Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** They're saying they can afford to give Judas 30 silver pieces. Judas first sings that he doesn't ''need'' the money, which Caiaphas (either intentionally or not) misinterprets as Judas trying to spare them from paying him the reward he's technically owed for the betrayal under the assumption the Pharisees can't afford to spare the expense and sings his line to reassure Judas that 30 silver pieces is nothing to them. Which then prompts Judas to make his point more clear by changing his argument to not ''wanting'' the money (i.e. not wanting any kind of reward that might make him feel culpable in whatever will happen to Jesus post-arrest), which Annas sees through and basically forces Judas' hand with the whole "you might as well take it, [[ThatWasntARequest we think that you should]]" thing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Sub-question about the same scene - "I don't (need/want) your blood money" / "Oh that doesn't matter, our expenses are good". What are the pharisees saying here? That they're rich and can afford the expense, or that they're money's good and not counterfeit?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, something of note is that, as much as he dislikes it, the mob is technically just calling him to do his job, which puts them mostly on the side of Rome ("We have no king but Caesar")...sort of. So by appeasing them THEN, he establishes himself as being both pro-Rome and pro-Jews.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** There's also the possibility that some of Judas' lines, even whilst delivered in front of other characters, are delivered in the manner of soliloquys, so that the other charcaters wouldn't actually register him saying them.
to:
** There's also the possibility that some of Judas' lines, even whilst delivered in front of other characters, are delivered in the manner of soliloquys, so that the other charcaters characters wouldn't actually register him saying them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There's also the possibility that some of Judas' lines, even whilst delivered in front of other characters, are delivered in the manner of soliloquys, so that the other charcaters wouldn't actually register him saying them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** This is in fact what Judas says. "Cut out the dramatics -- you know very well who."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** ''The Roman Empire'' has enough troops to brutally crush any Judean uprising (and indeed did so during the Jewish–Roman Wars that started only a few decades after Jesus's death). ''Pontius Pilate'', the prefect of Judea, doesn't. If Judea rebels, there is a pretty good chance that Pilate will be killed by the mob, and even if he escapes he will be disgraced and his political career will come to an end. The fact that afterwards the Roman emperor will send in his legions to deal with Judea is cold comfort.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 23 (click to see context) from:
* Judas repeatedly emphasises that he feels Jesus has lost track of his original message and is starting to believe his own hype and divinity. So what, in his view, actually was this original message?
to:
** The 1973 movie has a small moment that gives credence to this. In that movie's rendition of the Last Supper, not only does Peter say "No! Not me!" upon hearing the prediction but he says it ''before Jesus can even finish the prediction''!
* Judas repeatedlyemphasises emphasizes that he feels Jesus has lost track of his original message and is starting to believe his own hype and divinity. So what, in his view, actually was this original message?
* Judas repeatedly
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There's also the fact that Judas isn't necessarily saying "you don't have to give me anything for betraying him"; it's more that he's saying "I ''don't want you'' to give me anything for betraying him". It's a subtle difference, but it's there. Judas is essentially trying to absolve himself of any guilt for what he's about to do, which would mean it's the priests that would ultimately hold the blame. By forcing him to take the money, they're basically forcing him to accept that he's just as responsible for what will happen as they are. It's also why they don't let him give the money back later.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's not exactly unheard of for a strict ruling regime to be faced with a potentially devastating (for them) uprising. Likewise, it's not unheard of for said uprising to be brutally quashed when and if said regime gets their act together enough to stop it. It's a simple matter of numbers in any given situation: Pilate is just one Roman facing down an increasingly hysterical and violent crowd with (depending on the production) relatively little backup. However the Romans overall clearly have the upper hand in the relationship. It's probably worth keeping in mind that there ''was'' a Jewish rebellion against the Romans that took place not long after the crucifixion and...well, [[CurbStompBattle let's just say it didn't exactly succeed in overthrowing the Romans...]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Both. The Romans are a government, and governments have to walk a fine line when it comes to dissent, because the people outnumber law enforcement, and killing or imprisoning lots of dissenters, while effective in the short term, [[PragmaticVillainy means you have fewer subjects]]. Pilate could put down the mob with violence, but why would he do all that over one guy who, frankly, is kind of a problem for Rome, anyway? It doesn't help that Jesus does nothing to speak in his own defense: Pilate gets frustrated with Jesus' answers and eventually says good riddance to Jesus and his obvious death wish. This is also a case of ShownTheirWork (including quoting directly at points from John 18).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, it's one thing for a disciple and friend to say that things were getting dangerous and something had to be done before things went too far, and another for that disciple and friend to actually ''stab'' Jesus in the back by betraying him! That's a pretty big line to cross and it's likely none of the other apostles thought Judas would betray their rabbi and friend!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
*** When roman authority was lacking for a short period there was a whole swathe of executions,
to:
*** When roman Roman authority was lacking for a short period there was a whole swathe of executions,executions.
** That line was based off of a similar line in the Gospel of John. The author(s) of the Gospel of John may not have been well-acquainted with Jewish law.
