Cross Examiner

CX,
All apologies. I did not intend to pidgeon-hole you into some position you don't hold. You'll note my manner was more akin to if you are x then y ... followed by a mini-tirade against x.

I like this quote.
You've definitely done some study. I'd love to talk the reliability of the record with you some time in the future. Keep me posted if you start with something in this vane to BC&H?

Regards,
BGic

Jobar

Well, I have gone back to the beginning of this thread, and darned if I can find a good place to split it. Therefore, I am going to gather up the whole thing and pass it on to my colleagues in BC&H; whatever the intent of the thread at its beginning, it has evolved into a pure historical/mythical Jesus argument, which is clearly BC&H territory.

(And though I make no claims to historical scholarship, my own opinion leans far to the 'mythological' side. I base this on the development of the details of Jesus' life over time; these developments follow quite precisely the patterns of myth-formation, with vague and general ideas followed by more and more precise detail. Truly historical personages are recorded by their contemporaries, and fine details of personality are *lost* with the loss of records and human memories; such details only expand if the person becomes mytholigized, or never existed in the first place. )

Koyaanisqatsi

"Political revolutionary?" Sedition is not necessarily confined to purely political crimes; it can also mean incitement or disturbing the peace, but remember we're dealing with a time when there was no separation of church and state, so with those qualifications in mind, what evidence can I find that the historical Jesus (i.e., the Rabbi) was actually a seditionist? His alleged crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, for one. As I mentioned earlier, crucifixion was typically reserved for murderers and seditionists; two of the most serious crimes under Roman law.

There's also the fact that the NT goes to great lengths to describe how Pilate repeatedly declares that he can find no crime that Jesus has committed. Further, according to the NT version of alleged events, Pilate thrice declares Jesus to be innocent and that he will release him accordingly (but not, inexplicably, without punishing him first). Again according to the NT version of alleged events, after Pilate has officially declared Jesus innocent of all charges against him, he, inexplicably, acquisces to the presssure of the crowd (and not the Sanhedrin, having already dismissed the wishes of the Sanhedrin by trying Jesus and finding him innocent of all of their charges) in a supposed ritual that (a) was not a Roman tradition that I have been able to corroborate and (b) would not apply to Jesus anyway, since he was acquitted of the crime prior to Pilate responding to the crowd's inexplicable calls to have him crucified.

In other words, according to the NT version, Jesus was never a criminal under Roman jurisprudence and was, in fact, acquitted of all charges against him.

As far as I can figure out regarding this alleged ritual, a convicted criminal of the people's choosing is set free on Passover (or whatever the apologetic was); as evidenced by the convicted murderer Barrabus being set free (a whole 'nother mess of illogic, since to be a convicted murderer in Roman eyes would most likely mean that the criminal had murdered a Roman citizen). Jesus, however, was not a criminal and was already free, due to his acquittal by Pilate, before said ritual was instigated. How can one offer up an innocent, free man as part of a ritual that allegedly is supposed to be the clemency of a convicted criminal?

We know from extrabiblical accounts that Pilate was not exactly the kind of ruler who would fear a crowd of Jews; indeed, his brutal slaughter of the Samaritans was supposedly what got him recalled to Rome where he committed suicide, yet this is what the NT version of events would have us believe; that Pilate, after having gone to the trouble of thrice declaring Jesus innocent of all charges, nonetheless orders him to be crucified (the worst possible capital punishment) for committing no crime whatsoever all because he feared a crowd of people he was, apparently, brutally oppressing.

Remember, Pilate did not fear the Sanhedrin at all, as evidenced by the fact that he tried Jesus according to their wishes and, contrary to their wishes, found him officially innocent of all charges they brought against him. It is only the fear of the crowd that allegedly (and inexplicably) motivates Pilate to put a man he has just declared innocent to death, in one of the most horrific manners available (crucifixion).

In other words, nothing about the NT version of events makes any kind of sense (historical or otherwise), on many different levels, which, by inference and in keeping with the fact that crucifixion was typically reserved for murderers and seditionists logically would mean that, if a man named Jesus had been crucified by the Romans, the most likely reason would be because of sedition (though, admittedly, murder can't be ruled out).

