Background
After Jesus was arrested, a trial was held against Him by the Priests. They had difficulty convicting Jesus of any wrongdoing, until they decided that Jesus had blasphemed by calling Himself the Son of God. (At some point in time either before {Luke 22:63-65} or after {Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65}, that trial, Jesus was mocked and beat by soldiers.) With the charge of blaspheme, they sent Jesus to Pilate.
Yet when Jesus was before Pilate, there was no mention of a blaspheme charge from the Priests. Instead, Pilate questioned Jesus about being the King of the Jews. After that light inquisition, Pilate determined that Jesus was innocent.
Meanwhile, Judas Iscariot, betrayer of Jesus, repented of his actions and hung himself in shame.
Premature Exoneration
Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:15-25, and John 18:38-40 + 19:1-16 all cover Pilate's handling of Jesus after he had found Him not guilty. We will begin with the Synoptic source; Mark.
In Mark, Pilate had not yet claimed Jesus' innocence. Mark began by informing us that there was a custom of releasing a prisoner during the Passover feast, that a Jewish rebel named Barabbas was in prison, and that the crowd had come forward to ask Pilate for the customary prisoner release (Mark 15:6-8). Remember that: Jesus' potential release was prompted by the crowd.
It is worthy to note as well that the name of the rebel was Barabbas, which literally means in Aramaic "son of the father"... strange to say the least. What makes it even more odd is that some early manuscripts give his full name as "Jesus Barabbas". So we have Jesus, son of the father, and Jesus, Son of the Father. Some critical scholars have suggested that there may have only been one Jesus (THE Jesus) in the original story. I speculate that this play on words was an intentional literary device; the name was used to emphasize the choice of these people between God and man. Anyway...
Pilate offered to release "the King of the Jews" to the crowd, suspecting that envy had driven the Chief Priests to arrest Jesus (Mark 15:9-10). It seems odd that Pilate would have used "King of the Jews" as opposed to Jesus' name, but, again here, I suspect that it is a literary device used to emphasize Jesus' role and the Jewish denial of it.
Speaking of strange, in Mark 15:11 we see:
But the Chief Priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. NIVThat is quite the wondrous turn of events! We have gone from the Chief Priests being afraid of the crowd's reactions (Matthew 21:26, Mathew 21:46, Mark 11:32, Mark 12:12, Luke 22:2) and having large crowds following Jesus (Matthew 21:8, Mark 12:37, Luke 14:25, John 12:19), to having the Chief Priests being able to manipulate the crowd against Jesus! How did that happen? Easy. Just refer to the plot of nearly any summer blockbuster movie. The story is driven by emotion, not internal consistency.
So the crowd asked for Barabbas' release, Pilate asked what he should do with Jesus, and they demanded His crucifixion (Mark 15:12-13). Of course, we should question why Pilate was giving them the option of selecting Jesus' punishment. Jesus was in the hands of the Roman authority now, so why would the Roman authority be asking the Jews how justice should be enacted on a prisoner? Well, because it must be that way in order for the story to make sense, that is why! As we see in Mark 15:14, the Roman authority found Jesus to be innocent:
"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.Pilate's reaction in Mark 15:15 is even more peculiar:
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" NIV
Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. NIVOK. So Pilate yielded to the rowdy crowd. So he released Barabbas. So he sent Jesus to be crucified. But flogged? Flogged?!?! That is just adding insult to injury, and ridiculousness to dubiousness. If Pilate thought that Jesus was innocent, and was only reluctantly submitting to the will of the crowd, why would he go the extra mile to have Jesus flogged?
Mark's version just does not add up. What about Matthew? Just like in our previous study, Matthew is essentially the same as Mark, but with some aggregations. The only really significant wording change is a refinement in Pilate's initial question to the crowd. In Matthew 27:17, Pilate gave the crowd an explicit choice between Barabbas and Jesus, and, unlike Mark's "King" account, Pilate labeled Jesus more colloquially "Jesus who is called Christ".
