already told you, the closest you'll get is a report about a "good" governor who delayed an execution for the emperor's birthday. To suggest that Pilate, of all people, would engage in this "tradition" is what is truly ridiculous. He lost his job because he refused to stop treating the Jews unfairly, Ted.

I suspect that is only because you lack sufficient background knowledge to reach a sound conclusion. The notion is without merit and becomes clearly laughable when the criminal-in-question is a convicted seditionist and Pilate the man being nice to the Jews. There is no way in hell that Rome would approve freeing such an individual and it is exceedingly unlikely Pilate would choose to continue any such tradition even if we had any evidence it existed.

You are assuming far too much critical thought on the part of an author (and his readers) who feels free to claim that several dead "saints" got out of their graves and walked into Jerusalem when Jesus was raised.

TedM

Jews were a form of 'outside' political pressure.


Don't scholars believe Matthew was a Jew? Or that the writer(s) of John were very familiar with Jewish culture, if not the actual trial itself? Or that Luke was very familiar with the history?

What Jews rejected it at the time?

ted

Amaleq13

Which Pilate consistently ignored even after Tiberius ordered unfair treatment of Jews to stop and until he was sent to answer for their complaints.

gstafleu

You will find exactly that covered in great detail in Robert Price's book "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man."

TedM

I don't agree.

Perhaps.

Correct.

Where would you expect such a report?

I gave a logical reason.

I didn't suggest that such a release would have been a 'fair' way to treat the Jews.



I disagree. I gave a close example above.


The example above is consistent with a political dissentor. Not with a murderer though, which I already addressed.

He wasn't being nice for the Jew's benefit, Amaleq.

Your opinion, or based on something other than what you've said here?

Re: Matthew and others
NO need to roll your eyes. I already addressed your poor comparison to a miracle by God. I also said that Matthew DOES show 'critical thought' on 'minor' which means MUCH SMALLER cultural/historical discrepancies. To turn a blind eye to something you think is ridiculous would be out of character for Matthew, if not the others. Their refusal to 'drop' this suggests that the 'tradition' is not as ridiculous as someone in the 20th century might think.

Re: outside political pressure
I would need more detail to know what you are referring to here. At some point I recall that Pilate didn't ignore real threats. A mob during Passover would have been a 'real threat', don't you think?

I gotta go.

ted

Toto

No - Jews were subjects of the Roman empire, not an independent superpower who could exert diplomatic pressure.

Why don't you cite one of those scholars?

All of the Jews who did not convert to Christianity.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, it isn't in the slightest, as others have argued, but beyond that; why would Pilate release a convicted murderer (of his own people), because a crowd of Jews asked him to? How could he possibly justify that?

That would be like the Governor of New York (Pataki) releasing a convicted terrorist of Islamic fundamentalist's choosing every Ramadam.

Absolutely no possible way would that ever be allowed.

Then you are in denial. :huh:

Letting a convicted murderer and insurrectionist go free is "throwing the dog a bone?"

To stop insurrection and the murder of your own people at the hands of the insurrectionists, you release a convicted insurrectionist who committed murder against your own people? That's a "practical action?"



Accept that it makes no sense. Jesus was already found innocent by Pilate prior to this nonsense. He was already free and never a criminal in Pilate's eyes.

See above and add in that the Sanhedrin that riled up the crowd didn't seem to think riling up the crowd during that time was a good idea (emphasis mine):

Funny how they're afraid of the people rioting during the feast if any of them tried to kill Jesus (which they did previously, by the way, twice by stoning so out goes the argument that only the Romans could have killed Jesus), and yet, two days later after Pilate publicly declares Jesus innocent and the Sanhedrin's plot is foiled, some how (divine providence??) they no longer fear the rioting of the crowd and actually are able to turn the crowd against Jesus during his public exoneration!

It's not only propaganda; it's extremely poorly written propaganda.

For the Romans; their oppressors and conquerers!

First of all, it never historically happened (i.e., there is no Roman record of any such inconceivable freeing of murderers at the request of their conquered subjects during their tribal rituals); second, by releasing people convicted of insurrection and murder on the say-so of their brethren, you are guaranteeing more insurrection and murder by the individuals you release; third, could you ever conceive of a situation in which George Bush would release Saddam Hussein because a crowd of Iraqis asked him to? Not all Iraqis, just a crowd that happened to have come out to celebrate some ritual?

What's harder to believe is that a crowd that so loved Jesus not two days prior that the Sanhedrin allegedly sought "sly" ways to have him arrested and killed, would then call out for his crucifixion two days later for no reason at all, beyond the same Sanhedrin supposedly riling them up.

The alleged tradition was to release a convicted criminal. Jesus was never convicted, nor a criminal and was already declared free three times by Pilate (depending on which version you read).

So, the tradition that never happened gets changed to releasing a convicted murderer/insurrectionist (a killer of Roman citizens and convicted threat against Rome) and then killing a completely innocent man for no reason at all. Because the crowd incongruously wanted him killed.

:huh:

The tradition that never existed was not, "Which innocent man do you want me to kill in place of a convicted murderer." Right? The tradition that never existed was to release a convicted criminal of their choice.

Where does the murder of an innocent man enter into the alleged Passover tradition?

Yet you have no trouble with the fact that they both repeated the ludicrous notion of a dead man resurrecting from his grave?

Yes, I do, because it exonerates the Romans and demonizes the Jews (plural, non-specific) just as was intended.

That is not found in any other text of the period except one (copied by two others).

You mean, Jews? They do not accept this story in the slightest for precisely these (and other) reasons.