I don’t remember citing a blog but it’s not like the info on this stuff is easily linkable. Sometimes I have to find what I can which at least explains the case. In the case of the sanhedrin trial, even conservative Christian scholars will tell you that practically everything about was illegal. Do you take issue with that or do you think the trial was legal?
You babble incessantly about your team of theologians yet you are obviously clueless as to the difference between theology and history. Let me explain something to you. Anyone who starts from a presumption of faith is not doing history.
Sure you can find Bible scholars who will make all kinds of apologies but they are not historians in any meaningful sense.
Now what exactly is it that you take issue with? Do you deny that the Sanhedrin trial, as described by Mark, breaks a number of procedural rules or do you think it was normal to hold trials at night, at the home of the high priest, during the sabbath and on the Passover? Which, if any, of those points do you contend that I’m wrong about?
Do you deny that a 24 hour waiting period was mandated to pass a death sentence?
Is it your position that claiming to be the Messiah has ever been a violation of Jewish law?
Please be specific about what you’re contesting and I’ll be happy to shatter it for you.
The Kirby article which I’ve already posted goes into some detail about the Roman practice of denying proper burials. [urlhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/roman.html]This page in particular is quite on point, complete with many cites both from antoquity and from acknowledged scholars.
Do you deny that Romans refused proper burials for crucifixion victims?
Please tell me exactly which one of your theologians opposes any of my points and what they use for evidence.
First of all, they are not all 'theologians" , the experts include Historians, Linquists, and Archeologists. Nor does Oxford Press start from "a presumption of faith ", unless you think the most respected Publisher in the world is a secret arm of the Vatican or a bunch of Fundies. :dubious: :rolleyes:
Next- what I want, and what you are not giving me is a Cite. No more personal attacks, ad hominens or excuses- a Cite. A good cite. I’d like a cite for “One more point; the trial before the Sanhedrin as described in the synoptics is so riddled with factual and procedural errors that it could not have occorred as described. Not only that but Jesus’ conviction for “blasphemy” is based on statements made by Jesus which were not blasphemous under Jewish law.” which have posted as a fact in around 4 threads now, and which I have called you on in two. Not just something that shows that there are a couple of contradiction in the NT- big deal, just about everyone knows that.
Now, my experts have cited in their work the following (besides the NT Gospels, of course) books of Jewish Law and History- the Mishnah Sanhedrin-the Babylonian Talmud, the Genesis Rabbah, the Qohelet Rabbah, several cites from the Qumran Cave scrolls, and Josephus. These Jewish sources show conclusively that such a trial was completely possible. Of course, they don’t say that such a trial was held, just that such a trial was completely within Jewish law at the time.
Next- for the bit about burials- I’d like a REAL source- not a Blog by the unknown and extremely biased “Paul Kirby” whoever the hell that is (well, we do know he is the owner of “Internet Infidels” which is where this crap is coming from. That’s a Blog my freind- one dudes theories and opinion written down on a web-page with no peer review and no rebuttal, nor is he an accpeted authority, nor does he have a higher degree in the subject. I think it is the same tinfoil hat source you used for your toher claims. It is completely worthless. But I’d like a cite from a Peer-reviewed, Independent, unbiased EXPERT who say that Pilate did not authorize such burials. Becuase even your 'source" says “Discerning Roman legal practice for a province like Judea is difficult. The law cited above (DJ) was juxta ordinem, i.e., customary law in Rome for dealing with Roman citizens. Decisions in the provinces dealing with non-citizens were most often extra ordinem, so that such a matter as the deposition of crucified bodies would have been left to the local magistrate” so- in other words- unless you have a sounce which shows that PILATE had such rules, what happened in Sardinia makes no difference. :dubious: :rolleyes: And no Blogs. You do know what “Peer-reviewed” means, right? :dubious:
Really? That’s interesting since he Mishnah explicitly says that trials could not take place at night or on the sabbath, or at Passover, or in secret or away from the Temple, that a death penalty could not be pronounced on the same day as a trial (see Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4 and 5) and that blasphemy is defined only as uttering the name of God (Mishnah Tractate 7:5).
Now how do your theologians and apologists get around the Mishnah? Is it your contention that the Mishnah really doesn’t say these things or that its definition of blasphemy was not the real one?