As for the aggregations, one is trivial, while the other is epically memorable.
The first insertion involves Pilate's wife. She sent Pilate a message during the process of the judgement which told Pilate that she had a nightmare about poor, innocent Jesus, so he should leave Jesus alone (Matthew 27:19). Of course, we have to wonder how we could possibly know about this message, which is unlikely to have been public knowledge.
The second insertion is the classic scene where Pilate, convinced of Jesus' innocence and yet remarkably subject to the will of the crowd, washed his hands in front of the crowd, metaphorically washing the guilt of Jesus' judgement off of himself (Matthew 27:24-25). Yet even with this defiantly passively-aggressive stance against killing an innocent man, Matthew's Pilate, of his own volition, still had Jesus flogged before being crucified (Matthew 27:26).
While Luke is not immune to issues himself, he was a better editor than Matthew, and was not afraid to rewrite the story to make it smoother.
As opposed to Matthew and Mark, Luke 23:14-16 began with a statement to the crowd that Jesus had "done nothing to deserve death" and so He would be punished and then released. Nothing deserving death... That is a well crafted phrase. Unlike Matthew and Mark which effectively pronounced Jesus as completely innocent, Luke leaves it a little bit murky. Nothing deserving death, just a little punishment instead...
Depending on which Bible version you read, you may or may not have Luke 23:17. It is absent from early manuscripts, and it speaks explicitly about Pilate's obligation to release a prisoner at the feast. It is hard to tell with certainty if that verse should be dropped or not, as it does reasonably fit into the context of what happened next. Different to Matthew and Mark, Luke's Pilate voluntarily offered to release Jesus without provocation from the crowd, but similar to Matthew and Mark, the crowd demanded Barabbas' release instead (Luke 23:18-19).
Luke enhanced the story by adding a triple rejection of Jesus by the crowd, having Pilate appeal twice more to the crowd to only punish Jesus since He had not committed any capital crime (Luke 23:20-23).
Luke must have realized how awkward it was to flog the innocent Jesus on top of sentencing Him to crucifixion, so in his version of Pilate's capitulation, there is no reference to that punishment (Luke 23:24-25).
Finally we come to John. John's version is similar, yet quite different. Like Luke, John began with a declaration that Jesus was innocent (John 18:38).
Like Mark, Pilate offered to release "the King of the Jews" as opposed to saying Jesus' name, but he made the offer unprompted by the crowd, like Luke (John 18:39).
Of course, "they" requested Barabbas instead (John 18:40), but John's "they" is quite different. In the other Gospels, Pilate was addressing a crowd of Jewish people which included consisted of lay people, not only the religious elite (Matthew 27:15-17, Mark 15:8, Luke 23:13-14). On the other hand, John's Pilate was addressing only the religious elite; the same ones who had questioned Jesus and had brought Him to Pilate (John 18:28).
That little twist makes John's account ludicrous, because we have Pilate offering to release Jesus to the same people who had voluntarily arrested, tried, and sent Jesus to Pilate to be killed. Why would Pilate expect, or even bother asking, if they wanted Jesus to be released. If they had, they would not have brought Jesus to Pilate in the first place!
John's account becomes even more bizarre, as Pilate immediately had Jesus flogged (John 19:1). That flogging got coupled to a scene which would happen later in the other Gospels, where the soldiers mocked Jesus with a robe a crown of thorns (John 19:2-3).
That cruelty was immediately followed up with Pilate claiming that Jesus was innocent of any charges, coupled with an implicit appeal to those same religious elite to let Jesus go (John 19:4-5). Not surprisingly, they (explicitly the Chief Priests and their officials) demanded crucifixion, to which Pilate told them to do it themselves (John 19:6).
(At that point, it is a real mystery why the religious elite did not accept the offer to do just that!)
