Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Priviligium Paschale: Propaganda that Cursed a Nation.
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 24 (52392)
08-26-2003 7:28 PM


I had a very small exchange with truthlover a few weeks ago and have been promising to support a claim I made in regard to the Jesus/Barabbas episode and how I believe it to be a work of fiction. I hadn't looked at the reasons for my conclusion for quite some time so I thought it only fair to 'go back to school' on this topic, and have a look at the sources.
I have included a small bibliography at the end if anyone is interested.
One of the most tragic pieces of propaganda that can be found in the New Testament is the Priviligium Paschale . The Priviligium Paschale is the claim that there was a custom that at Passover the Roman administration would release any prisoner at the request of the population of Jerusalem. The reason that this is so tragic is that this piece of propaganda didn’t only place the blame for Jesus’ death onto the shoulders of the Jewish authorities, but by indicating that the Jewish population of Jerusalem could have saved Jesus and didn’t, then they are equally guilty of killing Jesus.
We all know the horrific atrocities that the Jewish people have suffered because they ‘killed’ God, but I do not think for one minute that the evangelists realised what far reaching consequences their propaganda would have for the Jewish people.
I think it is safe to assume that our Bible believing friends would disagree with me in calling the Priviligium Paschale a piece of propaganda, and that they are content that this custom is an established fact. However, I believe that it is fairly easy to prove that this piece of Bible ‘history’ is nothing more than a work of fiction, and sadly, a work of fiction that has had heartbreaking results.
The first thing that should send alarm bells ringing is that there is no evidence outside of the Gospels that confirms this custom as happening in Jerusalem or indeed in any other part of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t automatically mean that the Gospels are incorrect, but the evidence against such a practice is overwhelming. I believe that one piece of evidence stands out above all others in regard to the authenticity of this custom, and that is the fact that Josephus is silent about this practice.
Anyone who is familiar with Josephus knows that he was particularly enthusiastic about recording all the privileges that the Roman government had given to the Jews, it seems highly unlikely that Josephus would have failed to mention this notable privilege if it had existed (Brandon. p. 259).
Surely if there was such a custom, anywhere in the Roman Empire, or even in Jewish tradition, then there would be some record of it? This deafening silence is only one reason why many historians conclude that the Priviligium Paschale is pure fantasy.
The custom alluded to is wholly unknown (Montefiore. p.363).
‘There is absolutely no evidence that the pardoning or release of a prisoner had ever occurred, even once, before the time of Pilate’ (Husband. p.111)
and
There seems to be no instance on record, either from Rome or from the provinces, in which a Roman officer pardoned any person who had been convicted of a crime (Husband. p.112).
Also,
Now this custom is not attested to anywhere outside of the New Testament, whether in connection with Pilate or in connection with some other governor of Judea (Legasse. p.68).
As should be expected, Christian apologists have been plying their trade over this custom in an attempt to justify its historical accuracy. There have been various attempts to uphold the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts, Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative (Winter. p.131). Their apparent favourite piece of ‘evidence’ is a reference to a document referred to as Papyrus Florentinus 61.
There is evidence in the papyrus that a Roman official in Egypt stopped the scourging of a certain suspect at the population’s request but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the culprit's release was ordered. But this is immaterial since the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence. It is clear that this incident does not reflect a custom similar to the Priviligium Paschale .
The supposed custom of setting a prisoner free at the feast of the Passover is referred to in a different manner by the Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and by John on the other. Luke nowhere mentions such a custom, in fact Luke 23:17 is a very late interpolation made at a time when the belief had come to exist that a legal obligation compelled Pilate to comply with an established custom. The late interpolation of 23:17 into Luke is unanimously recognised as a gloss (Legasse p.143). The Barabbas episode exists in Luke only in abbreviated form and without the slightest preparation and in a context in which is nothing more than a recasting of Mark (Legasse. p.67-68). This is very significant, why did Luke avoid mentioning a custom of granting pardon to a prisoner at the Passover festival? I believe that this shows that, although Luke knew about the account in Mark and made use of it in his own Gospel, he was also in possession of other information which convinced him to question the trustworthiness of certain items Mark’s account.
If we actually read the two references to the ‘custom’ in Mark 15:6-8 and Matthew 27:15-17, (KJV) we find that there isn’t any mention of a Jewish custom, or a Roman concession, that would make it binding on the governor to set a prisoner free.
Mark 15:6-8: Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
Matthew 27:15-17 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
These references give no background of how, why, or when the practice of releasing a prisoner at Passover came into being. The claim that Pilate was in the habit of ingratiating himself with the provincial population is contrary to the image bloodthirsty tyrant that we get of Pilate from other sources.
The description in John’s Gospel is different. The telling of the Priviligium Paschale fable had become so embedded in the imagination of Christians that the author of John’s Gospel shows a development from a gratuitous gesture by Pilate in Mark and Matthew, to a fully fledged custom. For John, Pilate’s nature would have to take a back seat as he would have had to comply with all established customs. John informs us that it wasn’t in fact the ‘wont’ of the governor to release a prisoner it was a Jewish Custom :
