I know a historian - and art historian so not a specialist - who used to say "Life of Brian" is the best film about Jesus. Well ... not exactly about Jesus but about the time and place He lived in. She also used to say that "L'armata Brancaleone" is the best film about the Crusades. I've come to learn more and more that she's absolutely right!
Pilate might not have a problem with his "r" but as a Samnite he would have an accent that makes him a figure of ridicule among snobbish Roman aristocrats. His friend "Biggus Dickus" is likely Sejanus, who did not have a happy ending 😱
Which means the first gospel was fan fiction, gMarcion was fan fiction, gMark was fan fiction, the other Synoptics were fan fiction, gJohn was fan fiction, and all those other gospels were fan fiction!
@@maxheadrom3088 Thank you for the qualification. “Life of Brian” is absolutely not about Jesus, but it is about the setting. I’ve seen one fim only about Jesus, The Last Temptation, and since I didn’t think that was very good, I don’t have a favorite Jesus movie. I do have a favorite Monty Python movie, though, and it’s “Life of Brian”. (Oh, wait, I did see the “Jesus Christ Superstar” movie. That was so execrable it must have slipped my mind.)
I have only been a Christian for a year, but during this time, I happened to come across the Japanese translation of your book, Misquoting Jesus, at a library. I read it with great interest and subsequently delved into the original English version. As expected, there are subtle "distortions" in the translation from English to Japanese. Nevertheless, as a Japanese reader, I found the translation both engaging and impressive. Considering this, even today, I can understand how early copyists, without access to modern conveniences like photocopiers or PDFs and instead relying on the laborious process of manual transcription, might have been tempted to alter texts based on their own interpretations-much like the scribes of the 4th-century Vatican Manuscript mentioned in your book.
Prof. Ehrman is great! I found him out because of a TH-cam video called "The Real Da Vinci Code" that I had to watch because, c'mon - does this guy really believe there's a 'real' Da Vinci Code???? What a great surprise - driven by click bait I was hooked by history and historiography.
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov This was the first book where I encountered a version of Pilate like what you are talking about. Bulgakov was a Soviet author persecuted by Stalin. Pontias Pilate is a main character in one of the bigger subplots of the novel. Bulgakov started the book in 1928 but it was not published during his lifetime because of his problems with Stalin. He kept working on it until he died. So he never created a final copy. Though several versions were published (starting in 1967), and the book is considered a great novel, there is no uncontroversial final version of the text. It's fits right in with your apocrypha. The process goes on.
I read that book when my wife's book club thought it was a little too dense for them; I inherited my wife's copy. "Here, read this; we didn't like it but thought it might be good." I also thought its interaction between Jesus and Pilate made more sense than the Bible's.
Add to this that the Roman Empire was starting to collapse (500-800) or so, dark ages coming on, the plague, into which the "Holy Roman Empire" emerges. Interesting times to say the least.
Once you get over being afraid and begin to see the Bible as a man made collection of human thought and not the inspired words of a Hebrew god it becomes easier to pick it apart.
I don’t see how “man-made” and “inspired by an…God” are mutually exclusive. All sorts of things are indisputably inspired by a notion of a God, and I only stuck in “a notion of” to try to make it clearer to you what “inspired by a God”-Hebrew or other-has logically necessarily to mean.
Once you get over being afraid and begin to see the Bible as a man made collection of human thought and not the inspired words of a Hebrew god, you pick up the Quran, only preserved religious scripture on the planet.
@@jeffburns4219Sure, that's what "inspired by" typically means. One can be inspired by a person, a place, an idea, etc. But that's not what most Christians mean regarding the Bible. They typically mean God guided the thoughts or hands of the writers, or that he specifically gave them the words to write.
I would like Dr. Bart to do an Online Course regarding the sayings attributed to the historical Jesus (i.e. the ''red letter verses'') found in the Four Gospels that are, according to Dr. Bart: more likely than not (likelihood greater than 50%), at least as likely as not (likelihood of at least 50%), less likely than not (likelihood less than 50%)
Thank you sooo much for another great podcast AND wonderful set of questions at the end..... Especially the first one !!! I had been pondering about other philosophical influences in the bible from the surrounding societies and couldn't find words enough to succinctly ask it. And along comes a wonderful listener to "sane-wash " my blathering ...LOL!!! Thanks again
I think a more likely explanation is that zealots tend to hate the most not the people who have completely different ideas but those who have similar ideas but with a few differences. For example, a person I know is a Marxist and he hates American liberals more than MAGAs. Fundamentalist Muslims tend to hate other Muslims (e.g., Shia vs. Sunnis) even more than the west. The original Christians were Jews. It was natural that they would hate other Jews who didn’t “recognize” that Jesus was the messiah most of all.
When you say “Romans”, are you referring to the government/state? Or Roman Christians? I can’t imagine that the former would care in the slightest, and might in fact glory in the blame
@@existdissolve Exactly. The Roman rulers wouldn't care but to the extent they would they wouldn't feel guilty about crucifying someone who dared to challenge the authority of Rome by claiming to be King of the Jews. Just the opposite. That was they they reserved crucifixion for the worst trouble makers who in their eyes were people that defied Roman authority.
"Recall these Bible stories: Out of fear of a newborn challenger, King Herod ordered the slaughter of all male children under the age of two in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16-18). Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish (Mark 6:30-44). 'News about him spread all over Syria… Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him' (Matthew 4:24-25). A crowd watched Jesus raise a boy from the dead, and the 'news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country' (Luke 7:11-17). It is difficult to explain how, if they really happened, events so spectacular and widely witnessed would have escaped the notice of contemporary writers. The silence cannot be explained by a lack of interested parties. There were many historians and scientists (called at that time 'natural philosophers'), both Roman and Jewish, active during this period. The Roman historian Livy (circa 10 CE) wrote near the time of Herod’s alleged slaughter, but he mentioned it nowhere. The Roman philosopher Seneca (circa 65 CE) was alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he failed to mention Jesus. The Roman naturalist and philosopher Pliny the Elder (circa 80 CE) was also alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he too neglected to mention it. The Jewish philosopher Philo (circa 40 CE) wrote extensively about both religion and Pontius Pilate, yet he never mentioned Jesus. The Jewish historian Justus of Tiberius (circa 80 CE) was even a native of Galilee. He wrote a history of the Jews from Moses to Agrippa II but never mentioned Jesus." - from Bill Zuersher's great book "Seeing Through Christianity."
Pilate a minor character? He's in the Apostles' Creed, he's a genuine undisputed historical character, he's the one that orders the cruxifiction. Sure, call it fanfiction, but ol' Pontius Pilatus is NOT a minor character. He may be a one scene wonder in the Gospels, but in the context of the bigger world, he's a major character.
I find it quite interesting that this gospel seems to coincide with the conversion of Constantine. it's almost like there was a slow exoneration of the romans and villification of the jews in the early years of the church.
I believe it was Josephus who stated that Pontius Pilate was indeed recalled to Rome, but because even by Roman standards he was a harsh administrator. Roman crucifixion was punishment for sedition, an offense they never took lightly. If Pilate were merely appeasing bloodthirsty Jews, wouldn't he have been more likely to turn JC over to the Sanhedrin for stoning?
