Roller

Hello!

I'm interested in how accurate is the Markan account of the trial of Jesus in front of Sanhedrin. To be more precise, I've read that Markan account contains several errors in regards to the rules of Sanhedrin. Some of those would be that Sanhedrin didn't met at the Temple (where they would be supposed to), they met at night, and they met at the passover.

What I'm also interested is if the "crime" of Jesus was big enough for the death penalty. I've also read somewhere (I'll try to find the source) that Jews were allowed to conduct death penalties until 40 C.E. (somewhere around that year). If that is true, than Jesus could have been sentenced to death and there would be no reason to take that matter to the Romans.

Koyaanisqatsi

That's easy. Not at all .

True, but Christian cult apologists just spin that by claiming it was of such paramount importance and everyone involved intuitively "knew" this (presumably because of God's influence). But if you're looking for extra-biblical sources, I believe Elaine Pagels addresses this (or was it Burton Mack?). Any of their books are good resources anyway, so I recommend you pick up a couple of theirs.

Well, for that you need only go back to Mark. Pilate thrice declares Jesus to not only be innocent of all accusations, but that no crime had ever been committed by Jesus. Pilate can't even find a crime to charge him with, much less convict him over, so he sets Jesus free. It is only the alleged (and illogical) "threat" of the crowd chanting "crucify him" that supposedly forces Pilate to inexplicably murder a man he had just offiically declared innocent (three times).

But the most important point, of course, is that Jesus had committed no crime against Roman law (as, again, Mark confirms). Claiming you were the "King of the Jews" was not a crime against Rome and certainly not a crime deserving the death penalty. First of all, there is no such title in Jewish dogma and secondly, that would be identical to a Mormon claiming to be "King of the Mormons." Who gives a shit?

Apologists always try to spin that one with the "threat" to Caesar of anyone claiming royalty, but, again, it's not a title that the Jews have, so it would be meaningless to both Romans and Jews. Jews had the title of "King of Kings," but "King of the Jews" would be utterly meaningless to them and is far more indicative of a confusion on behalf of Romans who wished to belittle their captive. But that, of course, assumes that it was the Romans who desired to capture and did capture Jesus and found him guilty of crimes against Rome, such as sedition (crimes against the State), which is one of the other most typical reasons why they used crucifixion (reserved for seditionists and murderers). Hanging on a cross until you bleed to death (and often long after) was meant as an example to all not to do the two worst things you could do from Roman perspective; kill a Roman citizen or commit crimes of sedition against the State (i.e., the ancient equivalent of car bombing a local business or otherwise seriously disrupting public interaction; like, say, overturning the money changers' tables at the Temple, a Roman controlled, profit generating enterprise, no doubt).

But that wouldn't be the only reason they would have nailed him for sedition (pun intended), of course, so most likely Jesus was doing more than just ranting theologically in the Temple as he kicked over some tables for him to have been crucified by the Romans (if, indeed, that was the case). And rest assured that absolutely no theological reasons would have been behind Pilate's order (if he even gave the order) to have Jesus executed by means of crucifixion (as opposed to say, slain with a knife or head cut off).

Pilate would not have cared one whit whether or not Jesus was the King of the Jews or Yahweh himself, since such things had absolutely no relevance to his worldview. And, again, it couldn't have been the result of bribery or other coercion on behalf of the Sanhedrin (as often alleged), since, again if you go to Mark, Pilate rejects the Sanhedrin's case three times (publicly).

That leaves Pilate and the Crowd (a children's book I think I'll publish ).

First of all, no extra-biblical source (that I'm aware of and I've looked) mentions anything at all about the alleged Roman/Jewish ritual of setting a guilty man free, but even if that's granted, there's still fatal problems.

Jesus was not a guilty man at all! He was, in fact, not just free, but found to have committed no crime at all by Pilate. He couldn't even find a crime that Jesus was supposed to have committed, much less a capital offense crime, so he was not just free; it was the equivalent of Pilate saying, "This never happened."

So, after this has been declared by Pilate, you then have the "ritual" that never existed, where Pilate asks the crowd who he should release. Note the word "release," as in, "set free a convicted criminal." The crowd responds "Barabas" and Pilate inexplicably asks, "Barabas and not Jesus?"

Why? Jesus has already been declared completely and utterly exonerated of all accusations to the point where Pilate could find no crime at all to even accuse him of and set free.

