I don't mind it when people allege the bible was wrong. It works best, of course, when they produce -- y'know -- evidence for their contentions.

But lately, I've been noticing a number of commonly-recurring tactics on television shows which purport to cover biblical events. Tactics I consider unethical, such as using straw man arguments.

For example, Mom said last week's PBS Frontline was about "The Passion". She said it showed how the movie, and bible was wrong about some of the events portrayed.

Give an example?

Well, they said the bible portrayed Pontius Pilate as reporting to the chief priests in Jerusalem, when really, he had full authority to run the province, he reported to Rome, not the local authorities.

But the bible doesn't depict Pilate as reporting to the local authorities -- to claim it is wrong for doing so is to put one's own words into it's mouth and then argue with such. This contention is seriously flawed, but you would have to have read the bible yourself, and be a little familliar with Rome, to know it.

Rome was ruled under a system called the Pax Romana ("Roman Peace"), under which a few basic rules were to be followed throughout the realm and much leeway was allowed for the locals. But the main requirement for a regional administrator was that rebellions and uprisings were to be avoided at all cost -- an authority like Pilate could be in serious trouble with Caesar if such occurred.

For instance, such a potential threat to the peace is recorded in Acts, when a riot nearly breaks out in Ephesus, and the city clerk calms the inflamed mob thusly (emphasis mine):

... the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today's events. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it! (Acts 19:38-40)

And Israel ("Palestine") was known as a rebellious region indeed.

So when the authorities first bring Jesus to Pilate, he finds the charges irrelevant to Roman interests: "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." (John 18:31)

But the problem is that the locals were not allowed capital punishment, and the authorities who had arrested Jesus wanted him killed. So a capital charge had to be found: That of claiming to be king, in defiance of Caesar.

So when Pilate is depicted as attempting to dispense with the matter, the motivation to do otherwise is clearly shown to be the mob which had gathered and were shouting for the blood of this man.

Indeed, as FrontLine pointed out -- correctly -- Pilate didn't report to the local authorities. That's why he was called a "Roman" ruler -- he reported to Rome -- the bible never says otherwise, and to argue it does is either incredible ignorance (for a documentary on the bible) or willful misrepresentation. (Guess which theory I favor?)

Further, this explains why any telling which omits the role of the mob does violence to the story -- Pilate's actions make no sense without understanding the importance of keeping the peace, and the incipent threat to his authority apparently posed by the crowd.

Lastly, it's important to note that the mob in question is not portrayed as representing a concensus of Jewish society. Just as it is true that today, in some parts of the world, a crowd can be hired or led, so it was true then. Unlike the throng which gathered just days before during the entry into Jerusalem, scripture depicts this crowd as taking their marching orders from a few local authorities: "But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead..."

So it sounds like Frontline created a false explanation of why Pilate had Jesus killed (He reported to local authorities!) told people it was what the bible said, and then refuted it.

How very dishonest.