Well, Josephus also notes that the convening of the Sanhedrin for the purpose was illegal, Antiquities XX, 9, i, and we do not know the crime of which James was actually accused. Based on the Gospel records, the words of Jesus were not blasphemous.
The other sources for the death of James are only reported by Eusebius a couple of hundred years later.
If we are going to rely on Josephus, of course, we should also note that Josephus makes no mention of the Sanhedrin in reference to Jesus (XVIII, 3, iii):
So what? As I have noted, Scripture got several facts clearly wrong. At that point, it becomes simply one testimony among many for historical information.
And, again, what is the religious value of assigning blame to Jews and (against all historical evidence) attempting to make excuses for Pilate?
It’s unfortunate that this film had has this effect, but the region is already in almost total chaos without this film. I’m sure that was not his intent, and from the interviews it certainly appears that he is NOT anti-semitic.
Nonetheless, the historical facts are what they are. We can hide from them or find ingenious PC ways to deal with them, but in the end they are what they are.
Should we say that “some Jews” killed Jesus? (as oppsed to the Jews?) Did “some Americans” invade Iraq? Did “some Americans” elect George Bush? (He did after all lose the popular vote…) Who would you have had play the Germans in Schindlers List?
History is what it is. Playing word games, or re-writing it accomplishes nothing.
Well, the entire book of Revelation is written in code to avoid letting the Romans know the nasty things being said about them. You do accept Revelation as Scripture, right?
So what? We’re talking about the death of Christ and you offered a series of explanations. The source of our information is the bible! I’m a little incredulous at that reponse. If you cannot support your response from the source of the accounts, namely the Gospels, what else is there? It just ends up looking like speculation, right?
In the accounts of Jesus death, I didn’t note any error. Please point them out to me. And the bible is the primary source for the historical account of Jesus’s death. To suggest that it is just one more source demeans it’s value.
Against all historical evidence? The bible is quite clear in the roles that the Jews and their leaders and Pilate played. I haven’t seen anyone make excuses for Pilate, including Mel Gibson. )Certainly not me) He is not portrayed well by the Gospel writers, nor has history treated him kindly.
The Sanhedrin could not meet in judgement on that day;
Nothing reported in the Gospels supports a charge of blasphemy (although, by stepping outside the testimony of the Gospels, we can speculate that Jesus used the ancient Hebrew verb construction “I am” to echo the statement of God to Moses at the burning bush–but that testimony is not explicit in the Gospels);
Pilate was a particularly bloodthirsty ruler who was not averse to even profaning the temple, so a claim that he “tried” to get out of condemning Jesus is ridiculous.
My comments about Revelation were made n good humor, but they are accurate, nevertheless. The apocalyptic style uses wild imagery, but that wild imagery developed during periods of persecution and was frequently a means to get the message past the censors, whether they represented Antiochus or Domitian.
It is all very well to look to the Gospels for the message of salvation. However, they were written at a particular time in a particular genre. When they contradict known history, (to say nothing of each other), there is no reason to believe that they are attempting historical presentation when that was not the purpose of biographies at that time. That is not to say that they are all made up or that they convey no historical information, only that they are liable to present details that are intended to serve a different purpose than a simple court record presentation of facts.
I’m not sure what else to say, other than the fact you’ve mentioned so many things with almost no substantiation. The Gospels are first hand accounts of the events that transpired. All other accounts are second hand at best, or worse.Yet you are so free to dismiss the bible as just plain wrong. I can accept this from an atheist, and actually expect it. But considering you are a Christian I’m at a loss as to how you get to your faith. It appears to me that you’re kind of picking and choosing what is true and what is not. I would find your argumants more compelling if you cited your sources, and if you used the bible. you seem unable or unwilling. No matter.
The simple question was this: Were the Jews responsible for Jesus’s death.
You’ve taken us all over the place except the Gospels, and have given me no reason not to believe the writer’s themselves!
You’re not good with definitive articles are you? The Jews and Jews are two different things. Given the history of Christians treatment of “the Jews” you would think making the distinction would rank right up there with figuring out Three in One, or the necessity of Grace in salvation in this day and age
Look at your post. You mix “Jews” with “the Jews”. The fact that there is a massive difference between the two statements seems to elude you though I’m not sure why.
As to what scripture says about Jewish involvement with the crucifixion, I’m not sure I would want to take as fact a series of documents written in a period where Rome and it’s vast populace dominated the daily lives of the writers. Are we to assume that Roman blame would be highlighted during an ascendant Empire? Besides the Gospel account of the role and operation of the Jewish court in my opinion should be suspect for several reasons such as:
Trial of Jesus by the Temple authority was never directly witnessed by the writers.
