Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 11-02-2009, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...and here is why a well-bred Roman would not likely have touched Jesus on his own : 1) Furiosi nulla voluntas est A madman has no will (of his own). Mark hints at this old Latin legal wisdom in 15:2 and 15:5. 2) Furiosus solo furore punitur A madman is (or should be) punished by his madness alone.

Jiri

Mark's problem, not mine...

I don't think Mark viewed his hero as insane, nor does he make Pilate think so. Pilate knows it's just those envious priests....but the crowd is simply too much for poor old Pilate...

Pilate was like a killing machine. He would not have missed the perfect opportunity to kill some more Jews.

It would appear that when Pilate gave an order to a crowd and it was not obeyed then a killing spree would follow.

Pilate would have had very good reason to kill and disperse the crowd. He found no fault with Jesus, yet they wanted him to act unjustly.

It should be noted that Pilate was called to Rome by Tiberius to answer charges of mass murder based on Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2

Quote:

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs.

However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do.

So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them.

So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded.

And thus an end was put to this sedition.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.4.1

Quote:

1. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there (12)

So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate.

So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

See http://wesley.nnu.edu.com

dog-on · 11-02-2009, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Mark's problem, not mine...

I don't think Mark viewed his hero as insane, nor does he make Pilate think so. Pilate knows it's just those envious priests....but the crowd is simply too much for poor old Pilate...

Pilate was like a killing machine. He would not have missed the perfect opportunity to kill some more Jews.

It would appear that when Pilate gave an order to a crowd and it was not obeyed then a killing spree would follow.

Pilate would have had very good reason to kill and disperse the crowd. He found no fault with Jesus, yet they wanted him to act unjustly.

It should be noted that Pilate was called to Rome by Tiberius to answer charges of mass murder based on Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2

Antiquities of the Jews 18.4.1

Quote:

1. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there (12)

So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate.

So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

See http://wesley.nnu.edu.com

AA, what does this have to do with the story in Mark?

Wasn't Pilate just one more in the line of "everyone exept the Jews" who actually got it?

It really has nothing to do with history, in any literal sense.

aa5874 · 11-02-2009, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

AA, what does this have to do with the story in Mark?

Wasn't Pilate just one more in the line of "everyone exept the Jews" who actually got it?

It really has nothing to do with history, in any literal sense.

Of course the passages from Josephus are relevant.

Based on Josephus, Pilate was extremely violent, he was not afraid of crowds of Jews , he could have ordered the people in the crowd to be killed instead of Jesus and set him free once he did not find any fault with Jesus.

The author of Mark did not "get it", he appear not to realise Pilate was at least accused of mass murderer.

dog-on · 11-02-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

AA, what does this have to do with the story in Mark?

Wasn't Pilate just one more in the line of "everyone exept the Jews" who actually got it?

It really has nothing to do with history, in any literal sense.

Of course the passages from Josephus are relevant.

Based on Josephus, Pilate was extremely violent, he was not afraid of crowds of Jews , he could have ordered the people in the crowd to be killed instead of Jesus and set him free once he did not find any fault with Jesus.

The author of Mark did not "get it", he appear not to realise Pilate was at least accused of mass murderer.

My question would be this.

What does the fact that Pilate was so and so in actual history have to do with Mark's story?

Another irony?

aa5874 · 11-02-2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Of course the passages from Josephus are relevant.

Based on Josephus, Pilate was extremely violent, he was not afraid of crowds of Jews , he could have ordered the people in the crowd to be killed instead of Jesus and set him free once he did not find any fault with Jesus.

The author of Mark did not "get it", he appear not to realise Pilate was at least accused of mass murderer.

My question would be this.

What does the fact that Pilate was so and so in actual history have to do with Mark's story?

Another irony?

But, is not the author of gMark portraying Pilate as a character who appeases the crowd when, based on Josephus, the real Pilate was not likely to do such a thing?

What is actually demonstrated by the author is that the crucifixion scene in gMark is likely be invented and does not represent any historical facts.

dog-on · 11-02-2009, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

My question would be this.

What does the fact that Pilate was so and so in actual history have to do with Mark's story?

Another irony?

But, is not the author of gMark portraying Pilate as a character who appeases the crowd when, based on Josephus, the real Pilate was not likely to do such a thing?

Yes and yes.

Quote:

What is actually demonstrated by the author is that the crucifixion scene in gMark is likely be invented and does not represent any historical facts.

I don't believe that the author's intention was to write history. In fact, I am not aware of a good enough case to even think he actually did.

Amaleq13 · 11-02-2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Nah, it says that the Jews decided he should die for blasphemy and brought him to the Romans, who then killed him simply to appease the crowd.

Yes but on what charge? Claiming to be King of the Jews (ie sedition) is the only charge Pilate considers. The stories make it pretty clear that Pilate convicted Jesus of this charge despite his alleged misgivings.

Amaleq13 · 11-02-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

He found no fault with Jesus, yet they wanted him to act unjustly.

He is described as finding no fault despite the fact that Jesus just confessed to sedition.

Your credulity is showing.

dog-on · 11-02-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Nah, it says that the Jews decided he should die for blasphemy and brought him to the Romans, who then killed him simply to appease the crowd.

Yes but on what charge? Claiming to be King of the Jews (ie sedition) is the only charge Pilate considers. The stories make it pretty clear that Pilate convicted Jesus of this charge despite his alleged misgivings.

Quote:

9"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.

Looks to me like Mark says specifically that Pilate knows that the priests wanted Jesus killed because the envied him.

It does not say that Pilate was unsure of this.

It also does not say that Pilate really cared about Jesus thinking that he was "King of the Jews". In fact, he specifically refers to Jesus as just that when addressing the crowd. Perhaps he thinks Jesus is simply a nut. Perhaps he doesn't. Perhaps he really believes Jesus is who he said he was. The author of the story does not say.

What he does say is this:

Quote:

15Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

aa5874 · 11-02-2009, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, is not the author of gMark portraying Pilate as a character who appeases the crowd when, based on Josephus, the real Pilate was not likely to do such a thing?

Yes and yes.

Quote:

What is actually demonstrated by the author is that the crucifixion scene in gMark is likely be invented and does not represent any historical facts.

I don't believe that the author's intention was to write history. In fact, I am not aware of a good enough case to even think he actually did.

Are you not aware of the canonised NT and the Church writings where virtually all the writers implied, supported or claimed that the Jesus story as found in gMark is fundamentally historical?

And, how in the world do you intend to show that the author of gMark intention was not to write history?

I am not aware that a case can be made to show that gMark was not intended to be considered as history.

It must be noted that all the information about the authorship of gMark came from the Church and they have claimed that gMark was the Memoirs of Peter when he was with Jesus.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.