Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/7

Wiki Links for notes

Could someone set these for all the authors? Next week, if I have time, I'll find what references I can for the rest, now that things are quiet. They ARE quiet, aren't they? --CTSWyneken 12:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"The perceived crime of sedition"

This is POV. NPOV would be "....the crime of sedition". Let us assume for the sake of argument that the trial is historical, and Jesus was tried and convicted. Therefore, he was found guilty of sedition. He wasn't found guilty of the "percieved" crime of sedition. He was found guilty of sedition, and that is what should be said. I can't keep up with all the discussion on this article, so if this has been discussed and belongs in another section, please move it. -- Drogo Underburrow 04:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely he wasn't found guilty of any crime. The gospels make it clear that Pilate washed his hands of Jesus at the trial because he could not find any charge against him that would stand. Jesus was handed over to the Jews to be crucified to appease the people, not because he'd been found guilty. 62.6.139.11 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Stuart, Leicester, UK 31st March 2006

Guilty de jure (according to the formal charge), but not necessarily guilty de facto (according to the facts of the case). --MonkeeSage 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If, as I do, you take the text of the Gospels seriously at this point, the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, because he equated himself with God, although he was a man. For them, it was worthy of death. Had Pilate not been in town, they would have stoned him on the spot.

Because they could not, they had to come up with a charge that the Romans could respect. Sedition or rebellion was just about it. Pilate saw through it, looked for every way to release him. The sanhedrin was not about to let him off. To placate them and get rid of someone disturbing the peace, Pilate executed him. To get back at the Sanhedrin, he post the "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" titilus

So, he was found innocent of all charges and executed for the charge of sedition anyway. So, how do you all want to say that in one phrase? ;=) --CTSWyneken 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article STILL says that he was found guilty of 'percieved sedition'. That's interesting. The sentence for percieved sedition appears the same as for sedition. Funny that the Romans didn't make "percieved sedition" a lighter offence. Drogo Underburrow 05:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo: I think that you are right. In terms of the formal (de jure) charge, Jesus was guilty of sedition. Not "perceived" sedition. While the charge may have been a puppet charge to appease the Jewish leaders, nonetheless, it was passed on the orders of Pilate, and the scholars we cite don't qualify it as "perceived." We should not qualify it, either. Just plain old sedition was the charge for which Jesus was executed, regardless of whether the charge was justified. --MonkeeSage 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From The Wikipedia Bible: Matt 27:37 "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE PERCEIVED KING OF THE JEWS." Drogo Underburrow 11:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Above his head, if he really existed, they placed the written charge against him, though he probably couldn't read it: THIS IS JESUS, IF HE REALLY EXISTED, THE PERCEIVED KING OF THE JEWS." ;D ;D --MonkeeSage 11:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What language was that perceived to have been written in? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 12:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In Perceived Greek, of course. Drogo Underburrow 13:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Or, Lojban and French. Darned Canadians! :) --MonkeeSage 13:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Also in what they thought was Latin and Abramaic? Or was that Reformed Egyptian? --CTSWyneken 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In the movies I've seen it's always in english! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, watch your movies in French! Drogo Underburrow 00:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Possibly above his head, if he really existed and they could write, they placed the written charge against him, in what they believed to be Greek, Hebrew and Latin, though he probably couldn't read any of it: WE THINK THIS IS JESUS, BUT IT MIGHT BE BARABBAS, THE PERCEIVED KING OF THE JEWS." hehe --MonkeeSage 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is lots of fun, but can we now delete the word "perceived" from the 2nd paragraph? Drogo Underburrow 00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You may perceive that I have done this -- or maybe not. --CTSWyneken 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now we're just getting silly. BTW, where did "Perceived crime of sedition" come from? The last time I looked, the phrasing we had come up with was "express or implied crime of sedition?" "Implied sedition" makes a lot more sense than "perceived sedition." Implied, for example, because some of Jesus' disciples were Zealots. Implied because, while Jesus wasn't leading an armed insurrection himself, his actions during his last week may have inspired those who would commit armed rebellion (or so the Romans may have feared). Of course, knowing nothing of Roman jurisprudence, I can't say for sure. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The crime is sedition. He either was tried for sedition....or he wasn't. He was found guilty of sedition, or he wasn't. Maybe nobody knows. That's fine too....we can say that. But it is simply incorrect in this case to put qualifying adjectives in front of the noun "sedition" in an attempt to express doubt that something happened, or to express the opinion that the charge was unjustified. Putting adjectives in front of the noun doesn't achieve these ends, what is does is make the sentence say something that is not intended, hence the joking on this page. Drogo Underburrow 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"allegedly"

User:Codex Sinaiticus wishes to change

on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the crime of sedition against Rome

to

on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for allegedly committing the crime of sedition against Rome.

