What's the deal with various "Jesus didn't really die on the cross" theories?

Great Debates
81

The Tetragammaton is Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic. He is quoted by Mark in Greek ("[symbol]]Egw Eimi[/symbol]"). So we don’t know what his actual Aramaic words were. If he uttered the Hebrew Tetragammaton, Mark doesn’t tell us that. It’s a clever interpretation but I don’t think it holds water. People had to say “I am…” for mundane reasons, and I doubt that the Aramiac construction was the same as the Tertragammaton. I know nothing of Aramaic, though, so I can’t say that for sure (but I would be surprised).

The quotation from John indeed sounds like it could be a claim to Godhood, (and John in his intro identifies Jesus as the Logos who was “with God” from the beginning. I have to point out, though, that it is not entirely clear wht John meant by “Logos,” other than he seems to have a different interpretation of it than Philo (who introduced into Judaism from Greek philosophy), and that there is no previous identification of the Logos as identical with God either in Greek phiolosphy or in Judaism (nor was the Logos ever personified before John). Prevous conceptions of the Logos were either of the will of God or (as Philo argues by extension) a divine mediating force between God and man.

Be all that as it may, I will save my argument against the historicity of Jesus’ “I am” speech in John (to put it bluntly, I just don’t think Jesus said it), and simply point out that while John has the most self-aggrandizing Jesus, he does not have a Sanhedrin trial. John just has Jesus briefly questioned by the priests and then turned over to Pilate (a possibility which I have already stated that I find more plausible than Mark’s trial). So while it might be argued that Jesus’ words (if he said them) might have been perceived as blasphemous, John does not have Jesus convicted of it. And Mark has the high priest saying to the rest of the Sanhedrin, “you have heard the blasphemy,” which they hadn’t if it was supposed to be some sort of allusion to the “I am” speech (and which Mark has told us nothing about).

Because John and the synoptics have different and contradictory Passions, it doesn’t really help to conflate them.

82

[QUOTE=DrDeth]

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.

[QUOTE]

Not necessarily. Maybe the Sanhedrin knew these executions were illegal, yet ordered them anyway.

83

It is significant to note here that John directly contradicts the other gospels. He doesn’t just fail to make any mention about the Sanhedrin in the death of Jesus. Had he just not mentioned the Sanhedrin, that could be explained by him simply being unaware of their involvement, or just didn’t think their involvement was something significant to mention. (The latter would make sense if John thought what was important is that the Roman’s crucified Jesus, and that he arose from the dead.) John is quite aware of the Sanhedrin’s involvement, but instead of saying they put him on trial merely mentions they briefly questioned him and sent him off to Pilate. Thus, either John intentionally altered the truth, or the other gospels did. It seems to make more sense the other gospels did, probably under the logic that shifting the blame from the Romans to the Jewish authorities would help to propagate the faith amongst Gentiles. If the idea is to sell Christianity to Roman citizens, laying all the blame for the death of the son of God squarely on the Romans isn’t the best strategy.

84

[QUOTE=rfgdxm]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]

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.

Knowing what little I know about Talmudic law, I’d bet they had something- however tenuous- to support their actions.

I want to quote what I said in the GQ thread, so we know where we all are:

"Umm, no. That’s not what I said at all. You said that the trial of Jesus was impossible due to the fact it violates Jewish law. I said that the established experts have no problem at all of accepting the trial happened MORE_OR_LESS as per the Gospels. Thus, your interpretation flies in the face of what the experts say. In fact=the experts don’t even list your Theory as an alternate postition.

It is quite possible the trial violated some sections of the Talmud. Since I am no expert, I don’t know and don’t care. It is also possible that the details of the trial as per the Gospels are incorrect. Since “biblical inerrancy” is not something I have any belief in (heck, I am very doubtful of Jesus being the Messiah…I have only atenuous hope there is a Higher Power and an afterlife of some sort), again, I don’t know and I don’t care.

But what you said that the Trial didn’t happen, and that the fact it violated (per the Gospel story) several aspects of the Law proved that it didn’t happen. That’s what we’re argueing about.

But between (The Trial violated some aspects of the Talmud) and (The Trial didn’t happen) is a HUGE gap.

This gap can easily be filled in by any of four postulates: 1. It did violate violate some sections of the Mishnah, but other Law could be interpreted to make it legal. 2. It did violate some sections of the law as written, but Oral tradition (thanks Jawdirk) was interpreted as allowing it anyway. 3. It did violate some sections of the law, but the Sanhedrin went ahead and did it anyway, as they did in several other documented cases 4. They were able to use Talmudic reasoning to prove their case and make the trial legal, at least in their eyes."

rfgdxm: you seem to accept #3? I don’t know which of the 4 is right.

The Oxford simply accepts the Trial as happening- the main sticking point seems to be whether the Sanhedrin would turn someone over to be crucified, as stoning was the accepted punishment in this case. In several paragraphs, they make an excellent case that hanging and even crucifixion was used by the Sanhedrin, and that at the very least Hanging was legal under Jewish law, and that Crucifixion coudl be thought of as just another from of hanging, especially as “hanging” was done by tying someone to a tree in some cases.