** That line was based off of a similar line in the Gospel of John. The author(s) of the Gospel of John may not have been well-acquainted with Jewish law.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Caiaphas and the other priests worry that if Jesus' followers launch a rebellion, Rome will retaliate by crushing Judea. Later, we see a mob of Judeans intimidating and manipulating Pontius Pilate, a Roman official. So, which is it? Are the Romans a ruthless occupying force that will smash Judea for any insubordination, or weak leaders seeking to pacify their subjects out of fear?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22,23 (click to see context) from:
----
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
to:
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Answering a question
Added DiffLines:
** This is another instance where the writers have ShownTheirWork. A good portion of Jesus' teachings are relatively secular in nature, as in, they don't directly invoke any religion at all, but appeal to an inherent goodness in everyone. In fact, some scholars point out that Jesus never meant to start a new religion, and was sent merely to guide the Chosen People of God, away from the Old Covenant and into a [[https://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html New one]]. In any case, it's possible to see Jesus' actions as a general appeal to kindness ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_mercy feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, etc.]]) without any mention of his divinity. This is precisely what Judas sees as his "original message", and the whole point of ''Heaven on Their Minds'' is him saying "''This is cool and all, but people are calling you God and you're not stopping them and that's going to bring down some trouble''". In his view, the underlying message of Jesus was merely one of kindness, not one of complete religious overhauling.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* Judas repeatedly emphasises that he feels Jesus has lost track of his original message and is starting to believe his own hype and divinity. So what, in his view, actually was this original message?
Changed line(s) 21 (click to see context) from:
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
to:
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
spelling
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
** To be fair, that can also have a non-miraculous explanation, although YMMV on how far-fetched that would be. Jesus knew Peter well enough to predict the way he'd react in an interrogation, so maybe he just, correctly, assumed Peter would be asked about it and he'd deny having any connexion to Jesus. The whole 'I knew you would/wouldn't do it' trope (is it a trope?) has been done to death, and arguably it happens a lot in real life as well (e.g., a mother applies reverse psychology to get her kids to do the dishes, as she knows how they'll respond to it).
to:
** To be fair, that can also have a non-miraculous explanation, although YMMV on how far-fetched that would be. Jesus knew Peter well enough to predict the way he'd react in an interrogation, so maybe he just, correctly, assumed Peter would be asked about it and he'd deny having any connexion connection to Jesus. The whole 'I knew you would/wouldn't do it' trope (is it a trope?) has been done to death, and arguably it happens a lot in real life as well (e.g., a mother applies reverse psychology to get her kids to do the dishes, as she knows how they'll respond to it).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Your Mileage May Vary was perma-redlinked precisely because of this sort of misuse. Please preview your edits for redlinks next time.
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
*** To be fair, the Bible doesn't say she WASN'T present, either. Some sources even say she was an apostle too[[note]](Creator/LeonardoDaVinci may have famously depicted her in his namesake painting--though [[YourMileageMayVary that's up to interpretation]])[[/note]].
to:
*** To be fair, the Bible doesn't say she WASN'T present, either. Some sources even say she was an apostle too[[note]](Creator/LeonardoDaVinci may have famously depicted her in his namesake painting--though [[YourMileageMayVary that's up to interpretation]])[[/note]].painting)[[/note]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* I've never understood why everyone's all "Oh my gosh, Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him!!! ''How did he know???''" [[SarcasmMode It's not like Judas had been running around for the entire musical up to that point talking about how dangerous what Jesus is doing is, and how it's gotta stop now before the Romans get mad, and dude someone's gotta stop Jesus...]]
to:
* I've never understood why everyone's all "Oh my gosh, Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him!!! ''How did he know???''" [[SarcasmMode It's not like Judas had been running around for the entire musical up to that point talking about how dangerous what Jesus is doing is, Jesus' actions are, and how it's gotta stop now before the Romans get mad, and dude someone's gotta stop Jesus...]]
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
** This troper has managed to avoid the films, but in the stage productions I've seen, they're typically depicted as the best of friends, and it's not so much "someone's gotta stop Jesus" as it is "Dude, you're in way over your head!"
to:
** This troper has managed to avoid Depending upon the films, but in the stage productions I've seen, production, they're typically often depicted as the best of friends, and it's not so much "someone's gotta stop Jesus" as it is "Dude, you're in way over your head!"
Changed line(s) 6,7 (click to see context) from:
** Some productions correct this by featuring her at the last supper (in itself a headscratcher, I'd argue), and the priests' lyrics hint at a conveniently off screen pre-beating beating.
*** To be fair, the Bible doesn't say she WASN'T present, either. Some sources even say she was an apostle too.
*** To be fair, the Bible doesn't say she WASN'T present, either. Some sources even say she was an apostle too.
to:
** Some productions correct this by featuring her at the last supper (in itself a headscratcher, I'd argue), Last Supper, and the priests' lyrics hint at a conveniently off screen pre-beating beating.
*** To be fair, the Bible doesn't say she WASN'T present, either. Some sources even say she was an apostletoo.too[[note]](Creator/LeonardoDaVinci may have famously depicted her in his namesake painting--though [[YourMileageMayVary that's up to interpretation]])[[/note]].
*** To be fair, the Bible doesn't say she WASN'T present, either. Some sources even say she was an apostle
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** To be fair, the Bible doesn't say she WASN'T present, either. Some sources even say she was an apostle too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
** I think they're surprise was more of just being shocked that he was ''capable'' of stabbing his friend in the back.
to:
** I think they're their surprise was more of just being shocked that he was ''capable'' of stabbing his friend in the back.
