TedM

Give me a break Toto. Are you suggesting that they exerted absolutely no political pressure on the Romans? If not, why are you making an issue in showing how my example isn't 100% comparable to this situation? I don't think that trying to ease opposing pressure by doing X is contrary to human nature, but that it is consistent with it. Do you disagree? If not, then aren't you really just saying "yeah, but they wouldn't go THAT far"? Well, I don't think you or I know enough to make such a proclamation when it is consistent with human nature.


Do I really have to? Are you playing a game or have you never heard a scholar who thinks Matthew was Jewish or at least very familiar with Jewish customs. If you have, then there is no need to ask such a question. Rather, you could try addressing the argument by answering this question: Why would Matthew not try to 'fix' or change a hugely ridiculous fictional account of something virtually all Jews would know was not true, when we have evidence that he takes the time to 'fix' other much smaller issues that Jews would know about? An example of a 'minor' fix would be his ommitting the removal of the roof in the story of the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum--something that would have been difficult to do in many Jewish homes.


Where is the evidence that "all the Jews who did not convert to Christianity" in the 1-2 century rejected the historicity of the Roman release of prisoners at Passover?

Toto, I feel like you are being slippery in providing these kinds of responses. Are you going to address the issues straight on or not?

ted

Toto

Give me a break. You are the one who claimed that there was some similarity between Pilate releasing an armed insurrectionist and the USSR, due to international pressure, releasing a jailed pacifistic writer who then accepts exile in the west.

That's not 100% comparable - that's about 0% comparable. The Soviets were not trying to buy off an internal population or a subjugated people who were in rebellion by releasing an actual violent criminal.

According to Peter Kirby's site on Matthew, the scholarly consensus is that gMatt was written by a Jewish Christian living in Syria or Antioch, in the last two decades of the first century. This person might have known something about Jewish customs, but we are talking about an alleged Roman custom here from the early 1st century, that no one else knows about.

This release of the prisoner might have been too embedded in the plot line to change. It might have been so obviously literary that aMatt felt no need to rectify it, since it was only one element of a scene that was full of imaginative a-historical events, and was meant to invoke echos of the release of the scapegoat.

Do you claim that the Jews who did not accept Christianity thought that the gospels represented historical truth, but still decided to reject Christianity? Do you think they read about the Jews there chanting "his blood be on us and our children" that they assumed a court reporter was there? Or would they recognize this instinctively as a fictionalized account?

But can you claim that any Jew or Christian in the first century took Mark or Matt as historical, rather than theological?

Do you seriously think that you have raised a real issue? I don't.

TedM

I already answered that. To reduce the chances of a Passover insurrection.

That's a ridiculous comparison because Pataki governing and storing prisoners within an Islamic country. Do you see the difference?


Not necessarily a murderer. That part may be fictional. But, a political dissentor, or a petty thief, or some such. As such, letting one such go free would indeed be throwing the dog a bone. It's obvious.


It depends on the person. If he really isn't a big threat, then sure it is practical. It gives the illusion of being 'nice', while accomplishing a self-serving political purpose.


I've addressed your opinion on this. I think it is way too nitpicky.



In general Passover would be a time in which Pilate would be vulnerable to an insurrection. The Sanhedren comment only serves to validate this concept.

As for your argument: The arrest and interregation happened in stealth, and at night and morning, which is consistent with fear of a riot. Then in front of Pilate the chief priests intentionally "stirred up the crowd" AGAINST Jesus, not for him. You seem to be assuming that the "crowd" applies to all the people. Your argument is answered by the possibility that the crowd that the priests originally feared were those that were hanging around Jesus, and that the crowd in front of Pilate were just the ordinary folks who would be more likely to follow the orders of their religious leaders.




Let's stay focused now...


I already addressed this. You are bypassing my argument.

Please try to stay realistic here. You are comparing the man released to Saddam Hussein.


Ok. Good point. However, if it is totally unhistorical, wouldn't a claim known to be false have diminished the credibility of the document among the Romans that knew otherwise?


Please tell me where you would expect it to be found. Since it is in Matt, Luke, and John, wouldn't that be 3 other sources? Also, John has a lot of 'insider info', which increases the likelihood of independant testimony.


As I asked Toto, please provide evidence that Jews of the 1-2 centuries rejected the idea of a traditional prisoner release during Passover.

TedM

I agree there are differences. I don't agree with a viewpoint that they are about 0% comparable. I"ve stated why I think a release has a logical motivation for a self-serving Roman govt., just as do the releases in the USSR. But yes, the details are quite different.



That's true, but nearly every Jew would have known about this custom, so we can't pretend that Matthew simply accepted Mark's account of this tradition without 1. Knowledge of it as a fact or 2. an apologetic angle

I don't buy these. I think we have evidence that Matthew (or tradition) had changed a number of suspicious things probably found in his source.

