Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-27-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

NatSciNarg, Spin took issue with my use of hyperbole (in his opinion) regarding my describing Pilate as "one of the most brutal governors."

Nothing else about his sidetrack had any bearing on anything we were discussing as he conceded, so you may wish to ask him why the derail?

Normally when one is misrepresenting something, as you are doing about your perceived extreme brutality of Pilate, one prefers to get it correct. As it was somehow a pin in your argument, though unnecessary (and wrong), you might have liked to jettison it without changing very much of what you were saying.

I indicated that, despite the fact that you claim that Pilate was so brutal, no Latin writer was at all concerned with his brutality, yet numerous governors had been cited as being recalled for their misdeeds. Still, you persist in claiming that Pilate was one of the most brutal governors. This is overtly false, for, had he been one of the most brutal governors, he would have left his impact in the Latin literature. (One might want to claim that this is only an argument from silence, but there is no way to make a superlative claim, regarding "the most" anything, without having any data from which to make a comparison.)

Just get rid of the Pilate rubbish and there'll be one fewer problem in the thread. The notion of blackmail is simply unsupported in the text and must be considered eisegesis, no matter how brutal Pilate may or may not have been.

spin

Phoenix From Ashes · 11-27-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The notion of blackmail is simply unsupported in the text and must be considered eisegesis, no matter how brutal Pilate may or may not have been.

It takes little to no eisegesis as the words are right in the text about what the Jews were doing to Pilate. It seems that there is much focus on the word "blackmail", which I may have used once (maybe twice), for some reason. The point is obvious despite this word, but if "blackmail" of Pilate is a stumbling block to some, then perhaps "framing" of Pilate would be another suggestion. Either way, it seems relatively obvious from the text what they are attempting to do to Pilate. It takes more eisegesis and speculation to reject what is in the written account.

spin · 11-27-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

It takes little to no eisegesis as the words are right in the text about what the Jews were doing to Pilate. It seems that there is much focus on the word "blackmail", which I may have used once (maybe twice), for some reason. The point is obvious despite this word, but if "blackmail" of Pilate is a stumbling block to some, then perhaps "framing" of Pilate would be another suggestion. Either way, it seems relatively obvious from the text what they are attempting to do to Pilate. It takes more eisegesis and speculation to reject what is in the written account.

You are doing nothing more than eisegesis and speculation. If we were to consider these proceedings real (which I don't), why should Pilate bother? He is not averse to killing people, as Koy has indicated from Josephus. The narrative merely shows that he was aware of the motivations. Please take it up with Koy if you want to discuss the issue more.

spin

Phoenix From Ashes · 11-27-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are doing nothing more than eisegesis and speculation. If we were to consider these proceedings real (which I don't), why should Pilate bother?

First of all, Pilate simply did bother, if we take the text at face value, so it is pure speculation to doubt and ask why. We can't know for sure other than to speculate.

Quote:

He is not averse to killing people, as Koy has indicated from Josephus.

I would differ with this view. As you also pointed out in one of your own examples, Pilate could have slaughtered the crowd of dissenting Jews in Caesarea Maritima, but it seems (according to the text) that he was rather averse to killing them and instead let them go.

Quote:

Please take it up with Koy if you want to discuss the issue more.

I have no problems doing so, and I probably would not have responded except that your post simply dismissed information with a simple, metaphorical wave of the hand. Oh, and my moniker has nothing to do with XMAN, whoever that is. It is a "nod" to the Phoenix bird of ancient legends found in Clement of Alexandria, Pliny the Elder, and other ancient sources.

spin · 11-27-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

First of all, Pilate simply did bother, if we take the text at face value, so it is pure speculation to doubt and ask why. We can't know for sure other than to speculate.

You shouldn't shoot before a discourse answers its own rhetorical question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

I would differ with this view. As you also pointed out in one of your own examples, Pilate could have slaughtered the crowd of dissenting Jews in Caesarea Maritima, but it seems (according to the text) that he was rather averse to killing them and instead let them go.

Don't cherry pick. I was dealing with the wild claim that Pilate was the most, no, one of the most, brutal governor... Look at the aqueduct and the Samaria examples. My original statement, "He is not averse to killing people..." is evidence from the sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

I have no problems doing so, and I probably would not have responded except that your post simply dismissed information with a simple, metaphorical wave of the hand.

