The symbol of Jesus as a savior to mankind is
being reverberated by its biblical significance, more so than its
historical accuracy. This is not to claim that the life story of
Jesus in biblical context is historically inaccurate; instead, it
highlights the iconic representation that Jesus holds, which will
change the way Man views Jesus as well as religion on the whole in
the years, centuries, and millennia to come.
What is the difference betwixt symbolism and the
historical, which could seem so similar, and even more so, be
regarded as one and the same by hundreds of millions of people the
world over? In this paper, I will attempt to draw a single
pertinent example of perceived scriptural truths that possesses
vast popular support and belief, as opposed to painstakingly
gathered historical evidence, and their impact upon us
all.
As Clifford Geertz in The Interpretation of
Cultures puts it fittingly, he defines religion as:
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful,
pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3)
formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4)
clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5)
the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
How do these wonderful symbols purportedly work
their powerful magic across Man? Consider this hypothetical
situation: a new high school is opened to honor of the memory of
the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Fronting
the main campus building is a large, steel statue depicting the
popular image of Lincoln garbed in suit and bowtie, ever donning
his iconic Lincoln top hat, and a slave in a supine position before
him. Armed with nothing but a compassionate smile and a
sledgehammer lifted over his head, he seems to have himself ready
to break open the shackles that keep the unfortunate slave bonded
to unindentured servitude.
Some may argue that the statue, while utterly
flattering to Lincoln’s memory is unfitting, because it did not
portray him historically. It was never recorded, be it in image or
the written word that Lincoln had carried out such a physical act,
and therefore this statue was untrue. It might encourage this
school’s future students to jump into conclusions without first
ensuring the full validity of the facts.
Yet, some may come into the defense of this
statue, claiming that the statue was very fitting to Lincoln’s
memory because of his lifetime accomplishment to set the United
States off on the long road to racial equality by legislating the
state’s recognition of the slave’s intrinsic worth as a human
being. It was not particularly what Lincoln truly did physically
that mattered, but the fact that Lincoln, as a symbol set an
example for the myriad generations to come was
important.
Here we come to the constant hemming and hawing
of many Christians and other people hailing with creeds of the Book
claiming that everything recorded within their Scripture was
historically and absolutely true, and many atheists and skeptics on
the other side claiming that it is not, that the bible is fiction
and nothing more than an elaborate collection of high fantasy
tales. What is true, and what is false?
Fortunately for Christians, not much has to be historically proven
for them in this present day in order to continue to have faith in
what they believe in. The narrative of the four Gospels in the New
Testament of the Bible is so independently strong, consistent with
one another and looking somewhat consistent to the untrained eye of
the amateur historian, there is little wonder that there are so
many believers who may react vehemently to the slightest hint or
tease of an idea that what they believe in may not be so
historically accurate, after all.
To cite this one incident in the New Testament, there is a rather
curious account of Pontius Pilate, the famous Roman governor of
Judea who supposedly found no fault in a Jesus that was arrested
and put before him. The Gospels of the New Testament paint Pilate
as a completely just and fair Roman governor sensitive to Hebrew
traditions and sensibilities. To quote Mark 15:6 –
15:
Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone
for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with
the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the
crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his
custom. Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you
the King of the Jews?” For he realized that it was out of jealousy
that the chief priests had handed him over. But the chief priests
stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead.
Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with
the man you call the King of the Jews?” They shouted back, “Crucify
him!” Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they
shouted all the more, “Crucify him!” So Pilate, wishing to satisfy
the crowd, released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus, he
handed him over to be crucified.
There are several unfortunate problems with this
account. The first and foremost problem lies in the fact that
Pilate was historically proven to show no regard for Jewish
religious sensitivities, and did not hesitate to use swift and
brutal martial force in the form of multiple Roman legions to quell
resistances and insurrections amongst the Jewish peasantry. To
illustrate this, a group of Samaritans who attempted to partake in
a Moses-like re-enactment by a trek up Mount Gerizim, where Moses
supposedly left behind sacred vessels with which the Samaritans
could hope to fight against the Romans, in the hope to free
themselves of Roman occupation as their ancestors did with the
Egyptians gathered at a village named Tirathana, and when Pilate
heard of such an incident, I quote the Antiquities 18.85 – 87 in
the incident of the Samaritan Prophet:
“…Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a
detachment of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, who in the
encounter with the firstcomers in the village slew some in a
pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were
taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those
who were most influential..