So, ok, ignoring that glaring flaw, the crowd again insists on releasing Barabas; a convicted murderer, which would have most likely meant a murderer of a Roman citizen and not, say, of a Jewish slave (as Romans viewed the Jews). So Pilate would have been releasing a serious threat--a murderer--and instead killing a man he had just publicly declared (thrice) to be innocent of all charges, all because he, the Procurator and ruling Roman authority, was afraid of the crowd? The same crowd he was there to brutally subdue with ever present Roman soldiers, who, presumably, would have been out in force that day and would have had no problems at all spearing and slicing as many unarmed, under nourished, peasent, Jewish, slaves as they were ordered to? The same Pilate who later slaughtered the Sammaritans against Rome's wishes and was recalled from duty to later commit suicide at the shame of losing his command?

Not to mention the fact that, supposedly everybody loved Jesus and they all came out to him in "multitudes" when he first arrived and now, suddenly and for absolutely no reason at all, the anonymous crowd turn so inexplicably violent against a free man that they demand he be killed instead of a murderer...and Pilate says, "Yeah, ok."

It's categorically preposterous based soley on the prima facie "evidence," but even if it were true, we have another serious problem in 1 Thesollonians, where Paul tells the members that it was "the Jews" that killed Jesus; the same "Jews" who also killed the "prophets" (plural) and drove the followers of Jesus out of Jersualem.

No matter how you want argue that the mysterious "crowd" may have influenced Pilate's decision, it was still completely Pilate's decision to have Jesus crucified and it was the Roman soldiers who carried out the inexplicable execution. No "Jews" had anything to do with it and certainly not any "Jews" who had also killed "the prophets."

According to Mark (and the subsequent reivsionists of Mark), Pilate kills Jesus. According to Paul (allegedly pre-dating Mark), it is the "Jews" who killed both Jesus and "the prophets," so one of them is wrong. You can't even try to spin Paul as saying that the "Jews" coerced Pilate to kill Jesus and that's what he meant, since, again, Paul makes it clear in Thessolonians that it is the "Jews" who killed Jesus and that these are the same "Jews" who killed the "prophets" and had the power to drive them out. No mention of Pilate or the Romans or any connection at all to the events alleged in Mark.

But I digress, so back on track as far as possible Roman crimes against Jesus.

Likewise, blasphemy, which is what the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of committing (three times, in fact; the first two times they actually attempted to stone him to death as a result, but Jesus inexplicably runs away both times; odd thing to do for a savior of mankind who can only be that savior once he dies for our sins, don't you think, not to mention a Rabbi who preached to "turn the other cheek" when struck, but I digress paranthetically), would not be a capital offense to Pilate; the one who allegedly ordered Jesus' death.

What would a Roman Procurator care about a local Rabbi going around claiming he was the Jewish God?

Again, you need look no further than the Bible. In fact, I recently posted about fifteen different references (including the two specific instances where "the Jews" attempted to stone Jesus to death, but he inexplicably ran away) somewhere here within the last month or two. If you search on my user name and include "Pilate" as a keyword, I'm sure it will come up. At least according to the authors of the passion narrative, "the Jews" already tried stoning and it didn't work, so they weren't concerned (apparently) with any Roman edicts against such matters.

Oh, you can also go to Bible Gateway and do a search on "stone" (specifiy the "gospels" in the advanced search function at the bottom of the page on the right hand side) and then just sift through the responses for the passages and you'll find them. I think they're primarily in Matthew, but it's late and I've been "celebrating" the end of last year.

Roller

Thanks Koy on your extensive reply! Now I'll have to do some research. I bought Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament" for Xmas (how appropriate), and now I'm reading "Changing Faces of Jesus" by Geza Vermes (he also notes the problem of historical trial by Sanhedrin).

mark9950

It was all political pilate gave the people what they wanted a killed false prophet according to the torah instead of a murderer.

He did this to make the people happy so not riot occured.

Koyaanisqatsi

How so? If you mean to imply some sort of allegiance or bribery or coercion by the Sanhedrin (the ruling Jewish "elite") then explain why it was that Pilate pubicly humiliates them by declaring that he can't even find a crime to charge Jesus with, let alone find him guilty. If it were "political," then Pilate would have found Jesus guilty in order to appease the Sanhedrin.

1. There was never a tradition of giving the people "what they wanted" (that I have ever found corroborated by any extra-biblical source)
2. Pilate was there to subdue the Jews, who the Romans considered to be slaves of the Empire (i.e., not people, but property)
3. Why would "the people" (aka, "the Jews;" presumably the same multitudes--all of Judea, in fact, according to Mark--who came out to witness John announcing Jesus as more holy than he and who will baptize them all with the Holy Spirit, baptizing Jesus and presumably heard the voice of God proclaim, ""You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased," and witnessed his healing "miracles" and blah, blah, blah--want Jesus crucified, particularly just after he was found to have committed no crime?
4. Why would Pilate murder a person he had taken all that trouble to try (after attempting to dump him off onto Herod, twice, apparently) and publicly declare to be innocent three times, to the point that he couldn't even find a crime to charge him with in the first place, set him free only to then inexplicably turn around and order his execution?

