On Jewish Participation In The Death Of Jesus

[neilgodfrey]

Now another reason for skepticism regarding the historicity of the Sanhedrin
trial reported in the Gospels is the silent submissive behavior attributed to Jesus
in the story (Mark 14:60-62), since such a report seems bent on casting Jesus in
the role of the Isaian Suffering Servant (Isa 53:7), and is more likely to be fictional.

The report of Josephus however says that in the time of Herod the Great
the self-perception of the Sanhedrin was that "everyone, whosoever he be, that
comes to be tried by this Sanhedrin, presents himself in a submissive manner,
and like one that is in fear.."(5).

. . . .

5.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 14.9.4.172.

Interesting. But when one reads the relevant passage in Josephus one finds it conveys a message quite contrary to the one for which it is cited:

But when Herod stood before the Sanhedrim, with his body of men about him, he affrighted them all, and no one of his former accusers durst after that bring any charge against him, but there was a deep silence, and nobody knew what was to be done. When affairs stood thus, one whose name was Sameas, (16) a righteous man he was, and for that reason above all fear, rose up, and said,

"O you that are assessors with me, and O thou that art our king, I neither have ever myself known such a case, nor do I suppose that any one of you can name its parallel, that one who is called to take his trial by us ever stood in such a manner before us; but every one, whosoever he be, that comes to be tried by this Sanhedrim, presents himself in a submissive manner, and like one that is in fear of himself, and that endeavors to move us to compassion, with his hair dishevelled, and in a black and mourning garment: but this admirable man Herod, who is accused of murder, and called to answer so heavy an accusation, stands here clothed in purple, and with the hair of his head finely trimmed, and with his armed men about him, that if we shall condemn him by our law, he may slay us, and by overbearing justice may himself escape death.

In Mark Jesus appears before his accusers beaten and humiliated -- the very state that Josephus says one accused should present (although of course Jesus had this piteous condition forced upon him) -- but his silence is not submissive in the sense Josephus describes. Jesus' silence serves the opposite function -- to leave him open to condemnation, unable or unwilling to deny the charges. Josephus expects the submissive court appearance to involve a very voluble pleading for mercy, a frantic denial of the charges.

Jesus's portrayal in Mark is not at all like the submissive demeanour Josephus expects of one before the Sanhedrin.

In fact, if we count the Gospel of John as evidence, then we have a Jesus who is more like Herod before his accusers.

[outhouse]

. However a case could be made that this political threat was because of Jesus’ theology.

.

Lets discuss it them.

I personally don't see it, the theology of Aramaic apocalyptic Galileans was probably a more pious Judaism then temple Koine Hellenist.

Add to that theology was not a threat to Romans in any way, as matter of fact Judaism was so diverse and they had so many types of Judaism theological differences would not matter in a temple filled with polytheistic gentiles who made the pilgrimage to the temple for Passover. Romans were open to different beliefs, what they were not open to was trouble making during Passover, a little trouble with half a million people turned ugly quickly and could disrupt the money flow, and Pilate and Caiaphas lives were on the line to keep that money flowing.

My point, theology was invisible with half a million people, violence would make you visible.

This is no different then one crazy guy at a modern rock concert, he would go unnoticed no matter how loud he, no matter what he said.

Half a million people is a lot of people from multiple cultures full of Gentiles from many countries.

[outhouse]

Now another reason for skepticism regarding the historicity of the Sanhedrin
trial reported in the Gospels is the silent submissive behavior attributed to Jesus
in the story (Mark 14:60-62), since such a report seems bent on casting Jesus in
the role of the Isaian Suffering Servant (Isa 53:7), and is more likely to be fictional.

The report of Josephus however says that in the time of Herod the Great
the self-perception of the Sanhedrin was that "everyone, whosoever he be, that
comes to be tried by this Sanhedrin, presents himself in a submissive manner,
and like one that is in fear.."(5).

. . . .

5.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 14.9.4.172.

