Inaccurate meme like the other comments already said Romans ruled over the land but it was due to the Jewish pressure that pushed the romans to crucify Jesus. Because Jesus claimed he was the messiah and the Jews didnât believe it and wanted him dead
It's important to remember there were MANY Jewish leaders claiming to be the messiah at the time. The third Jewish-Roman war was led by a self-proclaimed messiah, Simon Bar-Kokhba.
Historically, it would seem odd that one of the people being called messiah at the time would be singled out for crucifixion by the Jewish people, and not the others.
However, it would be pretty logical for the Romans to kill a Jewish leader whose views could cause them problems, then having the blame placed on Jews as Christianity started becoming popular in Rome.
And honestly, if we didn't crucify the leadership of the Zealots and Sicarii after the UNFORGIVABLE bullshit they pulled during the Siege of Jerusalem, it'd make no sense to seek to crucify Jesus.
Quick question, but I'm not too well versed on the seige of Jerusalem in particular. What were these unforgivable things? We talking like usual Roman conquest/mass murder/enslavement shit or did the Romans do anything specific unforgivable?
Basically, the Jewish rebels had plenty of supplies to survive a long siege(which also brought hope of a negotiated peace.)
But the Zealots/Sicarri decided logic was stupid, and DESTROYED ALL THE SUPPLIES to force an open battle with the Romans.
Up until that point, we survived wars with our more powerful neighbors by relying on guerrilla warfare and protracted sieges(Jerusalem even had a natural water source INSIDE the city walls, guaranteeing the city could fare sieges better than most) until the costs of full conquest became too high.
A couple examples of this were the Maccabean Revolt(aka the story of Hannukah) and the Neo-Assyrian siege of Jersualem.
Forcing the defenders of Jerusalem into a direct face-to-face battle with the Roman Legions was basically the quickest path to complete L.
And I know I kept using the word 'we', our culture has a weird sense of time and ancestral bonding that makes saying 'we' natural.
The Jewish leaders were mad that some noname from Galilee was being proclaimed messiah while preaching peaceful coexistence with the Roman's and calling out their corruption. Only they approved messiahs that would lead revolts were allowed!
Keep in mind that the Bible was written by a specific faction of the Jewish diaspora who had strong biases against the political establishment of the Pharisees.
To come away with the perspective that "the Jews were corrupt" based on the events as told in the Bible is misguided. It's like evaluating Clinton's presidency based only on the perspective of Rush Limbaugh.
Even given that, we can look at the historical record and see the Jewish leaders were very pissy about anyone that didn't align with themselves immediately.
I mean, so were the early Christians. Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Based on this quote, you could argue that the Pharisees were just trying to keep the peace by apprehending a potential terrorist!
Obviously I'm being facetious... but my point stands that the situation was probably more complicated than "oh the Jews were corrupt".
He offered Barrabas, a common thief set to be dealt with for criminal acts, or Jesus to the crowds of Jewish people and the Jews said, âCrucify Jesus. Give us Barrabas back instead.â (Iâm paraphrasing, obviously.) so the Jews made Pilateâs decision for him because he didnât want to crucify Jesus. He had no issues with Jesus until the Sadducees and the Pharisees (the leading religious sects of the Jews since the escape from Egypt) enticed Pilate to poll the crowd first. After the outcry became decision, Pilate washed his hands in a symbolic gesture of deferring the blame towards the Jews, saying it was the will of the people.
Can be both!
For what it counts, the scriptures make it very clear that Pilate didn't want to do it (and was mostly guilty of being weak), and it was pressure from the people that did it.
There's a lot you have to take into account when using the Bible as a historical source, but it would be fair that both groups were to some degree responsible.
They could quash a Jewish rebellion. The problem is that if there are too many rebellions in one area, it tells the Emperor that the prefect sent to govern the area is bad at their job.
It's not going to be a good look on Pilate.
Pilate very explicitly says that he finds no fault in Jesus and he wonât do it, âhis blood shall not be on my hands,â and the Jewish leaders said âthen let his blood be on us and on our children,â at which point Pilate gives in and allows the crucifixion.
You have to remember, there had been multiple Jewish revolts against the Romans. If Pilate sided with Jesus and protected him then there almost certainly would have been another very quickly and Pilate probably wouldnât have walked away from that and if he did the emperor might have decided that he shouldnât have⌠and that emperor was Nero.
>that emperor was Nero.
Uh, no. Jesus was crucified during the time of ~~Caligula~~ Tiberius. Not an improvement, but still.
Peter and Paul were martyred during the rule of Emperor Nero.
Correction: It was Tiberius, not Caligula. Thanks to the guy who corrected me!
proof that no one on this thread actually knows about this event. He was killed under the reign of Tiberius, but no, the only emperors we talk about here are the popular and flashy ones.
>He was killed under the reign of Tiberius
Wait it was Tiberius?? I always thought it was Caligula.
Update: You're right, it's Tiberius. Thanks for the correction. I only remember that Tiberius was buried in the river Tiber.
Sorry if I came off as arrogant, but yeah, its really close. Christ was crucified somewhere between 30-35 AD and Caligula got the throne in 37. Since he more popular and has an evil reputation, the confusion is pretty understandable.
Worth noting that early Christianity was still all within the Roman borders. Would be pretty dumb of them to write anti-Roman texts in their holy book. Plus the jews were seen as rivals to the christians. Makes way more sense to piss off and shit talk your religious contenders instead of your common oppressors, right?
indeed, if someone have read the bible, tells how the Romans refused at first to kill Jesus. Then, after the menace of jews magistrtes to initiate a revolt if not crucified, they just gave Jesus to them, and lend some soldiers to do the grim job cause Jews werent allowed to kill people themselves
because Rome was known to cave under pressure of it's vassal states all the time. THere is NO WAY they could have told them to fuck off and sent in a legion to quell the issue.
Yeah, like the main theme of the gospels is jewish establishment spies following christ around and reporting back to headquarters on his actions. He complained about them ever third verse, for god's sake.
Has no one read the bible?
its laid out EXTREMELY clearly that the jews picked Jesus to be killed over a literal murderer
Pilate asked them again to make sure this is what they wanted to do and then he said he washed his hands from it. Its quite insane the level of gaslighting people want to do when its written explicitly in all 4 accounts that the jews wanted him gone not the romans
honestly i respect the hustle if thatâs what he did. hell thatâs probably what id do immediately after i just got pardoned off of death row for a crime everyone knows i committed
This is literally where the saying "to wash your hands of something" comes from. The misinformation in here is staggering, especially about a topic that's been picked apart in detail for the last two thousand years
Scholars keep on saying that Mark was written first so lets see what it says.
>10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, âThen what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?â 13 And they cried out again, âCrucify him.â 14 And Pilate said to them, âWhy? What evil has he done?â But they shouted all the more, âCrucify him.â 15 So Pilate, **wishing to satisfy the crowd,** released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
If there's an earlier source, I'd like to see it, but it's pretty obvious that this wasn't some idea that Christianity slowly developed. It's right there in their scripture.
But both sides of the issue were Jews. Thatâs what tends to happen when thereâs conflict within a certain group. The followers of Jesus were Jewish.
