The Scourging That Was Not Asked For

[Ben Masada]

THE SCOURGING THAT WAS NOT ASKED FOR

The Gospels paint the Jews so cruel as to have asked Pilate to crucify Jesus; and Pilate so good as to run out of arguments to save Jesus from the cross by claiming that he had found no fault in him. (John 18:38)

But then comes the strike that broke the camel's back: The scourging. The text says that "Pilate's next move was to take Jesus and have him scourged before delivering him to be crucified. (John 19:1)

"Now, wait a minute!" I can almost hear the Jews saying: "We do not recall to have heard any one from our side asking for Jesus to be scourged; that one is upon you." Then, eyeing each other, they would ask in turn: "Did you ask for Jesus to be scourged?" "No, I didn't." Neither did I; so, don't even ask me."

As a matter of fact, if Pilate had found Jesus innocent, and even washed his hands of the blood of Jesus, as we have in Matthew 27:24, why would he add the scourging? If he was so anxious to prevent the mistake of crucifying a just man, why would he add one more act of cruelty that the Jews had not asked for? Forty lashes, minus one, and don't forget to count.

It is only obvious that the whole thing was a big farce. That the slander that the Jews had asked Pilate to crucify Jesus was interpolated as a pious forgery to clear the Romans of the guilt on the crucifixion of Jesus, and to blame the Jews, which became in History, a blatant act of Antisemitism.

If the interpolation was not added later by the Church, but by the gospel writers themselves, it was too careless a blunder to depict Pilate ordering the scourging of Jesus, when he had tried so hard to exonerate Jesus from the death sentence on the cross.

The bottom line is that, the only way to see the truth here is that the dramatic set up was so stupid that the whole thing is not worthy the paper it was written on.

Ben

 

[Aupmanyav]

What does Paul say about it? He was the one who created christianity.

 

[seattlegal]

Jesus became collateral damage in the political struggles and wars between the Romans and the Jews. Another example of collectives stomping on individuals.

 

[Hermes]

What do we KNOW is based this alleged scourging on?
The whole story of Jesus (the historical man) has very sparse, often conflicting written, recorded, historical journal - in fact, it is much less we know as accurate historical picture about Jesus than we know about Apollonius of Tyana. What we know of Jesus's life and the story of crucifixion and prior flogging is based on hearsay and much debated oratory history many years after.
The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life such as in fragments of early Gospels, and as preserved independently in the writings of neutral or hostile witnesses of the period, such as in the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
The historical Jesus is believed to be a historical figure, to be understood in the context of his own lifetime in 1st-century Roman Judaea, not of Christian doctrine of later centuries. Historical research reconstructs Jesus in relation to his 1st-century contemporaries, while theological interpretations relate Jesus to those that gather in his name, thus the historian interprets the past while the theologian interprets tradition.

 

[seattlegal]

What do we KNOW is based this alleged scourging on?
The whole story of Jesus (the historical man) has very sparse, often conflicting written, recorded, historical journal - in fact, it is much less we know as accurate historical picture about Jesus than we know about Apollonius of Tyana. What we know of Jesus's life and the story of crucifixion and prior flogging is based on hearsay and much debated oratory history many years after.
The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life such as in fragments of early Gospels, and as preserved independently in the writings of neutral or hostile witnesses of the period, such as in the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
The historical Jesus is believed to be a historical figure, to be understood in the context of his own lifetime in 1st-century Roman Judaea, not of Christian doctrine of later centuries. Historical research reconstructs Jesus in relation to his 1st-century contemporaries, while theological interpretations relate Jesus to those that gather in his name, thus the historian interprets the past while the theologian interprets tradition.

Whether evidence can actually be found regarding Jesus, the message still is worthy of investigation. If a village (collective) will not accept you as an individual because you don't belong to that collective or you are viewed as belonging to the wrong collective, leave and shake the dust off your sandals as you go because they don't get it. They are more committed to a collective where everyone can do all sorts of evil to individuals without regards to actual individual justice. Their individual consciences can hide behind the collective, so this "shield" becomes a "justification" in itself to commit evil towards individuals without batting an eye. Of course, the effect this sort of thing has on each individual members' minds is not healthy, and the general environment there could likewise be an unhealthy place for any individual's mind.

Think about the story of the Good Samaritan and the question that was asked that prompted this parable: "Who is actually my neighbor?" in regards to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself," (a recognition of individuals over collectives.)

 

[Ben Masada]

What does Paul say about it? He was the one who created christianity.

Wow! Do you mean what you say? I mean, do you agree that Christianity came out of the mind of Paul or you are somehow just testing me? The Hellenists who wrote the gospels were former disciples of Paul's. Whatever they said was according to their master.

Ben