Jesus's Trial is Fake?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RoyalamI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of Josephus’ stuff, Patrick. You’re getting worse than Hagan.

Not sure what your beef is with the Sanhedrin council and how I referenced it. It was convened for important matters. I am not sure what the Talmud has to say about it, but I don’t give a lot of weight to the Talmud when deciphering early Christian times.

More interesting is the Sanhedrin in action in the early years of Herod the Great’s life, when he was the governor of Galilee. Herod took the life of a robber, but the robber was Jewish and could not be killed without sanction of the Sanhedrin.

Herod was called before the council, but they refused to convict him, for Herod threatened them all with death True to his word, Herod later found a reason to slay every member of the council on pretense, including Hyrcanus II.

Nit sure of the reference. Might be some applicable detail there.

FWIW moving ahead to the times of Paul the Apostle, the Sanhedrin could not be convened except by approval of the Romans. Something happened that made the Romans want to put a muzzle on the Jewish council. It could well have been their continued unilateral actions against the Christians.

The Sanhedrin was ILLEGALLY convened in A.D. 62, when James the Just and other Christian leaders in Jerusalem were executed for religious crimes.
 
Many of these issues and more can be solved if one recognizes with Annie Jaubert PhD in The Date of the Last Supper, that the Last supper occurred on Tuesday evening and that Jesus was arrested about 3:30AM Wednesday and that the first two trials occurred during that night at Annas’ palace and then Caiaphas’ palace at dawn on Wednesday Jesus was taken to the Sanhedrin where He was confronted by many witnesses that did not agree. Finally, just before dawn Thursday morning Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by His own words. This meets the requirement that a capital conviction must occur over at least two days and occur during the day time. Where upon He was at 6AM Thursday transferred to Pilate for three different trials (at which time He was when not being tried imprisoned under ground (Mat 12:40-41 Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth). On Thursday, Herod also questioned him at length. On Friday at 6AM He was sentenced to death by Pilate how refused to crucify Him but rather gave the Chief Priests the job of crucifying Jesus. They had to come up with a cross to crucify Jesus in a hurry. Se my article
scripturescholar.com/ChronologyJesus.pdf
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
The trial was illegal. Illegal trials have a tendency to flout procedure and traditions. This is not surprising considering the situation the Jewish authorities found themselves in.
 
Bruce_Killian said:
Many of these issues and more can be solved if one recognizes with Annie Jaubert PhD in The Date of the Last Supper, that the Last supper occurred on Tuesday evening and that Jesus was arrested about 3:30AM Wednesday and that the first two trials occurred during that night at Annas’ palace and then Caiaphas’ palace at dawn on Wednesday Jesus was taken to the Sanhedrin where He was confronted by many witnesses that did not agree. Finally, just before dawn Thursday morning Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by His own words. This meets the requirement that a capital conviction must occur over at least two days and occur during the day time. Where upon He was at 6AM Thursday transferred to Pilate for three different trials (at which time He was when not being tried imprisoned under ground (Mat 12:40-41 Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth). On Thursday, Herod also questioned him at length. On Friday at 6AM He was sentenced to death by Pilate how refused to crucify Him but rather gave the Chief Priests the job of crucifying Jesus. They had to come up with a cross to crucify Jesus in a hurry. Se my article
scripturescholar.com/ChronologyJesus.pdf
Grace and peace,
Bruce
Click to expand...
Let me summarize the main problem I have with your idea. Personally, I think you kind of went on the typology a tad too far.
 
steve53 said:
A lot of Josephus’ stuff, Patrick. You’re getting worse than Hagan.

Not sure what your beef is with the Sanhedrin council and how I referenced it. It was convened for important matters. I am not sure what the Talmud has to say about it, but I don’t give a lot of weight to the Talmud when deciphering early Christian times.
Click to expand...
Tractate Sanhedrin of the Mishnah envisions a greater Sanhedrin composed of seventy-one members (after the seventy elders Moses appointed in Numbers 11) and a lesser one composed of twenty-three. In fact, it has in mind three types of courts, within each of which there were exact rules of evidence and judgment: one composed of three judges who presided over civil cases (such as minor disputes involving money or property; petty, non-violent robbery was considered a civil case) and divorce; the lesser Sanhedrin, which dealt with appeals, crimes of violence, and cases involving the death penalty; and the greater Sanhedrin, the supreme court which handled the most serious cases which could pose a threat to national security and which took appeals from cases decided by lesser courts. Each city may have its own lesser Sanhedrin, but there could be only one great Sanhedrin.