I think the "alleged" is pretty peculiar here. He wasn't sentenced to death for allegedly committing a crime, he was sentenced to death for a crime, regardless of whether or not he committed it; to my knowledge, the Romans didn't execute people for "allegedly committing" crimes -- the penalty for was for the crime. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using ambiguous wording that could be misread as stating that he committed a crime, it should be a fairly simple matter to tweak the wording slightly to explain the situation in full. That's what I've tried to do, but if that's not enough, please rewrite it more clearly to make it a little clearer that he is only alleged to have committed a crime, and to avoid giving any false impression here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with original poster, Jpgordon. It is much more professional and correct to write "sentenced to death for a crime" as opposed to "sentenced to death for allegedly committing a crime", because it is obvious that the person allegedly committed the crime, becase he is being sentenced for it. There is no need to say "allegedly commiting a crime". — C^razyInS^ane 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you don't see any need to point out that he may not have committed a crime? You prefer to leave it ambiguous and open to misinterpretation to give the impression that he was guilty of sedition against Rome? Interesting... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...the first version doesn't say that the charge was justified...it simply says that the crime for which Jesus was executed was sedition (which is true, whether he was actually guilty or not). But if its really a big deal, how about something like: "was charged with the crime of sedition against Rome and sentenced to death by crucifixion"? --MonkeeSage 22:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I like MonkeeSage's suggestion. —Aiden 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Me three. At least that is somewhat less misleading... It would only have been from the pagan Roman POV that he actually did commit sedition, or any other crime... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, MonkeeSage's suggestion is the most neutral, though if there were only a choice between Codex's or the current version I'd pick the current version . . (Also, F*** Dial-up, as I tried to reply 3 times and was interfered with edit-conflicts, and it took years to load each edit-conflict page) :):) . — Crazy.IN.Sane. 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, all, to the omnicontroversial 2nd paragraph. We have a subpage for such discussions: /2nd Paragraph Debate. (At least we're no longer talking about perceived crimes.) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I updated the paragragraph to the (allegedly!) accepted verion. If anyone alleges that this version is still insufficient, please go the the subpage, where this issue is allegedly being discussed. I take no responsibility for any physical, mental, or emotional harm that may result from your alledging activities. --MonkeeSage 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how it is perceived. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Codex's last post: Yes, those Roman Wikipedians with their pagan POV have been very bothersome of late :) --DLand 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if everyone would show the courtesy of not changing the text of a carefully negotiated paragraph until everyone has had a chance to respond. I do have a life, you know, and would like to have input into changes made in a text I have countless hours invested in. Would it hurt to simply revert to the agreed version and politely point people to the subpage to talk about it? Could we wait, oh, say, at least eight hours?

There! Has anyone considered that none of this is relevant? Do you all want to go back and look at all the works we've cited to see what the majority says? Huh? So, I'm putting it back. I'll revert it two times in the morning if needed to keep it that way. It is not right to wade in and undo careful work. Please discuss at talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. Avery, would you do the honors of moving all new comments here to the subpage? --CTSWyneken 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Avery would, but I just did. ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus among scholars that the biblical Jesus was convicted of a crime, for which he was crucified? Or do scholars say that he was crucified but not legally convicted of any crime, essentially saying that Pilate agreed to a mob lynching? Drogo Underburrow 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. Which means the Romans killed him, not the mob. Which means he must have been convicted of some crime against the Roman state. The Gospel writers, on the whole, try to obscure this, for whatever reason, but it seems like it's a fairly clear inference to be made from the text if one has a minimal knowledge of the historical context. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Biblical Jesus." I assume there is some intention to distinguish him from "the historical Jesus." But I'm not sure this really works - most Christians, I'd imagine, are perfectly willing to use knowledge of the historical context to refine their understanding of the Gospel accounts, so the idea of a purely "Biblical Jesus" doesn't really make any sense. john k 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK..maybe the Romans killed him. Did they do it as a result of a legal trial? Or did they do it because Pilate told them to, but did Pilate do it as a tyrant on his personal orders, or as a lawfull sentence? Was Jesus simply murdered on orders of Pilate, or murdered by the Jews with Pilate telling them to do whatever they wanted and to leave him out of it? What is the consensus, if any, among scholars?Drogo Underburrow 09:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