Although by all extra-biblical accounts I have read, Pilate was certainly a brutal, Roman despot and mass murderer (who slaughtered the Sammaritans against Rome's instruction, apparently, since he was recalled as a result and committed suicide in disgrace), the likelihood that he would even address "the Jews," let alone create a ritual of freeing a convicted criminal of their choosing, just because he feared them or cared at all about what it is they wanted is simply not supportable. Particularly after he had bothered (if he did) to conduct a trial where he finds him innocent of all charges. He had committed no crime and was pronounced by Pilate to be a free man.

Even if there were a ritual created by Pilate to free a convicted criminal of the Jews' choosing (incongruously celebrating a Jewish holy day, no less), Jesus was neither convicted, nor a criminal, by Pilate's on decree. Thus it makes no sense at all that Pilate asks why they want to free Barabas and not Jesus. Jesus was already declared a free man by Pilate.

But he wasn't considered a "false prophet" by John the Baptist and "the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem" who heard John's words and witnessed John baptizing Jesus and he wasn't considered a "false prophet" by the whole town of Capernaum who witnessed his healing miracles and the result was that, "Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere," or the, "large crowd from Galilee" and the many people who "came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon," who all cried out, "You are the Son of God," or the total of nine thousand men who ate of the loves and fishes, or all the untold many who threw their cloaks on the ground for his "triumphal entry" in Jerusalem where everyone want around shouting, ""Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!"

Every instance in Mark where Jesus goes anyplace, so gathers the entire village to witness his miracles and listen to his teachings and proclaim him to be the son of God or Elijah or "one of the prophets," and on and on and on. As Mark 6:56 concludes:

But the most damning of all is Mark 11:18, where Mark makes it abundantly clear that "the crowd" in Jeresulam was so taken by Jesus--even after he had disrupted the Temple and proclaimed them all evil, basically-- that their reaction prompts the Sanhedrin's desires to kill Jesus themsevles.

This fear of the crowd that Pilate allegedly has is actually the fear that the Sanhedrin have, as is reiterated later in Mark 11:30-33

They feared "the people" because everyone thought John was a prophet and John proclaimed that Jesus was more than even John was.

Hell, Jesus even teaches in the "temple courts" to "the large crowd [who] listened to him with delight,"after he had been extensively questioned by the Sanhedrin the first time around.

And there's Mark 14:1-2

So, we know (if any of this is at all trustworthy) that the Sanhedrin were afraid of the crowd rioting against them if they tried to kill Jesus during the feast just two days away.

In two days, all of Jerusalem suddenly and for no reason and contradicting everything that has been said throughout all of Mark, turn on Jesus?

What for?

Just two days before the "trial," the Sanhedrin are working on the sly to kill Jesus (kill him), but they do nothing for fear of "the crowd" gathered for the Passover feast turning against the Sanhedrin for doing so. Two days later, Jesus' very life is on the line, supposedly, and the "crowd" who so reveres him and allegedly has a way to save him through this Passover "ritual," says they want Barabas freed, allegedly because the Sanhedrin (who two days prior feared the riot of the crowd and therefore, presumably, their own lives if they even dared to kill Jesus), "stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead." (Mark 15:11)

Two days before the Passover "festival" that never was, the Sanhedrin are so terrified of the "crowd" attacking them and rioting against them that they have to plot and plan on "the sly" and then two days later they're sirring up the same crowd to have Pilate release a murderer instead?

And they agree, instead of doing precisely what the Sanhedrin feared so much that they allegedly conspired to have Jesus killed in the first place?

Why? It's certainly not because they thought Jesus was a "false prophet."

All of Judea has spent the better part of two years, allegedly, following Jesus wherever he goes and begging just to touch the hem of his garments; a fanatacism in such a large faction that the Sanhedrin conspires secretly to kill him due to their fear of the crowd and as soon as Jesus is up on the block, the Sanhedrin are able to overcome their terror in order to "stir up" the crowd to have them ask for Barabas' release and Jesus' crucifixion.

And the crowd agrees? Preposterous.

And don't give me any of that "God willed the crowd to demand Jesus' death, because Jesus had to die for their sins" nonsense, because the Sanhedrin had already tried to stone Jesus to death (twice) before (but Jesus ran away).

