Koyaanisqatsi

There's plenty of evidence found in how badly misconstrued are the fulfillment of OT prophecies. In no way does Jesus' life, teachings or death fulfill any of the messianic prophecies, regardless of the tortured apolegetics and just about every Jew (save those for Jesus ) readily knew this.

Which is why, of course, "Christianity" didn't catch in Jerusalem and cult pushers like Paul had to go elsewhere (changing the stories to fit the crowd).

Not to mention, as others have pointed out, almost the entire passion narrative (up until dying on a cross) is littered with historical innaccurracies and incongruities; particularly the fact that Pilate not only thrice declares (publicly, no less) that Jesus is innocent, he legally qualifies it by stating he could find no crime that he was alleged to commit. That means that Jesus was not a criminal in the eyes of Rome; he's a free man and therefore already free before the alleged offering of a criminal to the crowd (another ludicrous and historically innaccurate event).

See what I mean? Pilate could not have released Barrabas in Jesus' place (according to a custom that never existed), since Jesus was at no time a criminal to be freed by the will of the crowd, let alone killed by the Romans!



He supposedly committed no crime, let alone no capital offense, so why would he be flogged and killed?

At least according to the myth of Mark, repeated and augmented by Matthew and Luke.

And don't get me started on Pilate fearing a crowd of primarily Jewish peasents (who the Sanhedrin incongruously feared two days prior due to Jesus' popularity, no less) when his sole purpose in the area was as occupying dictator. He certainly had no fear of the Sammaritans he slaughtered en masse shortly after.

There's more, but that's enough, IMO.

Afghan

Although Mark was writing some 40 years at least after the event, was presumably relying on biased sources (if we accept HJ for argument's sake) and had his own agenda. If HJ was accepted by Mark's audience he could probably have got away with some anti-Judaic rationalisation of Pilate's actions but the sentence itself would have been a much harder detail to 'invent'.

Didymus

Good point, if we're strictly adhering to TedM's criteria. But is the crucifixion sufficient by itself? Would any man who was NOT accused by "the chief priests and scribes" and NOT tried before Pilate and NOT betrayed by Judas and NOT denied by Peter still qualify as the historical Jesus? There's a boatload of Christian hermenuetics in those scenes; without them you have a very different Passion story.

Didymus

Roger Pearse

We have evidence in the NT in both direction. Gallio refuses to get involved in the arguments in Acts, despite being petitioned that the Christians are an illegal group. On the other hand Pilate is threatened with delation on a charge of Maiestas unless he executes this royal pretender double-quick. Both have liberty of action, subject to it making too much noise back home. The overwhelming impression is of pragmatism.

I agree entirely; at the end of the 2nd century, indeed, when people of the calibre of Tertullian and Origen start appearing in the church.

It is directly contradicted by Acts, however, and Pliny's testimony that in Bithynia in the early second century the temples were virtually deserted suggests that in some areas, at least, there were substantial numbers.

But I don't see how a calculation can be done. It wasn't a HUGE group; it wasn't as little as a few hundreds. I doubt more precision is possible.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

Except that the story clearly depicts Pilate as not taking Jesus seriously as a political threat and being confronted with an angry crowd that wants him dead rather than supporting him as a rebel leader. The story provides Pilate no reason to fear punishment for the clearly false charge threatened against him.

The overwhelming impression is of fiction. The blatantly ridiculous "tradition" of offering clemency for Passover should be the only clue necessary to recognize this but the added absurdity that Pilate was willing to free a convicted rebel is like a neon sign flashing FICTION!.

Johnny Skeptic

And Acts is directly contradicted by common sense since there is no way to verify its claim that there were many thousands of Christian Jews. If there were actually many thousands of Christian Jews, what in the world happened to them in subsequent centuries?

Your beliefs would be exactly the same with or without Pliny's testimony.

However, as you know, Rodney Stark and a lot of other experts disagree you. In Stark's 'The Rise of Christianity,' some of his best evidence that supports his estimate of only 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. is archaeological and papyrological evidence. That evidence can be found in chapter 1.

Pliny told Trajan:

"I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded."

Pliny's comments give every indication of recent developments that did not begin to become signficant until the 2nd century. Didymus mentioned the first century, but Trajan ruled from 98-117 A.D.

