I find that Kirby article less than convincing. In particular, it fails to consider the specifics mentioned in the Bible about Pilate and the crucifixion. The story goes that it was the Jewish religious leaders that wanted Jesus killed off, and that they basically twisted Pilate’s arm to get him to crucify Jesus. Pilate is depicted as decidedly NOT wanting to crucify Jesus. In fact the story says Pilate gets spooked when they bring Jesus to him because this is consistent with a disturbing dream his wife told him about.
However, Pilate nonetheless has Jesus crucified because he finds it politically expedient to do so. Given that Pilate is morally unsure of what he is done, it hardly seems implausible if Joseph of Arimathea comes along and says to Pilate “Would you mind if I cart off the body of this dude and give it a proper burial?” Pilate would would say “sure”. Nothing in the Bible suggests that Jesus ever did anything that would have overtly pissed off the Romans big time. It’s possible that they may have been concerned that he’d change his message, and incite his followers in rebellion. However, Jesus never actually did this, and this was just a hypothetical possibility. While I can imagine the Roman leaders would off Jesus just because he was a potential threat, once they did so I can imagine at that point they’d say this was sufficient, and desecrating his corpse really wasn’t neccesary. In fact, openly defiling the corpse of Jesus might have just pissed off his followers to hate the Romans more, while allowing a follower to respectfully dispose of the body would be politically expedient.
I’m not a Christian, and don’t consider the Bible to be infallibly correct history. It is quite possible that the story of the death of Jesus was edited to lay the blame on the Jewish religious leaders, and put the Roman leaders in the best light. Then again the Jewish religious leaders could easily have been little more than collaborators with the Romans. On that theory, Pilate just went along with what his collaborators said was best.
One of the more intriguing fictional treatments on the the nature of Christ’s fate is “Three Versions of Judas” by Jorge Luis Borges. It plays with several possibilities regarding the figure of Judas Iscariot, the final (and most fascinating) being that the Son of Man didn’t, or couldn’t, redeem the world by simply dying an ordinary death–such a monumentous sacrifice could only be made by one who willingly offered Himself to eternity as the traitor and coward of all time. The Son of Man is actually Judas.
Jewish temple authorities were most decidedly not in a position to twist Pilate’s arm. The Temple priests were hand picked by the Romans and were basically just puppets. Furthermore, if Jesus was crucified, it could have only been because he was perceived as a threat by the Romans. More on this shortly.
Any moral ambiguity on Pilate’s part is a.) inconsistent with everything we know about Pilate and b.) irrelevant as to whether he would have been able to release a crucified insurgent for burial. If he were to let the body go, it would be a public admission that the crucifixion was wrong (because releasing the body was a tacit admission that the victim was not a criminal). Pilate could not contradict himself in such a manner, regardless of any (extremely implausible) inner conflict about it.
Furthermore, it is impossible that any member of the Sanhedrin (as J of A is alleged to be) would be able to request the body of an executed criminal, especially if that criminal had been convicted by the Sanhedrin. It would have been against Jewish custom and law.
(BTW, most scholars now believe that Joseph of Arimathea was a fictional character created by Mark. For one thing, there was no such place as “Arimathea,” but there are other reasons to doubt his historicity as well)
First of all, crucifixion was an exclusively Roman method of execution reserved for only certain kinds of criminals. To wit: it was used against insurgents, traitors and rebels. Anyone who was crucified was crucified only because he was perceived as a threat to Roman authority or to the Pax Romana. They were not crucified for interneccine religious squabbles, or for “blasphemy” (as Mark would have us believe) or at the urging of Temple authorities. Jesus could have only been specifically crucified because he did something to piss off the Romans.
Exactly what that may have been is uncertain but there are two possibilities, both spoken of in the gospels, which either singly or collectively would have probably been sufficient. The first possibility is that he was calling himself the “King of the Jews,” if he was doing this, and any significant following seemed to support it, that would have been enough to make him guilty of sedition and buy him a cross. The other possibility is grounded in his disturbance at the Temple during Passover. Jerusalem was packed full during the Passover, The Romans were greatly outnumbered, and they were paranoid about riots during this time. As a result, they were unusually swift and brutal about putting down any shit before it got really good and stirred. If Jesus had created a scene at the Temple, and the Romans feared he could incite a riot, they probably would have nailed him up just to nip that possibility in the bud and prevent anyone else from getting any bright ideas. If he was calling himself the King of the Jews while stirring up shit at the Temple, that was probably more than enough to get him nailed to a stick. Sometimes these events were pretty casual and desultory. It didn’t take a lot at Passover and it probably did not involve the sort of public spectacle described in the gospels. Most likely they just hauled him off and nailed him up. His followers scattered and that was that.
