PhilosopherJay

When I wrote movie scripts many years ago, I noticed that whenever I changed one element in the middle of a script, it would cause contradictions in earlier elements which also had to be changed. These, in turn, caused their own contradictions.

These kinds of contradictions are frequent in any kind of improvised writing. For example, in the movie, "Mabel at the Wheel" (1914), Charlie Chaplin gets introduced as Mabel Normand's motorcycle riding, suave suitor. However, after one brief scene, Chaplin's character changes and he is simply the over-the-top villain in the movie. The improvisational nature of the filming accounts for the contradiction. When they filmed the opening shots, they did not have a story and did not know what the later scenes would be like. At a later time, they shot the rest of the movie at a race track and improvised the large section of the movie where Chaplin is simply the villain of the piece. Unfortunately, the editors saw that if they did not use the opening scene between Mabel and Chaplin, the Mabel character would not have an introduction in the movie and also a great shot of Mabel falling off the back of Chaplin's motorcycle into a mud puddle would be wasted. The editors had to use the opening footage in order for the movie to make any sense. However by using this footage, the fact that Chaplin was playing a character at the beginning of the movie in contradiction to the character he played later became obvious.

It is apparent that the passion text introduces two motifs. The first one is that the Jews betrayed Jesus to the Romans and turned him over to be executed. The second motif is that when it looked like Pilate might free Jesus, the Jews subverted Roman law and forced the Romans to execute Jesus.

The introduction of the first motif created the contradiction that the Romans were really responsible for Jesus' death. This forced the creation of the second motif of blaming the Jews for fixing the trial and causing the death of Jesus. However, if the Romans may have exonerated Jesus, as the second motif suggests, then the Jews were simply following the prescribed custom of allowing the Romans to judge ambiguous cases. They did not betray Jesus. If I turn a criminal suspect over to a judge, I am simply following the law and not betraying him/her.

On the other hand, if the Jews were going to subvert justice anyway by forcing Pilate to execute Jesus through blackmail, as the gospel of John indicates, then why do the Jews turn him over in the first place. Why not just break the law and kill Jesus themselves?

The best explanation for this over-determination in Jesus' death, this double guilt of the Jews (betrayal and trial-fixing causing execution), is that the two ideas came into being sequentially. The first idea was that the writers would show the evil nature of the Jews by having them betray Jesus to Pilate. The problem is that this simply shows the Jews as obedient to Roman law. This necessitates the need for the second motif of having the Jews fix the trial.

However, the second motif now renders the first motif suspect, in that it shows the Jews as not respecting Roman law and judgment and if they don't respect Roman law and judgment, why turn Jesus over, to the Romans in the first place? If the Jews had the desire and ability to subvert the Roman law after the trial begins, why bother with turning Jesus over at all and not just execute him straight away?

Both of these motifs are introduced into the text as sudden and arbitrary story elements. There is nothing about Jews betraying people or fixing trials before this in any of the gospel text. We should have expected an explanation of the relationship of the Jews to Pilate if they were actually thought out in advance or historical elements.

The text suggests that turning prisoners over to Pilate was a well-known practice. The fact that the Jews just show up at Pilate's residence and ask him to judge Jesus, which he immediately does, indicates that this was a known practice as opposed to a once only event.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

We dont even know if there was a trial.


Pilate was there to keep the peace and keep the money flowing. Pilate was the [ADDED] police force for the large amounts of attendants.

Pilate and Caiaphas wanted one thing and one thing only, peace. They didnt get it.


Anyone causing a disturbace at passover, when tensions were already high. Would meet severe punishement.



Exactly

"the text suggest" Most of the passion was said to be already in existance when Gmark used it inhis gospel. It was written to and for a Roman audience, and the author/s would not make the romans out to be the bloody killers they were.


There is no need to overtink this. Its not complicated.


It was the foundation of the Passion, Romans inoccent, Jews the bad guys.

Following that, they wouldnt need to be written in sequentially.

