Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 04-13-2013, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

. Romans held local leaders ultimately accountable for any uprising, either on account of lax oversight or not taking appropriate action to nip any sort of uprising in the bud.

So in Galilee Antipas ruled.

Jerusalem and for the most part the rest of Judea Caiaphas ruled.

Pilate the prefect had general oversight of three geographical areas-Idumea, Samaria, and Judea.

It seems like the Roman's were holding their own accountable for peace, more so then any powerless local leaders.

aa5874 · 04-13-2013, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

Hey, Jay!

Apologies for joining this late, but I couldn't resist my two cents.

I wholeheartedly agree that the whole Passion scene is designed to shift blame away from the Romans, and onto the Jews. It seems odd at first, but makes sense in light of the times in which it was written. Mark was written down, probably shortly after the Nero persecutions. Those came about because of Nero's need to shift blame for his failures to a hated foreigner...

Actually there is no corroborative evidence that gMark was written shortly after Nero's assumed persecution. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever that Nero persecuted a Jesus cult or that thet there was a Jesus cult in the time of Nero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

... In this case, the Jews, who already had pissed off the Romans enough with their constant rebelliousness. But Nero can't blame the entirety of the Jews or he'll cause even more trouble than he needs at the time, so he picked a subset of Jews, and blamed and persecuted them, i.e. the Christians. It's actually a masterful political stroke appeasing the Jews of Rome, and still finding a needed scapegoat for his failures and the devastating fire...

Tacitus' Annals is a forgery was NOT even used by Christians up to the 5th century.

Please, examine Apologetic writings up to and beyond Sulpitius Severus.

There was NO subset of Jews who worshiped a man as a God.

The story of the crucifixion was probably fabricated 100 years after the death of Pilate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

.....The reaction of the Christians is to distance themselves from the Jews. So they finally put down in writing what they say happened. At the same time, Judea explodes in revolt. For them, this is a perfect way for them to break with the Jews. Blame them for their god's crucifixion, absolve the Romans, and that way you appease your Roman masters so they stop the persecution. It may have even worked, because we really don't have too much indication of significant persecutions of Christians for quite awhile after that, and even those tend to be sporadic and haphazard. They could operate as long as they didn't make too many waves or weren't too open about it. (Don't ask, don't tell)

Well, that's always been my take on the issue anyways.

SLD

In the Canon, the Jesus character was NOT in any confrontation with the Romans. Jesus claimed that the Jews must pay tribute to Caesar.

The Jesus character specifically claimed the Jews were Evil.

1. John 8:44 KJV---Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The Jesus character specifically claimed the Jews wanted to have him killed.

1. John 7:19 KJV---Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

2.John 8:37 KJV--I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

John 8:40 KJV--But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

The Jesus story was not about shifting blame it was a story to show that the Jews were Evil and killed the Son of their own God.

James The Least · 04-13-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Fine, I'm always open to evidence. What are the ancient sources that state, unequivocally, that Jews executed by crucifixion?

"There's no evidence that they didn't do it" is not an argument.

I am not stating this unequivocally, you are stating the opposite unequivocally.

Probably like you, I remember reading an article many years ago where the Jews didn't crucify point was made, and I was very impressed. However, that was from the 1960s or 70's probably and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.

The only thing that suggests that the Jews didn't crucify is the Talmud, and then only because it doesn't list it. I'm not sure how Talah (Hanging/impalement) plays into this - the Talmud actually gives the details of how the executions were carried out. Of course, the Talmud cannot be taken as any kind of authority on historical matters.

Regarding the opposite, we have Talah in the bible.

We have

Alexander_Jannaeus

Quote:

Judean Civil War and the Crucifixion of the 800

Quote:

The greatest impact of the war was the victor’s revenge. Josephus reports that Jannaeus brought 800 rebels to Jerusalem and had them crucified. Even worse, Jannaeus had the throats of the rebel’s wives and children cut before their eyes as Jannaeus ate with his concubines.

This incredible account is supported in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Nahum Pesher, the Judean Civil War and Jannaeus’ brutal retribution are specifically mentioned.

