TedM

My reason for the release tradition:
The number of people. They would have dwarfed the occupation, no?

And you think the Romans would have been happy to trust in that? I don't. And, if things got bad, do you really think the Jews would have not gone against the 'forbidden' in order to save their nation? I don't.


It's a good point which increases the chance that if it existed it was between the Romans and the Jews only. Why? Perhaps because only with the Jews did you have an occupied country which outnumbered the Romans so greatly only at specific times during the year.


Yes, given the conditions of the feast that may have been a very smart thing to have done, too.


What would have mattered to Pilate is whether the Jews would have been appeased enough to avoid an immediate conflict which the Romans would have lost and in which Pilate would have been killed.


I reject this objection because there is no reason to conclude that those two crowds were 'the same'.

I don't think the crowd would have turned against their own chief priests simply because Pilate was able to be sarcastic? Rather, I think the crowds were different.


Well, at least you have a more accurate location in this example. Still, you don't have the outnumbering aspect, so I reject this comparison also.


Matthew only calls him a "notorious prisoner". John only says he was a robber. Notice, that neither one throws out the tradition of the release even though they do have different descriptions of the man being released.


Pilate was caving? Don't you see yet what I'm saying? He was being politically savvy!



All this is reasonable to ask. I think they are all explained by the difference that Pilate was well aware of between a 'normal' Jewish environment and the conditions in place during Passover. Once outnumbered, brutality is replaced by appeasement. It's simple.

Pilate could have first convicted Jesus and then asked the crowd who should be released. If you require the conviction first it is nitpicky because the end result is the same assuming Jesus was eventually written up as convicted.


Being outnumbered by a political rival.


Nevertheless the Sanhedren feared a riot. Riots happen when large numbers of people act together. This validates to some extent any fear by outnumbered Roman soldiers and their officers of a riot also.


If this is correct my argument fails. However, I suspect they were greatly outnumbered by Jewish people of all ranking during Passover in Jerusalem. BTW, you keep calling them 'Jewish peasants'? Is that to make them seem like less of a threat? Do you think that 1 million Jewish peasants verses 1000 Roman soldiers wouldn't be bad for the Romans?


Now you're getting where I'm coming from. Recall that the disciples fled upon arrest. It is likely that any crowd that followed Jesus into Jerusalem were also staying clear of trouble. It is possible that the crowd following Jesus was only a small percentage of the entire city.

Re: Matthew keeping false historical facts on purpose

I assume whoever wrote Matthew was looking for converts, and therefore would write to people who were open to the supernatural but not who would know something to be a blatant historical lie. Ditto for Luke, and John.


ted

Boro Nut

Two words. Eskimo. Elvis.

Boro Nut

TedM

Hi Jake. I'll think about this. One question is how common the names are. we know Jesus was common. The absence of "Jesus" in some texts is understandable since the name was revered by Christians fairly early on. Abbas was not unknown as a personal name, as wiki points out. However, the combination is unlikely, so I will think about it some more.

No, not since they are depicted as arresting him in the first place, and since the author considered him to be Christ, and since this was the moment of decision about his death.


I don't know. I'm trying to spend less time on it (today being an apparant exception), so it may take quite a long time. I do think it more likely that I'll find a historical Jesus who was a man with followers, and a message of peace, who was crucified around Passover than just a made up crucifixion derived from Platonic thought and scriptures.

ted

ted

Boro Nut

But that's only supposition. The bible says they tried and flogged him prior to his crucifixion. The Anglo Saxon word flog means to sell (ask any Cockney). This was obviously a hostage taking gone wrong.

Romans abduct Jesus and try to flog him back to his followers.

Followers are up in arms. No way will they pay up.

Pilate reduces his demand to 30 pieces of silver.

Crowd shrugs, saying 'Jesus Shmeesus' and buy Barabbas instead for 1 groat.

Romans nail Jesus to cross with 'INRI' notice above his head (Latin for 'Reduced To Clear')

Zoom in to dying Jesus' glowing red eye.

Jesus groans 'I'll be back' in heavy Austrian accent.

Eye winks out.

John Wayne says 'Surely This man was the son of god'.

End Credits roll to sound of fat lady singing anachronistically in English.

Before screen goes blank, strange liquid metal drips from cross, reconstitutes, and scuttles away down nearby crack.

Audience says 'Ahaaa!' knowingly.

The planned sequel is never made.

Boro Nut

Amaleq13

Gosh, it never occurred to me that every single Jew in town for Passover would be part of the riot.

Even without the certain knowledge that the wrath of the entire Roman Empire would fall upon them were they to revolt, I would still put my money on the 1,000 highly trained, well-armed Roman soldiers over a much greater number of untrained, poorly-armed Jewish rebels.


Jewish crowd: "Kill Jesus for sedition even though you think he is innocent and free the convicted seditionist or we'll tell the Emperor that you allowed a seditionist to go free!!"

Pilate: "Excuse me?"

Jewish crowd: "You heard us! Do what we'll accuse you of doing if you don't do what we want or we'll accuse you of doing it!"

Pilate: "I find myself so confused by your ridiculous threat that I have no choice but to comply."

yalla

Interesting variation in the way releasing Roger is portrayed in the 4 gospels.
The first three do not directly indicate who instigates the alleged custom, merely stating that it exists.
But "John" 18.39 directly states that it is a Jewish custom.
Pilate to the Jewish crowd:
"But YOU have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover"

Very obliging of Pilate to adhere to a Jewish custom.

Do you think maybe the author of "John'', secure in the knowledge that details would be hard to retrospectively check, was aware that it was implausible that a Roman governor would instigate such a custom and therefore assigned it to the Jews?

