Nostr Web Client

I enjoyed the novel analysis but the conclusion that there has been a centuries-long politically-motivated censorship of the Bible gives your ideas too much credit.

A more likely explanation would be that the historical context you are alleging is missing is that the biblical authors assumed that info to be known generally, so no need to state the obvious. Afterall, you seemed to be able to deduce these missing facts 2 centuries later using primarily the Biblical text itself.

Another possible explanation would be that the original authors simply didnt intend to convey the ideas you are asserting, ie you're wrong.

Our oldest complete NT manuscripts date to the 300s AD. So if editing/censorship happened, it didnt happen "throughout history." But textual critics have pretty strong arguments refuting editing during period as well.

Rune Østgård 1y ago

Fair points, you might be right. Info about the coin, the mint, herod, the debt business, deposit service, the profits and possibly some other details I didn't deduce from the gospels, but found them in various articles on the Internet.

But I find it noteworthy and strange that Pilate's and the high priests' economic motives aren't at all reflected in the gospels. It's subjects like blasphemi, Judas' betrayel, and the people freeing Barabas instead of Jesus that comes across as important.

I can't say for sure that someone has messed with the texts, but considering that the result is favorable for the political class and the fact that it's so normal that "winners write the history books" I wouldn't at all be surprised, especially considering how important this specific story is for politics, religion and culture.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ETT 1y ago

"But I find it noteworthy and strange that Pilate's and the high priests' economic motives aren't at all reflected in the gospels."

I think this is where the modern reader can go wrong: we risk imposing our worldview on the ancient writer.

So it'll seem strange that economic motives aren't mentioned only if we presume the authors considered such concepts. But I dont think people thought that way about things back then. Economics as a discipline developed way after the gospel writers...Adam Smith didnt write his wealth of nations stuff until the 1700s I believe.

Im not saying there werent economic motivations throughout history. Im just saying we only started to recognize them over the past few hundred years, so there is no need to jump to a censorship thesis to explain why they arent reflected explicitly in the bible.

Thanks for the stimulating interaction!

Rune Østgård 1y ago

Highly relevant points. But I actually think more people had a good understanding of money then than they have today, and the evils of monerary policy were probably widely understood.