Mark and Matthew state that the trial was held at night which is unlikely since it was forbidden by temple law
John states that the Jewish court was not in a position to impose a sentence of death when they were
Mark states that blasphemy was levied against Jesus. Blasphemy was considered only if you had uttered the name of God. Now if that charge was levied against Jesus the court was empowered to stone him and not turn him over to the Romans.
It’s disheartening to find you unable to see the political position of the appointed Jewish authorities. Here they have a semi popular person, who threatens the temple and potentially ready to incite rebellion against the Roman occupation forces. In fact a person claiming to be “King of the Jews”, a title that the local Procurator might view as seditious, could very likely be killed as a political threat especially if he had a following. In my view I see a small group of men weighing the survival of their people vs. the survival of a semi popular iconoclast and his following. In view of the final retribution Rome levied against the Temple and the Jewish people when they did finally rebel I think they made a necessary yet ultimately futile decision.
Actually I’m pretty good with them. Understanding them in their proper context is also something I’m pretty good at. Because I’m unemcumbered with the need to be PC, or have an irrational need to re-write history to suit some agenda, I’m not in fear of them either.
To say the Jews (as opposed to “The Jews” perhaps?) were responsible for the death of Jesus is no more an indication that all Jews killed Jesus than it would be for an Iraqi to say “the Americans” invaded my country. To use the word “the” contextually doesn’t by definition mean all Jews are being identified. Nonetheless, it is an appopriate use of the word, given the involvement of the Sanhedrin. And, I’ve never figured out the 3 in 1 thing. That is a household light duty oil isn’t it?
My use of the word, taken in context, (and even out of context!) doesn’t infer that all Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. Once again we’re playing PC word games.
With all due respect, you seem to share with tomndebb a willingness to decide for yourselves which parts of the accounts you believe and which you don’t. And, while the biblical accounts were written by persons who were alive at that time and eyewitnesses of which they wrote, you seem quite willing to discount it by citing opinons of others who were not there. I’ve seen nothing from either of you that would make a reasonable person believe that the bible writers covering the account of Christ’s death were just plain wrong. We can talk all night long, but if you’re quite willing to just simply dismiss the bible as a reliable source, there will be no agreement. What you think is interesting enough, but if it is in conflict with an eyewitness writer, (Who said “the Jews” were reponsible) why should I believe you. Frankly, I am more interested in what the bible writers think. And neither you or tomndebb have offered me much in that regard. My faith doesn’t work for me ala carte; where I can pick and choose what the truth is.
In the end, it is appopriate to use the term “the Jews” when contextually it is called for. (Especially as noted the Jewish leaders sought his death.)
Mark and Matthew state that the trial was held at night which is unlikely since it was forbidden by temple law
John states that the Jewish court was not in a position to impose a sentence of death when they were
Mark states that blasphemy was levied against Jesus. Blasphemy was considered only if you had uttered the name of God. Now if that charge was levied against Jesus the court was empowered to stone him and not turn him over to the Romans.
It’s disheartening to find you unable to see the political position of the appointed Jewish authorities. Here they have a semi popular person, who threatens the temple and potentially ready to incite rebellion against the Roman occupation forces. In fact a person claiming to be “King of the Jews”, a title that the local Procurator might view as seditious, could very likely be killed as a political threat especially if he had a following. In my view I see a small group of men weighing the survival of their people vs. the survival of a semi popular iconoclast and his following. In view of the final retribution Rome levied against the Temple and the Jewish people when they did finally rebel I think they made a necessary yet ultimately futile decision.
[/QUOTE]
I am new here, so please bear with me. This type of thing frustrates me, but frankly I’ve seen lots of it in threads like this; namely lots of references to things in the bible that aren’t cited (to begin with) and/or can’t be supported. In other cases, the primary source is discounted or simply discarded (the bible account)for the absolute flimsiest of reasons and replaced with other references that must almost always be considered “secondary” sources. For example: Grey said:
Show me from the bible that this is true. Please don’t infer or speculate. You and I can both do that. Show me.
Show me this from the bible. Unlikely isn’t suffecient. Even in this country, night court sessions are set up (often hastily) fairly regularly, both in criminal and civil cases. In almost every instance, it is considered an extraordinary event. (And this situation could certainly have been considered extraordinary) In this country, even major bankruptcy filings have been done on Sundays and at night.
