Trial of Jesus

[fred_conty]

I am not familiar with a part of the gospel which has St John inside while St Peter is outside. Have I missed something?

Agreed.

Hi Edmundus,
John 18;15-17 has the incident of Peter and John.

“Simon Peter, with another disciple, followed Jesus. This disciple, who was known to the high priest, went with Jesus into the high priest’s palace, but Peter stayed outside the door. So the other disciple, the one known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who was keeping the door and brought Peter in.”

 

[patrick457]

Patrick, thank you for the info, interesting.

Lk 7;4 has this to say about the centurian.
"When they came to Jesus they pleaded earnestly with him. ‘He deserves this of you’ they said ‘because he is friendly towards our people; in fact, he is the one who built the synagogue’.

Then there was a picture I saw of Capernaum today, and it showed where the small military garrison was stationed just north and outside the city of Capernaum. This was located on a priciple route for travellers.

There is indeed a bathhouse on Capernaum (excavated during the 1980s), which is suggested to be Roman due to its similarity with another bathhouse in Ein Gedi, which was home to a Roman garrison. The thing is, this dates from the 2nd-3rd century, about exactly the same time when Roman-style buildings flourished in the southern Levant and elsewhere in the Empire. A 1st century building was indeed found under this structure, but they have never studied that properly yet for fear that it might damage the later structure on top of it.

Antipas was on good terms with Rome (he was in fact a childhood friend of Tiberius) and so would not have needed Roman soldiers. Client kingdoms were typically a source of manpower for the Romans, not additional territory for them to garrison. Roman troops were indeed occasionally supplied to client rulers whenever they faced internal or external threats, but that was the exception, not the norm. There was no serious military threat to the Galilee during the time of Jesus. There was that incident with the Nabateans during the mid-30s (Josephus, Antiquities 18.113-115), yes, but those troubles apparently began and escalated without the Romans’ awareness - a development difficult to explain if there were Romans in Capernaum.

Also, Capernaum is an odd location for Roman troops to station. It was a fishing village located in the area where the Gallee abutted Philip’s territory, and the two were not on bad terms. Peraea, which bordered the Nabateans, would have been a more natural choice to receive troops if the Romans decided they were needed to protect Antipas from their other ally, Aretas. There was the suggestion that Romans were needed at Capernaum to collect tolls on goods passing between Antipas’ and Philip’s territories, but such tolls would have presumably gone to the tetrachs themselves, not to Rome. But even if we imagine that Roman customs were collected at this border, there is still the difficulty in suggesting that Roman soldiers were required for this task. Why would the Romans need their own military personnel to collect taxes at the border of two client kings who were brothers, on generally amiable terms, and both unquestionably loyal to Rome?

Now, as for the term “centurion:” the term more often used for centurions in the gospels, and especially in this particular pericope, is the Greek calque hekatontarchēs (only Mark 15:39 uses the transliteration kentyriōn). We often assume that the hekatontarch in the pericope is Roman based on the term, but the term is also used in reference to non-Romans. Most of Josephus’ usages of hekatontarchēs do refer to Roman officers, but others occur in his recounting of biblical stories, and in one case it is even used for officers of the Jewish rebels (Antiquities 6.40; 7.233, 368; 9.143, 148, 151, 156, 188; for Jewish officers; War 2.578). In addition, the term appears frequently in the Septuagint, obviously in non-Roman contexts (cf. Exodus 18:21, 25; Numbers 31:14, 48, 52, 54; Deuteronomy 1:15; 1 Chronicles 29:6 and elsewhere). Even if one were to argue that the term reflected Roman-style military organization, that would still not show that the unit was Roman. Herod the Great had organized his troops along Roman lines, and it is highly likely that the Roman-educated Antipas did likewise. Finally, I think the case for it could be strengthened if we compare this pericope with the story in John 4:46-54, where Jesus heals the son of a royal official from Capernaum, which ultimately could have been derived from the same tradition.