Nor can one claim that God wanted Pilate and the Romans to be blamed for Jesus' death so "He" orchestrated it that it would be Pilate who orders Jesus' crucifixion, since Paul makes it clear that it was "the Jews" who killed Jesus "and the prophets" (and, as a result, had "finally" acrued the wrath of their own God,) which would have happened at either of the stonings without any confusion. Paul makes no mention of Pilate ordering Jesus' death (or the Romans) at all to the Thessolonians and blames it all on the Sanhedrin (the "jews who killed our Lord Jesus and the prophets" and who allegedly forced them out of Jerusalem.

Yes, well, let's look at that, too.

That would mean that Barabbas was not just an insurrectionist, which would have meant death by crucifixion on its own, but also that Barabbas was a murderer of Romans.

So, let's recap a little. Pilate, a Roman Procurator, asks what amounts to his conquered slaves, who they want released to make them "happy" (according to you), so he releases someone that had not just dared to challenge Roman authority through insurrectionist means, but had, apparently, murdered Roman soldiers in "the uprising!"

He says, in effect, "You all want me to kill an innocent man in place of someone who murdered my own kind, if not my own soldiers? Sure, no problem, glad to be of service."

It's patently ridiculous from start to finish.

Beside the fact that there would have most likely been garrisons of Roman soldiers on guard for any such "festival," who would have no problem at all hacking their way through thousands of malnutritioned peasent Jews (who they no doubt detested if for no other reason than they kept rising up), according to the Sanhedrin, the crowd loved Jesus so much that they feared even the mention of their plans to kill Jesus causing a riot against them not two days prior.

Not to mention the fact that Pilate would certainly have feared the reactions of his own soldiers for letting a murderer of their own ranks go free in order to appease the very people they were there to brutally subdue.

No. Absolutely, categorically false on all counts. Pure fiction and poorly written at that. If a Rabbi named Jesus had been crucified by the Romans, then it would have been because he was an insurrectionist or a murderer. End of story.

No Sanhedrin conspiring with Pilate; no crowd being "stirred up" by the Sanhedrin; and certainly not any ritual that celebrated a Jewish holy day, where a convicted murderer of Romans and insurrectionist against Rome would be set free in favor of killing a man Pilate had publicly declared innocent (three times).

It is prima facie false through and through, with so many contradictions and implausible scenarios (not to mention outright lies) that it is effectively impossible to conclude that the trial sequence as provided is in any way true, for if it is, then everything I detailed preceding that chapter in Mark is a lie.

contracycle

I nearly spat my coffee out reading this, this is badly mistaken IMO.

Claiming to be king of the jews would have very severe repercussions. Firstly, the Romans have a mixed history of their own with kings; its the kind of thing that sets of warning bells. Secondly, its not as if this was only a local sect like the mormons, this was a territorial nation. If Pilate, was you say, was there to subdue the Jews, or at the very least govern it as a Roman province, then someone asserting divine right and a form of nationalism is a deadly threat. Third, the appeal to kingship would have been dynamite given the proximity of mesopotamia and the warring city kings, albeit historically. A term more provocative than king, from the Roman perspective, could not I think be found.

Tristan Scott

Maybe Pilate pulled a switch-a-roo. After all he offered the crowd a choice between 2 men named Jesus. He had Jesus Christ, the King of the Jews, and he had Jesus Barabbas, the son of Abba, which to many in the crowd could have equated to the Jesus the son of God. Maybe Jesus Barabbas actually died on the cross and the other Jesus changed his name and carried on.

Doctor X

Nyaah . . . it was space aliens. . . .

Anyways, kudos to Koy for the summary.

--J.D.

Koyaanisqatsi

Christian apologetic nonsense. There is no such title, "King of the Jews." It is a meaningless political title to the Jews and it would have been a meaningless politicaltitle to the Romans, unless an actual King, such as Herod, had claimed that he was not just King of Judea, but now King of All Jews and that this title was recognized in the same political manner as the Romans would understand such a claim of absolute power.

To whom? Pilate? If he ever even heard the name of a wandering Rabbi named Jesus, he would have been nothing more to Pilate than a preacher among the slaves and certainly not any kind of politically or militarily minded usurper of power in the region to be any kind of serious threat to the Roman empire and dealt with accordingly.

As for Pilate's supperiors in Rome, had they ever heard the name of "Jesus," it would have been through Pilate in the form of official Roman dispatches warning them of the political and/or military threat. If some local nutcase (which is how the Romans would have viewed it) had been going around the town claiming he was the "King of the Jews," they would have laughed it off and mocked him precisely as is claimed to be the case in the passion narratives.

