Correcting a historical misinterpretation: Christ and Pilate

[Hoplite]

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

We've all read about where Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ met, and Pilate asked, "What is Truth?", where Christ made no answer, whereupon Pilate gave up and had to pass judgment. This is assuming it was a historical event where Christ was just a popular religious leader, and not a mythological event, and that probably is very likely.

I was thinking today that the Greek philosophers coined the phrase "What is (insert subject here)?" approximately in the year 400 BC - you can see examples of that in Plato's The Republic. The Judeo-Christian writers of the Pilate-Christ meeting that were unfamiliar with the Greek philosophers interpreted the phrase "What is Truth?" as a derisive sarcastic putdown into the biblical account, and this misinterpretation continues to this current day. Whereas a Grecian philosopher of that time would not have interpreted it as such, but as a genuine question demanding an accountable explanation. After all, Pilate was educated in the classical Greek philosophers. Hmmm.

[Ultimate Paragon]

There are actually a lot of cultural differences between Romans and Jews referenced in the New Testament.  "Rex" (Latin for "king") was a huge insult within Roman culture.  However, many of the societies that Romans conquered (such as Judea) had much higher opinions of kings.  "Rex Iudaeorum" ("King of the Jews") was the biggest insult (by Roman standards) that Pontius Pilate could throw at Jesus, essentially the equivalent of referring somebody as "Führer". 

But the insult was lost on the native Jews.  In fact, the chief priests' main objection to Jesus being given that label was that it was too big of a compliment to him.

[Ironchew]

This is assuming it was a historical event where Christ was just a popular religious leader, and not a mythological event, and that probably is very likely.

That's a pretty big assumption to make without a shred of evidence in its favor.

[Hoplite]

This is assuming it was a historical event where Christ was just a popular religious leader, and not a mythological event, and that probably is very likely.

That's a pretty big assumption to make without a shred of evidence in its favor.

Fair enough. The only evidence obtained so far seems to be the name of Pilate in stone in Caesarea Maritima. Of Christ, written accounts only. History must assume that he was a living person on the basis that it would have been too fantastic to make up all those stories of a living person. It however does nothing to certify his miracles, any more than snake handling bible thumping revivalist miracles would be certified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

[R. U. Sirius]

There's a very large difference between the deliberate inventing of a mythology and the growth of a legend by word-of-mouth. Some biblical scholars believe that the story of Jesus was never intended by its originators to be taken literally, or that it was supposed to have taken place on a purely "spiritual" plane, and that it was only the later garbling of oral tradition that led to people believing it was historical fact.

[Hoplite]

That is an interesting thought, and would dovetail nicely with the fact that there is zero physical historical record of Christ. I'll have to look around for these theories online and see if there are any I can read up on. Thanks.

[Sylvana]

one of the most interesting aspects is that during the time Jesus is supposed to have been around and subsequently executed, Pilate wasn't the Governor of Jerusalem which was backed up by the fairly rigorous record keeping of the Romans. It adds to the theory that the story of Jesus is either entirely allegory, or the actions of multiple people that have been merged into a single entity by the passage of time.

Of course you can take anything religious scholars say with a grain of salt, they are in my experience the worst record keepers and historians ever. Anything that does not fit their ore-concived notions gets thrown out the window of history.

[Random Gal]

one of the most interesting aspects is that during the time Jesus is supposed to have been around and subsequently executed, Pilate wasn't the Governor of Jerusalem which was backed up by the fairly rigorous record keeping of the Romans.

According to Wikipedia, Pilate ruled Judea from 26-36 AD, which is the correct time frame.