16 ms·

Pilate is a critical figure to the marketing of Christianity to the Roman world, as in a couple of weird, awkwardly inserted passages completely absolves the Ro

Pilate is a critical figure to the marketing of Christianity to the Roman world, as in a couple of weird, awkwardly inserted passages completely absolves the Roman government of responsibility and solidly lays it all on the Jews. The TL;DR goes like this: Pilate: Guys, this Jesus dude is totally innocent. Jews: Kill him anyway! Pilate: OK, well how about this--between him and this notorious murderer, who should I pardon? Jews: Release the murderer! Kill Jesus! Pilate: Gee, ok fine, but this is all on you guys. Jews: Yes! His blood is on us and our descendants! Then least there be any doubt, he _literally_ asks for water to be brought and "washes his hands" of the decision. It's absolutely the stupidest thing you'll ever read. It is such an obvious after the fact fabrication, it sounds like it was written by a child, and yet this story has been used over the centuries to justify a great deal of violence towards Jews at the hands of Christians.

Amezarak 5y ago
There’s nothing awkward about that “insertion” at all, Jesus repeatedly insists over the course of the gospels that the Jewish authorities are going to kill him, they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points, and he tells lots of parables to enrage them that also include this feature, such as the parable of the vineyard, where the keepers kill the master’s son, and then the master comes and kills them all. And he accuses them of killing all the other prophets too! And of course you end up having to change the whole narrative to sustain this, too - the charges of blasphemy, the betrayal of Judas, etc. The argument that the passages you cite are insertions just makes no sense, they are totally in keeping with all the rest. If you want to say it’s all inspired anti-semitism, fair enough and there’s probably some truth to it, but there’s no reason to think that those passages alone are fake. It’s probably also worth keeping in mind that the people who wrote this were probably also all Jewish.
- throw__away7391 5y ago
  > they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points Right, so they are also alleged to have killed others, and suddenly for Jesus it is claimed that they "don't have the authority" and need Pilate to do it. Written by a child.
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    The stonings would have been illegal under Roman law and would have resulted in severe punishment by the authorities. That’s exactly why in any case they would have had to obtain approval from/remand the case to Pilate. We have many other documented such incidents resulting in dire consequences. Pilate himself would have been averse to allow mob violence not just because it was illegal but because allowing such to take place as the Roman in charge would have likely merited punishment for him as well especially if it got more out of hand. Josephus is a great source on the historical situation of the time period, if you have the time to read the Antiquities and the Wars.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      I would want to know a lot more about the "chain of custody" of Josephus's text. Is there any copy of it that was never in the hands of the Church?
tsimionescu 5y ago
You have to remember that Jesus (at least the character in the Bible, but likely the historical figure as well) was definitely an extremely anti-establishment figure, as had been most of the Prophets of the Old Testament. And the Establishment at this time is mostly Jewish authorities, not the Roman ones, who had only recently conquered. This is especially true on the religious side, where the Romans would have cared much less about Jesus' views than the local authorities. Think about the incident at the Temple, the protection of someone collecting wood on the Sabbath, him laying his hands on Lazarus, a dead man, his aspersions against stoning and many other teachings that went well against the fundamentals of Judaism. To this end, it is not that bizarre to believe that the Jewish authorities would have been far more heated against Jesus than the Roman authorities would have been, and that this is symbolically represented in the story using the character of Pilate.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Not bizarre to believe, but extremely bizarre to have recorded in that way, at that time. The details are obvious fabrication. So, we cannot reason based on the fabricated details, but we can reason about the the fabrication itself: It very evidently was felt necessary to make that shit up, later; so, why was it felt necessary?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Pilate is a critical figure to the marketing of Christianity to the Roman world, as in a couple of weird, awkwardly inserted passages completely absolves the Roman government of responsibility and solidly lays it all on the Jews. It... doesn't though; it's long been the canonical Christian illustration of how you can’t escape culpability. Even the significant subset of Christianity that does treat Pilate as an actual saint rather than a villain does so on the basis of extrabiblical narratives of a later heel-face turn—including, in some versions, martyrdom as a direct consequence of his failed attempt to convert Caesar—but still sees him as a villain within the boundaries of the scriptural account of the Passion.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  A canonical Christian illustration based on a wholly fabricated narrative tells how later Christians thought about that narrative, but tells nothing about the thing itself.

Amezarak 5y ago

There’s nothing awkward about that “insertion” at all, Jesus repeatedly insists over the course of the gospels that the Jewish authorities are going to kill him, they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points, and he tells lots of parables to enrage them that also include this feature, such as the parable of the vineyard, where the keepers kill the master’s son, and then the master comes and kills them all. And he accuses them of killing all the other prophets too! And of course you end up having to change the whole narrative to sustain this, too - the charges of blasphemy, the betrayal of Judas, etc. The argument that the passages you cite are insertions just makes no sense, they are totally in keeping with all the rest. If you want to say it’s all inspired anti-semitism, fair enough and there’s probably some truth to it, but there’s no reason to think that those passages alone are fake. It’s probably also worth keeping in mind that the people who wrote this were probably also all Jewish.

throw__away7391 5y ago
> they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points Right, so they are also alleged to have killed others, and suddenly for Jesus it is claimed that they "don't have the authority" and need Pilate to do it. Written by a child.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  The stonings would have been illegal under Roman law and would have resulted in severe punishment by the authorities. That’s exactly why in any case they would have had to obtain approval from/remand the case to Pilate. We have many other documented such incidents resulting in dire consequences. Pilate himself would have been averse to allow mob violence not just because it was illegal but because allowing such to take place as the Roman in charge would have likely merited punishment for him as well especially if it got more out of hand. Josephus is a great source on the historical situation of the time period, if you have the time to read the Antiquities and the Wars.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I would want to know a lot more about the "chain of custody" of Josephus's text. Is there any copy of it that was never in the hands of the Church?

tsimionescu 5y ago

You have to remember that Jesus (at least the character in the Bible, but likely the historical figure as well) was definitely an extremely anti-establishment figure, as had been most of the Prophets of the Old Testament. And the Establishment at this time is mostly Jewish authorities, not the Roman ones, who had only recently conquered. This is especially true on the religious side, where the Romans would have cared much less about Jesus' views than the local authorities. Think about the incident at the Temple, the protection of someone collecting wood on the Sabbath, him laying his hands on Lazarus, a dead man, his aspersions against stoning and many other teachings that went well against the fundamentals of Judaism. To this end, it is not that bizarre to believe that the Jewish authorities would have been far more heated against Jesus than the Roman authorities would have been, and that this is symbolically represented in the story using the character of Pilate.

ncmncm 5y ago
Not bizarre to believe, but extremely bizarre to have recorded in that way, at that time. The details are obvious fabrication. So, we cannot reason based on the fabricated details, but we can reason about the the fabrication itself: It very evidently was felt necessary to make that shit up, later; so, why was it felt necessary?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Pilate is a critical figure to the marketing of Christianity to the Roman world, as in a couple of weird, awkwardly inserted passages completely absolves the Roman government of responsibility and solidly lays it all on the Jews. It... doesn't though; it's long been the canonical Christian illustration of how you can’t escape culpability. Even the significant subset of Christianity that does treat Pilate as an actual saint rather than a villain does so on the basis of extrabiblical narratives of a later heel-face turn—including, in some versions, martyrdom as a direct consequence of his failed attempt to convert Caesar—but still sees him as a villain within the boundaries of the scriptural account of the Passion.

ncmncm 5y ago
A canonical Christian illustration based on a wholly fabricated narrative tells how later Christians thought about that narrative, but tells nothing about the thing itself.