You're talking about the Roman Empire. Unless Jesus were the leader of a major political uprising, involved in "terrorist" activities against Roman citizens and hell bent on unifying the Jewish population to lead them in a military/fundamentalist Jihad attempting to topple the Roman Empire (like an ancient Bin Laden) as I personally suspect was probably the case (if the Romans actually did crucify Jesus and mocked him with that "title"), then, perhaps, there would be "warning bells" that were heard all the way to Rome.

But Pilate would have informed them if there were any such threat and, again according to what was actually written, none of this was the case. Jesus was nothing more than yet another crazy, Jewish "prophet," going around to local villages, preaching a reformed Judaism and would have raised no "warning bells" of any kind. Again, it would be identical to someone claiming to be the "King of the Mormons." At best, it would be an internal matter for the Mormon elders and have absolutely no bearing in any political/military threat perspective to our Government; the modern Roman Empire.

"Serious repurcussions" can only come from a serious threat, which a poor, wandering Rabbi did not possess.

That the Romans had conquered and controlled.

I don't "say" it; history records it.

First of all, Jesus never asserted any form of "nationalism," and secondly, how? How would Jesus wandering around villages claiming to be the "King of the Jews" (a meaningless title) be any kind of "deadly threat" to the Roman Empire? Paricularly when you take into consideration the fact that he allegedly preached obediance to earthly authority and that his followers were to "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's."

You can't be considered a "deadly threat" by a military empire, unless you have a significant, organized army and have already committed several mass murders in the name of your "Kingdom."

Preaching about ethereal, theological "Kingdoms" would be totally meaningless or irrelevant to Roman authority, unless that theology resulted in, as I said, an immediate and significant military or political threat to Roman authority, which Jesus did not. Believe it or not, and Hollywood aside, not every single human being throughout history has been an ignorant, fervant believer in divinity, much less the divinity preached by Jewish slaves of the Roman Empire.

How? Jesus was not a King and had no army and posed no military or political threat to anybody in the region. The only possible "threat" would have been to the Jewish orthodoxy and even then the "threat" would be to losing followers of one cult to another more "reformed" cult, many of which already existed in the region and had existed for years.

Only if Jesus actually were a King, which he was not. I don't just mean in name or by ethereal, theological claims, but an actual military or political threat, with an army and the power to actually challenge military authority in the region; the power to wage actual war and not theologically metaphorical "war" (in quotes).

You are the victim of propaganda, written by the victors while at the same time neglecting to consider the alleged facts. Jesus was not a King and certainly not the "King of the Jews" (again, a meaningless political title to both Jews and Romans) and he not only had no army or ability to wage war, but went around preaching (allegedly) that his followers are to obey the Romans in every way.

The most that would have happened is that Pilate would have gotten word that the followers of a local reformed Rabbi claimed he was a "King" and he would have sent some officers to investigate. They, in turn, would have reported back something to the effect of, "He's a popular Rabbi with the non-orthodox Jews, but the title is purely metaphorical," and that would be the end of it.

Unless and again he had actually been forming an army of insurrectionist engaging in the same things that Barabas was allegedly convicted of, in which case, the whole passion narrative and everything Jesus allegedly preached was a lie. He would have been a "terrorist" and the blood on his hands would not be metaphorical either and formed long before any spikes were nailed into his seditionist/murderer body.

I know it may be hard to understand, but then that's why I used the analogy of someone claiming to be the "King of the Mormons," or, if you like, the "President of the Atheists." Those titles are utterly meaningless to any power structure that might be threatened by such claims. The President of the United States wouldn't care one tiny little baby shite if some wandering nutjob went around claiming he was the "President of the Atheists" now would he? The analogy is one for one accurate.

Had Jesus claimed to be "Caesar" and claimed it within earshot of the actual Caesar," then chances are good he would have been publicly eviscerated, but a local Rabbi claiming he was "King of the Jews" would have been considered "cute" and a laugh, if considered at all by anybody in Rome.

rlogan

Koy - that was a pretty good summary.

To the OP - check out Psalms 22. Then you'll understand a lot about why the gospel stories shake out the way they do. There's some other OT prophesies they jam in there too. Do a google search on the prophesies fulfilled with Jesus and you'll see the whole thing start to flesh out.

It's all about "validating" Jesus through Old Testament prophesy.

You got the casting of lots for the clothes. Piercing the hands and feet. Spit on. Rejected by his own people. etc.

So add this to Koy's analysis of the trial and you'll see what's up there...