I simply asked for evidence that the Jews rejected the historicity of the tradition of a prisoner release. I don't think appealing to Jews who reject Christianity suffices because yes, they could accept some parts of the story as true while rejecting others.

Then maybe you shouldn't have responded at all if you weren't willing to address my arguments seriously.

I brought it up because I'm not so sure how seriously to take the claims that are boldly pronounced here that imply the 'tradition' of prisoner release is so outlandish that only a fool would believe it. Since it has always seemed to me to be possible I wanted to discuss it in at least some more depth than has been taking place.

ted

Amaleq13

If your disagreement had a rational basis, it might be worth considering.

Anywhere Pilate or the treatment of Jews by the Romans or Roman governing practices are discussed.

There is nothing logical about unsubstantiated speculation that runs contrary to the existing evidence.

It is only close in your mind. There is no apparent connection here in the real world. If you honestly believe you can understand or predict ancient Roman behavior by considering modern communist behavior, I question whether a rational discussion is possible.

Attempting to appease them by killing an innocent man they wanted dead certainly qualifies as "nice" behavior toward the Jews for Pilate.

I guess unsubstantiated speculation that runs counter to existing evidence brings it out in me.

Then you better start reading about Pilate, eh?

That's right, he responded to them with violent force and threats of death. Only when he was confronted with a multitude apparently willing to die before allowing him to violate the Temple did he change his mind. He clearly did not consider Jewish complaints to the emperor as "real threats" because, as I've already said, he was eventually sent to the emperor for ignoring them.

Get back to me when you've done your homework on Pilate. When you understand how much of an unrelenting asshole he was toward the Jews, perhaps you'll begin to grasp why this scene can only be fiction.

TedM

That's where I would look for one also. But, I wouldn't 'expect' it necessarily. It may have been only a Roman-Jewish tradition, and it may have existed for only a decade or two.


Of course evidence regarding Roman governing practices with the Jews is the most relevant. However, I don't rule out reasonable behavior unless there is clear evidence against it.


I feel like you are playing around with words, since I've given a very selfish motivation for Pilate to have done this, but as you say, I might change my mind if I knew more about Pilate.



One possible difference which could negate the portrayal of Pilate elsewhere is that of practicality. Might it be that Pilate was clearly able to win a battle in the other cases in which he never backed down? Isn't the Temple multitude evidence that he did back down when outnumbered? That is exactly what I'm proposing in the Passover tradition. Roman soldiers in Jerusalem would have (I suppose) been greatly outnumbered by Jewish men during the Passover because so many traveled to Jerusalem for the feast. It may have been suicide for Pilate to have taken on an 'asshole' mentality under such conditions. As such, I can see him throwing them a bone by creating or continuing the tradition of the release of one of them back during their celebration of both ransom and forgiveness. It had theological undertones that could have served the Romans well.

ted

Toto

So what percentage do you put on it? You have a government in one case trying to appease an international community that can give it benefits in terms of trade agreements, etc, and in the other case trying to appease a mob of subjects. You have the release of a political prisoner jailed for writing things, versus the release of a violent criminal.

In fact, the only element in common is that someone is released, but for different motivations, with different timing, etc.

Apologetic angle sounds about right, except that you are assuming that Matt accepted Mark's "tradition" as opposed to "literary creation."

Or a number of inconvenient things.

You just have pure speculation.

And just let them stand?

It's not that only a "fool" would believe it. It is possible - but there is absolutely no evidence to support it or rationality to believing it unless you have an a priori committment to the historical truth of the gospels.

jakejonesiv

Hi ted,

I think that some very good reasons have been given to make this story doubtful as something the Romans would do. But there are some other considerations.

Do you find it in anywise strange that the alleged released prisioner seems to have a made up name, Son of the Father? And that according to Origen and certain other early texts, he was named Jesus? Jesus Bar'Abbas = Jesus son of the Father? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_abba

And doesn't it bother you that this very verse is used to blame the Jews for "killing Christ," a lynchpin of anti-semitism?

No, unless you are going to plead innerancy, (and I see no evidence that you are), then it is wise not to put credence in this report.

ted, when you finish your inquiry, what kind of Historical Jesus do you expect to find?

Jake Jones IV

Koyaanisqatsi

Your answer is not historically accurate, tenable, nor logical, to whit:

1. Barrabus was already convicted of murder during a previous insurrection so what would be of unique, particular concern about a "Passover insurrection?"
2. If you knew anything at all about Jewish tradition, you'd know that it would be expressly forbidden for there to be a "Passover insurrection" of any kind.
3. This does not address the fact that no such tradition exists in any Roman account of the period (and not just in this conquered region of the Roman Empire; in any conquered region of the Roman Empire).
4. This implies that Pilate--and by extention all of Rome--feared the local Jewish peasents so much that they would actually release a convicted murderer and insurrectionist against their own people to stop the local Jewish peasents from doing what they were already doing (see 1 above).
5. The release of Barrabas--even if it were granted to be part of an impossible Roman tradition--still does not account for why Pilate agreed to murder an innocent man, thereby rendering the alleged tradition utterly irrelevant.