The Christian Gospels (including the earliest, Mark) paint a clear picture that Pontius Pilate had some type of interest in Jesus (Jesus in an inferior role to Pilate). It was not unheard of for a Roman to have a connection with a Jew. Emperor Vespasian had a special interest and relationship with Flavius Josephus (a Jewish general turned historian). If Pilate would have let the Sanhedrin stone Jesus, Jesus would have died, without question. However, in a Roman-staged crucifixion, Pilate had the ability to protect Jesus from death on the cross. None of the Gospels mention anything about nails being used, they all document only six hours on the cross, and they all document that Pilate personally approved who could take Jesus from the cross (Joseph of Arimathea, a ‘secret disciple’). The earliest Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) mention no form of physical violence against Jesus while he was on the cross. All the Gospels and Paul’s early letters state Jesus appeared live after the crucifixion, which is probably the only reason the movement persisted afterwards. Jesus promoted paying taxes to Rome (‘give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’, 'a friend of tax collectors', many other positive verses), stated a centurion had the greatest faith in all Israel, promoted submissiveness towards oppression (‘turn the other cheek’, 'love your enemies', ‘blessed are the peacemakers’, ‘the meek’), etc.
1. Only Roman citizens got trials. Jesus was a subject, not a citizen. 2. Many men during those times believed themselves to have been the long-predicted messiah. Why would this particular claimant have even come to Pilate's attention let alone motivate Pilate to break Roman law and try him?
I think because it was Passover. The Jewish high priests could not have Jesus stoned. They went to Pilate and asked for the Roman judgement they were unable to deliver. It wasn't a formal trial.
@@haze1123 ... Maybe, but then that leaves the issue of Pilate. Why would he even allow himself to get involved in a routine, intra-Jewish squabble especially during the most culturally fraught point in the Jewish calendar? Why would he invite trouble for himself.
@@apotropoxyz6685Josephus actually wrote that this was one reason he was kicked out and replaced by Marcellus - because the guy kept involving himself in Jewish affairs that he had no understanding of and rendering the most culturally - insensitive judgments possible. This was literally the complaint Jewish leaders from Syria to Alexandria gave both Tiberius and Lucius Vitellius. It's actually very like the historical Pilate to have nosed into a spat between Jewish sects in the middle of a very sensitive festival and just kill off a sectarian leader for giggles.
@@apotropoxyz6685 That's a good point. We have to understand the delicate political situation in 1st Century Judea and how that related to Passover. During Pilate's tenure as prefect, there was unrest and revolutionary activity. There were some actual mini-rebellions and revolts in the years leading up to and during his rule. Groups like the Sicarii and various "false prophets" were active in fomenting unrest. Pilate was known to crack down hard and without mercy. Of course, the risk of unrest, rioting, and religious fervor was elevated during Passover. So the Roman prefect would have additional troops in Jerusalem and be quick to extinguish any activities that could be viewed as revolutionary or anti-Roman. Like you say, it was "culturally fraught," so it makes sense that Pilate might proceed carefully with a "trial" of sorts and bring Jesus before a crowd to decide his fate. This very tense environment eventually led to the First Jewish-Roman War where Jerusalem was destroyed. And it's very interesting to know that the First Jewish-Roman War began around the time of Passover in 66 CE. Passover was taken as a sign to throw off your oppressors and seek liberation.
@@andrewsuryali8540... Pilate had a very long run as Judea's governor, about 10 years. Obviously, Rome was happy with his work. If Pilate fiddled with Jesus' justice process, there would be no reason to think he didn't do it to other messiah claimants, and there is no evidence in Roman records of that.
Josephus used the Greek term for "robbers" to refer to the rebels. But that Greek term also meant "highwaymen, brigands, pirates" and back then pirates would kidnap and traffick children and young men and women and sometimes violate them.
Luke 11:47-51: “Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed... This generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world.” This verse seems to shift the responsibility for the deaths of the prophets, including Jesus, away from Roman authorities like Pontius Pilate and instead places it on the Jewish leaders and people of that generation. Or am I mistaken?
If there was a mob demanding that Jesus be crucified, why does the Bible not include a description - even a hint - of these same people showing up to witness the crucifixion?
It's pretty accepted by all the scholars that Jesus couldn't speak latin, and probably Pilate couldn't speak but a few words of aramaic or hebrew...so how could they understand each other during the trial??🙄
What do you think of the view that the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus being written in response to either Celsus' Anti-Christian work or perhaps Jewish parody literature of Jesus (either Toldot Yeshu or perhaps a forerunner of it)?
Ehrman's inability to hear and see truth is amazing. He consistently ascribes historicity to fictional characters including Pontius Pilate. Pilate, the fictional character, is most directly based on Pentheus. That Acts includes the bit about "kicking against the pricks" from the Bacchae gets conveniently ignored. Ehrman fails to notice city-ruler Pentheus juxtaposed with vine-god Dionysus being followed by city-ruler Pontius juxtaposed with vine-god Jesus. If you fail to notice this and call BS on it you're considered a historical "authority" like Ehrman. He has misled a lot of people. But, that's what religious cults do, create a false reality for people in order to control their thinking. Wake up, Bart!
BART! Ahem Dr. Ehrman 🙋♂️ I have a question regarding your comment on how apocryphal writings shape the way we read the bible. Do you think this was the case for the writers of the New Testament? And to what extent? Somewhat of a rhetorical question I suppose, Enoch is quoted in the New Testament, maybe Paul has some proto-gnostic ideas as well. What about the concept of Christ not being crucified but only appearing that way found in the so called gnostic writings as well as the narrative of Satan’s fall found in apocrypha both having potential influence on similar passages in the Quran? It seems there are similarities between Iblis and Jesus in Islam that are found in non canonical writings or at least share some kind of common ground. Might be an interesting idea for an episode of your podcast: how the non canonical writings shape our views etc…I know you riff on this a ton in your heaven and hell book and how Jesus became god. Great show as always
I don’t believe any early sources support the claim that Pontius Pilate initiated a charge of sedition to crucify Jesus. Pilate used the term ‘King of the Jews’ in arguing against crucifying Jesus - a type of “Are you sure you want to crucify your king?” (Mark 15:9-12) The Gospel of Mark has Jesus condemned by Jewish authority (Mark 14:64, 15:10). Pilate grants Jesus a personal trial (15:1-5), declares no guilt in Jesus (15:14), publicly defends Jesus against a Jewish mob (15:8-14), has Roman centurion at the crucifixion site (15:39), and is directly involved in authorizing who takes Jesus from the cross (Joseph of Arimathea, 15:43-45). Early in the Jesus movement (c. 50 CE, roughly seventeen years after the crucifixion) Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 places blame for Jesus’ crucifixion squarely on the Jews, which agrees with Mark 15:13-14. Later Gospels may embellish these points, but they do not alter them. These references suggest Pilate’s involvement was more than minor, almost absurd, unless Pilate had some type of interest in Jesus (Jesus in an inferior role).
So weird that Chistians post-Paul are even mad about Jesus's death. Isn't his sacrifice REQUIRED for their whole worldview to work?? Christianity continues to be the most baffling of all the world's religions to me
Paul's ideas took time to become popular this is pre internet/printing press remember. We don't really know how fast Christianity spread but I imagine irpt was slow and localised at first
It's always struck me as odd that Pontius Pilate is so virulently demonized by Christians. Without Jesus's crucifixion, there would be no Christianity. Also, true for the Jewish establishment, Judas, & Peter's denial. Without their actions, Jesus would not have been crucified. Thus there would be no Christianity. Period. End of story. This is just one of many illogical, hate centric things that have made me reject Christianity.