You ask how Jesus words are not blasphemous. That’s a backwards question but the answer is simple, it wasn’t blasphemy because it did not meet the definition of blasphemy as the Mishnah describes it.
If you wish to allege some definition or critera for blasphemy outside the Mishnah then the onus is on you to prove it. There are some expansions in the Talmud and in Maimonides that include such things as “cursing God” or erasing or defacing God’s written name but Jesus would not meet these definitions either. Claiming to be the King of Israel was not blasphemy either by the letter or the spirit of Jewish law.
My cite for the procedural errors in Mark is the Mishnah Sanhedrin. I can’t find an online site for the text so you can either take my word for what’s in it or go find your own copy somewhere.
The sources for Roman attitudes and practices towards crucifixion victims are amply cited in the Kirby piece, so you can respond to the substance of that argument or give it up. Ad hominems are really of no use to you in refuting it.
Some other sources I’ve used are unlinkable books by such scholars as John Crossan and Raymond Brown.
I would like to see a cite from you that the Romans ever did release crucified terrorists for proper burial, but before you do that, how about a cite that the sanhedrin ever held trials on the sabbath or at night or at Passover or at the home of the high priest. Show me a cite for the Sanhedrin pronouncing a death sentence on the same day as a trial. Show me a cite for any Jewish definition of blasphemy as including a claim to be the Messiah. Explain why the Sanhedrin took Jesus to Pilate when they could have stoned him themselves. Tell me how your “experts” are able to explain their way out of any of this and what they use for evidence.
I do but apparently you don’t. Peer review is for subjecting theories or conclusions to scrutiny by others as a way to screen for errors, fallacies, false conclusions, etc. It is not something that is needed for simple statements of fact (such as enumerating how Mark’s trial is in conflict with the Mishnah).
OK, let’s run with that theory. The Sanhedrin are minor collaborators with the Romans. On their own, they decide to kill Jesus. Jesus has many followers in town. Once these followers learn what the Sanhedrin did, they not only go after the members of the Sanhedrin, but also riot in general. If the followers of Jesus don’t kill them, then the Romans will be pissed off at them BIG time for causing things to get so out of hand. Much better than the Sanhedrin go to Pilate, and tell him some story they know Jesus and his followers are planning a rebellion. Wouldn’t it make sense the Romans would believe their Sanhedrin collaborators and kill Jesus themselves?
But why would the early Christians need to make up a lie about the Romans letting the body of Jesus go? They could have just as easily reported they saw Jesus crucified, and the Romans hauled away his corpse where presumably it wouldn’t get a proper burial. And then tell of the resurrected Jesus walking around town after 3 days and nights. This would have been a miracle as much as Jesus rising from the tomb where he was given a proper burial.
Yes, we all know the trial as reported by Mark was full of procedural errors. That still doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The mishnah is a guide to what should have occurred were Jesus to be tried by the sanhedrin; it tells us nothing about what did actually occur.
It should be noted that according to the Biblical texts it wasn’t the bogus trial by the Sanhedrin that resulted in Jesus being executed. Jesus was executed by the Romans because some how he pissed them off. Note that while the early Christian texts were aimed at Gentiles, and they try to lay the responsibility as much as possible on the Jewish leaders, they do state that Jesus caused a disturbance at the Temple, and if not actually calling himself the Messiah, his followers certainly saw him as that. Diogenes himself posted “If he was calling himself the King of the Jews while stirring up shit at the Temple, that was probably more than enough to get him nailed to a stick.”
You would still have to explain what Jesus did to earn the wrath of the Sanhedrin. A disturbance at the Temple might make them nervous about a riot, not by Jesus’ followers but by the populace in general. In that case, they could have summarily executed Jesus for threatening the Temple. They could have executed his followers too, for that matter.
I suspect that did get nervous and may have helped the Romans track him down, but the disturbance wasn’t something the Romans would have had to be informed about. Josephus tells us in Jewish Wars that the Romans posted a cohort of soldiers (600 men) at the Temple during festivals precisely to squelch any potential riots before they got going. They would have seen the disturbance for themselves and on their own would have acted to prevent any rioting. The Temple authorities would have gone along with it but it’s the Romans who would have been in charge, not the priests. A trial before the Sanhedrin would have been completely unnecessary and only served to antagonize whatever part of the mob (if any) was sympathetic to Jesus.
It’s not quite correct to say that the earliest Chtristians made it up. The story makes no appearance until Mark. It’s a literary tradition not derived from an oral one.