These "Jews" fired back that Jesus had committed blaspheme; claiming to be God's Son (John 19:7).
At that point, John got ahead of himself again, making Pilate "even more afraid" (despite never making him afraid to begin with), which prompted Pilate to ask Jesus' origin (John 19:8-9).
Jesus did not answer, so Pilate asked Jesus if He realized the power that he had over Him (John 19:10). In John 19:11, we find an interesting response:
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." NIVFirst, we see a confirmation of the Old Testament philosophy. The "if it were not given to you from above" implies that God is the one who controls who rules nations. All human authority ultimately comes from God. Hitler. Stalin. Castro. Kim Jong-un. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Thank God.
Second, we see a gradation of sin; "a greater sin." That destroys the modern Christian mantra of all sins being equal before God.
Following this, we find in John 19:12 a persistence from Pilate:
From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." NIVThat sounds like a reasonable objection from the "Jews", except for the fact that they were asking for an insurrectionist/murderer to be freed instead of Jesus (Mark 15:7, Luke 23:19, John 18:40)! No one who releases an insurrectionist is a friend of Caesar either, but that is what Pilate did in the other three Gospels (John does not mention Barabbas actually being freed).
Despite the logic loop, John ends similarly to the other Gospels. Pilate made a last appeal, but finally relented to the crucifixion request (John 19:13-16). Again, with John's version, the outcome is even less of a surprise, given that Pilate was making the appeals to the Chief Priests (John 19:15).
Adding all of this up results in the square root of a negative number. ;-) It is imaginary. In each account, there is one implausibility after another, which collectively should not be ignored. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, so some remnant of the truth could be in these texts. Yet as they are in the Bible, they appear to have issues.
"It is worthy to note as well that the name of the rebel was Barabbas, which literally means in Aramaic "son of the father"... strange to say the least. What makes it even more odd is that some early manuscripts give his full name as "Jesus Barabbas". So we have Jesus, son of the father, and Jesus, Son of the Father. Some critical scholars have suggested that there may have only been one Jesus (THE Jesus) in the original story."
ReplyDeleteWhoa! I'm a bit confused though, what does it mean that there was only one Jesus in the original? How would this scene work at all with only 1 person? Is he a first century Tyler Durden?
Hausdorff, the first rule of Faith Club is that you do not talk about Faith Club. The second rule of Faith Club is that you DO NOT TALK about Faith Club. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt is pure speculation, given the lack of extant text evidence of an early version, but I believe it goes like this:
1) There is no recorded evidence of a customary release of a prisoner on the Feast outside of the Bible, so that may be a completely fictional later addition.
2) Similar to the text in Luke 23:14, it was Jesus who had been arrested under charges of leading an insurrection. (Make references to Barabbas' troubled past to be instead accusations against Jesus.)
3) Pilate, finding no justification for the charges, offers to release Jesus, but the crowd demands His crucifixion.
4) Pilate relents to the crowd.
With logical inconsistencies everywhere you turn (Pilate was notorious for squashing movements which hinted of insurrection, why would Pilate offer to release a freshly arrested prisoner - especially a potential insurrectionist with a large following, why would Pilate leave the choice of Jesus' release up to the crowd, etc.), it is difficult to know how and why it got changed from the single person to a choice. But if that theory is correct, the change had to come early in the legend because it (as noted above) Barabbas appears in all four of the Gospels.
I see, so perhaps there was an early version where Pilate asked the crowd to release Jesus and they wouldn't agree so he relented, but the part about Barabbas was added later. Very interesting.
ReplyDelete"Adding all of this up results in the square root of a negative number. ;-" I lol'd, makes me wonder which version Mel Gibson based the Passion on.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many christians actually have bothered to read at all the accounts of Jesus (Luke, Mark etc)and noticed the inconsistencies. And if they have and are still theist, that is what I would call blind faith (ignorance).
