There was a whole section in the Bible about how the local Roman leadership didn’t really care enough about crucifying Jesus and that they were just doing what the Jews told him to. Of course, a great many Bible passages are anti-Roman propaganda, so it should be taken with a bit of salt, but if you do believe in the Bible, the Roman Empire didn’t really seem to care that much.
The whole thing that made the Roman Empire relatively stable was the “you worship your gods and do your weird rituals, just do what we say and maybe take part of a ritual once or twice a year to show your Roman-ness and you will be good” ideals. Several gods in conquered areas were even inserted into the local Roman pantheon. I don’t really think Tiberius could give a shit about Jesus, if he even knew who he was. Treating Jesus as an actual threat makes little sense to me, unless Pilate was being manipulated into thinking so, because of the actual threat to his rule by another Roman rival trying to replace him.
There are some that think Jesus was crucified for leading a revolt (being dubbed “King of the Jews” and all), but in revolts Romans usually applied collective punishment (see also: executing the people digging for the arc of the covenant), so that doesn’t seem very likely to me. Whole groups of early Christians would’ve been executed alongside Jesus.
I have a feeling the Jewish/Christian population saw the way Romans kind of didn’t really care about what religion their conquered areas were following as poor and weak leadership, and used that to paint Pilate as a weak ruler.
Roman leadership didn’t really care enough about crucifying Jesus and that they were just doing what the Jews told him to
And it’s complete bull. If the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead he would have been stoned to death - not crucified. The Romans only crucified people they wanted to crucify. This is not anti-Roman propaganda - it’s anti-Jewish propaganda by the Catholic Church to camoflage the fact that it was their imperial progenitors who was responsible for Jesus’ death.
Pilate did seem to be pressured by the Jews into crucifying Jesus. Even with the Barrabas incident where they freed a literal murderer to still have Jesus killed.
Yeah, that does seem to be the most likely scenario. But on the other hand, I take the Bible’s take on Romans about as serious as their take on the Babylonians: it’s hard to know what parts to trust and what parts were made up to make the Romans look bad.
The whole Barabbas story is rather questionable; random, unwarranted executions were something Pilate was kicked out for, and there aren’t any independent source backing up the whole “releasing a prisoner at the request of the people” story. I don’t think many scholars believe this story actually happened as described.
Plus, there are the many alternative interpretations, like the idea that Barabbas was not a murderer, but rather the son of Jesus and Maria Magdelena, and that making him a criminal was the work of badmouthing by a Christian sect that believed that Jesus died unmarried and without children, or that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person as some dedicated scholars believe.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, these “scholars” must be mental if they seriously think that.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
I don’t think it’s a popular take among religious scholars at all, but from a non-religious view, I don’t see why not. There’s a lot about Jesus’ life that’s been altered throughout the years.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
Barabbas’ name means “son of the father”, which already sounds oddly specific in this context.
Sure, they didn’t invent the first name out of thin air, but given that there is no source outside the bible that this “freeing a prisoner condemned to death” practice had ever been done before, I think it makes a lot more sense.
Are you really trying to equate me stating historical fact to me trying to propagate anti semetism? Even though the Jews in the times of Jesus were completely different to the Jewish people nowadays? That’s like claiming that the Japanese did war crimes in WWII is some form of racism towards the Japanese.
I’m not following you, you just keep appearing with your missionary work in the same places I happen to be. So I’m making the best out of it by having some fun. And by the way, jews killed jesus is a popular antisemitic trope.
![[ElderCactus] There were worse outcomes](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5715508f-01e1-4e13-90ad-a098f1bb8f63.jpeg){kind=link}
There was a whole section in the Bible about how the local Roman leadership didn’t really care enough about crucifying Jesus and that they were just doing what the Jews told him to. Of course, a great many Bible passages are anti-Roman propaganda, so it should be taken with a bit of salt, but if you do believe in the Bible, the Roman Empire didn’t really seem to care that much.
The whole thing that made the Roman Empire relatively stable was the “you worship your gods and do your weird rituals, just do what we say and maybe take part of a ritual once or twice a year to show your Roman-ness and you will be good” ideals. Several gods in conquered areas were even inserted into the local Roman pantheon. I don’t really think Tiberius could give a shit about Jesus, if he even knew who he was. Treating Jesus as an actual threat makes little sense to me, unless Pilate was being manipulated into thinking so, because of the actual threat to his rule by another Roman rival trying to replace him.
There are some that think Jesus was crucified for leading a revolt (being dubbed “King of the Jews” and all), but in revolts Romans usually applied collective punishment (see also: executing the people digging for the arc of the covenant), so that doesn’t seem very likely to me. Whole groups of early Christians would’ve been executed alongside Jesus.
I have a feeling the Jewish/Christian population saw the way Romans kind of didn’t really care about what religion their conquered areas were following as poor and weak leadership, and used that to paint Pilate as a weak ruler.
And it’s complete bull. If the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead he would have been stoned to death - not crucified. The Romans only crucified people they wanted to crucify. This is not anti-Roman propaganda - it’s anti-Jewish propaganda by the Catholic Church to camoflage the fact that it was their imperial progenitors who was responsible for Jesus’ death.
Pilate did seem to be pressured by the Jews into crucifying Jesus. Even with the Barrabas incident where they freed a literal murderer to still have Jesus killed.
Yeah, that does seem to be the most likely scenario. But on the other hand, I take the Bible’s take on Romans about as serious as their take on the Babylonians: it’s hard to know what parts to trust and what parts were made up to make the Romans look bad.
The whole Barabbas story is rather questionable; random, unwarranted executions were something Pilate was kicked out for, and there aren’t any independent source backing up the whole “releasing a prisoner at the request of the people” story. I don’t think many scholars believe this story actually happened as described.
Plus, there are the many alternative interpretations, like the idea that Barabbas was not a murderer, but rather the son of Jesus and Maria Magdelena, and that making him a criminal was the work of badmouthing by a Christian sect that believed that Jesus died unmarried and without children, or that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person as some dedicated scholars believe.
I took you seriously until you tried to propose that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, these “scholars” must be mental if they seriously think that.
Also worth mentioning Barabbas’s first name was also Jesus (or Yeshua) which if it were made up, wouldn’t make any sense why a criminal would be given the same name.
I don’t think it’s a popular take among religious scholars at all, but from a non-religious view, I don’t see why not. There’s a lot about Jesus’ life that’s been altered throughout the years.
Barabbas’ name means “son of the father”, which already sounds oddly specific in this context.
Was a common name. Even shows up in the talmud
Sure, they didn’t invent the first name out of thin air, but given that there is no source outside the bible that this “freeing a prisoner condemned to death” practice had ever been done before, I think it makes a lot more sense.
We finally arriving at the end of any christian fundamentalist arc - Jews bad. Shorter than expected.
Are you really trying to equate me stating historical fact to me trying to propagate anti semetism? Even though the Jews in the times of Jesus were completely different to the Jewish people nowadays? That’s like claiming that the Japanese did war crimes in WWII is some form of racism towards the Japanese.
Nah, at this point Im just having fun. You are like a really fascinating animal at the zoo for me.
Then why do you keep following me about?
I’m not following you, you just keep appearing with your missionary work in the same places I happen to be. So I’m making the best out of it by having some fun. And by the way, jews killed jesus is a popular antisemitic trope.
It’s people killed Jesus. Judaism was kinda like Christianity at the time. Nobody’s emphasizing that it’s the fault of Judaism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide