On Jewish Participation In The Death Of Jesus

[Tod Stites]

There are really no grounds for rejecting the idea that a visionary like
Jesus was aware and believed that his enemies were quite capable of killing
him during a Festival (John 7:1-9), since the Qumran scrolls complain that
the Jerusalem high priesthood had tried to kill the Qumran community Teacher
on a Feast Day (1), while the report of Tacitus (2), that with the execution of
Jesus the "pernicious superstition" he started was "checked for the moment"
might suggest that Jesus had indeed been repudiated by official Judaism along
with being executed by the Romans.

But reasons for doubting the historicity of the reported Sanhedrin trial
of Jesus include the evidence from the tenth century Arabic translation of the
Testimony about Jesus attributed to Josephus, where there is no mention of
the involvement of the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus, although this
version of the Testimony is considered as representing a paraphrase rather
than a verbatim translation (3).

However, it has been shown that in the oldest manuscript (Manuscript A)
of the "Historia Ecclesiastica" of the Church father Eusebius, in it's quotation
of the Josephan Testimony, we find confusion between the orthographically
similar Syriac for the accusative of "him" and a form of the word "not", so that
here this confusion appears to connect the testimony of the "principal men" of
Judea not with Pilate's condemnation of Jesus but with Jesus being the Messiah,
while in the Syriac version of Michael the Syrian (12th century) the testimony
of the principal men is connected with the report that Jesus was "thought to be",
or "supposed to be", the Messiah (4).

Thus:"He was the Messiah, but NOT according to the principal men among us"
(Syriac "Historia Ecclesiastica" MS A).

Or:"He was thought to be the Messiah, but NOT according to the principal men
among us"(Michael the Syrian).

And this also would explain why the translation made by Agapius knows of
no role for the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus (4).

This is perhaps the most decisive evidence we have that the Jerusalem
religious establishment played no part in bringing Jesus to the cross.

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).

Yet the arguments against the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial are formidable
if not conclusive. John and the Synoptics for example produce two different versions
of the trial (6), an event that occurred only once according to the Gospels, suggesting that one or both versions may be at least partial fabrications based on
Old Testament "proof texts".

Proof texts are citations of Old Testament passages which were supposedly
fulfilled in things which happened to or through Jesus, just as the Qumran "pesharim"
are based on passages from the Scriptures that were seen as having been fulfilled in
events effecting the Qumran community.

The claim of false testimony against Jesus for example (Mark 14:56-59), is a
motif of the righteous sufferer in the Psalms (27:12):(31:18):(35:11):(109:2),
contributing no doubt to the skepticism of entire conclaves of scholars who think
the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus in unhistorical (7).

Most challenging perhaps to those who support the historicity of the Sanhedrin
trial is the analysis which shows that the Gospel account of the Sanhedrin trial was
likely to have been modeled on the account of the trial before Pilate, which the
following Marcan parallels make clear(8):

14:53a=15:1
14:55=15:3
14:60=15:4
14:61a=15:5
14:61b=15:2
14:62=15:2
14:64=15:15
14:65=15:16-20

In addition, it has been noted that the kind of details that would come from
an eyewitness account, present in much of Mark's Gospel, are missing from the
trial scenes, and this would be understandable if the disciples had in fact fled
(Mark 14:50):(9).

Lastly, we might note that while one branch of the tradition held that the
Jerusalem authorities found no charge against Jesus that warranted death (Acts
13:28), another branch of tradition recalled the Sanhedrin declaring Jesus guilty
of blasphemy and worthy of death (Mark 14:64):(Matt 26:66):(10).

In spite of all this evidence however, there are some scholars who claimed (1979) that the arguments against the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial have been largely eroded over the course of the previous century (11), and while the Gospel stories of the trial are rightly viewed with suspicion, the motives not only of the Sanhedrin but of the Romans should be given due consideration.

When Paul was arrested in Jerusalem for example, according to Acts, the
Roman tribune who apprehended him then called a Sanhedrin together in order
to get information about Paul before sending him to the emperor (12).

In the case of Jesus the same motive may have been at work, with Pilate
wishing to maintain cordial relations with the native authorities, and again working
to prevent Jesus from becoming a martyr-hero by having him officially repudiated
by his own people (the same motive might have prompted Pilate to deny Jesus an
honorable burial, as noted by Brown in Catholic Biblical Quarterly v.55,p.235-6).

But the motives of the Sanhedrin in walking a fine line between public opinion
and Roman reprisals, and the report of conflicting testimonies at the Sanhedrin trial
(Mark 14:57-59),especially when only two witnesses were necessary to verify an accusation (Deut 17:6):(19:15), suggests that at least some of it's members were
trying to get at the truth (13).

This might again suggest concern for public opinion, which in turn supports
the idea that not all Jews were opposed to Jesus, but also throws an interesting
light on the later tradition that the Sanhedrin included secret supporters of Jesus
(John 12:42-43).

Finally let us recognize the plausibility of the Sanhedrin wanting to be seen
as reliable dispensers of justice, just as in the rebellion of 66, when the party of
the Zealots wanted to show that someone put to death had been executed by a
fully assembled tribunal (14).



























Notes:
1.Brown "Anchor Bible" 29A,p.800.
2.Tacitus "Annals" 15.44.
3.Feldman "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.700-1.
4.Whealey in New Testament Studies v.54,p.586.
5.Josephus "Judean Antiquities" 14.9.4.172.
6.Porter in "Studying The Historical Jesus" eds. Chilton and Evans p.152.
7.Telford in "Studying The Historical Jesus" p.44, on the virtual unanimity of the
Jesus Seminar that there was no Jewish trial of Jesus.

Lohse in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.7,p.867n65,agrees with
Dibelius that Mark 14:55-65 is "not..a single story but an interweaving of several
motifs, influenced by proof texts and Christian confession with no Christian
eyewitness" (cf.Mark 14:50);p.869-70/n68,the high priest's question is likely
unhistorical (Mark 14:61), since "Son of God" is a Christian, not a Jewish, title for
the Messiah (cf.however:Collins "The Scepter And The Star" p.184-5).

Todt "The Son Of Man In The Synoptic Tradition" p.37:"The trial scene as described
in Mark 14:61-64 is permeated by Christological reflections which we must attribute
to the community at a later stage of it's history".

Theissen and Merz "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" pp.450,464, see
Mark 14:61-62 as providing a combination of Christological titles which make Jesus
"the model for Christian confession", making the story "hardly historical".

Casey "The Solution To The Son Of Man Problem" p.243-4,thinks Mark 14:61-62
owes it's origin to "the creativity of the early church".

Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.375-7,where it is suggested "Christ" had not yet
crystallized as a title in the time of Jesus; and where it is inferred that Mark
did not have enough information to write about the proceedings before
Caiaphas, and wrote in Greek a story which included the main points needed
by the early church.

8.Ludemann "The Resurrection Of Christ" p.236-7.

9.Taylor "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.561-3,the apocryphal "Gospel Of Peter" says
that the disciples fled to Galilee.

10.Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.375-7,considers that the question, confession
and condemnation in Mark (14:61-64) fits perfectly the theology of the early
church, and that lacking sufficient information about the Sanhedrin proceedings,
Mark "wrote in Greek a story which included the main points needed by the early
church".

11.Meyer "The Aims Of Jesus" p.179.

12.Goguel "Life Of Jesus" p.474n3.

13.Gundry "Mark" vol.2,p.884.
Stahlin in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.3,p.345, notes that the
rabbinic literature indicates that at least in later times, if the testimony of
witnesses contradicted one another, the testimony was invalid (cf.Mark 14:56,59).

14.Josephus "Judean War" 4.5.4.334-38.
Safrai and Stern "The Jewish People In The First Century" v.1,p.383.

[Michael BG]

… This is perhaps the most decisive evidence we have that the Jerusalem
religious establishment played no part in bringing Jesus to the cross.

…

Yet the arguments against the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial are formidable
if not conclusive.

…

Most challenging perhaps to those who support the historicity of the Sanhedrin
trial is the analysis which shows that the Gospel account of the Sanhedrin trial was
likely to have been modeled on the account of the trial before Pilate, which the
following Marcan parallels make clear(8):

…

In spite of all this evidence however, there are some scholars who claimed (1979) that the arguments against the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial have been largely eroded over the course of the previous century (11), and while the Gospel stories of the trial are rightly viewed with suspicion, the motives not only of the Sanhedrin but of the Romans should be given due consideration.

…

Finally let us recognize the plausibility of the Sanhedrin wanting to be seen
as reliable dispensers of justice, just as in the rebellion of 66, when the party of
the Zealots wanted to show that someone put to death had been executed by a
fully assembled tribunal (14).

So what do you think?
Why do you come down on that side rather than the other?

[Tod Stites]

… This is perhaps the most decisive evidence we have that the Jerusalem
religious establishment played no part in bringing Jesus to the cross.

…

Yet the arguments against the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial are formidable
if not conclusive.

…

Most challenging perhaps to those who support the historicity of the Sanhedrin
trial is the analysis which shows that the Gospel account of the Sanhedrin trial was
likely to have been modeled on the account of the trial before Pilate, which the
following Marcan parallels make clear(8):

…

In spite of all this evidence however, there are some scholars who claimed (1979) that the arguments against the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial have been largely eroded over the course of the previous century (11), and while the Gospel stories of the trial are rightly viewed with suspicion, the motives not only of the Sanhedrin but of the Romans should be given due consideration.