If you recall what I said and you agreed with ("legend based on fact"), then a Rabbi who preached a radical (or, at the very least, non-orthodox) reform of Judaism (as evidenced by the Sayings Gospel Q studies, which show a Rabbi primarily concerned with wisdom sayings and reforming Jewish dietary and hygiene laws) and one who, allegedly (again "legend based on fact") caused quite a scene in the Jewish Temple, it would logically follow that such a Rabbi would more likely have been crucified by the Romans for seditionist acts than murder.

Once you rule out the NT version of the trial and the subsequent inconsistencies and illogic of Pilate fearing the crowd he was ruling over as to condemn a man he has officially declared to be innocent of all charges to death in one of the most eggregious forms of capital punishment available, then one is left with either sedition or murder as a more likely (and historically plausible) scenario, yes?

"Riotous?" Well, he did allegedly preach a reformation of inviolate othordoxy and allegedly went mental in the Temple. The NT goes to great lengths to implicate the Sanhedrin in turning him over to Pilate, implying at the very least a collusion between the two governing bodies, so, again applying the maxim of "legend based on fact," doesn't it seem more likely that the Sanhedrin declared this Rabbi to be a cause of trouble in the region; inciting his followers to break with orthodoxy and even went so far as to violently riot himself within the sacred Temple? That alone would be a case for disturbing the peace at the very least, so on that count Pilate would be justified in finding Jesus guilty of incitement.

Combine that with the alleged corrupt nature of the Sanhedrin as implied in the NT and you've got a far more logical and historically plausible case for Pilate to have crucified Jesus, including the scourging and ridicule, which, had he been an innocent man as the NT alleges Pilate found him, makes no sense; why would the Roman guards belittle and mock an innocent man who was unjustly sentenced to death right after Pilate acquitted him of all charges? Why put a crown of thorns on his head and hammer "King of the Jews" above his head, if not to serve as a public warning for anyone else in the rank and file? Again according to the NT version, Pilate acquitted Jesus of all charges. He was not considered the "King of Jews" by Pilate in the slightest; he was, if the NT version is correct, found innocent of such a charge.

Thus, the maxim, "legend based on fact" makes for a much more plausible and far more historically accurate scenario; one in which the Romans scourge and ridicule a seditionist and hang him up to die a slow and painful death for all Jewish citizens to see what happens when they decide to take it upon themselves to challenge the ruling elite and cause violent public displays such as the overturning of the marketplace within the Temple.

There is even evidence of this within the whole crowd fiasco, where the implication is that Pilate is trying to keep the peace by acquiescing to the crowd's inexplicable desires to have him crucified; the notion that Pilate, of course, was sent there to rule and keep the peace. If Pilate's mandate was, indeed, to keep the peace in the region, then it makes far more sense that he would have ordered the death of Jesus for disturbing that peace than it does that he would have tried, found him innocent of all charges and then, for no explicable reason, murdered an innocent man that he had just publicly and officially acquited because the crowd demanded he do so.

Romans were notorious for their strict allegiance to their own code of law (indeed, it is this law that is the origin of our own). It makes no sense whatsoever that Pilate would go through the trouble of trying a man, find him innocent of all charges and then sentence him to death in one of the most heinous, public ways imaginable after ordering him to be scourged and ridiculed as "King of the Jews," just because the crowd in the square inexplicably demanded he do so (in an illogical ritual that was never a Roman custom that I can find extrabiblical corroboration for).

It makes perfect, historical sense, however, that the Sanhedrin had lodged formal complaints against this Rabbi (who preached against their rule and their orthodoxy), who then goes on to violently disrupt the center of all Jewish and non-Jewish life in the region (the Temple being not just a place for worship, but also the central marketplace and moneychanging locale) to arrest, try and condemn him to death for incitement/sedition. It also makes perfect sense that they would not just crucify him, but make a public show of his scourging and ridicule with the "King of the Jews" placard placed prominently above his crown of thorns for all of his followers and any Jews even thinking of following him to see.

Another maxim to be applied here, btw, is that the victors write the history, so here we would have an example of how Jesus' followers turned a public event into a mythological event, apologizing for what they could (i.e., turning fact into legend, according to their take on things) that gets further corrupted in later oral tradition so that the Romans come out as being more or less indifferent to the affair, if not doing everything in their power to prevent it and the orthodoxy that Jesus originally railed against, get turned into the betrayers. Must I really point out the name "Judas" as yet another none-to-subtle example of this?

