Did Jewish leaders play a role in Jesus's death?

[RollTide1987]

Obviously the New Testament and some of the earliest extrabiblical Christian writings tell us that the Jewish elders handed Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified, but I have read recent scholarship that postulates that the Jews had almost nothing to do with his crucifixion. They claim that Jesus was arrested, condemned, and executed by the Romans and the Romans alone. This idea that the Jews were somehow involved did not pop up until years later, when Christians began attempts to evangelize Roman citizens to their new religion. Or so the claim goes.

Is there any truth to this claim? And are there any writings you can point me toward that will help me find an answer?

 

[Arkansan]

There’s a bad tendency among professional historians today to assume that, somehow, they know what went on in ancient times better than the people who actually lived then. For various ideological reasons, this delusional tendency is most pronounced in “scholarship” regarding biblical history.

In any case, there’s certainly no evidence for any of the ridiculous claims made in this regard, although that won’t stop the ideologically motivated. As for writings that would refute this, you could look at the Talmud, which IIRC doesn’t even mention Pilate’s role in Christ’s crucifixion.

 

[Kaninchen]

One of the problems in talking about the Talmud and Jesus is that Christians tend to imagine that any reference to ‘Yeshua’ is taken to refer to a particular person when it was a pretty common name.

 

[Arkansan]

Presumably the Talmudic account of his death is actually talking about another messianic claimant that they had killed.

 

[Kaninchen]

Where does it say he was a Messianic claimant?

 

[po18guy]

Best to stop reading such bilge. It is worse than apocryphal - being agenda-driven fantasy. Do you honestly think that 2,000 years later, someone magically divined the truth - truth that has escaped the most brilliant theological minds in human history?

Stick with Church teaching.

 

[Arkansan]

Okay, I mis-remembered that. But is there any reason to think it’s referring to another person?

 

[Kaninchen]

As I remember (long time since I’ve had the discussion and I’m no Talmud scholar - I’m female, I’m excused ) the supposed references to Jesus in the Talmud, you have to stretch circumstances remarkably for them to be about him.

The New Testament stands or falls on its own.

 

[guanophore]

Is there any truth to this claim? And are there any writings you can point me toward that will help me find an answer?

I think it would be in your best interest to determine if the New Testament Gospels are an accurate account of the events. Are they just pious fiction, or are they historical? One would really have to starting out by discounting these records.

 

[Kei]

And what for?
The Jews could claim blasphemy–this man was claiming to be the Son of Man!
The Romans had…what?
Do these “scholars” also have to postulate that Jesus also was trying to start a physical insurrection?
If so, I hope you see how such an idea is a tad ridiculous

 

[Metis1]

The penalty of crucifixion indicates that Jesus was being penalized by the Romans for violating their law, not Jewish Law.

So, what did Jesus do to have the Romans get so upset? One is likely him talking about his “kingdom”, which any authoritarian government is going to consider a threat to them, plus Jesus’ actions at the Temple overthrowing tables, which they certainly would not tolerate because they had “skin” in that activity.

 

[HarryStotle]

The penalty of crucifixion indicates that Jesus was being penalized by the Romans for violating their law, not Jewish Law.

If you read the narrative from John and Luke, it is clear that the Jewish leaders brought Jesus before the Roman Procurator accused of breaking Roman law, but Pilate dismissed that charge.

Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters… So Pilate went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” They answered, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.” The Jews replied, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.”…

Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” Pilate replied, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” (John 18)

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” Then Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He answered, “You say so.” Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no basis for an accusation against this man.” But they were insistent and said, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place.”
Pilate then called together the chief priests, the leaders, and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and here I have examined him in your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. Indeed, he has done nothing to deserve death. I will therefore have him flogged and release him.” (Luke 23)

So it was the Jewish assembly that accused Jesus of "…perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.” Pilate dismissed the trumped up charges by saying, “I have examined him in your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither has Herod,….”

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

So, what did Jesus do to have the Romans get so upset? One is likely him talking about his “kingdom”, which any authoritarian government is going to consider a threat to them, plus Jesus’ actions at the Temple overthrowing tables, which they certainly would not tolerate because they had “skin” in that activity.

