Jesus's Trial is Fake?

[fisherman_carl]

I was at the garden of Gethsemane. From there it is not too far to the house of Caiphas. Underneath is a small prison where criminals were kept. This is where it is believed that Jesus was kept overnight to await his trial. There is also blood stained walls that could have the blood of Christ on them.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think he was talking about Jesus being before the high priest.

The first generation of Christians never saw their religion as being distinct from Judaism: that’s something that came only later. They still considered themselves Jews and acted as such, the only difference they had with other Jews is that they believed that Jesus was the Messiah.

Thus my point.

 

[patrick457]

Well, these are just my opinions, but for the first four, the pharisees were hypocrites and absolutely hated Jesus, would they have scrupled to bend or break a few rules in order to put him to death? On the 5th, the Sanhedrin sent him to Pilate to get him condemned, they didn’t kill him themselves though they did say he should be executed.

Let’s clarify what a Pharisee and what a Sadducee is. Quoting from E.P. (Ed) Sanders’ The Historical Figure of Jesus (pp. 44-47):

The Pharisaic party seems to have originated fairly early in the Hasmonean period (before 135 BCE), consisted largely but not entirely of non-priests. [13: Josephus’ principal descriptions of the Pharisees are in *War 2.162-6; Antiq. 18.12-15. See further P&B, chs. 18 and 19.] At the time of Herod, there were about 6,000 Pharisees (Antiq. 17.42). Theologically, the Pharisees shared common Jewish orthodoxy (one God, the election of Israel, the divine origin of the law, and repentance and forgiveness). The Pharisees, like most other first-century Jews, also believed in some form of existence after death, an idea that is hard to find in the Hebrew Bible (the only clear reference is Daniel 12.2.) Moreover, they developed a substantial body of non-biblical ‘traditions’ about how to observe the law. Some of these traditions made the law more difficult, but some made it less repressive. For the most part, the Pharisees made special rules only for themselves and did not try to force them on everybody. (During the Hasmonean period they probably did try to enforce their views, but apparently not during the Herodian and post-Herodian periods.) In either case, the Pharisees were known for the precision with which they interpreted the law and the strictness with which they kept it. According to Josephus, they practiced ‘the highest ideals both in their way of living and in their discourse’ (Antiq. 18.15).
Since the Pharisees play an even larger role in the New Testament than does the high priest, I shall give two examples of Pharisaic non-biblical ‘traditions’ in order to put a little flesh on a very bare-bones description. One has to do with Sabbath law. The prophet Jeremiah had forbidden Jews to carry burdens out of their houses on the Sabbath (Jer. 17.19-27). This made festive dining very difficult, since the easiest way for friends to dine together was for each family to bring a cooked dish, and sabbaths were the only days when socializing was possible (because the demands of daily work were so heavy). The Pharisees decided that, when several houses were next to each other along an alley or around a court, they could make them all into one ‘house’ by joining them with a series of doorposts and lintels. They could then carry pots and dishes from one part of the house to another, and thus dine together on the Sabbath. The Pharisees knew that this and other symbolic actions that altered the sabbath limits – actions that are technically called ‘eruvin – had no support in the Hebrew Bible, but they made it a ‘tradition of the elders’ and observed it. Some Jews though that they were transgressing the law, since they carried vessels out of what most people would call a house.
The second example is handwashing. The Mosaic law requires bathing to remove certain impurities before entering the Temple. The Pharisees added a purity rule. They washed their hands before Sabbath and festival meals. Probably handwashing before meals on holy days made the day a little more special. Eventually Jews began to wash their hands before all meals. [14: The history of handwashing is extremely complicated. See *JLJM, pp. 228-31, 262f.]
These small Pharisaic adjustments to the law reveal how carefully people thought about the law and about observing the will of God. The law in principle covers all of life. Pious first-century Jews thought through every detail, so as to observe God’s will in every possible way.
Because of their devotion and precision, the Pharisees were respected and liked by most other Jews. In the Hasmonean period, the Pharisaic party had been a major political force. It was so no longer. Under Herod, no one else had any political power, and those who sought it were promptly executed. The Pharisees lay low. In Galilee, Herod was succeeded by Antipas, who was no more inclined than his father to give authority to a group of pious religious teachers. And in Jerusalem, after Archelaus was deposed, the high priests were in charge, backed by the awesome power of Rome. The Pharisees continued to lie low. They worked, studied, taught and worshipped. Probably they increased in general popularity, but they had no actual power.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

