Jeffrey Gibson

Why Jesus was executed (why people wanted him dead and what they thought of the call for his death) is a question that is altogether different from the question of what ultimately the "legal" basis for his execution was.

The "Jews" were concerned with a perceived threat to the temple. There is no hint in the Gospels that the cause of Jesus' arrest and/or of what he was to be questioned over when he was brought before the Sanhedrin (or Annas) was Jesus having committed "blasphemy" prior to his arrest or his initial interrogation. And it's only after Jesus answers the question of whether he claimed to be the Christ that the blasphemy charge gets uttered.
(On the function of this charge in Mark's Gospel, see my "The Function of the Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64" in The Trial and Death of Jesus
Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark[Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 45] G. Van Oyen and T. Shepherd [Peeters, 2006] 171-188).

You misread the texts. They have a very coherent reason -- a perceived threat against the temple. What they are unable to do, according to Mark at least, is to find sufficient witness to make an anti temple charge stick.

Independently of an authorization from Caesar? Are you serious?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, but what was the actual charge for which he was consigned by Roman authority to a Roman form of execution that was reserved for runaway slaves and seditionists?

And why on earth do you use the KJV for your biblical citations?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Do you actually equate "looking them over" with reading them?

Leaving aside you engagment in bifurcation here, who said it was?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Kind of getting a bad reputation for yourself, eh, Jeffrey? Your stock might go up if you stopped citing qualified multilingual experts and started making bold, unsubstantiated claims based on insufficient reading and forced interpretation.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Not sure I want to take on Pete Brown's, Pat Cleaver's, AS's, and a host of other forum posters' ways just yet!

Jeffrey

No Robots

I follow Fichte's method for critical reading, which Constantin Brunner describes:

Fichte suggests to peruse first the whole book in order to get an idea about the author's purpose. Then one should try to understand clearly the main propositions "so as to make vanish the zone of uncertainty and obscurity to the point where the whole system of ideas of the author is clearly and distinctly understood".

Nobody. I just wanted to draw attention to the conservatism of your recommended readings. You do acknowledge left-right bifurcation, don't you, now?

Jeffrey Gibson

So you perused the whole of each of the books? How could you (let alone in so short a space of time)? They are not online in their entirety.

Jeffrey

aa5874

Why don't you read gMark 14 and then read gMark 15 to get the chronology of the arrest, charge of blasphemy and trial by Pilate, according to the author.

I have already quoted Mark 14.64. Now, why did they bring Jesus to Pilate? Was it not to secure the death penalty after Jesus made the blasphemous remark?

No Robots

For the books, I looked over the blurbs and reviews on the Amazon page. This was certainly sufficient for me "to get an idea about about the author's purpose," namely, to argue that Trinitarianism is firmly part of the earliest Christian tradition.

Ben C Smith

I have done so.

Yes, that is why they brought Jesus to Pilate. But here is your claim, the claim I am challenging you on:

Do you see that boldfaced portion? You claimed that Jesus was charged with blasphemy during the trial in which he was asked if he was king of the Jews. But the trial in which he was asked if he was king of the Jews starts in Mark 15.1. Please show me where, during that trial, Jesus was charged with blasphemy.

Ben.