Peter Kirby

Okay, then if I have the conclusion right, tell me how to form the arguments...

A. The Argument from the Laws of the Sanhedrin
1. If the criminals were crucified during the passover festival, there would have been a trial by the Sanhedrin during the passover festival.
2. A trial by the Sanhedrin during the passover festival is against the laws and intuitions of the Sanhedrin.
3. If (2), then there would not have been a trial by the Sanhedrin during the Passover festival.
4. .:. There would not have been a trial by the Sanhedrin during the passover festival.
5. .:. It is not the case that the criminals were crucified during the passover festival.

B. The Argument from the Non-Custom of Releasing a Prisoner during the Festival
1. [I'm unsure of how to form B or if you even mean it as an argument on its own here, rather than a supplement to premise (2) above.]

Once we have the arguments formed validly, we can consider them with more precise logic. (Don't worry about presenting the argument in a logical formalism--I can worry about that, so long as you can worry about presenting it clearly in whatever way an argument can be presented. But do present clearly.)

Riverwind

Since when has that ever stopped anyone in history? The fact that a meeting was called at night and not all the members were invited makes it seem even more plausible to me, as politics within and without religion have always had intrigues such as this. Was Julius Caesar really breaking Roman rules when he crossed the Rubicon? If he had lost, would he have been forever forgotten as a criminal? People tend to do things and justify their actions after the fact.

Think "passover time". This was always a time where multitudes were in Jerusalem, the "governor" came to Jerusalem to help keep the peace, and the large crowds were seen to have great potential for insurrection. What better day for insurrection than the day on which the Jews were remembering God dealing death to the Egyptians who had enslaved them while passing over the faithful Jews?

As Jesus and the disciples came of the mount of olives, they began to praise Jesus loudly. This could certainly have been observed from the Roman garrison, the fortress of Antonia, inside the city.

All of this would have been very dangerous at this particular festival time.

The others were being executed, most likely, by the Romans. Ultimately, it was Roman authority that put Jesus to death, in spite of Pilate's "washing of his hands".

You don't think that the "crowd" could have been paid off? How big do you think this "crowd" was at the time of morning when this was going on? How many of those who cared anything about Jesus would have known to be there? How many would have tried to get him released (considering that they might have wound up facing his same fate)? As for the murderer who was released, I have always wondered if he might have been a "lesser" insurrectionist.

Again, the theives most likely had nothing to do with the Sanhedrin. They were just other criminals who were already to be crucified by the Romans. And remember that it was not the Sanhedrin who wanted it put up to a coin flip as to whether Jesus would possibly be released. According to the bible, they wanted him condemned and probably didn't expect Pilate to offer Jesus to be released.

Quite the opposite to me. It has every ring of truth due to real human actions, from the actual human tendencies not to follow their own rules.

That said, even with the truth of the story, even the earliest Christians knew that "Christ crucified" was a "stumbling block".

Solo

And where did you get that from, may I ask ? From 'scholarship' ?

As far as I know there is a lively debate among scholars about early dating of GPeter, its passion story looks primitive, possibly predating the canonical gospels. There is no fulfilment of prophecy in it, no Judas treachery, Jesus is a docetic redeemer, ascending directly from the cross. I am surprised that you, committed mythicist, don't know this. At any rate, if you want to check the Judas GPeter reference in G.A.Wells, it's in the Jesus of the Early Christians, p. 130

Jiri

Riverwind

Who, other than Wells, Crossan, and Koester (and perhaps a few others from the Jesus Seminar) happen to believe this about the Cross Gospel?

Peter Kirby

What do you believe about the Gospel of Peter and why?

Biff the unclean

It reminds me of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Burroughs came to fame writing books about a hero in Africa. Burroughs never went to Africa and did only passing research about Africa. He relied a great deal on fictional stories already told by Kipling about India.
The Gospel of Peter is first and foremost a gospel. Gospels are a genre of literature unique to pagan Rome…that pretty much gives it away from the very beginning.

Riverwind

I believe the GoP was a late work, rejected by what I believe was orthodox Christianity and the traditions handed down directly from those who knew Jesus. I do not believe it records history. I believe it contains even more fantastic and legendary accounts than the 4 traditional gospels are considered to contain.

Peter Kirby

And why?

Riverwind

Do you consider that it is not a late work? Why?

Peter Kirby

Never mind, I thought you had a reasoned opinion. If you did, you could have just answered.