Giving the body of an executed criminal over for a prpoper burial was an admission that the criminal was innocent. The Romans could not crucify a guy and then say he was innocent. Part of the entire point of crucifixion was that it denied the victim a proper burial. It was part of the punishment.
And if the Romans were afraid of Jesus’ followers, they would have executed them along with Jesus. The fact that Jesus was executed alone makes me think that he was not perceived by the Romans as the leader of an insurgency or a movement but was just seen as more of a general nuisance, a religious nutter who was riling people up at the temple, and that they were afraid he would start a riot.
Pilate did not “go along” with Jewish Temple authorities. They worked fot him. While it’s possible that some Temple authorities helped to facilitate Jesus’ arrest, the trial before the Sanhedrin is an apologetic fiction and the notion of Temple authorities urging Pilate to do anything he didn’t want to do does not accord with what is known about that relationship. They were Pilates tools, he was not theirs.
But then why does the Bible say otherwise? It doesn’t say Pilate decided that having Jesus around was inconvenient, and thus he ordered his Temple priest flunkies to try and convict him of some crime so he could have him executed. All the Biblical texts say the Jewish priests twisted the arm of Pilate. Why if this wasn’t the case lie? It isn’t like the readers would have found it hard to believe Jesus pissed of Pilate, and he decided to kill him off. Heck, any Roman military leader could have ordered some Jew to be killed for any reason, or no reason at all short of whim. The simplest and most plausible reason why the story told in the Bible is that the Jewish religious leaders just wanted Jesus dead.
Then why insert falsely into the account of the death of Jesus that Pilate did something that was extremely implausible? Writers of fiction tend to want to tell takes that actually are believable. It would be all kind of a bad strategy for a storyteller to have Pilate doing something so silly the reader would laugh at the absurdity.
Unless J of A rejected the actions of the Sanhedrin as sinful, and acted according to the text of Jewish custom and law.
Could be. Again, I am not a Christian. I just try to interpret their scriptures.
I agree with this. To the Romans Jesus would have been a silly Jew. Not worthy of execution unless he pissed of a Roman.
Exactly what that may have been is uncertain but there are two possibilities, both spoken of in the gospels, which either singly or collectively would have probably been sufficient. The first possibility is that he was calling himself the “King of the Jews,” if he was doing this, and any significant following seemed to support it, that would have been enough to make him guilty of sedition and buy him a cross. The other possibility is grounded in his disturbance at the Temple during Passover. Jerusalem was packed full during the Passover, The Romans were greatly outnumbered, and they were paranoid about riots during this time. As a result, they were unusually swift and brutal about putting down any shit before it got really good and stirred. If Jesus had created a scene at the Temple, and the Romans feared he could incite a riot, they probably would have nailed him up just to nip that possibility in the bud and prevent anyone else from getting any bright ideas. If he was calling himself the King of the Jews while stirring up shit at the Temple, that was probably more than enough to get him nailed to a stick. Sometimes these events were pretty casual and desultory. It didn’t take a lot at Passover and it probably did not involve the sort of public spectacle described in the gospels. Most likely they just hauled him off and nailed him up. His followers scattered and that was that.
Giving the body of an executed criminal over for a prpoper burial was an admission that the criminal was innocent. The Romans could not crucify a guy and then say he was innocent. Part of the entire point of crucifixion was that it denied the victim a proper burial. It was part of the punishment.
And if the Romans were afraid of Jesus’ followers, they would have executed them along with Jesus. The fact that Jesus was executed alone makes me think that he was not perceived by the Romans as the leader of an insurgency or a movement but was just seen as more of a general nuisance, a religious nutter who was riling people up at the temple, and that they were afraid he would start a riot.
