Which of the Crucifixion Narratives is the Correct One


To understand why a growing portion of us here in the U.S. and in Europe are sliding away from Christianity it is helpful the review parts of the Bible. The part one could say is most central to the faith is the crucifixion and Resurrection of the main character, Jesus. When one reviews the four versions of the crucifixion it is so obvious they were embellished over time for propaganda value. The propaganda message was Jews are the villains.

In the first Gospel written, Mark, Pilate asked Jesus if he is the King of the Jews. Jesus says nothing. Then Pilate goes to a crowd, we don't know why there is a crowd there, and asks the Jews. The Jews say to kill him. it seems unrealistic the person sent to run the country for the Romans asks the crowd such a question. Pilate has no reason to be popular, no elections there.

The next Gospel written was Matthew. That version is about the same except a little item is added to raise the tension. Pilate's wife passes a note telling Pilate Jesus is innocent. It makes the tale better than the one Mark made up.

Luke makes up a deeper plot. In Luke the High Priests accuse Jesus, not only of being King of Jews but of discouraging people from paying taxes. Then a big change in the proceedings happens which Mark and Matthew didn't mention, turning Jesus over to Herod. Herod returns Jesus to Pilate. Pilate makes bigger and bigger pleas to save Jesus but the evil Jews demand death. 

Generations later the book of John was written. It's embellishments follow the same pattern: Pilate looks better and better, the Jews look worse and worse. The pattern suggests writers became more and more concerned about offending Rome and more and more saw the Jews as competitors that could be demonized without risk.

The kinder and more concerned Pilate does not conform to the Pilate in other ancient writing. In other sources, Josephus for example, Pilate is portrayed as a no nonsense, efficient and ruthless Governor who collected taxes and tolerated no dissent. His portrayal in the Bible as Mr. Softy is completely at odds with every other source.

Believers will often defend these various and conflicting accounts be saying they are all correct, just different descriptions of the same factual events. A more reasonable take is that the entire death story of Jesus was passed from person to person changing a bit along the way. When writers committed it to paper they added items that made it all the more dramatic.

Comments

  1. tsmJuly 27, 2021 at 8:57 AM

    consider this. there is a serious auto accident observed by three credible witnesses, standing at three different but proximate locations. the case goes to court. the three witnesses agree on every detail regarding the accident. at that point one might get a scent of collusion and dismiss the testimony. or the witnesses might give wildly disparate accounts of what happened. again impugn the witnesses. or quite likely they might give testimony that varied considerably in detail but which nonetheless made it clear that they had all witnessed the same event. seems to me that the third scenario would strengthen, not detract from, the credibility of the testimony. you are so hung up on your need to discredit Scripture that you revert to fairy tales, conjuring up interpretations of events/passages when simple, straightforward explanations would do nicely. remember Occam's razor?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jon LindgrenJuly 27, 2021 at 11:17 AM

    tsm re: Witnesses. Using witnesses of an accident does not apply to the crucifixion because there we do not hear from any witnesses. It follows the entire event most likely did not happen.

    re: "remember Occam's razor?" Yes, you lose. Occam's razor stands in favor of my arguments. The simplest explanation is that the "trial" is propaganda. The tale changed over time, portraying Pontius more favorably to curry favor with the Romans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tsmJuly 27, 2021 at 2:27 PM

      OK, you just reinforced my point. twist it all to fit your assumptions. portraying Pilate to curry favor with the Romans? wow. don't think so. Pilate comes through as a man caught in the middle of a messy political situation. sounds very authentic to me. must concede tho' that you have an uncanny ability to conjure up "original" explanations as needed to fit your narrative.

      Delete
  3. Jon LindgrenJuly 27, 2021 at 3:29 PM

    tsm re: Pilate

    Your version of Pilate comes from the Bible. The Bible is the only place he is portrayed as sensitive and conflicted. All other accounts of him are of an efficient and decisive bureaucrat. The wealthy people who wrote the Bible wanted to portray him as their friend--the Jews were their competitors. They were portrayed as villains. You "twist is all to fit you assumptions."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the "Original Sin" Should be Reassigned

Image
We can all agree most Catholic priests are fine people and not guilty of sexual abuse. What Catholics must face, however, it that their church harbors executives who are dishonest . There is an incredible story about the Argentine Bishop Zanchetta. The Pope worked with him in Argentina and they are considered friends. Around 2015 Zanchetta sent nude pictures of himself and they began circulating world wide. He also was too friendly with young seminarians and some left because of him.  Three different officials say they made formal complaints to the Vatican about Zanchetta between 2015 and 2017. Yet, in 2018, the Vatican claimed it was unaware of any complaints about Zanchetta. This might be a good time to repeat the Catholic hierarchy claims to have the sole authority handed down from Jesus to what the faith stands for. It condemns as sinners those who practice birth control, have abortions and gay sexual relationships. Handing the hierarchy this responsibility would make som
Read more

The Religious Capitol Invaders May Yet Win

Image
So much about U.S. society and religion can be learned from the Civil War and what happened afterwards. After its defeat, the South started a myth about the unethical soldiers from the North. The South fought for principles of God and states rights. The North did not. It was the South, this propaganda told the country, that had the high moral ground.  The Capitol invaders, encouraged by Trump, swallowed the myth that Biden's election was stolen. Thus, they think they held and still hold the high moral ground. This was reinforced by the cross and prayers during the invasion. Even with Trump is gone, we will see political opportunists like Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley stroking crowds and feeding the same lies as Trump. Like "the South will rise again" these gullible followers will talk of victory over the unclean. After the Civil War the South rallied around the phrase, Lost Cause. For decades, and maybe to this day, there are ceremonies remembering fallen martyrs, Re
Read more

Father Frank Pavone, the Ultimate Crook

Image
Recently, the Vatican defrocked Frank Pavone. His diehard fans are outraged. This is because he cleverly manipulated his fans and the press all the while living well from donations and, apparently, abusing some women. By making abortion the "sin" of the century, and himself the main opposition to this one sin, he himself could get away with any sin he pleased.  As the link points out, Pavone was the perfect priest for the Trump era. Trump is so self-important laws have no role in his life. He felt accountable to no one. Women were there to be had. Pavone and Trump are interchangeable.  Pavone was very successful raising money. In his mind, abortion was so important in Catholic beliefs and he was so important in anti-abortion the money he raised opposing it was his to do with what he liked. The Catholic Church, the brand name he used to raise this money, thought the money belonged to it. When he gave the Vatican the bird, it gave him walking papers. With polls showing the majo
Read more