Phoenix From Ashes

Yes, for the time period.

There is a lot to understand about the politics of the area. Jerusalem was a bustling city during passover, with people coming from other parts of the Roman Empire. This was a time when the chief priests/religious leaders of Jerusalem had to be extremely careful with respect to the possibility of riots against Caesar and Roman occupation. I believe the biblical narratives mention groups of Jews being paid by the chief priests to protest against Jesus as they were, so it depends upon how much of that you believe as well.

Not all Jews were necessarily opposed to Roman occupation, especially many of the more aristocratic in and around Jerusalem. Herod the Great, not long before Jesus' time, had much friendly interaction with the Roman government. The religious leaders of Jesus' time likely only wanted to keep the status quo with Rome. They had a mostly good thing going where they got to run their country mostly as they saw fit with some Roman intervention.

If one reads more about the political history and connections between palestine and Rome, one might get a better feel for why this account has a ring of truth.

Koyaanisqatsi

And how, exactly, would the same Sanhedrin threatening Pilate with a riot if he didn't kill an innocent Jew (one of their own) that the same Sanhedrin so feared just two days prior would cause a riot if they tried to kill him serve that end?

And where was this much feared riot from the "other" crowd of Jews when they woke up the next morning from whatever sleeping agent they must all have been dosed with when they saw their "King" bleeding to death on a cross with common criminals? They didn't seem to have any qualms about rioting over an aquaduct, but the brutal, slow death of their "King" doesn't faze them a bit?

Phoenix From Ashes

It seems quite obvious from the narratives, does it not?

"...the Jews kept shouting, 'If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.' "

They were, according to the story, blackmailing Pilate into actions that benefitted them. They were acting as if he was the one not attempting to keep the peace and allowing someone to claim kingship opposite Caesar.

It was politics back then as now. They didn't want to rock the boat, but at the same time they apparently wanted to pull strings (with all the political cunning of today's politicians).

Koyaanisqatsi

Ummmm. You might want to scroll up just about two clicks on this thread and see my first post for why everything you just posted is utterly preposterous. Just a suggestion.

ETA: If they didn't want to "rock the boat," then why would they take Jesus to Pilate in the first place (since he had limited judicial authority and Jesus had committed no Roman crime), threaten Pilate with a riot for not doing their bidding when Pilate thrice pronounced him innocent, and risk their own lives (as they feared just two days prior) by attempting to rile up this miraculous crowd of apparently two-faced robots into somehow forcing Pilate into murdering a man he just officially declared innocent?

Do you even stop to think about these things? Maybe just a little?

There's no such thing as a "King of the Jews;" Jesus was not a King of anything, let alone claiming he was; and Pilate wouldn't have been the one presiding over his trial, even if he could find any Roman crime to charge him with.

:huh:

The Sanhedrin arguably could not have picked a better method to "rock the boat," either from Pilate's perspective, or from the "other" mysteriously vanishing/fickle crowd's perspective, so drastically feared just two days prior that supposedly forced the Sanhedrin into rocking Pilat's boat in the first place, but now non-existent as they watch their "King" slowly bleed to death on a hill as a result of their own inexplicable "blackmail."

Why, it's almost as if the entire message of the passion narrative is, "You sure can't trust those crowds of Jews."

How very Roman a message for a guy who is supposed to be the Jewish Messiah come to free the Jews and kill their enemies just before flooding Jerusalem to cleanse the way for Yahweh's arrival.

You remember Yahweh? The actual "king" of all Jews, more commonly referred to as "God?"

:huh:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

First compare this to our other gospels:


John:18.28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas 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.
18.29 So Pilate went out to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?"

Mark: 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.

Matthew: 27.2 and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor.

Luke: 23.1 Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate.

Note that in the synoptics, there is no mention of the Jewish priests not entering the Praetorium. The implication is exactly the opposite that they "brought" or "delivered" Jesus directly to Pilate. When one hears these words, one immediately thinks that they entered into Pilate's Palace or administrative place of work and brought Jesus to him. Without John, nobody would have suspected any differently.

In the John account, we are asked to believe that Pilate without being told the charges against the man, left whatever he was doing, and went outside to meet the priests who would not come inside with Pilate because it would make them unclean.