John, thanks for the thoughts! The point is, what do scholars say? When I was assembling the notes, I did not look at that specific aspect. WHat I do know is our scholars agree he was crucified sub Pontio Pilato -- under Pontius Pilate. Romans did not have to have a reason to execute non-Romans. They could do so at any time for no reason at all. Typically, they did not bother unless the person was a problem. According to Paul L. Maier, this was because Pilate was in trouble from prior incidents for angering his subjects. Tiberias had warned him and when the Priestly hierarchy insisted, it was a harmless Jewish preacher v. Roman governor. Not liking to be backed into such a corner, Pilate rubbed it in with the titilus Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. This far Paul Maier. --CTSWyneken 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So what does Paul Maier say? Sounds to me from what you wrote that Maier says that he was executed on orders of Pilate; that he wasn't convicted of any "crime" at all; he was simply ordered put to death cause Pilate said so. As an afterthought, to be cruel, Pilate had the King of the Jews thing written. Is this what Maier is saying?Drogo Underburrow 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --CTSWyneken 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that Romans could execute non-Romans at any time for no reason at all? This seems wrong. At the very least, I find it hard to believe that citizens of major Greek cities like Athens or Alexandria could be snuffed out by the Roman authorities without cause. At any rate, it is clear that it was the Romans who killed him, not the Jews. If Pilate had told the Jews to do whatever they wanted and to leave him out of it, Jesus would have been stoned to death. I think this is a pretty clear consensus among scholars - it was the Romans who killed Jesus. Beyond this is unclear, because scholars differ on how far to credit the gospel accounts of the trial as being accurate reflections of what actually happened. CTSWyneken's outline of Maier's view seems to fit the best with the Gospel accounts. But there are scholars who think that the Gospel accounts aren't to be relied on, because they are trying to remove as much blame as possible from the Romans. john k 17:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, there has been discussion, archived from /3 to /6, about the exact nature of the charge. I think Slrubenstein put it best:

My sense is, all historians agree Jesus was executed for sedition. What he actually did that constituted the crime of sedition, however, is a matter of debate. Fredriksen, for one, argues that Jesus's actions constituted sedition even if he never claimed to be king or messiah - indeed, she makes much of the fact that he often answered questions, "are you the messiah" etc. equivocally. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is where we stood until this whole perceived/alleged/implied crime silliness. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of my books are in a storage locker right now, so I have limited resources. IIRC, "sedition" was the word that every history of or introduction to the NT that I have used, and most of them said something like "charge of", "crime of" or similar, which fits perfeclty with the pre-perceived controversy wording.

Regarding the practice of Romans toward non-Roman "perceived criminals", if Acts is to be taken on its face, regardless of the formal laws on the matter (if there were any), the actual preactice was to do whatever you wanted and ask questions later: 'And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, "The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace." But Paul said to them, "They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out." The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens.' (Acts 16:36-8, ESV). --MonkeeSage 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier, as CTSWyneken reports, seems to hold that Jesus was not charged with sedition, he was simply crucified cause Pilate commanded it. This weakens the case for saying that there is general consensus on this issue. Drogo Underburrow 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I can find online:

"What was the proper procedure for a Roman governor on the delivery of a prisoner, accused of sedition by the Jewish authorities, is not known by any of our sources." (S. G. F. Brandon, The Trial of Jesus [New York: Stein and Day, 1968], 93)

"[The problems with the Synoptic accounts of the trial] stem from the embarrassing fact of the Roman execution of Jesus for sedition. . ." (op. cit., 139)

"It is reasonable to suppose that the Jewish proceedings against Jesus dwelt on this claim to be the Messiah, because of the political implications which this would have conveyed to Pilate." (W. R. Wilson, The Execution of Jesus [New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1970], 126)

"The high priest of the Sanhedrin would thus report to [Pilate] the simple facts - Here is a charismatic of charismatics who attracted crowds; who set off a disturbance in the Temple area, thronged at festival time with highly excitable pilgrims; who was acclaimed as the Messiah, the King of the Jews, as he walked through the streets of Jerusalem, and who called upon the people to prepare for the (imminent) coming of God's kingdom." (Ellis Rivkin, What Crucified Jesus? [Nashville: Abingdon, 1984], 85)

"[The Sanhedrin] seems to have dealt with an administrative question within the council's competence, namely the delivery of a person suspected of sedition to the procurator." (Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus [Berlin: Walter de Gruyer & Co., 1961] 27)

On the freedom and capriciousness of the legislation:

". . .a provincial governor had the legal freedom to conduct a trial as informally and with as little set procedure as he wished." (R. Larry Overstreet R. Larry, Roman Law and the Trial of Christ [Bibliotheca Sacra', 1978], 329)

"Judicial administration in the provinces was much less precise and technical than that which was required in Rome itself." (Wilson, 130)