TedM

Why not? If the Jews wanted to revolt, the Passover would have been an ideal time.

Perhaps, but why even go there if killing one man can take its place?

Well, I"m apparantly not the only one who thinks it would have been wise for Pilate to be cautious. From wikipedia on Barabbas:
Anyway, your above exchange doesn't reflect the motivations as I see them:


Jewish crowd: "Kill Jesus for blaspheming our God even though you think he is innocent and free the prisoner we favor or we'll really get mad"

Pilate: "Excuse me?"

Jewish crowd: "You heard us! Our religious leaders are telling us that this man has committed blasphemy against our Holy God and even though you could never understand how vile that is we're here to tell you that if you don't do away with him you'll be sorry because we could surround you and your men in a heartbeat and put an end to yours and your men!"

Pilate (to self): "Though we could normally squash them like a bug, we can't right now, and the physical threat is real--at least for me. I don't need this crap. I don't care about this Jew -- innocent or guilty but doing away with him can literally save my own skin and at the same time avoid any future problems with my superiors by doing away with a possible insurrectionist. In addition since the Passover is a celebration of their freedom, and therefore a time they resent us Romans more than ever, it is practical for me to appease them by obliging in this silly tradition to release a prisoner. Clearly by killing this nobody and freeing the man they want I can avoid any immediate as well as future problems. I'm told that releasing one man provides for them a vicarous sense of freedom from Roman captivity, as they ironically celebrate their 'Passover freedom' under God. Silly fools."

Pilate to crowd: "Ok, I will do as you wish. Your 'king' will be crucified, and Barabbas will be released."

Pilate (to self): "These crowds suck. I hope the multitude doesn't find out about my plans to violate their temple."

ted

Amaleq13

Re: Wikipedia

You get what you pay for, Ted.

The number of people willing to embrace unsubstantiated speculation does not change the fact that it is contrary to the known evidence.

Re: My dialogue

You completely missed the point.

I wasn't trying to accurately reflect anyone's motives but the ridiculousness of the threat depicted in the story. Pilate is being threatened with a report to the Emperor that he refused to kill a seditionist while simultaneously being asked to free a convicted seditionist. If you do not recognize the ridiculousness of such a scene, I cannot imagine what will allow you to do so.

TedM

You must have a different version of Mark than I. There is no explicit threat of going to the Emperor by the Jews, a fellow Roman, or anyone else. The entire story doesn't mention the Emperor. Pilate may have internally felt threatened with the knowledge that the Emperor could find out that he hadn't reported an insurrectionist. However, since that would be going on inside Pilate's head, we can't know if his behavior was motivated by such a perceived threat or not. As such, you are speculating about his motivations for acting, are you not? I assume on are doing so on the basis of existing evidence elsewhere that such a report was sometimes made, so your speculation does have at least some support. Fair enough.

You have made it clear that you find the trial as presented in Mark to be ridiculous. I interpret that as a sign that you think it describes behavior that is not likely. Is that correct or do you consider it to be ridiculous simply because it is unsupported elsewhere?

I am speculating in order to find a reasonable explanation for the behavior described. I admit that I can't find confirming evidence for Pilate's motivations in my above scenario, other than the one you have mentioned. The crowd's motivations are supported in part by the context in Mark's passage.

I have laid out a scenario to explain behavior above which I don't think is ridiculous, but is reasonable. Do you think the behavior/thoughts I described are ridiculous? If so, which ones do you find to be unreasonable, and why?

ted

Koyaanisqatsi

TedM, I don't have time yet to respond to your latest post (to me), but here's a simple question; considering that the Sanhedrin tried twice to stone Jesus to death for blasphemy and therefore there was no apologetic about Rome outlawing such religious practice (or if there were, the Sanhedrin clearly did not recognize it and it therefore did not concern them in the slightest), why involve Pilate at all in their affairs?

They could have simply stoned Jesus to death that very night when they allegedly abducted and interrogated him or that next morning prior to dragging him before Pilate to get the Romans (their enemy) to convict Jesus of a crime the Sanhedrin knew damn well was not a Roman crime.

The logical answer is that Jesus was an insurrectionist (read: terrorist, if you're a neocon) and he was summarily executed by the Romans for his crimes, became a martyr as a result and his followers then started concocting fantastical mythologies about their brave, fallen leader (number one being, of course, that he didn't die at the hands of their oppressors, but was resurrected and walked the earth again, because no Roman could ever stop his mighty blah, blah, blah; aka, standard cult mythological boilerplate for the region and the times).

The Romans, however, won, and we all know the victors write the history, so the myths became pro-Roman and it wasn't the Romans who killed Jesus, it was the turncoat treachery of the Jews (plural, non-specific) who killed Jesus; the Romans merely doing what the crowd (of Jews; plural, non-specific) wanted them to do.

Why? Because the one historically true event that everyone in the region knew about was that a popular "freedom fighter" Rabbi named Jesus was crucified by Pilate. Fact. So how do you "spin" that fact to be in favor of Rome and against the Jews; plural, non-specific? You torture logic and pervert just enough of the facts of the story (in the same apologetic manner that is replete in the christian cult) to fix what at the time seem to be tiny holes.

You know what you get after thousands of tiny holes, yes? A sieve, which is where we are today looking backward at the centuries of apologetic attempts to fix those tiny holes. Don't forget that cult members did not read these "words of god;" they were read to by their cult leaders and often the stories got changed to fit the audience (like with Paul to the Corinthians). It is apologetics.

So, again consider why the Italians aren't called "christ killers" throughout history, whereas the "Jews" are and who would gain from that? Early christians, who were Jewish and considered themselves Jewish?

More later. Must go now.