Speaking of the great Sanhedrin, in some cases, it was only necessary for a 23-member panel (thereby functioning as a lesser Sanhedrin) to convene. In general, the full panel was only convened on matters of national significance (a declaration of war, for example) or in the event that the twenty-three members could not reach a conclusive verdict. The great Sanhedrin’s power was such that it was the only body who could try the king, extend the boundaries of the Temple and Jerusalem, and was the one to whom all questions of law were finally put.

The Mishnah envisions the head of the greater Sanhedrin to be a chief rabbi, the Nasi or “Prince.” (As per its scenario, the high priest was formerly the president of the council, but after it lost faith in the high priesthood to serve as its head - supposedly around the 2nd century BC - it created the position of Nasi to fill in the office.) The second-in-command meanwhile was the Av Beit Din, the “Head of the Court” (literally “father of the house of judgment”), who presided over the Sanhedrin during the Nasi’s absence or when it sat as a criminal court. The Av Beit Din sat with seven other judges while hearing a case.

As per the Mishnah, a false prophet is to be tried before the greater Sanhedrin because his influence over the nation can be far-reaching and can have disastrous consequences if a large segment of the population follows him. In other words, it is a matter of national significance.
 
More interesting is the Sanhedrin in action in the early years of Herod the Great’s life, when he was the governor of Galilee. Herod took the life of a robber, but the robber was Jewish and could not be killed without sanction of the Sanhedrin.
Click to expand...
Herod was called before the council, but they refused to convict him, for Herod threatened them all with death True to his word, Herod later found a reason to slay every member of the council on pretense, including Hyrcanus II.
Click to expand...
Nit sure of the reference. Might be some applicable detail there.
Click to expand...
The thing about this is that there is some discrepancy here in Josephus’ account. He mentions the involvement of a council (synedrion) only in Antiquities; in Jewish War, no council is mentioned and Hyrcanus is presented as the prime mover.

What Josephus had to say about the synedria in Antiquities is this. He has this view that Israel is more properly headed by an oligarchy - or ‘aristocracy’ (aristokratia) as he calls it - in the form of the high priest and his advisory council (synedrion; cf. Moses’ dialogue to the Israelites in Antiquities 4.223). As such, Josephus alters the story of Joshua so that the latter first consults the high priest and his “senate” (gerousia; 5.15, 43, 55). He also explains Samuel’s hesitation to accede to the Israelites’ request for a king (cf. 1 Samuel 8) as being due to Samuel despising the monarchic form of rule and being “strongly committed to aristocracy” (6.36). In his view, the reason why the Israelites fell into trouble during the time of the Judges is because the ‘aristocracy’ was corrupted and was not doing its proper job: “no longer did they appoint the senates or the leadership formerly legislated” (5.135). Essentially, the reason why the people of Israel got into all loads of trouble afterwards - splitting into two nations, repeatedly falling into idol worship and eventually being taken away from the promised land - is because it had rejected oligarchy for (the more inferior) monarchy. Things are better when the Jews return from captivity: they have a government that is “aristocratic, with the rule of the few” (aristokratikē met’ oligarchias; 11.111).

This form of rule continues, according to Josephus, down to the Seleucid and the Maccabean periods: in his letter, Antiochus III addresses this Jewish senate as the heads of state (12.138, 142) and Jonathan Maccabee (aka Hasmonaeus) writes as high priest, on behalf of “the senate and body of priests” (13.166, 169). While things go downhill once more when the Hasmoneans create a monarchy (11.111), and so begin the decline of the dynasty (13.301), around the 50s BC Aulus Gabinius establishes five regional synedria, of which Jerusalem’s is the first (14.91), thereby restoring the aristokratia. Fast forwarding in time to the first century, the emperor Claudius once again writes to the “rulers, council, and people of Jerusalem” (20.11). This body judges at least some capital cases (14.167; 20.200-202).
 
