Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-25-2012, 12:55 PM

We all know the story of the torn curtain of the Temple at the time Jesus died found in Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45.

In GMark the one verse stands between the death of Jesus and the Centurion as an interruption:

The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

In GMatthew the verse introduces two more verses of miraculous events that occurred preceding the centurion:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.

In GLuke the tearing of the curtain (though not top to bottom) happens before Jesus breathes his last and the introduction of the centurion:

for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

Interestingly enough the Talmud in Tractate Yoma 39B introduces some events that occurred 40 years before the destruction of the Temple which portended its imminent destruction. What I am wondering about is whether this tradition of events may have been the source for specifically anchoring the Jesus story in the gospels around the year 30 CE. Tractate Yoma says:

Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

la70119 · 05-25-2012, 07:08 PM

Here's something else that anchors 30 CE as the date of the [EDIT]Crucifixion in the[/EDIT] gospels. And again, it's outside of the gospels. It has to do with the last year the Great Sanhedrin tried capital cases.

Quote:

Much more pertinent, however, is a passage of the Talmud which explicitly compares the study of, and the discussion on the various death penalties with that on the sacrifices. The halakhah was established in the case of the death penalty for an adulterous woman. R. Joseph asked, "Is there need to establish a halakhah for the messianic age (the Sanhedrin no longer having jurisdiction in capital offenses)?" Abaye answered, "If so, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they also apply to the messianic age. But we say 'Study and receive reward'" (Sanh. 51b). Similarly, the passage in Mishnah Makkot 1:10: "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'" Instructive though this is, it is merely an academic discussion, the right of imposing capital punishment having been taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans a century before, "40 years before the Destruction of the Temple" (Sanh. 41a; TJ, Sanh. 1:18a). The rabbis agreed that with the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was precluded from inflicting capital punishment (see above).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...4_0_03929.html

la70119 · 05-25-2012, 07:27 PM

Now, who was this Ben Zakkai? Shall we say, R. Johanan b. Zakkai? Was he then [a member] of the Sanhedrin?⁴⁰ Has it not been taught: ⁴¹ The whole lifetime of R. Johanan b. Zakkai was a hundred and twenty years. Forty years he engaged in business; forty years he studied, and forty years he taught. And it has also been taught: Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin were exiled⁴² and took up residence in Hanuth.⁴³ Whereon R. Isaac b. Abudimi said: This is to teach that they did not try cases of Kenas.⁴⁴ 'Cases of Kenas!' Can you really think so!⁴⁵ Say rather, They did not try capitol charges.⁴⁶ Again we learnt:⁴⁷ When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan enacted [so and so].48 But the reference is to some other Ben Zakkai. Reason too supports this: for were R. Johanan b. Zakkai meant, would Rabbi⁴⁹ have called him merely Ben Zakkai!⁵⁰ Yet has it not been taught: It once happened that R. Johanan b. Zakkai examined [witnesses] as to the stalks on the figs?⁵¹ — He must therefore have been a disciple sitting before his Master,⁵² when he made this statement the reasoning of which was so acceptable to them [the Rabbis]

⁴⁰ At the time when they still had power to try capital cases.
⁴¹ Cf. R. H. 31b.
⁴² From the Hall of Hewn Stones. V. infra p. 205, n. 5.
⁴³ [H] A place on the Temple Mount outside the hewn chamber where they had temporary residence. (Derenbourg, Essai, p. 467, and Krauss, REJ, LXIII, 66f., identify it with the 'Chamber of the sons of Hanan' (a powerful priestly family, cf. Jer. XXXV, 4) mentioned in J. Pe'ah I, 5.]
⁴⁴ V. Glos.
⁴⁵ That these, like capital charges, could be tried only in the chief seat of the Sanhedrin — the Hall of Hewn Stones! These cases could, in fact, be tried anywhere in Palestine.
⁴⁶ V. A.Z. 8b on Deut. XVII, 10: And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, from that place; this implies that it is the place that conditions the authority of the Sanhedrin in respect of the death sentence. [J. Sanh. I, 1 has, 'the right to try capital cases was taken away from them, i.e., by the Romans. For a full discussion of the subject v. Juster. op. cit, II, 138ff.]
⁴⁷ R. H. 29b.
⁴⁸ Hence the last period of R. Johanan's career was after the destruction of the Temple, when the Sanhedrin no longer tried capital cases.
⁴⁹ In the Mishnah.
⁵⁰ Depriving him of the title given at ordination.
⁵¹ I.e., it must be the same person.
⁵² At a time when capital cases were yet tried.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr...hedrin_41.html

la70119 · 05-25-2012, 07:44 PM

When were the powers of capital punishment taken from the Great Sanhedrin?

