Amaleq13

If I had indicated my dialogue was based on Mark, you would have a point.

John is the only one who depicts an explicit threat to report Pilate to the emperor but fear of the crowd is really no more ridiculous. Other than the Temple during Passover, I don't know where else there would be more soldiers collected than Pilate's Jerusalem "home".

I consider unlikely because of the evidence obtained outside the Gospels and because it lacks support from those same sources.

TedM

Amaleq, I am certain that you get frustrated with our exchanges. I definitely do. I know you don't like my speculation beyond evidence, and I get frustrated because you seem to make conclusions about likelihoods based only on certain kinds of evidence (which requires a subjective decision), which I think is limited to begin with. Chances are that is just our styles, so I'm not sure there is any solution to the frustration beyond accepting the differences. Would you agree?


I thought that Mark was the primary passage we were working with.

That seems reasonable, but it doesn't give us a clue as to how many there would have been and how it would compare to the population in Jerusalem.

Re: Mark's trial
So you feel like the evidence outside the Gospels portrays a Pilate who would not behave as in Mark (ie he wouldn't kill someone he thought was innocent and he would not fear the Jewish crowd during Passover) and you think it is telling that there is no support for the release tradition. Is that primarily it?

Why didn't you respond to my question regarding the reasonablness of the my portrayal of Pilate in a way that is contrary to each of the 3 points in the above paragraph? I simply don't see the evidence that Pilate wouldn't kill an innocent Jewish man, that he wouldn't fear the possibility of a large crowd that greatly outnumbered him, and that we should have a high expectation for the mention of a Roman-Jewish Passover release tradition in other documents, given the possibility that it didn't cover a long period and that it could have served an important political purpose for the Romans.

ted

Amaleq13

I think we concluded several threads ago that you consider my standards in judging claims too high and I consider yours too low.

I've been talking about "the scene" and whether there is any reason to consider it to be accurately describing history. I would think that should involve all versions of it.

The passage in Josephus (Ant.20.5) which describes the practice of placing extra guards around the Temple during Passover has Cumanus ordering an entire regiment for the duty. My understanding is that a Roman regiment was 1,000 strong. That he could do so suggests he had many more at his disposal.

I wouldn't doubt any claim that Pilate killed an innocent man (it is my understanding that this was one of the accusations from the Jews) but I do doubt any claim that he would do so simply because his Jewish subjects requested it and certainly not if they demanded it.

I don't understand how the "reasonableness" of unsubstantiated speculation is determined but I think I've made it pretty clear what I consider to conflict with the extra-biblical evidence.

Koyaanisqatsi

Let's dispense with the term "insurrection," shall we? Jerusalem was an occupied nation and therefore an insurrection already existed. What you are contending (without evidence that I have noticed) is that Pilate feared that during one of the most holy festivals of the Jewish calandar that there would be riots, so to stop them from rioting, he would ritualistically release a convicted criminal of the "crowd's" choosing, even if that criminal were a murderer who had committed murder during an insurrectionist uprising.

Instead of, say, fortifying the area with heavily armed, well trained Roman soldiers, your contention (that can not be found anywhere in Roman historical documentation) is that he would instead set free a murderer; only you don't think the author of Mark meant to say murderer and insurrectionist, merely a petty criminal.

And this is because of....

If you mean the number of ineffectual, civilian men, women and children (from infants to grandparents), yes. If you mean the number of actual terrorists/freedom fighters (depending on if you're Americ....I mean Roman or Jewish), then by no means would they outnumber the soldiers, or there would not have been an occupation.

So, again, you think the Romans were afraid of the Jewish peasents; afraid in a military sense and that this fear was so great that the release of a convicted criminal would be the only thing they could think of to stop them from rioting? This in turn, of course, is predicated on the fact that the Romans must have been incredibly stupid as to think this would actually appease the peasents they were there to rule as well as on the fact that the peasents were apparently so easily dissuaded by such a transparent gesture.

It also implies that there had been previous Passover riots that this ritual was created in order to prevent, so by all means, if you can present any evidence at all of previous riots, I would appreciate it.

What are you talking about? "Things" were already bad; had been bad for a long, long time in fact.

Do you have any evidence to support any of these contentions? Extra-biblical evidence, that is?

Beg pardon?



First of all, we're talking about Jerusalem, where the majority of Jews already lived; secondly you're not talking about a militarily disparity between Roman soldiers and Jewish peasents; thirdly, we're talking about the Roman Empire! The greatest, most bloody, most vicious, most brutal Empires to have ever existed in human history and, more specifically, Pilate; one of their most rabid pitbulls from all accounts that aren't found in the christian cult apologia.

I'm sorry, TedM, but at this point I'm going to have to insist that you provide extrabiblical evidence for these claims as they are preposterous when compared to actual history. The Romans treated their conquerred regions as conquerred regions and Pilate, in particular, would never appease a crowd of Jewish peasents by releasing a convicted criminal primarily because he wouldn't give two tiny shits about what the Jewish slaves beneath his feet wanted or didn't want. He would, however, I would argue, invite just about any excuse you could think of to slaughter as many of those Jewish peasents as he could, if his actions with the Sammaritans are any barrometer, so, no. History does not support your version of events.

