If Jesus was Crucified, Why Did it Happen
People ask Bart Ehrman, a well know professor of the New Testament, interesting questions. The question of why the Romans killed Jesus is central, Ehrman believes, to the faith.
I must mention here I am in the camp that has doubts about the existence of an actual Jesus and the stories about what he did and said and how he died. That a Jesus would have been killed by the Roman government is consistent with other known practices of the Roman administrators.
First, Ehrman says, we should be suspicious of the Luke version which tells of Pilate siding with Jesus but going forward with the execution because of pressure from other Jews. This story only appears in Luke and is consistent with that unknown author's efforts to appease Roman authorities. Thus, the Roman Administrator Pilate is portrayed as a good guy and some Jews as villains.
That the Jesus character would have been killed for what he preached seems most unlikely. Why would Roman administrators care what religious message he preached? They would have cared only about running the society and collecting taxes.
Thus, if Jesus was perceived to have been dabbling in politics with a message that an earthly apocalypse was coming and said, or others said, he would be a leader, that would have annoyed the Romans or any other occupying force. If he was merely a public nuisance probably he would have been killed.
That a Jesus merely broke laws and was killed for it falls into the category of believability. That he was killed for something to do with sin or forgiveness of sin, on the other hand, is far fetched.
One can almost see ancient writers conferring, "Yeah, the Romans killed him. It was pretty much a routine thing. Let's see if we can we work religion into this story."
Christ had to die because it was the reason He came to earth, took on all aspects of a human being, suffered, died and rose again. His reason was simple. He atoned for all sins past, present and future. With his death and resurrection, death held no grip on mankind. Heaven was opened because of His passion for His creation.
ReplyDeleteBut looking for an economic or political rationale for His death (crucifixion) you might consider the following. Jesus did not sit well with some of the Jewish elders who tried Him and convicted Him. They had no power to crucify Him so they brought Him before the Romans. In the end, Pilate washed His hands of Christ but let the crowd in public assembly decide between Jesus and Barabbas for leniency. Barabbas was freed and Christ was crucified. The crowd was paid off to vote for the release of Barabbas.
This is all in the Bible; the Catholic Bible and the King James (Protestant) Bible.
I have heard, your version of Pilate, etc., is only in the book of Luke. The other Gospels do not support that particular story. The unknown author called Luke was trying to appease Roman authorities by portraying Pilate as the good guy, Jews as bad. People who have studies the Roman empire think there is no reason Pilate would ever have gotten involved in an execution like the one of the Jesus story. It was written into the myth to make Jesus seem well known and important.
DeleteHow many times must something be repeated in the same book of the Bible or in different books of the Bible in order to be true, authentic, believed? For that matter, consider a modern day book and answer the same question.
DeleteThe other Gospels are silent about the matter. That is quite different than 'not supported'.
I find it peculiar that you know that the Gospel of Luke author was trying to appease Romans. How do you know this?
Matt -- "I find it peculiar that you know that the Gospel of Luke author was trying to appease Romans. How do you know this?" There is an entire society of scholars doing critical reading of the scriptures. That is, they read it with the same motive as Shakespeare scholars read Shakespeare, Poe scholars, etc. I've heard the majority of them are believers but even they have a different take than the average preacher/priest behind the pulpit. Everyone I've come across reads Luke as appeasing the Romans. I'm sure there are those who don't read it that way. Instead of reading Luke all teary eyed, I suggest you read it questioning the motive of the author like "What was he up to?" I just googled "Luke appeasing Romans." The first one that came up explained the author has Jesus praying for his enemies. Luke stresses Jesus' peaceful methods, etc etc. Probably you should not read critical analysis of the Bible since it is not in the Catholic Encyclopedia. But if you want to sneak a peek at this one:
Deletehttps://www.bibleodyssey.org/passages/main-articles/jesus-crucifixion-in-lukes-gospel
Jon 7:25: Your arguments are alot like the climate change "scientists" and those who try to bully the opposition, "... an entire society of scholars doing critical reading ..."
Delete"I've heard the majority of them ..."
"Everyone I've come across ..."
"Instead of reading Luke all teary-eyed ..."
"I'm sure there are those ..."
Spoken like a scholar writing a refereed journal article. Or a teary-eyed liberal counting the days he doesn't have to say "President Trump".
Why after slighting a god in a garden, followed by umpteen generations of “sinners”, a ghost impregnating a virgin, away in a manger, a star in the east, three kings, a carpentry apprenticeship, ransacking a temple, silver betrayal, bribing a jury of peers, murdering a rabbi and on and on, is it all necessary for forgiveness by the garden god. He or She or It could have revealed itself like with a second burning bush and proclaimed; “Worship and serve me you earthbound misfits and I’ll expunge your records. Mi Casa, Su Casa.” It’s puzzling. To paraphrase Tertullian; “It must be believed because it is absurd.”