John 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Apologists have picked up on this subtle difference and claim that there was an established Jewish custom that proves that the Priviligium Paschale is accurate. They believe that the mention of a Jewish custom in the Mishnah Pesahim 8:6, which says that Jews in Jerusalem who were discharged from prison on the eve of the Passover celebration were permitted to take part in the eating of the paschal lamb. But this regulation has not the slightest bearing on the case reported in the Gospels. It refers to an unspecified number of people who were let out of jail too late to be present at the slaughtering of the lamb, but in time to attend the evening meal.
So as far as the Priviligium Paschale being an established custom is concerned, this Jewish custom was so well known that the Jews, usually meticulous about recording the details of national observances, have failed to preserve any trace of, or reference to, this ‘custom’ (Winter. p.134).
The stipulation provides for the admission of such people to the festive table on the night of the fifteenth Nisan. The synoptic Gospels report that Barabbas as released after that night. Also, in all four canonical narratives it is a question of liberating just one prisoner. Mishnah Pesahim specifies no number, but it is clear that the ordinance refers to any quantity of persons who happened to be discharged from prison in time to participate in the meal (Winter. p. 132).
There is only one thing in the Gospel accounts that is agreed upon by all evangelists.
Mark 15:6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
Matthew 27:15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
Luke 23:25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
John 18:39-40 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
The one single thing that they all agree on is that it was entirely the free choice of the Jewish population who was to be set free. If this is true then it is surprising to find that Pilate should have limited the people's choice to two possibilities, the release of Jesus or Barabbas. We read in the Gospels that there were at least two other prisoners in Pilate's hands, awaiting crucifixion, namely the two men who were eventually crucified with Jesus. Why weren’t these two included if the people could choose any condemned prisoner at all?
Whilst the evangelists state explicitly that the crowd was free to demand from Pilate the pardon of any prisoner, yet at the same time they imply that the choice was limited to two individuals. The offer to choose between two persons only in fact denies the free exercise of the privilege of the people's will. On this point the Gospels are self-contradictory in their reports.
Imagine if the Priviligium Paschale was actually true, what would the practice of such a custom do to the efficient governing of a Roman province? Can you imagine the scenario? Hypothetically speaking, this custom allows the possibility that a man who is the leader of a massive group of revolutionaries, who may have murdered dozens of Roman soldiers, could simply be allowed to go free at the request of a sympathetic population! This is stretching the credibility of this claim well beyond the boundaries of reality.
If we transpose this scenario to the Jesus and Barabbas situation, it implies that Pilate is little more than a moron! Pilate, who is already convinced of Jesus’ innocence, has to resort to an otherwise unknown tradition in order to do what he knew was right! If Pilate really wanted Jesus released he could simply have released him, after all it was he that ruled over Judea and not the Sanhedrin. Remember that Mark has portrayed Jesus as a pro-Roman pacifist, Jesus justifies the paying of tribute money, and Pilate sees no danger from Jesus, yet Pilate asks the crowd who they want to free, this broken man Jesus or the patriotic leader Barabbas. We are asked to believe that Pilate was stupid to condemn to death a man he knew to be innocent and release a popular resistance fighter, how on earth would he justify this to his officers and more importantly, how could he justify this to Tiberius? How people can fail to see how historically impossible this story is, really is beyond my comprehension.
The conclusion is an easy one to make, the Privilegium Paschale is nothing but a figment of the imagination. No such custom existed, it was invented to show that the Jews ultimately had the chance to save Jesus and not only did their leaders conspire to have Jesus arrested and executed, but the Jewish population in general are equally guilty of murdering the Lord God Jesus.
This deceptive episode is just one of many imaginary narratives that have caused untold suffering to the Jewish people, but this episode portrays the Jews as being relentless in their objective of having Jesus removed. It claims that Pilate could find nothing criminal about Jesus, but the Jewish authorities kept pressing him to deal with Jesus, they wanted rid of Jesus and would do anything to achieve this. The evangelists claim that Pilate was so convinced of Jesus’ innocence that he reminded the Jews that they could have a prisoner released at Passover, of course this was simply another tale made up by the authors to heap even more blame onto the Jewish people, they had one final chance to save Jesus but what did they do, they chose a robber/murderer over the Son of God. I truly do not believe that the evangelists could have ever imagined the carnage that their propaganda has caused, they could not have blamed the Romans for the execution of their God as they were trying to spread their faith through the Roman Empire, so they had to shift the blame onto another group and the Privilegium Paschale proved to be an ideal mechanism.
Brandon S G F. Jesus and the Zealots Manchester Uni Press 1967.
Danby H. The Mishnah Oxford Uni Press, 1933.
Husband R W. The Pardoning of Prisoners by Pilate , American Journal of Theology , vol.21, 1917, pp.110-116.
Legasse S. The Trial of Jesus SCM Press LTD, London 1997.
Montefiore C G. The Synoptic Gospels London, 1909.
Winter P. The Trial of Jesus Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1974
Brian.
PS, Please forgive any errors in formatting, I kept having problems loading the page in the preview option.
[This message has been edited by Brian, 08-26-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by doctrbill, posted 08-26-2003 10:52 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 3 by truthlover, posted 08-26-2003 11:35 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 09-01-2003 9:02 AM Brian has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 2 of 24 (52415)
08-26-2003 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-26-2003 7:28 PM


