Why did the Romans and not the Jewish leaders kill Jesus?

[patrick457]

“I understood this as “The Romans ruled the city through the High Priest and Sanhedrin, so often the Jewish authorities of the city had to arrest people on the orders of the Romans.” - is this true?”

If the Romans wanted someone arrested, the Temple guard or the Jewish elders would see to it. But more likely the Romans would just arrest them themselves, if it was a civil crime against Roman law. But remember that Jewish law encompassed most activities in life, so the priests could handle most problems and the Romans were happy to let them.

True. The Romans found out that the most effective way to rule was by being indirect, staying behind the scenes and letting the locals run things - for them - as they have always done. After all, everyone’s happier (?) that way. Rome did not have high hopes for Judaea anyway: it just wanted something to bridge Syria and Egypt.

Likely, that is why Caiaphas was so insistent in getting rid of Jesus. Some say that Vitellius was due in to Jerusalem for the Passover, and Caiaphas didn’t want to risk Jesus causing a scene, and making him look bad. Pilate would have had similar concerns, and would have wanted Jesus out of the way as well.

Vitellius or no Vitellius, you have a point. Caiaphas does not want to leave a negative impression to Pilate and upwards into the food chain, Pilate does not want to leave a negative impression to his superiors.

 

[steve53]

After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called korbonas upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamour at it.

Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armour with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamour. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.

• War 2.175-177 (cf. Antiquities 18.60-62)

The fact that the soldiers could disguise themselves and blend in with the crowd by wearing plainclothes relatively easily seems to point out the fact that they were local recruits into the auxiliaries, probably Samaritans - not too friendly after all with Jews were they. Judaea was a minor province; consequently, its governors belonged to the second class of the Roman elite, the equestrian order (ordo equester). These men were not entitled to become legates or proconsuls, but had to content themselves with the title of prefect – and after AD 41, procurator. Because the prefects were not of high enough rank to command legions (his superior in Syria had them), they only had auxiliary troops under their disposal.

Auxiliaries were mainly recruited from peregrini, free provincial (non-Roman) subjects who constituted the vast majority of the Empire’s population. This was in contrast to the legions, which only admitted Roman citizens.

Luke talks about people reporting to Jesus about the soldiers who “mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1). We don’t know what incident is being referred to here: it could very well be one of the incidents mentioned by Josephus or another one that was not recorded.

I would think Pilate’s recruits, if they came from the area, would be Greek Syrians, and not Samaritans. Don’t you?
There was always tension between the Greeks and the Jews, but between Judeans and Samaritans not as great. Both Jewish sects followed the Torah, after all.

 

[steve53]

and from my understanding and also I’m sure that I will be corrected: Somewhere in the N.T the Sanhedrin/judges were not allowed to enforce capital punishment, although I read that this was not 100 % correct, but its pretty close. The Sanhedrin was without authority to instigate charges and was only supposed to investigate charges brought before it, please see John 18: 31 At this, Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” The Jews answered him, “We do not have the right to execute anyone,” – which from this passage, the death penalty was not allowed to be enforced in their laws in Roman territory. However, like you wrote, true it was Passover but the death penalty was much more than that, it was about taking a life also this was a law that had been listed underneath under the 2nd commandment - Love thy neighbor as thyself, ‘What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.’ Book of Tobias: Chapter 4:15 Do to no one what you yourself hate… One other questions that I had, that the law was strict in holding that there be no trials during Passover, during the night or on the eve of the Sabbath.

The High Council accused Jesus of blasphemy, being the Son of God - the statement that “I and the Father are one.” ( John 10:30). “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” see John 19:7 "The Jews answered, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” or according to Luke 23: 14 “A political agitator” or in Mark 15:4 “See how many accusation they are bringing against you!”

In John 10:34-35…The Law uses the word “gods” of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected (see 2 Timothy 3 - which is remarkable statement) in Timothy 2:3 line 14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, 15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The way I understood this, was that man ‘received’ God’s word directly; was able to interpret the law - or to understand the meaning and make judgments - good and evil, and also be inspired by them. Although man without the Wisdom of God, was basically in the dark - to interpret through his own means, many passages that related to this in 1 Corinthians. The interpretation rest of the fact that man, being in the image of God, has the ability - with God’s wisdom, to discern for himself, what is good and pleasing to God. Another passage that Jesus stated," “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” The kingdom of Heaven is within our reach - it is not to difficult, “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.” - a quote from Deuteronomy 30.