Sorry I couldn't find any more recent refs. --MonkeeSage 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a discussion of some of these issues by a Boston College professor in the Journal of Religion and Film, in context of a discussion of The Passion of the Christ. john k 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[T]o ask historical questions of the Gospels is to ask something they were not really meant to provide - Philip A. Cunningham, Boston College, explaining that the Gospels are not good sources to write history from. Cunningham is pretty clear: the purpose of the Gospels is to promote faith. They are not historical accounts. That being said, he then goes on to make historical inferences from material he has already said is not historical. I could find him giving no opinion on our question, which is "was Jesus found guilty of a crime?". The most I could find was that he thinks that the fact that Jesus was crucified implicates Pilate's role. Pilate had Jesus crucified, but Cunningham is vague on why he had him crucified. Perhaps someone else can read the material more carefully and shed better light on what Cunningham says here. Drogo Underburrow 16:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Cunningham mentions three distinct stages of the Gospel's development, with stage 1 being the most historical. In other words, although not strictly speaking historical accounts, the Gospels do contain some historical details. The charge of sedition might relate to Jesus' teaching of the coming Kingdom of God (which would replace all earthly kingdoms, including the Roman Empire). Also, Pilate appointed the High Priest and apparently had some influence on the Temple through his relationship with said priest. Thus, Jesus' attack on the moneychangers could also be considered sedition. Finally, there was the charge that Jesus was "stirring up" the restless Passover pilgrims, many of whom would have objected to the corruption of the Temple by Pillate's appointments. This could lead to charges of both disturbing the peace (inciting a riot) and sedition.

It all seems to rest on the relationship between the Temple and the Roman governor. Cunningham's conclusions were,

"Pilate and Caiaphas colluded in the death of Jesus. Which of the two initiated his arrest is impossible to determine. Jesus’ words and deeds on behalf of a coming “Kingdom of God” were enough to convince Pilate that Jesus should be preemptively and publicly dispensed with as a warning to the thousands of Jewish pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover. Jesus’ Kingdom preaching and criticisms of the priestly leadership were enough to persuade Caiaphas that this popular Galilean could incite anti-Roman agitation and so move the Romans to act against the people and destroy the Temple that he was responsible to protect. The high priest was not necessarily personally popular with the people, so he had additional reasons to move carefully in his efforts to maintain the peace."

"Anti-Roman agitation" would, of course, be sedition. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice Cunningham doesn't say that Pilate or Caiaphas accused Jesus of anti-Roman agitation; rather Caiaphas is afraid that Jesus "could incite anti-Roman agitation" and Pilate convinced that Jesus should be "preemptively and publicly dispensed with" So Pilate doesn't find Jesus guilty of sedition, according to Cunningham, Pilate find Jesus guilty of having the potential of being a sedtionist, and has him executed. There is a big difference. We cannot say that Cunningham belives that Pilate executed Jesus for sedition, as that means Jesus was found guilty of actually doing something.

Jesus was not found guilty of sedition, according to Cunningham, but was found guilty of being a potential source of trouble. Jesus was killed for who he was, not what he did, according to Cunningham. In the western world, we don't believe in convicting people for what they COULD do or how they MIGHT cause others to act. So its not really right to use western words of guilt and innocence even. In summation, Cunningham's view does not support what we say on Wikipedia. Drogo Underburrow 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if the Romans made a distinction between potential sedition and actual sedition. There's also the possibility that non-citizens were held to a different standard of jurisprudence than Roman citizens. Perhaps someone else could answer that? Cunningham did state, though, that under Roman law the accused was considered guilty until proven innocent. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Romans made a distinction between potential sedition and actual sedition; English speaking people do, so when we write in the article that Pilate found Jesus guilty of sedition, it means to the reader that Pilate thought Jesus did something, and that's not the case, according to Cunningham.Drogo Underburrow 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That would fit with Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus, "The high priest wanted [Jesus] dead for the same reason Antipas wanted John dead: he might cause trouble." (265, emphasis mine). But note that Sanders apparently also says in Jesus and Judaism, 296, that the official charge was sedition. --MonkeeSage 17:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If Sanders says point-blank the charge was sedition, then that's as far as we need to go, as far as Sanders is concerned, since at Wikipedia all we do is report what sources say. Could you quote where he says it in Jesus and Judaism, 296, if there is a sentence to that effect?Drogo Underburrow 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If we want to clarify, we could say that Pilate had Jesus crucified for potential sedition (assuming the other sources agree). However, this may or may not be a distinction that the Romans would have made. Either way, I think it would be a mistake to judge Roman jurisprudence by the standards of English (or Commonwealth or American or Australian) jurisprudence. This would be both anachronistic and culturally biased. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that my proposal will meet all sides, and still accurately represent our scholars:

"on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was charged with the crime of sedition against Rome and sentenced to death by crucifixion"

--MonkeeSage 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me - seems to avoid all the sticky points. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen any quotes from scholars yet who have said that; based on Cunningham, all we can say is:

"Roman Governor Pontius Pilate thought Jesus to be a potential troublemaker and decided to make a public example of him by having him crucified." Drogo Underburrow 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I don't understand how Cunningham can claim this, since the Gospels say that Pilate didn't want anything to do with Jesus's execution. Drogo Underburrow 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going off of secondary sources on the Sanders quote, so I can't provide the exact wording. But it might be of interest to note the intro to the wikilinked article on sedition: "Sedition is a deprecated term of law to refer to non-overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws." --MonkeeSage 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its a real stretch for scholars to say that Jesus was found guilty of sedition. I can now see why editors have wanted the article to say "percieved sedition". Drogo Underburrow 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Matthew 27:24 "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it". I guess being a scholar means you get to pick and choose the verses of the Bible you want to discount. Its "pick and choose" Christianity, academia-style.Drogo Underburrow 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Perceived sedition" still sounds silly to me; I prefer "potential" or "implied" sedition, as opposed to "actual" or "express" sedition. The sedition article also says that the term came into use c. 1590, so I wonder what word the Romans would have used.

"Pick and choose Christianity" may be accurate, although many who write about the Historical Jesus aren't Christians. Those who don't accept the Gospel accounts as, well, the Gospel truth, find some verses more credible than others. I've heard that the Jesus Seminar accepted roughly 20% of the Gospels, while people like Freke and Gandy accept 0%. One standard academia uses is the "criteria of embarrassment." I think the academic consensus is that the Gospel writers tried to exhonorate Pilate and the Romans as much as possible, for example by having him engage in the Jewish custom of hand washing. It's telling that Pilate is mentioned at all; if the Gospel writers wanted to blame the Jews, why not just have Jesus stoned as a blasphemer in accordance with Mosiac law? Historians take this as a sign that too many people would have remembered Pilate's involvement for the writers to fully exhonorate Pilate. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, those who accept the Gospel accounts in full would say that Jesus was charged with sedition and found innocent by Pilate. The crowd then turned the tables on Pilate by claiming allegience to Rome ("we have no King but Ceasar"), implying that Pilate would show himself to be disloyal to Rome if he set Jesus free. Pilate, mindful of his political future and perhaps his life, gave in to the crowd. Pilate's fears were justified: he was recalled to Rome a few years later, in 36 CE, after a perceived Samaritan uprising.

Anyone supporting the description above might be accused of religious bias. However, even Christians interpret the Gospel accounts differently, with Western Christianity holding Pilate accountable, and Eastern Christianity not only exhonorating him, but listing him as a saint. See Pontius Pilate#The question of responsibility for Jesus' death for more details. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In either event, I think that MonkeeSage's construction of "charged with sedition" is appropriate, whether or not Jesus was found guilty by Pilate. The chief priests and elders make the accusation in all four gospel accounts, perhaps most clearly in Luke 23:2: "And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king." (NIV) Sounds like an accusation of sedition to me. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote to toss "sedition" entirely...unless people generate a list of quotes showing that the major studies all use the word themselves, directly saying he was guilty of sedition. If scholars won't say it directly, why should we? If they all beat around the bush, then that is how we should present them. That's the goal, saying what they say. Drogo Underburrow 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunningham, ad loc., emphasis mine:

Clearly there are theological factors at work in this incident that date from before Stage 3, most likely from early in Stage 2, that are difficult to discern clearly. The best resolution to date of which I am aware has been offered by Raymond E. Brown and he deserves to be quoted in full:

A man with the name Barabbas was arrested after a riot that had caused some deaths in Jerusalem. Eventually he was released by Pilate when a feast brought the governor to Jerusalem to supervise public order. Presumably this took place at the same time that Jesus was crucified, or not far from it, or on another Passover. In any case, this release struck Christians as ironic: The same legal issue was involved, sedition against the authority of the emperor. Although they knew Jesus was innocent, he was found guilty by Pilate, while Barabbas was let go. (§33).

Luke is probably also motivated by his desire to win the Church legal status in the Roman Empire. It would not do to explicitly show Jesus found guilty of sedition by a Roman prefect. (§41).

Jesus was executed as a seditionist king (Mark 15:16 and parallels). (§55, bullet).

