Who was taking notes?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

While reading through the Gospel accounts of Jesus's trial before Pilate, it occurred to me that there were no "Christ followers" in attendance. The disciples were scrambling for cover or busy denying their association with Jesus. So who was recording the dialog between Pilate and Jesus?

I came across a reference to letters that Pilate had written to his friend Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Pilate had described the trial and the questions he had posed to Jesus through Alexander. I had to surmise that Alexander was a Jewish scribe / interpreter, since Pilate did not indicate that he was posing the questions directly. That would also seem to indicate that the trial was conducted in Latin with interpretation into Aramaic(?) or Hebrew(?).

But since the apostles were not at the trial as eye witnesses, it then follows that Christian accounts come from pagean sources? Was it Pilate, himself? Alexander? Someone else?

(My reference to Pilate's letters is the work of W.P. Crozier at Trinty College, Oxford, England in 1928.)

Kindest Regards,

Craig Miller

-- Craig Miller (cmiller@ssd.com), February 23, 2001

Answers

There are many questions biblical scholars have about these events. For instance, it would have been unprecidented to have a large crowd of people there. Everyone in "the crowd" would have needed a personal invitation from Pilate himself. In addition, many manuscripts do not just read "Barabbas," but "Jesus Barabbas." Barabbas is aramaic for "son of the father." Some feel that there never was a second prisoner, and the crowd of citizens was calling for the release of "Jesus, Son of the Father," but Pilate executed Him anyway. They feel this (the writing) was done to placate the Roman government by absolving Pilate due to the persecution Jews were then getting around the time of the rebellion (the Romans considered the Christians Jews), but still leaving a clue as to what really happened. Afterward, when Barabbas was actually believed to be a real criminal, the name Jesus was removed from his name.

There are other instances, as well, like the Sanhedrin could not, by its own laws, meet when we say it met, there wouldn't have been Pharisees there, just Sadducees (Temple priests), and again, who was taking notes?

All conversation biblical scholars have in this area is simply conjecture, and evidence for these "theories" is circumstantial at best.

..................................................

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 23, 2001.


It required only a dream, for Joseph to take Mary for a wife, despite her ''condition''; an angel telling him not to be afraid. Later on, an angel in a dream warned him Herod would look for the Child to kill Him. Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt, as the angel instructed him. We must assume these things are fact. The mother of Jesus Christ is supposed to be the one who testified to their truth.

In answering your question as well, let's just say the truth is something the Holy Spirit preserved for the gospels; in a revelation to the apostles, or by way of Christ Our Lord Himself. It must be assumed Jesus is able to tell us exactly what took place; He was certainly there. In fact, He may have explained it all to the holy Apostles after His resurrection. Probably someone took ''notes'' then. Why make difficulties about an eye-witness source? It's very possible there were many. All you need is one, who relates the truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 23, 2001.


Thank you for you answer, Eugene.

But please understand, I'm not trying to make "difficulties", I'm simply considering historical possibilities. I was bitten by the history bug many years ago. In addition to everything else it is, the Bible becomes a dynamic witness to history when I can appreciate the social, economic, political and religious environments of Jesus's era. At least for me, history enhances, rather than detracts from His ministry. The Catholic church has been a gold mine of information, and dare I say "inspiration"?

Regards,

Craig Miller

-- Craig Miller (cmiller@ssd.com), February 23, 2001.


"there were no "Christ followers" in attendance" How do you know this? There were many secret followers of Jesus, some even in high places.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), February 23, 2001.

In previous posts I suggested the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, not because we should consider them definitive, but for the sake of meditation. Especially of those scenarios that arouse our wonder or some question. This might be a case of that kind. Emmerich maintains she saw Mary the mother of Our Lord, and other holy women with her, not far removed from the pillar where Jesus was scourged the night before he was sentenced by Pilate. In another vision, she claimed that she saw the procurator's wife, Claudia Procla warn him not to harm Jesus for He was a holy man. This woman, who later on joined Mary and the holy women was in close proximity most of the time, as Jesus was first taken to Herod, and when Pilate washed his hands of his sentence of crucifixion. She separated from Pilate upon his breaking a pledge he'd made to her not to condemn Our Lord. If it's all true, this was one probable eye-witness source known to the evangelists. There may have been others, like Veronica, who with her veil wiped the bloody face of Jesus on His way to Calvary. Any number of good probablities.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 23, 2001.