Jesus tells us that we have the ability to change and to be with God within us - a truer sense of salvation, it is not to difficult and it is not beyond your reach. I could write more, but this is the main focus: That Jesus, even though this trial was about his authority and title but also the trial was about his teachings. The apostles were an important factor in spreading the teachings of Christ, with the guidance of the Advocate…and so, we are important (also) to spread the teachings to others…

The most important passage was the last one that I brought up: Even so, with the questions asked to John, they knew that Elijah would return (4th cup of Elijah - celebrated on Passover) but also a Prophet will have to be sent to identify the Messiah, only John indicated that he was neither. Whether or not, Elijah will be the prophet to return ("He will come “with” the clouds of heaven or Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt) . The passage reflect back to John’s birth: Jesus question the leaders on John’s baptism, “John’s baptism–where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ “But if we say, ‘From men’–we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” (And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous–to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”)

So you guys will have to correct my errors - if this info, isn’t correct.

The NT and Jesus’ actions should be looked at in the light of information found in Josephus, who WAS a priest in the Second Temple.

Point being that the High Priest was considered the link between man and god, and man and the universe. His function was to bring the concerns of man (the Jews) to god’s attention, and to bring the wishes of god back down to men. That is why the man chosen for High Priest was to be perfect. And usually chosen for life before the corruption of Rome and Herod the Great.

Being semi-divine gives you great license to do whatever you want- including the taking of lives.

When Jesus said the only way to know God was through HIM, that left little room for argument.

 

[steve53]

True. The Romans found out that the most effective way to rule was by being indirect, staying behind the scenes and letting the locals run things - for them - as they have always done. After all, everyone’s happier (?) that way. Rome did not have high hopes for Judaea anyway: it just wanted something to bridge Syria and Egypt.

Vitellius or no Vitellius, you have a point. Caiaphas does not want to leave a negative impression to Pilate and upwards into the food chain, Pilate does not want to leave a negative impression to his superiors.

I don’t think Caiaphas cared much about Pilate. Pilate was probably paid off, and Caiaphas didn’t even make a personal appeal to him when he confidently sent Jesus over for execution.

No, it had to be something bigger. I agree with Hagan. Vitellius was coming to town unexpectedly-a Tiberius insider if there ever was one, and a man to be feared.

 

[MorningSong51]

Being semi-divine gives you great license to do whatever you want- including the taking of lives.

…and quoting:
Josephus, on the other hand, states that the Urim and Thummim did exist for a while in the second temple and were used by second temple priests. He writes in his Antiquities (3:218) that the Urim and Thummim stopped shining, that is, ceased to function, only 200 years before he wrote the Antiquities, that is around 104 BCE, the death of John Hyrcanus (134-104)

But in the empty place of this garment (ie., the Ephod) there was inserted a piece of the size of a span, embroidered with gold, and the other colors of the Ephod, and was called Essen (the breastplate,) which, in the Greek language, signifies the Oracle.
Yet will I mention what is still more wonderful than this: for God declared beforehand by those twelve stones which the high priest bare on his breast, and which were inserted into his breastplate, when they should be victorious in battle; for so great a splendor shone forth from them before the army began to march, that all the people were sensible of God’s being present for their assistance.

Where it came to pass that those Greeks who had a veneration for our laws, because they could not possibly contradict this, call that breastplate the oracle.
Now this breastplate, and this sardonyx, stopped shining two hundred years before I composed this book, God having been displeased at the transgressions of his law (Ant. 3:163, 216 - 218)

Josephus also connects the high priestly office with the gift of prophecy, but always to high priests living before Hyrcarius death. Moreover, the priest’s prophetic ability is always executed through the high-priestly vestments, the Ephod, the breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim, which josephus calls the oracle. Josephus believed that the high priest used his Urim and Thummim to inquire of God. He states, for example (Ant. 4:311), that “Moses taught them…how they should go forth to war, making use of the stones (of the high priest’s breastplate) for their direction.” Josephus alleges (Ant. 13:282-83), for example, that Hyrcanus heard a voice from above which revealed that his sons had just defeated Antiochus in battle…He heard the voice while in the temple, thus while wearing the priestly vestments. To Josephus, Hyrcanus “was accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges: the rule of the nation, the office of high-priest, and the gift of prophecy” (Ant 13:299, wars 1:68)

There a point to all of this, that is, with the prophet Samuel - and Chana (Hannah, and with the passage "Now Eli the priest was sitting on his chair by the doorpost of the LORD’s house. 10 In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the LORD, weeping bitterly. 11 And she made a vow, saying, “LORD Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the LORD for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head. 12 As she kept on praying to the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk 14 and said to her, “How long are you going to stay drunk? Put away your wine.” )
The function of the breastplate gave the High Priest the ability to prophesize but also that it gave to the High priest - judgments (asking HaShem for guidance). Eli - who I understood, served a dual office of being the High priest and judge, misunderstood the symbols on the breastplate, and mistook the “weeping” of Hannah. Although, the prophet Samuel, came to him announcing God’s judgments (without the use of the breastplate - is the point) because of the sin of his family, but still this did not take away from the position of the high office.