It is kind of amazing, Christian, how people miss this. But they go into reading it assuming that it is true as opposed to trying to find the truth. That leads to a very different focus. :-)
ReplyDeleteYour article refuted:
ReplyDeletehttp://answeringskeptix.blogspot.com/2013/05/answering-httpponderingtruthblogspotkr2.html
Hi Answering-Skeptix/Nothin'ButTheTruth. Thanks for stopping by.
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with a book called _The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People_ by Stephen R. Covey? One of the great points that he made is that you should seek to understand, then to be understood. It appears as though you have missed what my analysis was all about.
I look at each Gospel as a separate account to see how it stands on its own, as well as compare it against the others. Did you miss the sentence "We will begin with the Synoptic source; Mark." You really have to look at each Gospel independently, because otherwise the contradictions between the Gospels don't make sense. For example, the quotes you cited (John 5:18, 10:33) I had referenced in an earlier post when I was discussing Mark 14:55, where the Priests could not find any charges against Jesus. If John 5:18 + 10:33 were true, then the Priests in Mark 14:55 look rather foolish now, don't they? And yes, the Priest eventually got to where blaspheme was the charge, but only in John will you find any mention of that charge being brought to Pilate. Luke has charges brought to Pilate which had absolutely nothing to do with blaspheme, but everything to do with Roman law.
When did the crowd ask for the flogging, that needed a satisfaction? The only and only thing they asked for was crucifixion. So, do you think it is reasonable, that Pilate, who thought Jesus was innocent and washed his hands of the blood-guilt of Jesus, just decided to beat him up too, just to make the crowd happy even though they did not ask for it?
I hope that you will take a closer look and try to understand my writing before you try to refute it. Atheists, well at least true atheists, don't hate God. It is rather silly to hate something that you don't think actually exists, right? That would be like hating the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. ;-)
You can deny it all you want but I was right about your reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAnswer me this, are you saying that just because there are inconsistencies between the four authors, therefore this incident never happened?
Let's take it one by one so we can reach a conclusion.
Hi TWF. I went to today to check Nothing but the Truths blog to see his reply to my latest comment. And..... the blog post refuting this one has magically disappeared ;)
ReplyDeleteNothin'ButTheTruth
ReplyDeleteFirst, I am not sure where the post went, but you answered my question about why Jesus spoke in parables as I predicted, and not according to the question I had asked. Please allow me to point you in the direction of Isaiah 6. Your first clue that you are in trouble here is that the words of the prophesy do not perfectly match what the New Testament says that they are. It is because they were using a copy of the Septuagint, which is a rather poor translation. Check into the context behind Isaiah 6. Anyway...
Simply claiming that you were right does not make you right.
I explained the reasoning behind my logic of Pilate's reference to both "your people and the Chief Priests". The only explicit references in John are on my side, as shortly thereafter both officials and Chief Priests are noted as being present, making it right for Pilate to identify two separate groups if he had specifically mentioned the Chief Priests. Besides, Pilate would have been more likely to know the Chief Priests than their officials, making the demarcation a logical one.
Your conclusion that I am wrong actually is based on a classic logical fallacy known as the fallacy of composition, where you have assumed that because the Bible used the word "Jews" in one particular way in a series of references (referring to a crowd of "common" Jews), that it will consistently use it throughout the Bible. Even if you do not agree with my interpretation during the Pilate scene, your conclusion is proven invalid shortly thereafter with the sign that was allegedly nailed to the cross.
The most you can honestly claim is that you disagree with my interpretation. Given that opinions are like belly buttons, you are certainly entitled to your own. ;-)
Now, on to your question:
"Answer me this, are you saying that just because there are inconsistencies between the four authors, therefore this incident never happened?"
Not at all. The scope of this post is too small to handle such a question. The only thing that I can do with such a post is point out small scale issues which should make you wonder. The best Biblical proof that Christianity is questionable comes from God's own statements and the Jewish prophesies in the Old Testament. For example, the yet-to-be-fulfilled prophesy in Ezekiel chapters 38-48 speak of restoring the Temple, animal sacrifices, people living long but still dying, people getting divorced, etc.