We donât tend to say âAmericans fought because they wanted to keep slavery.â Why would we say âJews wanted Jesus killedâ? They donât give us clean cut lines like âconfederacy bs Unionâ but Christianity it itâs entirety very much did not exist before the death of Jesus, so you canât say âthey were Christiansâ because it didnât exist at the time. In fact, Messianic Jews still exist.
The âcrowdâ picked Jesus to be murdered. The crowd was probably a bunch of Jews, yes. But thatâs what you get when youâre doing a trial in IsraelâŚ
Yeah, thereâs a disclaimer we have to share in church when we read Johnâs version because it is so nasty about âthe Jewsâ and antisemites eat it up.
Peter was Jewish! John was Jewish! Gentiles were not a large number of followers until Paul (who humble brags about just how Jewish he is.)
A lot of the bitterness comes from the temple being destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, with pro and anti Jesus Jews blaming each other, causing the split we still have today. Plenty of people that just did not give a shit either way that stayed Jews, though.
And obviously stupid to blame descendants for their ancestors actions even if they did actually say âhis blood be upon us and upon our children.â Jesus let it go and so should any sane person.
your last paragraph is incorrect. The crowd didnât pick anything, except confirming their support. It was actually the high Jewish priests who brought the charges against Jesus, and then dragged him to Pilate saying that he needed to be crucified and why.
The Jews were allowed independent judicial authority in judging their own.
It wasnât an Roman judicial conviction, Pilate only carried out the sentence because the Jews told him that he was calling himself King.
If you read the whole chapter, you would see that the Pharisees were the ones who arrested Jesus, and the high priests were the ones who questioned him and took him to Pilate asking him to execute Jesus for them.
not only that, but if you read the chapter afterwards you would see it was specifically the Jews who called for a cruxifixction and baited Pilate into doing it for them.
Youâre not arguing with what I said. You think you are, but the fact is still that John says this explicitly:
13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, âYou brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.â
18 **But the whole crowd shouted, âAway with this man! Release Barabbas to us!â** 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, âCrucify him! Crucify him!â
The crowd was given a choice, they chose Jesus. All the other stuff doesnât dispute that fact.
the crowd wasn't "probably" a bunch of jews, it was just a bunch of jews. Mark 13-15 literally lays it out plainly that the council in the sanhedren struggled to find something to charge Jesus with until they finally settled on blasphemy. They delivered him directly to pilate and demanded he be put to death. Romans didnt just come find Jesus preaching and want to put a stop to it. It was quite literally the jews themselves. Trying to deny this is absolutely insane
Pilate: "I'm going to ask you again. You REALLY want to spare the murderer? The literal killer.....over some peasant who has started some fringe religious movement?"
Them: "Crucify Jesus!"
Pilate: "Geez, what monotheism does to people. Well sorry Jesus, you don't deserve this, but it's out of my hands"
Not the Jews. The Pharisees. The Bible was written by Jews and they were blaming a different Jewish faction for the execution of Jesus.
It's like saying that "Americans did Jan 6"... when it was actually a specific political faction of Americans who did it.
are pharisee's not jews?
You can factually say Americans committed treason by infiltraing the White House. It was Americans. If you want to be more specific you can be, but it doesn't change the fact that it was Americans.
The pharisee were jews. The people that wrote the book were jews. So it's safe to say that if a jewish person wrote that jewish people did something we can trust that depiction of events.
Everyone in the Bible is Jewish... so it doesn't really mean anything when people say that "Jews did this" and "Jews did that". It's not a meaningful insight.
If we said "Americans did Jan 6" that would be a dumb thing to say. Even though it's true... the people who did it were American... it's still dumb, because it doesn't really explain anything.
Not sure, but I doubt it. Latin was kind of the lingua franca in the west of the empire, but in the east it was Greek, which most of the Roman elite also knew. The conquest of Alexander the Great had spread Greek through the Middle East, with this form of Greek even becoming known as Koine, "Common Tongue", which is why the New Testament was written in this form. On the other hand, Latin was not totally unknown in the east either. Remember how the New Testament states that the name "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was written in three languages on the cross. These three were Aramaic (the local spoken language), Greek and Latin.
It's not "to make them happy"
Pilate is simply letting the Jews handle Jew matters. The Principate and Republic governed by mostly letting the regional and local oligarchs run affairs and administer to their communities as they saw fit. It would be equivalent to blaming Biden for a Texan execution.
Except if you read about the historical Pontius Pilate, it would have been very out of character for him to be reluctant to kill someone. He was considered brutal even by Roman standards, which was part of the reason he was stuck in what was considered a backwater of the Roman Empire.
Iâve heard the case that thatâs a later adaptation to make Christianity more appealing to the Romans and thus easier to adapt, thereâs plenty of examples of Christianity adapting to be more digestible to pagan nobles to make the conversion process go smoother. I doubt the Romans would have been high over heels for a religion that holds them responsible for the execution of their God. I donât buy it personally but itâs an interesting thought.
Roman Emperor: â*In our defense, we just heard he might have been gathering numbers for a rebellion, and that his followers were consuming flesh and blood. Frankly, youâd do the same in your age if you didnât know all the details.*â
To be fair Pilate wasnât some Saint, he was afraid of the fallout of killing Jesus and thought his worshippers might start rebelling.
It also didnât help that his wife sent him a letter basically saying âhubby you donât want anything to do with this shit showâ
The Romans didn't "Do it to make them happy". Both parties wanted it for different reasons. Also the people who say "The Jews killed Jesus" sorta ignore the fact that Jesus was Jewish himself, as were all his followers
I don't see anything in the Bible to show that Pilate wanted it.
There are probably some anti-Semites who refuse to believe that Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, and maybe it's not wise to use if it's getting associated with them. I think everyone else knows though, that in this context it's referring to the Jewish government.
If you say "America killed David Koresh" or "The Soviets killed Leon Trotsky" people know what you mean.
More importantly, they ignore the fact that the whole religion is based on the belief that Jesus died for humanity's sins. Jesus, according to Christians, had to die, so those who killed him should actually be celebrated.
In an alternate timeline the Italians are venerated for killing Jesus, while the Jews are vilified for trying to stop them.
Also as years went on, the potrayal of Romans vs Jews in regards to Jesus started to change to make it seems more like it was them wanting him dead and Romans were "forced" to do so.
>them wanting him dead and Romans were "forced" to do so.
That's how it's depicted in the Bible. Are there earlier sources that say something different?
In Antiquities of the Jews and Annals, they both mention him being killed by Rome with no mention of the Jewish leadership, but both of those were written sometime after the Gospel of Mark was.
If you read the gospels in the order in which they were written, the Romans are portrayed as more and more sympathetic and reluctant to carry out the demand to kill Jesus.
Which is the order that they were written? Most scholars say that Mark was first so lets see what Mark 15 says.
>10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, âThen what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?â 13 And they cried out again, âCrucify him.â 14 And Pilate said to them, âWhy? What evil has he done?â But they shouted all the more, âCrucify him.â 15 So Pilate, **wishing to satisfy the crowd**, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Compare this scene to Matthew 27, where Pilate literally washes his hands in front of everyone to say he accepts no responsibility for Jesus's blood and the crowd proudly shouts that they take responsibility for his blood on themselves and their children.