This picture in Antiquities fits with the one Josephus portrayed in both the Jewish War and his Life. In War, the reader is regularly informed about the identity of the incumbent high priest (1.31, 56, 68, 109, 194 etc.) Josephus assumes that the high priest and his associates are the authorized rulers of the nation. These priests regularly appear in epexegetical union with the local aristocrats, whom Josephus calls “the powerful” (oi dynatoi) and “the eminent” (oi gnorimoi; 2.243, 301, 316, 318, 336, 410, 422, etc.) These groups as a whole are often simply called oi archontes, “the leaders” (2.237, 333, 405 [and councillors], 407 etc.)

Occasionally “the leaders” are mentioned alongside the boulē (the one I mentioned earlier), which seems to be largely their preserve (2.331, 336). When this senate first appears in the narrative, Josephus mentions it casually, as if no explanation is needed for it - Jerusalem can have its own boulē just as Rome and other cities have theirs (1.284, 285; 7.65, 107). The boulē has a meeting place of its own - also called the boulē - beside the Xystus, or public meeting place (5.145; cf. 2.344; 4.243; 6.354). One scribe of the council, a priest, is mentioned by name (5.532).

In War, the word synedrion refers to an ad hoc official meeting. Josephus almost always speaks of its being convened or dissolved on a single occasion (1.559, 571, 620, 640; 2.25, 81, 93; 6.342). In Antiquities, meanwhile, except for the reign of Herod the Great, synedrion is used to refer to the senate convened and led by the high priest. The usage begins with Gabinius’ establishment of the Jerusalem synedrion along with four others (14.91). That this synedrion was continuous with the older senate led by the high priest (according to Josephus’ story) is indicated by the event you mentioned: when Jewish leaders complained to Hyrcanus II that Herod has killed bandits in the Galilee without a trial before the synedrion, as the Law requires. In response to this, Hyrcanus assembles his advisory synedrion (14.167-168, 170, 171, 177-80). In this story, one of the councillors - whom Josephus later reveals to be a Pharisee (15.3-4) - fruitlessly insists that Herod be punished, against the majority vote. Ironically, when Herod becomes king he kills all who were assembled at this synedrion except for this one guy (or two? 14.175; 15.4). That isn’t the end of the synedrion, however, since later Herod pressures the council to put Hyrcanus to death (15.173).

In fact, for Herod’s reign Josephus the word synedrion to refer to ad hoc meetings convened by the king (16.357-67; 17.46). It isn’t clear whether the synedrion that later permitted the Levites to wear linen was the standing council or another ad hoc group (20.216-7), but clearly, Josephus assumes that the Jews were normally governed by a council led by the high priest. You can see some divergence from Josephus’ portrait from that of the Mishnah.
FWIW moving ahead to the times of Paul the Apostle, the Sanhedrin could not be convened except by approval of the Romans. Something happened that made the Romans want to put a muzzle on the Jewish council. It could well have been their continued unilateral actions against the Christians.
Click to expand...
The Sanhedrin was ILLEGALLY convened in A.D. 62, when James the Just and other Christian leaders in Jerusalem were executed for religious crimes.
Click to expand...
By the time when the prefects and procurators began to govern Judaea, the high priest was still head of his council, but he could not convene his synedrion without Roman approval. (In Acts 22:30, the tribune had the power to summon “the chief priests and all their council.”) But then again, the Romans left daily government to local hands anyway (preferring to stay in the background), so if I’m guessing correctly the high priest could normally call up his committee. (Which is probably why Caiaphas could assemble his synedrion to interrogate Jesus: they are required to keep the peace for Rome, after all. They’re just doing their job.)

Which leaves the incident in AD 62, when the high priest took advantage of the time period when the procuratorship was vacant to summon up his council to controversially execute James the Just and others (Josephus actually doesn’t state what the charge/s against him was, note, just that he was rounded up along with other people). I think that the reason why the high priest - Ananus ben Ananus; i.e. Annas’ son - was taken out of office after doing this was, because in addition to exercising the death penalty (which only Rome held), he had also convened the synedrion without approval (but then again, there was no one available to approve it anyway). Both illegal actions.
 