Christian,
Yes, I know, I checked it out earlier. Weird, huh? :-)
@ both of you, relax! I have a bigger thing for you, that's why I want to ask you your exact view point first because you've been denying everything I said about you, so it's better for me to clarify your standpoint. You probably were opening a champagne over there hey:)
Delete@ Christians, you remember what you said that ONLY the chief priests and the soldiers came to Jesus' arrest?
This verse proves you wrong:
John 18:12,
Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
The band here definitely are not the roman soldiers and officers from the religious leaders.
@TWF, we are going somewhere. So what exactly is your point then? You try to say Christianity is for dumb people?
Please hold whatever you wrote above for the future, let's address this article of yours first, I am pretty able to refute you on those as well.
If you are reluctant in telling me what your objective is, then here we go again. Please read what I wrote till the end, and refute me on the mistakes I pointed out you made.
ReplyDeleteI find it's useless to refute a flawed representation of the Bible. So let's get the fact right first.
http://answeringskeptix.blogspot.com/2013/05/answering-premature-exoneration-by.html
Nothin'ButTheTruth:
ReplyDeleteSigh.
How poor are they who have not patience.
You know pretty much nothing about me, and yet when you do not get a reply to your comment within about 4 hours, you assume that it is significant and interpret it as reluctance. You do not think that I may be working, or traveling, or putting my family first, or experiencing technical difficulties, or whatever other possible reason which would show the grace of basic human understanding. You are so zealous in your desire to try to make me look bad that you bypass all reasonable consideration.
I am beginning to loose faith in you. I thought you were better than this underneath it all, and that we could have a reasonable discussion. That will not be the case if you continue to represent yourself this way.
Allow me to explain internet comment etiquette, because it appears that, despite having a blog of your own for some time, you are new to the topic. For most people who blog, they do more in their lives than just blog and then wait around to respond to comments. Therefore, it is a perfectly acceptable practice for blog owners to only check and respond to comments once a day. Any more frequent is a bonus. Any less frequent probably just means that higher priority tasks have taken precedence. Does that make sense to you?
Now, about your questions...
"So what exactly is your point then?"
My point is exactly what I stated above. "The only thing that I can do with such a post is point out small scale issues which should make you wonder." The point is to make people think about the Scriptures from a different perspective than how they have had it otherwise presented to them. The particulars on which you focus will yield different findings, but if you do not know how to look at it any other way, then the thought may not occur to you to get another perspective.
"You try to say Christianity is for dumb people?"
Where exactly does that question come from? Did I say something silly and insulting like "the fool has said in his heart that there is a God?" ;-)
Statistically speaking, atheists do rank a little higher in IQ, but that is an average. I have met my share of dumb atheists. Neither the faithful nor the faithless have a monopoly on either brains or the lack thereof. I know and am good friends with intelligent Christians, and I also know quite a few who are not so bright.
So, no, I am not trying to say that Christianity, or any faith for that matter, is for dumb people. That is good, given that I was a Christian! :-)
You were a Christian? I doubt that for the fact that you have no clue about what the Bible says..
ReplyDeleteEnough with long/smart talking. Mind refuting me?
You said:
“It is worthy to note as well that the name of the rebel was Barabbas, which literally means in Aramaic "son of the father"... strange to say the least. What makes it even more odd is that some early manuscripts give his full name as "Jesus Barabbas". So we have Jesus, son of the father, and Jesus, Son of the Father...”
As we see, this is hilarious to say the least! Two mistakes worth pointing out:
1. You gave us the meaning of Barabbas, which is son of the father. But guess what? you did not tell us what Jesus means! Just so you will know what Jesus means in the future,
Jesus means “Saviour”; it derives from the Hebrew word “Yeshua” or “Joshua”. So the name Jesus and Barabbas have nothing in common at all!
