PILATE'S PROBLEM AND OURS

[Liberté]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

[Liberté]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

Roman law allowed for the execution of usurpers. All the hullabaloo about Christ being "King of the Jews" should be taken in a literal sense.

[Liberté]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

Roman law allowed for the execution of usurpers. All the hullabaloo about Christ being "King of the Jews" should be taken in a literal sense.

but Pilate found no fault in him and washed his hands, nor was Jesus leading a rebelling against Roman rule of Judea

The bit about Pilate washing his hands is, as I've said, a subject for debate. A lot of modern-day interpreters believe that Pilate was signaling his dislike for the 'circus' nature of the trial and contempt for the Jewish hierarchy. Others think it was a show to signal to Jesus' followers that the ultimate, real responsibility for the execution lay with that hierarchy. That doesn't mean it wasn't within Roman law as it was imposed by the Romans on the territories they conquered.

[Liberté]

Leaving aside the fact that quite a few of those are not attested to within non-Christian first century sources, you've missed my point, which is:

So, on what basis do you doubt the reason for Pilate washing his hands?

There is no reason for it given in the Gospel account. Pilate's washing of his hands is rather conspicuous in that it's one of the few actions we don't see a motivation for within the text.

[Liberté]

4 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

That's not a reason, do you see? Why did Pilate feel Jesus was innocent? Did he feel it was the result of a kangaroo court on the part of the Temple establishment? Was it a political play against them, where he didn't really care about "this man's" innocence or guilt? Nothing is given. Pilate is an enigma in the Gospels.

[Liberté]

*snip*

Again, that's not a reason: why does Pilate find "no basis for a charge" against that man? We are told what Pilate said; we are not told why Pilate said it.

[Liberté]

*snip*

Again, that's not a reason: why does Pilate find "no basis for a charge" against that man? We are told what Pilate said; we are not told why Pilate said it.

could it be that Pilate found no basis because, perhaps, there was no basis to be found?!

Under Roman law, once again, anyone accused of claiming to be "King of the Jews" (or, really, "King" of any of the peoples they dominated) could be executed as a usurper to Roman authority. Which is why John 18:33-37 are such important verses:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed. Pilate may have had reservations, but he was within his legal rights to execute Christ anyway. What we don't know is why Pilate had reservations about this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're one to talk.

[Liberté]

All 4 gospels recount Jesus admitting to be king, and THEN go on to say that Pilate could find no basis against him even AFTER hearing Jesus confess to be a king.  So, you are simply in error in saying, "Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed."

That's because Jesus went on a spiel about how his kingdom was "not of this Earth" and so on, which may well have been considered a mitigating factor against executing him as a usurper. But that's exactly what he was executed as under Roman law. As much of an asshole as Pilate is known to have been, he would not have had the leeway to execute any man, no matter how much political pressure he may have been under, if he could not have justified it according to Roman law.