An Ancient Roman Perspective on Good Friday

Today is Good Friday.  It's been a long time since I've been in a church to "celebrate" the gruesome death which we're taught took place that day in the Roman province of Judea.  I wonder how it's celebrated by the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church these days.  If I recall correctly, proceedings in my days as an altar boy were appropriately solemn.  Are they still, or has the effort to make observances cheery and attractive resulted in a kinder, gentler version of the crucifixion? 

Even as idealized in El Greco's painting shown above, a crucifixion must have been a horrible death.  Just how the Romans crucified people is a matter of some dispute, but there's no doubt it took place.  Some question whether the nails were placed as depicted here; sometimes the crucified are shown as tied to a cross.  

Presumably, this particular crucifixion, if it took place as described in the Gospels referring to "Doubting Thomas," involved the use of nails as Thomas is shown the wounds which resulted.  Whether it took place is disputed by some, of course.  

Unless one is a Christian believer and accepts the Gospels, the story of the Passion, the death and resurrection, isn't immediately acceptable.  Some parts of it, though, seem credible.  By this I mean that based on information available, some of what is said to have taken place could have taken place, though very little.  We can conclude that if we take a Roman view, and make reference to non-Christian sources.

We know at least that Pontius Pilate (Pontius Pilatus, properly) existed, and was a prefect governing the province of Judea around the time in question.  This has been confirmed by the so-called "Pilate Stone" which is a damaged block of limestone found in Caesarea Maritima (modern Caesarea), bearing an inscription in which he is named as making a dedication to Augustus and Livia.  Caesarea Maritima was the Roman administrative capital of the province and so would have been where Pilate stayed and from which he governed.  However, he no doubt travelled to and stayed in Jerusalem from time to time and as appropriate, and it makes sense he would have been there at an important period of time such as Passover.

Tacitus refers to both Pilate and "Christus" when he writes of the fire which destroyed much of Rome while Nero was Emperor.  Tacitus relates that Nero sought to blame Christians for the fire, and also notes that "Christus, from whom the name [Christians] has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."  So, there is a non-Christian source which, though it indicates Pilate was a procurator instead of a prefect/governor, states that such persons existed and "Christus" was put to death by a Roman official.

There seems to be no contemporaneous Roman account of the crucifixion, however.  Flavius Josephus makes a reference to it, and Pliny the Younger while a governor famously wrote the Emperor Trajan regarding how to treat Christians, but Josephus and Pliny, like Tacitus, wrote long after these events were said to have taken place.  By the time they wrote, Christians were known of and deemed suspicious and anti-social among the Roman elite.  No sources are cited by any of these writers, and what they knew may have been based on rumor, or have formed part of the "backstory" of the Christian faith for many years at that time.  For that matter, the Gospels were written decades later as well.

We have a reasonable basis on which to say that Pilate existed and was prefect/governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius.  There is reason to think Judea was a difficult province to govern,  Herod the Great was a client-king of Rome, but the Jews were thought even then to be peculiar and the Herodian dynasty was known to be made up of people who wouldn't hesitate to kill each other as needed.  Augustus once remarked that he would rather be Herod's pig than one of his sons.  After his death Judea was split into smaller kingdoms, and Rome assumed rule of the area after the death of the last Herod, Herod Antipas, circa 39 CE.  The Jews revolted against Roman rule 30 years later.

Herod Antipas is the Herod referred to in the story of the death of Jesus.  Pilate supposedly sent Jesus to be judged by Herod.

So, there is a basis to believe Pilate lived and was the Roman governor of Judea.  We can probably infer that people were crucified while he was governor.  We have a single source which indicates one of those crucified was the "Christus" from whose name "Christians" has its origin.  That's a bit of stretch, perhaps, but it's arguably correct.  That would seem to be the most that can be said based on Roman, non-Christian sources.

From that perspective, we can plausibly infer that there was a person crucified under Pontius Pilate, presumably in accordance with Roman law or the authority of Pilate as governor, for some reason.  That person, if he existed, was decades later associated with the Christianity.  About three hundred years later Christians, of which there were several varieties, made up the ruling class of the Roman Empire.