@@james8905 I follow the teachings of Jesus, NOT the religion of Paul (who never even met Jesus) or the religion that was invented by MEN centuries after Jesus’s death. That ‘Christianity’ has killed more people & committed more horrors than anything in history & is now trying to destroy the USA with their made up theology. ‘Christian Nationalism’ has ZERO in common with Jesus or the USA & our Founding Fathers. Fun fact - there were more atheist/agnostic Founding Fathers than all the ‘fundamentalists’ of which there were ZERO.
29:00 that's a good story, but it could also be that the Romans were the ongoing rulers, and the Christians saw a need to suck up to them in their literature. And of course to vilify the Jews. The myth of early persecution by Rome was then added at a later time, when Christianity was safely ensconced in the empire and when those being accused of persecution were centuries in the past. Just another hypothesis that fits all of the evidence. In this view, the Romans don't start of as a big bad enemy, they become one retrospectively, from a safe historical distance.
Pilate and his wife were geuinely interesting characters in Mel Gibson's torture porn Passion movie. They were presented as humans instead of Mel's caricature. Then again, knowing his anti semitism, of course Mel gave Pilate nuance while eeeeevil Judeans are moustache twirling screaming bad guys that have less character than a Saturday morning cartoon villain 😐
"Pontius Pilate is shown as a pretty decent chap: he probably tips well, pets the neighbor's dog, helps old ladies cross the street, that kind of thing." As opposed to Judas Iscariot, who probably stiffed the waiter, kicked the neighbor and his dog, and got old ladies halfway across the boulevard before knocking them down and beckoning oncoming chariots to drive faster. Or did that get made up later? ;-)
If Christians believe that Jesus "had to die" for their sins to be forgiven, whoever was responsible for his death should be viewed as heroes. Otherwise, there would be no resurrection, right?
the correct understanding of the crucifixion is the pharisees surrendered the Jews to Rome and the resurrection will be fulfilled when the Jews are delivered from Rome, and then you will know...
I'm not a Christian in fact I was born a liberal Muslim and became an atheist the first time I went to a Church in the UK. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the heroes of the Christian mythos are Pilot and Judas. If Jesus had to die on the cross for someone to be saved then the people who caused that should be thanked. As for Jesus sacrificing himself to himself pure theatre.
it's hard to talk about the history of xian anti-jewish hate without invoking an anachronism, because the processes in which these groups were defined were very reciprocal, and because the modern idea of anti-semitism depends on modern concepts of nation & state and has recently become discredited.
Dr Ehrman, can you please debate Jimmy akin again, but take him to school this time??? I mean, his answers were so smug and arrogant. Plus put Jimmy on defense from the very beginning!!!
I'm pretty sure that if Pilate believed all that stuff about Jesus healing people, etc, he would have simply refused to execute him. Remember that he liked pissing off the Jews, so that would have contributed to his motives to let Jesus off.
Hey Meg and Bart, just little feedback, I think it great that you get straight into the subject at the beginning of the video, not that is is not interesting to have updates and chit chats but I would rather have those as a conclusion rather than an openers. Nonetheless, love the podcast, keep em coming!
0:01 Pontius Pilate is definitely not portrayed as _"the bad guy"_ in the New Testament. The last century has seen a concerted effort to change the intended narrative of the New Testament, in an effort to _"combat anti-Semitism."_ The New Testament authors could not have been more clear.
It would probably be a Jewish sect that does not like the "other" Jewish sect. Protestants and Catholics kinda come to mind. They are both Christian and both used to not like each other very much.
Boomerang bigotry is a real thing, along with sectarianism. Look at the USA today, both sides of the political divide demonize each other (sometimes literally thinking the other side are demonically possesed!). Similarly, Daesh have arguably killed more Muslims than America and their allies (to the point that Al-Qaeda have called them cruel! 🤣).
There's this thing called the "Birkat ha'minim" promulgated by Rabban Gamaliel II in the late 1st or early 2nd century CE. It is the "19th blessing" of the Amidah or the Shemoneh Esreh (it's actually the 12th now). In its earliest form the "blessing" actually read: "For the apostates (meshumaddim) let there be no hope, and uproot the kingdom of arrogance (malkhut zadon), speedily and in our days. May the Nazarenes (ha-naẓarim/noṣrim/notzrim) and the sectarians (minim) perish as in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written together with the righteous. You are praised, O Lord, who subdues the arrogant." As you can see this is a curse instead of a blessing. The way this worked was that if a member of a synagogue was suspected as being one of the cursed categories in the Birkat, he would have been "invited" to read the Amidah. If he read through the Birkat, then he's considered to have returned to the fold. If he refused to read the Birkat or read it in a modified form (like removing one of the categories), he would have been confirmed as being one of the cursed categories and the congregation would have forcibly ejected him from the synagogue. They would also then place a herrem (excommunication) on him. In those days the herrem was the ultimate punishment. It branded a Jewish person no longer a Jew. It's easy to see how this treatment could have engendered very strong hatred in the people who were punished in this way. It's suspected that the writer of the fourth Gospel ("John") was one of those punished in this way, because his Jesus kept getting kicked out from synagogues in a very similar way. The Jewish community actually regretted their harsh treatment of early Jewish Christians very early on. In earlier uncensored versions of the Talmud found in the Yemeni Jewish community, the third commentary of Tractate Sanhedrin 107b contained a story about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah, the teacher of one "Yeshu" (or Yehuda ben Tabbai in some versions), who got into a spat with his student, excommunicated him, and decided too late to forgive him, leading to "Yeshu" going off to worship a brick (starting a new religion). This story in its original form started with a warning that one should push with the left hand but pull with the right hand, "not like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah". It's basically a rabbinic admonition against the harsh early treatment of the Jewish Christians by the early rabbinic authorities. After the Nicholas Donin Affair, in Europe this story was replaced in Tractate Sanhedrin 107b by the current story of Elisha and Gehazi, which has the same moral.
As Churchill referred to Stalin amicably calling him "Uncle Joe," we, the supporters of the Roman Empire, should similarly call Pontius Pilate, say, "Uncle Po." And let's start by clearly stating that there was little love lost between Uncle Po and the Sadducees!
I'm a longtime fan and I'd like to make an appeal (after seeing your Genesis ad) PLEASE don't use AI art, everyone else is doing it so you may end up looking like all the others and you are special! It looks BAD and vulgar, no wonder it's being called "boomer art" online. Please please please reconsider!