Pilate did not “go along” with Jewish Temple authorities. They worked fot him. While it’s possible that some Temple authorities helped to facilitate Jesus’ arrest, the trial before the Sanhedrin is an apologetic fiction and the notion of Temple authorities urging Pilate to do anything he didn’t want to do does not accord with what is known about that relationship. They were Pilates tools, he was not theirs.
[/QUOTE]
The gospels were written during a time when Christians and Jews alike were being oppressed by Roman authority. They were also written at a time when the early Christian movement was active in Rome and was trying to convert Romans and other gentiles to Christianity. This made it necessary to deemphasize Roman culpability in the crucifixion a much as possible. They couldn’t blame the people they were trying to convert, they also didn’t want to anger any Roman authorities if they didn’t have to. So Pilate’s role in the crucifixion was softened as much as possible and the role of the Jewish authorities was played up instead.
It’s also important to note that Christians in the latter part of the first century were in conflict with Jews, and Christanity was especially at odds with rabbinic Judaism in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Eventually, Christians were expelled from Jewish synagogues. The gospels reflect a certain anti-Jewish polemic which stems from these internal conflicts. The Pilate apology serves the double purpose of exculpating Rome while shifting the blame for the crucifixion to the Jewish authorities (later simply generalized to “the Jews”) who marginalized Christians and kicked them out of the synagogues.
One more point; the trial before the Sanhedrin as described in the synoptics is so riddled with factual and procedural errors that it could not have occorred as described. Not only that but Jesus’ conviction for “blasphemy” is based on statements made by Jesus which were not blasphemous under Jewish law.
Oh, and as to people laughing at the implausibility of it, you have to realize that neither the authors nor the audience for the gospels would have known anything much at all about the RL Pilate. The audience was composed of gentiles and Hellenistic Jewish converts, living outside of Palestine 40-70 years after the crucifixion, who would not have known Pilate from Adam. The audience for the gospels did not have the same access to information that we have now.
He couldn’t have done so as a member of the Sanhedrin. But this is really a minor point, the essential problem is that the Romans would not have turned over the body for anyone.
Indeed. This is precisely why traditional Christianity has held the “trial” to be a sham, and illegal even under Jewish law.
So you are saying that a member of the Sanhedrin who believed Jesus was the Christ could not have acted against the prevailing interpretation of Jewish law and instead according to his own conscience?
So Pilate could not have chosen to give Christ’s body back to His disciples? It would be physically or logically impossible for him to have done so? Pilate could not have given the body back to the disciples secretly? He could not have chosen to give it back, damn the consequences, because he didn’t want to crucify Christ in the first place and only did so to shut up the Jewish hierarchy? You have said yourself that the Passover was a time of great tension in Jerusalem. If Pilate was faced with the choice between crucifying Christ and having the priests make a ruckus on the holiday (and make an even bigger ruckus if he sacked them), surely he would have chosen the former option?
People have come up with all kinds of similar sounding place names. None of them are Arimathea.
Actually, 'Arimathea" is probably a pun on the Greek words, [symbol]aristoV maqhthV[/symbol] (aristos mathetes) which means “best disciple.” An “_eia” ending in greek would designate a place name, so “Arimathea” means “Best Disciple Town.”
Iv realize that Christians have to say something, but the trial as described by Mark is not just “illegal,” it is patently absurd in every respect. It doesn’t even make sense to say that it was just an illegal trial, because an illegal trial could have served no purpose. Most importantly, though, Mark’s trial convicts Jesus of something that was not illegal under Jewish law. Since the Sanhedrin could not have convicted Jesus of a crime that didn’t exist under Jewish law, the whole trial narrative is easily confirmed as a polemic fiction.
What do you mean by “the Christ?” Anyone who thought Jesus was the “Annointed One,” by definition thought that Jesus was the heir to the throne of David and the King of the Jews. That means any member of the Sanhedrin who expressed such a belief was challenging the authority of Pilate and was guilty of sedition. It hardly nees to be stated that Pilate would contradict his own public statement and undermine his own authority by playing along with such nonsense.
And just for the record, claiming to be the Messiah (the Christ) was not a crime under Jewish law, only under Roman law. That’s part of the reason that Mark’s trial is known to be a fiction. The Sanhedrin could not have convicted Jesus of blasphemy for this because it wasn’t blasphemous. It wasn’t illegal at all. People claimed to be the Messiah alll the time. They might have been wrong but they weren’t breaking any Jewish laws. Mark seems to be ignorant not only of Jewish law but of Jewish expectations for the Messiah.