 

[chosen_people]

Hello Friends,
I hope you will be able to help me with this question.
How can the Bible have such detail accounts of the trial of Jesus? To the best of my knowledge (which is very little) none of the disciples were in the same room as Pilate and Jesus, so how can they record the conversation between the two? The only disciple that was even close to the trial would be Peter, but he is only outside in the courtyard. I’m not sure where the other disciples would be, but I’m sure no ordinary person would be allowed in the room where they were trialing Jesus. Except maybe the High Priests and people working for Pilate.

Thank-you
God Bless us all

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?

 

[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.

You can say yes.

As for the Jews not employing this method of execution, I would put it rather as “the Jews not employing this method of execution at this time period.” Jews did at a former time practice this as an execution method: the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus (103 BC-76 BC) 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’].

The Temple Scroll (11QT, 11Q19) also has this to say:

If a man slanders his people and delivers his people to a foreign nation and does evil to his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he shall die. On the testimony of two witnesses and on the testimony of three witnesses he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree.

If a man is guilty of a capital crime and flees (abroad) to the nations, and curses his people, the children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree, and he shall die. But his body shall not stay overnight on the tree. Indeed you shall bury him on the same day. For he who is hanged on the tree is accursed of God and men. You shall not pollute the ground which I give you to inherit.

These two ordinances provide a creative expansion of the command in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God”) by the sectarians of Qumran. The two crimes specified are among those the Roman law punished by crucifixion: betrayal of state secrets and desertion to the enemy. Whereas in Deuteronomy, the condemned is hung and exposed after death, the sequence of events is here reversed: hanging on the tree is the way to kill the condemned.

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]

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).

On the contrary, it is highly likely that Jesus was not executed on the grounds of active zealotry. If He was 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. 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. This is actually an argument against the idea that Caiaphas and Pilate misunderstood was Jesus was trying to do: on the contrary, they understood Him very well. He may have well been seen as a seditionist, but not an armed bandit.

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

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

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.

 

[patrick457]

Using Jesus b. Ananias’ case as a guide, we could see why Jesus of Nazareth was executed rather than merely flogged. 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.

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?

It really depends. On the one hand, some people think that the hearing in John is more like the sort of thing that really happened in Judaea and in other provinces that were governed in the same way, but on the other hand, one could make the argument that John was just more astute than the synoptic evangelists with regard to realpolitik and so crafted a story with greater verisimilitude. Still, it should be worth pointing out that most of the supposed historical problems with the synoptic trial before the Sanhedrin come from the assumption that the rules found in the tractate Sanhedrin of the Mishnah applied in the time of Jesus, which is something that is far from certain (to what degree the material in the Mishnah represents practices prior to AD 70 is a contended issue).

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?

Slight gaffe there: Pilate was finally removed from office due to his actions involving the Samaritans (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.

He was removed because the council of Samaritans claimed his actions against the prophet and the mob to be excessively cruel.

 

[patrick457]

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?

You’re forgetting the practical reason for having Judas identify Jesus: it was night, and it was well before modern electricity. There was moonlight, sure, but you can’t always rely on it due to the clouds. You can say that it was precisely because Jesus was making a name for Himself that the authorities saw the need to get rid of Him before He could excite the mob into doing something disastrous, which is something that the gospel traditions themselves attest to. Jesus was dangerous because He was popular. He might cause a riot, which Roman troops would put down with great cause of life. Although it was the scene at the Temple that seem to have decided the issue, other factors were probably contributing causes: His entry to Jerusalem and His teaching about the kingdom. Caiaphas and his council had a principal political and moral responsibility: to preserve the peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed.

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?

I believe I’ve addressed this one before.

To elaborate on the question:

I’ll admit that “the Pharisees” indeed figure more in the gospels as Jesus’ (admittedly rather two-dimensional) opponents - at least for the earlier half of the gospels, and I will grant that the increasng tension between the first generations of Christianity and Judaism may have had ‘colored’ the Jesus tradition which eventually resulted in this (a phenomenon which is especially evident in the gospels of Matthew and John). And yes, while later Christians did, and do, have a knack of lumping the various groups - the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Temple priests - together (let’s be honest here), my question is, where exactly does the New Testament mix them up? 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.

