Very true! I was only bringing in the [young and learning] teacher example because I have personally lived it, and was just wanting to show that human nature is complex enough to include lots of “apparently different extremes” all in the same person - especially one who may feel a bit “out of their depth” with some given crowd. And if I’m not mistaken, Pilate did have pressures from higher up to “keep a lid on things” - so his own answerability to others with considerable power over him probably means he wasn’t above his own desperate use of whatever diverse strategies he might have recourse to.
That is a much larger question - and one worthy of the kind of any scrutiny and attention we give it. I was mainly just responding to the specific Barabbas incident. Perhaps I underestimate its significance to the overall narrative - it is included in all four gospels after all!
Why couldn’t it have been limited and unique only to Pilate? Maybe he used it for a few years or or once in a while to diplomatically keep the peace? What Mark wrote is not true in total fork sure, but prisoner releases did happen.
You are asking the wrong questions. Requiring historical proof for every incident in the passion narratives is probably a torturous path to salvation, if it is one at all. Demanding that God prove himself to us just shows there are layers of our own selves still needing removal. Being open and honest with God and yourself is the way. The Gospels can mediate the sacred if you read them with an open mind and let God’s Son in. None of this requires every detail of the accounts to be historically true. Many of the details more likely than not are historical and some are not. The important part is the deeper truths about God and man that these stories point to. Start with the words of Christ and try living up to his standard as a starter and evaluate your own progress. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
Torturous maybe but its a one im willing to take .I dont demand God to reveal himself to me.In matter of fact im even trying to “find” him in secular historyOr clear my mind what was actually intened for us to take as a “fact” in the gospels and what to take as allegories,symbolisms etc etc .
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
51
Good for you Nick. You’ll die first. May that be in a hundred years. Or is that a curse, not a blessing?! There are better things to do with your time. Smarter people than us have exhausted their lives for the past 400 years and found nothing, because it’s not there and even if it were it couldn’t help, that’s not how reality works: The finest science fiction novel of the Golden Age is Walter M. Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz in my unhumble opinion. A thousand years from now monks, the Brothers of Saint Leibowitz, have a holy relic, ‘a brittle memo scrawled by the hand of the blessed Saint Leibowitz, that reads: " Pound pastrami , can kraut, six bagels–bring home for Emma.". This sacred shopping list penned by an obscure, 20th-century engineer is a symbol of hope from the distant past, from before the Simplification.’ An all but total nuclear holocaust. Later they rediscover Gaussian distribution from the pattern of wear on the steps in the monastery. And nuclear physics…
But if it’s a purpose that keeps you going, God bless you in it and never stop till you die peacefully and otherwise contentedly in your sleep.
I would disagree with Crossan. Pilate was between a rock and a hard place. He was there to keep order, but he had insulted the Jews by sending his troops into the Temple.
Now he had the opportunity to gain the support of the Jewish leaders siding with them against Jesus. Jesus was the Messiah, the King of the Jews. That made Him the enemy of the Sanhedrin, who did not recognize His authority, and the Romans who could not accept any political opposition.
Pilate was not good person. He failed to do his job, which was to provide justice. He tried to shift that responsibility to the mob, which he could not. Some “leaders” today try to blame their failure to lead not on themselves, but on the base.
True faith is not blind. It accepts trustworthy testimony, as everyone does every day when they read, listen or watch.
With respect to the true Christian’s faith, it then goes on and has one or more personal experiences that the individual cannot deny, and they will thus not deny their Lord, even on pain of death. It may be ‘only’ the recognition of his sacrifice and personal love for them – not to diminish the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in a life, as he did in the repentant thief on the cross – and that heart and mind have been irrevocably changed, loving Jesus and God. Or, it may be something empirical as in George Müller’s amazing example, or Maggie’s (for a shorter read), demonstrating one M.O. that God frequently uses. Others like yourself may deny that there is any meaning imputed by the event(s) or that the omnipotent, sovereign and personal God even can act interventionally into his children’s lives in his providence, but that is no matter.
Good thoughts, and an important question… if helpful, in relation to the main topic of this thread, as an inerrancy believing and affirming believer, I would observe two things:
Firstly, We should acknowledge are some real and legitimate questions, and we should not settle for simple or simplistic answers but really wrestle with the a bible just as it is, with whatever real and significant challenges are there.
But secondly… the fact that there are historical accounts, cultural practices, or incidents recorded in the Bible that are not also found in extra-biblical records should be the very last thing we should be concerned about. Given the amount of historical records and sources that have been lost over the years, and the amount of historical knowledge that is simply lost, then we should expect there to be events or practices recorded in the Bible that are not likewise extant elsewhere. they may have never been recorded, if non-biblical sources simply didn’t consider them significant enough to record, or they were recorded and simply lost… like perhaps 99% of all other historical records.