To understand the Pharisees’ role in society in Jesus’ day, we can best fix our attention on the beginnings of the revolt against Rome a few decades after Jesus died. As relations between the procurator and the Jewish populace deteriorated, the aristocratic priests and laymen continued to plead for calm and moderation – with some success, but not enough. At the last minute, the chief priests called in the leading Pharisees to help. Even they could not calm the Jerusalem mob, and full revolt broke out. In the war itself, Pharisees played a leading part (as did the chief priests). These events show that the Pharisees had no public responsibility during the rule of Rome’s governors. The high priest and his advisers were the responsible parties in the eyes of Rome. The Pharisees, however, were still around and they still commanded public attention. Thus in a dire emergency the ruling aristocrats called on them. When conditions were right – when they were no longer held in check by Herod or Rome – the Pharisees stepped forward to play a substantial role in Israel’s political and military affairs. But during Jesus’ lifetime, they must be regarded as principally religious teachers and experts, deservedly popular and respected.

We know the titles of two other parties in first-century Palestine: the Essenes and the Sadducees. The Essenes are described by both Josephus and Philo; [15. *War 2.120-61; Antiq. 18.18-22; Philo, Every Good Man is Free 75-91; Hypothetica 11.1-18.] most scholars identify them as the group responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. If this identification is correct, and I think it is, we know a great deal about the Essenes. The Essenes formed a small party, divided into at least two branches and numbering about 4,000 altogether. [16. Philo, *Every Good Man is Free 75; Josephus, Antiq. 18.20.] The party consisted of both lay people and priests, but the priests were dominant. When the Hasmoneans came to power in 142 BCE, they deposed the previous high-priestly family, the Zadokites. Some of the displaced aristocratic priests joined what became the Essene party, and they seem to have been largely responsible for governing it. Nevertheless, the laymen who were members also studied the Bible and the special rules of the party, and they could become as expert as the priests. The Essenes, as far as we know, played no direct role in Jesus’ life and work, and so I shall not offer a description. Those who are interested will find that the Essene literature is now relatively easy to study, thanks to good translations and a reliable body of introductory material. [17, Geza Vermes, *The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, 1977; The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, tr. Geza Vermes, 3rd ed., 1987; Michael Knibb, The Qumran Community, 1987; Philip R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1987. My own most recent account of the Essenes is P&B, chs. 16 and 17.]
I do wish, however, to employ the Essenes to make a point about the Pharisees. The Essene literature reveals intense study of the Hebrew Bible and a wealth of community rules in addition to those in the Mosaic law. The Essenes were far stricter than the Pharisees in almost every conceivable way. If the Pharisees were thought the ‘strictest’ observers of the law (as Josephus says), the word ‘strict’ bears the connotation of ‘most accurate’ rather than ‘most extreme’. [18. Josephus, *War 2.162; Life 191 and elsewhere.]

The Sadducees were the third party for which we have a name. We know little about them, except that most Sadducees were aristocratic, did not believe in any form of life after death, and did not accept the Pharisees’ special traditions. Most scholars suppose that a lot of the high priests during the Roman period were Sadducees, but we have direct information from Josephus about only one: Ananus, who was high priest in 62 CE (when he illegally had James the brother of Jesus executed) and who was one of the leaders in the revolt against Rome, was a Sadducee. [19: *Antiq. 20.199.] The reader of the New Testament meets the Sadducees only a few times; it confirms their close association with the aristocratic priesthood and the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection. [20: They are mentioned with no description in Matt. 3.7 and 16.1-12. The passage about the resurrection is Matt. 22.23-33 // Mark 12.18-27 // Luke 20.27-40. For the same point, also see Acts 23.6-8. Acts 5.17 closely connects the high priest and the Sadducees, and their public responsibility for good order is implied in Acts 4.1.]