For Pilate to turn Jesus over for burial would be to admit that Jesus was innocent of whatever he was crucified for. If Jesus really said he was the King of the Jews, then Pilate would be admitting that Jesus was actually the King of the Jews and he was undermining his own authority. Even if Jesus had not made such a claim, Pilate would still have been contradicting himself and admitting that Jesus was innocent.
You have to understand that the Romans viewed insurgents as basically terrorists. There wasn’t any ambiguity, there wasn’t any sympathy and there wasn’t any remorse.
And it wasn’t the Priests who were making a ruckus at the Temple, it was Jesus. The Romans thought Jesus would start a riot and he’s the guy they targeted.
Oh, and “sacking” the Temple Priests would have meant nothing to the public. The Temple Priests were widely despised as collaborators with the Romans. Pilate firing them would not have broken anyone’s heart or even caused a ripple. He simply would have replaced them with more puppets.
Not that the temple authority was any sort of problem for Pilate. They had no sway over him and no ability to pressure him.
I can think of several purposes such an absurd and illegal trial could have served. The primary point of the trial was to convict Jesus of a charge warranting death under Jewish law, no matter how ridiculous the trial was, so the priests could have some excuse, no matter how flimsy, for having Him put to death, if only to warn off potential disciples: “Don’t follow him or his disciples, because he was a blasphemer.”
But traditional Christianity believes that they did convict Him of a nonexistent crime, and they knew what they were doing; hence, the constant references in traditional hymnography to the perfidious, wretched, etc. Jews. These do not refer to Jews as a whole, but to the specifically evil ones who conspired to have Jesus put to death.
So you’re saying that it is impossible for Joseph to have had the orthodox conception of Jesus as God, and so not to have had held to the idea of the Christ as an earthly king, but as a heavenly one? Remember, traditional Christianity holds that the Jews had the wrong idea about the Christ: they were expecting an earthly king, but what they received was the Son of God Himself.
See above. Of course what Christ said wasn’t illegal, that’s what makes the whole trial such a wicked act. It was a sham from beginning to end.
Or maybe he realizes that the Jewish expectations for the Messiah were wrong.
But according to the Gospels, Pilate did believe that Jesus was in fact innocent (cf. the whole hand-washing scene). The Church even considers Pilates’ wife Claudia Procula to be a saint. Despite that giving the body back would be undermining his authority, it’s still possible that he did it, whether out of guilt or out of belief or because of his wife’s pressure.
So the priests couldn’t have started a ruckus if they wanted to? They couldn’t have started stirring shit up against the Romans?
Sacking the priests on the eve of passover would certainly throw a kink in the passover rites, no? Would it even be possible for replacement priests and levites to be called into service on such short notice to perform the sacrifices?
Why did they need the Romans to do it when they could have done it themselves? (The priests had the authority to summarily execute anyone who attacked or threatened the Temple. If they had perceived Jesus’ actions at the Temple as legitimately threatening (and they may well have) they could have executed him themselves without any trial.
Why would they conduct an illegal trial with no legal authority or legitimacy to convict him of a non-existent crime when they just as easily could have executed him for a real crime with no trial at all?
So what? What does that prove about the historicity of the event?
Yes, I’m saying that would be an anachronistic theological belief (Jesus was not deified during his lifetime) not to mention a blasphemous and idolotrous view for a member of the sanhedrin.
That’s what makes the trial such an obvious fiction. Why would they say something was blasphemy if it wasn’t? What, precisely, were they alleging was “blasphemous” about Jesus’ words? Why would they expect the public not to be confused by such a decree?
Then he would have been the only Jew alive too think so. Also, why was he a member of the Sanhedrin?
It’s not possible that he did it. He could not have done so without undermining his own authority.
[quotr]So the priests couldn’t have started a ruckus if they wanted to? They couldn’t have started stirring shit up against the Romans?
[/quote]
They could have done so if they wanted to die. But they were handpicked for their subservience. Also, there is nothing inside or outside of the Bible to indicate that the Priests at this time ever did such a thing.