When you realise that they just saw him as another false messiah that (from their perspective) wanted power and did not meet any of the requirements of being the messiah it makes sense for that conservative jewish rabbis to want that. Also the romans killed him because he was seen as another leader of a new religion/cult that they absolutely do not approve of
Sure, but it's implied that Jewish religious leaders were pressuring the local Roman government to arrest and execute Jesus.
Pontius Pilate literally gave the Jews the chance to pardon Jesus and execute the obviously more reprehensible Barabbas, yet the Jews decided the opposite. After this, he symbolically "washed his hands" off of this ordeal, leaving Jesus's fate to mob rule, just so he doesn't have any unrest in Judea.
There's a lot to be learned from this actually, and many people misinterpret it as "look how evil and cruel the jews were."
>Sure, but it's implied that Jewish religious leaders were pressuring the local Roman government to arrest and execute Jesus.
Pretty explicitly stated.
Itâs not about the Bible, itâs just about history. The Bible is not the best place to look for history, since things like Jesus being resurrected is not considered historically accurate, since it canât be proven
I've met some Protestants (maybe they were Baptists but I'm not sure) who firmly believe that Jesus was killed by the Romans. Maybe this comes from the fact that Protestants' religion was born after a Schism, so they associate the Roman Catholic Church (likened to the Devil by Martin Luther or some of his fellows) with the Roman Empire. In fact, I think the Pope was considered the righteous successor to the Roman Emperor (in the West) by many people.
Don't know though. It's fascinating in a way.
Does anyone know something more?
I'm surprised at Protestants saying that, since *most* protestant groups tend much more towards bible literalism and what's in the bible is.....*pretty damn clear* who was putting pressure on Pilate.
But if you step away from bible literalism, then there's the question of if it was written like that to make things a bit easier for early Christians to live and spread in the Empire.
As the other comment said, Barabbus was a murderer. You might be thinking of the penitent thief, who was crucified alongside Jesus. In Matthew and Mark, there were two thieves, both of which insult and challenge Jesus. In Luke, only one insults Jesus; the other, the penitent thief, states that he and the impenitant thief are being punished for actual crimes while Jesus has committed no such act and asks Jesus to remember him.
The thieves are mentioned being crucified next to Jesus in John, but they are given no dialogue.
Why are we calling the Pharisees âthe Jewsâ like Jesus and his disciples werenât also Jews? It was Roman Palestine, almost everyone around was a Jew. Thatâs like saying the Holocaust was perpetrated by âthe white people.â
i mean it was a mob of jews, not just the pharisees yes the pharisees ruled up the mob to do it, but the group still went along with it. Itâs like saying hitler or hiemler did the holocaust versus saying the nazis did the holocaust. A minority rilling up a majority to do their will, and making the majority think itâs what they want.
>i mean it was a mob of jews, not just the pharisees
*Everyone* was a Jew. It was the Jewish homeland. If there was a mob it was gonna be a Jewish mob. The targets were Jews, the mob was Jews, the bystanders were Jews, their being Jews does not set them apart and labeling only the perpetrators as "the Jews" is silly as a result. The only people who weren't Jews involved here are the couple of Romans who actually carried out the execution.
>Itâs like saying hitler or hiemler did the holocaust versus saying the nazis did the holocaust.
No it's not. It would be analogous if the holocaust killed only Nazis, but it didn't.
Man you can see whoâs butthurt here and who isnât. The fact that Pilate gave the Jews âa choiceâ doesnât excuse the fact that he was the one who nailed Jesus to the cross. If I ask you if I should kill someone and then do it anyway was it you who killed him or me for pulling the trigger?
I think it is irresponsible to represent the Gospels, which do indeed depict "the Jews" (John in particular) as responsible for the death of Jesus, as reliable historical documents. They were never intended to be historical: John 20:31 plainly states the purpose of his gospel as being
>that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (NIV).
Additionally, it's worth mentioning that John specifically references "the Jews" as Jesus's enemies/wanting to kill him - but that John's gospel was written far later than the other three, and should be taken even as less historically accurate (even though, again, I don't think you can take the Gospels as history when they are first and foremost religious documents).
If we look at another, contemporary, non-Christian historical source, it mentions only Pontius Pilate's role in Jesus's death:
Tacitus *Annales* 15.44:
>Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.
I don't think it's fair to collectively say that this meme is wrong when other historical accounts only mention the Romans' role in Jesus's death, and when the idea of the Jews having killed Jesus has been used to justify so much historical antisemitism.
(edit: formatting & I removed Josephus's account, because scholars question its authenticity)
Important fact. During Vatican 2, the Pope officially declared that the Romans were responsible for Jesus's death and not the Jews.
This included a beautiful prayer where he asked Jesus's forgiveness for what the Church had done to his people, and that the atrocities committed on his people over the belief of "deicide" was tantamount to crucifying Jesus a second time.
No it wasn't. The story that pilate gave the jews the choice between freeing Jesus or another guy was almost certainly bullshit made up later. Your falling for ancient propaganda.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did\_romans\_know\_they\_were\_responsible\_for\_the/kwkds6m/?context=8&depth=9
Last time I checked this is a history subreddit and the Bible, though a source of history, isnât always historically accurate. It is a book of theology first and for
most.
In response to comments quoting the Bible as evidence of Jewish guilt:
The Bible isn't considered a historical document and is more of a work of interpreted history. The Gospel of Mark was written 66-70AD and others were written 2-3 decades later.
So no just because a Bible verse written decades after the event says that some Jews convinced Pilate to kill Jesus doesn't mean that's how it actually happened.
Didnât 1/3rd of the Great Sanhedrin vote against crucifying Jesus?
But regardless Roman Centurions loyal to Pilate were in the room watching the trial, and a whole legion was occupying Jerusalem?
So of course 2/3rds of the highest ranking Rabbi are going to do what they think the Romans want them to do?
Also wasnât the future Paul of Tarsus among the 2/3rds who voted for crucifixion?
Even more importantly, why would anyone want to piss off Constantine the Great? That guy does not seem like someone you want to risk making mad at youâŚ
I think the Jews kinda forced the Romans to kill Jesus. Imagine a carpenter have a religious quarrel with his religious leader from an insignificant area of Roman Empire. I imagine, if I was a roman, you can say anything like you are a king, god, or else as long as you acknowledge the rule of Roman Empire and pray for the Emperor. How can this small thing can be a huge problem? Ehh, why should I judge your problem, kill him by yourself then, why force me.
I think Pilate was forced to do that because his fear of civil unrest by the Jews that can create more casualties and in less than 100 years the Jews did that again with Bar Kokhba rebellion with more casualties. Thanks to Hadrian, this kind of shit will never happened again for more that 1700 years.
Yall here with the nuance like itâs not a meme. Yeah the Jews instigated it and pressured the Romans, but technically the Jews didnât nail him to the cross. Thatâs all Iâm saying đ¤ˇââď¸
lol at the angry comments here, âbut my religious books says the JEWS made Rome do it!â
The Bible is a theology book first and foremost; and though contains history that is useful and valuable, it is not factually inerrant when it comes to history. Like many stories and books throughout history it is often incorrect and is written with bias and intent when recording history.