A single wave was sufficient though: no evidence? wave. :wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

Oh, and my moniker has nothing to do with XMAN, whoever that is. It is a "nod" to the Phoenix bird of ancient legends found in Clement of Alexandria, Pliny the Elder, and other ancient sources.

I made no allusion to your moniker. Most people know the basics of the phoenix legend. Just watch Harry Potter, for example.

spin

Phoenix From Ashes · 11-27-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Don't cherry pick. I was dealing with the wild claim that Pilate was the most, no, one of the most, brutal governor... Look at the aqueduct and the Samaria examples. My original statement, "He is not averse to killing people..." is evidence from the sources.

I know to what you were referring. I was simply using one of the stories you mentioned because you made the statement that "he is not averse to killing people". Well, in one of the very circumstances you mention he was averse to killing people when he certainly could have. All it really takes is one event to show that he might at times be averse to killing people.

"Cherry picking" is something that one could also be accused of when picking out examples of Pilate's brutality. In fact, that seems to be part of what Koy... was being accused of doing.

Quote:

A single wave was sufficient though: no evidence? wave. :wave:

I presented evidence from primary sources to back up my views. I find it sad that people can so easily ignore and dismiss it simply by saying so. I would rather have an intellectual discussion about this, but that seems impossible with evidence being ignored and waved away with dismissive comments that even a grade school child could manage.

Quote:

I made no allusion to your moniker. Most people know the basics of the phoenix legend. Just watch Harry Potter, for example.

"THAT'S YOUR TANGO WITH THE XMAN" certainly seemed to refer indirectly to me since I was the one in the exchange with Koy..., but I'll take your word for it. I'm glad most people know of the Phoenix legend, but the XMAN thing made it seem otherwise.

spin · 11-27-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

I know to what you were referring. I was simply using one of the stories you mentioned because you made the statement that "he is not averse to killing people". Well, in one of the very circumstances you mention he was averse to killing people when he certainly could have. All it really takes is one event to show that he might at times be averse to killing people.

So I'm glad you accept my original statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

"Cherry picking" is something that one could also be accused of when picking out examples of Pilate's brutality. In fact, that seems to be part of what Koy... was being accused of doing.

When you are trying to deal with "wasn't averse" you need to show that he was averse, but as there is at least one example, then you cannot show him to be averse. Get it?

Now if Pilate shows that he was not averse to killing people and in fact he had attacked a large crowd of Jews in the case of the aqueduct incident, there is no reason to believe that he wasn't capable of doing the same thing in a similar situation for crowd control. The blackmail of Pilate is a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

I presented evidence from primary sources to back up my views. I find it sad that people can so easily ignore and dismiss it simply by saying so. I would rather have an intellectual discussion about this, but that seems impossible with evidence being ignored and waved away with dismissive comments that even a grade school child could manage.

No, you wouldn't. You'd need to have an intellectual approach to your sources first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

"THAT'S YOUR TANGO WITH THE XMAN" certainly seemed to refer indirectly to me since I was the one in the exchange with Koy..., but I'll take your word for it.

I was not interested in whoever Koy was having his discussion with at the time. I was interested in his abuse of Pilate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix From Ashes

I'm glad most people know of the Phoenix legend, but the XMAN thing made it seem otherwise.

X amongst other things equals "unknown".

spin

Phoenix From Ashes · 11-27-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Now if Pilate shows that he was not averse to killing people and in fact he had attacked a large crowd of Jews in the case of the aqueduct incident, there is no reason to believe that he wasn't capable of doing the same thing in a similar situation for crowd control. The blackmail of Pilate is a joke.

Yet, if Pilate was averse to killing people in certain similar circumstances (which he was), there is every reason to believe that he might have had similar reasons to be averse to killing people in the particular account under consideration.

Quote:

No, you wouldn't. You'd need to have an intellectual approach to your sources first.

Quite personal, that comment. My intellectual approach is, at least, above pronouncing, objectively, "No, you wouldn't" (which is completely illogical and irrational since you can have no idea of what I would or wouldn't), and in childish retorts such as ".... is a joke" and "wave".

Quote:

I was not interested in whoever Koy was having his discussion with at the time. I was interested in his abuse of Pilate.

And I'm sure everyone noticed the overreaction to something few would give a rip about.

Quote:

X amongst other things equals "unknown".

Everyone knows well to whom you were referring, but that's a nice try.