Secondly, it is difficult to imagine the authors of the Gospels –
Jesus’ apostles – to have had a first-hand account of what had
transpired. Jesus was arrested as a peasant rabble rouser who tried
to block the collection of taxes for Rome, which was a capital
crime during that period. To make things worse for Jesus; according
to Luke 19:1 – 9, he apparently managed to influence Zacchaeus, a
“chief tax collector” in Jericho to resign and give his riches to
the poor. This poses a problem, as Jericho was directly under
Pilate’s taxation jurisdiction, and such a severe crime worthy of
capital punishment would not have easily escaped Pilate’s
attention. At the time of Jesus’ arrest, all of his disciplines ran
away fearing for their lives, save for Judas who betrayed him to
inform on Jesus to the Jewish High Priests. To go back to the
quoted tax by Mark in Page 3, it could not have been possible for
Pilate to practice any form of open amnesty during a time such as
the Passover Festival. It is noted, in detailed Roman records that
typical Roman governors treated crucified prisoners during festival
periods by postponing the execution until after the festival, or
allow the burial of the crucified by his or her family.
Now that we have established that Pilate’s
alleged meek compliance to a shouting mob, and his alleged
sensitivities to Jewish customs are most likely a work of fiction
by Mark, we have to find out: for what reason did Mark partake in
this kind of Scriptural fiction?
His created narrative about Jerusalem choosing Barabbas, a common
armed rebel over Jesus characterizes his perceived fate of
Jerusalem, and in doing so, his excerpt in Page 3 is noted to be
one of symbolic dramatization, or in other words, prophecy
fulfillment for the sake of it to lend credence to Jesus’
existence.
For the historical Jesus was but a peasant nobody in the typical
Roman eyes, just another rabble rouser with radical social ideas
that has gained enough attention within Judea to attract also, the
attention of the local Jewish and Roman authorities to put him
down. It was most likely that the Romans would have merely done
away with someone like Jesus by the manner of crucifixion without
any manner of official record, or even to have a governor so much
as to take notice of Jesus to hammer a notice of “Jesus of Nazereth
– King of the Jews” on his cross. In attempting to fulfill
prophecy, Mark created this symbol to lend Jesus some manner of
exceptionism and significance to brand him as the prophesized
Messiah.
What have the implications been, behind this one incident of Pilate
heeding the demands of the gathered Jews to crucify Jesus as a
symbol? One of the most tragic and unfortunate outcomes in the
coming centuries and millennia, was anti-Semitism. It boiled for
centuries at first, against Jews in European Christendom because
Mark’s account in Page 3, which became widely accepted historical
truth by then, gave justification to the abusive treatment of Jews
because of their perceived “pride over Christ” and because they
demanded Jesus to be slain, “Christ-killers”, and were ultimately,
unbelievers. Very popular and well-known examples of Mark-justified
anti-Semitism reside in the fictional, such as portrayal of Shylock
the Jewish Moneylender in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice during
the Renaissance period, and its horrific nonfictional manifestation
in the Holocaust in the early 20th century.
Even if it could be completely proven with utterly undeniable
historical facts that the biblical Pilate incident did not exist,
and disseminated popularly throughout the world in this present
day, such a concept in Christians cannot be easily erased, because
it is a standard assumption amongst Christians that all that is
said in the Bible is absolutely true where symbol and history meld
for them, and to actively doubt that even one incident did not
historically happen, threatens to destroy the entire chain that is
Jesus’ exceptional lifetime as a Messiah on earth and severely
diminish the belief of the average Christian. But, with this flawed
perception to exist, even if outright, active anti-Semitism is not
seen in this 21st century with the exception of pockets of immature
skinhead movements, the author here can say with confidence that,
I, am also one of the affected. Even if I had categorically
rejected the Christian faith more than half a decade ago, I still
am unable to shake away the passive, chiding anti-Semitism in me,
that causes me to think of “the over-proud killers of Christ” every
time the thought of Jews appear in my mind, be it in speech or
contemplation.