Impressive study.
I am persuaded.
I'm sure you are correct about the reception this is likely to receive from "believers" but thanks for sharing it with us.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-26-2003 7:28 PM Brian has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 3 of 24 (52421)
08-26-2003 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-26-2003 7:28 PM


Thanks, Brian. I have to give some thought to all that.
A couple general points.
One, there's a lot of blame discussed in your post. I don't see that it's the Priviligium Paschale necessarily at the center of that. Luke's pretty direct about blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus without it. Peter's address in Acts 2 is straightforward, "Him you have taken, and with wicked hands crucified and slain him."
It may be a moot point, but the blame would have been place with or without the Paschal privilege.
Two, it seemed odd to me with all that work that no one pointed out Barabbas' name. Part of the reason that Genesis one reads like an allegory is because the couple's names are Man and Life. If I'm not mistaken, Barabbas must be "Bar" and "Abba" with the final -s just being the standard masculine singular nominative ending. "Bar" is son, and "Abba" is father. The switch is "son of the father" for "Son of the Father" in allegory.
It was just a thought that it wasn't an error or fabrication, but a purposeful allegory.
A quick check of Strong's indicates he agrees with my translation of Barabbas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-26-2003 7:28 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2006 7:06 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 24 (53095)
08-31-2003 6:09 PM


Yes. This is certainly interesting. Another question: Is "Son of father" exchangeable for "Son of Man?"

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2003 8:15 PM Raha has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 24 (53182)
09-01-2003 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-26-2003 7:28 PM


I hadn't heard of the Priviligium Paschale before and so attempted to look it up on the Internet. Is it possible you misspelled it, that it's actually Privilegium Paschale?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-26-2003 7:28 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 09-01-2003 1:14 PM Percy has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 24 (53228)
09-01-2003 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
09-01-2003 9:02 AM


I hadn't heard of the Priviligium Paschale before and so attempted to look it up on the Internet. Is it possible you misspelled it, that it's actually Privilegium Paschale?
Sorry about that, I never even noticed it, very careless of me.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 09-01-2003 9:02 AM Percy has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 7 of 24 (53316)
09-01-2003 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Raha
08-31-2003 6:09 PM


Is "Son of father" exchangeable for "Son of Man?"
I doubt it. Abba isn't even Greek, it's Hebrew. It just happens to be a common enough Hebrew word to be occasionally carried over into Greek by Greek writers with a Jewish background.
I don't know how it is in Czech, but it appears to me that the Greeks distinguish between father and man as much as we Americans do. You might use man when you meant husband, but you wouldn't use man for father or father for man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Raha, posted 08-31-2003 6:09 PM Raha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Legend, posted 07-18-2006 8:05 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 24 (332757)
07-18-2006 3:06 AM


For Brennakimi
Greek was in widespread use throughout the Roman Empire, it was the second language of most eductaed Romans.
This is perhaps the main reason why the Septuagint was written in Greek.
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2006 7:13 AM Brian has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 9 of 24 (332772)
07-18-2006 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by truthlover
08-26-2003 11:35 PM


isn't it god we shouls be blaming for killing jesus? after all, isn't he the one who "demanded" a blood sacrifice? he was just using the jews to do his dirty work. nice way to turn your back on your people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by truthlover, posted 08-26-2003 11:35 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by lfen, posted 07-18-2006 7:18 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 24 (332774)
07-18-2006 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brian
07-18-2006 3:06 AM