--MonkeeSage 21:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cunningham, at least, says that Pilate found Jesus guilty of sedition. I wonder what our cited authors say?

I know that conservative Christians would say that Pilate found Jesus not guilty, but they still say that Jesus was charged with sedition. Thus, I wouldn't "toss sedition entirely": my impression is that everyone agrees that Jesus was charged with sedition, the disagreement is whether Jesus was sentenced for sedition or whether the crucifixion was motivated by political factors (ie, not a legal sentence, and possibly a miscarriage of justice). Either way, "charged with sedition" would still apply (unless one of our cited authors says differently?) Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Christians would, I would imagine, say that Pilate personally felt that Jesus was not guilty. That doesn't mean that he didn't formally find him to be guilty. The fact of his crucifixion suggests that he did rule him guilty, even if he did not believe him to be guilty. john k 03:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: Jesus was formally (de jure) found guilty of sedition, even though He wasn't substantially (de facto) found guilty. --MonkeeSage 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Pilate says in all four Gospels that Jesus is innocent. That hardly sounds like a de jure conviction to me. Pilate then gave in to a lynch mob. Jesus wasn't convicted of anything, he was simply executed because the people insisted on it, says the plain text of the Bible. Wether modern scholars believe that this is historical, is another question. But lets be accurate about what the Bible says. The Bible clearly lays the blame on the "Jews" and absolves the Romans of responsibility. Drogo Underburrow 04:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark most certainly does not say that Pilate says Jesus is innocent, although it suggests that he thinks Jesus is innocent. In Mark, Pilate does seem to want to let Jesus off the hook, but he doesn't do very much to accomplish this. In Luke and Matthew Pilate tries harder to get Jesus off the hook. But in all of the Synoptics it is clear that Pilate ultimately sentences Jesus to crucifixion. He does this against his own better judgment, out of a desire to appease the crowd, but he still does it. This is clear even in Luke, which is the most pro-Pilate of the Synoptics. Here's Luke 23:23-25:

And they [the Jews in the crowd] were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified: and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Note that Pilate gave sentence. Morally, what he's doing may be equivalent to giving in to a lynch mob. But legally it is clear that Pilate is the one sentencing Jesus. John is a bit unclear in the matter. In John, Pilate also goes to a great deal of effort not to kill Jesus, and also indicates his own belief in Jesus' innocence. But, again, Pilate himself ultimately orders that Jesus be crucified. In fact, it is quite clear in John that it is Pilate, and not the Jews, who kills Jesus. Pilate repeatedly offers to let the Jews kill Jesus, if they like, and they consistently refuse. Note John 18:31-32: Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Presumably, this means that the Jews would not kill Jesus in order that Jesus's prophecy that he would die on the cross would be fulfilled - only the Romans could sentence someone to die on the cross. This is quite explicit, and the whole gist of John's account is that the "Priests and Officers" of the Temple get Pilate, in the end, to take responsibility for the execution.

Now, a naive reading of the Bible may lead one to believe that "the Bible clearly lays the blame on the 'Jews' and absolves the Romans of responsibility." But that ignores the context in which the Gospel accounts would originally have been read. Everybody originally reading the Gospels and hearing the story of the passion would know that Jesus was killed by the Romans, because they would have known that crucifixion was a Roman punishment. One can't simply read "what the Bible says" as though it is entirely independent of context. The Bible was written by writers living in a particular time, and writing to a particular audience who already knew things. Most of us moderns have forgotten a lot of that stuff. Which is why following the reading of Biblical scholars is the only way to go about things like this. The Gospels all make clear that Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition. They try to dress this up, and relieve the Romans of as much responsibility for this as possible, but the basic fact still remains, and it always will remain painfully clear because it lies in the symbol of Christianity itself. The Cross is a constant reminder that it was the Romans who killed Jesus, and no amount of naive contextless readings of the Gospel accounts will change this. john k 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" is interesting, because I've heard it said that if the meeting with the Jewish authorities was a formal hearing, they were breaking the Mosaic laws nine ways to Sabbath: see, for example. this analysis. At the very least, they'd have to wait a day before rendering a verdict, and longer than a day because they'd have to wait until after both the Sabbath and Passover. It seems to me more likely that they met to decide what to do about Jesus, and decided it was more expiditious to bring charges of sedition before Pilate than to try Jesus on charges of blasphemy. Especially if they feared that Jesus would start a riot during Passover.