The main factor was that Mark and the rest of the authors of the gospels simply didn’t know what had happened to Jesus’ body. There seems to have been no pre-Markan tradition about the disposition of Jesus’ physical body after the resurrection (Paul does not seem aware of the empty tomb tradition).
Mark needed an honorable disposition of the corpse. It was not morally acceptable for Jesus to have an ignoble burial. A dishonorable burial for Jesus would have made him spiritually unclean. A burial in a criminals’ pit was embarrassing. His innocence would not make it less embarrasing. It was believed that the body was spiritually corrupted simply by the lack of a proper burial.
So Mark created the empty tomb narrative and the rest of the gospelers took it from Mark (the synoptics directly, John probably by way of post-Markan oral tradition).
I know, but DrDeth seems to be denying that those problems exist at all.
Which is one of the things that leads me to suspect that while Pilate ordering the crucifixion is true, the trial by the Sanhedrin is total fiction. At most the Sanhedrin may have lobbied Pilate to crucify Jesus. And, they probably wouldn’t have had to try very hard. Pilate already would have known enough to have good grounds to execute Jesus. That trial by the Sanhedrin was invented just to try and deflect as much blame as possible from the Romans to the Jewish leaders.
Now you are just making no sense at all. The gospel writers already had Jesus get a totally ignoble death. Nailed to stick alongside a couple common crooks. Burial in a criminal’s pit wouldn’t change much.
That’s because the crucifixion was already known to be true. It couldn’t be denied, only explained.
Since the disposition of Jesus’ body was unknown, there was room to “fix it up” a little bit with a proper burial (which also served, by implication, to underline Jesus’ innocence).
Unfortunately, that 'simple statement of fact" is incorrect. My source specifically cites that source and other Jewish Talmudic sources, and make it very clear that the Gospels treatment of the trial is well within period Jewish sources. He does so point by point, and clearly annotates each source and cite. Note that he quotes many such sources, and not simply one. Could there be a minor discrepency between the way the Laws were written and the way the trial actaully was held? Certainly. Even today, many trials have such- such is the grounds for many appeals. Doesn’t mean the trial never happened. :dubious: Nor does one minor point of differing interpretation = “the trial before the Sanhedrin as described in the synoptics is so riddled with factual and procedural errors that it could not have occorred as described”.
The more I read the account of the trial by the Sanhedrin, the less plausible it seems. The numerous procedural errors can be explained away by the fact their intent was to railroad Jesus, and they hadn’t the slightest of intent of a fair trial. Why follow the procedural rules in a sham trial? However, according to the gospel text the Sanhedrin wouldn’t have even needed a sham trial. Either Pilate (or one of his underlings) was already determined to execute Jesus, and if not just pointing out he disrupted the Temple and was claiming to the Messiah would have been sufficient to have Pilate crucify him.
That Pilate is said to have allowed Jesus a proper burial is consistent with the fact he is said to have publicly washed his hands of the death of Jesus. Even if Pilate never did wash his hands, if the gospel writers decided to insert that on their own, then having Pilate hand over the body for a proper burial makes more literary sense than Jesus being buried in a mass grave with criminals.
I already provide the cite. It’s from the Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4 and 5 as well as Tractate 7:5. I tried to find a linkable site for the online text and couldn’t find one, however I’m sure you could verify these points on ypur own if you were so inclined. A local Barnes & Noble or perhaps a public library might be of assistance. If you look these passages up and I’m wrong then you’ll really have me dead to rights, won’t you?
You keep thumping your “source” and telling me what his conclusion is yet you failed to explain a single specific point or cite the evidence.
Do you deny that the Mishnah forbids holding trials at night or on the sabbath or on holy days like Passover?
Do you deny that the Mishnah forbids passing a death sentence on the same day as a trial?
Do you deny that the Mishnah defines “blasphemy” only as the utterance of the Tetragammaton?
Does your source deny these things, and if so, how does your source explain the actual words of the Mishnah?
Perhaps your source is merely arguing that the Mishnah is wrong about Sanhedrin procedures? If so what is the evidence for this view.
This tactic of saying “I’ve got a big book and it says you’re wrong” is really nothing more than a rather weak appeal to authority, especially when you won’t say how your book arrives at its conclusions.