Bottom line, the fact that the Bible may indeed give accounts of incidents or practices that are not found elsewhere in extant historical accounts is in absolutely no way surprising. That will happen given the reality of how much of ancient history has been lost.
I think the case of Belshazzar is instructive… for a long time, apparently, critical scholars concluded that Belshazzar (not unlike your concern over the Barabbas incident) was a historical fiction, an invention of an author that had no awareness or familiarity with the real history, since there wa sno corroboration of this person outside of the biblical account.
But then, eventually, records of Belshazzar were discovered, that he had in fact served as a vice-regent of the king during the time of the king’s absence… and not only that, they strikingly confirmed the biblical account, even down to the otherwise odd promise that Belshazzar would make Daniel the “third” greatest in the kingdom… something that all of a sudden made perfect sense given that the reigning authority himself was only the “second highest” in the kingdom.
So far, none of the history of Genesis and the other books of the Old Testament have been proven wrong. Every time new information is uncovered, it further supports the biblical accounts.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
74
Who was Darius the Mede? As there is no history in Genesis for a start, it can’t be proven wrong.
A few points. Are you sure this incident with the “troops and the temple” was before the crucifixion of Jesus? Also, Pilate was going to kill them all until they didn’t resist death. Had these Jews been willing to fight physically this situation would have ended differently. Does Josephus even give a firm date? Also, the incident with Pilate using Temple funds to build an aqueduct must be considered. The Jews were upset and this ended with Pilate’s men beating many Jews to death with clubs. Also, Caiaphas, the high priest, was dismissed at the same time as Pilate, indicating they probably worked closely together. Also, as governor, Pilate, I believe, had the full authority to choose the high priest. Caiaphas was appointed by the previous prefect Valerius Gratus and Pilate chose to keep him. It is difficult to imagine such a Pilate pandering for their approval when he can appoint whoever he wants. It is easy to see Pilate crucifying Jesus at the request of the Sanhedrin as a would be king and the later Gospel accounts containing evidence of the split between Judaism and Christianity and the conflict that ensued. The first Gospel (Mark) we have of this account is very pro-Gentile and stems from ca 70AD. The other accounts (especially Mt and Lk) depend on Mark’s narrative as well.
We can’t exhaustively rule out any possibilities given our limited sources but your narrative has lots of difficulties in what it suggests. Not to mention that even if Pilate was in hot water with Rome, releasing a man who lead a lethal insurrection, a murderous rebellion against Rome, is not going to do him any favors on that front. The historical Pilate, who was probably removed for abusing his powers (see Josephus) along with he high priest he chose to keep, the same Prefect who had Jews clubbed to death, would have executed both threats to Rome.
Barnabas does not have to be completely made up for many of the details of the account to be incorrect. Mark speaks of him as if he was well known. He may very well have been historical but we know Pilate was not releasing any prisoner requested. Mark may have attached a figure of repute to the story which is easily seen as being about the Temple and the Jews choosing the wrong type of Messiah over Jesus, the suffering servant. That story can relay deep truth without all of its details actually being historically true. Same as the book of Job.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
80
How’s that mate? Do you know anything historical in Genesis that I don’t? Anything at all? From the history books?
What, specifically from the book of Genesis, has been demonstrated to be true either by archaeology or by external corroborative witnesses? Just curious. I’m firmly on the Genesis 1-11 are mythological/theological narratives train. Been a while since I read the rest. Honestly, how do we even find evidence of a nomadic shepherd named Abraham that lived in tents 4000 years ago?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of ahistoricity. That is a logical fallacy. Most of the material is so old we simply could not expect to have much for corroborative testimony. But a lot of people are willing to call Genesis 1-11 theological history or true myths, but I’m not seeing why the line should only be drawn there? How about in Exodus where logistical problems are well known? Might as well keep that train going but Genesis could, of course, contain facts and fictions intermingled throughout. From a historical perspective there is very little we can say. This means we can’t accept or reject the stories on historical grounds. I believe in the absence of adequate evidence either way, a verdict of non liquet is in order. Obviously, supposing a line of transmission that preserved details very accurately for over a thousand years is in itself pretty suspect. I get what you are saying but its a bridge built too far.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
83
What, we can’t reject Eden, the Flood, S&G, the Exodus - any and all of it - on historical grounds?
Most of that was probably not originally meant to be historical so you were correct the first time. But I wouldn’t put all 50 chapters of Genesis in the same boat as the flood, the Tower of Babel, or the magical garden with the talking snake. That was my point is that each claim would have to be discussed on a case by case basis and we would have to consider, date, authorship and sources for part of Genesis. I’m not inclined to think an author sat down and just made it all up one day. From the other creation and flood myths we know this is not true. Lots of material was probably passed down. How much history is there still embedded within it is anyone’s guess.
My point is, was Abraham a real person? Possibly? Did God ask him to kill his kid? I hope not.