The key points I want to emphasize are:

1. There is an intentionality to the actions displayed by these actors.
2. There is an emphasis each author chose to highlight.
3. The analysis gave me results that I find beneficial.
4. There are implications for us today revealed through this analysis.

Intentionality in each role

Regarding my first point. Consider the following summary of the types of actions taken by each actor.

Actor	Distracters	Antagonism		Dissonance	Love	%Dissonance	%Love
Crowd	15	29		16	4	52%	12%
Herod	3	2		2	2	40%	50%
Jesus	0	0		12	8	100%	100%
Judas	0	1		2	2	100%	67%
Narrator	3	2		12	5	80%	71%
Pilate	22	12		9	34	29%	74%
Soldiers	2	3		0	0	0%	0%
Wife	0	1		1	0	100%	0%

Of the major players, the crowd shows the lowest percentage score of loving actions as calculated by dividing the number of loving actions by the sum of the loving and antagonistic actions. The soldiers scored even lower but there is no doubt as to the role society expects from them. Note that Pilate’s wife also scored zero even though she only had one line. If Pilate’s wife had said—”Release him because I know he is innocent” - then she would have scored positively on love and dissonance. Instead her words only show concern for herself and not for Jesus nor even for Pilate’s predicament.

In contrast to their low score on love, the crowd has a midpoint score on dissonance. They are equally adept at increasing and decreasing dissonance as suits their purpose.

Consider the following adjusted values. In order to fit these values on the same scale of graph as used earlier I converted the percentage love into a decimal and subtracted that value from 5.0. Thus a 100% score on %Love converts to a score of –5.0 and a 0% score on %Love converts to a score of +5.0. I next calculated the dissonance values by converting the percentage dissonance into a decimal and subtracting 5.0. The result is that the maximum value possible for dissonance, distracters, love and antagonism is plus or minus five. Then I plotted the results.

Actor	Dissonance	Antagonism
Crowd	0.2	3.8
Herod	-1.0	0.0
Jesus	5.0	-5.0
Judas	5.0	-1.7
Narrator	3.0	-2.1
Pilate	-2.1	-2.4
Soldiers	-5.0	5.0
Wife	5.0	5.0

The net effect of the crowd’s efforts is a push towards conflict. I had focused too much on the early part of each encounter when I previously said that the crowd tended to push towards chaos. While it is true that in each encounter they tend to bring dissonance into the early part of the story they subsequently offset that trend by bringing in distracters as Pilate tries to find a resolution.

The soldiers and Pilate’s wife play stereotypical roles. The soldiers focus on suppression by emphasizing conflict and denying the significance of information. This behavior trait is important in the role they play in society and is also characteristic of many in law enforcement. Those people cannot afford to be distracted from their assigned task by extraneous information. Thus they not only filter that information but they also deny that it is relevant.

Pilate’s wife reveals a pattern of self-interest expressed as high dissonance and high conflict which adds chaos to the story. This is also a stereotypical role quite common in society. The very rich, for example, are stereotypically portrayed as only being concerned for themselves. The result is chaos. The result from an excess of self-interest is no different from the effect of a life of drug abuse. A self-focused lifestyle and a drug abusing lifestyle both lead to high levels of dissonance and high levels of conflict which results in chaos for everyone impacted.

Interestingly, when you look at the net effect of Judas’ role in this story you can see that he adds dissonance and he points in the direction of alignment. This is something that we frequently dismiss from these accounts. But Judas had been a disciple of Jesus for many years. He learned the habits of alignment and transformation and then called on those habits again when in need. But it was too little, too late for him.

The narrators also add dissonance and love to point towards alignment. In contrast, the net effect from Herod is simply a distraction. He was just not paying attention. If there is a common stereotype that corresponds today I would equate Herod to a drunk. He is equally capable of extreme displays of affection and hate. He is quite capable of creating a disturbance. But the net effect is that he is merely a distraction that interferes with our attempts to cope with life.

In my opinion, Pilate’s actions are an attempt to offset the conflict from the crowd and offset the dissonance from Jesus in order to bring the net back to zero.

Note that throughout all four versions of this encounter Jesus only uses Love and Dissonance. Jesus never creates a distraction. Jesus never displays antagonism. This is an important point to me, not specifically for this article, but as part of an effort to use this technique to clarify a point of theology.

I realize that I have been down in the details so long now that you may be wondering what point it is that I am trying to make. The point that I want to make is that each of these people displays behaviors that they learned and practiced as habits. Then I want to emphasize that if these people can learn the habits they display and they have learned a variety of different habits, then we too can chose which habits and which behaviors we want to value.

For example, the soldiers have a habit of conflict while denying the significance of information. They have learned how to do that and do it quite well. Pilate’s wife has learned the habit of self-indulgence and right in the midst of the greatest crises Pilate has ever faced she expresses her habit of self-focused behavior. Pilate has learned the habits required to maintain tranquility through smoothing and uses love and antagonism, dissonance and distracters to offset any and all wayward tendencies.

Of the remaining characters, I see three alternatives that I find quite common. We, as the crowd, tend to dislike dissonance and have a habit of responding to dissonance with conflict. We, when we act like Herod, play the fool who has no discipline over his intentions. The narrators, however, give us a third example. The stories that these narrators tell conveys information about a supreme act of love. Each of these narrators creates dissonance and displays love in an effort to both transform us and call us into alignment. And the point of alignment that each is aimed towards is Jesus, who acted solely with love and dissonance in order to transform his world and pull everyone into alignment.