 

[patrick457]

During the sixty years when Judaea was a Roman province the high priests were regularly selected from the wealthy Sadducean families (many, if not most, of Sadducees were of the Jerusalem aristocracy). Some ordinary priests were Pharisees - who as a group were primarily composed of laymen - and some aristocratic priests were Sadducees, but for the most part priests and Levites, like much of the population, did not have a specific party affiliation and simply belonged to common Judaism.

It is true that “the Pharisees” figure more in the gospels as Jesus’ (admittedly rather two-dimensional) opponents - at least for the earlier half of the gospels. It is possible that the increasng tension between the first generations of Christianity and Judaism may have had ‘colored’ the Jesus tradition which eventually resulted in this portrayal (a phenomenon which is especially evident in the gospels of Matthew and John - incidentally the two most Jewish gospels). While later Christians did, and do, have a knack of lumping the various groups - the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Temple priests - together, the gospels themselves never fully do so. Matthew and John do not count here IMHO since while “the Pharisees” are paired together with “the chief priests” in those gospels at least once (Matthew 27:62 and John 18:3; “the Pharisees” are not mentioned in the other portions of the Matthean and Johannine Passion narrative and not at all in Mark and Luke), “the chief priests” remain the prime movers. While the gospels could be and are read as encouraging the conflation, it is different from claiming that the gospels themselves conflate them all.

On the 9th, I don’t think the bible ever says there was more than one, it says Caiphas was high priest and Annas was the previous high priest.

There is a reference in Luke 3:2 to “during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.” Note that if we go by Josephus, a total of three individuals served as high priest in the three years between Annas (aka Ananus/Ananias, AD 6-15) and Caiaphas (AD 18-36). In fact, one of those three individuals was Annas’ son (Eleazar, AD 16-17).

Ever since Rome assumed prefecture of Judaea province after Herod Archelaus was ousted from office in AD 6 for his incompetence, the prefect (or after AD 41, the procurator) had the right to select the high priest. The Romans usually selected the high priest from priesthood from one of four families; the most dominant of these was Annas’ house. Out of the lot, Annas and Caiaphas were the two longest-serving high priests during the Roman period; most of the others only lasted a year or two before being taken out of office and replaced. (No wonder John thought that the high priesthood was a yearly office - he speaks of Caiaphas being “high priest that year”!)

 

[fisherman_carl]

Also, Jews knew they would be persecuted if they became Christian from the beginning starting with St Stephen being stoned to Saul persecuting them. So they would not become Christian lightly or merely intellectually. It was a Holy Spirit movement.

The NT account is a historical document that he doesn’t seem to take into account. It’s written as a eye witness account. The only reason he doesn’t consider it at least equal evidence to his other sources is because he already skeptical which leads him to see only what he wants.

 

[patrick457]

I was at the garden of Gethsemane. From there it is not too far to the house of Caiphas. Underneath is a small prison where criminals were kept. This is where it is believed that Jesus was kept overnight to await his trial. There is also blood stained walls that could have the blood of Christ on them.

There are actually two locations which claim to be Caiaphas’ house: St. Peter in Gallicantu and the Armenian Church (St. Savior). (I’m assuming you went to the Gallicantu, right?) But that isn’t very unusual when you think about it.

 

[patrick457]

From my understanding of the NT Greek, the word used for cross also meant cross beam or pole. It is not doctrine that he carried the entire cross. It would be a matter of history. It is mostly artists who used the entire cross in their work. So that point is moot.

Yep, the word for “cross” could be used to refer to the device as a whole or for its specific components. As for where we get the idea that condemned victims only carried the crossbeam:

Palaestrio: Well, Sceledrus?
Sceledrus: I’m at this job. I so have ears; say what you want.
Pal.: (noting his position) You’ll soon have to trudge out beyond the gate in that attitude, I take it - arms outspread, with your gibbet patibulum] on your shoulders.
Scel.: (still eyeing the door) So? What for?

