Try this page from a professor at the law school of the University of Missouri - Kansas City. It confirms what DtC says about the verdict needing to be passed the day after the trial and the verdict in a capital case needing to be passed in the daytime, but since it is an English translation by possible dubious sources, I guess it won’t be good enough for you… :dubious:
Grim
The problem with DtC’s saying "The Mishnah is my cite’ is what he is really saying “My interpretation of the Law from the Mishnah, and my Translation is my cite”. And, sorry, that isn’t good enough.
Remember, even if you have an exact translation from the Mishnah, you may not have correct Judaic law for that time, as there were some dozen plus sources for the Law, and a good Talmudic Scholar would argue one against the other, and all vs the OT. Not only do you have to know all the sources, you also have to know how Talmudic law is argued, with certain Conventions. For example- in the OT is says that “Thou shalt not seeth the blood of a kid in the milk of it’s mother”. Literally speaking that only prohibits the cooking of the blood of a kid in the milk of it’s specific mother. But this- in Talmudic arguments- actually prohibits the mixing of any dairy with any meat. Why? Because this line is repeated three times (that’s simplistic, but like I said, I am no Talmudic Scholar by a long shot- and neither is Diogenes). And, there is much “quibbling” over how certain words are used and in what context- that effects the translation greatly- at times they have a literal meaning at other times the meaning has an entirely different connotation, used in certain contexts. So, even if you could read the Mishnah (and DtC can’t), or even if you had a good translation, and even if the line did say “No capital trials at night”- that means nothing at all. Maybe “night” used in this convention means something other than what we would think. Or perhaps another Book of Law goes on to say “… but if Isreal is in immediate danger, this is waived”. Or any of a thousand things. Talmudic law is a strange thing, and I don’t pretend to understand it- but I know enough to know I don’t understand it, which is more than DtC knows.
And of course- if the Law said one thing- but the Sanhedrin routinely did another, then we have another problem. Certainly, those two large scale executions I mentioned in my earlier post do not fit within a strict Gentile reading of the law. In fact- afterwards, they were condemned roundly by the Rabbi’s as being outside the law. Never-the-less at the time they were performed, those doing the killing had no problem stating that they were within the Law. Thus, perhaps the Trial of Jesus was outside the Law as written but the Sanhedrin chose to make it’s own interpretation. In those two mass executions, when they killed hundreds of their own people- they certainly did. Why not for just one more troublemaker?
In order to understand the Law, and say “The Trial of Jesus as put forth in the NT is impossible as we know things” you have to: 1. Be able to read the Law in the original Hebrew. 2. Know all the Law, not just one book of many. 3. Be a Talmudic Scholar, and be able to understand and use Talmudic Conventions. 4. Know the History of the times, and how the Sanhedrin actually used the Law. My sources can do all four (DtC can do none of these and neither can I) , and in fact several of them are well known published Scholars and Professors in this field. Somehow, these eminent expert Scholars have come to a different interpretation than DtC has. :dubious: :rolleyes: So- either 250 Experts in this field are wrong- or Diogenes is. :dubious: I vote for it being Diogenes. 
Basicly, what he is saying is that he knows more about it than dudes who have PhD’s, are Full Professors at world renowned Universities, and are published authors. :rolleyes:
I invite any of our Observant Jewish Posters to comment on what I have said, and correct or amplify it. I do not pretend that it needs no change at all, I don’t have that degree of Hubris.
So Diogenes- I want a cite- and you are NOT a cite. Your interpretation of Talmudic law cannot help but be naive and ignorant- because frankly, you aren’t a Talmudic Scholar. I don’t want YOUR naive and ignorant interpretation, nor is that a legit cite for anyones use but yours.
Formal trial? The other gospels have Jesus being dragged off and “tried” in the dead of night in a hearing that violated Jewish procedural law so much it could be seen as little more than a kangaroo court. If the Sanhedrin wanted people to think it was a real trial, they would have followed their own rules. Looks to me that the “trial” never happened, and it was just invented years later.
I think it’s pretty clear that DrDeth is just spinning his wheels at this point. Even conservative Christians generally don’t deny that the Sanhedrin trial violated the procedures described in the Mishnah, they obviously believe it was historical, they just think it was illegal.