Interesting. But when one reads the relevant passage in Josephus one finds it conveys a message quite contrary to the one for which it is cited:

But when Herod stood before the Sanhedrim, with his body of men about him, he affrighted them all, and no one of his former accusers durst after that bring any charge against him, but there was a deep silence, and nobody knew what was to be done. When affairs stood thus, one whose name was Sameas, (16) a righteous man he was, and for that reason above all fear, rose up, and said,

"O you that are assessors with me, and O thou that art our king, I neither have ever myself known such a case, nor do I suppose that any one of you can name its parallel, that one who is called to take his trial by us ever stood in such a manner before us; but every one, whosoever he be, that comes to be tried by this Sanhedrim, presents himself in a submissive manner, and like one that is in fear of himself, and that endeavors to move us to compassion, with his hair dishevelled, and in a black and mourning garment: but this admirable man Herod, who is accused of murder, and called to answer so heavy an accusation, stands here clothed in purple, and with the hair of his head finely trimmed, and with his armed men about him, that if we shall condemn him by our law, he may slay us, and by overbearing justice may himself escape death.

In Mark Jesus appears before his accusers beaten and humiliated -- the very state that Josephus says one accused should present (although of course Jesus had this piteous condition forced upon him) -- but his silence is not submissive in the sense Josephus describes. Jesus' silence serves the opposite function -- to leave him open to condemnation, unable or unwilling to deny the charges. Josephus expects the submissive court appearance to involve a very voluble pleading for mercy, a frantic denial of the charges.

Jesus's portrayal in Mark is not at all like the submissive demeanour Josephus expects of one before the Sanhedrin.

In fact, if we count the Gospel of John as evidence, then we have a Jesus who is more like Herod before his accusers.

The whole multiple trials all fiction by all rights as matter of prose building authority that he was such a special person he had to be brought before all the top officials. The authors trying to make the best out of a bad thing being humiliated by crucifixion. Same thing with the fancy burial fit for a king, fiction.

The important thing here is these authors were divorcing Judaism sewed into the fabric of all these myths. In doing so your getting the Hellenistic fictional retelling of the political climate, and they were going to do everything in their power to downplay the anti Roman rhetoric about how he was murdered by Romans. To the point they literally have Pilate washing his hands of any wrong doing at all. We all know he was a bloodthirsty ruthless killer. In distancing themselves form Cultural oppressed rebellious Israelite Jews completely, they did not want to make the Romans the bad guy for killing their god.

[Michael BG]

However a case could be made that this political threat was because of Jesus’ theology.

Lets discuss it them.

I personally don't see it, the theology of Aramaic apocalyptic Galileans was probably a more pious Judaism then temple Koine Hellenist.

Add to that theology was not a threat to Romans in any way, … Romans were open to different beliefs, what they were not open to was trouble making during Passover, a little trouble with half a million people turned ugly quickly and could disrupt ....

My point, theology was invisible with half a million people, violence would make you visible.

I think it is possible for the Romans to see Jesus as a political threat to their rule without him actually calling for the ending of their rule.

The question really is what could have been Jesus’ theology which could lead the Roman authorities to think he was a threat to their rule?

With Judaism there was a prophetic side and I would like to think that this was an alternative in some way to the ritualistic side. If Jesus was in the prophetic tradition and called on Jews to change their action then the question becomes in what ways?

Did he say that Jews should not use Roman coins?
Did he say that Jews should not pay tribute to Rome?
Did he say don’t bother with earthy cares put yourself “right with God”?
Would this mean some people didn’t produce as much as they had?
Did he teach that the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem always killed prophets and the people should not be guided by them?

These are theological matters but they have a political dimension and are short of a violent attack on Romans or the Jewish authorities.

[outhouse]

These are theological matters but they have a political dimension and are short of a violent attack on Romans or the Jewish authorities.

Political dimension! YES theological not so much. So a Jew killed at a drunken festival celebrating their freedom from their oppressors with half a million people, who may have started a riot which was a big no no, is theologically motivated???