Jeffrey Gibson

I would be far more inclined to believe you know what you were taking about and that your claims had any merit if you would draw your examples to support them support them from ancient literature and the demonstrated practice of ancient authors. What you found yourself doing when you told a story is hardly evidence -- let alone good evidence -- for what ancient authors, including Gospel authors, did, even if we had reason to believe that your assumption about the order in which the Gospel authors wrote and the age of the traditions about Pilate and Jesus within them (John could be making use of tradition that is older than what Matthew and Mark and Luke employ) are valid.

The basic assumption here is that one is only responsible, and is worthy of blame, for a person's death only if one is the actual executioner. But the Dutch who were complicit in handing over Anne Frank to the Nazis who brought about her death certainly had some responsibility for that death. And even now certain people are holding Pope Francis responsible for the torture by Argentinian officials of certain Argentinian priests.

Sorry, Jay. No go. Your agenda is clouding your judgement and is determining in advance your conclusions.

Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay

Hi Dr. Gibson,

My statement on narrative writing is an observation statement which may be verified by asking others who have extensive experience writing fiction.

The suggestion that I find such evidence in ancient literature is an excellent one. One may compare the changes the Gospel writers make to the trial of Jesus to the changes that Euripides made to Aeschylus' trial of Orestes. For example, while in Aeschylus' version, Athena judges Orestes to be innocent and appeases the Erinyes, in Euripides' version, the mob finds Orestes and Electra guilty and sentence them to death. It is a 180 degree reversal in judgement.

Regarding the order of the gospels, I have no definite opinion. I am simply following what I see as the evidence in this particular case. It seems to me that additions and deletions were made to all the gospels at different times, therefore one has to examine the evidence in any section on a case by case basis and not accept that any particular lines are earlier simply based on the assumption that one text was written earlier.

My assumption about the handing over of Jesus is that from the Jewish point of view, it may be seen as a betrayal. However, from the Roman point of view, it may be seen as simply following the law. The gospel writers were originally looking at things from the Jewish point of view alone, so the betrayal sufficed to pin the blame on the Jews. Later, seeing it from the Roman point of view, the writers needed to rewrite the material to again blame the Jews and exonerate the Romans' responsibility for the murder. These I see as logical and reasonable assumptions based on the text.

Further I assume that the story of Pilate or a Roman magistrate killing Jesus or some prophet probably existed before the gospel writers blamed the Jews for betraying Jesus. Otherwise, the gospel writers could have had simply the Jewish leaders murdering Jesus themselves. Thus the previous well-known understanding that Pilate (or whomever) killed Jesus allowed the gospel writers to introduce the theme of Jewish betrayal, but did not allow for them to declare the Jews the murderers directly.

As for my agenda, it is always to find and tell the truth.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Chili

Before we call it murder it would be prudent to identify Jesus, who at least as second Adam had no physical body to validate the charge that we assume here was murder the case with Jesus then.

This would be based on the first Adam to exist in the conscious mind only, there in the TOK wherein he was a Jew, by tradition I suppose, wherein here the Jews saw him as guilty and only therein was he guilty to die as Jew that Pilate could not see as not a Jew.

James The Least

Good analysis, but I think you're over-thinking this and treating it as history. None of this actually happened. It's a figment of Mark's imagination and the myth he inherited and tried to turn into a sacred narrative.

Regarding the bolded part, one of the myths that Mark inherited was that "the Jews killed all the prophets." This appears in 1 Thessalonians so Mark had his backstory right there: Jesus is a prophet; the Jews have killed all the prophets; ergo, they must kill Jesus. How will they kill him? On a cross, just like they sacrifice the paschal lamb every Passover. But Mark isn't stupid. He knows that "the Jews" do not execute people, even prophets, via crucifixion.
So he brings in the pseudo-historical detail of a Roman trial and governor whom he plucked out of Josephus or Philo (not historical memory). He then invents the hand washing scene and makes sure that his readers get the point that in no way were the Romans responsible. "The Jews killed Lord Jesus" would be repeated for the next 1,900 years. So successful was his myth that only in the last couple of decades have people even considered that it was actually the Romans responsible for the whole thing. But of course that too is a myth.

semiopen

You mentioned this before, and I mentioned that there is no evidence that Jews did not use crucifixion as an execution method.