Deth has provided a nice little defensive cocoon for himself in that he admits he can’t read Hebrew yet he refuses to accept a translation. I have repeatedly said that he is welcome to use any translation he wishes, or to learn Hebrew or to ask anyone who does know Hebrew.
The translation is not that complicated. It does not require a PhD to understand it or interpret it correctly. These are not complex issues of procedure. Deth would not demand an expert translator for a quotation from the Bible.
Find an alternate translation for me, Deth. Find an expert who says that the Sanhedrin could meet at night or on the Sabbath or on Passover or away from the Temple. Find an expert who says the Sanhedrin could pronounce a death penalty on the same day as a trial. Find an expert who says that the Mishnah defines blasphemy as including a claim to be the Messiah.
My cites have been provided. You do not have a rebuttal. It’s as simple as that.
Again, we come to your “My post is my Cite- I have read the Talmud, and I have intepreted it, and MY interpretation is the ONLY right one”. Talmudic Scholars & Rabbis say you’re wrong. I am not going to argue the Talmud with you becuase it’d be like two blind men debating colour. You do not have the skills nessesary to interpret it, nor do I. However, at least I realize my ignorance, and depend upon well know published experts for “my interpretation”. You, in your hubris, think that as a gentile who can’t even read Hebrew- and has read only part of ONE book of the Law, now state you know more that 250 respected, published, university professors and Rabbis. I can’t beleive that you really think you know more about the Talmud that a handful of Rabbis!
And the only cite you will gove is your own post. We don’t buy that around here.
Have fun. Bye.
The Mishnah is my cite, not my post.
There is nothing to interpret. It’s just a straight reading.
Find me a Rabbi who would say that any of the following was acceptable:
-A trial on the sabbath.
-A trial on Passover.
-A trial away from the Temple.
-A death sentence on the same day as a trial
Find me a Rabbi who says that claiming to be the Messiah was blasphemy.
You haven’t posted a cite rebutting any of these things. Why not?
Why do you accept translations of the Bible but not the Mishnah?. It’s the same language, after all. What’s the difference?
You’ve made a lot of noise and posted a lot of smilies and hurled a lot of ad homs but you haven’t actually told me what I’m wrong about or why. Would you care to try?
What DrDeth is arguing is far more extreme than that. Namely, that not only did the Sanhedrin conduct a trial that violates the Mishnah, but also that they somehow thought what they did wouldn’t violate the senses of anyone with an ounce of decency. First they drag off Jesus in the dead of night. They then immediately put him on trial. When not only would he likely be half asleep and confused, but would have absolutely no possibility of having witnesses testify in his favor. They then immediately sentence him to death. That isn’t justice, it is brutal vigilanteism. The Sanhedrin wanted to present themselves to the people as religious leaders worthy of respect. If they did as the Bible claims, basically they would be a bunch of guys who conspired to violate the First Commandment. This would make no logical sense.
Good point. The Mishnah is a valid cite. I’d be shocked if I went down to the nearest synagogue, asked to speak with a Rabbi, and be told that this sort of thing is the Jewish idea of proper justice. I’d expect the response would be more like a lecture on why not to accept Christian propaganda about Jewish law without question. I confess to having little knowledge of traditional Jewish law. I’ve just assumed better of the Jews. And, HOW could Jewish law say that claiming to be the Messiah was blasphemy? That there would be a Messiah was prophesized. Such a law would mean that the True Messiah, whoever he was and whenever he may come, would need to be immediately executed.
I’m following this thread with a lot of interest because it is an occasion to look at a few other points of view regarding the subject “Jesus” in its historical context.
Since you say yourself that you are not scholared in the issue, then in order to understand what you are claiming about your knowledge on the subject you have to:
If it is written by 250 different scholars, it must be quite a work. I’ve never seen it. How many volumes does this it have and how many of them do you have and how many of them have you studied?
Salaam. A
I think I forgot something:
…
I live in a very large college town. I know the major librarians here on a first name basis. Mostly I ask them about texts on psychopharmacolgy. Likely they’d also cooperate if I asked them for texts on religious matters. What should I ask these librarians for?
