Is the New or Old Testament more believable?

[pakeha]

I don't think that anyone says that the Jews ruled the Romans, essentially. Just that in one specific incident, as described in the gospels, the Roman governor accepts doing what the priesthood demands, to keep the situation from getting out of hand. That he accepted taking a hit on one guy in one occasion, doesn't mean he'd always take orders from them.

The more I read of it the less I understand this sequence of events.
Could it be the Sanhedrin provoked an ugly incident (arresting Jesus during Passover) to make the Romans look bad (well, worse anyway)?

This was before Philo's Embassy to Caligula IIRC. He reported nasty things of Pontius Pilate but doesn't mention the Sanhedrin could play him like a harp?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@pakeha
Well, to be honest, I don't think there actually is any historical fact behind that trial account. The Sanhedrin wouldn't have convened on that day anyway, so there would be no forcing Pilate to do what they just decided RIGHT NAO either.

Plus, why would they? There seems to have been a lot of bad sentiment against the collaborationists at the top too, not to mention the feuding between the various factions there as it was. So that course of action would make them look bad to the people too. Plus it would annoy the Romans too. Romans tended to depose high priests for a lot less. It's a bit of a lose-lose situation, IMHO.

Plus, I don't think they wanted the city to erupt into a riot on Passover either, and that is the risk in such agitating the mob.

 

[Craig4]

The fact that Jesus was crucified with two bandits probably argues against both Pilate worrying about a powder keg of humanity exploding and that he was over born by the Sanhedrin. Thieves didn't get crucified most of the time so these two were probably Zealots. If they were crucified right before Passover, it means Pilate wanted the maximum audience to see it and learn the object lesson. It's as likely the mob would go crazy over killing the Zealots as Jesus.

 

[TimCallahan]

@pakeha
Well, to be honest, I don't think there actually is any historical fact behind that trial account. The Sanhedrin wouldn't have convened on that day anyway, so there would be no forcing Pilate to do what they just decided RIGHT NAO either. (snip) . . . . (snip)

I agree. If there's any truth to the story of the Crucifixion, I'd say that the temple police seized Jesus the minute he overturned the tables of the moneychangers, reported to the Pilate that this guy had messianic aspirations and turned him over to the Romans. I see Jesus as coming to Jerusalem to get put to death in the deluded belief that he was the Son of man character from the Book of Daniel and that God would raise him from the dead.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for so many thoughtful replies.
I'd expect no less from the posters here, though.

I'm a bit confused by "If they were crucified right before Passover, it means Pilate wanted the maximum audience to see it and learn the object lesson."

How do we define Passover here?
Mark tells us it was underway before Jesus was arrested
"14:12And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover? "

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, for my point, and I suspect Craig's too, the problem isn't really the exact day, it's the massive amount of pilgrims. If we trust Josephus, even when there was a battle for the city, still enough people came for its population to swell to over a million. The city was getting seriously overpopulated, fuses were presumably very short, and worse yet it was getting overpopulated precisely with the kind of religious people that would be a problem.

And, because that's what people do, the situation would start several days before and taper off over the next week. So I don't think you need much accuracy there. If the city was a powder keg on Friday, it would also be not far off on Thursday, and it would probably still be volatile on Monday.

 

[Giordano]

It's the idea that it's this tiny tribe that somehow rolled lucky sevens a hundred times in a row and outlived all the other tribes that existed throughout the Middle East and presumably elsewhere. The advocates of this theory might be ignoring primitive tribes in the Amazon, but they can't prove anything about their own lineages, being illiterate. Larger nations like Greece and India have lasted a long time, but the index finger points to the Assyrians, the Babylonions, and the sundry "ites" that have long since been swept away, absorbed, destroyed, or otherwise changed into the political order we see today.

Cpl Ferro

If you keep getting more narrow and exclusive, it might work for you:

Successful, small group, of Middle-Eastern origin- oh, no good- the Persians

Successful, small group, of Middle-Eastern origin, dating back to around 1000-2000 BC- oh, no good, there are the Persians again

Traditionally practice circumcision. Better, but others in Middle-East and elsewhere still do. Oh, wait, try this:

Traditionally practice male circumcision. Much better, but still many groups elsewhere have done this.

Successful, small group, of Middle-Eastern origin, dating back to around 1000-2000 BC, traditionally practice male circumcision. Hey, I think that works (although I can be wrong- we may have to add another restrictive modifier). Who can doubt that God himself has blessed the Jewish people based on this? And who knew that it required removal of foreskins?

 

[Giordano]

As I mentioned in another thread, I never understood how God-I could forgive people only after they put to death in a horrible way his only son (God-II). Wouldn't a better story be that God-I forgave people after they treated his only son unusually and unexpectedly well? But of course, the legendary God can do anything, so why he need to go through all this extra effort anyway?

To stick with the OP a bit more, I could never understand how God-I in the OT resembled in any fashion God-I in the NT. He sure mellowed out in between, didn't He?

 

[CplFerro]

I'm not sure the Jews were to blame at all, for the following reasons. Jesus was tried and convicted under Roman laws, not Jewish laws. At the time, the Jews were an oppressed minority living under Roman rule, and didn't have the power to carry out executions on their own. Jesus was killed by crucifixion, which is a Roman method that they used on tens of thousands of victims. Had the Jews killed him, it would have been by stoning. Also, three of the four Gospel authors were Jewish, writing at a time when blaming the Roman authorities for killing Jesus could have gotten them in a lot of trouble. Therefore it wouldn't surprise me if they purposely altered the details of the story to exonerate the Romans. Finally, there's Pontius Pilate himself. He was a brutal Roman prefect who would have had no moral qualms about executing people left and right. To him, Jesus would have been nothing but a pathetic little worm, a troublemaker who needed to be dealt with so he would no longer disrupt the peace. I don't think he would have let himself be pressured by the Jews to do anything he didn't intend to do in the first place.