This is before the Romans were in Palestine. I don't know about Josephus but combine him with the DSS, etc and that looks like a stronger poker hand than the Talmud.

Anyway, like you, I used the Jews didn't crucify argument myself when I was younger. It still embarrasses me to have fallen for this dubious BS. Unfortunately, not the stupidest thing I've ever done.

You're correct. I had forgotten about Alexander Janneaus. Though, it should be noted, his crucifixions were war executions against the backdrop of the Judean Civil War. So while it does show that Jewish kings/high priests could initiate crucifixions, it's not so clear that the Sanhedrin could do the same during peacetime.

semiopen · 04-13-2013, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

You're correct. I had forgotten about Alexander Janneaus. Though, it should be noted, his crucifixions were war executions against the backdrop of the Judean Civil War. So while it does show that Jewish kings/high priests could initiate crucifixions, it's not so clear that the Sanhedrin could do the same during peacetime.

Having said all I did, the Janneaus story seems a little bizarre, but it seems something must have happened.

I found a book by Neusner on Questia where he stated that the Sanhedrin may have had life or death power during the time of Herod but not afterwards. I assume he means Herod the Great. You and he are probably right but I still wouldn't put a big bet on that without knowing a little more.

I mentioned above about the woman condemned to death by stoning in John. Would Christians agree that that story is just bullshit, or maybe just some hypothetical shit that the Pharisees sprang on Mr Sparkle? If not, who condemned the woman?

I mentioned in the Pharisee thread that the nature of the Sanhedrin itself is quite unclear

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....83#post7434183

sanhedrin

Quote:

Although eminent sources—the Hellenistic-Jewish historian Josephus, the New Testament, and the Talmud—have mentioned the Sanhedrin, their accounts are fragmentary, apparently contradictory, and often obscure. Hence, its exact nature, composition, and function remain a subject of scholarly investigation and controversy.

It seems highly unclear that a supposedly real Yoshke would have gone before these hypothetical guys.

Duvduv · 04-13-2013, 07:13 PM

There is no evidence in the Talmud of Jewish Law that crucifixion was practiced as a form of capital punishment by the Sanhedrin. We know the forms that did exist, and they did not include crucifixion.

andrewcriddle · 04-15-2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I mentioned above about the woman condemned to death by stoning in John. Would Christians agree that that story is just bullshit, or maybe just some hypothetical shit that the Pharisees sprang on Mr Sparkle? If not, who condemned the woman?

In the standard version of the story the woman has not been condemned to death. She is manifestly guilty of an offence carrying the death penalty. Jesus is asked for his verdict. This may be a trick question, i.e. is Jesus soft on adultery, or is he pro-lynching ?

(NB the story seems to have circulated in very different forms in the early church. The above analysis would not apply to all versions of the story.)

Andrew Criddle

semiopen · 04-16-2013, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I mentioned above about the woman condemned to death by stoning in John. Would Christians agree that that story is just bullshit, or maybe just some hypothetical shit that the Pharisees sprang on Mr Sparkle? If not, who condemned the woman?

In the standard version of the story the woman has not been condemned to death. She is manifestly guilty of an offence carrying the death penalty. Jesus is asked for his verdict. This may be a trick question, i.e. is Jesus soft on adultery, or is he pro-lynching ?

(NB the story seems to have circulated in very different forms in the early church. The above analysis would not apply to all versions of the story.)

Andrew Criddle

Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery goes into some of the history.

Quote:

the Council of Trent declared that the Latin Vulgate was authentic and authoritative.[5] The Latin Vulgate includes the adultery episode in John 7:53-8:11.

Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

Quote:

Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ.

I guess even the question about what happened to the man has been considered.

Quote:

Furthermore, since the law says both the man and the woman who commit adultery are to be killed, we are left wondering why the man was not brought in as well. It may be that he had escaped, but the fact that only the woman is brought raises suspicions and does not speak well of their zeal for the law of Moses; for if they were really committed, they would have brought the man as well.

On the other hand, if they were really committed, they would have executed her.