Re: For Brennakimi
um. the septuagint was *translated* into greek. and yes, greek was often the scholar's language. but i still can't see that it's not simpler for pilate to learn the language of his territory or for jesus to learn the language of his oppressors. do you really think all the roman soldiers spoke greek too? (point. most roman soldiers are pretty well mixed, but all would have to understand latin.) yet, we hear the soldiers speak in the text so they either spoke latin or arameic or hebrew but greek? that's kinda odd.
i think it's a simpler answer for them to have both spoken latin.
but of course the bible is silent on this question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 07-18-2006 3:06 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 07-18-2006 7:49 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 07-18-2006 11:06 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 24 (332780)
07-18-2006 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by macaroniandcheese
07-18-2006 7:13 AM


Re: For Brennakimi
um. the septuagint was *translated* into greek.
No.
The Septuaging IS the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint wouldn't be translated into Greek because it was already in Greek.
and yes, greek was often the scholar's language. but i still can't see that it's not simpler for pilate to learn the language of his territory or for jesus to learn the language of his oppressors.
I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that a Roman official would learn the language of a country that he may never visit, or learn the language to use for a few years of office when he could rely on translators. Isn;t it more realistic to exptect the conquered people to do the learning?
do you really think all the roman soldiers spoke greek too? (point. most roman soldiers are pretty well mixed, but all would have to understand latin.) yet, we hear the soldiers speak in the text so they either spoke latin or arameic or hebrew but greek? that's kinda odd.
The authors of the Gospels obviously translated the alleged conversations, so if they were in Greek or Latin it wouldn't matter, I doubt that Romans spoke Aramaic, there's no need.
i think it's a simpler answer for them to have both spoken latin.
If Jesus was God He could speak any language I suppose, but how often would jesus have an opportunity to use His Latin?
but of course the bible is silent on this question.
Just another clue that this conversation never happened.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2006 7:13 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2006 7:56 AM Brian has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 12 of 24 (332782)
07-18-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brian
07-18-2006 7:49 AM


Re: For Brennakimi
The Septuaging IS the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint wouldn't be translated into Greek because it was already in Greek.
that's what i meant. but it wasn't written. it was a translation.
Isn;t it more realistic to exptect the conquered people to do the learning?
did you see the "or for jesus to learn the language of his opressors"?
I doubt that Romans spoke Aramaic, there's no need.
quite so. i'm suggesting the jews spoke latin.
If Jesus was God He could speak any language I suppose, but how often would jesus have an opportunity to use His Latin?
jesus clearly did not have all manner of supernatural abilities. just healing. this is a fools errand to imagine that he simply *knew* latin. how often you ask? i imagine judea was littlerally *crawling* with roman soldiers seeking to give the people shit.
Just another clue that this conversation never happened.
i quite agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 07-18-2006 7:49 AM Brian has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 13 of 24 (332790)
07-18-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
09-01-2003 8:15 PM


man # father
quote:
..but it appears to me that the Greeks distinguish between father and man as much as we Americans do. You might use man when you meant husband, but you wouldn't use man for father or father for man.
I concur. The word "anthras" (man) is often used in place of 'husband' but never in place of "patir" (father) or vice versus.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 09-01-2003 8:15 PM truthlover has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 14 of 24 (333065)
07-18-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by macaroniandcheese
07-18-2006 7:06 AM


isn't it god we shouls be blaming for killing jesus? after all, isn't he the one who "demanded" a blood sacrifice?
Yes, but then we would be rational and logical and religion doesn't thrive in that sort of environment.
The Jewish priests used people's guilt to explain why they weren't getting the results they wanted from the God the priests represented. Turns out that is a remarkably effective strategy for manipulating many people.
Did you ever see the National Lampoon cover which if I remember correctly had a cowering little puppy with a pistol at it's head and the headline that said something like, "Buy this magazine or we kill this puppy"?
Basically, Christianity just added a twist to the Jewish guilt tripping of saying in effect look how much obedience you owe, you were so bad you made God kill his son to save you. This is such an astounding claim that a lot of people just feel guilty and never ask the logical question that you asked. It's manipulative and crazy but there are parents right now using some version of this to manipulate their children.
And there are some Christians on this board who find this wonderful. I was so bad that God had to kill his son to save me. Gee he must really love me! And if I don't believe that he loves me so much he will send me to hell because I hurt his feelings by not believing exactly what this church told me to believe. And somehow they never see anything pathalogical or crazy about this kind of behaviour.
Humans are scarily insane primates. Your rationality is an anomaly, cherish it!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2006 7:06 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-18-2006 7:24 PM lfen has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 24 (333067)
07-18-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by lfen
07-18-2006 7:18 PM


i think you are the first person to accuse me of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by lfen, posted 07-18-2006 7:18 PM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024