Why? What was the fear? That hundreds of thousands of old men, old women, infant children would suddenly do what they hadn't done for years before if not for that one criminal release at Passover? That would be the tipping point that was just too damn hot to risk not doing? The Romans were that terrified; the Jewish peasents were that stupid as to be prevented from reallizing every other day of the year that all they needed to do was band together and riot and overthrow?

Please provide evidence to support such a ridiculous claim and then let's skip down to the fact that it's entirely irrelevant, since Pilate did not release Barrabas instead of Jesus; rather that Jesus being killed by the Romans had nothing to do with any non-existent ritual to begin with.

Oh, but wait, one more thing in this vein...

With whom? Peasents vs. Roman soldiers? The same people that had conquered them? The same people who had not banded together and overthrown their occupiers throughout the rest of the year, Pilate now fears on this day and thinks that by releasing a convicted criminal, this will prevent a conflict? He was that afraid; the peasents were that stupid?

And the release of a convicted murderer/insurrectionist would have been all Pilate needed to dissuade this fear of being killed, is that your contention?

I'm sorry, Ted but this is all non-sequitur and clearly borne out of rationalization, IMO.

So, what crowds are we talking about then? Where did the pro-Jesus crowd that the Sanhedrin feared so much that they sought collusion with their enemy, the Romans, to do their dirty work for go? They just dissappeared when Jesus was trotted out by Pilate; when the plot by the Sanhedrin had been publicly foiled by Pilate; when Pilate thrice declared Jesus to not only be innocent, but that he could find no crime that he supposedly had committed? They were out back of the Temple getting matzoh balls or something?

Didn't Pilate fear that they would riot and overwhelm him and kill him for killing a completely innocent man?

Pilate seems to only be afraid of a crowd when it serves your rationalizations. Funny that, don't you think?

That's not what their "own chief priests" feared regarding the crowd (not Jesus' own personal apostles, which would have been twelve people and hardly a fearful crowd to anyone). Let's turn to the good book again:

Now let's jump to the Feast:

Same Feast; same people feared in Mark 14.

In prison with the other insurrectionists; had committed murder in a previous uprising, so uprisings, insurrections, not exactly a new thing to Pilate or the Roman soldiers in the area.

Same Feast; same people.

Why? Because the crowd wanted it. No mention of fear of uprising, just he wants to "satisfy" the crowd.

Yes, well, that would make sense, considering they were both written much later and both a retelling of Mark. See my comments in the previous post regarding apologia and how that works, as well as the game of telephone for good measure.

Barrabas starts out as a murder in prison with the other insurrectionists (closest to the truth of why Jesus would have been arrested), to a "notorious prisoner" (the initial patching of the hole) to a simple robber (petty criminal; hole patched completely).

That's because the release is the only way to blame "the Jews" and remove blame for the actual "christ killers;" the Romans. Once again, the Sanhedrin could have killed Jesus for blasphemy (tried twice, supposedly) at any time, so it makes no sense that they would take him to their enemy to try and get him to kill him, which fails and then succeeds.

Look at the reality of what would have happened, which is that the Romans would only have crucified him if he were an insurrectionist or a murderer, the two primary capital offenses they reserved for crucifixion. That makes the Romans "christ killers." Well, the Romans wrote the history, so they had to come up with a way to make themselves look good, so that the cult member ignores the fact that ultimately they killed Jesus. They weren't brutal oppressors, it was the "Jews" that were the bad guys. It wasn't us that killed god; it was them. Heck, we even tried to save him! We gave them a choice and they are the ones who chose to have us brutally torture and murder god. We used to release one criminal--any one they chose so it was entirely their fault we brutally flayed and nailed god to a cross. See? How else do you spin the fact that you killed god by nailing him to a cross for insurrection?

That's where you get all the pro-roman crap. Problem is, it's not that well-written by any kind of critical thinking standard; solution is, nobody but the cult leaders back then could read and there was little to no critical thinking going on at all.

First of all, there is nothing "politically savvy" about releasing a convicted murderer of Roman citizens to a Roman; that would have been considered, at best, collusion with the enemy! Second, there was nothing "politically savvy" about Pilate, which, again is why he was recalled to Rome (and later committed suicide).

You're arguing that he was being politically savvy by releasing a convicted murderer and killing a man who had done absolutely nothing wrong. What Political Science course did you take? Rome would have crucified him (and pretty much did for very different reasons) if they ever found out that he had allowed conquerred insurrectionists choose one of their own convicted murderers from the prison of insurrectionists to be released each year.

And in no way indicative of either the Roman Empire nor Pilate. Case closed.

But he didn't. He publicly humiliated the Sanhedrin by exposing what they incongruously thought to be a "sly" little plan; declared Jesus to be innocent of all accusations and that he could find no crime at all. He was therefore never in custody of the Romans; never a criminal under Roman law; and therefore could not be "released" as part of a Passover ritual.

All of which is irrelevant, however, since Barrabas was not released "instead" of Jesus; Barrabas was just released and then Pilate (incongruously) asks what he should do with Jesus, a man he declared innocent and not a criminal. He would know what to do with Jesus, an innocent man and not a criminal. Released.

