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

[thephilosopher6]

Let’s put this into context.

To say that it is the Jews who are responsible for Jesus’s death is inaccurate, we simply cannot give an entire group collective responsibility for that, and indeed, Jesus himself was a Jew and nearly all of his followers at the time of his crucifixion were Jews. It is true some have interpreted certain passages in the New Testament as giving the Jews collective responsibility for his death, the best example of which can be found in Matthew 27:25, but actually scholars know that the Gospel of Matthew was written specifically to a Jewish Christian community in Syria around 80 A.D., and it’s believed many in this “Matthean Community” were still apart of the larger synagogue community. The passage in question is more over sectarianism rather than actual antisemitism. In the 1st century, there was a lot of name calling and condemnation among all sects of Jews directed at other sects, so what Christians say about other groups of Jews in the 1st century isn’t unusual at all, it’s really just another example of sectarian conflict.

Now, did the Jewish leaders play a role in Jesus’s death? Absolutely. They initiated it. Most historians/scholars believe the reason for this was actually Jesus’s cause of disturbance at the Temple, which is traditionally known as the “Cleansing of the Temple”. Not even a week after this incident and he was dead. When he did this, he pretty much right then and there sealed his own fate. The priests saw his actions as a threat against their entire order. They wanted to get rid of him for this. They understood though that Jesus was essentially harmless, he wasn’t a violent revolutionary at all. They had to find some valid reason in order to get the Romans to actually crucify him. So, they ended up taking advantage of his “messianic role.” Surely, inciting him as “King of the Jews” would be enough of a reason for the Romans to want to take action. Claiming to be the Messiah in 1st century Judaism wasn’t blasphemy at all, but the priests understood that it could be used against him to get the attention of the Romans.

I will say, it’s fairly reasonable to think Pilate probably understood that Jesus wasn’t any kind of revolutionary, but the priests and the prefect tended to have a close relationship, and so this may have been a favor on Pilate’s part for the priests. Pilate also wanted to keep things in strict order, and he knew that if the priests were upset, then the situation could turn into something bigger than what it already was, even if there wasn’t any clear signs of revolutionary activity.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Stick with Church teaching.

which are?

(16 characters)

 

[Metis1]

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.

Maybe look it up for yourself. I’ve been involved on a dig in Israel whereas I’ve been dealing with this subject for decades now. If you don’t believe what I’ve written, it’s really no biggy to me. I’ve done the homework and taught it.

 

[Metis1]

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.

Again, it’s very easy to look this up for yourself, and even the Wikipedia article on the formation of the Christian canon is half-way decent.

 

[Bon_Croix]

THe leaders were jealous of Jesus. Why? B/c the masses were believing in him due to the miracles, teachings, etc… He had followers. The leaders weren’t performing miracles. So, the leaders felt as though their authority was lessened.

So, they resorted to all types of schemes to entrap him. They were not successful.

The temple cleansing is symbolic of passover. Only Jesus can “cleanse a temple” of its demons. He does this via the sacraments.

 

[HarryStotle]

Let’s hear some specifics. It isn’t clear to me that just because you’ve been involved in digs, or have researched or taught on the subject for decades, that you have anything specific to contribute besides impressions. Scholars have taught many strange things and Wikipedia isn’t exactly a bastion of reliability. Make a case and let’s see how it stands up to scrutiny.

What archeological or other evidence exists that proves the Romans took a cut of the currency exchange occurring around the Temple or even that they took some of the proceeds from the Temple tax?

To claim that the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion can be substantiated from evidence outside the Gospels seems more than a bit tenuous requiring, as it does, making a solid circumstantial case from very limited physical evidence, besides completely ignoring everything the Gospels and New Testament have to say on the subject.

I am seriously skeptical that you can make that case.

 

[Arkansan]

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.

This is what I meant earlier in the thread. Modern historians often dislike the actual facts of recorded history, so they make up fanciful stories about what 'really" happened.

Honestly, if you’re going to do that, you might as well go full History Channel and throw space aliens in there. At least then the made up stories would be entertaining.

 

[theCardinalbird]

So wait did Jewish leaders play a role in Jesus’ death?

 

[Metis1]

I am seriously skeptical that you can make that case.

Frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest.

 

[Metis1]

This is what I meant earlier in the thread. Modern historians often dislike the actual facts of recorded history, so they make up fanciful stories about what 'really" happened.

Honestly, if you’re going to do that, you might as well go full History Channel and throw space aliens in there. At least then the made up stories would be entertaining.

Theology is a serious field of study that can drive one darn near insane because there are so many variables to consider even in studying just one narrative. Much how one may interpret a narrative often relates to how one looks at scripture in terms of “divine inspiration” and the issue of “inerrancy”.

For those who strongly believe in both of the above, they’re likely to go for a more word-for-word interpretation of the narrative, but for those who don’t, they’re likely to seek additional sources that may confirm, deny, or modify what’s written. For us in the latter group, it’s much more difficult because we have to take different things into consideration and “weigh” them.

All the books in the scriptures of any religion are subjective, plus they should be looked at in the context of known history (which often is subjective as well) and the cultural milieu at the time. My experience is that most Christians do not have a very good background in early Judaism, nor do they typically have much of an understanding of the culture of Jesus’ day. So, what they do is to sit down and read their Bible written in English (or whatever language) minus the background to go into any kind of depth. Even though I taught theology for quite a few years, I only consider myself an amateur because there are many out there who simply are much more masterful at this than I am.

Or, to wrap this post up and put it as Billy Graham did, the Bible is simple enough for even one rather slow of mind to understand but complicated enough to make theologian’s hair turn grey.

 

[Arkansan]

I’m not sure what you’re going on about. You could believe the Gospel accounts weren’t inspired at all and it wouldn’t affect anything I said.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It is likely some sayings of Jesus were written fairly immediately, and that Mark, the earliest gospel (about AD 50) drew from a collection of these.

“Decades” does not mean that the content is not accurate. Persons who were involved in the destruction of the twin towers can recount it as though it were yesterday. The writers were present, or drew their content from those who were present.

The Gospel of John, written around A.D. 90, “subjectively” reflects a half a century of the faith practiced. it is very different from the synoptic gospels. Each of the Gospels was written from a specific perspective, for a certain purpose, as are the letters of the NT.

The salient factor in the “subjectivity” is whether one accepts divine inspiration. If the Holy Spirit actually moved the individuals involved to write what God wanted, then the subjectivity becomes subsumed in the divine revelation.