Also, as I said earlier, there is the whole matter of just how historically reliable the Mishnah is in regards to pre-AD 70 traditions. First, the Mishnah reports Pharisaic-type idealizations of the law in its own day, recorded at a period over a century later than the latest of the four Gospels; the Mishnah was written almost two centuries later than Jesus’ trial. The Mishnah does not deal with a series of laws that actually governed society, but often speaks of ideals, and its genre is a series of academic debates. Meanwhile, the council in Jesus’ day was hardly dominated by Pharisees (as you would also admit), which would further call this rabbinic idealization into question.

Secondly, the rabbinic sources themselves admit that the aristocratic priests did not always play by the rules (and certainly not by Pharisaic ones). In fact, because elements of proper legal procedure were standard throughout Mediterranean antiquity, the evangelists may expect us to notice significant breaches of procedure: the gospel accounts may well have intended on purpose to show that the proceedings violated common legal ethics and was not standard custom. Unless you presuppose that the priests (like later rabbis) would follow careful procedure even in explosive political situations an argument from Mishnaic technicalities would not work against the gospel narrative.

 

[patrick457]

I think it should be pointed out as well that the Mishnaic vision of a formal ‘Sanhedrin’, somethng which is admittedly the majority opinion, is probably yet another historical anachronism. What we do have (based on a reading of Josephus) is this: in the 1st century there was a formal institution called a boulē which acquired the character of a national institution and which discussed issues pertinent to the city of Jerusalem. This is not the Sanhedrin of the Tannaitic and Christian texts, but rather a consultative body most likely made up of people of wealth and influence, similar to local councils present in Hellenistic cities. In addition, there were two further institutions described the same Greek term, synedrion (where the Aramaic ‘sanhedrin’ comes from), which were not standing institutions but 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, a place of arbitration, a court, which was convened usually by a leading official such as the serving high priest. Capital cases could be tried in the second type of synedrion. (Josephus in fact also uses synedrion to refer, not just to the council convened by the high priest, but also to the advisory council of Agrippa II and even of the emperor Augustus, which may show that an advisory council was all the term implied.)

In fact, you could see a pattern emerging: the high priest, with the support and assistance of the chief priests and some of the powerful lay people, handled local government; the boulē, meanwhile, normally did very little, if at all. At least, only in the last, fatal crisis under Gessius Florus (AD 64-66) does this city council appear, and similarly only this one time did the chief priests feel compelled to call on the Pharisees for help.

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?

I’ll address this one first. As mentioned earlier, the Romans seldom granted anyone capital power, much less provincial courts, and for a good reason: in decidedly anti-Roman areas, it could be used to deal with local Roman sympathizers. If it was to be granted anywhere, it would be to free states that had shown special loyalty to Rome - which would put Judaea out of the question. A decree of Augustus to the proconsul of Cyrene, dated 7-6 BC, which made provision for provincial courts to practice “delegated jurisdiction except in capital cases,” which are to be kept in the hands of the proconsul himself, shows just how picky the Romans were about restricting the power.

Yes, Josephus does write that in 62, then high priest Ananus son of Ananus (aka Annas) convened a synedrion and had James the brother of Jesus and probably others executed (Antiquities 20.200-201). But guess what? Ananus was deposed precisely because he took advantage of the brief period in between procuratorial assignments to violate the rule.

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

The stoning of Stephen is not so much an official execution as a lynching: there was no verdict and no sentence (Acts 7:57-58).

The only exception to this rule I can think of is the Temple Court warning, wherein any gentile who entered the sacred inner court - even if they were a Roman citizen - could be put to death. This is keeping in line with the Roman custom of granting provincial subjects as much freedom as possible in practicing their religion, and besides, the Jews would wish to maintain the purity and sanctity of the Temple hence, the special exception.

 

[patrick457]

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.

