Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 04-07-2013, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Pilate (unlike Mary or the Virgin) did not get a place in a creed at all before 381. In 325 there was yet no dogma in the creed for crucifixion or virgin birth. No historical anchor at all.

That likely is because Pilate is historical and they had to wait long enough for skeleton's to die before they complicated him.

This would convert the purse of Peter from faith to money so they could charge the believer to boot with urgency henceforth, that later set the stage for indulgences as well.

And I hear they are coming back maybe? Or is it just that I think they should.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-07-2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In all four gospels, both the Jewish and Roman trials of Jesus are designed for clear rhetorical purposes. The Jewish trial is designed to show that Jewish religious leaders betrayed Jesus to the Romans, while the Roman trial conveys the idea that Pilate and the Romans were innocent of Jesus' death and the Jewish religious leaders and the Jewish people were responsible for Jesus' death. These are the major points that the trial text is trying to prove: 1) The Jewish religious leaders betrayed Jesus, 2) Pilate and the Romans were innocent of Jesus' death and 3) Jewish leaders and the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus

There are interesting differences between the Gospels. The simplest expression of these three ideas are in Mark:

Quote:

15.1And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate...

15.13And they cried out again, "Crucify him." 15.14And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." 15.15So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab'bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Matthew adds the dramatic theatrical touch of Pilate washing his hands to demonstrate his innocence:

Quote:

27.1 When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death;
27.2 and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor...
27.24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." 27.25 And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" 27.26 Then he released for them Barab'bas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified

Luke wants to emphasize the innocence of Jesus and Pilate. He has Herod also pronounce Jesus innocent and Herod pronounce Jesus innocent no less than three times:

Quote:

22.70 And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." 22.71 And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."
23.1 Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate...
23.14 and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; 23.15 neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him; 23.16 I will therefore chastise him and release him."...
23.20 Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus; 23.21 but they shouted out, "Crucify, crucify him!" 23.22 A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him." 23.23 But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. 23.24 So Pilate gave sentence that their demand should be granted. 23.25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.

John also has Pilate declare his innocent three times and even seeking to release him until the Jewish religious leaders personally threaten him:

Quote:

18.24 Annas then sent him bound to Ca'iaphas the high priest.
18.28 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...

." 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...

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."...

!" 19.6 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."...

?" 19.11 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."...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.

We may assume that the Gospel writers are arguing these points because they wanted to attack the Jewish religious leadership and exonerate the Romans in the death of Jesus.

We "may" assume no such thing unless we want to lay ourselves open to the charge of engaging in wholesale petitio principii, since this is hardly the only explanation of what is noted above or the best explanation of what is seen there, even if we grant the hidden assumptions here about the priority of Mark, the chronological relationship of the other Gospels to each other and the age of the traditions about Jesus and Pilate that we find within them.

Quote:

This would suggest that prior to these Gospel writings, it was not known that the Jewish religious leadership had turned over Jesus to the Romans.

How and why this claim about what was known and not known is "suggested" by "this", let alone taken, as it is here, as a certainty, is not clear. Moreover, the claim itself is a non sequitur. Why the portrayal of Pilate in the Gospels is evidence for the conclusion that historically there was no Jewish involvement in Jesus' being handed over to Pilate, let alone no knowledge of this fact before the Gospels were written, is beyond me.

And if this is so, the other (also question begging) claims that are based upon it -- i.e., that it is "most likely" that "Before the gospel writings, there was .... text indicating that Pilate had arrested and crucified Jesus -- .are also dubious, if not themselves non-sequiturs.

Jeffrey

Chili · 04-07-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

How and why this claim about what was known and not known is "suggested" by "this", let alone taken, as it is here, as a certainty, is not clear. Moreover, the claim itself is a non sequitur. Why the portrayal of Pilate in the Gospels is evidence for the conclusion that historically there was no Jewish involvement in Jesus' being handed over to Pilate, let alone no knowledge of this fact before the Gospels were written, is beyond me.

And if this is so, the other (also question begging) claims that are based upon it -- i.e., that it is "most likely" that "Before the gospel writings, there was .... text indicating that Pilate had arrested and crucified Jesus -- .are also dubious, if not themselves non-sequiturs.

Jeffrey

That all could very well have no historic precedence and Pilate was never part of it. Pilate represents the influence of reason on volition (Watchman Nee has a nice read on this called: "The Spiritual Man," but who really cares).

It is a word story (aren't they all), to say that we are dealing with a non-conventional event for which no words are coined because it takes place beyond intelligence. And so how could the historic Pilate ever have been part of it!

That is totally not possible while Pilate and Herod are a good pair of opposites to present the relationship in the Universal [there] that in the Gospels takes place inside the human mind, who so can relate to it here now.

The Greeks called this Lexischemy and the gospels are lexischemy at its best wherein both comedy and tragedy are mixed and every liguistic fallacy is used as bait to attract people as believers now, who to some degree are as if mesmerized by it and hither and thither they will go as sheep with a shepherd taking care of them.

Duvduv · 04-07-2013, 01:46 PM

I had discussions about all this a while ago at:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....ch#post7022728

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The source of my stating it is in the Nicene Creed is an Anglican communion service booklet I saw this morning!

What is normally called in church the Nicene creed is not the original declaration of 325 but an updated version (probably) composed at Constantinople in 381.

Some of the differences are theological but some result from the use of different local baptismal creeds as the bases for the 325 version and the 381 version.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 04-08-2013, 02:29 AM

As a matter of interest, who else apart from Chili and me, have heard of Watchman Nee and read him?

mountainman · 04-08-2013, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Some of the differences are theological but some result from the use of different local baptismal creeds as the bases for the 325 version and the 381 version.