Theopolitical, yes. Combine that with his alleged actions at the Temple and you've got a clear case of incitement, or, at the very least, a gregious and very public example of disturbing the peace.

Considering the fact that the NT version has Jesus being sentenced to death after he is officially declared innocent and acquitted of all charges, at least my exegesis makes some historical sense and reconciles all of the alleged facts from the apparent legend.

I fully agree. So which version do you now think is "most plausible?"

Hint: Could you cite a more perfect example of pro-Roman sentiment?

From within the cult or without?

Thanks.



Done. And kindly remember your own admonition; to keep to that which is most plausible.

Luck has nothing to do with it. Just applied critical analysis without presupposition of "true because the bible says it's true."

I've checked, by the way, and haven't seen it yet, so please do post a link to it here (unless this has now become that thread; I noticed the fracas with Jobar not sure where to put this thread).

Peter Kirby

What if everything is God's?

I am concerned with the meaning of the story, which may or may not correspond to history. It is anachronistic to suppose that an early form of separation of church and state is being advocated in this passage.

best,
Peter Kirby

Asha'man

Hi Koy!

I think you have done an excellent job at showing how the trial and crucifixion before Pilate makes no sense. You also have a good alternative explanation for how things went, one that is certainly plausible. However, let me offer (once again) another possible alternative. I know you don’t subscribe to my alternative, but I’d like some of the other readers of this thread to think about it.

What if the Sanhedrin actually found Jesus guilt of blasphemy at their own trial? (Which they did, if you read carefully.) According to their own laws, Jesus would then be stoned to death and then the corpse would be hung from a tree. Again, according to Jewish law, the corpse would have to be taken down from the tree and buried before nightfall.

The crucifixion of Jesus has always had several major discrepancies, things that just don’t match up with standard crucifixions. Jesus died too fast, most crucifixion victims lasted for days. Jesus was also taken down and buried at the end of the first day, most crucifixion victims were left to rot on the cross for as long as the body would hold it’s shape. If Jewish law was being followed, then both of these issues disappear completely!

Some of the non-gospel references to the death of Jesus use the term “hung from a tree.” Many Christians state that hanging was a euphemism for crucifixion, but I think the plain meaning fits perfectly well, doesn’t it? You can also look into the Jewish Talmud, and references to (at least one) Jesus being stoned and then hung are present. (No references to a crucifixion of Jesus exist in Jewish writings, however)

Christians also say that the Jews didn’t have the legal authority to carry out capital punishment, and there is even a quote in one of the gospels that supports that. However, that quote is actually anachronistic, since the Romans didn’t take the power of capital punishment from the Sanhedrin until the year 40 CE, well after the supposed date of the crucifixion/stoning. If the gospels were written late in the first century, which they most probably were, the writers probably got the date of that transition wrong. You yourself have pointed out to me at lest two other occasions where the Jews were picking up rocks for a stoning, and Jeusus fled.

If at least one early version of the story was about stoning and hanging, rather than crucifixion, then several inconsistencies are explained. This early version of the story may have been edited, or perhaps merged with another variant, and the stoning itself disappeared in favor of crucifixion. In this early varient of the story, the scene with Pilate may never have happened! Or perhaps Pilate may have found Jesus innocent and then the Sanhedrin went ahead and killed him. In either case, the crime would not be sedition against Rome, but blasphemy against Jewish tradition.

Cuneiformist

Hi BGiC-- Sorry to jump in so late to the conversation, but I wanted to reply to a few of the things you brought up.

I read through these, and I must say that at least in some cases the argument is rather weak. For instance, the context of both Ze 9:9 and 12:10 is such that it can't possibly be talking about Jesus. In Ze 9:9, for example, the context is about the destruction of various Philistine cities-- Ashkelon, etc.-- with some bit about riding in on an ass comes in. Last time I checked, Jesus did little in terms of massive urban destruction along the Levantine coast. Similarly, in Ze 12:10, it's clear that the oracle is about Yahweh giving protection to Jerusalem. How exactly does 12:6, "On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot in the midst of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves; and they shall devour to the right and to the left all the people round about, while Jerusalem shall still be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem" fit in the Jesus prophecy? And what of the mourning told after the piercing all over Judah? I don't recall the death of Jesus being mourned by all the houses of David, Nathan, and Levi, as well as the Shemeites and so on, yet this is what's reported.