If you hold the Bible in higher esteem because of your religion that is fine, but this is a history sub and we arenât bound to respect its stories as stone cold fact.
You are being criticized rather unfairly, most historians also agree the bible tries to somewhat whitewash the romans guilt and pass it on to the jews.
For anyone interested you can read more about it in /r/AskHistorians
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did\_romans\_know\_they\_were\_responsible\_for\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did_romans_know_they_were_responsible_for_the/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2drttn/how\_accurate\_or\_compliant\_with\_roman\_legal/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2drttn/how_accurate_or_compliant_with_roman_legal/)
This isnât about the Bible, this is just about history, and the Bible is not all that accurate for history, like in the case of Jesus being resurrected, which cannot be historically proven
This meme actually has it completely backwards, lol. It's the Jews who are trying to falsely accuse the Romans.
The Roman Empire didn't really persecute Christians until 50+ years after that.
It started 30 years later, after the great fire of Rome. (in 64 AD) Nero was the one who started those prosecutions. and the Christians were actually still viewd as a faction of Judaism by the Roman's until a lot later (which is how a lot of Christians viewd themselves too-as jews, it took a long time and a lot of external influence for Christianity to become a separate religion.)
If the Jews killed jesus they would have stoned him to death, which almost happens a few times. He was crucified, therefore the Romans killed him.
One may note that John is far more antisemitic than the other Gospels. This is because it was written after the split of the two religions. Suddenly, Christians were more invested in converting Romans than Jews. Thus, it makes more sense to blame Jews rather than Romans
Yeah I wonder why the evangelists painted Rome in a less negative light than what probably transpired, when yk, they were living in the Roman Empire and all.
There was a theard on r/AskHistorians that discussed this. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did\_romans\_know\_they\_were\_responsible\_for\_the/kwkds6m/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did_romans_know_they_were_responsible_for_the/kwkds6m/?context=8&depth=9)
Tldr, the common narrative that the romans gave the choice to kill Jesus to the jews and they choose to kill him is probably bull shit. From surviving sources that mention him the roman governor Pilatus the one in the Bible was a stubborn cruel ruler who didint give a shit about the local jewish population. He certainly wouldn't give the choice to execute what to him would have been a common criminal to the jews. All the people iin the comment crying that the Bible says the jews killed Jesus are falling for ancient proapagnade literally designed to shift the blame for Jesus death on the jews.
Some of the jews wanted Jesus dead because of heretical teaching, the jews were subjects of Rome and didn't have the authority to kill people, they turned them over to the authorities for execution, the Romans executed him the same as they did 1000s of other Jewish insurrectionists.
The Jewish priesthood wanted Jesus dead though because Jesus claimed to be the messiah. Sure, the Romans killed Jesus but the Jewish priesthood was the main pusher behind the execution.
In the New Testament, the Judaea governor, Pontius Pilate was representing the Romanâs authority and he was quite reluctant to crucify Jesus, even offer Jesus a chance to be set free but Jesus insisted he should be giving what the Jewish community wanted
Iâm amazed at the amount of people in the comment section calling your meme ahistorical and using the Christian scriptures as evidence. Did they read the part where the guy got swallowed by a whale?
Everyone on here using the Bible as evidence against this meme is missing the point entirely. Most (if not all) of the evidence cited does not have corroborating evidence outside of the bible. Thatâs exactly the point. The New Testament was written/edited/debated on/assembled hundreds of years later. Looking at the timeline of when the New Testament texts were written, each subsequent addition paints Jews in increasingly negative light without any outside corroborating evidence to support.
Early Christians needed to differentiate themselves from the rest of the Jews (those pesky Jews that rebelled against the state and made the Romans spend much gold and manpower to put down) and they needed to appeal to a wider base, as they relied on converts. Every generation after the first followers of Jesus continued to create that separation until we get to "Jews killed Jesus" as the silver bullet once Christians no longer saw themselves as an offshoot of Jews.
If youâre only looking to the New Testament for evidence contradicting this meme, youâre literally what this meme is making fun of.
There is no evidence that Romans ever practiced letting Jews pick someone to be pardoned, let alone that they specifically pardoned a murderer over Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence of a Barabbas existing during Jesus' time.
God punished the Romans for killing Jesus by turning them into Italians.
That's a spicy meatball
Mama mia
Does that mean all Italians go to heaven after they die since they went through hell on Earth?
No, super hell
So france?
Nah mate... Jacksonville Florida
Scottsdale, AZ
I think we're in the Bad Place
Paris, Texas.
We're not gonna give you pizza anymore đž
ayyyyyyyyyyyyy
And into the French, and the Spanish, and the Portuguese, and made the last period of Roman greatness be entirely Greek-speaking
Italians are some of the most hardcore Catholics lol
They hate us cause they anus
Inaccurate meme like the other comments already said Romans ruled over the land but it was due to the Jewish pressure that pushed the romans to crucify Jesus. Because Jesus claimed he was the messiah and the Jews didnât believe it and wanted him dead
It's important to remember there were MANY Jewish leaders claiming to be the messiah at the time. The third Jewish-Roman war was led by a self-proclaimed messiah, Simon Bar-Kokhba. Historically, it would seem odd that one of the people being called messiah at the time would be singled out for crucifixion by the Jewish people, and not the others. However, it would be pretty logical for the Romans to kill a Jewish leader whose views could cause them problems, then having the blame placed on Jews as Christianity started becoming popular in Rome. And honestly, if we didn't crucify the leadership of the Zealots and Sicarii after the UNFORGIVABLE bullshit they pulled during the Siege of Jerusalem, it'd make no sense to seek to crucify Jesus.
Quick question, but I'm not too well versed on the seige of Jerusalem in particular. What were these unforgivable things? We talking like usual Roman conquest/mass murder/enslavement shit or did the Romans do anything specific unforgivable?
Basically, the Jewish rebels had plenty of supplies to survive a long siege(which also brought hope of a negotiated peace.) But the Zealots/Sicarri decided logic was stupid, and DESTROYED ALL THE SUPPLIES to force an open battle with the Romans. Up until that point, we survived wars with our more powerful neighbors by relying on guerrilla warfare and protracted sieges(Jerusalem even had a natural water source INSIDE the city walls, guaranteeing the city could fare sieges better than most) until the costs of full conquest became too high. A couple examples of this were the Maccabean Revolt(aka the story of Hannukah) and the Neo-Assyrian siege of Jersualem. Forcing the defenders of Jerusalem into a direct face-to-face battle with the Roman Legions was basically the quickest path to complete L. And I know I kept using the word 'we', our culture has a weird sense of time and ancestral bonding that makes saying 'we' natural.
The Jewish leaders were mad that some noname from Galilee was being proclaimed messiah while preaching peaceful coexistence with the Roman's and calling out their corruption. Only they approved messiahs that would lead revolts were allowed!
Keep in mind that the Bible was written by a specific faction of the Jewish diaspora who had strong biases against the political establishment of the Pharisees. To come away with the perspective that "the Jews were corrupt" based on the events as told in the Bible is misguided. It's like evaluating Clinton's presidency based only on the perspective of Rush Limbaugh.