• Plautus, Miles Gloriosus (“The Braggart Warrior”) 358-360 (Act 2, 4)

Grumio: Oh, I bet the hangmen will hang you looking like a human sieve, the way they’ll prod you full of holes as they run you down the streets with your arms on a cross bar (patibulatum), once the old man gets back!

• Plautus, Mostellaria (“The Haunted House”) 56-57

Bearing my gibbet I shall be carried through the city; afterwards I shall be nailed to the cross. (Patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde affigatur cruci.)

• Plautus, Carbonaria, fragment 2

Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male or female slave at private expense, as he [the owner] who wants the [punishment] to be inflicted, he [the contractor] exacts the punishment in in this manner: if he wants [him] to bring the patibulum to the cross (si in crucem patibul(atum) agere volet), the contractor will have to provide wooden posts, chains and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the patibulum and for the floggers and also for the executioner.

• Leges libitinariae (De publico libitinae), 8-9

And whereas every criminal who goes to execution must carry his own cross on his back, vice frames out of itself each instrument of its own punishment, cunning artisan that it is of a life of wretchedness containing with infamy a host of terrors, regrets, cruel passions, and never-ending anxieties.

• Plutarch, Moralia 554

 

[Spinster]

Thanks for the info Patrick457, I’m certainly no biblical scholar I kinda struggled with what word to use to express what I was trying to say and just saying “the Jews” would have been too broad and also inaccurate, and Pharisees is just what came most readily to my mind.

 

[chosen_people]

The first point. I don’t think Jesus’s trial occurred at night. He was arrested Thursday night and taken to the house of Caiphas. It was the next day Friday when he was tried and sentenced by pilot and then crucified at 3 pm, at the same time the Passover sacrifice occurred. I don’t see how any of his other points are trustworthy if he can not even get this right.

The next point I would make is that if the story was made up by Jewish disciples then why would they write that the women were the first witnesses to Christ’s Resurrection? Since women were not considered credible witnesses.

Could a lie, a myth really cause Jews to abandon their Jewish faith and become members of a new Christian cult willing to be martyred?

Possibly the most agreed upon fact by NT scholars, secular or not, is that Jesus was crucified.

If Christians believe that the Christian leader had to die on the cross as a result of crucifixion to fulfill his mission, since the Jews did not employ this method of execution, it therefore follows that the Christian god had to ordain that this had to be carried out by Roman pagans.

Jesus was executed, as were thousands of other Jews in that time period, as an anti-Roman zealot leader (the Roman charges against the Christian leader are found in Luke 23:2).

While there is no Jewish trial of Jesus according to John 18:13-14, such a trial takes place according to Mark 14:61,64 and Matthew 26:63. so the first problem is whom are we supposed to believe? John according to which Jesus was only brought for a hearing before the High Priest or Mark and Matthew concerning a trial before the Sanhedrin?

Pontius Pilate was removed from office by the Romans themselves, for, among other things, indiscriminate crucifixion of thousands of Jews. So did the Romans have it right or is this the sort of person who is going to stand up in front of an angry mob and try and dissuade from him killing one more Jew?

Let’s see now: Was Jesus so popular and loved that he presented himself as a threat to the Romans and to the Jewish leadership, or was he was he so unknown that he had to be identified by Judas or was he so unpopular that everyone wanted him dead?

The Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were the group who controlled the High Priesthood, the Sanhedrin and who were in tight with the Romans.

Whoever wrote these two descriptions of the alleged trial, obviously did not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. How is it that on the one hand these very people are ridiculed in the Christian scriptures for being such sticklers to every aspect of the Law and on the other hand break every rule? How is it that the writers obviously know nothing of the Law?

However the epitome is in claiming that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy. The crime of blasphemy is cursing God or His name (see Leviticus 24:10-16). Jesus allegedly said that he was “christ” (anointed) which in a Jewish messianic context means anointed king. In other words he was making a claim to the throne of King David. A claim to kingship is not blasphemy however it is sedition under Roman law. Jesus was tried and convicted by the Romans for claiming kingship, for sedition, and for telling Jews not to pay Roman taxes "And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.” (Luke 23:2).