As for the other prophecies, isn't it possible that an author, knowing some obscure prophecies, could alter his work to make their biography fit with the scriptures? I think it's been discussed before that Matthew mistranslated the Hebrew [i]ha'almah[/], which just means "young woman" and not virgin. (Indeed, it's not clear than any of the languages of the ancient Near East had a word that originally meant 'virgin'.) In other instances, it seems that Matthew embellished just to make certain aspects of Jesus fit with older scripture (embellishments not seen in, say, Mark).

Why does Is 7:14 say Jesus' name would be Emmanuel, when his name is Jesus?



What does Ebla have to do with the Bible? Ebla was destroyed by Sargon. Or Naram-Sin. Either way, a long time before Jesus. Or Moses, for that matter.

Similarly, how does 'proof' of the Hittites mean anything? Sure, Hittites appear in the Bible, but so does Egypt, the Assyrians, Babylonians, and so on. I'm not sure if we can say that the Bible is 100% true just because an ethnic group mentioned in the Bible can be confirmed with extra-biblical evidence.


I'm not sure if the Alexander analogy works. For instance, while no one doubts that there was an Alexander, scholars might doubt that Alexander's receiving an oracle from the temple of Zeus (or whomever) means that there's a real Zeus. My guess is that you would agree. Yet, why is it that you can remove divine elements from Alexander's life, but not from Jesus'?

Koyaanisqatsi

God's don't exist .

I don't recall making such an argument, so I'm not sure if that was directed at what I wrote or merely an extension of what you had quoted? I would argue, however, that statements such as "render unto Caesar" serve dual purposes (beyond the entrapment issue) within the Christian dogma.

I have long argued that Christian dogma is little more than the constant repetition of a slave mentality, particularly the Sermon on the Mount (the most misinterpreted section, IMO). The authors of the NT have Jesus state that you are to rejoice in your suffering, because that suffering means you're blessed by god and will win anything off the top shelf once you're dead and it no longer matters; to love your enemies, not because loving them will turn them into friends and/or stop the oppression, but because their oppression means god will bless you. The authors have Jesus all but instruct his followers throughout the NT to remain slaves for their entire lives; to turn the other cheek when struck by authority; to remain "meek" so that you will "inherit the earth;" to render unto Caesar; etc., etc., etc.

The apologetic on all of this, of course, is that only god will set you free (and that only after you're dead and it no longer matters); that this life is not important, what's important is what happens to you in the "afterlife." The main problem with all of that from a theological standpoint, however, is that Judaism has no heaven. There is no "afterlife" for Jews, so it is illogical to conclude that this "message" would have come from a Jewish theology (even if it were "Hellenized"), which it must if Jesus is the Messiah of the OT.

Now, of course, we know he isn't, but the NT authors' claims of Jesus' divinity are dependent upon Jesus being the fulfillment of OT prophesy; of OT theology (and not a reformed theology, such as the so-called "Hellenized Jews"). Without it, Jesus can never be considered as anything more than just a Rabbi. Indeed, they go to great lengths to try and establish the links to OT prophecy, which is to say that if Jesus actually were the Messiah of the OT, then none of that "turn the other cheek" nonsense would be there. The Messiah of the OT (of Daniel and Isaiah) would be too busy flooding the place and killing all those who were left un-anointed. There would be no talk of remaining a suffering, oppressed victim for all one's life and certainly no talk of rendering unto Caesar! There would be the systematic destruction of everything Roman and non-Jewish (as well as those Jews who were "bad" in god's eyes). If there were any talk at all from the Messiah, it would be more along the lines of, "You've got sixty-nine weeks to pray and get your shit together before I destroy this place and all of the unholy within it."

