Koyaanisqatsi

I thought I made that abundantly clear by now, but one last time, none of those incidents (the mockery, the trial, the releasing of a prisoner, etc) are necessary to include in a work of total fiction; particularly in the manner in which they are clearly revisionist in nature. It is the tortured apologetics that Mark employs to try and shift the blame from the Romans killing Jesus to "the Jews" that makes me think an actual crucifixion happened.

That's what actually happened, though, and neither Psalm 22 nor Isaiah 53 work in regard to a crucifixion. It has to be forced to work by apologists as it is, so why include a crucifixion sequence at all (if one didn't actually happen)? A fictional Jesus could just as easily have been stoned to death, or stoned into submission and then "hung from a tree" (to better fit OT prophecy) by the San Hedrin, leaving the Romans entirely out of the killing of Jesus, thereby making the story what both Paul and Mark already try to turn it into (but fail); Jews killing their own messiah.

Think in terms of creating an entirely fictional mythology that is not based on any real world person or real world event, whose intention is to blame "the Jews" for killing their own messiah. If that's your intention--that's your starting point/plotline/storyboard--then there is no need whatsoever to include a Roman trial sequence with a Passover ritual that never existed, a Pilate who was afraid of the crowd and a mocking/torture sequence by the Romans that makes no sense, let alone being crucified by the Romans. So why include any of it and in such tortured ways?

Mark's story? Why not? With Paul's help and/or a captured, turncoat Josephus'?

It is the central focus of Mark's denouement and the central message of Paul's "ministry;" to exonerate the Romans and blame "the Jews" for Jesus' death. Why would that be necessary if Jesus never existed and the Romans never crucified him?

Again, there would be any number of simpler ways to exonerate the Romans and blame "the Jews," number one of which, as I wrote before, would be to simply not include the Romans in any significant fashion, other than occasional referrences here and there to establish that they had no part in the killing of Jesus. Which, again, is the clear intent of Mark's passion narrative and Paul's teachings.

So, if that's the clear intent and it's all a work of fiction, why include any of it? It makes no literary sense, let alone historical sense.

Precisely, but, again, if it's all just fiction...

Why would it be evidence of redaction if it undermines the entire "necessity" to have the San Hedrin attempt to collude (a failed attempt, no less) with the Romans to kill Jesus? That's one of the main problems with the story as written is that the San Hedrin could have stoned Jesus to death that night. They had no need to try and somehow force Pilate to do their dirty work for them from a fictional point of view, much less write that Pilate exposes their collusion, pronounces Jesus innocent and then inexplicably kills Jesus anyway, because he's scared of "the crowd" rioting if he doesn't kill Jesus as influenced by the San Hedrin somehow riling up the festival crowd.

This would be the same festival crowd, no less, that is offered as the reason why the San Hedrin don't just stone Jesus to death two days earlier in the first place; because they fear reprisals from the crowd if they did kill Jesus. Now, two days later, after Pilate has publicly declared Jesus to be completely innocent and exposed the San Hedrin's attempted collusion with him, the San Hedrin not only no longer fear the festival crowd, but they also somehow manage to get them all worked up enough to pointlessly kill a completely innocent man? That's one fickle fucking crowd that the San Hedrin magically no longer fear and even are able to force do what they failed to do with Pilate.

Again, from a fictional perspective, this makes no literary sense for all of these completely unnecessary logical holes, but from a revisionist perspective, it makes perfect sense that there would be so many, because Mark would be forced to try and make an actual event fit a different story; i.e., yes, Jesus was killed by the Romans, but they had no choice in the matter because it was all the Jews' fault.

The exact same result could have easily been obtained without any crucifixion, trial or inclusion of Pilate and the Romans in such a significant, illogical, contradictory manner.

In short, if you have to force reality to fit a pre-conceived fiction, Mark is the result. If you're just writing fiction, then little, if anything in Mark makes any sense.

Which, again, could all be done very easily without any of the trial nonsense, nor any need to exonerate Pilate, particularly since Pilate by the time of Mark had already been recalled by Rome in 36 C.E.

spamandham

Yes they are (or something like them), to satisfy the symbolism of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

From Psalm 22:
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
...
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me [b] in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.


Here we have:

- the mockery
- the taunting to let the lord save him
- the bones being out of joint (but not broken)
- the thirst
- the emaciation
- the casting of lots for his garments


From Isaiah 53:

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

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.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.


