” To say that just in “this case” it refers to a knife is not playing fair with our evidence.”

That’s a bit of an oversimplification, Fredriksen argues,

“I would insist that carrying a μάχαιρα was one of the last things that would have gotten a Jewish male arrested at Passover. One man out of every ten-person group (if we can trust the principles of Josephus’s reckoning for Passover) would have done so: 255,600 is  the number that he gives for sheep slain, thus for males sacrificing. μάχαιρα in this context does not mean ‘sword’. It means ‘knife’, specifically the large knife used for slaughtering animals in sacrifice. It translates the Hebrew word תלכאמ,
as at Gen. 22.6 LXX. (Unless we suppose that the Hellenistic Abraham was about to decapitate Isaac, the word there must also mean ‘sacrificial knife’.)”

This is also not being picayune since it is precisely a question of whether these men would be perceived as dangerous. A group of men with swords is definitely out of context; although a group carrying sacrificial daggers might be as well (given that her figure is 1 in 10 men carried one) The difference might be seen this way: A policemen sees me walking down the street with a Butcher’s knife. A policemen walks into a Butcher shop and sees the Butcher holding Butcher’s knife.

Was Cicero at Passover?

Boltonian said
I remember reading in one of Geza Vermes’ books somewhere (I will try to dig it out) that there is some evidence to suggest that Pilate (and a strong contingent of Roman soldiery) was in Jerusalem during Passover because of the potential for trouble making in general and seditious rioting in particular. This was caused by the heightened emotional tension of an occupied people during a religious festival and massive overcrowding, with Jews from all over the diaspora coming to the city – think ‘Haj’ today if Saudi Arabia were governed by a hostile non-Muslim power.   

That sound familiar and, I think, pretty solid.  On the one hand you could take Sanders impression about the disturbance in the temple against this Roman concern for order; however, if we accept the story at face value, his arrest didn’t come immediately Whether that says anything about whether the Jesus movement was threatening enough or whether the Romans simply wanted to avoid  igniting a bigger disturbance. What can that tell us about the threat assessment? Of course, if the Romans weren’t right there in the Temple, it may be that they only heard about it afterwards .  Do we even have enough data to decide either way. 

Consider also the Jewish embassy and that one of the charges against Pilate was execution without trial. This is to say, Pilate simply couldn’t be bothered.

think ‘Haj’ today if Saudi Arabia were governed by a hostile non-Muslim power.   

Trump?

spiker said

maryhelena said

Indeed, there is just too many illogical issues within the gospel crucifixion story for it to have been historical. Jesus being ‘too far down the pecking order’  to warrant an appearance before Pilate being just one of those illogical issues.

Yet the assessment of Jesus social standing ( a good bit of speculation) is not Part of the Gospel crucifixion story(Unless you mean the Gospel according to Greg)

It wouldn’t be illogical at all for Pilate to either delegate a trial to an underling or simply order an execution without trial. If Jesus were arrested, it hardly matters whether he was thought of as a small dog in a big backyard. I don’t see that exaggerating  someone’s importance or not getting the story straight,  is illogical.

So, carpenter or king would get the same judicial treatment under Rome? Doubtful I’d imagine  –  money and position ‘talk’ even today….

 Ehrman for example finds the crucifixion to be “beyond the shadow of a doubt”.

What is ”beyond the shadow of a doubt’ is that Rome executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Cassius Dio saying of Antigonus:  “These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.”

The charge and subsequent punishment are historically credible;( This is to say not illogical) particularly if you side with Reza Aslan and a zealot Jesus (or Dale Martin for that matter).

The issue raised is not that Rome executed a ‘king of the jews’  –  the issue is the gospel trial of Jesus before Pilate. A trial that has numerous illogical elements.

Either the threat posed by Jesus to
the stability of Jerusalem is so great that he is one of
only a handful of Jews to have the opportunity to
stand before Pilate and answer for his alleged
crimes, or else the so-called trial before Pilate is a
fabrication.
There is reason to suspect the latter. The scene does
have an unmistakable air of theater to it.
……
Yet in Mark’s telling of the story, something
happens between Jesus’s trial before Pilate and his
death on a cross that is so incredible, so obviously
contrived, that it casts suspicion over the entire
episode leading up to Jesus’s crucifixion. Pilate,
having interviewed Jesus and found him innocent of
all charges, presents him to the Jews along with a
bandit (lestes) named bar Abbas who has been
accused of murdering Roman guards during an
insurrection at the Temple. According to Mark, it
was a custom of the Roman governor during the
feast of Passover to release one prisoner to the Jews,
anyone for whom they asked. When Pilate asks the
crowd which prisoner they would like to have
released—Jesus, the preacher and traitor to Rome, or
bar Abbas, the insurrectionist and murderer—the
crowd demands the release of the insurrectionist and
the crucifixion of the preacher.
The scene makes no sense at all. Never mind that
outside the gospels there exists not a shred of
historical evidence for any such Passover custom on
the part of any Roman governor.
Reza Aslan: Zealot

Consider the scenario Ehrman has offered about Judas: Why pay this guy to follow and identify Jesus when you could send a slave for free? But suppose Judas’s significance lay in  revealing a secret teaching of his Master’s about their upcoming roles in the new kingdom. The disturbance in the temple combined with such information would probably have been more than enough for the Romans. But here again, if true, this doesn’t make the gospel story illogical.