Let’s assume that you are St Paul, living in the city of Rome at the height of the Roman Empire, and reciting the story of Christ to the Roman people in order to proselytise his new religion of Christ. In Rome at the time the Jews were being forbidden to proselytise by Emperor Claudius, on pain of death. In your New Testament, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Palestine, has sentenced the son of God to death. St. Paul was having a very hard time selling his new religion to the Romans, who had their own religion, and he was getting no help in this from the early Christians in Palestine, who were also still Jews. In his predicament he had no choice but to cast Pontius Pilate in a good light, or else he would have been executed, as were so many Christians later by the Romans. For the truth about Pontius Pilate you only need look at his subsequent career in Gaul. The idea that any Roman governor of the period was a ‘nice guy’ is preposterous. Moreover, the head of the Jews (Sanhedrin) in Palestine in Christ’s time would have been Hillel. Much of Hillel’s sayings and teachings were recorded for history - some of them look remarkably like Christ’s own sermons - ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’, etc. Contrast this with the behaviour of typical Roman provincial governors of the time, whose job was to bleed taxes out of the locals any way they could - with crucifixion being a well used tool. For more, see Robert Graves’ ‘King Jesus’. Graves was our leading antiquarian and author of ‘I Claudius’. He knew what he was talking about. He views the idea that the Jews betrayed Christ to Pilate as ridiculous - a ‘convenient’ invention of St. Paul to sell his version of Christianity, who could not have known its historic consequence would be so horrendous. The more likely truth is that Pilate crucified Christ fearing that he might lead the uprising against Rome, which did come later, leading to Massada and the Exodus. Christ’s mother Mary was alleged to have been descended from King David, says Graves, as would be the Messiah, Jews believed - hence also the ‘virgin birth’ - another idea of some strange provenance. Look no further than the subsequent persecution of Christians by the Romans. Fact is, Christianity would lose none of its power or truth without those two curious aspects. At its heart lies the Ten Commandments - which the Romans did not have then. So when they prevented Jews from proselytising, they got Christianity instead.
Paul wasn’t living in Rome when he wrote his first five letters between 48 and 57 CE. In his letter to the church community in Rome (Romans, c. 55-57 CE) he stated it was a place he had not yet visited, but that he planned to stop by on his way to Spain. I think Paul’s effect on the development of Christianity is often overstated. Just because he was prolific in writing letters, several being preserved through scribes over the centuries, doesn’t mean he singlehandedly shaped its foundation. The Jesus movement had already spread to Rome by 55-57 CE without Paul’s presence. The image of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels depends on your point of view. To the Jews, he was vindictive and cruel, not a ‘nice guy’. Pilate was at odds with the subjects of Judea in supporting a man whom the Sanhedrin mistrusted and detested, as did much of the population of Jerusalem. Pontius Pilate supported a Jew who promoted paying taxes to Rome (‘give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’, ‘a friend of tax collectors’, many other positive verses), stated a centurion had the greatest faith in all Israel, promoted submissiveness towards oppression (‘turn the other cheek’, ‘love your enemies’, ‘blessed are the peacemakers’, ‘the meek’), etc. Showing support for a Jew who promoted behavior conducive to Roman rule is not being a ‘nice guy’, it is showing his misguided biases.
Christian propaganda so fanciful and illogical that even today's Roman Catholic Church has buried them. My guess is that they raise the issue of authenticity for all early church writings. Best swept under the carpet. Don't want to confuse 'the punters'.
I'm not a bench guy! I've actually uncoded the 12 Gemstones of the Bible, the meanings behind the details of the Tabernacle, Aaron's garments, and all Exodus 28,much else besides.
you were also a fundamentalist christian Bart. I'm sure you figured out your cognitive bias doesn't allow you to see the forest through the trees. Qvella is a couple millennia of biased transfer of writings from fearful students/scribes not wanting to upset their mentors... or get burned for heresy.
This is nothing more than another rendition of Harry Potter. When are all of these grown ups going to get over this Jesus thing. This horror has cause more trouble in this world than virtually anything else. And it's all nothing but myth.
![[UNCUT] "บอสณวัฒน์" แฉ! แหล่งซุกเงินแก๊งบอส ขยันผิดที่ไม่กี่ปีก็เข้าคุก l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l17ต.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BL56qIfXYZM/mqdefault.jpg)
I have been praying a lot to Jesus and asked him about the truth about him. He answered that "Life of Brian" was pretty close.
I know a historian - and art historian so not a specialist - who used to say "Life of Brian" is the best film about Jesus. Well ... not exactly about Jesus but about the time and place He lived in. She also used to say that "L'armata Brancaleone" is the best film about the Crusades. I've come to learn more and more that she's absolutely right!
@@maxheadrom3088 Still think Jesus himself is a higher authority in this subject although I admire art historians.
Pilate might not have a problem with his "r" but as a Samnite he would have an accent that makes him a figure of ridicule among snobbish Roman aristocrats. His friend "Biggus Dickus" is likely Sejanus, who did not have a happy ending 😱
Which means the first gospel was fan fiction, gMarcion was fan fiction, gMark was fan fiction, the other Synoptics were fan fiction, gJohn was fan fiction, and all those other gospels were fan fiction!
@@maxheadrom3088 Thank you for the qualification. “Life of Brian” is absolutely not about Jesus, but it is about the setting. I’ve seen one fim only about Jesus, The Last Temptation, and since I didn’t think that was very good, I don’t have a favorite Jesus movie. I do have a favorite Monty Python movie, though, and it’s “Life of Brian”. (Oh, wait, I did see the “Jesus Christ Superstar” movie. That was so execrable it must have slipped my mind.)
Welcome back Bart. Happy to see you are safe from the storm last week.
I have only been a Christian for a year, but during this time, I happened to come across the Japanese translation of your book, Misquoting Jesus, at a library. I read it with great interest and subsequently delved into the original English version. As expected, there are subtle "distortions" in the translation from English to Japanese. Nevertheless, as a Japanese reader, I found the translation both engaging and impressive.
Considering this, even today, I can understand how early copyists, without access to modern conveniences like photocopiers or PDFs and instead relying on the laborious process of manual transcription, might have been tempted to alter texts based on their own interpretations-much like the scribes of the 4th-century Vatican Manuscript mentioned in your book.
Prof. Ehrman is great! I found him out because of a TH-cam video called "The Real Da Vinci Code" that I had to watch because, c'mon - does this guy really believe there's a 'real' Da Vinci Code???? What a great surprise - driven by click bait I was hooked by history and historiography.
The Master and Margarita
by Mikhail Bulgakov
This was the first book where I encountered a version of Pilate
like what you are talking about. Bulgakov was a Soviet author persecuted by Stalin. Pontias Pilate is a main character in one of the bigger subplots of the novel.
Bulgakov started the book in 1928 but it was not published during his lifetime because of his problems with Stalin. He kept working on it until he died. So he never created a final copy.
Though several versions were published (starting in 1967), and the book is considered a great novel, there is no uncontroversial final version of the text. It's fits right in with your apocrypha. The process goes on.
Interesting. Thank you.
I read that book when my wife's book club thought it was a little too dense for them; I inherited my wife's copy. "Here, read this; we didn't like it but thought it might be good." I also thought its interaction between Jesus and Pilate made more sense than the Bible's.
@@GlorifiedTruth I must thank Bart for this cast Now I'm reading the book again. So far it's even better than I remembered.
@@davidleslie965 There is also a short story in Trevanian's Hot night in the city.
Pilate teaches the most underappreciated moral lesson in the Bible. Sometimes Em Effers are just crazy and you need to not get involved.
Thank You So So MUCH FOR DOING THIS ! YAY! KNOWLEDGE! 🎉
Knowledge is good; pray earnestly you attain the wisdom to know how to deal with it.
God I love this podcast!
Add to this that the Roman Empire was starting to collapse (500-800) or so, dark ages coming on, the plague, into which the "Holy Roman Empire" emerges. Interesting times to say the least.