One volume, and I have given the Title twice now- it is “The Oxford Companion to the Bible”. I have read it, it’s about 800 pages with small print. Can’t say I know all of it, but I certainly have been able to check back on the relevant sections to this debate.
English :rolleyes:
It’s not. The authors however have cited 20 Sources of Rabbinical Law (of which the *Mishnah Sanhedrin * is but one) , and something like a dozen of the Qumran Cave scrolls.
There’s 250 or so of them. Please go find the book and read the list of Contributors. I am not going to type 250 names with attendant titles. :dubious:
Already have- you really DO have to read the damn thread you know. :rolleyes:
Anyone have a link to an English translation of the Mishnah? I want to read for myself where it says that it is OK to drag a guy off in the middle of the night, and hold a quickie trial with an immediate death sentence. Seems all kinds of unlikely to me that the written law would actually endorse such a practice?
Here’s a translation of Tractate Sanhedrin. The usual disclaimers apply…this is a translation and not the actual work, it might be confusing if you don’t know how to read it, etc.
Thank you, Captain, I’ve been looking for a linkable translation.
The following sections are applicable to the debate:
Jesus did not say “Jehova”…Ow, who threw that?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0807.htm
From the above the alleged trial of Jesus would have violated multiple procedural rules. Seems unlikely the Sanhedrin would want to do so with a capital case if they valued their reputation.
In all fairness, maybe he did and the authors of the gospels left out that part. However, what they did write about how the trial was carried out unquestionably was violating all kinds of procedural rules.
That’s one out of a dozen or more. Have your read all dozen? No? Then you don’t know if that section is expended upon or contradicted in other book.
Have you read every word of all dozen? No? then you don’t know if that section is expanded upon or contradicted elsewhere.
Argueing Talmudic law is a great deal like arguing modern Law. It’s nice and all if you can find an Ordinance that says “xxxx” but it’s worthless unless you know the case history behind that law, any other Common Law cases which might affect it, and if any higher level laws (like Federal) are on the books which make the local ordinance moot.
Thinking that you, as a non- Talmudic expert can argue the Talmud against a half-dozen Rabbis and such is silly beyond belief. :dubious: :rolleyes: You are starting from complete ignorance, and don’t even know the conventions and rules.
And of course, there is ample evidence that the Sanhedrin commited acts that a simple uneducated reading of one Book of the Talmud would indicate was illegal. And indeed, the Sanhedrin did order some executions that later Talmudic experts did condemn as Illegal. That didn’t stop the Sanhedrin, who apparently thought differently.
Once the Holidays are over, I’ll try and get some of our Jewish experts here to post.
But again, my source says your interpretation is wrong.
To Diogenes- still no cite? Again, I was a cite where an accepted expert in the field (who has read all the Books of the Law) has coem up with the same interpration as you. Not just you saying “My post is my cite”.
I don’t usually post since most people here know so much more than I do (as well as wording everything in a far more witty manner), but I thought I’d add my two cents in this.
From what I was taught in church, the ineffable Name of God (YHWH) meant “I Am That I Am”, told by God to Moses. Jesus uttered this name when they asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” and answered with, “I Am.” (Mark 14:61-62)
An example of this meaning is evident in John 8:57-59, where the Pharisees are ridiculing Jesus.
So all this would indeed fit into the definition of blasphemy as prescribed by the Mishnah Sanhedrin provided by Diogenes the Cynic; however, I don’t know how accurate it really is since I’m assuming that one would need to say “I am blah blah” without invoking the name of God. Perhaps someone more familiar with Judaism can support/refute these interpretations.
Dr Deth
I can’t find the book right now (I thought it was in Telushkin’s Jewish Cultural Literacy.) and I can’t find the Straight Dope column I remember covering this. I thought this was covered on aish.com . But, I can’t find it there either. I’ll post a cite when I find one. However, every time one of my teachers adressed Jesus’ trial, and every Talmudic-scholar-authored article I’ve read on it agree with Diogenes The trial as described violates the law.
There was a thread in which Zev discussed the laws in capital cases. However, as posts aren’t even appearing in order at this time, I doubt the search engine will be working.