Now if they can do this intuitively, think what could happen if we used these techniques intentionally.
 

Intentionality in each author

Consider the average values (to one decimal point) of the locations traversed by each author and compare those averages with the end point (with no decimal points) in each narration.

	Averages		End Point
	Dissonance	Antagonism		Dissonance	Antagonism
Mark	2.7	-0.1		3	-1
Matthew	4.2	-0.1		4	-2
John	1.4	0.4		2	-2
Luke	2.1	1.5		0	0
Average	2.6	0.5		2	-1

Matthew is focused on transformation and has the most descriptions of transformation in his version of this story. Notice that his end point is at about the same level of dissonance as is the center of his story as calculated by the average.

Mark has a similar consistency in his focus on transformation. Mark’s ending also pulls us over towards alignment at about the same level of dissonance as was expressed by the average point in his story.

John has a bit more conflict than does Mark and then ends with an emphasis on alignment.

Luke is the one gospel that does not end this story with alignment. The center of Luke’s account is chaos. Luke then takes us through conflict to get back to tranquility. Now, if I was to pull in text from elsewhere in Luke’s writings I could show that Luke has experience with the Roman tendency to flog first and ask questions later. Elsewhere in Luke’s life we can see that as Luke works with Paul they continually encounter chaos which Paul then calms in order to begin the process of transformation. I believe that scholars can account for the different perspective that Luke gives us. I, however, need to set that aside and try to stay focused on completing this specific article. I will note, however, that this analytic technique highlights the different perspective that Luke brought into his description of this encounter.
 

Benefits

I believe this analysis was successful. I described a process. I executed that process. The results obtained from my mathematics appear to align well with the words provided in the text. When the mathematics indicate we are in a state high in dissonance and low in antagonism there is a consistent emphasis from the author on a transforming experience. When the words call for conflict but the story is still near neutral in antagonism then we traverse that part of the story without entering into conflict.

I think it is also clear that the intent of each actor is revealed through this analysis. From this analysis I gained insight into the role that each of these people played in the drama and in serving the purpose of the authors. I also gained insight into the intent of each author.

To me one of the most beneficial aspects of this technique as a tool for Biblical study is that it does not require that I bring in any external knowledge of the customs or languages of that time. In that respect I join with the reformers in believing that the purpose and intent in this text is plainly made visible for all to understand by opening the book and reading. I simultaneously hold the parallel views that this technique brings new understanding and yet I also believe that this technique shows us that the understanding I found with this tool was plainly there already. To me, those results are a dialectic. Using the tool is useful. But the same results can be obtained without the tool. On this I am deeply indebted to the great scholars who devoted so much time and effort into creating an accurate translation that I can read.

Thus, I summarize the benefits as follows:

1. This is a useful tool for analysis of text.
2. There is valuable case study material available in the Christian Bible with descriptions of human behavior that align well with human behavior today.
3. The descriptions of the roles played by the people in this encounter show intentionality.
4. If they knew intuitively how to alter their environment to fit their preferences, just think what we could do if we actually planned our own actions.

Implications

In believe there is significance in Luke’s portrayal of human nature that has relevance on a broader scale. When we encounter chaos we need to choose. In all of the other gospels Pilate focused on smoothing and consistently tried to keep the situation under control and then return it to tranquility. In Luke’s version of the story Pilate changes behaviors. In Luke’s account even Pilate, an expert in smoothing, could not bring the story back from chaos to tranquility without first traversing conflict.

This is a common human behavior. A situation seems out of control and we choose force as a tool to end the chaos. Notice the result in Luke’s story. That story does not end with alignment. People cannot go from conflict to alignment. We need to come back to tranquility and then launch from there towards either transformation or alignment.

Each of the people portrayed in these encounters used habits they have learned and reinforced. If we take the time to study the situation we are in and then choose the correct action we can help shape the outcome. Consider the feeble attempts made by Herod and Judas to alter the outcome. Consider the concerted effort made by Pilate and the crowd to get to the end that they desired. Think about the impact that even a brief encounter with Pilate’s wife or with the soldiers had on the results. They behaved in predictable ways in order to alter their environment.

Then consider the choices that Jesus made. First, he chose when to push toward alignment and when to push toward transformation. Second, he chose when to allow the events to unfold on their own because they were already going in the direction he intended. And third, whenever Jesus participated in these encounters he consistently acted with love and dissonance. At no time in any of these four stories is there any indication that Jesus attempted to distract or enter conflict. The habits that Jesus taught are revealed in his actions, in the attempts made by Judas and in the direction set by the authors.

What would happen if we all learned how to transform conflict into tranquility? What would happen if we all learned how to move tranquility into a transforming state? What would happen if we intentionally set out to align instead of wandering through conflict, compromise and chaos before stumbling upon the solution? What would happen if we paid attention to the dissonance and responded with love?

The key result that I found in this study is an even greater understanding that the descriptions of human behavior in the Christian Bible are descriptions of how people behaved a long time ago, behaved yesterday, will behave today and will continue to behave tomorrow. We need to choose how much longer we want to spend in chaos and conflict before choosing transformation and alignment.

Was this helpful? Do you have a better understanding of the technique? Did you learn something?