IMO one is political - getting rid of the Arian disclaimer clause "But for those who say [otherwise]........".
By the time the 381 CE creed was "recorded" those who said [otherwise] were no longer a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

We may assume that the Gospel writers are arguing these points because they wanted to attack the Jewish religious leadership and exonerate the Romans in the death of Jesus.

We "may" assume no such thing unless we want to lay ourselves open to the charge of engaging in wholesale petitio principii, since this is hardly the only explanation of what is noted above or the best explanation of what is seen there, even if we grant the hidden assumptions here about the priority of Mark, the chronological relationship of the other Gospels to each other and the age of the traditions about Jesus and Pilate that we find within them.

Unless what? You refer to the optional granting of "hidden assumptions about the age of the traditions about Jesus and Pilate". What are these so-called "hidden assumptions"? Do they include a pre or post Masada date of authorship?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

James The Least · 04-08-2013, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

But the prototype of the trial of Jesus is the actual ceremony of the Day of Atonement as it was carried out in the last days of the Second Temple. Jesus and Jesus Barabbas represent the two goats. The point of the scapegoat ritual was to transfer the sin from community onto the scapegoat. In that process the scapegoat was mistreated as if those sins were made by her. The Jews in the Gospel story do the same, they blame Jesus for their own sins and are responsible for his death as are responsible for the death of a goat in the prototype ritual. This is not invention, this is in the heart of the story.

Exactly. And the crucifixion is a mythic recasting of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, which the dumb Christians mistakenly thought was done to "take away the sins of the world" -- which it wasn't.

James The Least · 04-08-2013, 06:05 AM

I think Mark had a problem that he solved brilliantly in his gospel. The problem was that he had inherited a couple of mythemes that he could not reconcile -- "the Jews killed the Lord Jesus" combined with "Jesus was crucified for our sins." The problem, as Mark knew, was that Jews did not execute people by crucifying them: the Romans did. So he solved this problem by bringing Pilate and the Romans into the story but making sure that the reader knows he and the Romans are innocent. They do the execution, but it's all "the Jews'" fault. Mark reinforces this by having the Roman centurion be the first person after the crucifixion to recognize that Jesus is "God's son."

It never occurred to Mark to "shift the blame" from the Romans to the Jews, because "the trial" of Jesus only happened in his imagination. Plus, he was a Roman himself.

aa5874 · 04-08-2013, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I think Mark had a problem that he solved brilliantly in his gospel. The problem was that he had inherited a couple of mythemes that he could not reconcile -- "the Jews killed the Lord Jesus" combined with "Jesus was crucified for our sins." The problem, as Mark knew, was that Jews did not execute people by crucifying them: the Romans did. So he solved this problem by bringing Pilate and the Romans into the story but making sure that the reader knows he and the Romans are innocent. They do the execution, but it's all "the Jews'" fault. Mark reinforces this by having the Roman centurion be the first person after the crucifixion to recognize that Jesus is "God's son."

It never occurred to Mark to "shift the blame" from the Romans to the Jews, because "the trial" of Jesus only happened in his imagination. Plus, he was a Roman himself.

The story in the short gMark has nothing whatsoever to do with the universal remission of sins. There is no claim in the short gMark that Jesus, the son of blessed, was crucified for "our sins".

The story in gMark was propaganda to depict the Jews, even the supposed disciples, as evil.

semiopen · 04-08-2013, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

I think Mark had a problem that he solved brilliantly in his gospel. The problem was that he had inherited a couple of mythemes that he could not reconcile -- "the Jews killed the Lord Jesus" combined with "Jesus was crucified for our sins." The problem, as Mark knew, was that Jews did not execute people by crucifying them: the Romans did. So he solved this problem by bringing Pilate and the Romans into the story but making sure that the reader knows he and the Romans are innocent. They do the execution, but it's all "the Jews'" fault. Mark reinforces this by having the Roman centurion be the first person after the crucifixion to recognize that Jesus is "God's son."

It never occurred to Mark to "shift the blame" from the Romans to the Jews, because "the trial" of Jesus only happened in his imagination. Plus, he was a Roman himself.

We don't know that Jews didn't execute by crucifixion. We might think we know that because the Talmud doesn't give it but other than that there is no evidence. The Torah seems to suggest it is ok, where it is called hanging but the more accurate word is impaling - what exactly this entailed is anybody's guess but it seems to fit crucifixion.

When Yoshke stopped the stoning of his bitch to be, nobody says that the Romans didn't allow stoning or that Pilate had to approve it.

I mentioned before about it not being clear whether Jews could sentence people to death without Roman approval. Neusner says that this capability was unclear up through the time of Herod, but was then removed. In any case, Pilate may have been just a rubber stamp.

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

04-08-2013, 02:29 AM	#45
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	As a matter of interest, who else apart from Chili and me, have heard of Watchman Nee and read him?

04-08-2013, 06:05 AM	#48
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	I think Mark had a problem that he solved brilliantly in his gospel. The problem was that he had inherited a couple of mythemes that he could not reconcile -- "the Jews killed the Lord Jesus" combined with "Jesus was crucified for our sins." The problem, as Mark knew, was that Jews did not execute people by crucifying them: the Romans did. So he solved this problem by bringing Pilate and the Romans into the story but making sure that the reader knows he and the Romans are innocent. They do the execution, but it's all "the Jews'" fault. Mark reinforces this by having the Roman centurion be the first person after the crucifixion to recognize that Jesus is "God's son." It never occurred to Mark to "shift the blame" from the Romans to the Jews, because "the trial" of Jesus only happened in his imagination. Plus, he was a Roman himself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.