3.John states that the Jewish court was not in a position to impose a sentence of death when they were. Show me this clearly. That Jewish law provided for death sentences was documented for centuries before Roman occupation. Was John’s point that Jewish had no provision, or; that they were unable to carry out capital punishment under Roman occupation without Rome’s approval? Please clarify this with the bible, citing the scripture and context.
There is ample evidence that Jesus did use God’s name regularly. He even encouraged that we include sanctification of God’s name in the Lord’s prayer. (It was the first thing he lited!) Matt 6:9,10. Under Roman occupation it is clear from the Gospel account that even after being “convicted” in the Sanhedrin the Jewish leaders felt it necessary to gain the approval from the Roman governor. That’s logical enough, right? But what you and I think doesn’t count.
Show me (in the bible!) that under Roman occupation the Jews (should I just say “Show me under Roman occupation Jews…?) were specifically"empowered” to carry out the death sentence, and why it was have been inconceivable for the Jewish leaders to seek out Pilate’s approval in any event? I mean, Jesus was a pretty popular dude in some Jewish circles, and his death at the hands of the Sanhedrin may have torqued some folks. Would you want to cover your political butt in case a stoning would produce rioting among pre-Jesus Jews? But I digress…Let’s stick to what the bible writers had to say.
The Raindog, you go on repeatedly about Biblical material being “historical fact” as if that were some kind of valid argument, but I rather wonder if you recognize that next to nothing there is in the Bible pertaining to Jesus is actually demonstrable historical fact.
The New Testament is largely a propaganda tool and not a reliable source of historical information as far as the life of Jesus (if he even existed at all as generally accepted) is concerned – Dex touched on this in the Staff Report, and the matter has been discussed on these boards quite a few times.
If you treat the New Testament as a valid and accurate primary source or historical record then we obviously have a problem.
If you give the NT provisional acceptance for the pursposes of this discussion then that is another matter. But I didn’t find it clear from your posts, particularly the several instances where you repeat “show me in the Bible where it says that” when other posters are in fact talking about more stringent and accurate historical sources than the NT, which as mentioned was a propaganda tool for religious conversion cobbled together decades after the putative death of Jesus.
That’s not really fair, Eve, because as you can see, debate over who did what to whom and when rages no matter what version and/or interpretation of the Gospels is in question. The “did (the) Jews kill Jesus?” question has been out there in play for years longer than any of us have been alive, and any dramatization of the events immediately surrounding Jesus’s death was going to raise the issue again.
The fact that those already prone to antisemitism are going for the most negative possible interpretation of this film and using it as yet another plank in their platform of hate doesn’t make their hate any more meaningful or reasonable nor should it be reason to cast aspersion against Mel Gibson unless you believe that giving fodder to people who were already antisemitic was his motivation for making this film.
The redemptive value of Christ’s death is not just paramount, it is transcendent beyond the non-spiritual, earthly factors which aligned to make it happen. It doesn’t matter who was nominally responsible for his death, because he was destined to die from the day of his birth. The blame game ignores the big picture, it’s attempting to determine the species of some of the trees while ignoring the majesty of the forest. It’s such a piddly, niggling, unimportant point that it’s painful that so much time is spent dwelling on it. It’s meaningless. We all need to get over it.
I’m not sure I agree. Gibson took a fundamentalist view, his own fundamentalist view to be precise, and slapped it on to the silver screen. With some talent, it would appear, however it remains a rather limited fundamentalist vision that fails to take into account (as an example) the research and analysis Dex put into his Staff report quoted above. It’s a film that seems more concerned with Gibson’s religious fervor and with the portrayal of physical punishment and suffering than anything else.
Would it have cost Mel Gibson that much to devote less time to his sado-masochistic streak and elaborate a bit more on certain areas, such as the film’s apparent and simplistic assignment of culpability, overt or covert as the case may be? Gibson may not have intended to blame the Jews for the death of Christ (in fact I believe he didn’t) but unfortunately such is a valid interpretation on the part of some movie-goers when they view the result of an ultra-literal interpretation of scripture a la Gibson-- which of course is a problem arising out of his religious extremism.
And the movie is by no means historically accurate, even in the small details (for example, Botticelli would have been happy to see his last supper recreated, but that is not how historians believe the event – if it happened at all – would have looked). the Passion is simply a highly personal vision, in many places it is a clumsy and ill-informed vision too, with Latin and Aramaic employed to lend a higher degree of legitimacy to Gibson’s take on the death of Christ. So I blame Gibson for not doing his research on this subject or (more likely) for ignoring such research. A little more of an open mind and a less literal take when picking and choosing the items from the Gospels to employ could have made a considerable difference without necessarily compromising Gibson’s faith in any way – that was Gibson’s choice, not ours. He may definitely be criticized for it.