ReplyDelete"To paraphrase Tertullian.." Good one. Matt explained that Jesus was sent to die. Why could not he have just laid down and died? Instead, there had to be a convoluted story, stories actually, about odd behavior in the market place, various versions of what was said and then various versions of him coming back to life. Actually, I know the answer. All story telling has to have villains and heroes. Just laying down an dying has none of the elements that make a good story.
DeleteKilling by proxy.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when only one of the Gospels isn't read in context with the others.. The same happens when the last chapter of "A Christmas Carol" is omitted. A few years ago Jon said he wanted to be as Scrooge. He didn't read the last chapter. I had to remind him that in the last chapter, Scrooge was said to keep Christmas joyously.
ReplyDeleteThe Jews thought "The King of the Jews" meant an earthly king. As evidenced by ensuing "messiahs" and finally Masada. When they realized that was not the purpose of Jesus, they wanted him eliminated .
Pilot was not such a pleasant governor, evidenced by the practice of killing anyone who disturbed the peace. When the Jews reminded Pilot of what Rome would do if he released " the king of the Jews", (again thinking an earthly King,) he was afraid for his position. Rome would not be tolerant of an earthly King of the Jews as competition to their authority. Yes, Pilot could not see Jesus as have done nothing wrong, but when the Pharisees told him of an earthly king that would be in competition with Rome, his mind was changed from fear. The leadership of the Jews did not want Rome to come in and destroy them. That eventually happened in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. So, did the Jews kill Jesus? No. The leaders manipulated the occasion, so the Romans did the dirty work.
In short, Jesus wasn't what the Jewish leaders wanted, and he was PRESENTED as a threat to Roman authority. Rome complied.
Helper--That is a way of interpreting it if the stuff told in the Bible really happened. That is, did Pilate really come to the execution? No one says this happened except what is in the Bible. It was written quite a while after it was supposed to have happened. If the Jesus character in the story was really an important figure of the time, Pilot might have been there. If the Jesus was a small time trouble maker, no. The writers of the Bible wanted their Jesus to be a big time public figure. The writer of Luke did not want to offend the Romans. So, some Jewish actors appeared to push the blame off the Romans. All told, it's a pretty good story. Whoever wants to think it is history is welcomed to do so.
Delete"did Pilate really come to the execution? No indication he did. IT IS NOT "IN THE BIBLE". "Pilot might have been there"; speculation. Re " big time public figure"; No indication just how big or small, but it was the time of Passover and there were many there. There is also no indication Luke did not want to offend the Romans. Re. "Jewish actors appeared to push the blame off the Romans". Matt 27;24-25; "And when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the multitude saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to that yourselves. v 25; And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children. Then he released Barabbas for them but Jesus he scourged and delivered over to be crucified." (by the Romans)
ReplyDeleteWhoever wants to think it is history by reading only one of the Gospels is welcomed to do so. Just like omitting the last chapter of "A Christmas Carol".
ReplyDeleteHelper--Reading it as you do, teary eyed, is not critiquing it as literature. Two different approaches. To most of those who critique it a literature the story of Pilate and the critical Jews being present does not make sense. From independent sources it is know the Romans killed trouble makers regularly. There is no independent source establishing the Jesus character in the story as more important than the rest of those the government killed. You often say you are not a literalist. Quoting Pilate is way over there in literalism.
ReplyDeleteJust looked in the mirror; NOT TEARY EYED. such a dam fool ass-umption.
DeleteJon. So you literally take the Romans killing trouble makers regularly. Who is more important? "The king of the Jews" would be high on the roman list, compared to a common thief.
That you even consider "Pilate may have been there, " is "way over there in literalism." Selective literalism.
@ 8;52. "Pilate etc. is only in the book of Luke. BIG FAT WRONGO. Again this is what happens when you don't read the other Gospels. See fore mentioned Matt 27; 24 forward. FAIL.
Jon; re. literalist; A literalist such as you only uses selective verses to bolster his position.
DeleteNot something a supposedly objective professor would do. Caught.
Bravo. Glad you made the objectivity point. What annoys me most about Jon is not the atheism. He sometimes makes challenging points. Besides we are all skeptics or functional atheists at various times in our life. That said he is a disgrace to his academic calling. Classic example of the triumph of ideology over academic objectivity, fair mindedness and all that. Tragically he is not alone. Too many segments of today's academy have been corrupted by ideology.
Deletelittle helper 11:16 and 11:28: You obviously have Jon over a barrel. He won't respond. If he does, he'll take some tangential comment and make it the central point of his response. Keep up the good work!
DeleteMatt--"You obviously have Jon over a barrel. He won't respond..."
DeleteMy objective here is readership, not carrying on forever the arguments we get into. I could have not posted all these criticisms but they are here for anyone interested. Helper recommended yet more propaganda to bolster his case for the current propaganda. No point in carrying on a dialogue about which propaganda is history.