If she was having sex with a dog, I could see the dog escaping. That would have been a more interesting pericope - maybe have him decide both together.

If the woman was actually condemned, they probably wouldn't have stopped it because of what Jesus said.

No word on the case going to Pilate though.

Chili · 04-16-2013, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

//
On the other hand, if they were really committed, they would have executed her.
//

If the woman was actually condemned, they probably wouldn't have stopped it because of what Jesus said.

No word on the case going to Pilate though.

Interesting here is that if 'against the grain' salvation must be found, both the 'grain and the sinner' must be real, which now means the the Law was given to Moses not to stop the act of sin but convict the sinner by the act and so the 'orgy' must go on.

That then is why Jesus wrote letters in the sand without saying a word so that those words may come home to roost . . . and courageous sinners we may be.

semiopen · 04-16-2013, 08:27 AM

Ironically Geza Vermes discusses the Jewish crucifixion idea in Standpoint April 2013.

Was Crucifixion a Jewish Penalty?

Quote:

From the beginning of the Common Era, crucifixion as a form of death penalty was lurking in the extant Jewish literature, but for a combination of reasons was swept under the carpet.

Quote:

Not surprisingly, the words "cross" and "to crucify" turned into a kind of taboo until, it would seem, quite recent times. For instance, the commonly used Hebrew/Aramaic dictionary to rabbinic literature compiled by Marcus Jastrow (1903) translates the relevant terms (tslb, tslybh) as "to hang, impale" and "hanging, impaling", whereas Michael Sokoloff's parallel work, published in 1990, almost always gives "crucifixion" as the appropriate meaning. If the connection between the cross and Jesus, and its anti-Semitic reverberation inspired by the popular cry, "Crucify him, crucify him", are also taken into account, it is easy to grasp why the subject was kept under cover in Jewish circles.

Nevertheless two significant references to crucifixion from outside the Mishnaic-Talmudic tradition survived in the sources. One is buried in the rarely used Targum of Ruth. Commenting on Ruth 1:17, the Aramaic interpreter lists the death penalties codified in the Mishnah-stoning, burning, beheading — but substitutes for strangling tselibat qissa, "crucifixion on the tree", thus turning the cross into a Jewish instrument of death penalty. The second source is Flavius Josephus, a non-rabbinic author, who reports that the Hasmonaean priest-king Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE) crucified 800 of his political opponents. The episode could be taken, not as the outcome of due legal process, but as a horrible act of cruelty, and some Jewish historians of the last century, mistrusting Josephus, declared the anecdote unhistorical. However, the discovery of two Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-20th century has completely changed the perspective.

He goes on to discuss Talah...

Quote:

But does "to hang" (the Hebrew talah of the Dead Sea texts) mean "to crucify" rather than to hang someone by the neck? To the best of my knowledge, hanging by the neck never appears as a Jewish method of execution either in Scripture or in the Mishnah and is not a synonym for rabbinic strangling. All the three extant examples describe suicides, intended or actual: the New Testament reference, from Matthew, concerns Judas.

To find the clue, one has to start with Deuteronomy 21:22, ordering the display of the dead body of a stoned person tied to a tree or some kind of pole. By contrast, execution by "hanging" entails the affixing of someone alive to the wooden gibbet until death ensues. Whether the criminal was attached to the tree by means of a rope or with nails is not specified. Judging from Josephus's numerous mentions of Roman executions, the Pharisees executed by Jannaeus were crucified. By his time and in his writings, late first century CE, the Greek anastaurôsai = crucify from stauros = cross, left no possible room for doubt.

A survey of Josephus's use of the Greek verbs (stauroô and anastauroô) shows that they do not occur only apropos of executions from the Roman era, but cover the entire narrative of Jewish Antiquities. Josephus used the word to render the "hanging" of the chief baker by Pharaoh, as do also the Aramaic Targums with their translation of "to hang" by tselab.

It always pleases me to see that I haven't been spouting complete bullshit.