You have to take the political climate apart from the Roman side, then the Aramaic Jewish side, then we have the Hellenistic "lens" retelling of the other cultures viewpoints.

Hellenist in Power from Herod to Jerusalem temple cults, viewed Aramaic oppressed peasant Galileans as Zealots and trouble makers. They were not under the direct military Roman thumb, they were under the Hellenist military thumbs to the point of hunger and starvation. Herods had his own military might to keep tax money flowing for all his buildings and projects. Same for the temple who also had the added Roman military to not "keep" peace, but to demand peace or crucifixion instantly.

So lets explore the Galilean Zealot angle, and if we do we see oppressed peasants rebelling against the corrupt Hellenistic puppet governments making their lives miserable.

So lets look at Jesus as a non violent preacher, its how the gospels portray him as innocent less those dirty Jews responsible for killing him because of theological differences. Well we know the Jews did not kill him for a different Judaism because many different types of Judaism existed and co existed. And we know Romans let religious customs go as they were the strangers in the foreign land, and as long as the money flowed and there was no rebellions or violence, they did not care at all.

Think about this, Jesus was a peasant nobody from Galilee, he was not famous in Galilee. JOHN was famous in Galilee he owned the franchise and was so popular they murdered his ass before he could even get to the temple. Jesus takes over Johns movement downplayed in text less John baptizing Jesus which translates to YOU are my teacher. Jesus takes his message to Aramaic villages in a small group of his brothers inner circle if you will so they would not be noticed. During this period Herods are stated to say, "but ill call it oral knowledge" comment John has been resurrected because his message lived on in Jesus teachings. SO Jesus is going from village to village laying low but preaching in rural Galilean villages trying not to be famous so he does not end up like John.

We are talking about a pretty pissed off dude who has had enough oppression and taxation, and war during his birth years that effected his parents. While this was said to be a peaceful time during jesus childhood Sepphoris was leveled and thousands killed and thousands sold into slavery in eyesight of Nazareth. Hell the whole fictitious going to Egypt was probably because everyone had to leave Nazareth so they would not be murdered by Romans during his birth years when Sepphoris was leveled. Galileans had enough freedom to get a little feisty and political tension was more then their aim.

[outhouse]

I think it is possible for the Romans to see Jesus as a political threat to their rule without him actually calling for the ending of their rule.
.

Think about the Roman view, this unknown peasant is causing trouble in the temple and the temple guards said crucify him as standing orders stated. He was not even a blip on the radar. But we will go out at night and arrest him while all the peasants are sleeping their drunk off. You do know this was a drunken bbq and often the only time they ate meat?

Theology does not kill a typical Jew, causing trouble at Passover gets you crucified now. No games, no BS, teach what ever the FK you want but don't cause ANY trouble.

Come on, look at all the NT fiction regarding this period. No one was there. No witness ever wrote a word here. No one even close to this event was there.

All we have to go on is the political climate, and the political climate says teach what you want Judaism was so wide and diverse and Romans did not care. provided you were peaceful.

[Michael BG]

These are theological matters but they have a political dimension and are short of a violent attack on Romans or the Jewish authorities.

Think about this, Jesus was a peasant nobody from Galilee, he was not famous in Galilee. JOHN was famous in Galilee he owned the franchise and was so popular they murdered his ass before he could even get to the temple. Jesus takes over Johns movement downplayed in text less John baptizing Jesus which translates to YOU are my teacher. Jesus takes his message to Aramaic villages in a small group of his brothers inner circle if you will so they would not be noticed. During this period Herods are stated to say, "but ill call it oral knowledge" comment John has been resurrected because his message lived on in Jesus teachings. SO Jesus is going from village to village laying low but preaching in rural Galilean villages trying not to be famous so he does not end up like John.

I am not convinced that John the Baptist was dead during Jesus’ “ministry”. I think that the idea that John came first and then Jesus and soon after Jesus started John ceased is false. This fit the Christian idea that John was the fore-runner to Jesus, which is likely to have been a Christian creation.