The hypothesis that second temple priests before the death of John Hyrcanus had access to the urim and thummin (and consequently shared the gift of prophecy) can be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the Urim and Thummim did not exist at all in the second temple and that second temple priest were not perceived as having prophetic abilities. This can be done by examining second temple texts which describe the contemporary high priest and which can be dated prior to 104 BCE. If these texts imply that their contemporary high priest had access to Urim and Thummim and to God’s word it will support the view of Josephus over that of the Talmud. If these text do not include a reference to the Urim and Thummim or imply that priests did not have privileged access to God’s word, it will support the view of the Talmud over that of Josephus. **the entire Ephod becomes a method for accessing the divine will, a method of prophecy - and I think the passage out Hosea notes; “Therefore the sons of Israel will live many days with neither king, nor ruler, nor sacrifice, nor altar, nor priesthood, nor Urim”…

Reference:
Did Second Temple High Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim

 

[steve53]

Tres formidable, Morning Star!

But I think you are veering off into the Talmud, which I tend to discount. Trying to massage sections of the poorly documented Talmud into Josephus and early Christian history will always, IMO, be a fool’s errand.

Josephus in the earlier books in Antiquities, works off the Old Testament a lot, so that is certainly fair game.

My use of Josephus is very strict, and I try not to color it with Talmudic references, or Old Testament (name removed by moderator)ut. If anything, I interpret Josephus in light of Roman historians and the NT.

But certainly the “robes” of the priest were so politically important that the Romans ordered them locked up in the Tower of Antonia, only to be taken out once a year for the Passover. And it was a really big deal when Vitellius decided to release them back to the High Priesthood in his first visit to Rome, which according to some, was in A.D. 36- the year that Jesus was crucified (according to some).

Josephus’ references in his early books to the prophecies of the High Priests might be somewhat self-serving. He himself had prophetic dreams and visions. He thought that God was ordering him to defect to the Romans, to serve as a testament to God’s wrath when a people disobey him. Josephus also references the Essene as having prophetic dreams, but never states that the Roman-era High Priest had any particular prophetic relationship with God.

As a thought, the Sanhedrin could have come about as a “check” on the implied absolute divine powers of the High Priest, as well as to help with the administration of the Jewish nation.

 

[patrick457]

I would think Pilate’s recruits, if they came from the area, would be Greek Syrians, and not Samaritans. Don’t you?
There was always tension between the Greeks and the Jews, but between Judeans and Samaritans not as great. Both Jewish sects followed the Torah, after all.

I don’t see why it couldn’t be a ‘both-and’ case. And remember that time when some Samaritans strew human bones in the Temple grounds, which caused a HUGE inconvenience.

Yes both groups followed the Torah, but their main point of contention is which of them has accurately preserved its memory. Jews believe that the Samaritans were the descendant of other peoples brought into the land during the Exile who adopted the worship of Yhwh, amalgamating it with their own respective belief systems. The Samaritans meanwhile claim that they were the descendants of the Israelites who stayed in the land: they argue that what the Jews brought back with them from exile was a corrupted, defective version of the ancient Israelite religion which they (Samaritans) had accurately preserved. Some medieval Samaritan legends even claim that the schism started when a renegade priest named Eli (THAT Eli from 1 Samuel) left with his followers and started to make his own Tabernacle in Shiloh - which of course would be superseded by the Temple in Jerusalem - whereas Moses set up the original at Mount Gerizim, the holy mountain of the Samaritans. So according to this, the Israelites became split into three factions: one followed the pagan practices of neighboring peoples, another fell into schism and worshipped at Shiloh and later, Jerusalem, while still another preserved the true religion and continued to worship at Mount Gerizim.

Despite the stories, we don’t really know exactly when the feud started, but we do know that the feud came to center around religion. And as this forum proves, religion can get people worked up - especially if the parties involved are each claiming to practice the true orthodox form of the religion which they essentially share.

 

[patrick457]

The NT and Jesus’ actions should be looked at in the light of information found in Josephus, who WAS a priest in the Second Temple.

Point being that the High Priest was considered the link between man and god, and man and the universe. His function was to bring the concerns of man (the Jews) to god’s attention, and to bring the wishes of god back down to men. That is why the man chosen for High Priest was to be perfect. And usually chosen for life before the corruption of Rome and Herod the Great.

Being semi-divine gives you great license to do whatever you want- including the taking of lives.

When Jesus said the only way to know God was through HIM, that left little room for argument.