If the death took place, it likely did so as part of a normal "day at the office" for Pilate, and would have been treated as such by him and his staff.  It probably wasn't even known of by other Romans.  Over the years the death, if it happened, became very important of course.  But again from the Roman perspective, by the time it became important, it simply didn't matter whether it took place or not.  

For someone who isn't a believing Christian, that seems the most sensible way in which to think of Good Friday, given the lack of evidence.  One can dispute with believers about whether the crucifixion took place, but it makes no difference.  It makes a difference to some of them, however, as it seems they hope to find some corroboration for their beliefs.  Perhaps "Doubting Thomas" has had more of an influence than has been suspected.

Politics and Zugzwang

As I've noted in the past, zugzwang in chess refers to a position in which the player obligated to make a move cannot do so without being placed at a disadvantage, which may be serious or even "fatal."  An example of zugzwang appears above.

I've also opined in the past that a particular presidential election was similar to zugzwang in chess, as any vote--at least for a candidate likely to win--placed the voter at a disadvantage.  Are we in a similar situation as to the presidential election coming in November?  Probably, though I think the disadvantages which will result if one of the candidates is elected will far exceed those which will result from the election of the other.  But I begin to wonder whether zugzwang has come to characterize or will characterize most if not all elections in our Glorious Union.  In other words, I begin to wonder whether any choice to be made in any election will necessarily be disadvantageous.

That's a rather broad and gloomy statement, I know.  But our politics and politicians have become so debased I fear it is or will be true.

I think we have to acknowledge that there is less and less about our politics which makes worthy people interested in participating in it.  In fact, it has become so divisive, rancorous and corrupt that anyone with morals or intelligence will want to avoid any involvement in what is becoming to seem a cesspool.  We see even veteran members of Congress, who should be hardened souls, eager to escape the circus it's become.

The proceedings in Congress are already largely futile on important issues, as there is little urge to compromise or, it seems, even to govern if that means reasonably accommodating conflicting interests and positions, which is to be expected in any functioning democracy or republic.  Those who've noticed the anti-democratic leanings of many politicians on the right and fear their prominence may be prescient.  Those who think they know and serve the will of God, or what is truly good and right, have no patience with doubt or questions and won't compromise.  The simple-mindedness which underlies such intolerance is spreading.  People want to be told what to do.  Most of all, I believe, people don't want to think unless they must do so--it's better if others do the thinking for them.

As Congress fails to govern, people will look for other ways to "get things done."  They'll find someone who will at least appear to "make the trains run on time."

If the worthy among us refuse to participate actively in the politics of our Great Republic, the unworthy will quickly take their place.  The venal, the fanatic, the ignorant, the stupid will run for office or determine who will or will not be candidates for them, or obtain them.  Elections and the governmental bodies which those elected will grace with their presence will become freak shows of sorts.  The performers in the shows will be the scraps and leavings of our population, thralls to the rich or corporations, or grim and stunted followers of intolerant ideologies or political "leaders."

It's an old story.  We've seen it all before.  Though we know the past, we may still be doomed to repeat it, as we don't change or refuse to do so.

About the Great American Novel

 

The Atlantic recently published a list of 136 books under the title The Great American Novels: 136 books that made America think.  It focused on books published in the last 100 years.  I thought it somewhat disappointing.  I thought it puzzling.  

I'm disappointed by the fact that I must admit that I've only read 7 of the 136 "Great American Novels."  It's true that as I've grown older, I've become less inclined to read novels, except as a means of escape from these dark times.  A novel need not be great to provide such escape.  I'm puzzled because it seems that these "Great American Novels" according to the magazine itself are not Great American Novels as I conceive them to be.  

Clearly, as I haven't read most of the novels on the list, I may be unqualified to opine on whether they're great, or American, or either or both.  But the problem I have arises from the way in which they're characterized by The Atlantic as "Great American Novels."  They're described as novels that made America think.  In what sense does that make them "Great American Novels"?

I think it's probable that there are and have been novels that "made America think" that aren't about America or Americans, and were not written by Americans.  Shouldn't they be "Great American Novels" as well, given such a definition?  Is War and Peace a Great American Novel?  Something by Proust? If not, why not?

Wouldn't the definition of a "Great American Novel" make more sense if it comported more directly with the qualifying word "American"?  Obviously, a novel may be great and have nothing to do with America or Americans or be written by an American. 