The money aspect of the crucifixion story is illogical. It makes no sense for the priests to pay Judas when they could just have had Jesus followed by a slave for free….The relevance of money changing hands in the gospel crucifixion story is that, historically, re Josephus, money did change hands when the Roman, Marc Antony, executed Antigonus. (Interestingly, it is Pilate that gets the money in the version of the crucifixion story in Slavonic Josephus…and if one wants to find relevance in that story   –  Marc Antony, who took Herod’s money prior to executing Antigonus  –  eventually committed suicide…..)

So, carpenter or king would get the same judicial treatment under Rome? Doubtful I’d imagine  –  money and position ‘talk’ even today….

1.) that’s not illogical and 2.) entirely speculative.   I think it was Greg who referred to an actual case where a wealthy (royal?) person was crucified. The idea that crucifixion was reserved for the poor is a bit of question begging. And if you’re still in doubt we’ll consult the testimony of ms. Maryhelena who evered:

What is ”beyond the shadow of a doubt’ is that Rome executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews

Nice way to avoid answering the argument and are you saying that only one thing can be beyond the shadow of the doubt?

 I don’t see how insinuation helps your argument. Further the question was about whether Jesus was too lowly not whether he was a king. Are you paying attention to your own argument? That’s ok we’ll help you out by taking a look at the video tape,

Maryhelena said “Jesus being‘too far down the pecking order’  to warrant an appearance before Pilate being just one of those illogical issues.”

So which is it you’re arguing? That Jesus had position and money? Was a king? Further, there was never a question about warranting an appearance. My question was whether Pilate would think it was worth his time not whether Jesus would get a trial.

“The issue raised is not that Rome executed a ‘king of the jews’  –  the issue is the gospel trial of Jesus before Pilate. A trial that has numerous illogical elements.”

Then why did you bring it up? The fact that the charge related to  being King of the Jews, doesn’t mean he was the actual king.You do understand that, don’t you? 

The issue under consideration was whether the charge and subsequent punishment were historically credible.  but you not only didn’t show anything illogical about that , and then admit “that Rome executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews” [this is to say that carpenter and King apparently DID get the same treatment]but also the issue wasn’t whether Jesus was too important, but too lowly.  So one has to wonder how the “money and power” insinuation is supposed to be the least bit meaningful

The relevance of money changing hands in the gospel crucifixion story is that, historically…,

Yet the question wasn’t about relevance or what someone else (Marc Anthony) did. Whether Judas took money is not illogical.  More importantly the issue you raised was about illogical details in the Gospel stories. Ehrman’s argument is 1.) not in the gospels and 2.) speculation. You do understand that, don’t you?

I don’t see how taking a bribe is irrational. The idea that it doesn’t make sense depends heavily on whether Ehrman’s argument is correct. After all, Judas could have gotten the money for revealing Jesus secret teaching and gone with the guards to show them where he knew Jesus would be. In other words, why get a slave to do it when Judas already knows and may have to testify in the trial.The point of bringing up Ehrman’s argument was to show that an armed group of men isn’t necessary to explain arrest and execution. Money, in this context is incidental In deed, that Jesus was the only one arrested makes sense if he is the only one committing the crime. For the sake of argument, it’s entirely possible that the place of arrest was also where Jesus taught the disciples his secret teaching and got caught in the act.

maryhelena said

The issue is what charge would Pilate, a Roman governor, see fit to give his attention to. A charge of sedition against a carpenter is not in the same league as a charge of sedition against a King of the Jews.  

Actually, no, the question was whether Pilate would have been there at all and your response to the idea that Jesus was too low on the social totem pole to warrant Pilate’s attention. That was the issue under discussion and the  one you responded to.

Further, that crucifixion was beyond the shadow of a doubt related to the claim of historicity. You chose not to deal with that response and instead wanted to speculate about whether a king would be treated differently. Yet no one ( I don’t even think Price or Carrier argue that Jesus was an actual king being charged.) claims.  

“So which is it you’re arguing? That Jesus had position and money? Was a king? Further, there was never a question about warranting an appearance. My question was whether Pilate would think it was worth his time not whether Jesus would get a trial.”

How is that sarcasm, maryhelena? You brought up the whole King scenario yourself in a discussion of whether Pilate would consider jesus worth his time; So either you’re arguing Jesus was wealthy etc or you’re raising an irrelevant issue.

“That money changes hands in the gospel crucifixion story does not indicate historicity of that story..”

Right, but no one made that claim.  First. I pointed to Ehrman’s speculation about whether paying Judas to follow and identify Jesus made sense.  Now, if Ehrman was right, the payment could have happened  for a different reason than what the gospels state which is what the discussion was about. 