…

Finally let us recognize the plausibility of the Sanhedrin wanting to be seen
as reliable dispensers of justice, just as in the rebellion of 66, when the party of
the Zealots wanted to show that someone put to death had been executed by a
fully assembled tribunal (14).

So what do you think?
Why do you come down on that side rather than the other?

Again I am not prone to coming down firmly on any side, only to offering evidence
from both sides so that we can best decide what we can only suppose.
We would do well to remember the words of Crossan:

"If you cannot believed in something produced by a reconstruction, you may have nothing
left to believe in"("Historical Jesus" p.425-6).

And Kloppenborg:

"Hypotheses are all we have and all we ever will have"("Excavating Q" p.54).

But with the findings of Whealey concerning the Syriac version of the Testimony,
I admit being drawn to the notion that the Sanhedrin played virtually no role in the
execution of Jesus, and that the Sanhedrin trial and all the rest of it is just more
anti-Jewish polemic for which the Christian religious establishment is notorious.

It is quite possible that Pilate seized Jesus on his own, with no input from the
"principal men" of Judea, in order to interrogate him. Under Roman law those who
refused to defend themselves were presumed guilty according to Sherwin-White,
an expert in that field, as cited by Davies and Allison ("Gospel According To Saint
Matthew" vol.3,p.583). And when Mark and John agree on something it may give
us a glimpse of what was established in the pre-Gospel tradition according to
Brown ("Introduction To New Testament Christology" p.108/n166), so that it may
have been established in very early tradition that Jesus had remained silent before
Pilate (Mark 15:5):(John 19:9).We must remember 1QS 10.26-11.2 from Qumran
which tells how the teacher of the sect (as Jesus also was) was "to behave with a
broken spirit towards the men of oppression", just as the pre-Christian sages
counseled silence and subjection before the powerful according to Hengel ("Judaism
And Hellenism" p.134), just as the poor "lunatic" Jesus bar Ananias stood silent
under interrogation before the Roman governor according to Josephus ("Judean War"
6.5.3.303-5). Van Voorst meanwhile reminds us that the governor Pliny the Younger
(c.111 C.E.) executed Christians merely for being obstinant ("Jesus Outside The New
Testament" p.24-5), so that Pilate may have had Jesus killed simply because
he did not like his attitude (cf.John 19:9-10).Above all let us remember Philo, the
contemporary of Jesus and Pilate, who claimed that Pilate "frequently" executed
people untried and uncondemned ("Embassy To Gaius" 302).

On the other hand, the epistle of Mara bar Serapion says that "the Jews" had
killed their "wise king", usually seen as a reference to Jesus, and some scholars
think this epistle dates from the 70's C.E., though others place it toward the end
of the second century.
Information on this may be found in:
Brown "Death Of The Messiah" p.382.
Van Voorst "Jesus Outside The New Testament" p.56-7.
Theissen and Merz "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.77/n44.
Gathercole "The Composition Of The Gospel Of Thomas" p.38n51.

[iskander]

Jesus was a Jewish heretic and died because of that.

[outhouse]

There are really no grounds for rejecting the idea that a visionary like
Jesus was aware and believed that his enemies were quite capable of killing
him during a Festival.

Factual 100% unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Nothing indicates Jesus was a visionary, and all evidence points to him taking over Johns movement after Johns murder.

With all your expertise which I use very loosely, YOU cannot tell me any NT textual traditions were Jesus or Johns in origin. No one can,

And as far as Jesus is concerned, I am not sure you can dictate who was his enemy in context, because your regurgitation of other scholars is not dictating your own opinion here.

[outhouse]

This is perhaps the most decisive evidence we have that the Jerusalem
religious establishment played no part in bringing Jesus to the cross.

.

To me your use this "religious establishment" terminology is a bit of a weasel term leaving room for misinterpretation of context. Reality dictates this was the temple sect responsible for keeping peace in the temple. It also was the Hellenistic puppet rulers under Caiaphas who was placed in power by the Roman oppressors who also oppressed the common peasant and rpaed them for tithes, BUT most of all these are the people responsible for keeping tax money flowing to Rome.

There probably was no trial as Crossan likes to point out and I follow. And the trouble he caused in the temple to be arrested also unknown.

What we do know is that he was crucified and we can only go backwards from there, and with half a million people there and thousands of teachers teaching just about every kind of Judaism imaginable. Theology did not get the man crucified. STARTING trouble in the temple would factually be sedition in Roman eyes and standing laws would dictate a short ride to a cross.

Violence not theology gets you noticed by Jerusalem temple sect, and violence in the temple gets you crucified.

So these people are just about factually responsible for bringing him to the cross.