Josephus, Jewish War 2.8.1

Quote:

117 And now Archelaus' part of Judaea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. 118 Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of their leaders.

(Josephus then goes on a short summary of the "three philosophical sects" of Judaism in Judea.)

la70119 · 05-25-2012, 07:48 PM

Now when was Archelaus' part of Judaea reduced to a province?

Quote:

Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD. He was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace the Samaritan, the brother of Herod Antipas, and the half-brother of Herod Philip I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

Seems considerably more than 40 years before the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

la70119 · 05-25-2012, 07:58 PM

From The Historical Jesus Gerd Thiessen, Annette Merz, pp. 455-6, "Jesus as Martyr, The Passion of Jesus" (ch. 14, Section 3):

Quote:

3.1 Formal Legal Aspects

The legal circumstances and the form of execution show that the Romans were those mainly responsible for the death of Jesus.

The ius gladii was reserved for the Romans: Analogies from the other provinces show that the Romans did not let capital sentences out of their hands. For example in Cyrene the governor alone decided whether he would judge capital cases on the basis of his own knowledge or would appoint a sworn court, whose members he alone determined. (Cf K. Muller, 'Möglichkeit', in Kertelge [ed.,] Prozess, 60f). The involvement of other authorities is not a priori excluded. However, the Romans had the last word.

aa5874 · 05-25-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Here's something else that anchors 30 CE as the date of the gospels. And again, it's outside of the gospels. It has to do with the last year the Great Sanhedrin tried capital cases.

Quote:

Much more pertinent, however, is a passage of the Talmud which explicitly compares the study of, and the discussion on the various death penalties with that on the sacrifices. The halakhah was established in the case of the death penalty for an adulterous woman. R. Joseph asked, "Is there need to establish a halakhah for the messianic age (the Sanhedrin no longer having jurisdiction in capital offenses)?" Abaye answered, "If so, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they also apply to the messianic age. But we say 'Study and receive reward'" (Sanh. 51b). Similarly, the passage in Mishnah Makkot 1:10: "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'" Instructive though this is, it is merely an academic discussion, the right of imposing capital punishment having been taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans a century before, "40 years before the Destruction of the Temple" (Sanh. 41a; TJ, Sanh. 1:18a). The rabbis agreed that with the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was precluded from inflicting capital punishment (see above).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...4_0_03929.html

That link does NOT anchor the Gospels to 30 CE. It is an indication that the Jesus story was likely written any time AFTER 30 CE.

la70119 · 05-25-2012, 08:08 PM

So the Great Sanhedrin could have continued to try capital cases and forwarded their verdict to the Roman procurator prefect until they "were exiled" from doing so. The problem is, Josephus fails to tell us when their authority to try cases was taken away -- just their authority to execute people.

And in gJohn 18:31, the Jewish authorities are alleged to have said to Pilate:

Quote:

· Ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα· (We are not allowed to put anyone to death!)

So if 40 years before the destruction of the Temple was the last time they could even try cases (Agugust 30 CE), the year 30 CE is the latest possible date for the Crucifixion.

la70119 · 05-25-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Here's something else that anchors 30 CE as the date of the gospels. And again, it's outside of the gospels. It has to do with the last year the Great Sanhedrin tried capital cases.

That link does NOT anchor the Gospels to 30 CE. It is an indication that the Jesus story was likely written any time AFTER 30 CE.

I am NOT arguing that the gospels were written in 30 CE. I am just affirming that the latest possible date for The Crucifixion, IF there ever WAS One, was 30 CE.

gJohn, on the other hand, is DATED to 125 CE by paleography.

(I needed to go back and edit)

aa5874 · 05-25-2012, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Here's something else that anchors 30 CE as the date of the gospels. And again, it's outside of the gospels. It has to do with the last year the Great Sanhedrin tried capital cases.

That link does NOT anchor the Gospels to 30 CE. It is an indication that the Jesus story was likely written any time AFTER 30 CE.