If we take the Gospels at face value--realising they are the only accounts available of said events--then the Jewish influence was, as I said, the one ordering the hit. Without the Jewish "trouble" for Jesus to "make" there would have been no impetus for Pilate to execute him. If you wish to disregard the Gospels, fine, but then there's no reason to bother taking any part of them as true.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

If you keep getting more narrow and exclusive, it might work for you:

Successful, small group, of Middle-Eastern origin- oh, no good- the Persians

Successful, small group, of Middle-Eastern origin, dating back to around 1000-2000 BC- oh, no good, there are the Persians again

Traditionally practice circumcision. Better, but others in Middle-East and elsewhere still do. Oh, wait, try this:

Traditionally practice male circumcision. Much better, but still many groups elsewhere have done this.

Successful, small group, of Middle-Eastern origin, dating back to around 1000-2000 BC, traditionally practice male circumcision. Hey, I think that works (although I can be wrong- we may have to add another restrictive modifier). Who can doubt that God himself has blessed the Jewish people based on this? And who knew that it required removal of foreskins?

Hmph, point taken.

Cpl Ferro

 

[deaman]

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that God by whom the offence cometh!

ft;fy

 

[CplFerro]

Fact or fiction for the gospel accounts?
How about another option- propaganda/hagiography?

In any case, CF, the events of 69-70 would go a long way to dispelling the idea the Romans were the Jews' hit-men, don't you think?

No, I don't think so. The Jews didn't own the Romans in the Gospel narratives, they simply had the ability to raise enough of a stink that the Roman prefect decided to take the easy way and kill an innocent man rather than have a riot or insurrection or whatever they were capable of.

Would you compare this tribe to be something like the Romani people^WP?

I think the difference the Jewish Exceptionalists would say is that the Jews prospered ultimately and the Romani didn't. But other than that I have conceded the point.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Nevertheless, even in the example you use, most would have no problem with saying that the hitman killed the mark. He may not be the one who asked for that murder, but he IS nevertheless the one who consciously accepted to do it, and the one who actually did it.

Even affirmative defences like claiming duress do not actually mean 'I wasn't the one who killed the guy'. It just means 'I had no other choice'.

The fact of the matter is that Pilate was not mind controlled. Nor does he seem to be the uber-meek kind that always appeases a mob by giving them whatever they want, if we believe Josephus or Philo.

Nor do other Roman governors seem to think they're there as powerless servants of the local priesthood. Quite the contrary in fact. And I don't mean just in Josephus, but even the bible itself, or more specifically Acts, doesn't support such a notion.

Yet here he acts like a crooked judge who'll dispense injustice for political considerations. I don't see how that absolves him of all guilt.

And even as duress goes, it would have been rather easy to defuse. The whole situation is only critical because it's right before passover, and the city is an overpopulated powder-keg. But public executions on that holy day wouldn't really calm people down. Quite the contrary. Pilate could just say, "Let's not spoil your holiest day with this. Throw him in the dungeon, I'll deal with him later." Voila, situation defused.

It seems to me like he had a choice, and chose to execute someone who he considered to be innocent. Seems to me like I can blame him just fine, regardless of who originated that idea.

If it were someone who mattered to you personally who were killed would you dismiss the ones fomenting their death and simply concentrate on the actual killer? I mean, we can take this a step further and say that Pilate didn't kill anybody, his guards did.

Cpl Ferro

 

[deaman]

It will be great when people finally "get over" The Great Big Book of Creepy Stories & Lies.

 

[fuelair]

That would be like arguing over which is more believable Star Wars or The Foundation Series or are they both just different views about the same reality of a Galactic Empire that later became a Galactic Republic but it is the same Galaxy.


I think the blog referred to in this post says it all

Oh, yes, yes it does!!!!!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

The dead usually are quite mute but that's a moot point.

Woot, moot, woot!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

It will be great when people finally "get over" The Great Big Book of Creepy Stories & Lies.

Which version(s)???.....................

 

[Multivac]

Neither is believable, the central figure in both books, that being the fairy sky daddy, never existed.

Nicely put.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If it were someone who mattered to you personally who were killed would you dismiss the ones fomenting their death and simply concentrate on the actual killer? I mean, we can take this a step further and say that Pilate didn't kill anybody, his guards did.

Cpl Ferro

I might hate one more than the other, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't completely absolve the guy who consciously took the contract and actually pulled the trigger.

I MIGHT forgive and all, if they were under duress, like if someone held a gun to their daughter's head until they killed my relative, but that doesn't seem to be what Mark's story tells us, innit?

And yes, actually one of my relatives was probably murdered, though it was never solved. So it does hit close to home, and not just as a theoretical exercise. If I were to learn that someone paid a hit on my relative (though realistically it seems improbable), I'm pretty sure I wouldn't think that, hey, the actual murderer was just doing it for the money, he totally isn't to blame. If he chose to take an innocent life for money, then yes, that is blame enough for me. I would NOT think that that absolves him of all guilt, and I'd be actually pretty unrepentant about not absolving him.

ETA: And I have no problem with applying that to Pilate's guards too. Although they didn't get such a choice about whether Jesus should die or not. But one of the things that was explicitly established at Nuremberg was that "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. If you choose to obey murderous orders, you do share in the responsibility. But again, that wouldn't apply to Pilate anyway. The Jewish religious leadership was in no position to give him orders, and obeying orders from them was just not in his job description. Period. Regardless of what you think of the Nuremberg ruling, Pilate wouldn't even get to apply for that denied exemption in the first place.

 

[deaman]

Which version(s)???.....................

All of them.