Sheshbazzar

Just another literary invention to make the burial appear to be a 'fulfillment' of Isaiah 53:9;
(although one might wonder how comfortable christians are with the joint inference that Joseph of Arimathea was the wicked_
Joseph's very own 'new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.' (John 19:41) Nice return on Joseph's compassionate act that is. )

The Gospel story is a contrived series of over 360 such imaginative alleged Scripture 'fulfillments'.
That many of the situations presented are crudely contrived and utterly preposterous, doesn't matter to these religious writers, it being the best or whatever they could come up with as a means to 'shoehorn' their character into some semblance of 'fulfilling' these texts, _even if they have to entirely ignore the actual original contexts, and get a little extra creative in the composing of their tall-tales from time to time. viz. Jeebus riding upon the backs of TWO donkeys. (Zech 9:9 & Matt 21:2-7) and the driving of the money-changers from the Temple. (Psalm 69:9 & John 2:14-17)








.

aa5874

You cannot INVENT a reason for the crucifixion of Jesus in the NT. It is the AUTHORS of the Jesus stories who will TELL US why he was crucified.

You are NOT allowed to CHANGE the story.

You must try and UNDERSTAND the story.

The earliest Jesus story is of a character that was Betrayed, Abandoned, Denied, by his own Jewish disciples and Rejected and then Crucified by or on behalf of the JEWS.


The earliest gMark does STATE that Jesus was found to be GULITY of death for Blasphemy AFTER he stated or AFFIRMED he was the Son of the Blessed.

Mark 14 That is the story in the EARLIEST Gospel. The Romans were NOT looking for Jesus or had arrested him in gMark. It was the Sanhedrin who FIRST condemned Jesus to be guilty of death for Blasphemy and then LATER took him to Pilate who even appeared NOT to know of Jesus and why Jesus was brought before him.

Diogenes the Cynic

Yeah, that's Mark's story, but Mark is full of shit. No one could have been convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah, nor would the Romans have crucified anybody for it. If Jesus was crucified, it could only have been because of a crime against the Roman state.

Sheshbazzar

It seems the 'blasphemy' he spoke was not the claim to be the Messiah, or to be Son of G-d, but the open utterance of the Divine Name.
A Priestly prerogative that by contemporary Jewish interpretation and tradition was the exclusive prerogative of The High Priest, whom alone out of all men was permitted that mystical privilege, and even at that, it was only to be uttered in a single set ritual invocation pronounced once a year.
No wonder then that these Priest had such a violent reaction to his otherwise quite innocuous words. He verbally stomped on their toes in commandeering that most exclusively sacred prerogative.

steve_bnk

I'd have look up chapter and verse, reference to his father in heaven, and in the tale the offspring of a deity and a human woman. He never directly claims to be god.

Everything he said and did in the tale was poking a stick in the eye of the Jewish power elite. His choice of exactly 12 disciples in tow could only be seen as he putting himself at rthe head of the Jews.

Sedition against Rome was punishable. He was not preaching sedition, he was a charasmatic of his times preaching a return to traditional values.

And he was not predicting the end of the world, but Israel. In the tale he ends badly as Jewish prophets of doom and rightiousness tended to do.

Diogenes the Cynic

Two things about this angle (which is common).

Mark does not depict Jesus as verbalizing the Tetragrammaton, but the Greek ego eimi, which was not the Name. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, just saying the Name, all by itself, was not blasphemy, it also required a couple of other elements (it must be said in the context of some kind of insult or disrespect, the offender must have been warned by two people not to do it). Merely saying "I am" in Greek was no crime, and indeed, it is said by other people in the New Testament dozens of times in the course of natural speech.


Moreover, the Romans would never have crucified anybody for blasphemy or for any other Jewish religious offense. What did they care if Jesus said, "Jehova?" It wasn't their God. Jehova, Jehova, Jehova!

andrewcriddle

I agree there are problems with historical plausibility, (and problems with the absence of parallel material in the other gospels), but strictly speaking the crowd are claiming responsibility not guilt.

They believe that Jesus deserves to die, Pilate is not convinced but the crowd offer to take responsibility away from Pilate, allowing him to claim that he was only doing what the crowd wanted (only obeying orders).

