Rending of the veil

[Peter Kirby]

However, I think that the temple authorities had the authority to rule on things pertaining to Judean ritual as it related to the temple.

Yes, Virginia, there was a Sanhedrin.

There may even have been some cases where somebody, a priest or even a HP, had transgressed a tenet sacred to the majority by introducing a "novelty" to the sacred rituals, and suffered death for it.

As a matter of actual fact, this is of course the case.

As stated in some of the discussions linked, there was a popular feeling that the crime of blasphemy (or something similar) would even be justly answered by the lynching of the mob. This was seen as bringing God's justice upon the blasphemer. But that's just mob justice.

As stated in another, there was Talmudic discussion of symbolic execution, by touching the convicted with a stone. The actual execution, it is then implied, was left in the hands of the magistrate, even if the Sanhedrin had made deliberations (which were non-binding on the Roman governor).

And it is possible even for a Sanhedrin to convene and do things illegally.

Even if so, whatever Jacob the brother of Jesus the being-said Christ did to earn a death sentence at the hands of Ananus seems NOT to have been a religious novelty, as Ananus would then have the right to judge such a matter. He rather seems to have took it on himself to judge a civil matter in lieu of the Roman governor, clearly crossing boundaries of authority. Seems that the great Sanhedrin had other means for dealing with pesky folks that were not introducing serious religious novelties, such as 'accidental' falls and drowning.

The imagined distinction between death sentences for "religious" crimes as opposed to "civil" crimes is a fantasy imposed on the sources. It's strange that it does not occur to you that the illegality of the whole thing and the reason for doing it when there is no procurator present is that the Sanhedrin couldn't carry any such sentence without approval, since the supreme authority over life and death rested in this Roman governor.

In either case only the appointed governor, by means of his personal cognitio (investigation) or by carrying out punishment for a jury verdict (at the governor's discretion), would have the legal authority in the Roman province to execute the sentence of death.

[TedM]

Exactly 40 years before the destruction of the Temple would be 24 years too late to describe the historical installation of an equestrian governor by the Romans with the power of capital punishment reserved to him. So, if the tradition in the Talmud is based on a historical memory of the Sanhedrin losing this power prior to AD 70, then it does so while providing only an approximation of the actual date when this happened (i.e., which would be, AD 6).

Ok, or the Talmud was aware of more information than what we are today, and got the date correct as some kind of stronger or more expanded restriction on the Sanhedrin happening at that time. If the place of their meetings changed around that time, then one might speculate that the reason for this might correlate with a change in their authority.

Why would you "speculate" any of that?

A. N. Sherwin-White is quite good when it comes to his domain of expertise, which is Roman law. The best argument against Juster and Winter is that, even if it might possibly accord with the historical evidence regarding the Sanhedrin (to say that they still held the legal jurisdiction to try capital crimes after the installation of Coponius), it does not accord with the historical evidence regarding Roman law. The equestrian governor of the province held the power to try capital crimes. A different arrangement could have existed in any particular province prior to direct Roman rule but not afterwards. I recommend reading Sherwin-White's exposition, part of the links above.

The reason to speculate is simply the fact that they don't say 64 years, but they do say 40 years. Absence any other information 40 years is the most likely correct time period. Yes, we do have other information, but there certainly is reason to speculate.

Just because the Romans had authority doesn't mean there wasn't some authority still in the hands of the Sanhedrin. Nor can we assume that the Jewish people -- who were fiercely independent -- weren't given more leeway than others in certain circumstances. I haven't read all of the links but I read enough to agree that the situation is very murky. As to a move in location, there was a reason for this banishment (ie not a voluntary move), and I see no problem with speculating that the reason correlated with a change in authority, but certainly I see both of my speculations as requiring some evidence. I was just throwing it out there as worthy of speculation. The various links you provided (I read maybe 1/3) may well have dealt with all these kinds of speculations spectacularly.

[Peter Kirby]

The reason to speculate is simply the fact that they don't say 64 years, but they do say 40 years.

Good luck with that.

Absence any other information 40 years is the most likely correct time period.

The account is too late and too legendary to be used for such precise "correct" answers.

[TedM]

The account is too late and too legendary to be used for such precise "correct" answers.

Yeah, I had forgotten the dates of the Talmud are so late..agree.

[DCHindley]

Yes, Virginia, there was a Sanhedrin.
...
And it is possible even for a Sanhedrin to convene and do things illegally.

Sorry if I ignored the links you posted without any comment as to the gems I would discover to open them, as I (and I'm sure many others who lurk here) do not have the patience to plow through 10,000 words for the relevant couple sentences, like one of Stephan Huller's word walls.

Now I am of the opinion that the temple operated as a state within a state, its jurisdiction limited to the temple itself and any land that remained under its control. What happens in the temple enclosure stays in the temple enclosure, like Las Vegas, NV, US of A. This is what makes lynching so attractive, as there was no proper place to hold executions within the temple enclosure (although it seems the Idumeans and Zealots staged some trials during the revolt that included executions, and these were apparently held on the temple walls where everyone could see. The dead bodies were then tossed into the valley of Hinnom).

It is difficult to evaluate how much credence we should give to Josephus' statements about such matters, as he had his own agenda to pursue. Of course, one also never really knows what, if any, reality was behind stories of "accidental" deaths in Rabbinic literature. Supposedly these deaths happened after the destruction of the temple, and any Sanhedrin that may have existed had ceased.

