Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: 1, 2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /Key

Wiki Links for notes

Could someone set these for all the authors? Next week, if I have time, I'll find what references I can for the rest, now that things are quiet. They ARE quiet, aren't they? --CTSWyneken 12:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The perceived crime of sedition"

This is POV. NPOV would be "....the crime of sedition". Let us assume for the sake of argument that the trial is historical, and Jesus was tried and convicted. Therefore, he was found guilty of sedition. He wasn't found guilty of the "percieved" crime of sedition. He was found guilty of sedition, and that is what should be said. I can't keep up with all the discussion on this article, so if this has been discussed and belongs in another section, please move it. -- Drogo Underburrow 04:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely he wasn't found guilty of any crime. The gospels make it clear that Pilate washed his hands of Jesus at the trial because he could not find any charge against him that would stand. Jesus was handed over to the Jews to be crucified to appease the people, not because he'd been found guilty. 62.6.139.11 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Stuart, Leicester, UK 31st March 2006[reply]

Guilty de jure (according to the formal charge), but not necessarily guilty de facto (according to the facts of the case). --MonkeeSage 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If, as I do, you take the text of the Gospels seriously at this point, the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, because he equated himself with God, although he was a man. For them, it was worthy of death. Had Pilate not been in town, they would have stoned him on the spot.

Because they could not, they had to come up with a charge that the Romans could respect. Sedition or rebellion was just about it. Pilate saw through it, looked for every way to release him. The sanhedrin was not about to let him off. To placate them and get rid of someone disturbing the peace, Pilate executed him. To get back at the Sanhedrin, he post the "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" titilus

So, he was found innocent of all charges and executed for the charge of sedition anyway. So, how do you all want to say that in one phrase? ;=) --CTSWyneken 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article STILL says that he was found guilty of 'percieved sedition'. That's interesting. The sentence for percieved sedition appears the same as for sedition. Funny that the Romans didn't make "percieved sedition" a lighter offence. Drogo Underburrow 05:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drogo: I think that you are right. In terms of the formal (de jure) charge, Jesus was guilty of sedition. Not "perceived" sedition. While the charge may have been a puppet charge to appease the Jewish leaders, nonetheless, it was passed on the orders of Pilate, and the scholars we cite don't qualify it as "perceived." We should not qualify it, either. Just plain old sedition was the charge for which Jesus was executed, regardless of whether the charge was justified. --MonkeeSage 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From The Wikipedia Bible: Matt 27:37 "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE PERCEIVED KING OF THE JEWS." Drogo Underburrow 11:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Above his head, if he really existed, they placed the written charge against him, though he probably couldn't read it: THIS IS JESUS, IF HE REALLY EXISTED, THE PERCEIVED KING OF THE JEWS." ;D ;D --MonkeeSage 11:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What language was that perceived to have been written in? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 12:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Perceived Greek, of course. Drogo Underburrow 13:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, Lojban and French. Darned Canadians! :) --MonkeeSage 13:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in what they thought was Latin and Abramaic? Or was that Reformed Egyptian? --CTSWyneken 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the movies I've seen it's always in english! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, watch your movies in French! Drogo Underburrow 00:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Possibly above his head, if he really existed and they could write, they placed the written charge against him, in what they believed to be Greek, Hebrew and Latin, though he probably couldn't read any of it: WE THINK THIS IS JESUS, BUT IT MIGHT BE BARABBAS, THE PERCEIVED KING OF THE JEWS." hehe --MonkeeSage 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is lots of fun, but can we now delete the word "perceived" from the 2nd paragraph? Drogo Underburrow 00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may perceive that I have done this -- or maybe not. --CTSWyneken 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're just getting silly. BTW, where did "Perceived crime of sedition" come from? The last time I looked, the phrasing we had come up with was "express or implied crime of sedition?" "Implied sedition" makes a lot more sense than "perceived sedition." Implied, for example, because some of Jesus' disciples were Zealots. Implied because, while Jesus wasn't leading an armed insurrection himself, his actions during his last week may have inspired those who would commit armed rebellion (or so the Romans may have feared). Of course, knowing nothing of Roman jurisprudence, I can't say for sure. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The crime is sedition. He either was tried for sedition....or he wasn't. He was found guilty of sedition, or he wasn't. Maybe nobody knows. That's fine too....we can say that. But it is simply incorrect in this case to put qualifying adjectives in front of the noun "sedition" in an attempt to express doubt that something happened, or to express the opinion that the charge was unjustified. Putting adjectives in front of the noun doesn't achieve these ends, what is does is make the sentence say something that is not intended, hence the joking on this page. Drogo Underburrow 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"allegedly"