In fact, just take out the tradition, since it has absolutely nothing to do with what is recorded in Mark. Pilate executed Jesus because a local crowd of Jewish peasents told him they wanted him crucified (arguably the worst form of prolonged capital punishment of the time); the same crowd the Sanhedrin feared would riot against them if they had tried to kill Jesus during the Passover.

So what happened in those two days to turn "the crowd" against Jesus and in favor of the Sanhedrin, particularly in light of the fact that they allegedly just witnessed Pilate make public mockery of the Sanhedrin for their transparent attempt to get Pilate to kill a completely innocent man?

It is a perfectly apt comparison, but if you still can't see it, then it would be like the US Government releasing (no charges; free to go) Timothy McVeigh to appease the Michigan Militia.

Ahhh, of course. And why would that be and not the other parts?

Well, that's not what it says, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Regardless, it is entirely irrelevant since it has absolutely nothing to do with Pilate just caving into the incongruous (fickle) wishes of a local crowd.

:huh:

And what would murdering an innocent man be, whom they all allegedly loved so much that the Sanhedrin feared for their own lives just two days prior if they attempted (again) to kill him during Passover, not to mention from where are you getting this notion that Pilate wanted to appease a crowd of Jewish peasents at all?

Why would have give a shit about a bunch of Jewish peasents? Insurrection can't be what concerned him as they were already in the middle of one and as others have pointed out, his real responses toward his charges in the region were genocidal; so much so that Rome had to actually recall him due to his overwhelming brutality.

Could you please justify your contention, then, that Pilate wanted to be "nice" to the people he historically brutally oppressed and/or that he thought the way to do that was to release someone who had murdered his own people during an insurrectionist uprising against his own rule?

You'll forgive me if I don't consider "too nitpicky" to counter what I argued, yes?

From whom? Upon what are you basing this contention?

They feared a riot against them if they attempted to arrest and kill Jesus (something Jewish law and Roman law allowed by the way, so please don't pull that apologetic chestnut out). What's more, the fear was because Jesus was so popular with everyone. Two days later, however, well....not so much, apparently.

:huh:

Against the Sanhedrin; not against the Romans. Do you have any idea how powerful and terrifying the Romans were; or Pilate was? He didn't exactly fear anything, let alone a crowd of Jewish peasents.

And how, exactly, did they manage that do you think, considering their fear of just two days prior and after they had been publicly humiliated by Pilate declaring Jesus to be completely innocent of all charges?

No, quite the opposite; in fact it incorporates how ludicrous it would be for any Roman governor to respond to any group of people as if they spoke in any kind of legal, cohesive manner; let alone in any threatening manner that would cause any action on his part whatsoever, other than an order to the hundreds of heavily armed, well trained guards that were no doubt present to begin the same kind of slaughter he ordered against the Sammaritans not too much later than this alleged incident.

I see. So, the riot the Sanhedrin feared would happen during Passover was a different crowd surrounding Jesus than the one surrounding Jesus as he was thrice declared innocent by Pilate? The other treatening crowd just didn't bother to show up to watch any of that and riot against the "riled" up crowd, because.....?

Please. It would be a welcome change.

Whose to say it didn't? Not to mention the fact that you're talking about a pro-Roman narrative; one that demonizes the Jews (plural, non-specific) and makes the Romans out to be little more than unwitting pawns who at least attempted to bring the rabid crowd of Jewish monsters to their senses, etc., etc., etc. It is unquestionably the Romans who murder an innocent man, yet I don't recall centuries of bigots calling Itallians "christ killers," do you?

No, it would be one source, whose story is rewritten decades later by two other like-minded authors (i.e., cult members; i.e., people who already except Mark's version to be "gospel," if you will and yes that's a play on words). Hans Christen Anderson wrote, "The Emperor's New Clothes." If I update or otherwise write my version of that classic story, then do you now have two sources for the Emperor's new clothes? No.

I don't need to for all of the reasons provided above. Even if such a ridiculous tradition were true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the incongruity of Pilate ordering the death of a man he just found publicly innocent because a crowd of Jewish peasents wanted him to.

TedM

I don't know but it wouldn't be 'about 0%'. In both cases you have a government opposed politically who by their own volition appear to give in to political pressure, although do so for their own eventual political gain.


If there is no 'rationality to believing it' that is the same as saying it is foolish to believe. I've provided some rationality for believing that such a tradition existed: It was in the Roman's interest to attempt to appease the Jews every year during Passover because a large number of potentially dissenting Jewish men gathered together at that time in one place.

ted