Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
By Roman standards under Tiberius, IIUC, Jesus would have been found guilty of maiestas (treason) by merely suggesting there was any sort of sovereign power in Judea which was not bestowed by authority of the Roman emperor. The action of the Sanhedrin in handing the prisoner over would have stripped Jesus of the religious immunity he had on account of being a Jew. The idea that Barabbas, a violent insurrectionist against Rome would have been offered by Pilate to placate a mob, is hugely improbable - on what I have read - as it would have exposed Pilate to denouncement and would have almost certainly led to his being subject to a quaestio (inquest) himself.
Jiri
|
Tacitus gives the impression that Tiberius encouraged the over use of trials for maiestas but a/ this is partly Tacitus' bias against Tiberius b/ it seems to be confined to Rome. |
I believe Seneca also commented on the air of suspicion brought about Tiberius' 'overuse' of the law. This in part was due, I have read, to the emperor extending the patronage to the
delatores, who before him were heavily scrutinized. By law, the conviction of an offending party would have secured the informant 1/4 of the confiscated property.
Quote:
|
The other issue is that it is not clear how far Pilate is convinced that Jesus is really making political claims at all. He seems to regard the accusation that Jesus is claiming to be "King of the Jews" as a pretext masking the real concerns of Jesus' accusers.
|
Are you saying, Andrew, that Pilate would have been wont to interpret the complaint of the Sanhedrin regards Jesus as internal squabbling between religious factions about terms and figures of speech in Jewish eschatology ? I don't think so. The council was in charge of the temple, which was in Jerusalem, which was in Roman Judea. These would have been the basic terms of reference for Pilate. I think John understood that part very well (18:35).
Quote:
Barabbas as insurrectionist is found in Mark but not John (which has now Barabbas was a robber (LH(i)STHS)). I'm doubtful whether this specific charge against Barabbas was part of the earliest tradition.
Andrew Criddle
|
I see what you are saying. But beyond the finding that Mark and John don't agree what Barrabas was charged with, what is the guarantee that John is really tapping into a tradition and not just correcting some church tale originating in Mark's all-things-possible-with-God hyperbole applied to Pilate ?
That would be my preferred reading of the Barabbas' crime in John (given 19:12).
Jiri
02-17-2009, 01:23 PM