User:Codex Sinaiticus wishes to change

on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the crime of sedition against Rome

to

on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for allegedly committing the crime of sedition against Rome.

I think the "alleged" is pretty peculiar here. He wasn't sentenced to death for allegedly committing a crime, he was sentenced to death for a crime, regardless of whether or not he committed it; to my knowledge, the Romans didn't execute people for "allegedly committing" crimes -- the penalty for was for the crime. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using ambiguous wording that could be misread as stating that he committed a crime, it should be a fairly simple matter to tweak the wording slightly to explain the situation in full. That's what I've tried to do, but if that's not enough, please rewrite it more clearly to make it a little clearer that he is only alleged to have committed a crime, and to avoid giving any false impression here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with original poster, Jpgordon. It is much more professional and correct to write "sentenced to death for a crime" as opposed to "sentenced to death for allegedly committing a crime", because it is obvious that the person allegedly committed the crime, becase he is being sentenced for it. There is no need to say "allegedly commiting a crime". — C^razyInS^ane 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you don't see any need to point out that he may not have committed a crime? You prefer to leave it ambiguous and open to misinterpretation to give the impression that he was guilty of sedition against Rome? Interesting... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...the first version doesn't say that the charge was justified...it simply says that the crime for which Jesus was executed was sedition (which is true, whether he was actually guilty or not). But if its really a big deal, how about something like: "was charged with the crime of sedition against Rome and sentenced to death by crucifixion"? --MonkeeSage 22:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like MonkeeSage's suggestion. —Aiden 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. At least that is somewhat less misleading... It would only have been from the pagan Roman POV that he actually did commit sedition, or any other crime... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, MonkeeSage's suggestion is the most neutral, though if there were only a choice between Codex's or the current version I'd pick the current version . . (Also, F*** Dial-up, as I tried to reply 3 times and was interfered with edit-conflicts, and it took years to load each edit-conflict page) :):) . — Crazy.IN.Sane. 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, all, to the omnicontroversial 2nd paragraph. We have a subpage for such discussions: /2nd Paragraph Debate. (At least we're no longer talking about perceived crimes.) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the paragragraph to the (allegedly!) accepted verion. If anyone alleges that this version is still insufficient, please go the the subpage, where this issue is allegedly being discussed. I take no responsibility for any physical, mental, or emotional harm that may result from your alledging activities. --MonkeeSage 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how it is perceived. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Codex's last post: Yes, those Roman Wikipedians with their pagan POV have been very bothersome of late :) --DLand 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if everyone would show the courtesy of not changing the text of a carefully negotiated paragraph until everyone has had a chance to respond. I do have a life, you know, and would like to have input into changes made in a text I have countless hours invested in. Would it hurt to simply revert to the agreed version and politely point people to the subpage to talk about it? Could we wait, oh, say, at least eight hours?

