Elijah

Think of the mob as a jury that has the power to execute by stone and the religious authority as lawyers trying to get a conviction by getting the defendant to say something that convicts himself so they can convince the people that stoning him is a just thing to do. Different mobs are like different juries where the make-up of the group is going to determine the outcome of the trial more than the facts a lot of the time.

The mob that was following Jesus thinking he could be the messiah and looking to him for teaching and healing are going to be a harder crowd to persuade and a group you are going to have to fear repercussions of if you threaten their religious leader. This isn’t going to be so much the case if you snatch him from his followers and take him to a different mob more likely or able to be persuaded to your side.

And like a different mob is going to produce different results a different defendant is going to produce different results based on their ability to defend themselves, as in Jesus vs Stephen.
Huh? In the other gospels does Pilate question him on blasphemy? To think that blasphemy is the ultimate reason they wanted to kill him is utterly absurd. These guys aren’t deeply religious men who want Jesus taken out because he is sooooo offensive to their religious beliefs. These are just guys protecting the status quo which they happen to like and don’t want no people’s messiah getting the nation into trouble. They are just trying to trap him up so they can turn the people against him on a blasphemy charge it’s not the reason behind them trying to get rid of him.

Unless John came first then they were making changes and additions to their take on the story.
Generally speaking they do and in this instance they did. It’s unrealistic to think that they could just yell blasphemy and try to stone him against the crowd’s consent that was formed around him and not worry about the repercussions. Just like it’s unrealistic to expect the same events to play out exactly the same when dealing with a religious uprising and figures the authority wants to get rid of.

darstec

That was Mark's inside joke. Barabbas means son of the farther. Barabbas was named Joshua Barabbas. So they had a choice between Joshua son of the father and Joshua son of the father.

Similar inside joke between Peter which means rock and upon this rock.... In modern parlance we find "get one's rocks off" or male gentilia called stones.

Besides blasphemy was impossible because one had to utter the tetragrammaton in Hebrew in front of three witnesses. Hebrew by that time was unspoken and nobody knew what god's name was. Joshua would have spoken Greek though modern Christians like to have him speak Aramaic. Those languages didn't count. It had to be the sacred language.

Quite simply the author of Acts screwed up. He borrowed from a story that was from a time prior to the Final Diaspora when the Jews could carry out their own penalties. In the Joshua story which was invented after the Final Diaspora they no longer had that right. Some scholars point to these two instances to demonstrate the anachronism in the Joshua stories and an indicator of the late dating of the entire NT. Good indications that the Jews had that authority were the three times the authorities tried to murder Joshua and he got away using magic. Plain and simple the authors of the NT were then brightest bulbs in the Christmas tree string.

darstec

The Stephen story was an older story from the time prior to the Final Diaspora of 134 CE when the Jews had the authority to carry out their own punishment. The Joshua story was invented after the Final Diaspora. Needing the authorities to carry out the punishment is just one of the many anachronisms that demonstrate the late date of the writing of the NT.

show_no_mercy

That's why I wrote "BarAbba", to make the name a bit more obvious. The s at the end is only due to the story originally being written in Greek and the s is a Greek grammatical indicator like the Latinized "Jesus" (Mark actually has the nominative "Barabbas" [15.7] and accusative "Barabban" [15.11]).

The obvious ironic distinction between the insurrectionist "savior son of the father" who is released but actually deserves crucifixion and the peacenik "savior son of the father" who is unjustly crucified makes this part of the passion a literary work. Either that, or it's Fox News esque spin - the historical Jesus was emulating his namesake (the Jesus who is the successor of Moses) and really was an insurrectionist and was rightly crucified.

Jayrok

I never said Pilate questioned Jesus about blasphemy. You are confusing what I said. Blasphemy was the reason they ultimately sighted as grounds to execute Jesus in both Matthew and Mark. So blasphemy doesn't have to be the reason why they wanted to kill him... that was probably for many reasons. But blasphemy is the charge they ultimately went with... in Matt and Mark. And that is what I meant by "reason".

Mark tells us false witnesses brought charges but none of them could stick and it was only when the high priest asked Jesus if he was the son of God and when Jesus said yes... that is when the high priest said they didn't need anymore witnesses because he just blasphemed. At that moment they could have taken him outside the city and stoned him... according to their law.