Here we have:

- the concept of the trial
- the concept that he was innocent
- the concept that he did not speak up in his own defense
- the concept of being buried with the wealthy
- the concept of being pierced

or what about this tidbit from Zechariah 11?

12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

Does that sound familiar?

Regarding the release of Barabbas specifically, and placing the blame on the jewish people rather than the Roman empire...

The argument is not as straightforward as these almost verbatim parts of the story from older Jewish scriptures, but the idea of the jewish people rejecting the genuine in favor of the ingenuine is a continuous theme throughout the old testament. I've seen it argued that Barabbas specifically represents Absalom, (see 2 Samuel), and that the washing of Pilates hands is also from 2 Samuel 3, but the arguments are more elaborate. Note that the ritual washing of hands was a Jewish tradition, not a Roman one, so it is totally out of place for Pilate to do that from a historical perspective, but it makes perfect sense if the author intended Pilate to be symbolic of a Jewish character from the Old Testament.

It seems to me this is sufficient to establish that the story is either pure fiction, or highly fictionalized at best. It makes more sense to be looking for Old Testament symbolism than for actual history in regard to the passion stories.

If you were going to construct a modern day story from Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 (plus other bits and pieces), and you needed to have your main character tried, convicted, and executed, would you not pick whatever means of execution was prevelant today? Crucifixion fits perfectly with the story in that regard. It facilitates the bits regarding thirst, emaciation, the piercing with a sword, and was a common means of execution at the time. The cross itself may also be symbolic, but I'm not going into that here, it isn't necessary.

This seems pretty specious. Here are some equally plausible alternatives:

- some parts of the story are based on real events
- the writer didn't want to risk pissing off Rome, and so took care not to implicate Rome
- that part of the story is a later redaction
- this part of the story is based off 2 Samuel 3, where Joab has Abner murdered with the authority of the state, but not the culpability of the state. There are other parallels such as Abner being sent away in peace at first by David, which is similar to what Pilate did to Jesus at first. Pilate appears to represent David.

I don't see why the first choice is simpler than the others, and based on the deep symbolism of the rest of the story, the 4th option is more in line.

The rejection of the genuine for the false is a recurring theme throughout the old testament. Having the Jews kill their own messiah falls right in line with similar betrayals all throughout the OT.

gracebkr

The Romans killed Jesus.

Biff the unclean

You really need to read the bible, it doesn't say what you assume it does

Malachi151

Actually, I think that the Gospel story was simply dependent on the existing concept of a crucified savior, and since the Romans were the ones who did crucifixions, then the Romans had to play a role in the story.

But keep in mind also, that Jesus represents a "sacrifice", and thus the Romans were the ones actually "performing" the "sacrifice", not the Jews, and of course it is a Roman who says "surely this was the son of God". It's a pro-Roman story.

Likewise, why would he said to have been crucified in the first place though?

Because crucifixion was a method of killing implemented by "authorities".

Stoning can't take place in heaven, and stoning involves the people.

A crucifixion, however can be implemented by the "archons", the "powers and rulers, the princes of this world", etc.

So, crucifixion makes a whole lot of sense for a fabricated story, whereas stoning would not make sense.

spamandham

Read through the quotes I listed above from Psalm 22 and Isaih 53 (and others) and see if you agree there is a similarity that is way too striking to be chance. The story is constructed from the Jewish scriptures, IMHO. That said, there's no reason pagan ideas couldn't have influenced the story, perhaps even to the same degree as Jewish influence. But in a similar thread, I've failed to convince anyone of this idea based on arguments such as the one you just presented.

Even though pagan symbolism is plastered all over Christianity, that doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to the crowd here, for some odd reason.

Cege

I know I'm late to this thread, but I want to respond to the early post, above.

Performing miracles in the Bible doesn't make the performer divine. There are miracles from beginning to end that aren't accomplished by Jesus, although the gospels record his performing dozens.

Jesus was not even the first or the last to raise people from the dead, as recorded in the Bible. Jesus wasn't the first or the last person raised from the dead to be seen and walk again among friends and family, either.

If you accept the veracity of the NT, there were many disciples/followers of Jesus who had witnessed miracles that he performed but still stopped following him because he didn't meet their expectations.

Koyaanisqatsi

None of that symbolism applies to either Romans or to crucifixion as a literary conceit.