I also mentioned that the word hang in the bible can be translated as impale which sounds a little like crucifixion.

Talah Strong's 8518

JPS_Tanakh translates Talah as impale every single time it appears in an execution context.

This is the second time I've challenged your assertion that the Jews did not use crucifixion as an execution method. Perhaps your position can be defended, but your argument is seriously damaged if you don't respond to this. Of course, your argument isn't very convincing anyway.

As I mentioned before, the only thing that suggests the Jews didn't execute this way is the Talmud, which was written hundreds of years after the events. As we've discussed in recent threads, there is very little in the Talmud that is historically accurate.

Chili

Bolding mine.

Sure, good points, but are you not over-thinking too if you call it all myth and then conclude that the Romans were responsible for it all and then call that myth too?

My point here is that 'inside the myth' the Jews laid the charge for they alone can stand convicted by their own Law and need the faculty of reason without religion to crucify the Jew in him. These are the Romans in this story wherein Pilate is local (or provincial in TOK), and Herod was supreme ruler in motion (or 'united state' as TOK and TOL combined) of the man called Joseph who was 'the' Jew that this transformation happened to.

semiopen

The whole thing was carefully thought out and it is absurd to say that the Jews weren't involved. Not a good reason to persecute a people for 2000 years, but at least some of the persecutors knew how to read.

I liked the scape goat comment a few pages back.

There is also an interesting comparison between the Christian concept of Redemption through blood and the Jewish concept of Redemption through Sin.

Gershom Scholem, "Redemption through Sin," Two Parts

There is a copy of this on the web but it takes awhile to load.

Chili

Sure, that is called Inspired and the Inquisitor was appointed to keep reformers out.

You have to accept here that the gate is very narrow and only a very select few is given the insight to read this right. And understand well that the 'chief priests' knew all about this too.

But if the gate is very narrow, it also means that the gate to hell is very wide, or narrow would not make sense, and that is why the Inquisitor is needed to speak with authority on this, that in turn must be enforced by the United State.

This so already means that where 'freedom of religion' is a Constitutional Right the State hasn't got clue what religion is all about and as much as says: "Yes, fire is trump and let the best man win."

Here I must add that "freedom from religion' is acceptable but not 'freedom of religion,' that spreads this fire around the globe in the mandate of Mark and Matthew where that Jesus [in particular] went back to Galilee again instead Israel where he was set to go. That so would equal 'hell on earth' and is exactly why Luke and John are added to set the record strait. And please note: No 'back to Galilee' and no 'great commission' in Luke and John to make this difference known.

And here, 'Redemption through blood' points at protestants who claim that Jesus died for them and they really do not have to pick up their cross and follow him, as saved sinner, to be sure, and will sing to him [all over hell] until that charm is wearing thin and then sing 'patient endurance' songs until they finally die in him while hoping for better days ahead.

Opposite this are Catholic as sinners with confessionals to prove this true and are fully NT people, for whom Jesus died to set them free as NT people so they can follow him and do the same.

So they do recognize Jesus but not as personal savior as Catholic with also no salvation recipe for them. Totally true and absolutely not.

So now we have protestants as both OT and NT people and thus 'saved-sinner,' and these are those who will blame 'the Jew' for the persistent agony they must endure . . . and flipping pages they will go. These are identified in Rev.14:6-12 and will always have a hard-on for Catholics too that never dies for them, which must be a sign agony itself.

It is funny really, but they also cannot help their own predicament as forgery themselves. The problem is that they are very vocal about their victory as suffering servant and so a lot sin-offering-black-smoke is what emanates from them (and I can smell them for a mile away).

Bottom line: Matthew and Mark are tragedy and Luke and John are comedy, and this difference they do not see. Then note that Seneca (as contemporary then), wrote how gory such a tragedy can be.