So, as I see it, that leaves two options for the origins of the NT (particularly the passion narrative):

1. Deliberate fraud, concocted by Romans as occupying propaganda designed to destabilize the Jewish orthodoxy
2. Deliberate fraud, concocted by some sort of anti-orthodoxy, pro-Roman "Hellenized" Jewish faction of some kind, seeking to cause a schism in the Jewish orthodoxy; i.e., a theological coup

The problem with the second, however, is that there are so many examples of bad Judaism (for lack of a better term) in the NT that it is almost impossible to see how it could have been written by any kind of Jewish faction, "Hellenized" or not. The NT authors just get too many things wrong about Judaism for it to have been a legitimate extension of the OT; i.e., for Jesus to have been any kind of "new covenant."

It's difficult to tell, of course, since we don't have any of the original documents and know almost nothing about the authors of the NT and the victors (re)write the history and all, but going from a Rabbi who spouted a few "wisdom sayings" and preached a reform of dietary and hygiene laws who was most likely crucified by the Romans for seditionist acts (if at all), to a resurrected triune God promising rewards in the afterlife as the fulfillment of OT prophesy (without actually fulfilling any of the OT prophesies and, instead, becoming anti-Judaism polemic) in the span of (allegedly) forty to fifty years (and right around the time when the Romans have finally had it with the Jews in the region and start slaughtering them) just smacks to me of classic destabilization propaganda tactics.

I speculate thus: Jesus, a radical Jewish Rabbi, has managed to gather a fairly significant following of fellow Jews, challenging the authority and orthodoxy of the Sanhedrin, perhaps (most likely as a result of the perceived corruption seen between the occupying forces and the Jewish leaders), but more to the point, striking out against the Roman occupying forces. He's a "freedom fighter" and he (most likely) instructs his followers to disrupt the daily Roman order as often as they can, culminating in their assault on the Temple, which has been corrupted by the infidel Romans in league with certain members of the Sanhedrin (though that doesn't necessarily have to be the case or a significant factor in the reasons for the assault) for which he is singled out (being the leader and instigator) and crucified by the Romans as an example to all of his followers (and everybody else) that such activity will not be tolerated. The Jews will do as they are told or be killed.

This, naturally, backfires (as such things often historically do in that region) and causes a martyrdom scenario and instead of discouraging the Jews from resisting Roman rule, more Jews follow Jesus' example and cause more problems for the Romans (the Sanhedrin being pretty much irrelevant by this time, since it's more about striking back against an occupying force than anything necessarily theological; though, of course, that can't be separated out from the equation as it is an inherent quality of the culture and people involved). Whether or not there was corruption in the Sanhedrin ranks or just perceived corruption or just that the Sanhedrin had worked out a sort of detente with the occupying forces is really not the primary issue, IMO. Just think "French Resistance" during WWII; their primary goal was to fuck up the occupying Nazis. I'm sure they detested the Vichy government and the turncoats who went along with it and, indeed, sought to fuck them up, too, but the overriding concern would be, primarily with the ones who created such a state of affairs to begin with.

Whatever the particulars, the point is that anyone in league with the Romans would be considered Roman and not "true" Jews, just as anyone in the Vichy government would have been considered Nazis and not "true" French.

Anyway, this "resistance" grows and more and more disruptions happen in the region and it starts to spread to neighboring regions. This, of course, embarrasses the Romans to no end, since these people they are oppressing are, after all, by and large, nomads and slaves and the Romans are the World Power, but, apparently, nobody has told the Jews this.

So, they either send in somebody like Paul or "turn" somebody like Paul to be their inside operative; his mission being to find out the Jewish Achilles’ heel. He discovers, of course, that the people have a fanatical devotion to their religion and Jesus, a martyred Rabbi, is just one example of how this devotion leads to serious problems with Jews in general. They worship one god and this god is greater than all other gods; thus, their religious focus is singular and inviolate, which makes them more fanatical than anything the Romans have encountered in other regions they've conquered.

What's more, even though there are various factions within Judaism that disagree about various theological issues (such as the dietary and hygiene laws), they are all resolutely and incontrovertibly Jews; the chosen people of this one "true" god. They follow only the dictates of their god and consider no human to be their ruler no matter how many soldiers he may have at his command. So, it isn't just about a small group of "freedom fighters" following some fringe nutcase; it's about the Jewish people in general and how they respond to any occupying force that seeks to convert them to the occupying force's ways and means. Perhaps some of the leaders can be bought or negotiated with, but the people themselves will never become good little Romans no matter what steps are taken to force them into the fold.