Maybe just as interesting are some responses in the Telegraph

The Jews might have crucified Jesus if they'd had the chance, says Standpoint magazine article. This is outrageous speculation

Quote:

This is an astonishing piece of unfounded and inflammatory speculation, which gives itself away as such by the dense occurrence of words such as "if", "might have", "could have" and "should have". There is absolutely no basis for this theory; it is nothing more than a fevered flight of fancy. In view of the troubled history of the Jews, it is no exaggeration to suggest that this represents an outrage both in terms of the scars of Jewish persecution and the anti-Semitism which remains in many parts of the world today.

Thankfully, Vermes' mischievous assertions appear in the final two paragraphs of a profoundly dull piece, and only Judaic scholars – and people like myself, who had an intensive Jewish education – can make head or tail of it without having to sit down with Google and a double whisky.

This is stupid of course. The guy calls my hobby dull, and says we can't think this way because some people will immediately go out and kill Jews.

Response by Daniel Johnson to a blog post by Jake Wallis Simons

Quote:

He nowhere suggests that Jesus was in fact crucified by the Jewish authorities.

That's a relief, otherwise there might be Christians running around with a misconception - after all, it is fiction I guess.

Chili · 04-16-2013, 10:32 AM

I find it totally absurd that all the scholars put together cannot figure out that the crucifixion of Jesus depicts the crisis moment wherein man as God is now set free. Worse yet is for them to be vocal about as if they crumble under the cross they cannot carry and so point at others instead of die on their own final lie they need to say.

In "Tay John" by Howard O'Hagen, this same crucifixion is described about Red Rorty who died on the final lie he could not utter. Just beautiful stuff and if you do not underline every second he wrote you are missing half the good stuff, such a pleasure it is to read . . . and here we call them guilty now?

Get real folks, it is a comedy called divine, and so who are we as hunchback our self to say that the Jews were wrong . . . even if we are with 10 million strong, or a 100 million for all I care to lay a charge on them instead.

And why not just go to Matt. 27:64 where the 'chief priest' -- as those who knew -- cautioned Pilate that he must not rise again before 3 days so that the captives in his own netherworld can be set free, and not be the final impostor who is worse than the first, now with his ass on fire for the Lord, is what they meant to say.

But nobody knows that line and are counting days instead and obnoxiously state that the Seventh day has not yet arrived and declare on every calendar that Sunday shall be the first day of the week as if the dove flew the coop again for them.

And then to boot, they call themselves Christian as such where so now anti-Semitism is bred in each and every one . . . because the comedy they do not see as a tragedy themselves they are.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2013, 07:13 PM	#95
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	There is no evidence in the Talmud of Jewish Law that crucifixion was practiced as a form of capital punishment by the Sanhedrin. We know the forms that did exist, and they did not include crucifixion.

04-16-2013, 10:32 AM	#100
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	I find it totally absurd that all the scholars put together cannot figure out that the crucifixion of Jesus depicts the crisis moment wherein man as God is now set free. Worse yet is for them to be vocal about as if they crumble under the cross they cannot carry and so point at others instead of die on their own final lie they need to say. In "Tay John" by Howard O'Hagen, this same crucifixion is described about Red Rorty who died on the final lie he could not utter. Just beautiful stuff and if you do not underline every second he wrote you are missing half the good stuff, such a pleasure it is to read . . . and here we call them guilty now? Get real folks, it is a comedy called divine, and so who are we as hunchback our self to say that the Jews were wrong . . . even if we are with 10 million strong, or a 100 million for all I care to lay a charge on them instead. And why not just go to Matt. 27:64 where the 'chief priest' -- as those who knew -- cautioned Pilate that he must not rise again before 3 days so that the captives in his own netherworld can be set free, and not be the final impostor who is worse than the first, now with his ass on fire for the Lord, is what they meant to say. But nobody knows that line and are counting days instead and obnoxiously state that the Seventh day has not yet arrived and declare on every calendar that Sunday shall be the first day of the week as if the dove flew the coop again for them. And then to boot, they call themselves Christian as such where so now anti-Semitism is bred in each and every one . . . because the comedy they do not see as a tragedy themselves they are.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.