ynquirer

The law of the land was for the Romans at best mere custom or usage, ancillary to the Roman law. From 6 CE onward, Judea was a part of the Empire, and that unmistakably meant that the Roman law applied. Something different is that the Roman chief officers – prefects – might condone religious and legal practices of the Jewish population, which some of the prefects did while some did not. In other words, the Sanhedrin might condemn a convict to death penalty, which the Roman prefect could execute if politically expedient. But the power to decide upon life and death was one of the basic elements of imperium and the Romans would hardly have forfeited it.

Now, Pilate – prefect of Judea from c. 26 to 36 CE – is known to have not respected the Jewish custom. He probably did not endorse death penalties as issued by the Sanhedrin except under extreme pressure – as in the case of Jesus. Complaints against him reached the governor of Syria round the clock until the prefect was finally deposed.

After Pilate, the Romans yielded to the enthroning of Agrippa I, who ruled Judea as king for the first time after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE. But he lasted only for three years (41-44 CE). After him, a series of Roman procurators governed the land until the first Jewish War was declared in 66 CE. In 70 the Sanhedrin was disbanded, and it could of course not issue new death sentences thereinafter – which is what you probably mean.

All in all, however, only in the short period from 41 to 44 CE might the Jewish law of executions have been implemented. Both before and after that period the Roman crucifixion applied.

Amaleq13

What "extreme pressure"? Clearly not a complaint to the governor since, as you acknowledge, complaints appeared to influence him not one bit. Please explain what specific "extreme pressure" would motivate Pilate to execute a man he believed to be innocent?

ynquirer

Perhaps. Yet the Alexandrian, the Byzantine, the Western and the mixed (Washingtoniensis) texts, all together, are at odds with such reading.

This I don’t endorse. Mk 1:2 says:

2: As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;

The direct quotation, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, is not from Isaiah but from Exodus 23:20, which says:

20: "Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared.

The only difference as between Exodus 23:20a and Mark 1:2b is in the English wording according to the RSV and most modern versions following the KJV, since the Greek language is exactly the same.

Now, Ex 23:20 precedes Exodus 23:21, which says:

21: Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.

Therefore, Mark 1:2 as well as Exodus 23:20-21 speak of the same angel/messenger, one that bears the name of God. That’s my point.

What is your internal evidence?

Enrique

ynquirer

A riotous crowd - what else?

Amaleq13

I'm not either but it didn't occur to me until now that this seems quite strange if we assume Luke's opening is genuine. Don't you agree? Nothing from Marcion?

He would have been the only link between the public and the author, right?

Or could "Beloved of God" actually be a generic reference to Luke's "community" rather than an individual?

ynquirer

You are welcome.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Sanhedrin still had a right to summary execution for transgressions against the Temple even under Pilate.

Diogenes the Cynic

What crowd? Why would they be rioting? You do realize how repugnant crucifixion was to the Jewish people, don't you? You don't actually buy Mark's apology for Pilate as historical, do you?

ynquirer

Basically, against the Romans. Disturbances and riots must have been paramount in Judea c. 36 CE. The Roman legate in Syria would not have deposed the Roman prefect in Judea because of mere complaints.

I do, but still more repugnant for some of them was Jesus.

The account by the gospels of Jesus’ trial and execution makes a lot of political sense. It makes so much sense that some choose to deny the whole story – including Jesus’ existence – so as to avoid offering a different one.

Diogenes the Cynic

The trial is pure fiction. It contains so many factual and procedural inaccuracies (inluding a conviction of blasphemy for statements which were not blasphemous under Jewish law), that it CAN'T be historical. It makes no political sense at all.

On what grounds do you assert that any of the Jewish people found Jesus to be more repugnant than crucifixion?