This alleged operative (or operatives) also hears something interesting; certain Jews say that Jesus was a messenger from Yahweh sent to show them all how to strike back against their oppressors and that their god, apparently, regularly works through these kinds of messengers so that anyone the Romans may kill in order to establish their supremacy will also be considered martyrs to Judaism; a serious problem for such a militaristic power structure as the Roman Empire. He reports back what he finds, telling his superiors within the Roman hierarchy that these people will kill or be killed in Jesus' name (not because he was any kind of god, but because he was a messenger of their god and a martyr for Judaism in general) and that they simply will not stop no matter what the Romans do in the region to try and stop them. It's leave, instigate genocide or suffer continuous guerilla attacks (sound familiar?).

So, a two-pronged plan is formed (similar to what we did with the Native American Indians, by the way). First, destroy the religious fanaticism through various means. Since Jesus is already dead, they can't marginalize him directly, so they have to use more subtle methods and since the core group of resisters (Jesus' original followers) have probably been either killed or imprisoned by this point, the goal would be to turn those who have heard of the core group's actions. But how? They all think this man was a messenger from their god. So, one brilliant guy within the Roman high command comes up with the perfect solution. If they all think Jesus was a messenger from god, then use that against them. Jesus was indeed a messenger from god, but not only that, he was their Messiah, the One they've all been waiting for; their, what do they call it? Elijah?

And what's more, he came not to bring peace, but a sword! To rally his people together against their oppressors. But who are their oppressors? Not the Romans. The Jews! And not just one particular Jew, the whole damn lot of them, from the entire Sanhedrin leaders to the "crowd" to one (even named "Judas") from within the core group of original freedom fighters! It was they who killed their own savior! Don't hate the Romans, hate yourselves for you are the true evil in your midst.

Jesus didn't preach violence against one's oppressors! No seditionist he; you've got it all wrong! He was not resisting we Romans, he was resisting your religion. He was the son of god who saw that god's chosen people were corrupt and bad; that their adherence to orthodoxy had turned them away from the "true" teachings of their god. He was sent from your god to tell you that you've all been following a false religion; that there isn't just one god, but three within one, which is to say one that are all three! It is right and good and correct that you follow Jesus, but Jesus wasn't here to resist the occupying forces, he was here to tell you all that being a slave and oppressed by us is a blessing; something to rejoice in. Indeed, you should love us, for the only one to truly fear is your own god, etc., etc., etc.

The second part of the plan, of course, was the attempted, systematic extinction through brutal military action of any resistance.

What happened, however, with that second part is what has historically always happened whenever anyone tries to kill "the Jews." It doesn't work. In fact, it just makes them stronger and affirms their OT religious convictions.

What happened with the first part of the plan, likewise, didn't work, but what it did do is work on some of the more radical, fringe Jews and, more importantly, the non-Jews in and around the region. Inadvertently, operatives such as Paul (theoretically) discovered that this slave mentality propaganda originally intended to destabilize the Jewish orthodoxy worked perfectly on those outside this orthodoxy. So, this was incorporated into the dogma and the appeal of the false monotheism grew in regions unexpected so that by the time Constantine came along and the Roman Empire's military breaking point was reaching critical mass, the logical transition from Military Roman Empire became Holy Roman Empire, which still exists today, we just call it Catholicism.

What started off as a restructuring of Judaism in an attempt to destabilize the religion's fanatical devotionists in order to turn them into good little Roman citizens and accept their occupation, became a means to turn good little Roman citizens into fanatical Roman citizens, because it enslaved their minds, not just their bodies.

In other words, the same kind of fanatical devotion to a religion that prevented the Romans from truly conquering the Jews was then later seen as a means to extend the Roman Empire farther than mere military might could ever take it; directly into the enslavement of the human mind. Borders would be irrelevant; maintaining standing armies would be unnecessary to insure allegiance; and devotion would be absolute, since the fear of god and hell was far more powerful than fear of a sword.