As you mention, there were numerous and often cited priestly rules regarding impurity. However, as far as I know, there is no text that mentions Jewish priests not entering into Roman places to avoid ritual impurities. If anybody has such relevant text, I would be quite interestested in it. The Jews had been living under Roman occupation for some 80 years at this point. I would imagine that if a there was a law prohibiting priests from entering Roman houses before Passover and other holidays, somebody might have mentioned it. Lacking that evidence, we may just as well assume that the writer is making up such a restriction in order to explain why no priests were seen "delivering" or "bringing" Jesus to Pilate. It is far easier to believe that than to believe in Pilate being so deferential to the Jewish Priests as to come out to them and hold a trial at their request.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Koyaanisqatsi

A trial that he would not have likely presided over in the first place, even if the Sanhedrin went through the proper channels by "delivering" Jesus to the Roman authorities.

I doubt very seriously that a claim by the Sanhedrin that a supposedly popular local rabbi (who inexplicably loses that popularity two days later in a murderous zeal) was calling himself the "King of the Jews" would warrant more than a bemused smirk from Pilate if his subordinates ever thought to tell him of the matter. As is allegedly evidenced in the passion narrative, when Pilate supposedly says this is a Jewish problem and nothing to do with Roman law.

As I pointed out earlier, that would be identical to, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger presiding over a trial for a guy claiming to be "King of the Mormons." Everything about that is wrong, including the fact that Arnold actually is a governor.

ETA: Not to mention the fact (but I have so many times already, I might as well) that there is no actual title, "King of the Jews" either in Judaism (unless one is metaphorically referring to God), or in governing practice and the Romans already knew that the Jews in the area consider Yahweh to be supreme, even with the directive to have no "kings" but Caesar, so either way you slice it (metaphorical King, or actual ruler) it makes no sense.

Unless you look at it from the proper perspective; a Roman one.

This is one of the main reasons why, btw, there remain millions of Jews in the world; because they know damn well the NT is little more than pro-Roman/anti-Judaic fiction and have been persecuted for centuries as a direct result of the nonsense in the gospels (thanks in no small part to the biggest anti-semite in the book, IMO; Paul).

:huh:

The message of the passion narrative is unmistakebly clear; the "Jews" (plural, non-specific) killed their (read: our) Savior and Lord. Mighty strange message for the Jewish God to "reveal" through his only recorded visitation to Earth in flesh to his "chosen people."

(BTW: in case it wasn't clear, PhilosopherJay, this post is an extention of yours; not an indictment.)

Malachi151

I think that the scene in John is indeed fiction, I'm just interested in the feedback on how absurd it actually is. It doesn't even seem believable to me, but I was curious if it could be believable at all.

Koyaanisqatsi

Not from where I'm sitting, but that should come as no surprise .

Nothing about it adds up and nearly all of it is directly contradicted by what we do know of the actual time period, not to mention good old common sense.

If the Sanhedrin truly feared riots from "the crowd" if they tried to kill Jesus (which they supposedly already tried to do by stoning him twice before) then why wouldn't they fear riots when they attempted to rile "the crowd" up to get them to inexplicably force Pilate into killing him, just after Pilate announced the Sanhedrin's betrayal of Jesus by proclaiming he was not just innocent, but that he could find no crime against him in the first place?

And what is the deal with this mythical "crowd" of anonymous Jews that are so easily riled up en masse to threaten their oppressor into killing a completely innocent man? They were magically bewitched into not just demanding Jesus be imprisoned, but that Pilate crucify him all due to the influence of the very people who were so terrified of influencing them two days before?

:huh:

And now Roger would have us believe that they were "lying" to Pilate, which ipso facto means that they did, in fact, think that Jesus was actually their King. Why would they want the Romans to kill their King, particularly if he had never done anything but (allegedly) walk around spouting about how we should all love each other (as he miraculously healed the sick and gave sight to the poor)?

Yeah, that makes sense! It's all office politics and not the true story of the One True God Of All The Universe Incarnated Into Flesh.

