Mat

I mean false as how the Gospels portray it as according to the Gospels Jesus was put before the Sanhedrin( Bet Din Ha Gadol) before being passed to the romans. However as according to Halacha its Assur for the Bet Din Ha Gadol to sentance someone to death or execute on Shabbat and Yamin Tovim based on Ex 35:3 which states "Not will you burn a fire in you're dwelling places"

Since the gospels put Jesus's trial during Pesach then surely this is an error on the gospels authors part.

Moreover the fact that Jesus was claiming to be Maschiach or people around him were claiming him to be so or that he existed before Abraham(John 8:58) does not warrant the death penalty or a trial in Judaism rather a trip to the loony bin.

What do you think anyway?

TedM

Regarding the crime he was charged with the Gospels say a lot of different accusations were made, including blasphemy. Pilate's questions seemed to focus on whether he was a political threat--whether he proclaimed himself to be King--which from what I understand could have been punishable by crucifixion, depending on how it was interpreted. Even so, we have external accounts accusing Pilate of going against Roman law, taking bribes, etc.. so it doesn't matter--he could have crucified Jesus even if there was no decent offense. I find nothing unusual or contradictory with the way Pilate is portrayed in the gospels with the external accounts--he caved in to pressure, and was out for himself first and foremost. Combined with the desire for things to go smoothly during Passover (a big money event for Rome I understand), he had plenty of motivation to crucify Jesus if he was deemed to be a nuisance or worse.

Regarding your other question--are you referring to the Passover event, the Sabboth, or the location, or some combination? I don't know the answer although the GMark says he was crucified the day before the Sabboth:

Ch 15

John 19:

outhouse

I think you lack quite a bit of historical knowledge on the subject as this is completely wrong.

as explained to the OP below

outhouse

There probably wasnt a trial, if there was, it never made it to Pilate or Caiaphas who would have been to busy running affairs of the temple. Passover was a huge week with large amounts of revenue collected to be bothered witha trouble making jew.


The trial as written in the bible is 100% ficticious to make the romans innocent and the jews the guilty party.


reality is jesus would have been ticked at both but with a extreme hatred of the romans who oppresssed jews. he would have hated the Saducees as well since they ran the temple which functioned as the governement treasury which worked hand in hand with the romans. The temple was infected by roman corruption.


remember this was all written to a roman audience and they were not going to portray romans as the bad guys.


Fact is Pilate was a bloodthirsty ruthless killer who was known for hating Galileans. he would not have waisted 5 minutes on a peasant jew for one of the biggest paydays the temple had. he was there at the temple for two reasons, keep peace, amnd collect money fo Rome.


Pilate and Caiaphas only wanted peace and tensions were very high, they wanted this week to run smoothly, thern along comes this peasant jew trouble maker who basically was said to have went in the bank and tipped over the tellers tables over. this is a death sentance without a trial of any kind, put on a cross as a example of what not to do, and the body probably thrown in a pit to rot and for the dogs to eat,.


Now there are some historical issues here. If a jew had went in and messed with a bank teller, its likely the tellers guard and the teller himself would have wrstled him to the ground, end of story. Its possible that he may have just started a small incident later blown out of porportion, and he may have tried to incite a full blown riot and basically a war the way its written. But the fact is there are simular fables in the OT wich leave doubt to the whole temple incident as written. Most scholars however do claim that the temple incident is what led ti his death.

The historicity of the trial is is known fiction. There would have not been a disciple around as after jesus arrest they would have ran for their lives, so there were no real witnesses that belonged to jesus movement.

and the last fact is the gospels were written by romans 35 ish years after his death, not by jewish eyewitnesses. these roman authors didnt belong to the same culture and didnt even live in the same place. they are all to far removed from the actual events to give any details what so ever

TedM

I don't see anything you wrote as being contradictory with what I wrote. Jesus really didn't have much of a trial--Pilate's part easily could have all been done in 5 minutes, or 30 minutes..not a big deal for Pilate. I agree with you that the main thing Pilate wanted was to keep the peace during a time in which he and his men were outnumbered. The crowd very well could have been worked up, which would have figured into Pilate's thinking, Galilean or not. No contradiction with the gospels on that point that I see.

Juststeve

John Dominick Crossan has made what I think is a pretty strong argument for the proposition that there was no trial. In his view Jesus was probably crucified summarily on the say so of some centurion and either left to rot on the cross or thrown into a mass grave. This he bases not on anything in the Gospels but on modern understanding of how the Romans dealt with trouble makers in the provinces.

Steve

Duvduv

Mat, it's probably a good idea wherever possible not to use Hebrew terminology without translations since most people on this Board are not "yeshiva bochurim." ("yeshiva students).
I also note that this particular thread assumes the gospel stories to be historical events rather than fiction.

TedM

But it seems to me that the context has to be taken into account, and when that is done the 'normal' way in which it may have been handled is no longer as relevant. A mob demanding crucifixion during Passover is not the usual context.

Juststeve

Ted:

If you think that Pilate permitted mobs to form and make demands upon him then you are right. What little we know of Pilate from secular sources shows that your of thing was unlikely. What we know of how Romans dealt with mob unrest generally shows the story to be unlikely. Is it really plausible, to anyone other than a Christian, to think Jesus was such a special case?

Steve

outhouse

because you dont see the whole picture.

you know the bible not the cultural anthropoloy and the reality of what may have actually happened