Of course, there is also the account of John 11:45-57, echoed in John 18:14, which sounds more like political expediency than justice to me. This was before Jesus entered Jerusalem (John 12:12); Jesus was still in Bethany (John 12:1). Apparently the Jewish authorities were Jesus' accusers, and not his judges.Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, John's account, in general, presents it in this way - an informal hearing before Annas, followed by a formal one with Pilate. I believe that Raymond E. Brown, who seems to be one of the more prominent scholars of the Johannine works, and has written several books specifically about the Passion, feels that the author of John gives what is, in some respects, a more accurate depiction of the various trial events than the synoptic gospels, and may have had some sort of specific knowledge that the authors of the synoptics lacked. But I'm not sure, as I'm going on reviews rather than actual reading of books. john k 08:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I do note that Pilate gave sentence. The sentence was that Jesus be crucified. Nobody's arguing against that.Legally it is clear that Pilate is the one sentencing Jesus. Again nobody is saying that it was anyone else. Nothing says that Pilate is convicting Jesus of sedition, Kenny. He is simply putting Jesus to death, cause the Jews want him to. Its not a "naive" reading, its what the text says. Trying to make it sound like he's legally convicting him of sedition is going against what the text says, and putting a spin on things. Furthermore, if I may do a bit of analysis of my own, there is good reason for the Gospels to NOT say that Jesus was convicted of sedition; the early Christian church would prefer laying the blame on Jews. So its not a "naive" reading that I am trying to assert, but rather the intention of the scriptures. Drogo Underburrow 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, you're going to have to provide some sources that interpret the text this way. Your own interpretation (and that is what it is - a text like the Bible simply cannot be read as though it is transparent) is completely irrelevant, because it is OR. Several sources have been found in which scholars interpret the Gospel accounts as indicating (although perhaps not explicitly stating) that Jesus was convicted of sedition. You're going to need to find an account which specifically says that Pilate "found Jesus innocent." (This is probably equally irrelevant as OR as your view, but my understanding would be that for Pilate to execute someone, he has to find them guilty. If he found Jesus innocent, Jesus would have been released. There may not be a right to due process for non-Roman citizens, but it's absurd to try to say that someone who has formally been found innocent by a Roman magistrate can then be executed.) So, sources please. john k 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll use a website called "Wikipedia" as my source. Wikipedia says, in an article called "Jesus":

Jesus was condemned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and turned over to the Romans, charged with sedition for claiming to be King of the Jews. The usual penalty for sedition was a humiliating death by crucifixion, but, according to the Gospels, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not find Jesus to be guilty of any crime. So Pilate first had Jesus flogged, and then, remembering that it was a custom at Passover for the Roman governor to free a prisoner, Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas (literally "Jesus son-of-the-father"). The crowd chose to have Barabbas freed and Jesus crucified. Pilate washed his hands to display that he himself was innocent of the injustice of the decision. All four Gospels say Pilate then ordered Jesus to be crucified with a charge placed atop the cross (called the titulus crucis) which read "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews".

So there you have it. It is my source; Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime; he simply had Jesus crucified cause the crowd wanted it. Drogo Underburrow 18:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? You can't cite wikipedia as a source for wikipedia (well, to be honest, it's unwise to cite wikipedia as a source for anything). But it's completely circular to try to cite wikipedia as a source for a different wikipedia article. At any rate, the sentences are saying different things, and using the word "find" in different senses. But, again, for the statement in question you're going to have to cite actual scholars (not wikipedia articles). john k 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being serious. I'm being ironic to point out a serious flaw in the article. See the discussion on the main talk page. Drogo Underburrow 04:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

-- that source says "according to the gospels", the 2nd paragraph is according to biblical scholars... --JimWae 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? So this is only according to a certain viewpoint? Are you saying the biblical scholars are not also historians? Are you saying that this view of Jesus is just one view, and there are others, and that this isn't the even the consensus view among scholars?Drogo Underburrow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether you take the Gospels at their word. Non-Christian and liberal Christian scholars generally view some Gospel statements as more accurate than others. Biblical literalists take the Gospels at their word. The later are more likely to write theology than history. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It comes down to semantics on the particular expression "found guilty": according to the Gospels, Pilate "found" (="came to the conclusion after investigating the facts of the case") Jesus "not guilty" of sedition, but also, capitulating the to Sanhedran and Jewish crowd, "found" (="made a formal legal ruling") Jesus "guilty" of the crime. Ambiguity is avoided by using the language of "charged with sedition" or like, which clearly denotes the legal context (and is not easily confused with Pilate's personal findings), saves the paragraph from dieing the death of a thousand qualifications, and fits what the scholars are intending to affirm. --MonkeeSage 08:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As you've suggested some twelve billion times. Drogo also brought this up on the main talk page, BTW. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

64.12.117.6 edits

Removing "Pontius Pilate" and "Sedition."