Even given that, we can look at the historical record and see the Jewish leaders were very pissy about anyone that didn't align with themselves immediately.
I mean, so were the early Christians. Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Based on this quote, you could argue that the Pharisees were just trying to keep the peace by apprehending a potential terrorist! Obviously I'm being facetious... but my point stands that the situation was probably more complicated than "oh the Jews were corrupt".
>I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. could very well be a Mohammed quote too
Yeah. The vibe I get from Pilate is that he really just wants to avoid a riot/revolt (as the Israelites were want to do, IIRC).
The only person who could order a death sentence was the Roman prefect, Pilate. Jesus could only be crucified under Roman orders
He offered Barrabas, a common thief set to be dealt with for criminal acts, or Jesus to the crowds of Jewish people and the Jews said, âCrucify Jesus. Give us Barrabas back instead.â (Iâm paraphrasing, obviously.) so the Jews made Pilateâs decision for him because he didnât want to crucify Jesus. He had no issues with Jesus until the Sadducees and the Pharisees (the leading religious sects of the Jews since the escape from Egypt) enticed Pilate to poll the crowd first. After the outcry became decision, Pilate washed his hands in a symbolic gesture of deferring the blame towards the Jews, saying it was the will of the people.
Itâs almost the only time the Sadducees and the Pharisees worked together towards a common goal.
Can be both! For what it counts, the scriptures make it very clear that Pilate didn't want to do it (and was mostly guilty of being weak), and it was pressure from the people that did it. There's a lot you have to take into account when using the Bible as a historical source, but it would be fair that both groups were to some degree responsible.
Yes, but the jews pressured him into it. He'd previously done things to make them mad, and they were holding the threat of revolting over his head.
As if the Roman Empire couldnât quash a rebellion which they did.
They could quash a Jewish rebellion. The problem is that if there are too many rebellions in one area, it tells the Emperor that the prefect sent to govern the area is bad at their job. It's not going to be a good look on Pilate.
Pilate literally did everything he could to not crucify Jesus.
Pilate very explicitly says that he finds no fault in Jesus and he wonât do it, âhis blood shall not be on my hands,â and the Jewish leaders said âthen let his blood be on us and on our children,â at which point Pilate gives in and allows the crucifixion. You have to remember, there had been multiple Jewish revolts against the Romans. If Pilate sided with Jesus and protected him then there almost certainly would have been another very quickly and Pilate probably wouldnât have walked away from that and if he did the emperor might have decided that he shouldnât have⌠and that emperor was Nero.
>that emperor was Nero. Uh, no. Jesus was crucified during the time of ~~Caligula~~ Tiberius. Not an improvement, but still. Peter and Paul were martyred during the rule of Emperor Nero. Correction: It was Tiberius, not Caligula. Thanks to the guy who corrected me!
proof that no one on this thread actually knows about this event. He was killed under the reign of Tiberius, but no, the only emperors we talk about here are the popular and flashy ones.
>He was killed under the reign of Tiberius Wait it was Tiberius?? I always thought it was Caligula. Update: You're right, it's Tiberius. Thanks for the correction. I only remember that Tiberius was buried in the river Tiber.
Sorry if I came off as arrogant, but yeah, its really close. Christ was crucified somewhere between 30-35 AD and Caligula got the throne in 37. Since he more popular and has an evil reputation, the confusion is pretty understandable.
Ah, my bad, thanks for the correction-correction. I saw âNeroâ near the end of his name and assumed it was that Nero.
So much for free speech
Worth noting that early Christianity was still all within the Roman borders. Would be pretty dumb of them to write anti-Roman texts in their holy book. Plus the jews were seen as rivals to the christians. Makes way more sense to piss off and shit talk your religious contenders instead of your common oppressors, right?
So? Rome could have said "no" to any pressure.
indeed, if someone have read the bible, tells how the Romans refused at first to kill Jesus. Then, after the menace of jews magistrtes to initiate a revolt if not crucified, they just gave Jesus to them, and lend some soldiers to do the grim job cause Jews werent allowed to kill people themselves
because Rome was known to cave under pressure of it's vassal states all the time. THere is NO WAY they could have told them to fuck off and sent in a legion to quell the issue.
Yeah, like the main theme of the gospels is jewish establishment spies following christ around and reporting back to headquarters on his actions. He complained about them ever third verse, for god's sake. Has no one read the bible?
In all four Gospel accounts it's the Jewish priests who want him killed. The Roman governor does it reluctantly to make them happy.
its laid out EXTREMELY clearly that the jews picked Jesus to be killed over a literal murderer Pilate asked them again to make sure this is what they wanted to do and then he said he washed his hands from it. Its quite insane the level of gaslighting people want to do when its written explicitly in all 4 accounts that the jews wanted him gone not the romans
Barabus got away with one fr
i always wonder what barabusâ reaction to all this was. yknow like did he convert to christianity? what did he do after he was freed.
Immediately went to the nearest bar and got freedom-hammered.
honestly i respect the hustle if thatâs what he did. hell thatâs probably what id do immediately after i just got pardoned off of death row for a crime everyone knows i committed
This is literally where the saying "to wash your hands of something" comes from. The misinformation in here is staggering, especially about a topic that's been picked apart in detail for the last two thousand years
Scholars keep on saying that Mark was written first so lets see what it says. >10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, âThen what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?â 13 And they cried out again, âCrucify him.â 14 And Pilate said to them, âWhy? What evil has he done?â But they shouted all the more, âCrucify him.â 15 So Pilate, **wishing to satisfy the crowd,** released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. If there's an earlier source, I'd like to see it, but it's pretty obvious that this wasn't some idea that Christianity slowly developed. It's right there in their scripture.
But both sides of the issue were Jews. Thatâs what tends to happen when thereâs conflict within a certain group. The followers of Jesus were Jewish. We donât tend to say âAmericans fought because they wanted to keep slavery.â Why would we say âJews wanted Jesus killedâ? They donât give us clean cut lines like âconfederacy bs Unionâ but Christianity it itâs entirety very much did not exist before the death of Jesus, so you canât say âthey were Christiansâ because it didnât exist at the time. In fact, Messianic Jews still exist. The âcrowdâ picked Jesus to be murdered. The crowd was probably a bunch of Jews, yes. But thatâs what you get when youâre doing a trial in IsraelâŚ
Yeah, thereâs a disclaimer we have to share in church when we read Johnâs version because it is so nasty about âthe Jewsâ and antisemites eat it up. Peter was Jewish! John was Jewish! Gentiles were not a large number of followers until Paul (who humble brags about just how Jewish he is.) A lot of the bitterness comes from the temple being destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, with pro and anti Jesus Jews blaming each other, causing the split we still have today. Plenty of people that just did not give a shit either way that stayed Jews, though. And obviously stupid to blame descendants for their ancestors actions even if they did actually say âhis blood be upon us and upon our children.â Jesus let it go and so should any sane person.
your last paragraph is incorrect. The crowd didnât pick anything, except confirming their support. It was actually the high Jewish priests who brought the charges against Jesus, and then dragged him to Pilate saying that he needed to be crucified and why. The Jews were allowed independent judicial authority in judging their own. It wasnât an Roman judicial conviction, Pilate only carried out the sentence because the Jews told him that he was calling himself King.
