There are few first hand account of anything from that time. By the way atheists talk, there’s piles of Roman records, and somehow just Jesus is mysteriously missing. Did Pilate exist? For decades some atheists even claimed Pilate was made up, until 1961 when (wiki) The Pilate Stone is the name given to a block (82 cm x 65 cm) of limestone with a carved inscription attributed to Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman-controlled province of Judaea from 26-36. The stone is significant because it is the only universally accepted archaeological find with an inscription mentioning the name “Pontius Pilatus” to date.
So, not only do we not have any records signed by Pilate we have no official Roman records that even mention Pilate.
Sure the Romans kept meticulous records, but these were almost all destroyed or reused.
Now Josephus sez that Pilate was eventually recalled due to “* his insensitivity to Jewish customs.”* So, if Pilate was trying to bend over to make the Priest happy, it’s not suprising he did what he did. As for Pilate having no authority to execute a man without a trial, (wiki) " But at a village named Tirathana, before the crowd could ascend the mountain, Pilate sent in “a detachment of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, who in an encounter with the firstcomers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential.”
Who sez the Romans didn’t crucify thieves? Note that Ceasar had done to the pirates who had captured him. That’s the problem with reading these atheist cites. They take something like the fact that the Romans really rarely crucified any citizen for anything, then say “Romans didn’t crucify thieves” which is patently false. No serious scholar sez that. There are pages and pages of debates about exactly how Jesus was crucified on wiki- what sort of cross was most likely used, and so forth. Nowhere is there any doubt that the thieves were also crucified.
That’s fair, but that doesn’t make this account likely.
Right - some people of skeptical of everything. That said, that doesn’t mean that the account in the Gospels should be just taken at face value.
Regardless of this, we have no reason to be skeptical of Pilate’s existence, this is the difference between Pilate’s existence and the portrait in the Gospels. There are reasons to be skeptical of this account. There are reasons to be skeptical of the other accounts we have from Roman Historians at the time (about other miracles and such).
If he did bend over to the Priests, then why would he be recalled? This seems to lend more credence to the idea that Pilate would not have bent to the Priests, not less. What you are essentially doing here is providing evidence that suggests he would not have listened to the jewish mob, since he was very insensitive to their customs.
As to executing a man without a trail - I didn’t make that claim. I said that if he ordered the execution it would have been because he found Jesus guilty of being a messiah - it’s the bit about Pilate finding Jesus innocent, letting a murderer go, and then crucifying him anyway to pacify a crowd which your source apparent shows that would go against his character.
Pirates aren’t the same thing as thieves - and Ceasar crucifying pirates who attempted to capture him is completely different from two common thieves.
You seem to be arguing that just because it’s possible that means it’s probable. So at least the ‘atheist cites’ are going off of what little we know. You are going off of logical possibility and then somehow translating it into a case for it being probable.
As to no serious scholar, where do they say anything about the probability of the thieves being crucified? I admit, I only have a surface knowledge of these things, so if you have serious scholars who talk about the two thieves, then please present it. You seem to be arguing from a lack of discussion on the topic to acceptance of the account.
According to this, it doesn’t seem as though crucifixion would have been used for thieves:
Now, it’s possible that two thieves would have done something to meet this criteria, but is it probable? I don’t see any reason to believe it was.
Further,
Crucifixion was a mark of dishonor - so why would Jesus have then been buried in a tomb? Again, it’s possible, but I don’t see how anyone could believe that it was probable in this case.
So, again, I’ll grant you that it is possible that the Gospels record history with Jesus being brought up to Pilate and then crucified. It’s possible. Is it probable? Do I think it’s likely?
No, it goes against Pilates character and the narrative doesn’t fit with the culture at the time.
The behavior of real governmental agencies throughout human history.
Unfortunately, Jesus is surrounded by the same nebula of stained-glass unreality that similarly impairs the public perception of George Washington and William Shakespeare.
Presumably the writers of the Gospel would want Jesus to die by a method similar to slaves to emphasise the inequity applied and humility of their saviour. The available evidence can decide precisely what occurred.