Good point. Though, a high priest was hardly considered ‘semi-divine’ in the same way that a pope is hardly ‘semi-divine’. The office is sacred and highly important as you mention, but there is a line between the office itself and the holder of the office. Jews respected the office, even if the man who currently holds it is (excuse the term) a jerk.

 

[steve53]

I don’t know about that. The High Priest had to be perfect so that the spirit of God could, presumably, possess him and communicate with him. And someone God touches like that can hardly revert to being a common Jewish priest again. That is why Josephus documents them so carefully. And why, before the Romans, they served for life.
On the same level, Kings were thought to be touched by God. So they could not be executed if defeated in battle, as to do so would be attempt to kill God himself.

What is your source for the information on the Samaritans? Josephus suggests that it was the Samaritan embracing of the Greek Antigonus and his Hellenizing of Judaism circa 164 B.C. that accounted for much of the rift in Josephus’ time. While the Maccabees revolted, the Samaritans caved in to the Greeks.

Throwing dead bodies in the Temple sounds like more of a frat house prank gone awry than an act of war.

No reason why Pilate wouldn’t have a good measure of Naboteans in his force as well.

 

[TOME]

I am going to approach my answer from a historical perspective.

I think it would help to go back a few years before 33 AD (the year I am using for the date Christ was crucified). From 26 AD until 31 AD the Roman empire was virtually rule by the head of the Preatorian Guard: Sejanus. A couple of things about Sejanus are important here. First he was a brutal dicator and very anti-semetic. Second, it was Sejanus who appointed Pilate as “Procurator” over Judea. Pilate’s main task was to send the alloted tax money to the “Fisc” or treasury in Rome. Pilate was also a “Regimental Commander” with around 3000 men under his command (5 cohorts of 600 men). Pilate also had the power of “Ius Gladii” i.e. he had the authority to put people to death and the gospels are clear that he was not one who would refuse to use this power ordinarily)

In 31 AD Tiberius deposed Sejanus and in 32 AD issued an edict ordering the administrators of the providences to treat the Jews favorably. In response the jewish leaders both in Jerusalem and throughout the dispora took on a favorable attitude towards Rome. This occured especially in Jerusalem leading to a period of “cooperation” between Pilate and the jewish leaders i.e. the High Priest and the Council of 70 (who were now eager to show their new found favor in expressions of loyality to Tiberius). This attitude of cooperation between the High Priest/Council and Pilate forms the meliu inwhich Jesus was put to death.

Only Pilate had the authority to put someone to death and the gospels show that the High Priest/Council were only too willing to use this spirit of cooperation to put Jesus to death.
Jesus was put to death under Roman law by edict of Pilate exercising his power of “Ius Gladii”. The Romans did not give any concern about the timing of an execution but keeping in mind Tiberius’ edict of 31 AD which initiated a period of cooperation it is understandable why Pilate ordered the excutions of Jesus and the two criminals finished before sundown.

 

[NotWorthy]

What is your source for the information on the Samaritans? Josephus suggests that it was the Samaritan embracing of the Greek Antigonus and his Hellenizing of Judaism circa 164 B.C. that accounted for much of the rift in Josephus’ time. While the Maccabees revolted, the Samaritans caved in to the Greeks.

Throwing dead bodies in the Temple sounds like more of a frat house prank gone awry than an act of war.

No reason why Pilate wouldn’t have a good measure of Naboteans in his force as well.

The rift between the Samaritans and the Jews goes back at least as far as Ezra and Nehemiah when the Samaritans offered to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. When the Jews refused, the Samaritans went to the Persians and told them that the Jews were rebuilding a fortress and were planning on rebelling again.

 

[MorningSong51]

Tres formidable, Morning Star!

But I think you are veering off into the Talmud, which I tend to discount. Trying to massage sections of the poorly documented Talmud into Josephus and early Christian history will always, IMO, be a fool’s errand.

Josephus in the earlier books in Antiquities, works off the Old Testament a lot, so that is certainly fair game.

My use of Josephus is very strict, and I try not to color it with Talmudic references, or Old Testament (name removed by moderator)ut. If anything, I interpret Josephus in light of Roman historians and the NT.

But certainly the “robes” of the priest were so politically important that the Romans ordered them locked up in the Tower of Antonia, only to be taken out once a year for the Passover. And it was a really big deal when Vitellius decided to release them back to the High Priesthood in his first visit to Rome, which according to some, was in A.D. 36- the year that Jesus was crucified (according to some).

Josephus’ references in his early books to the prophecies of the High Priests might be somewhat self-serving. He himself had prophetic dreams and visions. He thought that God was ordering him to defect to the Romans, to serve as a testament to God’s wrath when a people disobey him. Josephus also references the Essene as having prophetic dreams, but never states that the Roman-era High Priest had any particular prophetic relationship with God.