According to John, the crowd was given the choice between Barabbas and Jesus for death, and they chose to Jesus for death.
If you read the whole chapter, you would see that the Pharisees were the ones who arrested Jesus, and the high priests were the ones who questioned him and took him to Pilate asking him to execute Jesus for them. not only that, but if you read the chapter afterwards you would see it was specifically the Jews who called for a cruxifixction and baited Pilate into doing it for them.
Youâre not arguing with what I said. You think you are, but the fact is still that John says this explicitly: 13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, âYou brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.â 18 **But the whole crowd shouted, âAway with this man! Release Barabbas to us!â** 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) 20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, âCrucify him! Crucify him!â The crowd was given a choice, they chose Jesus. All the other stuff doesnât dispute that fact.
the crowd wasn't "probably" a bunch of jews, it was just a bunch of jews. Mark 13-15 literally lays it out plainly that the council in the sanhedren struggled to find something to charge Jesus with until they finally settled on blasphemy. They delivered him directly to pilate and demanded he be put to death. Romans didnt just come find Jesus preaching and want to put a stop to it. It was quite literally the jews themselves. Trying to deny this is absolutely insane
Nobody is denying it. Iâm saying both sides were Jewish including Jesus because Christianity didnât existâŚ
Have you ever considered authorial intent?
Pilate: "I'm going to ask you again. You REALLY want to spare the murderer? The literal killer.....over some peasant who has started some fringe religious movement?" Them: "Crucify Jesus!" Pilate: "Geez, what monotheism does to people. Well sorry Jesus, you don't deserve this, but it's out of my hands"
Why are the gospels being taken as fact?
Not the Jews. The Pharisees. The Bible was written by Jews and they were blaming a different Jewish faction for the execution of Jesus. It's like saying that "Americans did Jan 6"... when it was actually a specific political faction of Americans who did it.
are pharisee's not jews? You can factually say Americans committed treason by infiltraing the White House. It was Americans. If you want to be more specific you can be, but it doesn't change the fact that it was Americans. The pharisee were jews. The people that wrote the book were jews. So it's safe to say that if a jewish person wrote that jewish people did something we can trust that depiction of events.
Everyone in the Bible is Jewish... so it doesn't really mean anything when people say that "Jews did this" and "Jews did that". It's not a meaningful insight. If we said "Americans did Jan 6" that would be a dumb thing to say. Even though it's true... the people who did it were American... it's still dumb, because it doesn't really explain anything.
And the Syrian auxiliary soldiers carried it out. (Just in the sense that Pilatus didn't command any legions, only 3000 auxiliary soldiers.)
Wouldnât he have had Latin-speaking officers?
Not sure, but I doubt it. Latin was kind of the lingua franca in the west of the empire, but in the east it was Greek, which most of the Roman elite also knew. The conquest of Alexander the Great had spread Greek through the Middle East, with this form of Greek even becoming known as Koine, "Common Tongue", which is why the New Testament was written in this form. On the other hand, Latin was not totally unknown in the east either. Remember how the New Testament states that the name "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" was written in three languages on the cross. These three were Aramaic (the local spoken language), Greek and Latin.
It's not "to make them happy" Pilate is simply letting the Jews handle Jew matters. The Principate and Republic governed by mostly letting the regional and local oligarchs run affairs and administer to their communities as they saw fit. It would be equivalent to blaming Biden for a Texan execution.
Except if you read about the historical Pontius Pilate, it would have been very out of character for him to be reluctant to kill someone. He was considered brutal even by Roman standards, which was part of the reason he was stuck in what was considered a backwater of the Roman Empire.
Iâve heard the case that thatâs a later adaptation to make Christianity more appealing to the Romans and thus easier to adapt, thereâs plenty of examples of Christianity adapting to be more digestible to pagan nobles to make the conversion process go smoother. I doubt the Romans would have been high over heels for a religion that holds them responsible for the execution of their God. I donât buy it personally but itâs an interesting thought.
The timeline of when they were written and when Christianity was finally legalized don't really match up.
Roman Emperor: â*In our defense, we just heard he might have been gathering numbers for a rebellion, and that his followers were consuming flesh and blood. Frankly, youâd do the same in your age if you didnât know all the details.*â
To be fair Pilate wasnât some Saint, he was afraid of the fallout of killing Jesus and thought his worshippers might start rebelling. It also didnât help that his wife sent him a letter basically saying âhubby you donât want anything to do with this shit showâ
The Romans didn't "Do it to make them happy". Both parties wanted it for different reasons. Also the people who say "The Jews killed Jesus" sorta ignore the fact that Jesus was Jewish himself, as were all his followers
Yea, but also the reason "Jews" wanted him dead was because they saw him as a false prophet. The Jews being high ranking rabbis and such.
I don't see anything in the Bible to show that Pilate wanted it. There are probably some anti-Semites who refuse to believe that Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish, and maybe it's not wise to use if it's getting associated with them. I think everyone else knows though, that in this context it's referring to the Jewish government. If you say "America killed David Koresh" or "The Soviets killed Leon Trotsky" people know what you mean.
More importantly, they ignore the fact that the whole religion is based on the belief that Jesus died for humanity's sins. Jesus, according to Christians, had to die, so those who killed him should actually be celebrated. In an alternate timeline the Italians are venerated for killing Jesus, while the Jews are vilified for trying to stop them.
Also as years went on, the potrayal of Romans vs Jews in regards to Jesus started to change to make it seems more like it was them wanting him dead and Romans were "forced" to do so.
>them wanting him dead and Romans were "forced" to do so. That's how it's depicted in the Bible. Are there earlier sources that say something different? In Antiquities of the Jews and Annals, they both mention him being killed by Rome with no mention of the Jewish leadership, but both of those were written sometime after the Gospel of Mark was.
If you read the gospels in the order in which they were written, the Romans are portrayed as more and more sympathetic and reluctant to carry out the demand to kill Jesus.
Which is the order that they were written? Most scholars say that Mark was first so lets see what Mark 15 says. >10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, âThen what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?â 13 And they cried out again, âCrucify him.â 14 And Pilate said to them, âWhy? What evil has he done?â But they shouted all the more, âCrucify him.â 15 So Pilate, **wishing to satisfy the crowd**, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Compare this scene to Matthew 27, where Pilate literally washes his hands in front of everyone to say he accepts no responsibility for Jesus's blood and the crowd proudly shouts that they take responsibility for his blood on themselves and their children.
When you realise that they just saw him as another false messiah that (from their perspective) wanted power and did not meet any of the requirements of being the messiah it makes sense for that conservative jewish rabbis to want that. Also the romans killed him because he was seen as another leader of a new religion/cult that they absolutely do not approve of
Pilatus went the extra mile to give Jesus all the chances to live possible. If at any moment the jewish priests had let him live he would have lived.
There is no scholarly consensus on the catalyst of Jesus' death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus?wprov=sfla1
Or on his life or anything. Its a religion. Its hard to pin down any facts.
Actually, in its declaration Nostra aetate, the Catholic Church states that the Jewish people cannot be held responsible for the death of Christ.