Once you get over being afraid and begin to see the Bible as a man made collection of human thought and not the inspired words of a Hebrew god it becomes easier to pick it apart.
I don’t see how “man-made” and “inspired by an…God” are mutually exclusive. All sorts of things are indisputably inspired by a notion of a God, and I only stuck in “a notion of” to try to make it clearer to you what “inspired by a God”-Hebrew or other-has logically necessarily to mean.
I just wrote “inspired by a…God”, and the AS in my Ipad immediately converted it into “inspired by an…God”.
Once you get over being afraid and begin to see the Bible as a man made collection of human thought and not the inspired words of a Hebrew god, you pick up the Quran, only preserved religious scripture on the planet.
And easier to *understand* it
@@jeffburns4219Sure, that's what "inspired by" typically means. One can be inspired by a person, a place, an idea, etc. But that's not what most Christians mean regarding the Bible. They typically mean God guided the thoughts or hands of the writers, or that he specifically gave them the words to write.
I would like Dr. Bart to do an Online Course regarding the sayings attributed to the historical Jesus (i.e. the ''red letter verses'') found in the Four Gospels that are, according to Dr. Bart: more likely than not (likelihood greater than 50%),
at least as likely as not (likelihood of at least 50%),
less likely than not (likelihood less than 50%)
Ignore most of the Gospel of John.
The author came up with the Acts of Pilate to try to develop the core of early Christianity
Hmmm…for some strange reason I have this hankering for round spectacles…
Can someone create a "pocket bart ehrman" to answer all these questions so he doesnt have to himself😂
Good idea. Pitch it to Dr Ehrman and be the editor of the guide.
Thank you sooo much for another great podcast AND wonderful set of questions at the end..... Especially the first one !!! I had been pondering about other philosophical influences in the bible from the surrounding societies and couldn't find words enough to succinctly ask it. And along comes a wonderful listener to "sane-wash " my blathering ...LOL!!! Thanks again
My theory is that the authors of the gospels were looking to suck up to the Romans by shifting the blame for the crucifixion to Jews.
This is perhaps the most well-known theory in the field of gospel interpretation
I think a more likely explanation is that zealots tend to hate the most not the people who have completely different ideas but those who have similar ideas but with a few differences. For example, a person I know is a Marxist and he hates American liberals more than MAGAs. Fundamentalist Muslims tend to hate other Muslims (e.g., Shia vs. Sunnis) even more than the west. The original Christians were Jews. It was natural that they would hate other Jews who didn’t “recognize” that Jesus was the messiah most of all.
@@agl1138Really? What scholar says this? I’ve read most of Ehrman’s books and I don’t recall seeing that.
When you say “Romans”, are you referring to the government/state? Or Roman Christians? I can’t imagine that the former would care in the slightest, and might in fact glory in the blame
@@existdissolve Exactly. The Roman rulers wouldn't care but to the extent they would they wouldn't feel guilty about crucifying someone who dared to challenge the authority of Rome by claiming to be King of the Jews. Just the opposite. That was they they reserved crucifixion for the worst trouble makers who in their eyes were people that defied Roman authority.
Fascinating. I remember hearing some bits of these stories, but didn't know where they originated
"Recall these Bible stories: Out of fear of a newborn challenger, King Herod ordered the slaughter of all male children under the age of two in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16-18). Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish (Mark 6:30-44). 'News about him spread all over Syria… Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him' (Matthew 4:24-25). A crowd watched Jesus raise a boy from the dead, and the 'news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country' (Luke 7:11-17). It is difficult to explain how, if they really happened, events so spectacular and widely witnessed would have escaped the notice of contemporary writers. The silence cannot be explained by a lack of interested parties. There were many historians and scientists (called at that time 'natural philosophers'), both Roman and Jewish, active during this period. The Roman historian Livy (circa 10 CE) wrote near the time of Herod’s alleged slaughter, but he mentioned it nowhere. The Roman philosopher Seneca (circa 65 CE) was alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he failed to mention Jesus. The Roman naturalist and philosopher Pliny the Elder (circa 80 CE) was also alive during Jesus’s ministry, but he too neglected to mention it. The Jewish philosopher Philo (circa 40 CE) wrote extensively about both religion and Pontius Pilate, yet he never mentioned Jesus. The Jewish historian Justus of Tiberius (circa 80 CE) was even a native of Galilee. He wrote a history of the Jews from Moses to Agrippa II but never mentioned Jesus." - from Bill Zuersher's great book "Seeing Through Christianity."
🤔
Bart is like the great detective that finally gets the case that he can’t solve.
Hmmm. I wonder if that is one of the sources from which Bulgakov took inspiration for Master and Margarita?
Am I the only one who is reminded of fan fiction? Christians taking every minor character in the Gospels and giving them a story of their own.
Yes but the gospels are fan fiction as well
Honestly I think the line between fan fiction and the canon story until pretty recently was very blurry if it existed at all.
It's a lot like star wars.
Pilate a minor character? He's in the Apostles' Creed, he's a genuine undisputed historical character, he's the one that orders the cruxifiction. Sure, call it fanfiction, but ol' Pontius Pilatus is NOT a minor character. He may be a one scene wonder in the Gospels, but in the context of the bigger world, he's a major character.
@@Ammeeeeeeer fan fiction of a major character then 😂
Fantastic episode. Arrive for Meg's astonishing eyeglasses and hair, stay for the knowledge.
I find it quite interesting that this gospel seems to coincide with the conversion of Constantine. it's almost like there was a slow exoneration of the romans and villification of the jews in the early years of the church.
Try to read the Gospel of John objectively. Notice that Jesus speaks of his fellow Jews as if he is a non-Jew.
If a Christian was worried about persecution by Roman authorities, having this Pilate book would come in handy to show you are no threat to Rome.
Barts synopsis makes this sound like one of my fantasy novels. Jesus didn't 'rise into heaven'. He departed for Valinor.
Where's this Valinor?
@@carywest9256 Valinor is the land that the Elves went to in the Lord of the Rings
I believe it was Josephus who stated that Pontius Pilate was indeed recalled to Rome, but because even by Roman standards he was a harsh administrator. Roman crucifixion was punishment for sedition, an offense they never took lightly. If Pilate were merely appeasing bloodthirsty Jews, wouldn't he have been more likely to turn JC over to the Sanhedrin for stoning?
The Christian Gospels (including the earliest, Mark) paint a clear picture that Pontius Pilate had some type of interest in Jesus (Jesus in an inferior role to Pilate). It was not unheard of for a Roman to have a connection with a Jew. Emperor Vespasian had a special interest and relationship with Flavius Josephus (a Jewish general turned historian). If Pilate would have let the Sanhedrin stone Jesus, Jesus would have died, without question. However, in a Roman-staged crucifixion, Pilate had the ability to protect Jesus from death on the cross. None of the Gospels mention anything about nails being used, they all document only six hours on the cross, and they all document that Pilate personally approved who could take Jesus from the cross (Joseph of Arimathea, a ‘secret disciple’). The earliest Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) mention no form of physical violence against Jesus while he was on the cross. All the Gospels and Paul’s early letters state Jesus appeared live after the crucifixion, which is probably the only reason the movement persisted afterwards. Jesus promoted paying taxes to Rome (‘give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’, 'a friend of tax collectors', many other positive verses), stated a centurion had the greatest faith in all Israel, promoted submissiveness towards oppression (‘turn the other cheek’, 'love your enemies', ‘blessed are the peacemakers’, ‘the meek’), etc.