But there was a definite change from Jesus’ execution and the role of the Sanhedrin, and what happened later to Paul the Apostle and James the Just.

In the first instance, we see Caiaphas basically TELLING Pilate what to do, and with no apparent restriction of convening the council- whatever it was.

Twenty years later with Paul the Apostle, the Roman Captain Lysias ordered the council convened to hopefully resolve the conflict Paul precipitated in the temple. Of course, things deteriorated quickly and a near-riot broke out. Paul was escorted to Caesarea the next day for Felix’s protection with an armed escort of some 200 men.

As for James the Just, a certain author suggests that in their desperation to get rid of the Jerusalem Christians, the High Priesthood arranged for the clandestine murder of Produrator Festus so they could indict, convict, and execute the Christian leadership expeditiously without Roman interference. This would be A.D. 62. Josephus just states that Festus “died suddenly.”

Far-fetched? Only a few years before, in A.D. 56, the previous Procurator Felix had assassinated the powerful former High Priest and critic Jonathan in the Temple grounds.

Of course, complete revolt was only a few years away by that time.
 
FWIW, Josephus’ Antiquities and written almost 20 years after his Wars, and presumably more accurate when there is a conflict between the two.
 
steve53 said:
FWIW, Josephus’ Antiquities and written almost 20 years after his Wars, and presumably more accurate when there is a conflict between the two.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily always the case. I think that we need to consider the different contexts in which the two works were written.
 
How does that make any sense?

The 20-book Antiquities is basically an expansion of the first chapter or two of Wars.

In Antiquities, Josephus was writing his definitive history of Judaism up to the events leading to the revolt.

And he had 20 more years to mull things over and review his sources. And parse through his previous chapter in Wars looking for inconsistencies.
 
steve53 said:
But there was a definite change from Jesus’ execution and the role of the Sanhedrin, and what happened later to Paul the Apostle and James the Just.

In the first instance, we see Caiaphas basically TELLING Pilate what to do, and with no apparent restriction of convening the council- whatever it was.

Twenty years later with Paul the Apostle, the Roman Captain Lysias ordered the council convened to hopefully resolve the conflict Paul precipitated in the temple. Of course, things deteriorated quickly and a near-riot broke out. Paul was escorted to Caesarea the next day for Felix’s protection with an armed escort of some 200 men.

As for James the Just, a certain author suggests that in their desperation to get rid of the Jerusalem Christians, the High Priesthood arranged for the clandestine murder of Produrator Festus so they could indict, convict, and execute the Christian leadership expeditiously without Roman interference. This would be A.D. 62. Josephus just states that Festus “died suddenly.”

Far-fetched? Only a few years before, in A.D. 56, the previous Procurator Felix had assassinated the powerful former High Priest and critic Jonathan in the Temple grounds.

Of course, complete revolt was only a few years away by that time.
Click to expand...
Care to quote the gospels and Josephus?
 
steve53 said:
How does that make any sense?

The 20-book Antiquities is basically an expansion of the first chapter or two of Wars.

In Antiquities, Josephus was writing his definitive history of Judaism up to the events leading to the revolt.

And he had 20 more years to mull things over and review his sources. And parse through his previous chapter in Wars looking for inconsistencies.
Click to expand...
War was written by Josephus as a ‘translation’ of a previous work written in Aramaic in order to give Greeks and Romans an account of the Jewish War. He claims that accounts by other authors are inadequate because they either ‘were not there’ and only relied on hearsay or had a personal bias against the Jews, which is why he was keen to present the work as an eyewitness concerned with personal accuracy. At the same time however he admitted that he cannot conceal his own personal prejudices and bias: that the Jews brought suffering upon themselves because civil strife and tyrants forced the reluctant Romans to destroy Jerusalem. War’s target audience is primarily Greeks and Greek-speaking Romans, although its actual audience may have included Greek-educated Jews in Judaea: we know this because Josephus does not expect his audience to be familiar with Jewish personages and customs.