As a thought, the Sanhedrin could have come about as a “check” on the implied absolute divine powers of the High Priest, as well as to help with the administration of the Jewish nation.

***C’est gentille de ta part:curtsey:, Steve53…Although the post you wrote, was not the point. ***

Originally posted by Steve 53
Being semi-divine gives you great license to do whatever you want- including the taking of lives.

Being Semi - divine does not give you a great license to do whatever you want, if it did - than the High Priest could have spared the trial altogether and quoting from scripture, 'At the house of Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin (consisting of the scribes, elders, and the chief priests — “the whole council,” cf. Matthew 26:59) was assembled to hear the case against Christ. On a capital punishment case, a death sentence –The infrequency of the death penalty was attributable to the meticulous application of stringent rules regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence. A court of at least 23 judges would have to be satisfied, to a legal certainty, that the capital offense had been committed before the court could impose a death sentence. Since the testimony of two eye-witnesses was required, and the witnesses were subjected to searching and detailed interrogation by the court, there was rarely an instance when the evidence met the prescribed legal standard. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Judges, Sanhedrin, chapter XII4.

…did the above article state “rarely”? - and did I write that it normally doesn’t occur…in the previous post? I did.

Again, this is capital punishment, but there could be only one Great Sanhedrin of 71, which among other roles acted as the Supreme Court, taking appeals from cases decided by lesser courts. The numbers of judges were predicated on eliminating the possibility of a tie and the last to cast their vote was the head of the court. In general, the full panel of 71 judges was only convened on matters of national significance (e.g., a declaration of war) or in the event that the 23-member panel could not reach a conclusive verdict. To verify this information:

Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and accordingly, Capital punishment is a penalty prescribed by Biblical law for the commission of offenses that violate ritual prohibitions (such as deliberate desecration of the Sabbath) as well as laws regarding interpersonal relationships (murder, kidnapping, incest). The Biblical text explicitly specifies two forms of execution: stoning (Exodus 17:4, 8:22; Numbers 14:10) and burning (Leviticus 20:14, 21:9). The oral tradition includes two additional means – strangulation and decapitation. Which of these did Jesus receive? None……

Under: 79. Courts and their Punishments - Sanhedrin veha-Oneshin ha-Mesurin Lahem, the article states, “The court at the Temple, which is called the Sanhedrin, has 71 members. This court is responsible for crowning the king; declaring war; enlarging the Temple or the city of Jerusalem; judging tribes or cities who were incited to idolatry, false prophets, and rebellious elders; judging capital cases involving the high priest; appointing lower courts; and dealing with persons found murdered and wives suspected of adultery. Capital cases are tried by courts having 23 members; they can be tried only when the Temple and Sanhedrin exist. No court can have less than three members; however, an individual may also act as a judge if he is a known expert or has the permission of a court.

 

[MorningSong51]

As to continue:

Why, I brought up the passage from 1 Samuel, Eli - the High Priest! and If anyone has ever read this part of scripture - it would be the equivalency of David succeeding over Saul. We know that Eli was guilty, that’s not the point but I will give some info - as to quote: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_%28Bible%29

Eli is the high priest of Shiloh, the last Israelite judge before the rule of the kings, therefore, the Shiloh tradition will become an old and lost tradition that when the prophet Jeremiah comes on the scene in the history of the Lord’s people, he will seek to renew and to bring back the way of the Shiloh tradition to the people of Israel because the kings have become wicked and defile the temple and tradition of Yahweh.
[edit] The sons of Eli

The sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, meanwhile, were behaving wickedly, for example by taking for themselves all the prime cuts of meat from sacrifices, and by committing adultery with the women who served at the sanctuary entrance. Eli’s very well aware of their behavior does nothing to stop it, the sons continued, and so, according to the text, after a vision from the lord, Samuel prophesies to Eli that Eli and his family will be punished for this, with all men dying before reaching old age and being usually placed in positions subservient to priests from other lineages. The curse alludes to a previous (not appearing elsewhere in the Bible) promise from God of Eli’s lineage continuing eternally (c.f. similar promises to King David and Jehonadab).

The point is this, Eli - who I understood, served a dual office of being the High priest and judge, misunderstood the symbols on the breastplate, and mistook the “weeping” of Hannah. Although, **the prophet Samuel, came to him announcing God’s judgments (without the use of the breastplate - is the point) because of the sin of his family, but still this did not take away from the position of the high office.

It wasn’t the breastplate - Urim and Thummim, it was Samuel who came to Eli with the news!

announcing God’s judgment

But in the empty place of this garment (ie., the Ephod) there was inserted a piece of the size of a span, embroidered with gold, and the other colors of the Ephod, and was called Essen (the breastplate,) which, in the Greek language, signifies the Oracle.