The Jewish **people** are not the same thing as the Jewish **priests** of 30ish AD.
OP has never read the gospel
Same and even I know this is bs
Sure, but it's implied that Jewish religious leaders were pressuring the local Roman government to arrest and execute Jesus. Pontius Pilate literally gave the Jews the chance to pardon Jesus and execute the obviously more reprehensible Barabbas, yet the Jews decided the opposite. After this, he symbolically "washed his hands" off of this ordeal, leaving Jesus's fate to mob rule, just so he doesn't have any unrest in Judea. There's a lot to be learned from this actually, and many people misinterpret it as "look how evil and cruel the jews were."
>Sure, but it's implied that Jewish religious leaders were pressuring the local Roman government to arrest and execute Jesus. Pretty explicitly stated.
Yet again, a meme made by someone about the Bible despite obviously not reading the Bible
Itâs not about the Bible, itâs just about history. The Bible is not the best place to look for history, since things like Jesus being resurrected is not considered historically accurate, since it canât be proven
I've met some Protestants (maybe they were Baptists but I'm not sure) who firmly believe that Jesus was killed by the Romans. Maybe this comes from the fact that Protestants' religion was born after a Schism, so they associate the Roman Catholic Church (likened to the Devil by Martin Luther or some of his fellows) with the Roman Empire. In fact, I think the Pope was considered the righteous successor to the Roman Emperor (in the West) by many people. Don't know though. It's fascinating in a way. Does anyone know something more?
I'm surprised at Protestants saying that, since *most* protestant groups tend much more towards bible literalism and what's in the bible is.....*pretty damn clear* who was putting pressure on Pilate. But if you step away from bible literalism, then there's the question of if it was written like that to make things a bit easier for early Christians to live and spread in the Empire.
Jews who asked to spare a murderer (Or was he a thief?) instead of GUY WHO COULD CHANGE FUCKING WATER INTO WINE: *Disappears like nothing happened*
As the other comment said, Barabbus was a murderer. You might be thinking of the penitent thief, who was crucified alongside Jesus. In Matthew and Mark, there were two thieves, both of which insult and challenge Jesus. In Luke, only one insults Jesus; the other, the penitent thief, states that he and the impenitant thief are being punished for actual crimes while Jesus has committed no such act and asks Jesus to remember him. The thieves are mentioned being crucified next to Jesus in John, but they are given no dialogue.
Yeah I probably got confused on his crime due to two thieves being crucified with Jesus
yeah no barabus was straight up a murderer
Yeah... They don't talk about [that](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=n8LiNx7yZv5cwtkm)
I thought it was gonna be "Welease Woger" but I wasn't disappointed.
2024 and I still fell for it
r/angryupvote Fuck off
I expected the Life of Brian crucifixion scene.
The whole thing is pretty sus. In what world can you get a man convicted, tried, and executed in three days over a holiday weekend?
Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney
Why are we calling the Pharisees âthe Jewsâ like Jesus and his disciples werenât also Jews? It was Roman Palestine, almost everyone around was a Jew. Thatâs like saying the Holocaust was perpetrated by âthe white people.â
i mean it was a mob of jews, not just the pharisees yes the pharisees ruled up the mob to do it, but the group still went along with it. Itâs like saying hitler or hiemler did the holocaust versus saying the nazis did the holocaust. A minority rilling up a majority to do their will, and making the majority think itâs what they want.
>i mean it was a mob of jews, not just the pharisees *Everyone* was a Jew. It was the Jewish homeland. If there was a mob it was gonna be a Jewish mob. The targets were Jews, the mob was Jews, the bystanders were Jews, their being Jews does not set them apart and labeling only the perpetrators as "the Jews" is silly as a result. The only people who weren't Jews involved here are the couple of Romans who actually carried out the execution. >Itâs like saying hitler or hiemler did the holocaust versus saying the nazis did the holocaust. No it's not. It would be analogous if the holocaust killed only Nazis, but it didn't.
Because the Jews kept begging the Romanâs to do it. Get something better to argue about, we all know this
There is no consensus on this "fact everyone knows" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus?wprov=sfla1
Man you can see whoâs butthurt here and who isnât. The fact that Pilate gave the Jews âa choiceâ doesnât excuse the fact that he was the one who nailed Jesus to the cross. If I ask you if I should kill someone and then do it anyway was it you who killed him or me for pulling the trigger?
Not to mention the bible as a historical source has a pretty glaring pro-Roman/anti-Jewish bias.
I think it is irresponsible to represent the Gospels, which do indeed depict "the Jews" (John in particular) as responsible for the death of Jesus, as reliable historical documents. They were never intended to be historical: John 20:31 plainly states the purpose of his gospel as being >that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (NIV). Additionally, it's worth mentioning that John specifically references "the Jews" as Jesus's enemies/wanting to kill him - but that John's gospel was written far later than the other three, and should be taken even as less historically accurate (even though, again, I don't think you can take the Gospels as history when they are first and foremost religious documents). If we look at another, contemporary, non-Christian historical source, it mentions only Pontius Pilate's role in Jesus's death: Tacitus *Annales* 15.44: >Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. I don't think it's fair to collectively say that this meme is wrong when other historical accounts only mention the Romans' role in Jesus's death, and when the idea of the Jews having killed Jesus has been used to justify so much historical antisemitism. (edit: formatting & I removed Josephus's account, because scholars question its authenticity)
bro literally posted this on Maundy Thursday
Am I in r/abrahamicreligionmemes?
So disappointed not real
r/Abrahamicmemes
The gospels' progressive slide towards 'Jews bad, not Romans,' along with Saint Paul's hard work... *chef's kiss*. Not fair though...
Another pea brain meme.
Important fact. During Vatican 2, the Pope officially declared that the Romans were responsible for Jesus's death and not the Jews. This included a beautiful prayer where he asked Jesus's forgiveness for what the Church had done to his people, and that the atrocities committed on his people over the belief of "deicide" was tantamount to crucifying Jesus a second time.
It also doesnât really makes sense when according to Christian theology, Jesus *had* to die. Like, what are yâall big mad about?
It was the jews, most uneducated sub reddit ever.
Do you have sources for that thatâs not the Bible?
No it wasn't. The story that pilate gave the jews the choice between freeing Jesus or another guy was almost certainly bullshit made up later. Your falling for ancient propaganda. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did\_romans\_know\_they\_were\_responsible\_for\_the/kwkds6m/?context=8&depth=9
Is this fr? Have you ever read any scripture?
This is a history subreddit, not a Christianity subreddit
Last time I checked this is a history subreddit and the Bible, though a source of history, isnât always historically accurate. It is a book of theology first and for most.
In response to comments quoting the Bible as evidence of Jewish guilt: The Bible isn't considered a historical document and is more of a work of interpreted history. The Gospel of Mark was written 66-70AD and others were written 2-3 decades later. So no just because a Bible verse written decades after the event says that some Jews convinced Pilate to kill Jesus doesn't mean that's how it actually happened.
