aa5874

Your statement is erroneous. We have gMark. The Sanhedrin did NOT even have any witnesses when they had Jesus arrrested.

Mark 15 The Sanhedrin QUESTIONED Jesus and when he Blasphemed the questioning was stopped because they NOW had evidence to PROCEED with the Capital case BEFORE Pilate.

In gMark, the Sanhedrin prepared COUNSEL for the Capital Trial of Jesus with Pilate.

la70119

What the blazes are you talking about?

If they weren't trying a capital case, they sure acted as if they were. And they were trying the case without observing any of the legal restrictions required by the Jewish Oral Law.

They certainly did have witnesses. It's just that they weren't credible.

Mark 14

Let's pick apart the last phrase, shall we?

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2632 [e]	katekrinan	κατέκριναν	condemned	V-AIA-3P
846 [e]	auton	αὐτὸν	him,	PPro-AM3S
1777 [e]	enochon	ἔνοχον	deserving	Adj-AMS
1510 [e]	einai	εἶναι	to be	V-PN
2288 [e]	thanatou	θανάτου	of death	N-GMS

The important words: "condemned" and "deserving"

The word "condemned" in the Greek is κατακρίνω:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...CE%BD&la=greek

κατέκριναν, verb 3rd person plural aorist indicative active of κατακρίνω:

Strong's:

http://concordances.org/greek/2632.htm

The word "deserving" is ἔνοχον:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...CE%BD&la=greek

ἔνοχον adjective singular masc accusative of ἔνοχος:

Strong's:

http://concordances.org/greek/1777.htm

Both Perseus and Strong's show that the Greek κατέκριναν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἔνοχον θανάτου both have a stronger sense of "they adjudicated him to be liable of death", then simply "they deemed him worthy of death": i.e., they literally sentenced him to death. Something which, I had presumed before they did not do, but it turns out they actually did. Well, in this fiction, anyway. Reality would have been another story.

You know what "prepared counsel" means in the modern English sense: it means "lawyered up". Well good for you! :devil1: But the Greek is apparently different: the words are συμβούλιον ποιήσαντες and the lexica indicates that they didn't "lawyer up" at all, but did something completely different.

Let's look at the word "counsel" now.

The word "counsel" is συμβούλιον:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...CE%BD&la=greek

συμβούλιον noun singular neuter accusative (also nominative)

http://concordances.org/greek/4824.htm

So the stronger meaning indicates they made a resolution, joint counsel, advice or consultation. Where συμβούλιον comes from, συμ + βουλή, the latter Koine Greek word short definition means will, determination.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...or=sumbou/lion

So I think a strong case here in Mark 15:1 is that they didn't lawyer up, but rather, they reached a decision.

Imagine. We're arguing over fiction.

tanya

Perhaps, so, but I believe that the substance of the thread is focused on external, non-Gospel evidence, claimed to support the notion of a prediction of the fall of the temple in Jerusalem, about four decades prior to its actual demise.

"...a lot of signs..." ?? Really?

Let's confirm GDon's English translation, by looking at the original Latin, from section 13 of book 5 of the Histories:
So, it is clear, that Tacitus did write: "GODS", plural, contrary to what one would have expected, from shouts among any Jewish religious assembly.

Do you have some evidence that Tacitus' suggestion of voices calling out "GODS" plural, as the Temple is under attack, originates with the Jewish writer, Josephus?

:huh:

aa5874

I am arguing against your INVENTION. You cannot add or remove anything from Fiction stories. You MUST, MUST, WRITE EXACTLY what is in the story. You have NO right whatsoever to invent stories because you don't like the ones in the Bible.

The Capital case was tried BEFORE Pilate NOT before the Sanhedrin.

We have gMark. The SANEDRIN prepared Counsel and Delivered Jesus to Pilate.

During the Capital Case with Pilate the Chief Priest ACCUSED Jesus of many things but he STOPPED Talking.

Mark 15 Please, do NOT invent stories about Jesus because those in the Bible are KNOWN fiction.

You MUST, MUST, MUST only repeat the claims of the sources to understand the story. It is THEIR STORY not yours.

anethema

Oh great and wise potentates, is there anything historical being argued that couldnt have been derived from Josephus? Is there anything being argued theologically that couldnt have have been derived from Philo? IMO alot of destruction of electrons(apologies to Carrier).

Kapyong

Usually?
Schmidt dates it to 170 +/- 25 years.

Others date it late 2nd C.

K.

la70119

And it's a pity we don't have hard evidence, just Jewish rabbinical writings and the minefield of Gospels writings.

Merely repeating the claims of the sources is exactly what I did.

I have already showed you what they intended, in the original Greek. You are reading "lawyered up" into the words "prepared counsel" and "stating their informal opinions" into "condemning him as liable of death". So what that they took him to Pilate. Have you ever heard of double jeopardy, where a person is put on trial twice by two different courts on different charges for the same thing? Even though it's unconstitutional in the US we do it often enough.

It is you who are inventing things.

Yes, spin brought this up before.

arnoldo

Josephus's account of the apparent close proximity between the death of JtB and the Antipas-Aretas does conflict chronologically with the gospels account of John's death. If the Antipas-Aretas conflict began sometime before 36 CE then this chronological discrepancy would lessen ( See: The Argument of Christiane Saulnier.) In other respects the Antipas-Aretas conflict supports chronologically events depicted in Acts. Before the death of the emperor Tiberius in the year 37 CE there is no reason that Aretas would have any control over Damascus. As the new emperor, Caligula knew that Aretas had formerly helped his father Germanicus and therefore may've allowed Aretas to control Damascus in 37 CE. Murphy-O'Conner presents in his book,Paul: A Critical Life (or via: amazon.co.uk), that Paul had resided in Damascus for three years after his conversion from 34- 37 CE. However, after Aretas gained possession over Damascus in 37 CE Paul was forced to flee the city.

la70119

Except in Acts 9:1-25 it does not say that Saul spent three years in Demascus. It says he spent "several days" and "many days." This is in contradiction to Paul's own personal account in Gal 1:17-18 that he spent three years there, and in 2 Cor 11:32-33 had to flee the rage of the governor under Aretas IV, d. 40 CE. The three accounts are not harmonizable in my opinion, they flatly contradict each other.

And which came first? And what account? Saul being converted in 34 CE is contingent on a Crucifixion occurring in 30 CE. If Luke placed the Crucifixion in 36 or 37 CE (which he most certainly did), then Saul's conversion would not have occurred until 40 or 41 CE. Either that, or all the events of Acts 1 through Acts 9 have to be squeezed into a smaller space. And if he really did spend three years in Damascus as he claimed, then all those events have to be squeezed into the space of a year or less. Probably not feasible if it was real-life, but very easy to do in fiction.

aa5874

In order to figure out the chronology of events in the Pauline letters the Jesus story of Gospels and Acts of the Apostles MUST be first known.

For example, the chronology of events in Galatians 1.15-20 cannot be tied to the event in 2 Corinthians 11.32-33. by using the Pauline letters alone.

In fact, it cannot be known when God supposedly called Paul by just reading Galatians.

The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles MUST be already known for Galatians 1, Galatians 2 and 2 Corinthians 11 to make sense.

The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles do NOT need the Pauline letters. The chronology of the Gospels and Acts are internal and independent of the Pauline letters.

The Pauline letters must be AFTER the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.