Me thinks you follow Hengel way to much in understanding the Hellenistic divisions here.

[outhouse]

You take to may historical "bites" with certainty in each of these long winded replies.

and this would be understandable if the disciples had in fact fled

.

This I agree with but not based on your reasoning.

[outhouse]

Backing your imagination with multiple cherry picked quote mined paragraphs does not mean you have the most logical reasoning here.

Your OP is fallacious at best,

On Jewish Participation In The Death Of Jesus

Using the term Jew is to vague to be used as a stand alone term.

Jerusalem during this period was a Hellenistic city using multiple lines of Judaism from many different sects with no orthodoxy. The context of the temple was a money making institution that stood for the Hellenistic perversion of Judaism so that it would be more accepting to Diaspora residents who were gentiles for the most part. No money to Rome, no temple "fact" end of discussion. The Roman ax hung overhead the temple since its reconstruction started, it was plain to see and obvious to all.

YOU talked about everything but what was really important here. The actual motive for Jesus violence. Guess what it was not theological. Could it have been the Shekel with Melqarts image ? or the fact the Hellenist in charge of the Temple were also like the same type of Hellenist in Galilee who oppressed the people and perverted Judaism working with Romans hand in hand to make their lives miserable ? Either way motive for extreme violence is present.

INRI also needs to be placed into context. This is high on the list of a plausibility. Context could be if Jesus was rebellious and trying to use the crowds to overthrow his oppressors stopping the money flow to Rome, his arresting guards could have given him that name as they beat him before crucifixion. The terms "god" and "messiah" and "king of the Jews" all could have been foreign to him while alive in his original Galilean movement.

Well it all comes down to your view of the socioeconomic divide of the people, and we all know this is not settled or even close to becoming settled, and until then much will remain in dispute.

[Michael BG]

It is quite possible that Pilate seized Jesus on his own, with no input from the
"principal men" of Judea, in order to interrogate him. Under Roman law those who
refused to defend themselves were presumed guilty according to Sherwin-White,
an expert in that field, as cited by Davies and Allison ("Gospel According To Saint
Matthew" vol.3,p.583). And when Mark and John agree on something it may give
us a glimpse of what was established in the pre-Gospel tradition according to
Brown ("Introduction To New Testament Christology" p.108/n166), so that it may
have been established in very early tradition that Jesus had remained silent before
Pilate (Mark 15:5):(John 19:9).We must remember 1QS 10.26-11.2 from Qumran
which tells how the teacher of the sect (as Jesus also was) was "to behave with a
broken spirit towards the men of oppression", just as the pre-Christian sages
counseled silence and subjection before the powerful according to Hengel ("Judaism
And Hellenism" p.134), just as the poor "lunatic" Jesus bar Ananias stood silent
under interrogation before the Roman governor according to Josephus ("Judean War"
6.5.3.303-5). Van Voorst meanwhile reminds us that the governor Pliny the Younger
(c.111 C.E.) executed Christians merely for being obstinant ("Jesus Outside The New
Testament" p.24-5), so that Pilate may have had Jesus killed simply because
he did not like his attitude (cf.John 19:9-10).Above all let us remember Philo, the
contemporary of Jesus and Pilate, who claimed that Pilate "frequently" executed
people untried and uncondemned ("Embassy To Gaius" 302).

I do not accept that John is independent of Mark, Matthew and Luke!

Josephus The Jewish Wars 6.5.3 does not supports your position or even Sherwin-White’s:

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.

(bold added)

Jesus ben Ananias is not presumed guilty and is not executed; in fact:

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.

(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/285 ... k62HCH0005)

A case can be made out for there not having been a Sanhedrin trial but I don’t think you are presenting it very well.

[Michael BG]

The actual motive for Jesus violence. Guess what it was not theological. Could it have been the Shekel with Melqarts image ? or the fact the Hellenist in charge of the Temple were also like the same type of Hellenist in Galilee who oppressed the people and perverted Judaism working with Romans hand in hand to make their lives miserable ? Either way motive for extreme violence is present.

INRI also needs to be placed into context. This is high on the list of a plausibility. Context could be if Jesus was rebellious and trying to use the crowds to overthrow his oppressors stopping the money flow to Rome, his arresting guards could have given him that name as they beat him before crucifixion. The terms "god" and "messiah" and "king of the Jews" all could have been foreign to him while alive in his original Galilean movement.

… we all know this is not settled or even close to becoming settled, and until then much will remain in dispute.

I agree that it is probable that Jesus was executed by the Romans because they saw him as a political threat. However a case could be made that this political threat was because of Jesus’ theology.

It is also possible to accept that the Romans saw Jesus as a political threat but Jesus was not encouraging a revolt against Roman rule, but was calling on the people to change their “relationship with God” in preparation for the eschatological event.