andrewcriddle

Pilate had much more discretion than the Jewish authorities.

On the one hand it seems quite plausible that the Jewish authorities would have been unable to execute Jesus, on their own authority, for his unauthorised and disruptive attempt to reform the temple cultus.

On the other hand it seems quite plausible that Pilate would have agreed to execute Jesus without much solid evidence supporting a specific charge, as it became clear that Jesus was a controversial figure whom both the Jewish authorities and the crowds would have preferred dead.

NB I am answering strictly on the issue of plausibility here. The fact that a scenario is more or less plausible does not necessarily mean that it happened like that.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I don't know. Pilate would probably have been reluctant to interfere in what would have looked to him like a squabble between two groups of religious zealots.

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy

Jesus caused a ruckus in the temple. During Passover. That's not simply a squabble between two religious groups. What did the Jews do to that other Jesus who just started shouting in the temple during Passover?

Pilate executed troublemakers without trial. Jesus would most certainly be classed as a troublemaker due to that temple incident.

andrewcriddle

They reported him to the Roman Governor who flogged him and let him go. (ie the Governor did not regard this as something meriting the death penalty.)

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy

Well I brought that one up because that other Jesus did not actually cause any damage, and was brought before what seems like a more reasonable procurator. All because of causing a "disturbance" in the temple, which was more than just any regular old temple. IMO if the Nazarene Jesus caused a disturbance in the temple during the tenure of Pilate, he was pretty muched doomed to what would almost be summary execution.

aa5874

The information from Josephus depicts Pilate as somewhat genocidal. Pilate, in Josephus, was called to Rome by Tiberius to answer charges of mass murder.

In the trial with Jesus and Pilate, he had good reason to have his soldiers or court-guards use whatever force necessary to disperse the mob of Jews who wanted Jesus crucified after he was exonerated of all accusations.

Pilate, in Josephus, ordered his soldiers to attack crowds of Jews after they had failed to obey his orders and many Jews were killed or ran away wounded.


This is Josephus on Pilate in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.2

See http://wesley.edu.nnu

It is more probable that Pilate would have himself ordered the tumultuous mob of Jews to dispersed or suffer the consequences after having exonerated Jesus.

storytime

Soo.. how does Herod fit into the story? Why would he not have had authority to execute Jesus if he had been given governorship over Judea?

I can't understand why Jews would have gone to Pilate and ignored Herod.

dog-on

What was the penalty for blasphemy?

andrewcriddle

Herod did not have authority over central Judea. He controlled the Galilee and areas east of the Jordan. Judea and Samaria were controlled by Pilate.

The basis for involving Herod in Luke is that Jesus was a Galilean. Whether this makes sense in terms of Roman law is unclear. There is some weak evidence that it would have been more likely to happen at the time Luke was writing c 100 CE than at the time of the trial itself c 30 CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Blasphemy carried the death penalty.

It is unclear how widely (or narrowly) blasphemy was defined in the time of Jesus, but I don't see how causing a disturbance in the temple could in itself be blasphemy. (Saying the temple ought to be destroyed might possibly have been blasphemy.)

Andrew Criddle