Pilate as Roman Procurator representing the Romans did not appear “so upset.” In fact, he wanted to release Jesus because he saw that Jesus was not a threat to Rome. What was at issue was the power of the Jewish “assembly” to instigate revolt against Rome if he didn’t respond to their request regarding Jesus. His option was to crucify a man who was to Rome a “nobody” or to risk another uprising instigated by the Jewish leadership.

By the way, Herod had a great deal at stake since he wasn’t Jewish (he was Idumean), he wasn’t liked by many in the Jewish leadership and was on tenuous terms with the Roman emperor. He would have been very circumspect in his judgement regarding any potential threat to Rome.

Could you substantiate your claim that Rome “had skin” in the buying and selling happening in the Temple? It isn’t clear that you have any evidence that Rome was involved in that at all.

 

[Bon_Croix]

It’s hard to believe that this thread is 13 posts at this point and has not come to a better answer.

Pilate deferred to the crowd. The crowd condemned Jesus to death. However, Pilate still was wrong. He, basically, gave into peer pressure.

Did Roman Law allow for the governor to defer sentence to the crowd? I don’t know. He basically gave into a jury.

Did the Pharisees truly believe that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy? If so, they certainly failed to protect a life.

Pilate himself knew that there was not sufficient evidence to condemn the life. Therefore, he also failed to protect life, with or without Roman law.

 

[Gorgias]

Pilate deferred to the crowd. The crowd condemned Jesus to death. However, Pilate still was wrong. He, basically, gave into peer pressure.

During a major festival.
When his soldiers were outnumbered by Jews by a large margin.
When a riot could have been disastrous for Pilate’s career (if not life).

 

[Metis1]

Could you substantiate your claim that Rome “had skin” in the buying and selling happening in the Temple? It isn’t clear that you have any evidence that Rome was involved in that at all.

Because the Romans took a “cut” from the currency exchange which they so badly needed for their construction projects, plus the issue of their sovereignty over their “kingdom”.

Also, one needs to remember that the gospel accounts contain a great deal of subjectivity, especially since they were written decades after the actual events. Therefore, because of the split within Judaism that produced the Jesus movement that created conflict between them and the other Jewish groups, there would be an advantage to portray Jews who didn’t convert to be of the devil, as John’s gospel has it.

Either way, we well know about Roman executions from Roman historians, and they simply tell us that they did not get involved at Jesus’ time in Jewish religious affairs as they were more interested in economics and political control. Crucifixion was largely reserved for reasons of crime, not religion, and the use of nails indicates a very serious crime as tying to the cross was more common. Therefore, Jesus was likely convicted and sentenced for treason.

 

[Bon_Croix]

According to one source, there were 150 armed Roman soldiers involved in the passion. Also, there were 83 executioners of justice.

 

[Bon_Croix]

The reason for the sentence was posted on the cross in three languages. “King of the Jews”.

but they wanted it to read, “he said he was the king of the jews”.

Truly, he was “King of the Jews” albeit with some confusion.

Regardless, it was God’s plan.

 

[HarryStotle]

Because the Romans took a “cut” from the currency exchange which they so badly needed for their construction projects, plus the issue of their sovereignty over their “kingdom”.

Source that they actually took a cut from the “currency exchange” and that this cut would have made a sufficient difference to them that it was a factor in Jesus’ crucifixion? It wasn’t mentioned at the trial. Given that you have no independent sources for what transpired at the trial, yours is mere speculation based upon tenuous assumptions.

 

[HarryStotle]

Also, one needs to remember that the gospel accounts contain a great deal of subjectivity, especially since they were written decades after the actual events.

Actually, I’ve been doing quite a bit of research into the historicity of the Gospel accounts, and my conclusion based upon a number of features of the Gospels is that those who claim the Gospels were written “decades” after the events are, themselves, invoking a great deal of subjectivity.

The evidence for the reliability of the Gospels as historical documents is solid and well-attested from numerous angles: internal and external. Just looking, for example, at the way in which names are used, the Gospels had to have been written within decades of the crucifixion by those who were very familiar with the events depicted and the people, geography, culture, politics, botany, agriculture and religious practices of mid-first century Palestine.

I am not sure what you mean, precisely, by “decades” because it makes a huge difference if the time-gap was 20 years as opposed to 80 years. More crucial, however, is the authorship question and I wouldn’t assume you have much of a case to support your view that “subjectivity” was a big factor.