Great content as usual friends
I’m embarrassed to say, I thought Pontius was a word that meant fair or just. Like honest Abe.
"Well what were their names then?"
"Oh, they were called Simon and Adrian."
"He's making it up as he goes along."
1. Only Roman citizens got trials. Jesus was a subject, not a citizen. 2. Many men during those times believed themselves to have been the long-predicted messiah. Why would this particular claimant have even come to Pilate's attention let alone motivate Pilate to break Roman law and try him?
I think because it was Passover. The Jewish high priests could not have Jesus stoned. They went to Pilate and asked for the Roman judgement they were unable to deliver. It wasn't a formal trial.
@@haze1123 ... Maybe, but then that leaves the issue of Pilate. Why would he even allow himself to get involved in a routine, intra-Jewish squabble especially during the most culturally fraught point in the Jewish calendar? Why would he invite trouble for himself.
@@apotropoxyz6685Josephus actually wrote that this was one reason he was kicked out and replaced by Marcellus - because the guy kept involving himself in Jewish affairs that he had no understanding of and rendering the most culturally - insensitive judgments possible. This was literally the complaint Jewish leaders from Syria to Alexandria gave both Tiberius and Lucius Vitellius. It's actually very like the historical Pilate to have nosed into a spat between Jewish sects in the middle of a very sensitive festival and just kill off a sectarian leader for giggles.
@@apotropoxyz6685 That's a good point. We have to understand the delicate political situation in 1st Century Judea and how that related to Passover. During Pilate's tenure as prefect, there was unrest and revolutionary activity. There were some actual mini-rebellions and revolts in the years leading up to and during his rule. Groups like the Sicarii and various "false prophets" were active in fomenting unrest. Pilate was known to crack down hard and without mercy. Of course, the risk of unrest, rioting, and religious fervor was elevated during Passover. So the Roman prefect would have additional troops in Jerusalem and be quick to extinguish any activities that could be viewed as revolutionary or anti-Roman. Like you say, it was "culturally fraught," so it makes sense that Pilate might proceed carefully with a "trial" of sorts and bring Jesus before a crowd to decide his fate. This very tense environment eventually led to the First Jewish-Roman War where Jerusalem was destroyed. And it's very interesting to know that the First Jewish-Roman War began around the time of Passover in 66 CE. Passover was taken as a sign to throw off your oppressors and seek liberation.
@@andrewsuryali8540... Pilate had a very long run as Judea's governor, about 10 years. Obviously, Rome was happy with his work. If Pilate fiddled with Jesus' justice process, there would be no reason to think he didn't do it to other messiah claimants, and there is no evidence in Roman records of that.
Were the guys who were crucified with Jesus really just 'robbers'? I thought the Romans regarded crucifiction as the ultimate State punishment.
Josephus used the Greek term for "robbers" to refer to the rebels. But that Greek term also meant "highwaymen, brigands, pirates" and back then pirates would kidnap and traffick children and young men and women and sometimes violate them.
Luke 11:47-51: “Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets
whom your fathers killed... This generation will be held responsible
for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the
beginning of the world.” This verse seems to shift the
responsibility for the deaths of the prophets, including Jesus, away
from Roman authorities like Pontius Pilate and instead places it on the
Jewish leaders and people of that generation. Or am I mistaken?
Thank You, Thank You for getting straight to the materials!
AGREED!!!
If there was a mob demanding that Jesus be crucified, why does the Bible not include a description - even a hint - of these same people showing up to witness the crucifixion?
Pilot took the rap for the people that demanded Christ be killed. He even offered to pardon him, but the people demanded Barabus instead.
I am from the Coptic church and I have never heard that Pilate was a saint. Are you sure of that information? :)
What does it mean to be a James A Gray distinguished professor?
It's pretty accepted by all the scholars that Jesus couldn't speak latin, and probably Pilate couldn't speak but a few words of aramaic or hebrew...so how could they understand each other during the trial??🙄
Is that 8PM EST?
22:28 odd Freudian slip. You meant Mark's gospel in the first example.
It seems to me that the 'Harrowing of Hell' is a nested Katabasis -- or a Katabasis that is two-levels deep.
I need to know the brand of Bart's shirt!
Matching eye glasses!!
Next Bart will be trying different hair dyes.
@@scienceexplains302 Before it is too late.
😂😢🎉w😮😂🎉😢🎉😂@@norbertjendruschj9121
@@norbertjendruschj9121You saying he needs a massive dose of Rogaine?
@@carywest9256 I hope he is above this. But yeah, there isn´t much to dye anymore.
What do you think of the view that the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus being written in response to either Celsus' Anti-Christian work or perhaps Jewish parody literature of Jesus (either Toldot Yeshu or perhaps a forerunner of it)?
Ehrman's inability to hear and see truth is amazing. He consistently ascribes historicity to fictional characters including Pontius Pilate. Pilate, the fictional character, is most directly based on Pentheus. That Acts includes the bit about "kicking against the pricks" from the Bacchae gets conveniently ignored. Ehrman fails to notice city-ruler Pentheus juxtaposed with vine-god Dionysus being followed by city-ruler Pontius juxtaposed with vine-god Jesus. If you fail to notice this and call BS on it you're considered a historical "authority" like Ehrman. He has misled a lot of people. But, that's what religious cults do, create a false reality for people in order to control their thinking. Wake up, Bart!
I once attended a Catholic Church that was the Parish of St. Dismas (the robber on Jesus’ right side)
And where was that?
BART! Ahem Dr. Ehrman
🙋♂️ I have a question regarding your comment on how apocryphal writings shape the way we read the bible. Do you think this was the case for the writers of the New Testament? And to what extent? Somewhat of a rhetorical question I suppose, Enoch is quoted in the New Testament, maybe Paul has some proto-gnostic ideas as well. What about the concept of Christ not being crucified but only appearing that way found in the so called gnostic writings as well as the narrative of Satan’s fall found in apocrypha both having potential influence on similar passages in the Quran? It seems there are similarities between Iblis and Jesus in Islam that are found in non canonical writings or at least share some kind of common ground. Might be an interesting idea for an episode of your podcast: how the non canonical writings shape our views etc…I know you riff on this a ton in your heaven and hell book and how Jesus became god.
Great show as always
What a shock! Blessed are the cheesemakers might not be historical?
Of course it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.
Blessed are the Greek. Apparently, he's going to inherit the earth.
I don’t believe any early sources support the claim that Pontius Pilate initiated a charge of sedition to crucify Jesus. Pilate used the term ‘King of the Jews’ in arguing against crucifying Jesus - a type of “Are you sure you want to crucify your king?” (Mark 15:9-12) The Gospel of Mark has Jesus condemned by Jewish authority (Mark 14:64, 15:10). Pilate grants Jesus a personal trial (15:1-5), declares no guilt in Jesus (15:14), publicly defends Jesus against a Jewish mob (15:8-14), has Roman centurion at the crucifixion site (15:39), and is directly involved in authorizing who takes Jesus from the cross (Joseph of Arimathea, 15:43-45). Early in the Jesus movement (c. 50 CE, roughly seventeen years after the crucifixion) Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 places blame for Jesus’ crucifixion squarely on the Jews, which agrees with Mark 15:13-14. Later Gospels may embellish these points, but they do not alter them. These references suggest Pilate’s involvement was more than minor, almost absurd, unless Pilate had some type of interest in Jesus (Jesus in an inferior role).
