arnoldo

The gospels shows Jesus avoiding execution by stoning in John 10:31-35
I don't know if this alleged event took place within Jerusalem or some other location. However, the crucifixion events is alleged to have occurred in/around Jerusalem during passover. Certain parts of Israel were under greek control or jewish control with limited autonomy. Due to the politics, perhaps the jews were limited in their autonomy in the Jerusalem district regarding dealing with political dissidents?

Toto

You are the one who wants to analyze the story. I assumed that meant that you saw some value in it.

Perhaps you missed the point of this thread. It asks for a resolution of an apparent contradiction. If the story is historical, this contradiction needs to be resolved, as you tried to do with your speculation about the power of the crowds. If the story is not historical, we don't need to bother.

Elijah

I have no idea what you assumed because I don't know what you mean by value here.

Right and like the response arnoldo gave (which i think was for the win) it isn't necessary to go into if it is from history or fiction to resolve a potential contradiction in the story.

You may be right that the original poster is asking this question in pursuit of evidence that it is fiction but I don't like to make those assumptions when I don't have to in order to answer the question. I try to avoid the myth debate if I can, I think it's pointless.

JoeWallack

JW:
As Bultmann explained, the Gospels are primary evidence of the history of the author but only secondary evidence of the time they are describing.

"Mark's" Jesus' Passion reflects Paul's theology which is Jew vs. Non-Jew. There are no Christians at this time. Paul explains that the Rulers of the Age killed Jesus because they didn't know (lacked Revelation) what they were doing. In this context the non-Jews (Romans) would have been the primary rulers so Jesus is primarily killed by them in Roman fashion (crucified).

Acts is written a generation later (mid 2nd century) and reflects the theology of the time it is written. Since there are now Christians the theology is Jew vs. Christian. Now "the Jews" are the primary killers of Jesus and the form of execution is Jewish (hanging/stoning).

Ironically, the author of "Mark" could not see the irony of Christians believing in a fiction that the Jews killed god to justify the denial of their own real history of a national Pastor time of murdering innocent Jews.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Jayrok

You left out the rest of John 10 for this scene. Jesus' speech did not sway or convince the Jews of anything. Verse 39 states that the Jews again tried to seize Jesus, but he escaped their grasp.

The Law stated to stone a blasphemer. Jesus, in your example, said "Is it not written in your law... and the scripture cannot be broken..."

If the scripture cannot be broken then it was their duty to stone him. In any case, the "I have said your were gods" is from Psalm 82:6. Psalm isn't part of the law. What was he trying to pull here?

Your comments are well taken, but I don't see how they resolve the issue. Even in your example the Jews still tried to stone Jesus but was unable, not because of his words, but because he slipped from their grasp.

In the scene in front of the high priest after his arrest he was in chains. In other words, they "had" him. They could have stoned him for blasphemy and, according to their law, they had that obligation. Especially since "The scripture cannot be broken."

Jayrok

Hardly.

I'm not asking the original question to point out a contradiction. There are plenty of contradictions in the gospels without adding another one.

My goal is to find out if there is a standard answer to this question. Why couldn't Jesus be stoned... why did he have to be crucified instead?

If the answer is because of the story-making of the author that is one thing. But if the story is historical it doesn't seem to make sense to go to all that trouble when they could have easily (and with authority) just stoned the guy and be done with it. As was pointed out, they tried earlier in the story but Jesus slipped away. But in the end, they had him in chains.

Jayrok

Perhaps your bible only contains the gospel of John. In other gospels they wanted him killed because of his blasphemy. Or at least that was their ultimate reason for killing him. Are you concerned that the author of John changed, or added to, the story?

They did?

Doug Shaver

Quite simple, really. It's called a mistake.

If the authors thought they were writing history, then they got some of their facts wrong. If they were writing fiction, then they made what is called a continuity error.

Solo

The idea of the Sanhendrin denouncing Jesus and handing him to the Roman prefect fits in Mark with the Pauline view of preaching crucified Jesus, who is offence to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles.

Jiri

aa5874

It cannot be the Pauline view when the Pauline writer claimed others were in Christ before him like Andronicus and Junia, and that there was Hebrew scripture which seemed to have already predicted a Christ long before the Pauline writings.

The betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus appear to have been constructed from Hebrew Scripture, including the Psalms, these events had nothing whatsoever to do with the Pauline writer.

The betrayal was lifted from Psalms 41.9 and the crucifixion scene from Psalms 22, Psalms 26, Psalms 27, Psalms 31 and other Hebrew Scripture so that the SCRIPTURES might be fulfilled.