I’ve given you my cite. Now please tell me how your big serious book reconciles Mark’s trial with the procedures proscribed in the Mishnah.
NO, it doesn’t. Can *you * read it- in Hebrew? No, you can’t and neither can I. You are depending on some weird super-biased tinfoil hatted Blogger to make this statement as it if is FACT, whereas it is at the very best- the most fingie THEORY around. I will point out the following- while *supposedly * following the Law, the following took place (documented History, unlike the Trial of one Jesus)- A. “…Alexander Janneus when he crucified 800 of his Pharisean enemies, who in his Opinion, commited High Treason” (this is mentioned in Jospephus, War, 1.4.92-97 and Antiquities 13.14-378-381. Then there’s the time Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah hung 80 Sadducees as 'witches" (Mishnah Sanhedrin, 6.5, and Josephus, War, 1.3-79&80, and then there was the crucifixion of Rabbi ben Joezer mentioned in- Genesis Rabbah 65 and even in Matthew 23.24. So- there’s another 881 Jews executed by their own- all supposedly under the Law. Note the executions for “High Treason” and “being a witch”. :rolleyes: Note that I cut & pasted this out of “The Oxford Companion to the Bible” pg 142, I did not read the sources myself.
My experts read the “Mishnah”- and another dozen or so sources- many of which I have already listed- and came up with an entirely different conclusion. “My” expert (Oxford) includes Rabbis and others who can read those sources in the Original Hebrew- and none even bother to list your Bloggers weird-ass THEORY as even an “alternate”. In other words- it is so very wrong- they aren’t even considering it.
No- you came up with the weird theory you posted as fact- I asked for a cite. I don’t have to disprove your theory (although in the past I have)- you have to support your theory with a cite. Again I ask- Cite? If your Cite is the Mishnah, then since you can’t read it in the Hebrew, I expect a cite from an Expert who can and has come to that conclusion, and has published that conclusion in a Peer-reviewed Journal or other publication. It’s not enough to say “My post is my cite” you know. I don’t believe you- I want a cite. I am not “taking your word for it”. Nor woudl even a quote from it in English be meaningful as- 1, Who did the translation? 2. As in current common english law, you can’t just take one line out of context. You need to know and understand the entire body of Law- which means more than one source- which my experts has used.
I did give you a cite for the part about the burial- your own silly-assed link. I even quoted part of that. But again- you made the claim- YOU back it up or back down. No turning it around to me. You make the claim, you back it up. WITH a cite- something I have asked you for over & over and you are unable to produce.
But i will quote one section "The members of the Sanhedrin declared that Jesus deserved death because he had uttered blasphemy (Mark 14.63, 64) ; they must have understood Deut.21.22-23 in a way similar to the Temple Scroll (that’s part of the Qumran in case you all didn’t know). A false messiah could deliver the people of Isreal and the Temple to the Gentiles. According to the Babylonian Talmud (Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a), Jesus was executed because he had led Isreal astray, a judgement based upon Deut 13.1-11. By delivering Jesus to Pilate, the members of the Sanhedrin could expect the sentance of “death by crucifixion:, for the claim to be the Messiah could be understood as a rebellion against Rome”. I can’t quote more for Copyright reasons.
Again- Cite? You make the claim- YOU back it up. With a cite. Thank you.
No, you haven’t given me a cite. If you insist that it is the Mishnah, I then want a cite from an Expert who: 1 can read that book in Hebrew,2. is an aknowleged expert in period Hebraic law, 3. can & does discuss it in context of other period sources of Jewish law, *and * 4. in light of similar period documented trials & executions. Also he: 5. must have written up his conclusions, and 6. had them printed in a Peer- reviewed Journal or similar publication. I am not taking YOUR word for it that the Mishnah says any of that. You are not an expert here- neither am I. I base my conclusions on a “big damn book” written by 250 PhD and Professors. You base yours on one poor little super-biased tin-foil hatted Webblog. I have you 250-1.
I do have a big book, availaible in every big library- and it does say you’re wrong. So far, we have nothing to substantiate your THEORIES (constantly stated as fact) other than your word, and some super-biased fringie tinfoil-hated Webblog. :rolleyes:
Like I said- one Book of Law may well be contradicted by another, and in Talmudic arguments- fine points & interpretations make all the difference. I ask any of our Observant Jewish posters to verify that ;j - you can’t just read a couple lines out of the Talmud, then say you know what you’re talking about- especially if you can’t read it in Hebrew. You don’t know enough to form an opinion of Jewish law- and neither do I. We are not Talmudic scholars. ;j I base my opinion on the opinions & theories of such experts.