They wouldn’t have been simply fired, they would have been killed. As for halting the Temple sacrifices, you may be right. I don’t know how quickly they could have been replaced. but I’m guessing the Romans could have put together an ad hoc squad of goat slashers if they were pushed.
There wasn’t any reason for the priests to defy Pilate and get themselves killed, though.
I would assume because if he stuck around and was recognized as the Son of God, they would soon be out of a job.
Honestly, I don’t know. The Gospels and the tradition of the Church do not go into the detail into the sociopolitical situation of the time that many would like; they merely record that the trial happened.
Just that objecting that the trial was illegal and absurd doesn’t pose a challenge to traditional Christian belief, which assumes that the priests knew perfectly well what they were doing.
Obviously, if one has the premise that Jesus is divine and was recognized as such at the time by many people, there is no anachronism.
Why would you expect them to give the public an accurate account of what was said at the trial? They wouldn’t have repeated the actual blasphemy anyways (if it existed), or they would be blasphemers themselves. They could say that Jesus was convicted for blasphemy without having to say exactly what the blasphemy was.
If he’s realized that Jesus is divine, there’s obviously going to be some re-evaluating of accepted Jewish beliefs going on. And presumably he became a member of the sanhedrin before he came to believe in Jesus.
If that is true, then by doing it he undermined his own authority.
Well, the traditional Christian would say they greatly desired to keep their position of power, and hoped to do away with Him who would expose the wickedness of their hearts and end the system that kept them in luxury.
Yeah, or what if he was a Martian secret agent? I bet that would scare them too.
I really have no use for supernatural hypotheses unless you can offer some proof.
They don’t “record” it, they allege. That’s not the same thing and that’s the whole point. The gospels accounts are simply not credible or plausible when subjected to critical historical scrutiny.
Traditional Christian belief has no probative value.
That’s an awfully big premise and there is zero evidence to support either the notion that Jesus was a god or that anyone thought so during his lifetime. Frankly, supernatural hypotheses of history are not useful to historical investigation unless there is proof. I will have to dismiss any fancies about Jesus being a god just like I would dismiss an assertion that he was really a leprechaun who was after the Romans’ Lucky Charms…that is, unless someone can offer evidence. As it stands, natural explanations must be considered before supernatural ones.
Why have a trial at all if they could just make something up? Why convict him of a non-existent “blasphemy” if they could have stoned him for threatening the Temple?
And if he’s realized that Jesus is vampire then that’s going to shake him up too. There is just as much evidence that Jesus was a vampire as that he was a god.
Which makes it impossible to believe.
That’s nice for traditional Christians but from an objective historical standpoint, there isn’t a shred of evidence.
Because by having Pilate do it devout followers of Jesus wouldn’t have blamed the Sanhedrin, or at least not as much. You make a compelling argument the Sanhedrin was just the puppets of Pilate. As such, if the Sanhedrin wanted to off Jesus, they could have just gone to Pilate and said “This guy poses a threat to Roman rule. You really should have him killed.” Given that Pilate saw the Sanhedrin as collaborators, why should he argue rather than comply? What is written in the Gospels about Pilate being morally anguished about ordering Jesus killed could have been added to deflect the blame on the Jewish leaders. The Sanhedrin would have just been concerned about an immediate rebellion by the followers of Jesus. That decades later Christians in Rome might blame the Sanhedrin was hardly something the Sanhedrin would have needed to worry about.
Diogenes has printed this before. When asked for a cite, he either come up with a Blog with some weird skeptical dude spouting off nonsense no reputable scholar even deigns to rebut, or something along the lines of “my post is my cite”. Needless to say- he’s dead wrong. :dubious: No reputable mainstream Biblical Scholar- even atheistic skeptical ones, and Jewish experts in that period- accepts any of this as even something to discuss. I read several reputable mainstream peer-reviewed sources on thise Period- including the “Oxford Companion to the Bible” with something on the order of 250 respected, published, Biblical professors, scholars, archeologists, and Rabbis- and none of this is even mentioned as an 'alternative viewpoint". Oxford more or less accepts the Historical Jesus and the story of the Crucifiction as mostly factual- although indeed, there are some problems, contradictions, and discussion.