There! Has anyone considered that none of this is relevant? Do you all want to go back and look at all the works we've cited to see what the majority says? Huh? So, I'm putting it back. I'll revert it two times in the morning if needed to keep it that way. It is not right to wade in and undo careful work. Please discuss at talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. Avery, would you do the honors of moving all new comments here to the subpage? --CTSWyneken 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Avery would, but I just did. ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus among scholars that the biblical Jesus was convicted of a crime, for which he was crucified? Or do scholars say that he was crucified but not legally convicted of any crime, essentially saying that Pilate agreed to a mob lynching? Drogo Underburrow 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. Which means the Romans killed him, not the mob. Which means he must have been convicted of some crime against the Roman state. The Gospel writers, on the whole, try to obscure this, for whatever reason, but it seems like it's a fairly clear inference to be made from the text if one has a minimal knowledge of the historical context. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Biblical Jesus." I assume there is some intention to distinguish him from "the historical Jesus." But I'm not sure this really works - most Christians, I'd imagine, are perfectly willing to use knowledge of the historical context to refine their understanding of the Gospel accounts, so the idea of a purely "Biblical Jesus" doesn't really make any sense. john k 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK..maybe the Romans killed him. Did they do it as a result of a legal trial? Or did they do it because Pilate told them to, but did Pilate do it as a tyrant on his personal orders, or as a lawfull sentence? Was Jesus simply murdered on orders of Pilate, or murdered by the Jews with Pilate telling them to do whatever they wanted and to leave him out of it? What is the consensus, if any, among scholars?Drogo Underburrow 09:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for the thoughts! The point is, what do scholars say? When I was assembling the notes, I did not look at that specific aspect. WHat I do know is our scholars agree he was crucified sub Pontio Pilato -- under Pontius Pilate. Romans did not have to have a reason to execute non-Romans. They could do so at any time for no reason at all. Typically, they did not bother unless the person was a problem. According to Paul L. Maier, this was because Pilate was in trouble from prior incidents for angering his subjects. Tiberias had warned him and when the Priestly hierarchy insisted, it was a harmless Jewish preacher v. Roman governor. Not liking to be backed into such a corner, Pilate rubbed it in with the titilus Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. This far Paul Maier. --CTSWyneken 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what does Paul Maier say? Sounds to me from what you wrote that Maier says that he was executed on orders of Pilate; that he wasn't convicted of any "crime" at all; he was simply ordered put to death cause Pilate said so. As an afterthought, to be cruel, Pilate had the King of the Jews thing written. Is this what Maier is saying?Drogo Underburrow 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --CTSWyneken 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the claim that Romans could execute non-Romans at any time for no reason at all? This seems wrong. At the very least, I find it hard to believe that citizens of major Greek cities like Athens or Alexandria could be snuffed out by the Roman authorities without cause. At any rate, it is clear that it was the Romans who killed him, not the Jews. If Pilate had told the Jews to do whatever they wanted and to leave him out of it, Jesus would have been stoned to death. I think this is a pretty clear consensus among scholars - it was the Romans who killed Jesus. Beyond this is unclear, because scholars differ on how far to credit the gospel accounts of the trial as being accurate reflections of what actually happened. CTSWyneken's outline of Maier's view seems to fit the best with the Gospel accounts. But there are scholars who think that the Gospel accounts aren't to be relied on, because they are trying to remove as much blame as possible from the Romans. john k 17:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there has been discussion, archived from /3 to /6, about the exact nature of the charge. I think Slrubenstein put it best:

My sense is, all historians agree Jesus was executed for sedition. What he actually did that constituted the crime of sedition, however, is a matter of debate. Fredriksen, for one, argues that Jesus's actions constituted sedition even if he never claimed to be king or messiah - indeed, she makes much of the fact that he often answered questions, "are you the messiah" etc. equivocally. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is where we stood until this whole perceived/alleged/implied crime silliness. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my books are in a storage locker right now, so I have limited resources. IIRC, "sedition" was the word that every history of or introduction to the NT that I have used, and most of them said something like "charge of", "crime of" or similar, which fits perfeclty with the pre-perceived controversy wording.

Regarding the practice of Romans toward non-Roman "perceived criminals", if Acts is to be taken on its face, regardless of the formal laws on the matter (if there were any), the actual preactice was to do whatever you wanted and ask questions later: 'And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, "The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace." But Paul said to them, "They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out." The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens.' (Acts 16:36-8, ESV). --MonkeeSage 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul L. Maier, as CTSWyneken reports, seems to hold that Jesus was not charged with sedition, he was simply crucified cause Pilate commanded it. This weakens the case for saying that there is general consensus on this issue. Drogo Underburrow 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I can find online:

"What was the proper procedure for a Roman governor on the delivery of a prisoner, accused of sedition by the Jewish authorities, is not known by any of our sources." (S. G. F. Brandon, The Trial of Jesus [New York: Stein and Day, 1968], 93)