But in old testament who kills Prophets? Romans ?
So weird that Chistians post-Paul are even mad about Jesus's death. Isn't his sacrifice REQUIRED for their whole worldview to work?? Christianity continues to be the most baffling of all the world's religions to me
Paul's ideas took time to become popular this is pre internet/printing press remember. We don't really know how fast Christianity spread but I imagine irpt was slow and localised at first
Jesus is destined to die for our sins. Yet at the same time, we're angry that Jews betrayal caused Jesus to die. Christianity in a nutshell.
It's always struck me as odd that Pontius Pilate is so virulently demonized by Christians. Without Jesus's crucifixion, there would be no Christianity. Also, true for the Jewish establishment, Judas, & Peter's denial. Without their actions, Jesus would not have been crucified. Thus there would be no Christianity. Period. End of story. This is just one of many illogical, hate centric things that have made me reject Christianity.
Mankind defined Christ 300+ years, 10 generations after He died. No wonder they got it wrong. Don't deny Christ because mankind is full of mistrust.
@@james8905 I follow the teachings of Jesus, NOT the religion of Paul (who never even met Jesus) or the religion that was invented by MEN centuries after Jesus’s death. That ‘Christianity’ has killed more people & committed more horrors than anything in history & is now trying to destroy the USA with their made up theology. ‘Christian Nationalism’ has ZERO in common with Jesus or the USA & our Founding Fathers. Fun fact - there were more atheist/agnostic Founding Fathers than all the ‘fundamentalists’ of which there were ZERO.
That's religion. Read the Book of Mormon, and the Quaran. Written by the mentally ill , is how they appear.
Megan always looks like she’s grading papers while Bart is talking 😂
29:00 that's a good story, but it could also be that the Romans were the ongoing rulers, and the Christians saw a need to suck up to them in their literature. And of course to vilify the Jews.
The myth of early persecution by Rome was then added at a later time, when Christianity was safely ensconced in the empire and when those being accused of persecution were centuries in the past.
Just another hypothesis that fits all of the evidence. In this view, the Romans don't start of as a big bad enemy, they become one retrospectively, from a safe historical distance.
One of your most interesting episodes.
"he wasn't one of the intellectual superstars of the faith"....enter Kent Hovind
It's strange how many miracles are attributed to Jesus if it's fake
Pilate and his wife were geuinely interesting characters in Mel Gibson's torture porn Passion movie. They were presented as humans instead of Mel's caricature. Then again, knowing his anti semitism, of course Mel gave Pilate nuance while eeeeevil Judeans are moustache twirling screaming bad guys that have less character than a Saturday morning cartoon villain 😐
Christians are taught to be anti-semites😂 and Jews are taught to be separatist🎉
"Pontius Pilate is shown as a pretty decent chap: he probably tips well, pets the neighbor's dog, helps old ladies cross the street, that kind of thing." As opposed to Judas Iscariot, who probably stiffed the waiter, kicked the neighbor and his dog, and got old ladies halfway across the boulevard before knocking them down and beckoning oncoming chariots to drive faster. Or did that get made up later? ;-)
If Christians believe that Jesus "had to die" for their sins to be forgiven, whoever was responsible for his death should be viewed as heroes. Otherwise, there would be no resurrection, right?
the correct understanding of the crucifixion is the pharisees surrendered the Jews to Rome and the resurrection will be fulfilled when the Jews are delivered from Rome, and then you will know...
the pharisees were not "the Jews" a group of Jewish pharisees cheerleaders is not "the Jews"
Jesus can walk on water . Superman can fly. Peter rabbit can lay eggs . Please.
I'm not a Christian in fact I was born a liberal Muslim and became an atheist the first time I went to a Church in the UK.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the heroes of the Christian mythos are Pilot and Judas.
If Jesus had to die on the cross for someone to be saved then the people who caused that should be thanked.
As for Jesus sacrificing himself to himself pure theatre.
Little known! because you made it up?
As I begin this video, I'm really, really, REALLY hoping that this "Little Known Apocryphal Gospel" is going to be:
*The Gospel of Pilate*
Correction- Pontius retired in spring field and according to Apocrypha Springfieldum he actually not petted but ate neighbours dog.
Where are you getting round lenses for your glasses?
it's hard to talk about the history of xian anti-jewish hate without invoking an anachronism, because the processes in which these groups were defined were very reciprocal, and because the modern idea of anti-semitism depends on modern concepts of nation & state and has recently become discredited.
Dr Ehrman, can you please debate Jimmy akin again, but take him to school this time??? I mean, his answers were so smug and arrogant. Plus put Jimmy on defense from the very beginning!!!
Ah. Good. Took a while to finally post this.
I'm pretty sure that if Pilate believed all that stuff about Jesus healing people, etc, he would have simply refused to execute him. Remember that he liked pissing off the Jews, so that would have contributed to his motives to let Jesus off.
Hey Meg and Bart, just little feedback, I think it great that you get straight into the subject at the beginning of the video, not that is is not interesting to have updates and chit chats but I would rather have those as a conclusion rather than an openers. Nonetheless, love the podcast, keep em coming!
14:55
He was the ANCESTOR of exercise guru Joe Pilate and was into calisthenics. He opened the FIRST gymnasium in Rome! 😁
So, the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to execute Jesus! Can you tell us what the Jews say about Jesus in their Talmud?
0:01 Pontius Pilate is definitely not portrayed as _"the bad guy"_ in the New Testament.
The last century has seen a concerted effort to change the intended narrative of the New Testament, in an effort to _"combat anti-Semitism."_
The New Testament authors could not have been more clear.
Pilate and Herod are principalities who hold no real power bc they are controlled by the crowd. Metaphorically of course
Sounds like this book was written by the ancestors of Marjorie Taylor Green.
Fascinating as usual. And horrifying.
Cheers from Hitler's birthland, Scott
Why would jews be anti-jewish ?
It would probably be a Jewish sect that does not like the "other" Jewish sect. Protestants and Catholics kinda come to mind. They are both Christian and both used to not like each other very much.
Perhaps it came from the Gentiles attracted by Paul...
Boomerang bigotry is a real thing, along with sectarianism. Look at the USA today, both sides of the political divide demonize each other (sometimes literally thinking the other side are demonically possesed!). Similarly, Daesh have arguably killed more Muslims than America and their allies (to the point that Al-Qaeda have called them cruel! 🤣).
There's this thing called the "Birkat ha'minim" promulgated by Rabban Gamaliel II in the late 1st or early 2nd century CE. It is the "19th blessing" of the Amidah or the Shemoneh Esreh (it's actually the 12th now). In its earliest form the "blessing" actually read:
"For the apostates (meshumaddim) let there be no hope,
and uproot the kingdom of arrogance (malkhut zadon), speedily and in our days.
May the Nazarenes (ha-naẓarim/noṣrim/notzrim) and the sectarians (minim) perish as in a moment.
Let them be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written together with the righteous.
You are praised, O Lord, who subdues the arrogant."