Antiquities was completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian (AD 93/94), when Josephus was fifty-six. Josephus as per his statement this time targets educated Greeks, one of whom, Epaphroditus, encouraged him to undertake the task of writing such a long work (although again, the actual audience would have included Jews). Referring to the legend of Ptolemy II and the seventy-two translators, just as the high priest Eleazar obliged Ptolemy, Josephus too is happy to comply with the wishes of interested Greeks; but whereas Ptolemy had only the Law translated, Josephus will translate the entire Jewish Scriptures. (Note though that while Josephus claims to reproduce Scripture, adding nothing to or removing nothing from it, reading through Antiquities will show that he does exactly the opposite while intending to transmit what in his view Scripture really meant - so clearly, his idea of ‘translation’ is not the same as ours. His approach fits in more with the tradition of the midrash, a way of interpreting Biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal or moral teachings.)

You can see here a slight difference in purpose: whereas War is written from more or less an apologetic standpoint (as a defense of the Jews against haters - contrary to an earlier opinion which saw it as pro-Roman propaganda), Antiquities is more or less geared towards non-Jews who are interested in Jewish tradition. (Although some would argue that Antiquities also has an apologetic bent.)

It has been argued that Josephus apparently considered Life to be part of the same work as Antiquities. Life is very much Josephus’ autobiography: to be more exact, a political autobiography that concentrated on the events of his life as a public person. Once again there is a tinge of apologetics: this time Josephus is concerned to defend himself and portray his character in a positive way against detractors. The fact that Josephus is writing a biography of himself is a sign for the Romans that he was sure of the righteousness of his way and the excellence of his character, and it shows: we have a celebration of the character of the priestly aristocrat who had powerful friends and a sympathetic audience, and whose enemies are avaricious, power-hungry demagogues and trouble-mongers. Considering the possible connection between Antiquities and Life the audience of one could very well be the audience of the other: non-Jews interested in both Jewish history and Josephus himself.

Against Apion was, according to Josephus, written “since I observe a considerable number of people giving ear to the reproaches that are laid against us by those who bear ill-will to us, and will not believe what I have written concerning the antiquity of our nation, while they take it for a plain sign that our nation is of a late date, because they are not so much as vouchsafed a bare mention by the most famous historiographers among the Grecians.” In other words, while Josephus had tried to advertise the antiquity of the Jewish people in Antiquities, some in his audience apparently refused to give his arguments any consideration. (Especially since in Josephus’ time, antiquity=prominence and significance.)

In Antiquities Josephus presents Jewish culture in Greek terms, but in Against Apion we have a defense of Jewish antiquity at the expense of the Greeks at the first part (1.1-218) and an extensive anti-Greek rhetoric at the final part (2.145-296). Probably Josephus did not receive a favorable reception among some influential Greeks or philhellene Romans that he originally wrote for. So he changes tactics: instead of clothing Jews in Greek dress as he did in Antiquities, in Apion he frames his native culture in Roman terms.
 
It would take too long.

You should read the author-who-shall-not-be-named. That is the thesis of his second book.

But Caiaphas could convene the Council without Roman approval, but 20 years later it was the Roman Captain- the ranking officer in Jerusalem- who could only authorize the council to meet.

And in A.D. 62, it is states in Ant 20 that the Sanhedrin was illegally convened for the sole purpose of eliminating James the Just and company. And during the persecutions in Rome in A.D. 64, the former High Priest Ismael was a part of the court of Nero and Poppea.

Connect the dots…
 
steve53 said:
It would take too long.

You should read the author-who-shall-not-be-named. That is the thesis of his second book.

But Caiaphas could convene the Council without Roman approval, but 20 years later it was the Roman Captain- the ranking officer in Jerusalem- who could only authorize the council to meet.

And in A.D. 62, it is states in Ant 20 that the Sanhedrin was illegally convened for the sole purpose of eliminating James the Just and company. And during the persecutions in Rome in A.D. 64, the former High Priest Ismael was a part of the court of Nero and Poppea.

Connect the dots…
Click to expand...
C’mon Steve, I know you’re much better than that. I’ve
got time. 😃
 
A night trial is illegal?
Who says they were acting legally?
Isn’t it illegal to condemn an innocent man?
Yet that is what they did.

“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.”
  • Is 53:7
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top