My point is that it never had to make it to Pilate's court. If the story is historical that is more likely what would have happened, not unlike Stephen's make-shift trial. But, if it is a work of an author's agenda, sure it could be tailored to bring in the Romans and/or any other characters to the story.

So, assuming for a moment the story is historical, why didn't they just take him out back and kill him? The stoning of Stephen is one example of precedence where they Jews did this. Why not Jesus... if it was historical? We can see why not if the story is fiction because it is anticlimactic.

It doesn't matter why they wanted him out of the way. The reason they finally got him on (in synoptics) is that he blasphemed.

This sentence makes no sense. The synoptics agree (somewhat) on the story line. John is the one who changes the scenario based on his theological point of view.

arnoldo

During passover, Jerusalem was crowded with many visitors and the Romans would make sure the prefect would be in town to keep order.

The jews would presumably risk a great deal by ignoring Roman Law and instead following jewish law by stoning someone who was thought as a prophet; thereby causing turmoil which the romans could interpret as an insurrection. For example in 4 B.C. King Herod put a golden eagle on the jewish temple which some jews took upon themselves to smash (they were executed). Once Herod died his son Archelaus was pressured by jews to avenge the insurrectionists death during passover. Archaelaus instead cracked down on the mob and over 3,000 jews were killed. In addition to pressure from rome, the jews were internally divided amongst themselves and the demand for Jesus to be crucified could've been used to gain political power.

Elijah

Son of God here is being used as a title for the Christ which is the king of the Jews; a king not appointed by Rome. They could have stoned him to death that night after they went and got him but they didn’t know what would happen with the people the next morning.

Like how the US handled the execution of Saddam but in reverse where we wanted to let the Iraqis be seen as executing him so we didn’t have to worry about as much blow back from the populace.
They feared the response of the people is why they passed the buck onto Rome. Luke 22:2 “for they feared the people.” They even were afraid of the people because they couldn’t tell if he was speaking out against them. Mark 12:12
I think it matters a fair bit on why they wanted him out of the way in understanding the story. The reason they finally got him wasn’t that he blasphemed it was because they paid a guy and went and grabbed him at night when the crowds weren’t there. Even then Jesus had to not run and tell his followers to not fight in order for him to be taken. They never got him on blasphemy they just accused him of it. Blasphemy was the charge they were trying to turn the people on him with but in the end they had to take him to Romans in the night to do the deed because he was questioning roman authority saying/suggesting he was the Christ. Now they do call this a blasphemy but it’s him questioning roman authority by suggesting (or not denying) he was the Jew’s king which forces Pilates hand and is the reason for his execution.
I’m sorry I’m confused on what differences you are focusing on or what the point is. Are you trying to move the conversation to if John should be used as evidence in this discussion?

Petergdi

No, that's not what is going on. "Son of the Blessed" or "Son of God" here is just a royal title. As Jeffrey Gibson has pointed out the "blasphemy" is that it is someone obviously improper like Jesus who is making the messianic claim.

To paraphrase:
High Priest - Are you the Messiah who is to be our king?
Jesus - Yes I am, and God is going to make it happen.
High Priest - What blasphemy!
Then the council decide to send him to the Romans with the charge that he is claiming to be the king.

Being a messianic claimant is not presented as blasphemy, it is Jesus ,who they see as singularly unworthy, claiming to be chosen by God as king that is offensive.

Peter.

aa5874

Your paraphrase is missing very important points:

"High Priest- What blasphemy..........."

1.And they ALL condemned him to be guilty of death.

2.And some began to spit on him.

3.And the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

After the blasphemous statement Jesus was found guilty of death by ALL present long before he was sent to Pilate.

Mark 14.61

Jayrok

The high priest did not ask Jesus if he was to be their king. Pilate did. The high priest asked if he was the son of God. When Jesus said yes, that was enough for the HP to declare blasphemy and take him out and stone him. Similar to Stephen.

It never had to make it to Pilate's court. Stephen wasn't taken to Pilate. Even James the Just was stoned by order of the Sanhedrin a few decades later.