Again, think in terms of a writer culling OT messianic prophecy to concoct a fictional messiah coming to Jerusalem forty years prior (when Mark was supposedly written) or thirty years prior to when Paul starts to revise what must have by then been an established story already (else, why does he attempt to revise it so that he blames "the Jews" for killing Jesus and not the Romans).

Someone would first have had to have written a fake story about the Romans crucifying a messenger from the Jewish god named Jesus for Paul to go around preaching his apologetic that it wasn't the Romans who were to blame, but "the Jews."

So, it seems to me, the chronology would necessitate an unknown fake story circulated in the area that Pilate crucified a Jewish messiah. This would have had to have been either before or just after Pilate's recall in 36 C.E. Then Paul comes along some thirty years later to co-opt that story (claiming special knowledge) and become the leader of that particular cult to shift the blame to the Jews and then Mark writes the story down a couple of years later (circa 70 C.E.) that exonerates Pilate and blames the Jews?

Why would anyone circulate a fake story blaming Pilate for killing a Jewish messiah? To convince who of what? That Pilate was cruel to Jews, or an evil Prefect? Surely that would already be known to the Jews under his occupation and a story about Pilate kiling a Jewish messiah would only have revelance (if believed) to Jews who would already know that Pilate was an evil guy to Jews.

And it still would mean that someone popular named Yeshua was actually crucified, if the story were circulated while Pilate was still in power, because, again, who would the story be meant to influence?

I seriously doubt that it was complaints from Jews that got Pilate recalled, so there doesn't seem to be any connection there (i.e., that the story was created in order to convince local Jews to complain, or some such motive and it grew from there, necessitating Paul and Mark's revisionist shifting of the blame).

And, again, think like a fictionalist culling this list as a basis to create a totally fictional being. Where in any of that does it necessitate it be Romans and/or crucifixion by same? If the goal is to write a story about Jews killing their own messiah all of those things could very easily (and more faithfully) be used without ever having to include the Romans or a crucifixion.

As I wrote previously, all of those things could be more easily incorporated into the San Hedrin being the ones who stone him and leave him hanging from a tree (the taunting, the thirst, the emaciation, the bones being out of joint and/or broken, etc.) and the impact of such barbarism would far exceed any need for Paul or Mark to then try so desperately to change the story to one in which it is the Jews who are to blame.

Once again, nothing in any of that requires or even hints at the Romans crucifying a Jewish messiah, let alone the Jews who are to blame for it, so if the intent is to cull OT prophecy in order to establish the Jesus character to have been a messiah, how do you start with the above and conclude Romans using crucifixion, but the Jews are to blame through convoluted revisionist-style logical holes and contradictions?

And don't forget that the San Hedrin already held their own trial and found Jesus guilty, but then for some unexplained reason (other than fear of the crowd) they do not stone him, but instead attempt to collude with their enemy.

Damning stuff, no doubt, but why the need if it is all fictional and it would be far more damning (and on the literary money) to incorporate all of the above only have the San Hedrin be the ones who judge and destroy him directly?

:huh:

Yes, of course, and it could just as easily apply (in a revisionist fashion) to a real person who infiltrated the insurrectionist group and betrayed them all if it really happened, or, if fictional, to anyone in the group that betrayed Jesus to the San Hedrin.

From a literary standpoint, the San Hedrin would not only be a better protagonist, but it would also logically follow from the initial intent to write a story blaming the Jews for killing their own messiah.

Why would the author or anyone think that a Roman was symbolic of a Jewish character, if it were all a work of fiction and not revisionist history? Not to mention the fact that, once again, if it were all anti-Judaic fiction, why not have a Jewish character be symbolic of a Jewish character from the OT?

Why not have a whole sequence of a trial by the San Hedrin where the San Hedrin do all of the things that Pilate's character does? From a purely fictional anti-Judaic perspective, there is no need and no logic to include the Romans at all in any of it.

And no sense at all to have the Romans kill Jesus only to then be forced later, presumably, to apologetically shift that blame in tortured and unconvincing ways onto the Jews if that's your intention from the git go, by not just one person in the NT narrative, but several.

You forgot the central most important element, which is that it is the Jews who are to blame for his trial, conviction and execution, all of which could easily be made up out of whole cloth without having to include the convoluted nonsense of the Romans and Pilate that Paul and Mark include.

Particularly since the whole trial and Pilate's role in it are a complete red herring.