Now it is also alleged that Jesus claimed to be “son of God” or “son of the blessed”. This also is not blasphemy under Jewish law. In the Jewish scriptures God refers to the Jewish people as the “son of God”. The term “son of God” is also a royal title applied to every Jewish king of Israel descended from king David. In Psalm 2:7, David was anointed king and referred to as God’s “son” as an announcement of “adoption” by God. Subsequently, the second Psalm was recited at the coronation of every Jewish king descended from King David. As a result the term “son of God” became a royal title for kings of Israel.

However, if by the use of this term Jesus meant that he was a “deity” then this claim constituted idolatry under Jewish Law (see Talmud Moed Kattan 18a) and significantly Jesus was not accused of idolatry, he was accused of blasphemy.

Now why would any reader not accept the meaning of these terms as in Torah and in Talmud, and prefer the interpretation of Jewish law contrary to the accepted Jewish interpretation by non-Jews?

Lastly, there is no lack of evidence both in the Christian scriptures and in Josephus that the Sanhedrin could perform executions during the Roman occupation contradicting the claim in Mark and Matthew that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans because they wished to kill him but were prohibited from performing executions. Why then does the Christian scripture say that the Sanhedrin could not perform executions?

 

[steve53]

Wow. This thread blossomed quick.

The take-home lesson should be that, if there was a trial at all, it was a very contentious one, as Jesus had his secret supporters among the elite of Jerusalem (read:Sanhedrin).

Caiaphas either found that out during the trial, or he knew beforehand, that he could not get a conviction from the Jews and so dispensed with it.

However he got to that point, Caiaphas certainly pulled in favors from Pilate, who was probably on the Temple payroll, to get rid of Jesus.

Some sources say that Roman General Vitellius was due to arrive in Jerusalem to visit, and Caiaphas feared for his job if unrest was seen by the Syrian President.

ps Thank you, Patrick, for not showing your crucified horse picture. Very disturbing.

 

[JamesCaruso]

**While there is no Jewish trial of Jesus according to John **18:13-14, such a trial takes place according to Mark 14:61,64 and Matthew 26:63. so the first problem is whom are we supposed to believe? John according to which Jesus was only brought for a hearing before the High Priest or Mark and Matthew concerning a trial before the Sanhedrin?

I don’t think you can say that there was no trial of Jesus according to John. John does not mention a trial, but he does not say there was no trial either. John says that after being questioned by Annas [a former high priest], he was sent to Caiaphas. Caiaphas himself as head of the Sanhedrin, may have held a trial in the manner described in the other gospels. Caiaphas was the major antagonist of Jesus who is said to have had a plot to kill Jesus. Caiaphas, not Annas, was the current Roman-appointed Jewish high priest and head of the Sanhedrin.

 

[steve53]

John was written (maybe) by a young priest in training- later called John the Evangelist.

If there was a trial, he would know about it.

Consider the fact that on short notice it would be very difficult to get all 70 members together. And the last thing Caiaphas wanted was word to get out that Jesus was being held captive. Could cause a riot.

I vote for no trial- maybe a beefed up executive session of the Sanhedrin, with 10-12 people present. At most.

 

[patrick457]

If Christians believe that the Christian leader had to die on the cross as a result of crucifixion to fulfill his mission, since the Jews did not employ this method of execution, it therefore follows that the Christian god had to ordain that this had to be carried out by Roman pagans.

Jesus was executed, as were thousands of other Jews in that time period, as an anti-Roman zealot leader (the Roman charges against the Christian leader are found in Luke 23:2).

While there is no Jewish trial of Jesus according to John 18:13-14, such a trial takes place according to Mark 14:61,64 and Matthew 26:63. so the first problem is whom are we supposed to believe? John according to which Jesus was only brought for a hearing before the High Priest or Mark and Matthew concerning a trial before the Sanhedrin?