"[The problems with the Synoptic accounts of the trial] stem from the embarrassing fact of the Roman execution of Jesus for sedition. . ." (op. cit., 139)

"It is reasonable to suppose that the Jewish proceedings against Jesus dwelt on this claim to be the Messiah, because of the political implications which this would have conveyed to Pilate." (W. R. Wilson, The Execution of Jesus [New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1970], 126)

"The high priest of the Sanhedrin would thus report to [Pilate] the simple facts - Here is a charismatic of charismatics who attracted crowds; who set off a disturbance in the Temple area, thronged at festival time with highly excitable pilgrims; who was acclaimed as the Messiah, the King of the Jews, as he walked through the streets of Jerusalem, and who called upon the people to prepare for the (imminent) coming of God's kingdom." (Ellis Rivkin, What Crucified Jesus? [Nashville: Abingdon, 1984], 85)

"[The Sanhedrin] seems to have dealt with an administrative question within the council's competence, namely the delivery of a person suspected of sedition to the procurator." (Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus [Berlin: Walter de Gruyer & Co., 1961] 27)

On the freedom and capriciousness of the legislation:

". . .a provincial governor had the legal freedom to conduct a trial as informally and with as little set procedure as he wished." (R. Larry Overstreet R. Larry, Roman Law and the Trial of Christ [Bibliotheca Sacra', 1978], 329)

"Judicial administration in the provinces was much less precise and technical than that which was required in Rome itself." (Wilson, 130)

Sorry I couldn't find any more recent refs. --MonkeeSage 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a discussion of some of these issues by a Boston College professor in the Journal of Religion and Film, in context of a discussion of The Passion of the Christ. john k 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[T]o ask historical questions of the Gospels is to ask something they were not really meant to provide - Philip A. Cunningham, Boston College, explaining that the Gospels are not good sources to write history from. Cunningham is pretty clear: the purpose of the Gospels is to promote faith. They are not historical accounts. That being said, he then goes on to make historical inferences from material he has already said is not historical. I could find him giving no opinion on our question, which is "was Jesus found guilty of a crime?". The most I could find was that he thinks that the fact that Jesus was crucified implicates Pilate's role. Pilate had Jesus crucified, but Cunningham is vague on why he had him crucified. Perhaps someone else can read the material more carefully and shed better light on what Cunningham says here. Drogo Underburrow 16:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cunningham mentions three distinct stages of the Gospel's development, with stage 1 being the most historical. In other words, although not strictly speaking historical accounts, the Gospels do contain some historical details. The charge of sedition might relate to Jesus' teaching of the coming Kingdom of God (which would replace all earthly kingdoms, including the Roman Empire). Also, Pilate appointed the High Priest and apparently had some influence on the Temple through his relationship with said priest. Thus, Jesus' attack on the moneychangers could also be considered sedition. Finally, there was the charge that Jesus was "stirring up" the restless Passover pilgrims, many of whom would have objected to the corruption of the Temple by Pillate's appointments. This could lead to charges of both disturbing the peace (inciting a riot) and sedition.

It all seems to rest on the relationship between the Temple and the Roman governor. Cunningham's conclusions were,

"Pilate and Caiaphas colluded in the death of Jesus. Which of the two initiated his arrest is impossible to determine. Jesus’ words and deeds on behalf of a coming “Kingdom of God” were enough to convince Pilate that Jesus should be preemptively and publicly dispensed with as a warning to the thousands of Jewish pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover. Jesus’ Kingdom preaching and criticisms of the priestly leadership were enough to persuade Caiaphas that this popular Galilean could incite anti-Roman agitation and so move the Romans to act against the people and destroy the Temple that he was responsible to protect. The high priest was not necessarily personally popular with the people, so he had additional reasons to move carefully in his efforts to maintain the peace."