No, it doesn't, because the Jews didn't use crucifixion and there is nothing in OT prophecy that even hints at it, including what you provided from a purely fictional narrative basis.

For Romans killing anti-Roman criminals.

Please do, since hanging Jesus by a tree after being stoned and mocked and tried by the San Hedrin would make far more sense from the perspective of a fictional creation of a story about Jews killing their own messiah.

:huh:

How ironic.

Which is precisely what I've been arguing.

If it were all just a work of fiction about Jews killing their own messiah, then this argument equally goes in my favor.

Which I already addressed makes no sense. If the Jews tried to stone Jesus to death (twice) prior then why don't they just kill Jesus after their own trial? It's a logical hole to include the idea that the San Hedrin had already tried to kill him before, but now must try to collude with the Romans to have them do it instead (and failed to do so). Pilate exposes the San Hedrin's attempt and declares Jesus innocent, only to then cave in (completely implausibly) to the crowd.

A fictional account could have just as easily had one of Jesus' disciples step forward, or one of the San Hedrin stepping forward to declare Jesus innocent of the crimes the other members of the San Hedrin accuse him off and he "washes his hands" of the subsequent killing of Jesus if the author found that sequence to be so important to include. Far more damning of the Jews to have a senior or most trusted Rabbi be the one to decalare Jesus innocent, but then does nothing to stop the bloodlust.

Now that in particular would argue in my camp, because the state you are talking about was a Jewish one in a war between Jewish ruling houses.

Again, why? Why use a story about two warring Jewish kingdoms and then make one of them the Romans in a story that is a purely fictional one about Jews killing another Jew?

If I were such a writer, and I had used 2 Samuel as a part of my background research, it would make no sense at all to cast Pilate in a Jewish role about Jews killing their own messiah. None.

Precisely. And how is that better served by casting a Roman leader as one of the Jewish characters, only to then completely exonerate him of all wrongdoing?

Koyaanisqatsi

Except that there are no existing concepts of a crucified savior in Judaism. A beaten, suffering, broken savior (all of which would follow from being stoned and then hung from a tree), but not actual crucifixion. At least none that I've seen, so if you know of one that isn't the same old apologetics Christians use to try and force Roman crucifixion to fit, please provide it.

For Jews.

Why? Where in OT prophecy does it state that a messiah from Jehovah would be sacrificed by the very enemies he is presumably sent to destroy?

Which, again, only makes sense if the Romans actually did crucify someone and the attempt is to revise history to exonerate the Romans while at the same time blame the Jews for it all; to make it seem as if the Romans were the only ones who actually recognized Jesus' divinity, while the Jews jealously sought to destroy their own savior.

But, again, that could far more easily be done in a work of fiction without having to include all of the convoluted nonsense that Mark does regarding Pilate's trial sequence.

Not by Jewish authorities. At least not in the manner we're talking about.

Not sure what you meant about the heaven part (can crucifixion take place in heaven) and Mark's story involves the people as the only reason Pilate inexplicably orders Jesus' death (just after thrice proclaiming he had committed no crime, let alone a crime worthy of the most horrific, public death sentence the Romans had).

As stoning and hanging by a tree can be implemented by the powers and rulers of the Jews in a story meant to be about Jews killing their own messiah.

I, obviously, strongly disagree. Quite the opposite in fact for all of the reasons I keep providing. If one is setting out to cull OT prophecy in order to create a fictional character--a Jewish messiah--who is killed by the Jews and it is the Romans (the enemies of the Jews) who are the only ones who actually see this being's Jewish divinity, then who was that fictional story written for? Romans for Jews? Converting Romans to Judaism?

Boro Nut

You don't know the half of it. They never made a film of the follow up 'The Lady of Greystoke Manor', which relates the sad story of their eventual marriage and it's subsequent failure.

Before he met Jane, Tarzan's only sexual experiences amounted to furtive couplings with appropriately sized knot holes in trees. By the same token Jane's Edwardian upbringing gave her little idea of what was to be expected in the marital bed. Whatever her wildest imaginings, they certainly never included her husband kicking her in the fanny to check for squirrels. It sent her plummeting into immediate frigidity. From there the marriage descended into bitterness, recrimination, and unfaithfulness, and would have ultimately ended in divorce if the lawyers could have worked out a way of citing a shrubbery as a co-respondent.

Boro Nut