You’re correct that the blasphemy charge is a problematic one. There is however one possibility for the charge: Caiaphas had pretty much made up his mind that Jesus had to die, no matter what Jesus said. In this view, Caiaphas had Jesus arrested because Jesus was threatening the Temple. When the witnesses failed to agree so that the testimony had to be thrown out, Caiaphas did not try to have Jesus flogged and set free. Instead, he decided to try again, asking now if Jesus was Messiah and son of God (which Jesus answers in the affirmative). These titles, in and of themselves, did not constitute blasphemy, but the high priest decided to call them ‘blasphemy’ anyway because he had already decided on execution and was not willing to drop the case. Instead of conducting further inquiry into what the terms meant for Jesus, Caiaphas instead made an extravagant display of mourning and thereby persuaded his consellors to join him in his decision. In other words, the titles were only an expedient; the threat to the Temple was the immediate cause of execution.

Now that being said, there is also the possibility that Jesus’ alleged declaration concerning the Temple (“I will destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”) could indeed be seen in some way as ‘blasphemous’. The intention of destroying the current sanctuary would have been offensive to some, especially to the priests who administered it. Since it was God’s house, the intention of destroying it would be viewed as an attack on God Himself. The second part of the saying (“I will raise it up”) was also open to the charge. In the Dead Sea Scrolls - specifically the Temple Scroll (11QT 29.6-10) and in the Midrash on the Last Days (4Q174 1.1-13), the expectation is expressed of an eschatological temple to be created by God that would last forever:

I shall accept them and they shall be my people and I shall be for them for ever. I will dwell with them for ever and ever and will sanctify my [sa]nctuary by my glory. I will cause my glory to rest on it until the day of creation on which I shall create my sanctuary, establishing it for myself for all time according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob in Bethel.

===

… ** enemies. No son of iniquity [shall afflict them again] as formerly, from the day that * over my people Israel** (2 Sam. vii, 10).
This is the House which [He will build for them in the] last days, as it is written in the book of Moses, In the sanctuary of which Thy hands have established, O Lord, the Lord shall reign for ever and ever (Exod. xv, 17-18). This is the House into which [the unclean shall] never [enter, nor the uncircumcised,] nor the Ammonite, nor the Moabite, nor the half-breed, nor the foreigner, nor the stranger, ever; for there shall My Holy Ones be. [Its glory shall endure] for ever; it shall appear above it perpetually. And strangers shall lay it waste no more, as they formerly laid waste the Sanctuary of Israel because of its sin. He has commanded that a Sanctuary of men be built for Himself, that there they may send up, like the smoke of incense, the works of the Law.*

 

[patrick457]

The book of Jubilees (1.27-29) also says this:

And He said to the angel of the presence: “Write for Moses from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity. And the Lord will appear to the eyes of all, and all will know that I am the God of Israel and the Father of all the children of Jacob, and King on Mount Zion for all eternity. And Zion and Jerusalem will be holy.” And the angel of the presence who went before the camp of Israel took the tables of the divisions of the years --from the time of the creation–of the law and of the testimony of the weeks, of the jubilees, according to the individual years, according to all the number of the jubilees [according to the individual years], from the day of the [new] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, and according to all the creation of the earth, until the sanctuary of the Lord shall be made in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, and all the luminaries be renewed for healing and for peace and for blessing for all the elect of Israel, and that thus it may be from that day and unto all the days of the earth.

The saying attributed to Jesus seems to reflect such expectations. If, as seems likely, this temple was envisioned as a divine creation, the alleged claim of Jsus to build it Himself would sound blasphemous. Jesus would not only be encroaching on divine prerogatives, but also claiming to be able to do something no human could reasonably be expected to accomplish. This testimony, however, came to nothing since the witnesses did not agree.

Yet another (and IMHO more likely) possible way of looking at it postulates that the context of the trial accounts in the synoptics suggests that it is not so much the question of the high priest, but Jesus’ statements that leads to the accusation of ‘blasphemy’. Jesus’ affirmative response alone to the question of whether He is the Messiah would have been insufficient to convict Him of blasphemy, although it may well have been sufficient grounds for a conviction of the offense of rebelling against Rome. Similarly, the affirmative response ego eimi (I am) alone was unlikely to be interpreted as a claim to divinity. The charge of blasphemy is related to the saying based on a combination of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 (“You will soon see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven”).