Yet will I mention what is still more wonderful than this: for God declared beforehand by those twelve stones which the high priest bare on his breast, and which were inserted into his breastplate, when they should be victorious in battle; for so great a splendor shone forth from them before the army began to march, that all the people were sensible of God’s being present for their assistance.

Where it came to pass that those Greeks who had a veneration for our laws, because they could not possibly contradict this,** call that breastplate the oracle.**
Now this breastplate, and this sardonyx, stopped shining two hundred years before I composed this book, God having been displeased at the transgressions of his law (Ant. 3:163, 216 - 218)

Josephus also connects the high priestly office with the gift of prophecy, but always to high priests living before Hyrcarius death. Moreover, the priest’s prophetic ability is always executed through the high-priestly vestments, the Ephod, the breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim, which josephus calls the oracle. Josephus believed that the high priest used his Urim and Thummim to inquire of God. He states, for example (Ant. 4:311), that “Moses taught them…how they should go forth to war, making use of the stones (of the high priest’s breastplate) for their direction.” Josephus alleges (Ant. 13:282-83), for example, that Hyrcanus heard a voice from above which revealed that his sons had just defeated Antiochus in battle…He heard the voice while in the temple, thus while wearing the priestly vestments. To Josephus, Hyrcanus “was accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges: the rule of the nation, the office of high-priest, and the gift of prophecy” (Ant 13:299, wars 1:68)

There a point to all of this, that is, with the prophet Samuel - and Chana (Hannah, and with the passage "Now Eli the priest was sitting on his chair by the doorpost of the LORD’s house. 10 In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the LORD, weeping bitterly. 11 And she made a vow, saying, “LORD Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the LORD for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head. 12 As she kept on praying to the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk 14 and said to her, “How long are you going to stay drunk? Put away your wine.” )
The function of the breastplate gave the High Priest the ability to prophesize but also that it gave to the High priest - judgments (asking HaShem for guidance).

 

[MorningSong51]

Urim and Thummim: In ancient Israelite religion and culture, Urim and Thummim (Hebrew: האורים והתומים‎, Standard haʾUrim vəhaTummim Tiberian hāʾÛrîm wəhatTummîm) is a phrase from the Hebrew Scriptures or Torah associated with the Hoshen (High Priest’s breastplate), divination in general, and cleromancy in particular.

(Thummim) is widely considered to be derived from the consonantal root תתּוּמִים(t-m-m), meaning innocent,[1][2][3] while אוּרִים (Urim) has traditionally been taken to derive from a root meaning** lights**; these derivations are reflected in the Neqqudot of the masoretic text.[3] In consequence, Urim and Thummim has traditionally been translated as** lights and perfections** (by Theodotion, for example), or, by taking the phrase allegorically, as meaning revelation and truth, or doctrine and truth (it appears in this form in the Vulgate, in the writing of Jerome, and in the Hexapla).[2] It should be understood that “Thummim” is pronounced /tumim/ in Modern Hebrew.

However, although at face value the words are plural, the context suggests they are pluralis intensivus - singular words which are pluralised to enhance their apparent majesty.[2] The singular forms - ur and tumm - have been connected by some early scholars with the Babylonian terms urtu and tamitu, meaning oracle and command, respectively.[2] Many scholars now believe that אוּרִים (Urim) simply derives from the Hebrew term אּרּרִים (Arrim), meaning curses, and thus that Urim and Thummim essentially means cursed or faultless, in reference to the deity’s view of an accused—in other words** Urim and Thummim were used to answer the question innocent or guilty.**

In the article on the Urim and Thummin - Urim and Thummim did exist for a while in the second temple and were used by second temple priests. He writes in his Antiquities (3:218) that the Urim and Thummim stopped shining, that is, ceased to function, only 200 years before he wrote the Antiquities, that is around 104 BCE, the death of John Hyrcanus (134-104)

With the passage out of 1 Samuel, Samuel confronted Eli directly, Christ did the same thing. Christ, as we know, is the light - doctrine and truth. John 1:17, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

 

[MorningSong51]

References:

N. Judges - Shofetim

administer corporal punishment: Halacha Overview

Urim and Thummim: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim

 

[TOME]

In an earlier post I tired to present the reason why it was the Romans and not the Jewish leaders who put Jesus to death, the reason being the Romans preserved this power to themselves exclusively, therefore, it was practically impossible for the Jewish leaders to have Jesus stoned to death.