From the point of view of Matthew and his audience Jesus is innocent and the crowd are assuming the guilt of executing an innocent man. But the crowd do not see it like that.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

This is one of the stories reaching back into the first century BCE that I presume was rejected by certain sects as libelous against Yeshu and reinterpreted the way it finally found its way into the Matthew story. In other words the narrative of the Pharisee rabbis may have been considered scandalous and libellous in the eyes of those who admired Yeshu.

The Talmud records in tractate Sanhedrin 43a:

MISHNAH. IF THEN THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT, THEY DISCHARGE HIM; BUT IF NOT, HE GOES FORTH TO BE STONED, AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM [CRYING]: SO AND SO, THE SON OF SO AND SO, IS GOING FORTH TO BE STONED BECAUSE HE COMMITTED SUCH AND SUCH AN OFFENCE, AND SO AND SO ARE HIS WITNESSES. WHOEVER KNOWS ANYTHING IN HIS FAVOUR, LET HIM COME AND STATE IT.

GEMARA. Abaye said; It must also be announced: On such and such a day, at such and such and hour, and in such and such a place [the crime was committed], in case there are some who know [to the contrary], so that they can come forward and prove the witnesses Zomemim.
32 AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35 — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence
could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'
Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?39 Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki40 [the innocent] slay.41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.42 Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?46 Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me
.

Sheshbazzar

Two things about your reply. I did not reference 'Mark', and the other Gospels each have him giving variant replies (Matt 26:64-65, Luke 22:69-71, Jhn 18:19-23)
And the idea that the High Priest of the Jewish religion sitting in judgment of a Hebrew man in the Hebrews highest Court of justice would be conducting this trial in GREEK is quite ludicrous, given what Josephus and the Mishna tell us about the Jerusalem Hebrews opinion of the Greek language, particularly within the environs of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Actually it less likely that Y-S would have replied in GREEK; 'ego eimi', than that he made his reply in Chinese.

Furthermore (secondly) I did not even so much as suggest that Y_S "spoke THE NAME all by itself". Matthew and Luke both state that it was an integral element within a complete statement, that is the quotation;
"Y_S said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and Coming on the Clouds of Heaven."
This clearly being drawn from Psalm 110:1; "YHWH said unto my master, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."
and Daniel 7:13 ; "Behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the Clouds of Heaven!"

"Power" as appearing in Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 being a circumlocution for THE HOLY NAME 'YHWH' which Y_S spoke boldly before the face of the Jewish High Priest and those witnesses standing by, whereupon hearing, the High Priest tore his (own) clothing and screamed; 'He hath spoken BLASPHEMY! what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy!'.

What the Roman's would or would not do, under further circumstances of which we may be entirely unaware, is impossible for us to ascertain at this late date.
If they crucified him for that reason, yes it would have been unusual, but certainly not 'impossible' to have happened.
Justice was not always the order of the day under Imperial Roman rule, expediency often served and prevailed..

However, the story does have the Romans crucifying him, and the 'Holy' Roman Empire has not denied it, in fact Imperial Rome spent the duration of its time in power in enforcing that belief upon all under her power at the point of Roman Imperial swords.



Least anyone should misinterpret the above as an endorsement of the tale. NO, I most certainly DO NOT believe these mythical events ever took place.
But these tales were penned for a reason, and through them a very clever subterfuge has been most effectively carried out upon the 'goyim'.





.

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark is the original author, so the other synoptic additions are immaterial. John's Gospel does not have the exchange at all (the passage you reference has an entirely different set of questions and answers, and does not have the High Priest accusing Jesus of blasphemy).
The idea that the trial would have been conducted at all, is just as historically implausible for any number of reasons, but Mark's text is what it is, and Mark does not have Jesus say anything which qualified as blasphemy under Jewish law. This is far from the only mistake that Mark made about Jewish law.
This is creative, but extremely tendentious and wholly unsupported by either Mark's text or by the Talmudic definition of "blasphemy." It was not blasphemous to quote Daniel.
We do know, actually. Crucifixion was only doled out in the provinces for crimes against the Roman state. I doubt you can show a single case of the Romans ever crucifying anybody for violating a local superstition, but I'm willing to read anything close if you've got it.
There wasn't really any way to change that if the crucifixion was historical. Mark needed to soften the culpability of the Romans, and did his best to implausibly turn Pilate into a spineless tool for his own handpicked lackeys , but (presuming it was historical), Mark was stuck with the crucifixion, couldn't deny it and simply did his best to spin it.