Maundy Thursday 2023
The story of the trial of Jesus of Nazareth has always fascinated me.
I happen to be a non-militant atheist but that hardly matters, for the gospels’ narrative(s) of the arrest, trial and punishment of Jesus of Nazareth is(/are) set out in largely secular terms.
Nothing – or almost nothing – depends on any miracle or divine intervention.
(This contrasts with the narrative(s) before Palm Sunday and after the crucifixion.)
It is essentially a human story – about what humans did to to someone who they saw as human.
Of course, it is difficult to make sense of some of the narrative(s) – not least about how someone accused of those crimes ended up being executed by the imperial power by means of crucifixion.
One day, perhaps, I will set out more thoughts about this trial process – and in a way which is satisfactory (I hope) to those (of you) who have faith as well as to those (of us) who do not.
But in the meantime, I mention this to show that even where there are fundamental differences there can be common ground.
And it is always good to find it if you can.
Happy Easter, or Passover, or holidays, to all my followers – and I will return to the blog on Tuesday.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
As a non militant believer I can give some possible human perspective on part of it. Maybe it wasn’t just the stated crimes but also am ‘uprising’ against Roman authority. Shortly before when arriving to celebrate Passover there is the cleansing of the temple because it was turned into a den of thieves…this could have been good enough for Rome to get annoyed as it would have likely had an effect on taxation received from the money changers and I doubt would have been a small affair…art of the event doesn’t seem to show it was either
there’s been an upsurge of interest, in the US, in the ‘buy swords’ passage, contra simplistic citation of it by gun fetishists .. they have long used it to justify carrying firearms. More careful exegesis suggests, given the reference to a prophecy in the Jewish Bible, that the swords were purchased specifically as an act of (symbolic) solidarity with those (‘the transgressors’) who wanted violent overthrow of the Roman-appointed authorities. Hence Jesus’ answer when told there were two swords, ‘that’s enough’. That would fit your ‘uprising’ notion.
More widely, on the trial and Barabas passages, the best take I’ve seen is one that sees them in the light of Carl Schmitt’s understanding of sovereignty (sorry, innit) .. and sees them in parallel with the opening of the book of Esther, and with Herod’s execution of John. ‘Sovereigns’ who make the gesture, the gesture goes badly wrong, and not wanting to lose face, they cave to pressure.
But as David says, fascinating stuff, and (as we all seem to be waving entity) as a non-militant person of fairly ambivalent faith, the texts make way more sense when you read them as politics rather than religion.
waving our identity .. gah .. edit please!
I thought “entity” was a new buzzword and was wondering what my “entity” descriptor would be…
As a non militant person of faith, who as a member of the LGBTQ+ communities, sees multiply perspectives, Holy Week is a story of justice subverted on every side. The great dereliction cry from the Cross (“why have you forsaken me”) is the ultimate call for Legal Aid. Where was my Barrister when I needed them.
We have set out our cry of pain in more detail here (with apologies if the link breaks the page rules):
https://lottieeallen.blogspot.com/2022/04/holy-week-triptych-two-thousand-and.html
Enjoy a quantity of non-militant chocolate eggs.
The most human element of the story is Peter denying him thrice before the cock crowed. And Judas (who is now called that?) taking the 30 pieces of silver and then hanging himself
Yes, a human trial of someone seen as human (whom I believe to have been only partly human), who appeared to have committed the crime of blasphemy in the highest degree, and generally stirred things up. An influencer.
Look forward to your analysis. Personally I have never understood why Pilate gets such a bad press, because he genuinely tried to release a man found not guilty of any charge. Did the mob blame Pilate afterwards, as an alternative to taking responsibility themselves?
Tomorrow, Good Friday, the suffering. Easter Sunday, the celebration, the chocolate. Happy weekend.
Please DAG, make the world a better place and write that blog!
Intrigued enough to re read a bit of Matthew’s version of the story. Then to take another look at what counsel for other sides have to say.
Taken together this could be any modern tale of an ugly political power struggle. Indeed the manipulation of ‘facts’ and ‘witness statements’ seems to have been highly developed a very long time ago. My view is that religion is best seen as a branch of politics.
Today, we call “Jerusalem Syndrome” the frequent occurrence of people turning up in Jerusalem and believing they are the Messiah. There is an institute in Israel trying to handle such people.
This is no modern novelty. People turned up in Jerusalem claiming to be the Messiah with some regularity in antiquity also, a historical feature turned to modern use in The Life of Brian. It is a feature of historical fact that places the biblical narrative in a context that few people seem to appreciate today.
It is generally understood by biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke are not independent narratives, but entirely take Mark as their sole source. So if you want to read the oldest available versions of this narrative, then you have to go to Mark and John. These are the only two original independent sources for this narrative, as it is not recorded in any other independent, original source. There is some indication that these had access to at least one older source, now lost.
The way such narratives were written in those days we would today, perhaps, call historical fiction. More Hilary Mantell than Reuters. They were never intended to be like modern journalism, recording details accurately. People turned a few outline facts, as they believed them, into a smooth narrative by, er, making up the rest. And people will have a tendency to confirmation bias in that smoothing of the tale. They were written a generation later without, so far as we can tell, direct access to eye-witnesses, but rather would likely have had access to oral histories handed down, and, it would appear, at least one older document now lost whose nature is unknown.
Some details appear anachronistic and contradict what we have from contemporary sources. Some people point to that and say, it must all be made up. But I think that conclusion is unwarranted. Even historical fiction can be closely based on sources.
So, what features of the story are actually based on reliable memories and older documents now lost? Scholars try their best to infer this, but ultimately I don’t think anyone can say.
In any analysis of the law of the situation, I think one needs to set out what pieces of the narrative one is taking as fact. Then we can take that as set out, and avoid arguing over whether it is true.
Very interesting. Also have regard to what is literal as opposed to “true”. As someone said, “Everything is true about myth except the facts”.