Thank you Br. Rich, let me rephrase that sentence.

"There were no apostles in attendance. So who got the word out from the trial so it could be recorded for posterity?"

There, how's that?

Regards,

(:raig Miller

-- Craig Miller (cmiller@ssd.com), February 25, 2001.


I was interested in your correspondance, as I am doing a dissertation on Barabbas. I ought to add that I am training for the anglican priesthood, and rely heavily on the work of RE Brown, the RC scholar whose two-volume book The Death of the Messiah, is essential reading for a historian.

There are many difficulties with the trial narratives; there is no evidence that a prefect of Judea or anywhere else released prisoners as a custom, nor that the jews had such a custom; it would be very unlikely that any trial would be conducted in front of a baying crowd - most trials were held in the house appropriated for this use, ie Herod's palace; the name Barabbas is suspucious - in some early manuscripts of Matthew's gospels, it refers to him not only as Jesus Barabbas, but Jesus Bar Abbas - meaning Jesus son of the Father. This could have been a confused bit of history, eg Jesus was convicted by Pilate of being a rebel, but he threw out the jewish charge of blasphemy, or it could have had a deeper allegorical meaning which only Matthew's readers could have understood, coming as they did from jewish communities.

This doesn't give you any answers, merely more questions. History does that to you. But it think it important to examine these accounts in this way. The God of truth would want us to have enough faith in him to be brave enough to critique a book which, after all, men and not God has written.

-- philip blackledge (pip_blackledge@yahoo.co.uk), March 05, 2002.


We all think that the Apostles were long gone from the scene. Yet we forget that Peter is said to be not far from the scene of the trial and scorging of Christ. Also John and Mary were at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was placed on it and later placed upright in the soket in the ground or rock. Mary and John may have seen much of the happenings too and Christ may have told them of it too. The sources were certainly there and it is recorded. It is faith is that we need to believe that these things indeed did happen and the raditions of the Church keeps it alive every Lenten and Easter Season. Blessed Be Mary Mother of GOD.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 05, 2002.

Great post, Fred.
As Catholics (not "RC"), we believe in the inerrancy of scriptures.
Unfortunately, as an Anglican (and skeptic?), Philip seems to given in to the temptation to believe that the Bible contains errors.
Faith indeed is what we need.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.

Perhaps Phillip would do well to study the conversion and life of Saul/Paul as a way of balancing out the other hysterica. . . I mean, historical garbage that claims to throw doubt on the Gospel account.

Think about it Phillip. What would cause the primary persecutor of the Church to make a complete about face and ultimately lead of life totally abandoned to the work of the Gospel if he wasn't confronted with Jesus Christ Himself and the truth of what he preached. He is one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome when skeptics start trying to explain away the truth.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.



When a soon-to-be Anglican priest undertakes writing a dissertation, wouldn't it seem wiser to do so about the Lord's own disciples, or His holy mother, even on Pilate or the Sanhedrin? Mr. Blackledge chooses Barabbas as the focus of his dissertation; a far less interesting subject, and hardly edifying for anybody. Or has it been chosen for him to write, by a superior?

Banality in purpose and in practice. ''Thou art so leaky that we must leave thee to thy sinking.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 06, 2002.


If you read John 16:7-16, you will understand that Jesus had to die in place of Barabbas in order to save the Spirit of Truth. Had Barabbas died on that cross instead of Jesus the Spirit of Truth would never be able to come. The truth is that we are all sons of God, and all have the same wonderous power granted to us in Genesis, of being made in Gods image, and the only image we have at that point is that God creates and therefore we all by using our God given free will create every thing in our personal existance.

-- brabbs (arz.mountainman@org.com), February 27, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