So- what Diogenes here is saying SOUNDs very authoritive, but no one outside of the “tinfoil hat brigade” of Blog writers who can’t get printed in a Peer reviewed publication, accepts any of it. It’s pure unadulerated fringe stuff. It’s about on the level of “Jesus didn’t exist, it was all a big conspiracy by Paul” or “what if he was a Martian secret agent”. :rolleyes: And, what’s worse, these far fringie tinfoil hat super-biased Blog opinions are merrily spouted over and over again here as FACT, when even calling them “opinions” is kinda a stretch. Unless you want to accept Von Daniken stuff as “Opinions”. Heck, they can’t even get a book published, Von Daniken got several published…
If it ain’t in a mainstream Peer reviewed & rebutted publication, it’s “tinfoil hat stuff”. His sources all have “hat hair” and can bake a potato in their head gear- 'nuff said?
Diogenes- those aren’t “facts”. Not even close. OK? This is GD, and I have called you on them before, and extensively point by point rebuted your “cites” :rolleyes: with experts with “funny little letters after their name” as opposed to “tinfoil hats on their heads”. Now- if you want to believe them- well, that fine. But don’t come waltzing back here in GD and pushing that crap off as pure facts you don’t even have to cite. It’s NOT facts.
Oh, and if you don’t back down- then back it up. Cite? And none of that Tinfoil super-biased blog stuff either. Something "peer-reviewed’ by a respected & well-known Biblical scholar- hopefully with “funny little letters after his name”, all right? Because I have *that * ready with page number and all.
What Diogenes posted is basically consistent with the Bible. If the Sanhedrin weren’t outright collaborators, they would have been scared shitless by all the Romans marching around with swords. They could reasonably have feared that Jesus was a rabble rouser, and that he would somehow start a rebellion. If that happened, Pilate could have had the members of the Sanhedrin killed. Thus they tried Jesus on a trumped up blasphemy charge to save their skins, and convinced Pilate he was a threat.
As for Pilate turning over the body, maybe this one time he did something atypical. Perhaps he was spooked by that dream his wife told him about. Who knows? The important thing was to kill Jesus so he wouldn’t be a threat, and not what was done with his body afterwards.
As ususal with this subjectl, DrDeth, you have not the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
What exactly would you like a cite for? That the Sanhedrin trial is riddled with factual errors or that the Romans did not turn over crucified criminals for proper burials?
As tyrannical as the Romans were, they made a big deal about the Rule Of Law. This precludes just executing people who haven’t been credibly accused of doing something that was a capital crime under Roman law.
If they wanted to trump up a blaspehemy charge, they would have accused him of saying something which was actually blasphemous. If they had wanted to kill him for a disturbance at the Temple, they could have done so summarily without a trial. There was nothing the Temple authorities needed the Romans for, nor any reason to trump up a charge. If Jesus was crucified, it could have only been because he pissed off the Romans. The Sanhedrin’s complicity was, at most, in the role of minor collaborators.
And what happened to the body absolutely did matter. To let the body go was to admit that he was innocent. More than that, it would have been an admission that Pilate was not the rightful authority in Judea. A notion so implausible as to stop any serious consideration of historicity in its tracks as is any suggestion that Pilate felt any moral ambiguity.
As a matter of fact, it’s not even a given that Pilate knew who Jesus was or had any direct hand in the crucifixion at all. Quite likely Jesus was simply hauled away and executed by the cohort assigned to the Temple and Pilate was either never brought into it or gave only the most casual permission to crucify whatever troublemakers and criminals were arrested by the Romans.
Both. Last time I asked for the cites about the trial, and all you could come up is one Blog witten by some extremely biased fringie who no-oneother than yourself has ever even heard of. I want a Peer reviewed cite, published, and written by someone who is an accepted expert in this field- preferably with a PhD, or is a Full Professor at an accredited University. And not just that there may be a contradiction or two- I want someone who accepts your full list of “facts”. :dubious:
I’ll point out that I have a source written by 250 such, including Rabbis, PhD’s Professors, Professors Emeritus, and which includes experts in many nations, including Isreali’s. I may or may not “have not the slightest clue what you’re talking about.” but these dudes do- and you certainly don’t… unless you are an accepted published expert in this feild? Do you have a PhD in Biblical History? :dubious: I don’t know crap about this- other than what the experts tell me- and the experts tell me your wierd THEORIES are so far out that they don’t even bother listing them as “alternative”. All 250 of 'em.