He was, like most extremists, clumsy and poorly informed, and a little too reliant on his opinion and his indoctrination. I don’t believe his intentions were anti-Jew, but I can sort of see how the film could be viewed that way.
It’s not often I agree with the loudmouth pipsqueaks at the ADL, but in this matter I do believe they have some reason to be concerned, little as I think of them otherwise.
Sure, that’s your take on this and it arises primarily from your interpretation of this segment of theology – unfortunately Gibson may have been rather less clear. Historically, productions of Passion Plays (of which Gibson’s film is merely a feature film version) have contained the negative image of Jews as Christ-killers, with anti-Jewish trends or events often following in various communities of Christians.
The problem is that it’s not that hard to interpret the NT as anti-Jewish. And look up the antics of Mel Gibson’s father (one of Gibson’s primary indoctrinators) sometimes, he’s on record denying the Holocaust, and has called the Pope a “Koran kisser” among other things. When Gibson was asked about his father’s crackpot beliefs, he refused to comment, saying only something along the lines of “no one will drive a wedge between my father and me”. Initially Gibson made a great deal of how the “Holy Ghost” was working through him to produce this movie, which is scary enough even without the other factors. All these data provide grounds for suspicion in addition to the end product itself.
Gibson is a Catholic who openly rejects the Second Vatican Council, in which it was established that Jews are not to be blamed collectively for the death of Christ. He is a hardliner, he does not accept reformations intended to put an end to the assignation of guilt that has been en vogue for much of Christian history and that is based mostly on a few suspect lines appearing in a couple of gospels. As a personal choice that’s his business, but when he comes out with a faux-historical take on a Passion play I tend to consider his actions at least partly irresponsible and lacking in foresight.
So far, you have simply repeated “But Scripture says. . .” without asking for substantiation.
The Sanhedrin could not act because of the Passover. (Actually, in digging up my references, I note that it was also prohibited from acting at night and was prohibited from passing capital judgment on the same day that it heard a case. Therefore, there were three clear prohibitions against a supposed trial by the Sanhedrin.) Source: Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:1:
The Gospels are not “first hand accounts” and they are secondary sources, just as the commentaries of Philo and Josephus are secondary sources. (On the other hand, Jewish Law, appearing in the various Mishnas is a primary source.) Of the four gospels, only the Gospel of John has even a remote chance that it was written by an actual witness, and there is evidence, internal and external, that it was not written by the Apostle John.
Appealing to scripture to make a case for scripture makes sense from one theological perspective, but it has no authority when discussing history.
As I noted in a similar exchange in which I was involved some time back, discussing the “history” of Scripture and and distinguishing the message of Scripture from the story of Scripture, I recognize that the various works incorporated into Scipture each followed the genre in which they were written, be it letter, apocalyptic prophecy, sermon, or biography and that the faith that they present is separate from the method of presentation which would have followed the conventions of the period. (That entire thread would probably drive you nuts, as well. )
Then the simple answer is “No.” The Jews were not responsible for Jesus’s death. The Roman governor was responsible for the death of Jesus, although he may have been prompted by the appeal of a small group of Jewish leaders, not “the Jews” by any wild stretch of the imagination.
Much of what is written (although certainly not all) of history cannot be demonstrated as historical fact. To the believer, applying that type of criteria is irrelevent and unnecessary. Who are you to say that it is not true?
I read nothing in the biblical acount of Jesus’s death that suggests that it is a “propaganda tool.” Where do you come up with that belief, and why should anyone believe it? What reason should I have to accept that? I don’t know who Dex is, but I noted previously that they (he?) didn’t use the bible as a source! (or at least didn’t cite the bible as one) But at least one of the posters here identified themselves as a believer and then basically trashed the account. I simply asked that the poster provide me scrpitural reference to support to what looked like a bunch of speculation. You know, stuff like “The New Testament is largely a propaganda tool …”
The question posted was whether the Jews killed Jesus. That’s a pretty straight forward question. The bible account seems to offer a pretty straight forward answer. Given that the accounts were eyewitness accounts, the bible should be considered the primary source to answer that simple question. You offer me nothing to accept the bible as provisional, yet even in that context the answer to the question is clear. “Which as demonstrated?” It has not been demonstrated that the authors intended to use their accounts, or that they were unduly influenced by the Romans. What you seem to be offering as more simple conjecture. Isn’t that right?