I assume that the authors of the books on the list are all Americans.  Is the fact that a great novel is written by an American sufficient to make it a "Great American Novel"?   Why wouldn't it be instead a great novel written by an American?   In what sense are A Wizard of Earthsea and The Dispossessed  Great American Novels, if not for the fact that they were written by Ursula Le Guin and Octavia Butler, both Americans?  The stories told in each don't even take place on Earth.  Is it claimed that they deal with themes that are uniquely American?  How do we determine what those are in the first place?

Huckleberry Finn, referred to by Hemingway as the source of modern American fiction in the quote above, is easily identifiable as an American novel.  It was written by an American, the story told takes place in America and it deals with what is unquestionably a uniquely American subject matter.  The same can be said of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and other novels, each arguably "great."

If we are to speak of Great American Novels, it would seem to make far more sense to define them as those involving America, which take place in America, deal with themes identifiably if not exclusively American and are written by Americans.  To define them as those novels which made America think seems not to define them at all in any useful sense, unless Americans think differently than others do and about things others don't think of, which strikes me as a difficult claim to make.

The Great, Global Video Landfill

What better way is there to describe the phenomenon known as YouTube?  A vast dumping ground used by the human race as a place to put everything.  Not just garbage, though there is no doubt garbage aplenty, but everything that we take the trouble to commit to video and then install there, probably forever or as near to forever we can achieve.

Garbage itself need not be worthless.  Sometimes, items of value are put in landfills, on purpose or by error.  Most items found in them at least were valued at one time, or contained what was valued by someone and then used or broken, or aged or became beyond repair.  In time it like other landfills will be the delight of archaeologists and anthropologists, or perhaps even extraterrestrials eager to learn about us after we've killed each other or are wiped out by natural disasters.

There's no denying its fascination.  It's similar to the Internet or the Web or whatever it's appropriately called, in that you will find what you search for, no matter how trivial or exotic it may be (well, within certain limits).  I've found much related to history and my other interests, and I've hardly explored it.  But matters of historical interest must make up only a small portion of what's been dumped there and may be viewed at our pleasure at any time.  Episodes or portions of episodes of series available through other media are there; performances of all kinds; commentary on films, politics and other things by anyone who knows how to post to it....in fact, anything by anyone who knows how to post to it, regardless of its content or quality.  Videos regarding aircraft, ships, cars, cats, aliens, created by people who may or may not know something about what it is they upload.  Or is it download?

That is a concern, or should be.  The extent of the expertise of those who purport to be experts on what they put in the landfill, verification of what is claimed, what's motivated them, the veracity of what you see, are not delved into or expressed, in most cases.  If such things matter to you, they're your concern.  You must make the effort to determine the quality and truthfulness of what you see.  I suspect few are inclined to make that effort.

Some of what you see clearly constitute opinion.  There are several devoted to reviews of TV series and movies, which are amusing though generally negative.  The ones I've seen are especially critical of productions deemed "woke" or which appear to go out of their way to feature characters which are of all races and sexual preferences, at the same time damning traditional masculine characteristics.  

I've written before of my distaste for those I consider media missionaries; those who seem to feel a need to teach or show the less enlightened among us what is proper, regardless of the content of the works they seek to dramatize.  Regardless of the Lore, as it's called in the case of the sometimes obsessively liked books like Lord of the Rings, for example.  I feel a certain sympathy for critics who complain of gratuitous modification of great stories for missionary purposes of this kind.

But there's nothing I've seen to indicate that these critics are particularly knowledgeable, or that they should be watched or listened to, beyond perhaps the number of views they've accumulated.  Why shouldn't that be enough to qualify them for what it is that they do, which I would say is entertain, nothing more, nothing less?

As to such things I'm inclined not to take them very seriously.  What interests me about them is not their content, but what it is that motivates people to make them and put them on YouTube and to watch them.  I think it gives the creators, rather than the watchers, a feeling that they attain a certain fame, or perhaps even immortality given the fact that as far as I'm aware, once you're there on the Web you can never be completely deleted.  I don't think this conceit is disgraceful.  I'm aware of the fact that this blog may be considered my own effort to attain something similar, though I know that the number of views it's had is exceedingly small in comparison with those of any given cat video, which makes that most unlikely.