Because no one doubts the Crucifixion story, at least as far as the thieves go. Actually the greek word is better translated robber. Let me make that clear- no scholar has any doubts about the reality of Jesus or the Crucifixion. Mind you, there is considerable doubt about the mythology surround the Birth of Jesus. Frankly, it does appear that
It’s true that crucifixion was a mark of dishonor, but your cites are mostly talking about the fact that it was almost never used against Roman citizens, which is true. BUT- Jesus was not a Citizen. The Romans used crucifixion against non-citizens as they wanted wiki “the Jewish historian Josephus too, writing of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, recounted that the Jews caught outside the city walls “were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city … the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest.”[24]”
“That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history.[13] Early Christians are considered unlikely to have invented Jesus’ crucifixion because it would have embarrassed them”.
Note no doubts about two robbers being executed alongside.
So, it was common, there are no scholarly doubts- you come up with a cite by a respected scholar that sez otherwise.
I presume you mean the Gospel of Mark, right? Why trust that?
This just shows that it’s possible - it still doesn’t show it was very probable. In other words, just because it’s possible doesn’t give us reason to believe it actually happened.
True - the Gospel writers could have inserted these passages to fit the Old Testament, there is some evidence that seems to point to this.
I wasn’t aware that there was any sort of poll taken among the scholarly community on this. Can you provide a cite for this?
As to the reality of Jesus, some scholars do doubt his historicity - but I’m not a mythicist, so I see no reason to defend that view. As to the crucifixion, this is more contested, but I would say that, IIRC, something like 75% of scholars surveyed believe that it occurred - I believe Habermas did a bean counting of this.
Despite appearances, I would probably say that Jesus was put to death and could have been crucified (he was probably killed in some fashion). That said, my point in bringing all of this up is that the story as presented seems vastly improbable. I think that if Jesus was brought before Pilate, Pilate would have found him guilty - another “Messiah” who he would have though could have planned on attacking the temple.
I do not think he would have judged him innocent and then set a murderer free. In other words, while I think that certain details could be probable, when you put them all together they are not probable. It strains at the credibility of the story.
So to focus on one aspect seems to miss the point.
Yes, people engaging in overthrowing the temple militarily were crucified. Jesus did not engage in this. In fact, according to the ‘source’ (the gospels), he was innocent. So this source (that you present) doesn’t support the contention that he was crucified. Either the story is inaccurate or completely unbelievable.
I appreciate that.
Well attested? I’m not sure that I would go that far. As to the embarrassment angle, that has some strength - I admit, but I do not think it supports the entire story. Again, if you are arguing that Jesus was crucified, I can concede that this could have happened.
If you are arguing that the account in the Gospels is accurate; ie, Jesus was brought before Pilate by an angry jewish mob, Pilate bent to their will even though he judged Jesus innocent, set a murderer free, crucified Jesus, and then let Jesus’ body be taken by Joseph (while he ignored the two thieves), then no, I cannot conceded that all of that is probable.
So what are you arguing, that the individual the elements of the narrative could have occurred? Or are you arguing that it’s probable that the narrative as presented in the Gospels could have occurred.
These are two different things and I feel as though you are showing that piecemeal they could have occurred, while arguing that the entire narrative is probable.
This seems to beg the question - you are essentially arguing that because no scholar mentions it therefore they all support it. I’ve presented some stuff that suggests that it’s doubtful - not that it’s impossible. I asked you to present something about scholars talking about the two thieves and you’ve given nothing about it. All you’ve done is basically said that because no scholars (that we know of) talk about it, therefore they all agree that it’s probable. As I said, is it possible that the two thieves did something to meet the criteria? Yes, is it probable? I see no reason to believe so.
Again, my point is that the combination of all of these things makes the narrative entirely improbable.
It seems to me that the two thief narrative is better explained by the authors of the Gospels in an attempt to answer prophecy and as a rhetorical device. In other words, the author wasn’t trying to write history. If you take a look at this page, you will see that the thieves are quite useful as a rhetorical device.
So when you look at the narrative and all the improbable elements, is it more likely that these elements happened? Or is it more likely that they were added to fit prophecy?
Remember that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses - they all depend on Mark, who wasn’t an eye witness. Mark was written around 70 AD, which would have been at least 40 years after Jesus’ death in the 30’s.
The disciples weren’t around to hear Pilate judge Jesus as innocent - so who told them? Who was there to hear Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane? No one, they were all asleep.
To be clear, the author of that page doesn’t agree with me - I’m just referencing it because if you look at it from the angle that the Gospel writer was attempting to fulfill prophecy and use the narrative as a rhetorical device, that theory fits nicely with what is presented and it fits the history at the time, since I think the history at the time shows that the narrative is quite improbable.
Of course, I could be wrong on all of this, since I’m not an expert.