In his book, “Jesus of Nazareth Holy Week” Pope Benedict XVI points out in the chapter on the trial of Jesus that Jesus’ appearence before the high priest and council that this was not a trial but a cross examination which produced enough evidence that the leaders felt confident enough to bring Jesus before Pilate for trial. Religion and politics in the Holy Land at that time was so intertwined that a religious question (Blasphemy, in the way Jesus accepts the charge that he is the messiah and explains the true meaning of messiahship in terms that was understood by the council and high priest as equating himself with God) and the political question (by claiming messiahship Jesus was challenging Roman’s authority) were inseparetable. Thus Jesus was brought before Pilate and eventually executed. But he was executed under Roman law.

However, within three years (I am using 33 AD as the year of Jesus’ death and resurrection) we find in Acts the High Priest and Council of 70 acting on ther own authority and stoning Stephen. Why the change? Again, I would like to turn to the historic/political background for my explanation.

First, Tiberius’ edict of 32 AD which showed favor to Jews through out the Roman empire had two major affects on the people of Palestine and the dispora. One affect was the immediate growth of cooperation of the jewish leaders and Pilate (the jewish leaders understood that they had a great opportunity to curry favor with the Emperor and did not want to compromise their new positive position). However, this also lead to an ever growing sense of power amoung the leaders and a sense of jewish nationalism amoung the people in general. As a result, and fueled by Pilate’s actions, the sense of cooperation between Pilate and the jewish leads, that was prevelant at the time of Jesus’ death, rapidly disintegrated and complaints from the leaders of Jerusalem began to flow to Tiberius.

In 35 AD Vitellius was appointed the Lagate of Syria (this Vitellius is not to be confused with his son who would later become emperor) and because troubles with the Parthians, Tiberius gave Vitellus extraordinary power over the whole near east. Part of Vitellius’ strategy was to win the support of Jerusalem, so in 36 AD, after his first campaign against the Parthians, Vitellius return the high-priestly vestments to the high priest (prior to this these vestments had been kept in the fortress Antonia under Roman and later Herod’s control) replaced Caiaphas as High Priest with Jonathan, Annas’ son, and removed Pilate -replacing Pilate with one of his own officers (Marcellus).

 

[TOME]

I like to continue on why Jesus was killed by the Romans but Stephen was killed by the Jews, looking at this from a hisrtorical perspective.

During the period between Pilate’s removal from power and Marcellus’ arrival in Judea there was a period of a vacuum of authority which, Jonathan and the Council of 70 quickly filled. At the time of Stephen’s death there really was no more powerful authority than Jonathan. I do not wish to go over the reasons why Stephen was brought to trial or the trial itself but only to say that the execution of Stephen took place because there was no Roman authority to stop it. Vitellius needed Jewish support, this support was vital in his wars against the Parthians and the Jewish leaders knew this and thus felt powerful enough to take the action they did against Stephen. The vacuum caused by Marcellus’ absence also allow the persecutions of the Church carried out by Saul.

However, the free exercise of power by Jonathan and the Council quickly changed with the arrival of Marcellus and Vitellius’ defeat of the Parthians. Vitellius no longer needed Jewish support and felt Jonathan had grown too independant thus in 37 AD he replaced Jonathan with Jonathan’s brother Theophilus. Also, in 37 AD Caligula came to power and reduced Jewish authority to even a greater extent.

But it was a vacuum of Roman authority at the time of Stephen’s death that allowed the Jewish leaders to kill him, a vacuum that did not exist at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.

 

[steve53]

What makes you think there was a power vacuum? Josephus states that Vitellius replaced Pilate with Marcellus, as if Marcellus was already at hand, possibly a member of his staff. This would have been A.D. 37, and before he knew of the death of Tiberius and the ascension of Caius.

What are your sources?

When Vitellius removed Caiaphas in A.D. 36, he replaced him with Jonathan. If Jesus’ crucifixion was a part of the reason for the removal, Jonathan should have been on his best behavior. But remember it took the Miracle of the tongues to shift the Christian proselytizing into high gear, which would have been two months after the Passover, with Vitellius having returned to Antioch.

So Jonathan pursued the Christians. When Vitellius returned in A.D. 37, he not only removed Pilate for his actions against the Samaritans, but also Jonathan-possibly for his actions against the Christians.

 

[TOME]

First, about my sources, I am using very old notes of mine so I cannot give you an exact bibliography. However, one source I do have is an E. Schurer, “History of the Jewish People”. I also have references to Philo and Josephus. I am sure there were several other sources but I don’t have them in my notes. (What surprises me is I have these notes at all).

In response to your points let me say this;

First, the Mircle of Tongues took place in 33 AD.

Second, In 35 AD Vitellius became legate over Syria and because of the troubles coming from the Parthians was given authority over all the near east as well. Vitellius immediately went to deal with the Parthian crisis and had little interest in Palestine.