Notice Pliny's words "will be endangered," indicating future tense, not the present status, "has spread," but when did it begin to spread?, "the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented," but when did they begin to become frequented?, and "a multitude of people can be reformed in an opportunity for repentance is afforded." There is no telling what Pliny meant by "a multitude," nor is there any telling what Tacitus meant by "vast multitudes." Following is part of an e-mail exchange that I had with Jonathan Roth, Ph.D., ancient history, San Jose State University:

Johnny: Is it reasonably possible that Tacitus was using hyperbole?

Dr. Roth: Tacitus frequently uses such hyperbole. A good example is in his description of various emperors killing members of the Senatorial opposition. He implies that large numbers are involved, but when one counts up the numbers, they are only a few dozen at most. All ancient writers use exaggeration and hyperbole.

Johnny: Is it true that the use of hyperbole can vary greatly depending upon who is using it and that there is no way of knowing to what extent Tacitus might have used hyperbole?

Dr. Roth: Yes. We seldom have a source other than Tacitus, so it is difficult to check his statements.

Johnny: Is it true that Tacitus' use of the words "vast multitudes" did no favors for future historians?

Dr. Roth: True, but remember that history was considered literature and meant for entertainment. Tacitus is always thinking about making his stories more interesting and readable.

Roger Pearse

You are right. There is no explanation in the text for this. But...

... we know why he was scared because we have read Tacitus, and know how Tiberius was, and his jolly custom of delatio. Remember that the Jews did get Pilate in the end, so his fears that they would snitch on him to his boss were not groundless.

So you see how risky it is to argue from "the text gives no explanation..." when dealing with an ancient text. Every text presumes the reader knows some things, which is why we come a-cropper if we make that kind of argument.

The business with the threats is one reason why I tend to think that Pilate must have written a report to Tiberius on the matter. If someone threatened to report me to my boss, I'd make jolly sure that my boss knew the story first, even if it had gone no further, so my boss knew what sort of scum I was dealing with. Not that Jesus would have been an important part of such a report -- on the contrary. Neither Pilate nor Tiberius would have cared about such a person. But the incident would be inexplicable unless he and the charges were mentioned. As you know, Justin Martyr thought that such a report had existed, although I have some doubts that it still did by then.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

On the contrary, we should assume he was not "scared" because his mistreatment of the Jews continued until after 35CE when Vitellius ordered him before Tiberius "to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews" (Josephus, AJ 18.4.2). This is three years after Tiberius ordered mistreatment of the Jews to stop. That doesn't sound at all like a guy who was terribly concerned about Jewish reports to the emperor.

It took years of continued abuse even after a direct order from the emperor before Pilate was called to judgment. That doesn't suggest fear on his part but incredible hubris combined with an apparently strong hatred for the Jews.

I see no merit in an appeal to unstated knowledge shared by the author's readers to rescue this scene from being recognized as fiction. The readers could not know what was not true and the external evidence suggests Pilate was rather unconcerned about Jewish complaints reaching the ear of Tiberius right up until the time he was finally busted.

Koyaanisqatsi

Just wanted to reiterate that Jesus was never a convicted rebel (according to the passion narrative concocted by Mark), so it doesn't even make sense within its own fictional framework.

If the passover tradition was to set a guilty man free (laughable by all historical standards as well as inaccurate), then Barrabas would have been let free in addition to Jesus, since Jesus had committed no crime and was therefore technically never in custody to begin with. He was already free.

Pilate publicly declares Jesus to be innocent and that Pilate could find no crime to accuse him of to begin with, so if we are to believe Mark, Pilate executed a man he found not just "not guilty," but having had committed no crime at all just because the crowd of jewish peasants he was oppressing (and who the Sanhedrin feared just two days prior because of their love for Jesus, no less) demands that he set a convicted murderer (which would have most likely meant Barrabas had killed a Roman citizen) free and execute a man who he had just publicly declared had committed no crime at all, because Pilate feared the crowd.



Ludicrous, contradictory, historically inaccurate, Roman apologetic fiction. That is the only conclusion any honest, non-biased student of history should come to.

Amaleq13

Sorry, I should have been more clear that I was referring to Barabbas.

"And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection." (Mk 15:7, KJV)

I should also have added "murderer" to "rebel".