Now, was this all carefully orchestrated and set on an inexorable course over hundreds of years? Of course not. When the original plan didn't work to break the fanaticism of the majority of the occupied Jews, the plan was abandoned or forgotten. It failed to achieve the desired result. That it took root elsewhere may or may not have been the intent of the Romans (and most likely, wasn't), but opportunists such as somebody like Paul saw it for what it was and ran with it, forming their own cult as all cults are formed; to achieve power and allegiance over other people.

It worked in ways it wasn't necessarily intended to work, on people it wasn't necessarily intended to work on. The genius of it is that it's self-replicating. Once that was discovered, whomever it was that took the ball and ran with it could use it however they wanted to (as history proves).

But, one thing is for sure; it was deliberately made up or co-opted at some point by somebody for a specific purpose (my money's on whoever wrote or was told to write Mark; most likely Paul, IMO); namely, the destruction of Judaism and it was written by people who were not OT Jews.

Perhaps it started as mere cult worship of a local, martyred Rabbi and it was given a more or less complete overhaul by the Romans, but once you rule out the mythological elements, the only logical ones that remain are deliberate fraud for a specific purpose at some point, IMHO.

Perhaps it's just my Machiavellian mind at work, but if I were a Roman Psyoperative charged with the "problem" of the fanatical devotion of Jewish people to their religion and how that devotion was causing constant problems within an otherwise easily conquered (militarily) region of my Empire, the Jesus mythology found in our current versions of the NT would be precisely what I would suggest as the best means to destabilize that devotion.

Destroy their religion and their minds will follow.

Koyaanisqatsi

True, but it's not blasphemy to claim you're the son of a God.

Yes. Mighty cowardly for a god.

Except that isn't a crime (nor blasphemy), but I see you point.

Why then include such an elaborate scenario of taking Jesus to Pilate, then to Herod, then back to Pilate and the scourging and the "King of the Jews" nonsense if it weren't meant to cover up the fact that he had been crucified by the Romans? The intent of the whole trial sequence is to exonerate the Romans for crucifying Jesus, with the implication being entirely on the Sanhedrin (and the crowd of, presumably, Jews).

If Jesus had actually been stoned to death for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin then the same effect would have been achieved by simply telling the "truth," yes?

Asha'man

I’m sure something that Jesus said could be considered blasphemy. Breaking the law of the Sabbath, perhaps? Claiming that the OT laws don’t count anymore?

Besides, even if he wasn’t really guilty of blasphemy, he was certainly causing trouble. As you point out, there is really no difference between church and state at the time, so the Sanhedrin might easily find just about any misbehavior to be blasphemous.

Evolution of the story, remember? Multiple edits over time, and multiple versions being merged from different traditions.

There was a recent thread here in BC&H about the passion scene drawing heavily from something written by Philo. Many of the elements made no sense in relationship to Jesus, but made much more sense in the context Philo originally put them in. (Found it)

So, the first edit of the story was to push the blame away from the Sanhedrin, towards the Romans. This edit drew on some fancy storytelling (mythmaking!), possibly incorporating stuff from Philo. This is where a stoning was converted to a crucifixion. It was probably also done at a time when almost all cult members were Jewish, and Rome was seen as the bad-guy outsider.

The second edit was to push the blame away from the Romans and back to the Jews. This edit was smaller, since the crucifixion was already established, and consisted mostly of re-writing the trial scene with Pilate. We can assume that this edit was done later, as Gentiles became the primary target of the growing cult, and Jews were a more convenient scapegoat.

As for exactly why all this happened, I just don’t know. I don’t have a keen political insight like some people here. I keep hoping that someone like you will adopt this line of speculation, and perhaps help me clear up some of the likely motivations.

However, I should point out (again) that the Jewish tradition has consistently mentioned stoning and hanging, which is clearly not a Roman punishment. Why would the Jews alter their own records to take the blame away from the Romans?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, either way you slice it, it still comes up anti-Judaism, since if the Sanhedrin stoned him to death or tried to get Pilate to crucify him, it still indicts the orthodoxy in the minds of the Jewish audience being deliberately mislead into believing that Jesus was God and their leaders either recognized this and then killed him or weren't capable of recognizing it and killed him (and lends more credence to my contention that the passion narrative was later deliberately made up pro-Roman propaganda, corresponding with the first Jewish slaughter by the Romans).

Well, that's my contention. Jews didn't write it, Romans did.