As you can see this is a curse instead of a blessing. The way this worked was that if a member of a synagogue was suspected as being one of the cursed categories in the Birkat, he would have been "invited" to read the Amidah. If he read through the Birkat, then he's considered to have returned to the fold. If he refused to read the Birkat or read it in a modified form (like removing one of the categories), he would have been confirmed as being one of the cursed categories and the congregation would have forcibly ejected him from the synagogue. They would also then place a herrem (excommunication) on him. In those days the herrem was the ultimate punishment. It branded a Jewish person no longer a Jew. It's easy to see how this treatment could have engendered very strong hatred in the people who were punished in this way. It's suspected that the writer of the fourth Gospel ("John") was one of those punished in this way, because his Jesus kept getting kicked out from synagogues in a very similar way.
The Jewish community actually regretted their harsh treatment of early Jewish Christians very early on. In earlier uncensored versions of the Talmud found in the Yemeni Jewish community, the third commentary of Tractate Sanhedrin 107b contained a story about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah, the teacher of one "Yeshu" (or Yehuda ben Tabbai in some versions), who got into a spat with his student, excommunicated him, and decided too late to forgive him, leading to "Yeshu" going off to worship a brick (starting a new religion). This story in its original form started with a warning that one should push with the left hand but pull with the right hand, "not like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachiah". It's basically a rabbinic admonition against the harsh early treatment of the Jewish Christians by the early rabbinic authorities.
After the Nicholas Donin Affair, in Europe this story was replaced in Tractate Sanhedrin 107b by the current story of Elisha and Gehazi, which has the same moral.
As Churchill referred to Stalin amicably calling him "Uncle Joe," we, the supporters of the Roman Empire, should similarly call Pontius Pilate, say, "Uncle Po." And let's start by clearly stating that there was little love lost between Uncle Po and the Sadducees!
I support the exoneration of Pontius Pilate. Jesus was resurrected, he caused Jesus to lose a weekend. That’s not that bad for the Son of God lol
hi there is a paragraph long qn id posted a month or so back .. please reply to it .. t.y. ❤
I'm Jesus reincarnated I understand the bible a little bit, no seriously I am
born again death to self, Christianity took all their ways of saying something literally and ignored everything they were actually saying
your average hard hitting kungfu motherfucker is actually following the teachings of Jesus whereas your average Christian is not
Eyeglass twins.
There’s no evidence he ever existed.
I'm a longtime fan and I'd like to make an appeal (after seeing your Genesis ad) PLEASE don't use AI art, everyone else is doing it so you may end up looking like all the others and you are special! It looks BAD and vulgar, no wonder it's being called "boomer art" online. Please please please reconsider!
Is Pilate in the canonical Gospels a nice guy or a moral coward?
It's BS pilot knew truth and let him go...he went home to the father.simple as that .to send the helper....Barnabas is bs as well.
Let’s assume that you are St Paul, living in the city of Rome at the height of the Roman Empire, and reciting the story of Christ to the Roman people in order to proselytise his new religion of Christ. In Rome at the time the Jews were being forbidden to proselytise by Emperor Claudius, on pain of death. In your New Testament, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Palestine, has sentenced the son of God to death. St. Paul was having a very hard time selling his new religion to the Romans, who had their own religion, and he was getting no help in this from the early Christians in Palestine, who were also still Jews. In his predicament he had no choice but to cast Pontius Pilate in a good light, or else he would have been executed, as were so many Christians later by the Romans. For the truth about Pontius Pilate you only need look at his subsequent career in Gaul. The idea that any Roman governor of the period was a ‘nice guy’ is preposterous. Moreover, the head of the Jews (Sanhedrin) in Palestine in Christ’s time would have been Hillel. Much of Hillel’s sayings and teachings were recorded for history - some of them look remarkably like Christ’s own sermons - ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’, etc. Contrast this with the behaviour of typical Roman provincial governors of the time, whose job was to bleed taxes out of the locals any way they could - with crucifixion being a well used tool. For more, see Robert Graves’ ‘King Jesus’. Graves was our leading antiquarian and author of ‘I Claudius’. He knew what he was talking about. He views the idea that the Jews betrayed Christ to Pilate as ridiculous - a ‘convenient’ invention of St. Paul to sell his version of Christianity, who could not have known its historic consequence would be so horrendous. The more likely truth is that Pilate crucified Christ fearing that he might lead the uprising against Rome, which did come later, leading to Massada and the Exodus. Christ’s mother Mary was alleged to have been descended from King David, says Graves, as would be the Messiah, Jews believed - hence also the ‘virgin birth’ - another idea of some strange provenance. Look no further than the subsequent persecution of Christians by the Romans. Fact is, Christianity would lose none of its power or truth without those two curious aspects. At its heart lies the Ten Commandments - which the Romans did not have then. So when they prevented Jews from proselytising, they got Christianity instead.
Paul wasn’t living in Rome when he wrote his first five letters between 48 and 57 CE. In his letter to the church community in Rome (Romans, c. 55-57 CE) he stated it was a place he had not yet visited, but that he planned to stop by on his way to Spain. I think Paul’s effect on the development of Christianity is often overstated. Just because he was prolific in writing letters, several being preserved through scribes over the centuries, doesn’t mean he singlehandedly shaped its foundation. The Jesus movement had already spread to Rome by 55-57 CE without Paul’s presence.
The image of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels depends on your point of view. To the Jews, he was vindictive and cruel, not a ‘nice guy’. Pilate was at odds with the subjects of Judea in supporting a man whom the Sanhedrin mistrusted and detested, as did much of the population of Jerusalem. Pontius Pilate supported a Jew who promoted paying taxes to Rome (‘give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’, ‘a friend of tax collectors’, many other positive verses), stated a centurion had the greatest faith in all Israel, promoted submissiveness towards oppression (‘turn the other cheek’, ‘love your enemies’, ‘blessed are the peacemakers’, ‘the meek’), etc. Showing support for a Jew who promoted behavior conducive to Roman rule is not being a ‘nice guy’, it is showing his misguided biases.
Christian propaganda so fanciful and illogical that even today's Roman Catholic Church has buried them. My guess is that they raise the issue of authenticity for all early church writings. Best swept under the carpet. Don't want to confuse 'the punters'.
Christianity does not exist based of the fact Yeshua was always a devout Jew. Call it Jewstianity. Or here's a word, Judaism.
This video takes ages to gets to the point
Oh come on. The idea that the Church of errm, Rome would want to blame the Jews for Jesus' death is ridiculous.
First
I'm not a bench guy! I've actually uncoded the 12 Gemstones of the Bible, the meanings behind the details of the Tabernacle, Aaron's garments, and all Exodus 28,much else besides.
You have a funny commenting audience 😂
?
Okay
@@Mirrorgirl492 Right? Your discoveries are amazing, Davis! I praise your thorough studies and findings!
you were also a fundamentalist christian Bart. I'm sure you figured out your cognitive bias doesn't allow you to see the forest through the trees. Qvella is a couple millennia of biased transfer of writings from fearful students/scribes not wanting to upset their mentors... or get burned for heresy.
This is nothing more than another rendition of Harry Potter. When are all of these grown ups going to get over this Jesus thing. This horror has cause more trouble in this world than virtually anything else. And it's all nothing but myth.
More like the end of Monty Python's holy grail
The cops come in and arrest them all.