I am NOT arguing that the gospels were written in 30 CE. I am just affirming that the latest possible date for The Crucifixion, IF there ever WAS One, was 30 CE.

gJohn, on the other hand, is DATED to 125 CE by paleography.

(I needed to go back and edit)

Your claim is erroneous. Crucifixions could have occured at any time.

In the Life of Falvius Josephus we have Crucifixions in the reign of Titus c 79-81 CE. In fact Three were Crucified and One Survived which is similar to the Crucifixion story in the Gospels

Life of Flavius Josephus

Quote:

And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance.

I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

Based on Josephus the Crucifixion of the THREE in the Gospels may be ANCHORED sometime AFTER C 79-81 CE.

05-25-2012, 12:55 PM	#1
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The Anchor of 30 CE in Gospels We all know the story of the torn curtain of the Temple at the time Jesus died found in Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45. In GMark the one verse stands between the death of Jesus and the Centurion as an interruption: *The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.* In GMatthew the verse introduces two more verses of miraculous events that occurred preceding the centurion: *At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.* In GLuke the tearing of the curtain (though not top to bottom) happens before Jesus breathes his last and the introduction of the centurion: *for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.* Interestingly enough the Talmud in Tractate Yoma 39B introduces some events that occurred 40 years before the destruction of the Temple which portended its imminent destruction. What I am wondering about is whether this tradition of events may have been the source for specifically anchoring the Jesus story in the gospels around the year 30 CE. Tractate Yoma says: Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

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

05-25-2012, 07:27 PM	#3
la70119 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics. Posts: 359	Now, who was this Ben Zakkai? Shall we say, R. Johanan b. Zakkai? Was he then [a member] of the Sanhedrin?⁴⁰ Has it not been taught: ⁴¹ The whole lifetime of R. Johanan b. Zakkai was a hundred and twenty years. Forty years he engaged in business; forty years he studied, and forty years he taught. And it has also been taught: Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin were exiled⁴² and took up residence in Hanuth.⁴³ Whereon R. Isaac b. Abudimi said: This is to teach that they did not try cases of Kenas.⁴⁴ 'Cases of Kenas!' Can you really think so!⁴⁵ Say rather, They did not try capitol charges.⁴⁶ Again we learnt:⁴⁷ When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan enacted [so and so].48 But the reference is to some other Ben Zakkai. Reason too supports this: for were R. Johanan b. Zakkai meant, would Rabbi⁴⁹ have called him merely Ben Zakkai!⁵⁰ Yet has it not been taught: It once happened that R. Johanan b. Zakkai examined [witnesses] as to the stalks on the figs?⁵¹ — He must therefore have been a disciple sitting before his Master,⁵² when he made this statement the reasoning of which was so acceptable to them [the Rabbis] ⁴⁰ At the time when they still had power to try capital cases. ⁴¹ Cf. R. H. 31b. ⁴² From the Hall of Hewn Stones. V. infra p. 205, n. 5. ⁴³ [H] A place on the Temple Mount outside the hewn chamber where they had temporary residence. (Derenbourg, Essai, p. 467, and Krauss, REJ, LXIII, 66f., identify it with the 'Chamber of the sons of Hanan' (a powerful priestly family, cf. Jer. XXXV, 4) mentioned in J. Pe'ah I, 5.] ⁴⁴ V. Glos. ⁴⁵ That these, like capital charges, could be tried only in the chief seat of the Sanhedrin — the Hall of Hewn Stones! These cases could, in fact, be tried anywhere in Palestine. ⁴⁶ V. A.Z. 8b on Deut. XVII, 10: And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, from that place; this implies that it is the place that conditions the authority of the Sanhedrin in respect of the death sentence. [J. Sanh. I, 1 has, 'the right to try capital cases was taken away from them, i.e., by the Romans. For a full discussion of the subject v. Juster. op. cit, II, 138ff.] ⁴⁷ R. H. 29b. ⁴⁸ Hence the last period of R. Johanan's career was after the destruction of the Temple, when the Sanhedrin no longer tried capital cases. ⁴⁹ In the Mishnah. ⁵⁰ Depriving him of the title given at ordination. ⁵¹ I.e., it must be the same person. ⁵² At a time when capital cases were yet tried. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedr...hedrin_41.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.