:banghead:

These are the only facts I can see:

1. The Sanhedrin could have stoned Jesus to death at any time for blasphemy (and supposedly tried twice before); if they feared the reprisal of "the crowd" one day, then they would have feared it two days later and certainly after their failed plot was allegedly revealed publicly by Pilate, just before they all started magically influencing the "crowd"
2. Pilate would not have presided over a trial of someone accused of claiming himself to be an actual King, let alone a metaphorical king of the conquered Jews
3. Claimnig to be the "King of Jews" would not have offended any Jews in the area, even if Jesus did claim it; at least not to the point of a murderous frenzy to have him killed as a result
4. So far as I can find, there was no tradition of letting a convicted criminal go free at Passover, let alone a convicted murderer and seditioinist against Rome (as Barrabus supposedly was)
5. Jesus wasn't a convicted criminal at the time, regardless, and in fact had just been allegedly officially declared by the governor to be innocent of all crimes
6. Pilate's historical response to "the crowds" of Jews causing any trouble under his rule was to order brutal beatings until they stopped, arrests and summary executions for their attempts (regardless of how large or "threatening" said crowds may be), and even anticipated their reactions by placing undercover guards in amongst "the crowds" for precisely this reason
7. The overwhelming complaints of Pilate's brutality prompted his apparently rather extraordinary ignoble recall to Rome
8. "The crowd" that the Sanhedrin so feared just two days prior is nowhere to be found during and certainly after Jesus is seen bleeding to death next to actual criminals on a cross
9. There were many different non-orthodox sects in the area each preaching their own version of Judaism, so the Sanhedrin wouldn't have cared if one Rabbi among them claimed to be a title that doesn't exist in any significant, actionable way
10. No Roman official (including Caesar, I would argue) would have given a shit if some local Jew were going around claiming to be the "King of the Jews" no matter what Caesar decreed, as is evidenced in the narrative when Pilate allegedly says it's not his problem, take him to Herod, so how could he be "blackmailed" by "the crowd" the next day?

He already declared that claiming to be the "King of the Jews" was not a Roman crime the night before, allegedly. I'm fairly certain Pilate would know a hell of a lot better than a "crowd" of Jews what other Romans considered would be a Roman crime.

:huh:

I could go on, because the list of incongruities and outright contradictions to what we know about the actual period is almost endless.

Unless Jesus was a popular leader of a local terrorist insurgency and was crucified by the Romans as a result.

Only that makes any sense. The mocking of Jesus by the Romans; calling him the "King of the Jews" (which, again, would only be offensive in the mind of a Roman and would have no significance to a Jew and denotes a belittling military title far more suited to a "terrorist" leader); and the use of crucifixion, specifically, as a method of execution, which it was, indeed, historically used for at the time (for murderers and seditionists against Rome) because of the public spectacle it presents. Not in all cases, of course, but primarily and again, it makes far more sense than for Pilate to order him crucified because that's what "the crowd" wanted him to do.

He just declared the man innocent, so now he's going to use the most heinous, public form of execution to make "the crowd" (who supposedly loved Jesus and were just lying to Pilate about him not being their King) happy?

No.

Jesus (if he existed) would have been crucified for being a terrorist againt the Roman occupation, which also explains how the notion of "killing in Jesus' name" came about, not to mention what eventually escalated into the attempted genocide in 70 C. E. and the attempted propaganda effort by whoever wrote Mark at just about the exact same time as the troops were getting ready to destroy the Temple.

Can anyone say, "propaganda leaflet?"

Mark is clearly not written by anyone remotely familiar with Jewish dogma, let alone a Jew himself, gets several things blatantly wrong (such as who, exactly, is the Jewish Messiah and what its purpose is) and turns the fact that the Romans crucified Jesus into a huge conspiracy theory that puts the blame entirely on "the Jews" (plural, non-specific) and their leaders, thereby extending the work of Paul in the surrounding Jewish "fence sitter" regions.

And, yes, I consider Paul to have been either a Roman "operative," or at the very least a Roman stooge, whose mission it was to turn the story around, so that insurgents hears a very different story of how their martyred leader was killed. "Hey, you got it all wrong; it wasn't the Romans that did it, it was the dirty Jews."

Roman, Roman, Roman and more Roman and their goal was to undermine Judaism's stronghold over their conquered citizen's minds and the region.

Just like what we did to the Native American Indians; destroy their religion and their minds will follow and when you eventually find out that that's not working fast enough, you send in the cavalry and eviscerate the fuckers.

:huh:

Phoenix From Ashes

There is a lot of history that you left out.

It was a messianic thing.... And it was not incredibly long after Jesus that Simon Bar Kochba arose as a potential "King of the Jews" (and I believe even proclaimed himself so). I suggest some reading in messianic expectations during this time period.

This is something that has been debated for quite some time. Protestations do not automatically make the circumstances untrue.

Koyaanisqatsi

And a lot of arguments you left out.

Then how could Pilate be "blackmailed" by it?