If what you state is true, that since this has been argued for around 2000 years, you should be able to find a reputable cite that meets my reasonable guidelines. :dubious: After all- my source does!
Cite please! And "My post is my cite’ still doesn’t cut it. :rolleyes: I want all 6 thankyouverymuch.
Are you serious? Is this the best you can do, plead about the translation? If that’s the case then we can’t really talk about the Bible at all, can we? After all, we don’t know Hebrew and we can’t trust an English translation.
Actually, I do know Greek, so i guess that means I’m qualified to talk about the New Testament, but you’re not.
Are you sure you want to play this game?
As for wanting to know who the translator is- I haven’t specified one. Use any translation you want, I don’t care. You won’t find any that will get you out of your hole. The *Mishnah]/i]'s rules for trial procdures are exactly as I have described them. So is the definition of blasphemy. Do you deny that the Mishnah says what I have claimed? In what respect? What do you think it says? Cite?
I’m actually just pointing out the discrepencies between Mark and the Mishnah. No “blogger’s theory” is involved, “fingie” or otherwise.
How the hell does this contradict anything I’ve said about Sanhedrin procedures?
I haven’t mentioned any blogger’s theories either but I am curious as to how your “experts” explain their way out of Mark’s procedural errors.
This is just handwaving nonsense. Do you demand linguistic experts for Bible quotes?
My cite is the Mishnah Sanhedrin. Use any translation you like or learn Hebrew.
Very creative but not very helpful. For one thing, it’s still not blasphemy to "lead Israel astray, nor is Jesus accused by the Sanhedrin of doing that. They accuse him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah. Claiming to be the Messiah is not illegal and is not blasphemy. The Mishnah defines blasphemy only as uttering the Tetragammaton. You apologist seems to be poring through Hebrew scripture trying desperately to find some way to make Jesus guilty of a capital crime but he fails miserably to make him specifically guilty of blasphemy.
If this is the kind of apologetic gymnastics your “experts” are forced to resort to I don’t blame you for not proffering them earlier.
They could have killed Jesus themselves if they’d wanted to. They didn’t need the Romans, and Jesus had committed no crime under Jewish Law. Claiming to be the Messiah could be seen as sedition under Roman law but it was no crime under Jewish law.
Oh, and the Babylonian Talmud is a third century text which claims that a dude named Yeshu was hanged for sorcery and aposty on the Passover. It also claims that he was given 40 days to find a witness before he was offed, that he was “connected to the government,” and most significantly that he was hung for religious crimes rather than crucified by the Romans. It also does not accuse him of blasphemy or of claiming to be the Messiah.
Mishnah Talmud 4, 5 and Tractate 7:5. Translation of your choice.
Mishnah Sanhedrin is the cite. Don’t take my word for it, look it up yourself.
Your protestations about linguistics amounts to only so much handwaving. It’s not that complicated. You asked for the cite and it has been given to you. It’s not my problem if you can’t read Hebrew. You are invited to look at as many translations as you want. You will find them very similar.
Do you demand language experts for quotes from the Bible or from Josephus or from Homer?
I say DrDeth should be worrying less about linguistics and more about logic. Based on the available evidence, the most plausible theory is Jesus was never tried by the Sanhedrin. If they wanted Jesus dead, rather than carry out a BS trial with flimsy charges about him violating Jewish law, it would have been much easier to just send Jesus off to Pilate with a memo that he was acting in a dangerous and seditious manner. In fact, the gospels say that after wasting there time with a bogus trial, they actually did send Jesus off to Pilate with a memo that he was acting in a dangerous and seditious manner. The gospel writers likely just invented that trial before the Sanhedrin for literary value, and to try and make Pilate look better.
John actually omits the trial and just says that Jesus was briefly questioned by the priests before he was packed off to Pilate, who then executes him for claiming to be the King of the Jews.
I don’t find it implausible that the priests would simply question Jesus after his arrest, ask him what the hell he thought he was doing and then turn him over to Pilate if they thought he was a false Messiah who was stirring up trouble and might get people killed. I just dispute the historicity of a formal trial or a blasphemy conviction.
