outtawork

Has anyone ever seen any studies done on the feasiblity of Paul's orders from the Jewish Council to round up Christians??

I'm curious if such an order would have been able to have been carried out under Roman Rule to different Roman pricipalities without some form of permission...

Any help would be appriciated.

Thanks
Outtawork

Lance

I don't think it would have been necessary. Romans at this point in their history were multi-theistic and didn't really give a dead rats ass about the Jewish religion. As long as people obeyed the rules, paid their taxes, they were happy.

The bible itself tells the story. Remember Jesus stopping the stoning of the adultress with the age old line "let he who has no sin cast the first stone"? This alone indicates the Jews were completely capable of executing capital punishment if they so desired.

And does destroy the resurrection myth in that the Jews had to go running to Pilate to stop Jesus as they couldn't. Rome likely would have only gotten involved in a revolt scenario.

outtawork

Lance,

Thanks for the reply.. those are some good points...

I would see, as with the case of stephen or the woman, that the Jewish Council would have had some authority under local law... Why would the Romans care who the Jew's killed, except maybe for lost tax income?

What I question is the ability for the Jewish council to go outside of their city and act as an authority in other Roman towns without getting the authority of the local Roman rulers or at least getting their attention..

Since, according to Acts, the Jewish Council was capable in using capital punishment, at least locally, then they could have easily just stoned Jesus for speaking against the temple... instead of going to Pilate.

It's confusing;
Can - stoned stephen locally
Can't - Pilate's permission (jesus) locally
Can - Paul's mission non-locally

Outtawork

James Still

Concerning the pre-Christian Paul (Saul) and his persecution of the new movement, our evidence comes from two sources, Luke-Acts and Paul himself.

In his greeting to the Galatians, Paul tells of his persecution, writing "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal. 1:13-14). He tells the Corinthians, "I persecuted the Church" (1 Cor. 15:9).

In Acts 7:58 the author tells us that Saul held the garments of those who stoned Stephen. Later that day:

"...a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama'ria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison" (Acts 8:1-3).

"But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:1-2).

In my opinion there's no reason to be overly skeptical about Saul's role as a persecutor of the young movement. Of course, the story in Acts is probably not historical. The dramatic death of Stephen, straight from a stage play or a Hollywood movie, with Saul looking on seems fictional. It's also difficult to believe that Saul went from house to house dragging people off to prison -- there was no law against believing that Jesus was the messiah. Unless we have other reliable sources to confirm these events we may never know the full truth.

outtawork

James,

Thanks for the reply... The main reason I'm questioning this is due to my engagement of a debate on another board..

I was wondering if it was on the same lines as the "releasing of the condemmed" on Passover.. one of those things that is key to an event, but not supported in known Roman law.. -- I probably didn't say that right, but I hope you get my point.

Respectfully,
Outtawork

James Still

Yes, I understand. Remember that the persecution is strictly a sectarian squabble and Pilate probably knew nothing about it. Also, it's important to keep in mind that we're only getting one side of the story. I'm quite sure that the Pharisees would have had a very different version of this story. Hopefully your discussant is aware of the qualifications that must be placed on the one-sided version we're getting from Acts.

outtawork

James,

About my discussant being aware...I doubt it.

Well, I guess I'll not use this as a point of discussion... I was hoping to show at least one of two things..

1) Jewish Council didn't have the authority
2) This "task" would have come some time before Christians were actually banned from the temple.

I'd think #2 would hint that if they were so offended by this new sect that they would have banned them from the temple first before putting together a posse.

Oh well, thanks for the great input.

Outtawork

Mac

If you can, you might want to read "The Mythmaker" by Hyam Maccoby. It certainly gives some reasonably good arguments why this wasn't necessarily an edict from the Sanhedrin, but rather more likely one from the quisling Sadducee priesthood, based on the distinct possibility that whoever we call "Jesus" was, in fact, under the impression he was the Messiah (in the Jewish, not the Christian, sense).

Fascinating read, in any case.

Mac

offa

Offa;
This pertains to one of my points. This Damascus is local to the Holy Land. It is Mar Saba. Can you imagine going all the way to Damascus and bringing captives back? Jesus was alive and well and preaching at Mar Saba when Saul showed up. Jesus was ready for him. He probably had thugs of his own show up and sit beside Saul's bullies. In those times there was a skylight on the roof and when the priest began his sermon it was opened and the bright sunlight behind the priest's head appeared as a halo. Your are damned right Saul was blinded and he already knew he was in trouble.

There was also a private Jerusalem away from our contemporary Jerusalem. All kinds of things happened there that the Romans were unaware of. Pilate was there but he was unaware that it was also referred to as Jerusalem. The gospels were never read by Pilate. He knew there was not an Earthquake or an extra six hours of darkness. He knew that the Temple was not rent in twain and that dead bodies were not rolling around. Had he access to the gospels I am sure his sides would have been splitting from mirth.


thanks, offa