With regard to the part of the saying based on Psalm 110:1, it is clear that at least some Jews in the late Second Temple period had no problem with the idea of a heavenly Messiah, an exalted patriarch or a principal angel sitting or standing at the right hand of God or sitting on God’s throne itself. The issue was not so much that no one could sit at God’s right hand, but that a current living person, who is perceived as deceiving the people, is making the claim. To envisage Enoch, Moses, David, an angel or a heavenly messiah sitting beside or on God’s throne is a different thing from confronting a living human who predicts that He Himself will be so enthroned. Notably, all the surviving texts which use the enthronement language (such as 1 Enoch, 3 Enoch, the Exagōgē of Ezekiel 67-89, and even the statement attributed to Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud: Hagigah 14a and Sanhedrin 38b) look to past luminaries to perform the special role, with none involving direct self-claims. Such a prediction might seem close to Gaius Caligula’s claim to be a god or the governor of Egypt’s claim to be ‘constraining destiny’, claims that so offended Philo. The later rabbis, perhaps in response to claims about Jesus, but plausibly in response to claims about Enoch, Moses or the Messiah, eventually rejected the idea of ‘two powers in heaven’. This is also reflected in the Akiva tradition:

One [throne] was for Himself and one for David. Even as it has been taught: One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba’s view. R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah? Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy. Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear! For it has been taught: One is for justice and the other for charity; this is R. Akiba’s view. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah to him: Akiba, what hast thou to do with Aggada? Confine thyself to [the study of] Nega’im and Ohaloth. But one was a throne, the other a footstool: a throne for a seat and a footstool in support of His feet.

 

[patrick457]

With regard to the “son of man” statement, the identification is equivalent to a messianic claim. (Compare to the messianic figure in the Similitudes of Enoch and the messiah in 2 Esdras 13, which are both based on the son of man figure in Daniel; cf. also the interpretation attributed Akiba in Hag. 14a.) The judgment that Jesus had commited ‘blasphemy’ is thus interpreted here in the prediction of Jesus predicting that He will be enthroned alongside God and will return or be manifest with divine glory. As mentioned earlier, this is analogous to Philo’s definition of Gaius’ and the governor of Egypt’s claims as ‘blasphemy.’

Again, one should note that the definition of blasphemy as misuse of the Name again derives from the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.5. One could also make the argument here that this narrow definition could be a later development. There is no absolute certainty that these rules were in absolute effect at the time of Jesus, nor that they were strictly observed. Josephus does define blasphemy along these lines, but it is likely that the Sadducees, a group to which the chief priests may have belonged, defined it more broadly, like Philo, and thus would have considered Jesus’ declaration to be blasphemous.

What is at question is not merely being exalted and present in heaven, but in having a position that places one at God’s side. For some Jews at the time, a few select luminaries of old could be considered for such an honor by a direct invitation from God. However, the lack of good, clean parallels for contemporary figures making such a self claim serves as evidence for the offense when a contemporary like Jesus makes such a statement. What you have here is no great, venerable figure from of old, but an untrained Galilean, a troublemaker, who claims not only the ability to sit beside God, but also that He will be vindicated before their eyes: in other words, “constructive blasphemy.”

 

[jcrichton]

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?

…wow, you’re loaded!

…here’s a simple: why is it that Judaism breaks with Judaism and God commands them to perform these things eternally? (you know what I mean)

…and to what Temple is God going to come to Teach Israel?

…how is God going to free the already free Jewish people?

…where are the volumes of reports against the Christ–I mean you probably have thousands of books written against the Jews that became followers of the Way and the blasphemous Christ they worshiped as God, right?

…finally, why are you so angered at the Christians when all they want is for you to be Saved? (remember, you can save your anger and just say ‘no’)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Edmundus1581]

Great work, Patrick!!