“The issue raised is not that Rome executed a ‘king of the jews’  –  the issue is the gospel trial of Jesus before Pilate.

Again, you are the one that raised the whole king question. If that is not the issue, why bring it up?

A trial would be worth the time of Pilate if the charge was sedition. However, I don’t think that you hold to that view  –  leaving the carpenter option on the table….and thus an appearance before Pilate historically doubtful…

The first part (whether it was worth his time)  is right, but the discussion was about whether Jesus was too small time for Pilate ( a point no one else had a problem understanding) for Pilate to be there at the trial. 

Pilate found no fault with Jesus  –  therefore, the crucifixion was illogical. If Jesus was charged with sedition then crucifixion was logical. 

Yes, but the problematic detail is not whether there was a crucifixion, but whether Pilate (or an underling) actually found no fault. 

 

And no, I don’t argue that Antigonus = the gospel Jesus. Far from it. I argue that the historical execution of Antigonus, by the Roman, Marc Antony, is reflected in the gospel Jesus crucifixion story

yes an argument that you haven’t offered a shred of evidence for. But what does the idea that the Antigonus story being reflected  in the gospel Jesus crucifixion story mean?  What’s the relevance?

spiker, unless any further responses to my post display a more appropriate manner  –  there will be no response from me.

Are you keeping that promise THIS TIME or is this just more of the same?

Greg Matthews said   

Why does your membership badge say “Doctorate Member”?

I’ve been having second thoughts about what I said about Pilate not overseeing the trial of Jesus.  We certainly have a strong tradition about it from multiple sources.  Maybe the high treason Jesus committed did in fact warrant the governor stepping in.

Beats my pair of Jacks, Greg!  It’s certainly not based on what I know. Charity?

The charge is certainly severe and it’s reasonable to assume the governor would want to be seen as on top of it, but it strikes me as a bit comical: Consider, Martin’s thesis that Jesus and his followers come to Jerusalem armed so we might have 13 guys with swords ready to rumble. It’s certainly something that the Romans would not let pass, but how important is it ? Does Pilate oversee the trial of a homeless guy rattling on that he is Caesar? I still can’t help thinking the seriousness of the charge is dependent  on the size of the threat. Consider the difference between how the 93 WTC bombing was treated Versus 9/11

As to the tradition, all I can say is I think it is a late tradition. If I recall correctly, early Christian literature, Q for example, didn’t have a passion.  Of course, there’s no requirement to have one.A late tradition doesn’t mean false. To be sure, we have the whole “at the hands of Pilate” claim suggesting Pilate’s participation, but how literally do we want to read that? Could this simply mirror the modern tendency to blame or laud the president. 

I found this bit on Ealry Christian writings 

“

The inspiration for the subsequent discussion comes from the suggestion of R. Pesch that the passion narrative must have been written before 37 CE because “the high priest” is mentioned without any name. Although this argument is not secure, given the counter-example that the pharaoh in the exodus story is not named either, it leads Theissen to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the way in which people in the story are mentioned.

Theissen finds another reason for the anonymity of the high priest; it was not necessarily for the reason that the writing took place before 37 CE. Rather, during the period between 30 and 70 CE, “there was no time when Caiaphas and his family were not powerful” (p. 173). For this reason, reasons Theissen, “Traditions circulating in their sphere of influence were well advised not to mention their names in a negative context” (p. 173). By contrast, as shown by Philo and Josephus, Pilate “was the subject of more negative tradition than many other prefects and procurators,” and so the creators of the original passion narrative had no reason not to mention Pilate by name and to place blame upon him. This situation is changed in the period after the First Jewish Revolt in the writings of Matthew and Luke, in which Pilate is exonerated and the high priest is named without hesitation. ** you do not have permission to see this link **

On the one hand we have a strong tradition associating Pilate with the trial. At minimum it tells us early Christians believed this was true.  If the passion narrative was written within 10 years (37 CE), it is certainly also early enough. 

Oddly I managed to find Bart’s response to my question about whether there was even a trial:

EDIT:

But first a little context. In a post titled Judas and the Messianic Secret,[apparently not written for the folks out here interested only  in History and not secrets] Bart wrote,

“But that makes Jesus’ execution a real puzzle.[identifying himself as the messiah only to his disciples]   I frankly doubt that Jesus was first put on trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin, as in our earliest account Mark.  My sense is that there was no official trial (as there is not in John), but that the authorities handed Jesus over to the Romans for trial and punishment.”

This intrigued me because I speculated that because one of the complaints against Pilate brought (according to Josephus) by a Jewish embassy to Caesar, was execution without trial. So I asked If he also doubted the Trial before Pilate:

“I’m not 100% sure that Jesus appeared directly before Pilate, but I’m 99.9% sure he appeared before *some* high ranking Roman official who ordered his execution for claiming to be the Jewish king.” 

So if we were to tally this up, it is pretty likely Pilate was there. I would be interested to hear Bart’s reasoning