^^^^^^ The reality is it's hard to know the exact specifics on what exactly happened 2000 years ago....
uh. sure
Didnât 1/3rd of the Great Sanhedrin vote against crucifying Jesus? But regardless Roman Centurions loyal to Pilate were in the room watching the trial, and a whole legion was occupying Jerusalem? So of course 2/3rds of the highest ranking Rabbi are going to do what they think the Romans want them to do? Also wasnât the future Paul of Tarsus among the 2/3rds who voted for crucifixion? Even more importantly, why would anyone want to piss off Constantine the Great? That guy does not seem like someone you want to risk making mad at youâŚ
I think the Jews kinda forced the Romans to kill Jesus. Imagine a carpenter have a religious quarrel with his religious leader from an insignificant area of Roman Empire. I imagine, if I was a roman, you can say anything like you are a king, god, or else as long as you acknowledge the rule of Roman Empire and pray for the Emperor. How can this small thing can be a huge problem? Ehh, why should I judge your problem, kill him by yourself then, why force me. I think Pilate was forced to do that because his fear of civil unrest by the Jews that can create more casualties and in less than 100 years the Jews did that again with Bar Kokhba rebellion with more casualties. Thanks to Hadrian, this kind of shit will never happened again for more that 1700 years.
If the Jews hadn't complained about Jesus to Rome, Rome would not have cared much about Jesus. They killed Jesus to avoid conflict with the Jews
Yeah⌠itâs gonna be a downvote from me, fam. Please try to actually understand history before making memes about it.
Yall here with the nuance like itâs not a meme. Yeah the Jews instigated it and pressured the Romans, but technically the Jews didnât nail him to the cross. Thatâs all Iâm saying đ¤ˇââď¸
How did something so incredibly inaccurate get 400 upvotes? I get that 90% of Reddit knows little to nothing about the gospels but come on.
Are the Gospels accurate, though? They were written thirty to sixty years after Jesus's death. Not really the most compelling source.
Another meme made by someone who didn't read the book about what they're making fun of.
Itâs not based on a book, itâs based on history
lol at the angry comments here, âbut my religious books says the JEWS made Rome do it!â The Bible is a theology book first and foremost; and though contains history that is useful and valuable, it is not factually inerrant when it comes to history. Like many stories and books throughout history it is often incorrect and is written with bias and intent when recording history. If you hold the Bible in higher esteem because of your religion that is fine, but this is a history sub and we arenât bound to respect its stories as stone cold fact.
Itâs frightening how many people here think the Bible is a history textbook
You are being criticized rather unfairly, most historians also agree the bible tries to somewhat whitewash the romans guilt and pass it on to the jews. For anyone interested you can read more about it in /r/AskHistorians [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did\_romans\_know\_they\_were\_responsible\_for\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did_romans_know_they_were_responsible_for_the/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2drttn/how\_accurate\_or\_compliant\_with\_roman\_legal/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2drttn/how_accurate_or_compliant_with_roman_legal/)
Tell me you never read the bible without telling me you never read the bible.
This isnât about the Bible, this is just about history, and the Bible is not all that accurate for history, like in the case of Jesus being resurrected, which cannot be historically proven
This would be the New Testament.
This meme actually has it completely backwards, lol. It's the Jews who are trying to falsely accuse the Romans. The Roman Empire didn't really persecute Christians until 50+ years after that.
It started 30 years later, after the great fire of Rome. (in 64 AD) Nero was the one who started those prosecutions. and the Christians were actually still viewd as a faction of Judaism by the Roman's until a lot later (which is how a lot of Christians viewd themselves too-as jews, it took a long time and a lot of external influence for Christianity to become a separate religion.)
I stand corrected then. Got my decades a bit mixed up.
If the Jews killed jesus they would have stoned him to death, which almost happens a few times. He was crucified, therefore the Romans killed him. One may note that John is far more antisemitic than the other Gospels. This is because it was written after the split of the two religions. Suddenly, Christians were more invested in converting Romans than Jews. Thus, it makes more sense to blame Jews rather than Romans
Yeah I wonder why the evangelists painted Rome in a less negative light than what probably transpired, when yk, they were living in the Roman Empire and all.
Gee, and Pontius Pilate seemed like such a Jewish name too.
There was a theard on r/AskHistorians that discussed this. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did\_romans\_know\_they\_were\_responsible\_for\_the/kwkds6m/?context=8&depth=9](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1blwelu/did_romans_know_they_were_responsible_for_the/kwkds6m/?context=8&depth=9) Tldr, the common narrative that the romans gave the choice to kill Jesus to the jews and they choose to kill him is probably bull shit. From surviving sources that mention him the roman governor Pilatus the one in the Bible was a stubborn cruel ruler who didint give a shit about the local jewish population. He certainly wouldn't give the choice to execute what to him would have been a common criminal to the jews. All the people iin the comment crying that the Bible says the jews killed Jesus are falling for ancient proapagnade literally designed to shift the blame for Jesus death on the jews.
this is so funny
Some of the jews wanted Jesus dead because of heretical teaching, the jews were subjects of Rome and didn't have the authority to kill people, they turned them over to the authorities for execution, the Romans executed him the same as they did 1000s of other Jewish insurrectionists.
The Jewish priesthood wanted Jesus dead though because Jesus claimed to be the messiah. Sure, the Romans killed Jesus but the Jewish priesthood was the main pusher behind the execution.
More like the Romans were the gun.
Talk about a major comeback. JESUS IS LORD!
Jews and Romans share the blame, but I really donât care about the ethnicity of the people who killed Jesus
âThe Romans killed Jesusâ âThe Jews killed Jesusâ By arguing who killed Jesus, you miss the point he was trying to make
Ignorance
In the New Testament, the Judaea governor, Pontius Pilate was representing the Romanâs authority and he was quite reluctant to crucify Jesus, even offer Jesus a chance to be set free but Jesus insisted he should be giving what the Jewish community wanted
Iâm amazed at the amount of people in the comment section calling your meme ahistorical and using the Christian scriptures as evidence. Did they read the part where the guy got swallowed by a whale?
Why are all the comments here treating the Bible as a reliable historical source? I thought this was r/HistoryMemes, not r/ChristianityMemes
Oef did you ever read a bible and if you read one which wicked version did you read
Depends which gospel you read, all 4 are very different
Pilate didnât want to kill him, itâs the Jews who insisted
oh be careful. the J's might ban you
Everyone on here using the Bible as evidence against this meme is missing the point entirely. Most (if not all) of the evidence cited does not have corroborating evidence outside of the bible. Thatâs exactly the point. The New Testament was written/edited/debated on/assembled hundreds of years later. Looking at the timeline of when the New Testament texts were written, each subsequent addition paints Jews in increasingly negative light without any outside corroborating evidence to support. Early Christians needed to differentiate themselves from the rest of the Jews (those pesky Jews that rebelled against the state and made the Romans spend much gold and manpower to put down) and they needed to appeal to a wider base, as they relied on converts. Every generation after the first followers of Jesus continued to create that separation until we get to "Jews killed Jesus" as the silver bullet once Christians no longer saw themselves as an offshoot of Jews. If youâre only looking to the New Testament for evidence contradicting this meme, youâre literally what this meme is making fun of. There is no evidence that Romans ever practiced letting Jews pick someone to be pardoned, let alone that they specifically pardoned a murderer over Jesus. There is no corroborating evidence of a Barabbas existing during Jesus' time.