ApostateAbe

The gospel of Mark contains a confession from Jesus for sure (Mark 14:62 and Mark 15:2).

I don't know much about what Schmidt thinks, but the narrative of the gospel of Mark does not seem to contain so much of a triumphant Jesus. It contains some elements of that, like maybe in Mark 14:62 and the tearing of the curtain. But we find plenty of vestiges of the sort of thing we would expect from any victim of crucifixion--sadness, terror, anger--Mark 14:32-42 and Mark 15:33-37. He doesn't seem to take it as triumphal, and neither do everyone who watches it. Crucifixion was designed to be terrible and humiliating.

The theory that Pilate had the greatest interest in having Jesus killed is grounded in the accounts of Pilate told by Philo and Josephus (relatively trustworthy historians), that Pilate was tyrannical and brutal. Such a Pilate would crucify Jesus with hardly a blink of an eye. This contradicts the character of Pilate given by the gospels, and we already know that Greek Christians, writers of the gospels, were prejudiced against the Jews (we find many signs of that in the gospels), so it is more likely that Pilate's "reluctance" to crucify Jesus is fiction.

Solo

I would say it was Mark's original intent to portray Pilate as a thoughtful, rational man who saw no harm in Jesus as he realized he was a furiosus (madman).

I think the θαυμάζω in the last verse is ironic. The silence of Jesus to capital charges would likely be interpreted by Pilate as a sign of madness (Furiosi nulla voluntas est A madman has no will (of his own)).

The 'king' in 'king of the Jews' that he offers to release in 15:8 would not be meant as a title but as a way to mock both Jesus and the Jews - who take him seriously as a blasphemer where Pilate is not taking him seriously as a rebel.

I believe that Mark is creating in the handover to Pilate a scenario to fulfil Paul's maxim of Christ as 'offense to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles'.

Jiri

ApostateAbe

Silence is more often taken as a sign of guilt. The account of the silence of Jesus in that passage (and the corresponding passages in all of the gospels) I think can be much more easily explained as the Christian interest in Jesus fulfilling the perceived prophecy of Isaiah 53:7 ("He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth."). Jesus was probably not silent against accusations when he had an opportunity to defend himself--his life was on the line after all--and we do see Jesus opening his mouth to defend himself in all other occasions in court. But we know that Christians wanted to fit Isaiah 53 to Jesus, and, if Jesus was not silent against at least some accusations, then Isaiah 53 would directly contradict the gospels.

Chili

Yes I am with you on that as Pilate was a civil authority and not a Jew (Jn. 18:35) and saw nothing wrong with Jesus the man (repeated 3 times in Luke and in John, including "look at the man" in Jn. 19:5) to say that Pilate was not swayed by Jewish law himself but handed him over to be crucified upon the persistence of the Jews who had their own law by which he must die (Jn.20:7). The unspoken word here is that Jesus needed to die so that the "young man" can become "fully man"

spamandham

It is possible that Pilate made such a decision, and since it's an unusual claim, the author could not get away with it if it wasn't true, therefor it's historical, regardless of why. Stop trying to insert the author's theology into the picture, and just trust that he has dutifully recorded actual historical events. [/HJer]

ApostateAbe

There is a lot of talk of Pilate letting Jesus go, but I don't know of any account that makes such a claim. Do you know which one Steven Carr is talking about?

Edit: I think I found it. It is Acts 3:13, where Pilate is said to have decided that Jesus is to be let go. I get it.

spamandham

....he didn't let him go...he *tried* to let him go.

...unless you buy the argument that Jesus Bar Abbas was actually the real Jesus, and that the man who hung on the cross was the conscripted Simon. I can't recall who came up with this bizarre "theory", but the HJ camp is nothing if not creative.

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks.

Chili

It has nothing to do with history as there is no history in the bible.

Steven Carr

As always, historicists claim the Gospels are 'all our other early sources', ignoring the fact that Paul wrote before the Gospels.

For 30 years, no Christian said Pilate was responsible.

I guess if I now write a biography saying Elvis Presley was noted for his tap-dancing, a true historian would claim that all our early sources say Presley was noted for his tap-dancing.

And that before I wrote, no member of the Elvis Presley fan club mentioned his tap-dancing, because they all knew about it anyway.