Instead, he asks the crowd for no reason and they say (because they were "riled" by the Sanhedrin) to kill him and to "satisfy" the crowd, Pilate does so.

Nothing about that makes any historical sense in the slightest and is instead the obvious wishful, dramatic thinking of cult mythologists.

BUT HE WASN'T! HE WAS DECLARED INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES! PILATE PUBLICLY DECLARES THAT HE COULD FIND NO CRIME THAT HE HAD COMMITTED.

Clear now? The crowd shouting "Crucify him" does not convict Jesus of anything, nor does Pilate incongruously saying, "Fine, I'll kill a completely innocent man and free a convicted murderer, because that's how politically savvy I am! Now put down your matzohs! Ooooh, they scare me so."

AGAINST THEM FOR KILLING THE POPULAR JESUS!

This fear, however, magically dissappears after they have just been publicly outed by Pilate. Why?

No, it does not. Unarmed old men going against popular opinion and stoning a Rabbi to death during the Feast is one thing; the occupying Roman Empire releasing a convicted murderer/insurrectionist because they want to appease their slaves is just assinine.

The Iraqi's greatly outnumber our troops. What's your point?

No, that's to make them seem like the actual threat they would have posed to the Roman soldiers and actually did pose to the Roman soldiers as evidenced in the fact that they lost to the Romans.

Enough of this sophistry. I'm done.

TedM

Thanks for your thorough reply. I really am trying to limit my time so it may be days before I respond. I simply don't know the military situation well enough to know how feasible my theory is, or how accurate it would be to portray the Jews as being an insignificant threat. IF that is true, I may have to revise the theory to saying that rather than fear, Pilate may have been simply avoiding an annoyance, or to avoid killing a bunch of tax payers who weren't really a big threat. In any case, bear with me for a while..

ted

ps. I apparantly have misused the term insurrection. I should have used the term sedition or uprising.

Johann_Kaspar

Well, they did crucify two of them with him at least. Now if we assume that Theudas=Yeshua, indeed "the Romans didnt mess around." :thumbs:

Johann_Kaspar

Do you have any idea why Pilate was said to release a prisoner? Do you think that it could happen in the real life of the time?

jakejonesiv

This is good. The most obvious is sometimes the hardest to see.

jake Jones IV

Koyaanisqatsi

No problem and please pardon my exasperated "tone." As I've admitted many times before, it is the sophistry that gets my goat; not the individual employing it (wittingly or unwittingly).

And also pardon my dyslexia. It's a real pain in the but.

It's not that difficult to research, but common sense tells you that you're talking about a region that was already conquerred and under Roman occupation and already fighting an insurgency. Not to mention the illogic of a prisoner release ritual being in any way sufficient to prevent an overthrow.

For your theory to be viable, then the Roman control over the region would have to have been so incredibly tenuous and the insurrectionist movement so vast that the release of a convicted murderer/insurrectionist would be the only way imaginable by Pilate to prevent an imminent overthrow.

Just stop thinking of it all in Roman/Jewish abstractions (since I take it you are neither) and instead ask yourself under what conditions you could possibly see the Governor of New York justifying the release of a convicted murderer of the public's choosing every year. It's not like everyone knows everybody else, so the only people that would be yelling names would be family, friends and gang members.

Actually, that's another ridiculous element of the release of Barrabas; if the crowd was that small that everyone there knew who Barrabas was to want his release, then of what threat could they possbily be? In order to be a threat against 1,000 heavily armed, well trained Roman soldiers, the threatening crowd would have to be tremendous, like-minded, armed and driven to the point of suicidal violence by some immediate action.

The only thing I can think of that might cause such a state is if Jesus actually were as popular as it is implied and he is convicted by Pilate without cause and Pilate orders his crucifixion and the crowd goes insane with the injustice of it all. Now that makes sense; that explains why his followers killed "in Jesus' name;" that explains why the Romans had to rewrite history to be pro-Roman and anti-Jew; that explains the tipping point that led inexorably to the slaughter of the Sammaritans and the revolt in 70 C.E.; that explains the Romans mocking Jesus and calling him the King of the Jews; that explains why he was crucified in the first place (for sedition).



How would releasing someone your courts proved was a murderer of your own citizens and insurrectionist against your rule be "avoiding an annoyance?"

TedM, really. Give it up. It's not historically accurate; it's not logical; it doesn't even pass the simplest of common sense analysis.

Will do, but ask yourself this: why are you going to such lengths to torture logic and common sense (and history) to salvage what would otherwise be nothing more than cult myths if it weren't for the fact that you were raised in this particular cult?

If the exact same sequence of events had been written down, only it was Mohammed and not Jesus in the hot seat (hell, Mithras works, too), then you would be agreeing with every single thing we've been arguing and then some. I absolutely guarantee it.

So what does that tell you?

TedM

That is no doubt a factor here. Yet, I don't see this trial as ridiculous as you do. I can't tell to what extent my upbringing is going into that just yet. I intend to have a reply for you today or tomorrow.

ted