BTW, the same anon IP who added references to prophet and Messiah (see below) also removed references to Pilate and sedition. All it says now is "was sentenced to death by crucifixion." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If we take into account the Testimonium Flavianum, which even if it's forged is very very old and would reflect the most well known parts of the whole affair, the blame is laid squarely at Pilates door. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Josephus, 64.12.117.6 has made other edits that CTSWyneken has reverted twice today already. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (the editor formerly known as Archola).

PS: Here's the edit dif: [1]. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reached my self-imposed, 2 revert, guard-dog limit. Would someone please put the paragraph back to status quo ante? --CTSWyneken 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I shall, but there was an intervening edit to the third paragraph (dropping the nicene creed) that seemed to be by consensus. I'm reorging this page to make it easier to point to discussion of 64.12.117.6's edits, but your comment above just caused me an edit conflict. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think we can safely return para. two to its state. We've almost come to a conclusion on the "Nicene" thing in third para., so it's probably safe to leave it changed, but we probably should get a "moving towards the exit" warning, so as to let they that would scream... yet if they will. --CTSWyneken 13:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I did revert, see next subsection. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Paul Maier is a noted scholar, but doesn't say that Jesus was found guilty of sedition, we might have to rethink this sentence. (no pun intended!)Drogo Underburrow 13:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the paragraph above on "perceived crime...": The gospels (main sources) make it clear that Pilate washed his hands of Jesus at the trial because he could not find any charge against him that would stand. Jesus was handed over to the Jews to be crucified to appease the people, not because he'd been found guilty. Jesus was not found guilty of any crime by Pilate. He was found guilty by the Jewish religious leaders of blasphemy, but they had no power to put anyone to death which is why they took him to Pilate on false charges. Stuart Glover, UK. 5/4/2006 Ivor wigan (talk · contribs)

Prophet or Messiah

There has also been an edit by 64.12.117.6 that adds the clause "was additionally regarded by many as either a prophet or the Messiah" to the second paragraph. So, what do scholars say? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* No, I do not. Why on earth is it needed? If someone wants to add a detail, I'm inclined to ask THEM to look it up. This is getting really tiring. --CTSWyneken 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I reverted as discussed. I also left a message at 64.12.117.6's talk page. However, since this is an AOL IP, that person may never get the message. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be a troll who is trying to use the wiki to argue for his/her own POV. They refuse to sign their edits on talk pages and they post random facts and OR when they don't like what the attributed/cited sources say. OK, I'm ranting a little, but I tried to be nice for several days...but a troll by any other name would still smell of Gondor. ;) --MonkeeSage 06:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you mean "Mordor", I hope. Gondor's the realm of the good guys :-) Drogo Underburrow 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Doh! I've already been corrupted by the powers of the ring! --MonkeeSage 08:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible citation for nonexistence hypothesis

Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Basic Books (2005), ISBN: 0465085776

From Amazon.com: "From a prominent scholar, a provocative argument that the Biblical characters of Jesus and David should be viewed not as historical figures, but as embodiments of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Near Eastern traditions."

Anyone care to check this out? This is already listed as a source at Jesus Myth. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 11:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything like a page number for this assertion? I put the book in my hands, poured through it and could not find anything more than a summary of every scholar in the critical school. No luck on any position of his views. He does appear to be a scholar, but how prominent is up to question, since, prior to this debate here, I'd never heard of him. I'd also be careful of the above quote. Critical scholars have a way of saying, in essence, while Jesus existed, we can know very little about him. So, we should look at what he meant to people in those days. For us to list him in either camp, therefore, we need to pin down his actual words. So, anyone have a clue where in Middle Earth I should look? --CTSWyneken 12:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm working through the "citation needed" tag section on the main talk page: John K dismissed Schweitzer, and this book didn't seem to fit. Looking though the reviews, it's not clear whether Thompson argues that David and Jesus are myth or mythologized. I don't have access to the book itself, hence my request for others to check it out. No page number is listed on the Jesus-Myth page. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to Interlibrary Loan the book again, so I'm inclined to leave him out of any of our documentation, unless we get a very specific reference. --CTSWyneken 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a citation request to Talk:Jesus-Myth#Messiah Myth. However, that article is also undergoing an RfC, so we might not get a response for a while. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added his bio to the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios page. Two reviews later, however, and I'm no clearer as to where he stands. I'll keep bopping around. --CTSWyneken 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Prof. Thompson is part of the Copenhagen School of Biblical minimalism. I found his faculty page, which includes contact info. I suppose we could just ask him.Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)