As to other things we see in the landfill, or on the Web, or in social media, they're to be taken seriously to the extent they influence others.  Those who make them are known now as "Influencers" apparently.  And those who watch or read or hear them are so easily influenced, that what they seek to influence and the reasons why they do so must be of concern.  

We as a species are so likely to make mistakes that the more of us there are, and the more that we're able to influence others, the more the mistakes we'll make in number and in severity.  It's curious that information and knowledge are so easily and widely available through technology, and yet we seem the worse for it.  It was once thought that the better educated and informed we become, the better we will be.  We seem to be determined to establish that is not the case, however.  Disinformation is as or even more likely to be accessed on YouTube or other sources, of course.  But information itself can be dangerous if unfiltered and unrestricted.

 

Dicta and Dictatorship

It seems to me that the majority of the current Justices of our Supreme Court are inclined to transcend, to put it kindly, the cases before them.  That is to say, they aren't afraid to do more than is required of them from the standpoint of the law, strictly speaking, but rather tend in addition to do and say what they nonetheless deem it appropriate for them to do and say.  This kind of conduct is something former, liberal, Justices were accused of by conservative commentators.  

Consider the recent decision regarding the action of the Colorado Supreme Court in disqualifying a candidate for the presidency from appearing on the ballot in that State under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  That Section states that those who engage in an insurrection contrary to the oaths of office they took to the Federal and State constitutions are disqualified from running from such an office in the future.  SCOTUS struck the Colorado decision down.  All nine of the Justices thought it appropriate to do so, but some of them thought that the opinion could do so by simply holding that the States cannot enforce Section 3 except with respect to disqualification from State offices.  The opinion does much more than that.  It contains language indicating that Section 3 can be enforced only if Congress passes legislation providing for its enforcement.  In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress passed legislation providing for the disqualification of non-legislative office holders and members of Congress.  No legislation has been passed regarding disqualification when it comes to the office of president, however.  The majority of the Justices apparently think such legislation is needed before such disqualification may be enforced.

Four of the Justices thought this additional language regarding the need for legislation to enforce Section 3 is the result of the court indulging in rendering an opinion, or commenting, on matters not necessary to the decision of the court.

In the wide, wonderful world of the law in our Great Republic, a distinction is made between language in caselaw which constitutes the holding of a court, and what is called dicta.  Generally speaking,  dicta is language in an opinion  which isn't necessary to resolve the case before the court.  It may be a comment, an observation, a suggestion, or mere declamation.   Because it isn't necessary to the holding of the court, and thus the resolution of the case, dicta need not be followed by other courts.  It doesn't create precedent.  It's merely persuasive, if anything.  What is precedent is the holding itself, and the reasoning needed to arrive at it.  To give that reasoning its lovely Latin name, the ratio decidendi.

It's important to determine whether statements in the opinion that Congressional legislation is required before there can be disqualification from the office of president is dicta or binding precedent.  Five of the Justices claim, in responses to the concurring opinions, that the statements are part of the reasoning required to strike down the action of the Colorado Supreme Court.  This doesn't mean it isn't dicta, however.

If it isn't dicta, then it appears that it's not yet possible for someone to be disqualified from the presidency.   There must be Congressional legislation before that can be done.  In the interim, Section 3 doesn't apply.  

It would seem the language of Section 3 is sufficiently clear that additional legislation, saying essentially the same thing, isn't needed for it to apply.   In fact, in taking the position that more legislation in effect parroting Section 3 is necessary the five Justices render Section 3 superfluous, contrary to rules of construction of statutory law.

More significant, though, is the fact that the Congressional legislation supposedly required may never be adopted.  So, nobody running for president may ever be disqualified from doing so by Section 3.  A candidate for president may engage in insurrection and not be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment, for now.

By requiring further legislation specific to the office of president, SCOTUS runs the risk of making the application of Section 3 to the presidency a political decision.  In the decadent state of our government, it's easy enough to envision members of Congress fearful of adopting such legislation because it may be used against their party's presidential candidates.

 In the decadent state of the law, a candidate for president, or one who wins the presidency, isn't disqualified by engaging in insurrection despite the clear language of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In the decadent state of our society, a candidate's supporters may engage in insurrection and it won't prevent the candidate from being president, even if the candidate encouraged it.