PhilosopherJay · 11-27-2006, 09:27 PM

Hi Spin,

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. Could you please cite any statements to this effect from ancient text?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

(Still using that online Whiston source with its errors.)

To clarify, the soldiers were inside the temple precinct and not the temple proper. No-one other than priest were allowed in the temple. The soldiers were in the cloisters of the temple, ie cloisters surrounding the court outside the the temple proper. Being outside the temple, priests could avoid them, and even ordinary Jews could safely negotiate entry and exit without coming into contact with the soldiers.

Things suddenly got out of hand when one of the soldiers dropped his breeches.

This is a strawman. No-one is talking about having no communication with Romans per se, but about avoiding risks of loss of purity.

But then no-one claimed there was. The entry into a place where Roman soldiers were stationed put priests at risk for reasons already explained.

The source passage does not allow you to claim that it was either normal or accepted. You might make a case for it being tolerated on this occasion.

Rubbish, PhilosopherJay. That is an extraordinarily unperceptive analysis for reasons already given in this response.

My comment was about the reasonable representation of purity concerns, not about your adherence to the narrative tradition that you seem to be acknowledging.

Persistently off the matter from beginning to end. Where did you get this notion of "entering Roman homes" from? Definitely not from anything I said. PhilosopherJay, we were dealing with ritual purity. Risk of impurity was avoided in those days. You avoided houses with menstruating women, with dead bodies, with unclean meat (ie from the wrong animals), and you avoid people who are ritually unclean, which would normally include Roman soldiers who were at the lowest purity level with the 'am ha-'aretz, the people of the land, those who do not recite the Shema every evening. Jews concerned with ritual purity would necessarily avoid Roman soldiers because of the likelihood of impurity through ignorance.

The Roman soldiers in the temple would have been a grave attack on the cultus for adherents, but as long as they could be tolerated proceedings could go on. Had a soldier touched someone they would probably have been considered unclean. One avoided places where Roman soldiers were wherever possible, so the priest refusing to go into the praetorium is quite reasonable, as the priests were by necessity concerned with ritual purity, for the loss of purity meant exclusion from performing the cult ritual.

spin

Koyaanisqatsi · 11-27-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Normally when one is misrepresenting something, as you are doing about your perceived extreme brutality of Pilate, one prefers to get it correct.

Holly shite, spin. How many times did I offer to more properly qualify my characterization of Pilate to your satisfaction?

Clucking bell!

You have repeatedly agreed that how I personally categorized Pilate has nothing to do with any of my "actual points."

:huh:

He was an infamous governor who was recalled to Rome due to complaints of his alleged brutality.

How many times must I qualify it?

And yes, it is a "pin" in my argument, but not how you seem to think; because it demonstrates his true character in contradiction to the inexplicable coward that suddenly appears in an elipse (an edit) in Mark between thrice declaring Jesus innocent and defying "the crowd", to then suddenly turning 180 degrees around and fearing "the crowd."

My indictment went specifically to the fact that Pilate, as a governor and according to historical accounts, would never fear "the crowd." Thus, the argument that he acquiesced to "the crowd" to crucify a man he had officially declared was innocent is preposterous.

This was not a military officer of the Roman Empire that ever displayed any fear of an uprising; who, in fact, anticipated such unrest and took apparently clever measures to ensure a victory, even if it meant a brutal victory.

Yes, just like any other Roman Promagistrate, but again, his particular brutality resulted in his official recall to Rome. His title and power was stripped from him due exclusively to what must have been very powerful and numerous complaints.

And think about what we're talking about here. Politics or no, this was a governor who was recalled during Roman times because he was too brutal in his governorship.

Without bias, that's the news according to the historic record (and not just Josephus).

That axiomatically makes Pilate one of the most brutal governors.

:huh:

Quote:

MORE: I indicated that, despite the fact that you claim that Pilate was so brutal,

Enough. Pilate was brutal. End of story. AGAIN, if you object to me singling him out among so many, then all you're arguing is the Gauleiter "defense" and we both agree it has nothing to do with my points.

So, stop.

Congratulations. You've concurred that Pilate was, at best, an "infamous" Roman promagistrate, unafraid of any riot and not susceptible to any blackmail from "the crowd" and that these points (and others) are none of your concern.

:huh:

We get it.

Do you also get that not a single thing you posted counters any of the arguments I made against the possibility of the passion narrative being a true historical account and, indeed, tends to support what I've been arguing?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.