(Here I have to tell you I went back to my notes and will make some clarifications) In 36 AD, Vitellius completed his first campaign against the Parthians and then went to Palestine. This is when, in order to curry Jewish support, he returned the control of the High-priest vestments to the high priest. Also, to gain favor with Annas (who was the de facto power in Jerusalem) he replaced Caiaphas with Jonathan (Annas’ son). Finally, he removed Pilate as procurator and replaced him with one of his officers Marcellus. (Just a note of interest, remember it was Sejanus who had actually placed Pilate as the Judean procurator so Pilate had lost his benefactor which also meant Vitellius did not have to worry about this move).

(Here comes my clarification) This cause a power vacuum for two reasons. First, there was a period between Pilate’s departure and Marcullus’ arrival. However, the second reason is the more important cause of the power vacuum. Marcellus had no imperial authority (he was just an officer in Vitellius’ legions). Judea was left without a procurator, that is, there was no de jure Roman authority in Palestine. Jonathan was the de facto authority in Judea given his position as the High Priest (and it seems to me that this is actually how Vitellius wanted it to be - remember, at this point, because of his campaigning against the Parthians, Vitellius needed the support of the High Priest and Council of 70 and Annas as well).

It was in this setting that the trial of Stephen took place, and because Marcellus had no imperial authority he had no authority to stop Stephen’s stoning. Also, he lacked the authority to stop the subsequent persecution of the Church by Saul/Paul (acting on authority given him by Jonathan) outside of Jerusalem as far as Damascus.

However, in 37 AD the Parthian question was settled. This ended Vitellius’ need for Jewish support. It was at this time he replaced the extremely ambitious Jonathan with his more docile younger brother (thus keeping Annas happy). Vitellius did not remove Jonathan because of who Jonathan was persecuting but because he saw Jonathan as someone totally ambitious who had overstepped his authority and clearly Jonathan was not someone Vitellius felt he could control. I only mentioned Tiberius’ death and the ascension to power of Gius Julius Caesar Germanicus to illustrate how in a few short years the Jews had seen themselves rise to a favorable position in Rome’s eyes, both in the Holy Land and throughout the dispora, only to a fall from this favor.

 

[steve53]

I appreciate your post, but I disagree with some of your conclusions.

I would recommend that you read Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” and “Roman Fires”, where I get a lot of my perspective. In the first work, Hagan derives a crucifixion year of A.D. 36, which is key.

I agree that Vitellius’ first visit was in A.D. 36 to Jerusalem, after he had a firm handle on the Parthian situation. But something you are missing is the reason for that visit. He went to Jerusalem because Emperor Tiberius had ordered him to invade Nabotea (Arabia) and bring him the head of King Aretas, who had defeated Tiberius’ favorite Tetrarch Herod Antipas only a few months before. It was a reconnaissance mission, in fact, to scope out the lay of the land and meet his allies, and possibly arrange for a peace with Aretas.

Hagan argues that this visit was a semi-surprise, and drove Caiaphas, when he belately learned of it, to quickly get rid of Jesus (troublemaker) with the help of Pilate. That Caiaphas was fired by Vitellius only days later at this same passover is suspicious. Vitellius had to have been disappointed in Pilate as well for caving in to Caiaphas’ demands.

In the following months of the remainder of A.D. 36, and into A.D. 37, Jonathan, the new High Priest, found reason to pursue the Christians, unleashing Saul of Tarsus and others. Pilate suspected a rebellion in Samaria, possibly lead by the revived Jesus, or one of his seconds, and routed a significant number of Samaritan pilgrims.

Returning to Jerusalem with an invasion force in A.D. 37, Vitellius on his own initiative removed Pilate for his aggression, and sent him to Rome for trial. He also removed Jonathan at the same time. For what reason? Possibly his persecution of the Christians.

When Vitellius learned of Tiberius’ death in Jerusalem, he aborted the invasion plans with relief, and appointed Marcellus as temporary Prefect, which was later confirmed by Caius. There is no reason to think that Marcellus had any less powers than did Pilate.

So the tenures of Jonathan and Marcellus did not overlap. And an argument for a power vaccum is hard to justify. Vitellius had the full confidence of Tiberius, and Tiberius likely instructed him to remove Pilate if he had to before Vitellius left for the East in A.D. 35. In fact, Tiberius, being thorough and meticulous about these things, likely made Marcellus a part of Vitellius’ staff just in case Pilate had to go. There were lots of complaints on record against Pilate, and, as you pointed out, he was Sejanus’ man to begin with.

Now, later, in A.D. 62, there WAS a real power vacuum, with the sudden death of Festus, the procurator. The High Priesthood took this opportunity to convene the Sanhedrin, and eliminate the Jerusalem Christian leadership. Hagan suggests that Festus might have been surreptitiously assassinated by the High Priesthood for just this purpose.