As for the term "sanhedrin," there were probably many such bodies, but a "Great Sanhedrin" made up of religious authorities was somewhat of a myth. There was a discussion about this on some discussion board, maybe even Crosstalk2 (XTalk), several years ago. I also think there is something about it in the revised edition of Schuerer's Jewish People. Seems the term refers to any body of people convened for deliberative purposes. Kings had their counselors, HPs had theirs, the Gerousia had theirs, to deliberate things relevant to the authority they assembled to counsel. HPs didn't tell kings (or their governors) what they could or could not do, nor Gerousia to the HP, or even the King the HP.

I'd look it up if I weren't so dingy dang tired from pushing furniture around so we can have wood flooring installed.

DCH

[Kris]

I was rereading this thread just for the fun of it, but tripped up on something that was said on page two in which a writer from the 9th century alluded to Josephus mentioning the breaking of lintels. I don't recall reading this is Josephus at all in any of his works. Jerome made several allusions to lintels being destroyed. The only area that I could find in Josephus that mentioned voices stating that they were leaving the temple was in his listing of prodigies-- and it only mentions the ground shaking but no breaking of lintels. Do you think that the Jerome was mixed up-- his reports of voices in the temple from Josephus stated in his Chronicles, and then his letters regarding the lintels being destroyed? Everything else on this thread made sense, but this particular thing threw me off. Can anyone help clarify?

[Ben C. Smith]

I was rereading this thread just for the fun of it, but tripped up on something that was said on page two in which a writer from the 9th century alluded to Josephus mentioning the breaking of lintels. I don't recall reading this is Josephus at all in any of his works. Jerome made several allusions to lintels being destroyed. The only area that I could find in Josephus that mentioned voices stating that they were leaving the temple was in his listing of prodigies-- and it only mentions the ground shaking but no breaking of lintels. Do you think that the Jerome was mixed up-- his reports of voices in the temple from Josephus stated in his Chronicles, and then his letters regarding the lintels being destroyed? Everything else on this thread made sense, but this particular thing threw me off. Can anyone help clarify?

I believe you are referring to the passage cited by Klijn from Christian of Stavelot.

The lintel breaking apart was apparently a feature of one of the Jewish-Christian gospels, but there were many more reports of strange things happening either at the death of Jesus or in conjunction with the fall of Jerusalem; Peter listed sources.

I suspect Christian of Stavelot (or someone he is relying on) simply confused or conflated two of these reports, attributing to Josephus what was proper to the/a gospel of the Hebrews.

Josephus loomed large for Christians interested in early church history. Many things got attributed to him which he never wrote. (As early as Origen he was said, for example, to have blamed the fall of Jerusalem on the Jewish treatment of James; but Josephus never wrote that.)

Ben.

[Giuseppe]

@Kris

Can anybody give me some good insight regarding of the rending of the veil? Did this really happen--- or is it only reflected in the gospel stories? Is it unprovable because the gospel writers wrote about this incident after the destruction of the temple? Is the whole thing allegorical?

@tojeam

But on the other hand, I think the incident makes better sense as an allegory: Jesus' sacrifice, being a perfect sacrifice, means the end of the animal sacrificial system and Yahweh can now 'leave the building' (for lack of a better phrase).

As usually, I think that the interpretation above is yes allegorical apologetic post-70 find in our canonical Gospels, but not born precisely in reaction to Destruction of Temple, but instead born precisely in reaction to Marcionism and Evangelion.

When the Demiurg, YHWH, realised what was happening at the crucifixion - very similar to Sauron's Eye in Lord of Rings -, his wrath was great. ‘He tore his garment, rent in twain the veil of the Temple, and covered the sun with darkness.’ But he was helpless to intervene.

And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Luke 23:45

His reaction is very similar to that of pharisees that tear their garments. But there is no this action of pharisees in Luke.

Therefore the rending of veil is more similar to the fatal destruction of old wineskins in the parable of the wineskins. A sign of wrath by Demiurg, in original marcionite view.

It's easy to see how is the reaction of our canonical gospels at light of this.

[Giuseppe]

Our canonical Gospels, in reaction to Mcn, convert the symbol of the Demiurg's wrath, the rending of veil in Temple, in a symbol of YHWH abandoning forever his Old Israel in favor of the Novus Israel. The wrath is now not more against the Son of True God, but against the evil Jews killers of Jesus.
Maybe it's because this reason that the our Gospels invented the portrait of pharisees that tear their garments in virtue of their wrath against Jesus (a portrait that is not found in ur-Lukas aka Mcn).

it was necessary to divert the anger of the tribal creator god from his true original target - Jesus son of Deus Alienus - to his own Jewish people and his leaders, so as to safeguard the goodness of the same YHWH and of his creation.

[Giuseppe]

It's curious the order of events.

In Luke the order is this:
1) before the rending of the veil happened.
2) after Jesus dies.


In Mark and Matthew the order is this:
1) before Jesus dies.
2) after the rending of the veil happened.

This may be a clue in support of my theory: Luke would reflect a more old story where is the crucifixion the real cause of destruction of temple (= rending of veil; someone would have an interest in not crucifiyng the Son), not the death of Jesus.