"Anti-Roman agitation" would, of course, be sedition. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Cunningham doesn't say that Pilate or Caiaphas accused Jesus of anti-Roman agitation; rather Caiaphas is afraid that Jesus "could incite anti-Roman agitation" and Pilate convinced that Jesus should be "preemptively and publicly dispensed with" So Pilate doesn't find Jesus guilty of sedition, according to Cunningham, Pilate find Jesus guilty of having the potential of being a sedtionist, and has him executed. There is a big difference. We cannot say that Cunningham belives that Pilate executed Jesus for sedition, as that means Jesus was found guilty of actually doing something.

Jesus was not found guilty of sedition, according to Cunningham, but was found guilty of being a potential source of trouble. Jesus was killed for who he was, not what he did, according to Cunningham. In the western world, we don't believe in convicting people for what they COULD do or how they MIGHT cause others to act. So its not really right to use western words of guilt and innocence even. In summation, Cunningham's view does not support what we say on Wikipedia. Drogo Underburrow 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know if the Romans made a distinction between potential sedition and actual sedition. There's also the possibility that non-citizens were held to a different standard of jurisprudence than Roman citizens. Perhaps someone else could answer that? Cunningham did state, though, that under Roman law the accused was considered guilty until proven innocent. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if Romans made a distinction between potential sedition and actual sedition; English speaking people do, so when we write in the article that Pilate found Jesus guilty of sedition, it means to the reader that Pilate thought Jesus did something, and that's not the case, according to Cunningham.Drogo Underburrow 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would fit with Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus, "The high priest wanted [Jesus] dead for the same reason Antipas wanted John dead: he might cause trouble." (265, emphasis mine). But note that Sanders apparently also says in Jesus and Judaism, 296, that the official charge was sedition. --MonkeeSage 17:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Sanders says point-blank the charge was sedition, then that's as far as we need to go, as far as Sanders is concerned, since at Wikipedia all we do is report what sources say. Could you quote where he says it in Jesus and Judaism, 296, if there is a sentence to that effect?Drogo Underburrow 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to clarify, we could say that Pilate had Jesus crucified for potential sedition (assuming the other sources agree). However, this may or may not be a distinction that the Romans would have made. Either way, I think it would be a mistake to judge Roman jurisprudence by the standards of English (or Commonwealth or American or Australian) jurisprudence. This would be both anachronistic and culturally biased. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that my proposal will meet all sides, and still accurately represent our scholars:

"on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was charged with the crime of sedition against Rome and sentenced to death by crucifixion"

--MonkeeSage 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me - seems to avoid all the sticky points. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any quotes from scholars yet who have said that; based on Cunningham, all we can say is:

"Roman Governor Pontius Pilate thought Jesus to be a potential troublemaker and decided to make a public example of him by having him crucified." Drogo Underburrow 18:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I don't understand how Cunningham can claim this, since the Gospels say that Pilate didn't want anything to do with Jesus's execution. Drogo Underburrow 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going off of secondary sources on the Sanders quote, so I can't provide the exact wording. But it might be of interest to note the intro to the wikilinked article on sedition: "Sedition is a deprecated term of law to refer to non-overt conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws." --MonkeeSage 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a real stretch for scholars to say that Jesus was found guilty of sedition. I can now see why editors have wanted the article to say "percieved sedition". Drogo Underburrow 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 27:24 "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it". I guess being a scholar means you get to pick and choose the verses of the Bible you want to discount. Its "pick and choose" Christianity, academia-style.Drogo Underburrow 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Perceived sedition" still sounds silly to me; I prefer "potential" or "implied" sedition, as opposed to "actual" or "express" sedition. The sedition article also says that the term came into use c. 1590, so I wonder what word the Romans would have used.

