Literature The Four Gospels Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

11:14:30 AM May 12th 2015
Pulled this. The example does not explain how "King of the Jews" is a Stealth Insult. I understand it as Pilate willfully offending the Jews, not Jesus in particular. Seems to me the priests in John 19:21 are interpreting the insult exactly as intended.
  • Stealth Insult: "King of the Jews" was the most insulting (to Roman sensibilities thing Pilate could have called Jesus. Per John 19:21, the insult was completely lost on the Jewish chief priests.
10:48:43 AM May 31st 2015
edited by Anorgil
To the Romans, "Rex" (King) was a huge insult, because they had an ugly history with kings (e.g. Tarquinius Superbus). This is why, even after the Republic became an Empire, the emperor never called himself Rex, even though he was Rex in all but name.

So to Pilate (a Roman), "Rex Iudaeorum" was the biggest insult he could throw at a Jew. And because kings did not have such severe connotations among the Jews as among the Romans (as shown when the chief priests objected to Pilate actually calling Jesus their king rather than merely a man who claimed to be their king), it qualifies as a Stealth Insult by way of Values Dissonance.
01:46:17 PM Jun 16th 2015
Can you give any source for this interpretation? It sounds like a case of "reading too much into it".

The purpose of the signs on the crosses was to inform passers-by of the crime for which the doomed man was being executed. Jesus was crucified because he was accused of calling himself King of the Jews, a seeming proof that he was stirring up rebellion. It makes sense to inscribe the sign of a man executed for insurgency with the (now ironic) title he had dared to claim for himself. No other reason is needed to explain the words of the inscription.

That the Romans did not use the title of king does not mean that it was a "huge insult". It wasn't. There were many kings in the Roman Empire acting as sub-regents to the Roman Emperor.
10:49:47 AM Aug 21st 2014
In cleaning bad Example Indentation and Natter, I removed this bit from Jumped at the Call:
  • Justified: At the time, the Rabbi would choose their successor this way between their pupils, all of which should know the full Law by then (becoming a Rabbi being the dream job back then). The apostles weren't educated from their childhood but instead had become workers, so it was kind of a really unexpected honor for them.
As written, it is too wordy and framed as a Justifying Edit, but maybe it contains some worthwhile explanation of what Jesus is doing when he "calls" the Apostles. I don't know how true it is, though.
12:19:52 AM Jan 20th 2013
Wait, why is Jesus spoiler-tagged?
01:25:46 AM Jan 20th 2013
Spoilering his resurrection is a running joke on these pages.
07:25:59 AM Apr 17th 2014
Pretty much a case of It Was His Sled at the very least, though?
11:10:56 AM Aug 21st 2014
Yes; it's not done seriously.
Collapse/Expand Topics