Pontius Pilate was removed from office by the Romans themselves, for, among other things, indiscriminate crucifixion of thousands of Jews. So did the Romans have it right or is this the sort of person who is going to stand up in front of an angry mob and try and dissuade from him killing one more Jew?

Gosh. ?Deja vu

I’m not going to repeat every single reply I gave to you back in that thread (since I just already did so), but I will pick up a single point I haven’t addressed yet in this thread: the reason Pilate was removed from office. (Josephus, Antiquities, 18.85-89)

The Samaritan nation too was not exempt from disturbance. For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.
When the uprising had been quelled, the council of the Samaritans went to Vitellius, a man of consular rank who was governor of Syria, and charged Pilate with the slaughter of the victims. For, they said, it was not as rebels against the Romans but as refugees from the persecution of Pilate that they had met in Tirathana. Vitellius thereupon dispatched Marcellus, one of his friends, to take charge of the administration of Judaea, and ordered Pilate to return to Rome to give the emperor his account of the matters with which he was charged by the Samaritans. And so Pilate, after having spent ten years in Judaea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refuse. But before he reached Rome, Tiberius had already passed away.

 

[patrick457]

John was written (maybe) by a young priest in training- later called John the Evangelist.

If there was a trial, he would know about it.

Consider the fact that on short notice it would be very difficult to get all 70 members together. And the last thing Caiaphas wanted was word to get out that Jesus was being held captive. Could cause a riot.

I vote for no trial- maybe a beefed up executive session of the Sanhedrin, with 10-12 people present. At most.

I can’t believe that you actually think that there is a formal Sanhedrin (in the Mishnaic sense)! As I said earlier, all that there was - if we go by Josephus - is a consultative body made up of local aristocrats which he calls the boulē (a la the Greek institution) and two institutions known as synedrion (again, the Aramaic sanhedrin comes from this Greek term BTW), which was informal and functioned only for specific tasks, either consultative, where a Roman official called on specific Jewish groups to assist in determining a course of action, or judicial, which was convened usually by a leading official such as the high priest. Caiaphas convened such a synedrion for the hearing.

And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. …] Now the chief priests and the whole council (olon to synedrion) were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree.

Also:

ps Thank you, Patrick, for not showing your crucified horse picture. Very disturbing.

I’m still finding a way to bring that up into the discussion.

 

[JamesCaruso]

John was written (maybe) by a young priest in training- later called John the Evangelist.

If there was a trial, he would know about it.

Consider the fact that on short notice it would be very difficult to get all 70 members together. And the last thing Caiaphas wanted was word to get out that Jesus was being held captive. Could cause a riot.

I vote for no trial- maybe a beefed up executive session of the Sanhedrin, with 10-12 people present. At most.

It just seems there must be something to the accounts of the trial in the other gospels. For one thing, there was little point in dramatizing imaginary events, and then try to pass them off as fact to early Christians, some of whom might be in the know. Another thing, it is clearly not written in the fashion of an allegory-- so is it a lie? Also, John did not recount many scenes in the public life of Jesus in his Gospel that the other gospel writers described in great detail, yet John should have been witness to all of them; so it might not mean anything that he left out any mention of a trial here. I am leaning toward an impromptu trial. “Trial” may have been a poor choice of words by the writers, who would have had the details second hand anyway, and who looked like they compared notes (but I’m no Bible scholar). If Caiaphas really wanted to have Jesus killed, as some say, I can see him calling together a quick meeting of Sanhedrin members available at the moment’s notice and doing a “trial of sorts” before sending Jesus off to Pilate. Just some thoughts.

 

[patrick457]

I’m gonna eat my words: I will repeat what I have said in the last thread, and I will continue to do so.

Chosen people mentioned that “the Jews did not employ this method of execution” (i.e. crucifixion). He is correct, in that the Jews did not crucify during the time of Jesus. That doesn’t mean, however, that crucifixion isn’t a method that wasn’t practiced in a former time. The Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus (103 BC-76 BC), for one, had 800 rebels hung (Josephus, War 1.97-98; Antiquities 13.380).

Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethoma, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and got the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes. This was indeed by way of revenge for the injuries they had done him; which punishment yet was of an inhuman nature, though we suppose that he had been never so much distressed, as indeed he had been, by his wars with them, for he had by their means come to the last degree of hazard, both of his life and of his kingdom, while they were not satisfied by themselves only to fight against him, but introduced foreigners also for the same purpose; nay, at length they reduced him to that degree of necessity, that he was forced to deliver back to the king of Arabia the land of Moab and Gilead, which he had subdued, and the places that were in them, that they might not join with them in the war against him, as they had done ten thousand other things that tended to affront and reproach him. However, this barbarity seems to have been without any necessity, on which account he bare the name of a Thracian among the Jews whereupon the soldiers that had fought against him, being about eight thousand in number, ran away by night, and continued fugitives all the time that Alexander lived; who being now freed from any further disturbance from them, reigned the rest of his time in the utmost tranquillity.
The Nahum Commentary from Qumran (4Q169) seems to allude to this:

Whither the lion goes, there is the lion’s cub, [with none to disturb it] (ii, 11b).
[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim. But then she shall be trampled under their feet…

The lion tears enough for its cubs, and it chokes prey for its lionesses (ii, 12a).
Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion who strikes by means of his great men, and by means of the men of his council.

[And it chokes prey for its lionesses; and it fills] its caves [with prey] and its dens with victims (ii, 12a-b).
Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion [who executes revenge] against on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive, … formerly in Israel. Because of a man hanged alive on [the] tree, He proclaims, ‘Behold, I am against you, says the Lord of Hosts’].

Josephus does not record any crucifixions during the time of Herod the Great; he may have eschewed the practice. At least, during the time of Jesus we have no hard evidence of any Jews using crucifixion. Not that they could possibly have done so in an official capacity, given that (at least in Judaea) the Romans may have reserved the right of capital punishment for themselves as in other areas.

 

[patrick457]

Again, contra Chosen People, I do not think that the immediate cause for Jesus’ execution was because He was “an anti-Roman zealot leader.” Personally, I think that this might be a poor choice of words: If Jesus was a zealot planning a military takeover, His followers would have been rounded up and executed as well - as were the followers of other prophets in later years, who made the mistake of marching about in large groups. Again, this is from Josephus:

It came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.

Antiquities, 20.97-98

About this time, someone came out of Egypt to Jerusalem, claiming to be a prophet. He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer. He added that he would show them from hence how the walls of Jerusalem would fall down at his command, and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those collapsed walls. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. The Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.

Antiquities, 20.169-171

Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

• Antiquities, 20.188

The solitary execution of the leader shows that the authorities feared that Jesus could rouse the mob, not because He was trying to breed a secret army who would attack the Romans. I do not think that Caiaphas and Pilate had misunderstood was Jesus was trying to do: on the contrary, they understood Him very well. He may have well been seen as a seditionist (and thus a threat), but not an armed bandit.

 

[patrick457]

Jesus of Nazareth’s case is more closer to another Jesus, who lived thirty years afterwards. Once again, Josephus:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Using Jesus son of Ananias’ case as a guide here, we could see why Jesus of Nazareth was executed rather than merely flogged. (Although if we go by Luke, Pilate did try to have this tactic carried out on Jesus.) Our Jesus’ offence was worse than Jesus son of Ananias: the Nazarene had a following, perhaps not very large, but a following neverthless. He had taught about a kingdom for some time. He had taken physical action in the Temple. And most importantly, He was apparently not a madman. Thus He was potentially dangerous. Conceivably He could have ferreted His way out of execution had He promised to take His disciples, go back to the Galilee and keep His mouth shut, but He seems not to have tried.

 

[patrick457]

BTW, I’m very curious as to where this guy (the one quoted in the OP) gets his assertion that there was no place called Golgotha at the time of Jesus from. I’m guessing that it might be an argument from silence (since “Golgotha” as a place name does appear only in the gospels, after all). I’d like to bring up the stuff about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Gordon’s Calvary (aka the Garden Tomb), but wouldn’t it be a bit off-topic?