"Pick and choose Christianity" may be accurate, although many who write about the Historical Jesus aren't Christians. Those who don't accept the Gospel accounts as, well, the Gospel truth, find some verses more credible than others. I've heard that the Jesus Seminar accepted roughly 20% of the Gospels, while people like Freke and Gandy accept 0%. One standard academia uses is the "criteria of embarrassment." I think the academic consensus is that the Gospel writers tried to exhonorate Pilate and the Romans as much as possible, for example by having him engage in the Jewish custom of hand washing. It's telling that Pilate is mentioned at all; if the Gospel writers wanted to blame the Jews, why not just have Jesus stoned as a blasphemer in accordance with Mosiac law? Historians take this as a sign that too many people would have remembered Pilate's involvement for the writers to fully exhonorate Pilate. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, those who accept the Gospel accounts in full would say that Jesus was charged with sedition and found innocent by Pilate. The crowd then turned the tables on Pilate by claiming allegience to Rome ("we have no King but Ceasar"), implying that Pilate would show himself to be disloyal to Rome if he set Jesus free. Pilate, mindful of his political future and perhaps his life, gave in to the crowd. Pilate's fears were justified: he was recalled to Rome a few years later, in 36 CE, after a perceived Samaritan uprising.

Anyone supporting the description above might be accused of religious bias. However, even Christians interpret the Gospel accounts differently, with Western Christianity holding Pilate accountable, and Eastern Christianity not only exhonorating him, but listing him as a saint. See Pontius Pilate#The question of responsibility for Jesus' death for more details. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In either event, I think that MonkeeSage's construction of "charged with sedition" is appropriate, whether or not Jesus was found guilty by Pilate. The chief priests and elders make the accusation in all four gospel accounts, perhaps most clearly in Luke 23:2: "And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king." (NIV) Sounds like an accusation of sedition to me. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64.12.117.6 edits

Removing "Pontius Pilate" and "Sedition."

BTW, the same anon IP who added references to prophet and Messiah (see below) also removed references to Pilate and sedition. All it says now is "was sentenced to death by crucifixion." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we take into account the Testimonium Flavianum, which even if it's forged is very very old and would reflect the most well known parts of the whole affair, the blame is laid squarely at Pilates door. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Josephus, 64.12.117.6 has made other edits that CTSWyneken has reverted twice today already. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (the editor formerly known as Archola).[reply]

PS: Here's the edit dif: [1]. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached my self-imposed, 2 revert, guard-dog limit. Would someone please put the paragraph back to status quo ante? --CTSWyneken 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall, but there was an intervening edit to the third paragraph (dropping the nicene creed) that seemed to be by consensus. I'm reorging this page to make it easier to point to discussion of 64.12.117.6's edits, but your comment above just caused me an edit conflict. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think we can safely return para. two to its state. We've almost come to a conclusion on the "Nicene" thing in third para., so it's probably safe to leave it changed, but we probably should get a "moving towards the exit" warning, so as to let they that would scream... yet if they will. --CTSWyneken 13:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert, see next subsection. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Paul Maier is a noted scholar, but doesn't say that Jesus was found guilty of sedition, we might have to rethink this sentence. (no pun intended!)Drogo Underburrow 13:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the paragraph above on "perceived crime...": The gospels (main sources) make it clear that Pilate washed his hands of Jesus at the trial because he could not find any charge against him that would stand. Jesus was handed over to the Jews to be crucified to appease the people, not because he'd been found guilty. Jesus was not found guilty of any crime by Pilate. He was found guilty by the Jewish religious leaders of blasphemy, but they had no power to put anyone to death which is why they took him to Pilate on false charges. Stuart Glover, UK. 5/4/2006 Ivor wigan (talk · contribs)

Prophet or Messiah

There has also been an edit by 64.12.117.6 that adds the clause "was additionally regarded by many as either a prophet or the Messiah" to the second paragraph. So, what do scholars say? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* No, I do not. Why on earth is it needed? If someone wants to add a detail, I'm inclined to ask THEM to look it up. This is getting really tiring. --CTSWyneken 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reverted as discussed. I also left a message at 64.12.117.6's talk page. However, since this is an AOL IP, that person may never get the message. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be a troll who is trying to use the wiki to argue for his/her own POV. They refuse to sign their edits on talk pages and they post random facts and OR when they don't like what the attributed/cited sources say. OK, I'm ranting a little, but I tried to be nice for several days...but a troll by any other name would still smell of Gondor. ;) --MonkeeSage 06:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you mean "Mordor", I hope. Gondor's the realm of the good guys :-) Drogo Underburrow 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I've already been corrupted by the powers of the ring! --MonkeeSage 08:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]