2. You mistakenly describes Jesus as, “Son of the Father”.
I challenge you to show me one verse from the Bible, referring Jesus as “the Son of the Father”. The Bible calls Jesus, the Son of GOD, not the Father. The reason for this is because according to the Bible, the Father is not the only Person of Godhead. Christians believe in the Holy Trinity, which consists of the Father, the Son (the Word) and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is called the Son of GOD, not because the Father gave birth to Him (in nature) but that’s His Tilte in Godhead. He appeared in the Old Testament as the WORD (Genesis 15). This is why John said:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made... 14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-3, 14)
Jesus’ relationship with the Father as the Son cannot be explained by human relationship between a father and his son (But sadly, that’s how you understood it though, the reason why I quote 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Psalm 14:1 ).
I think it's useless to even argue with your reasoning when your representation is flawed. No Christian believes in what you just said here.
You said, you respect Christians, and you never said they are dumb. Yet your comment prove otherwise:
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Hausdorff, the first rule of Faith Club is that you do not talk about Faith Club. The second rule of Faith Club is that you DO NOT TALK about Faith Club. ;-)"
I can see that you do not want my comment to be automatically posted anymore, therefore you control what to post or not [especially the ones you don't want to answer maybe? :)], so what I am going to do is, I will not post my comment in here anymore. I will only post you links to my post.
ReplyDeleteYou previously asked me how come there are no other source outside the Bible reporting the miracles of Jesus?
Here is the answer:
http://answeringskeptix.blogspot.com/2013/05/answering-atheist-why-arent-there-any.html
ReplyDelete"You were a Christian? I doubt that for the fact that you have no clue about what the Bible says.."
That is an interesting concept. Given that most Christian do not understand the Bible the way you do, does that mean that they are not Christians either?
"Enough with long/smart talking. Mind refuting me?"
I humbly beg your patience. Thank you.
"Two mistakes worth pointing out: 1. You gave us the meaning of Barabbas, which is son of the father. But guess what? you did not tell us what Jesus means!..."
I do not understand why this mistake. Would you like to explain?
"2. You mistakenly describes(sic) Jesus as, “Son of the Father”.
I challenge you to show me one verse from the Bible, referring Jesus as “the Son of the Father”. The Bible calls Jesus, the Son of GOD, not the Father. "
I am sorry, but I do not recall claiming that the phrase "Son of the Father" was used in the Bible, so the premise of your claim is flawed.
However, the derivation of the Son of the Father is made via a transitive relation. That is the old if A > B and B > C then A > C type of thing. If Jesus is the Son of God, and Jesus refers to God as the Father, then Jesus is the Son of the Father.
"Jesus’ relationship with the Father as the Son cannot be explained by human relationship between a father and his son (But sadly, that’s how you understood it though, the reason why I quote 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Psalm 14:1 )."
No. Calling Jesus the Son of the Father via the transitive relation makes absolutely no claim on a family relationship, so again the premise of your claim is flawed.
"I think it's useless to even argue with your reasoning when your representation is flawed. No Christian believes in what you just said here."
What in particular do they not believe? That Jesus is God's Son? That God is called the Father, making Jesus the Father's Son?
"You said, you respect Christians, and you never said they are dumb. Yet your comment prove otherwise:"
I do not understand. How is tweaking Hausdorff's Fight Club reference to be quasi-faith relevant for the sake of humor equivalent to calling Christians dumb?
"I can see that you do not want my comment to be automatically posted anymore, therefore you control what to post or not [especially the ones you don't want to answer maybe? :)]"
Actually, the moderation thing has to do with spam. I have it set to turn on moderation on any post over 5 days old. That is the reason for the apparent sudden change. Spam has really ramped up in past half year, and the spam filter only catches about 90% of it. I got tired of it, so I changed the settings a few months ago. Keep that in mind if you ever have a spam problem.