[outhouse]

I am not convinced that John the Baptist was dead during Jesus’ “ministry”. I think that the idea that John came first and then Jesus and soon after Jesus started John ceased is false. This fit the Christian idea that John was the fore-runner to Jesus, which is likely to have been a Christian creation.

Well lets look at reality here.

Baptism by John is a historical certainty, that translates to you are my teacher, and we see the gospel authors using fiction to hide this well known tradition.

We also have them reporting Jesus was John resurrected, which could indicate a similar message.

YOU also have gospel authors claiming they were cousins which is to combat the traditions John was the teacher.

BUT REALITY dictates Jesus had to learn theology from someone, someone had to be his teacher. This material did not come out of nowhere, and now YOU need to explain where and how would gospel authors combat said traditions while creating the ultimate divinity.

[Michael BG]

I am not convinced that John the Baptist was dead during Jesus’ “ministry”. I think that the idea that John came first and then Jesus and soon after Jesus started John ceased is false. This fit the Christian idea that John was the fore-runner to Jesus, which is likely to have been a Christian creation.

Well lets look at reality here.

Baptism by John is a historical certainty, that translates to you are my teacher, and we see the gospel authors using fiction to hide this well known tradition.

Nothing in the New Testament is a certainty!
Everything about Jesus, Paul and the disciples has to be assessed and each individual can decided for themselves what is more likely to be true than not true.

I agree with you I do conclude that it is likely that Jesus was baptised by John. However the tradition we have, has John working in Judea and Jesus mainly working in Galilee.

We also have them reporting Jesus was John resurrected,

This is likley a Christian creation. You didn’t give a reference; do you mean Mk 6:14-16?

[14] King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him."
[15] But others said, "It is Eli'jah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."
[16] But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised."

I think it is possible that verse 15 might be historical as it equates Jesus with Eli’jah, which early Christianity didn’t do, they equated John with Eli’jah.

However behind both verses 14 and 16 is a later interpretation of resurrection. It seems clear that Jesus shared Paul’s idea about resurrected people being spiritual or heavenly beings (1 Cor. 15, Mk 12:25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven”).

If we assume that behind Lk 24:13-53 is the oldest resurrection appearance story we can see Jesus is a heavenly being, hiding his identity, not eating and disappearing. The appearance in Lk 24:36-49 is more developed with Jesus denying he is a spirit (v. 39) and eating (v 41). John goes further and has Thomas putting his hand in Jesus’ wounds (Jn 20:27 [25]).

Mark has the empty tomb and this implies that he thinks the resurrected Jesus is still using his earthy body rather than having no need for it because it has been replaced with a heavenly body.

I am not convinced that Q has John in prison during Jesus’ “ministry” Lk 7:18 does not have it; Matthew has added it (11:2). If Q had the Matthean words “Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples” it would make no sense for Luke to remove because he has already told us Herod the tetrarch has imprisoned John (Lk3:21-22) which he got from Mark 6:17.

Tradition tell us that Jesus died during the rule of Prefect Pontius Pilate (normally dated 26-36 CE) and that John was executed by the Tetrarch Herod of Galilee and Perea (normally dated 4 BCE to 39 CE). It is suggested that Herod was defeated by King Aretas IV Philopatris of Nabateans during the winter of 36/37 CE after the death of John the Baptist. It is not likely to be after 37 CE as we are told that Vitellius governor of Syria prepared to invade Aretas kingdom but he didn’t because the Emperor Tiberius died. Therefore I think it is safe to conclude that by spring 37 both Jesus and John were dead. To conclude anything else about the timing of their deaths is very problematic as we don’t have any strong evidence to support any particular date.

[outhouse]

This is likley a Christian creation. You didn’t give a reference; do you mean Mk 6:14-16?

.

Of course it is.

All resurrection myths are fictional, but what is important is the CONTEXT of how easy the term is used.

Remember resurrection mythology was not central of foundational to the early movement. That's why the original Mark made almost no mention of it.