Although there is little doubt that the native language of Jesus was Aramaic, there is also little doubt he could also speak and read Hebrew. Many Jews could, and alos some spoke Greek and Latin.

85

Blast! Still can’t find my cites. But, none of the Talmud experts I’ve read on the subject accept that the trial happened, because it violated several laws.

Indeed.

Never heard a rabbi, or Jewish scholar support this one.

That would be the same oral tradition which was eventually recorded as (dramatic pause) the Talmud?

This, I could see only if they weren’t an actual Sanhedrin, but unqualified puppets set up by the Romans.

I’d like to hear that reasoning.

Even if the Oxford Companion only covers the NT, that would make it more than long enough so that your posting of those paragraphs here would be a small enough portion of the whole to fall well within the legal limits of fair use.

86

And why should I assume the inerrancy of these Oxford scholars? In the Bible itself, John makes no mention of a formal trial. Jesus is just briefly questioned by some of the Sanhedrin, and they find his answers inadequate and let Pilate deal with him. This isn’t just a matter that it seems to me this trial didn’t happen. One of the gospels says that it didn’t happen. In cases where the Biblical text are contradictory, it is quite reasonable to look at various historical accounts of what was typical to figure out what is most plausible. Occam’s razor. The trial before the Sanhedrin is an unnecessary assumption, as those accounts have not the Sanhedrin executing Jesus, but Jesus being sent to Pilate to let him handle it. Why bother with a trial if there was no intent to have Jesus executed under Jewish law?

As for the possiblility of Jesus being stoned or hung by the Sanhedrin, on researching this issue many sources suggest that Pilate had forbidden them from imposing the death penalty. While Jewish law may have permitted such a sentence, as the Romans were in charge what they said was what what went. And there is little doubt that the Sanhedrin at this time were little more than collaborators with the Romans. The consequences of them disregarding what the Romans wanted would be their execution and replacement. And as they were collaborators why would they even bother with invoking Jewish law? All the Sanhedrin would have to do is send Jesus off to Pilate with a memo “This guy is calling himself King of the Jews, and is a threat to Roman rule. Deal with him thus. Thanks in advance.” The least believable part about the accounts in the gospels of the death of Jesus is that Pilate would have been morally disturbed about ordering his execution. That Jesus was a possible threat to Roman rule would be adequate to execute him.

87

They may have been the actual Sanhedrin, but quite cognizant of the fact there were lots of Romans around with swords. And quite aware of the fact they could be killed and replaced by unqualified puppets if they acted contrary to Rome.

88

I’ve posted on this subject before. Diogenes is correct.

Capital cases cannot be tried at night, nor can they be tried on the Sabbath or Holidays (nor can they be started the day before) and if a guilty verdict was apparent, then the decision would be delayed a day so as to give the judges a chance to sleep on the verdict and possibly find a reason to acquit.

The only thing that Diogenes posted that was incorrect was that a capital case need not be heard in the Temple. It can heard by any duly-constituted capital court. The only caveat is that the Sanhedrin has to be convened in the Temple, but the trial itself can be held anywhere in Israel. (There were several exceptions that did have to be tried in front of the Sanhedrin, but the only one that could possibly fit Jesus’ description is that of a false prophet – which he wasn’t accused of being).

Blaspehmy consists of one specific statement (which I won’t repeat here). Jesus (in all probability) did not utter that statement. Claiming to be the messiah is not blasphemy or even a capital crime.

Zev Steinhardt

89

Thank you, Zev.

I must have conflated a law about the convening of the Sanhedrin with a law about the locations of capital trials (pre-70 CE, of course).

90

The only one of those that I am familiar with is the hanging of the 80 witches by Shimon ben Shetach and even that I am somewhat fuzzy on and will have to do further research. In any event, the matter was not a normal court proceeding as evidenced by the fact that hanging (like crucifiction) is not a valid death penalty in Jewish law. I will have to do further research on the matter.

I’ve read the Mishna (it it’s original language) and Diogenes is correct on most of his points and is backed up by later codifiers of Jewish Law.

Blasphemy, as defined in Jewish Law, consists of one specific statement. Jesus was not guilty of that. Claiming to be the messiah is not blasphemous (after all, someone the real messiah will have to make that claim, no?) and will not get you executed.

As for the quote on Sanhedrin 43, it is likely that it is not Jesus. Firstly, the timing of the story is off as that happened about 100-200 years before Pontius Pilate ruled. Seconly, the said person had only five disiples, not twelve and lastly, crucifixion is not a valid death penalty under Jewish law.

Zev Steinhardt

91

OK, we finally have a Talmudic expert. And he agrees the Trial falls outside Law. I concede that point. However, that leaves the definate possibility of the trial happening anyway, and being more of a “kangaroo court”. Zev will look up those other executions, and thanks to him for that. Note that while simply claiming to be the Messiah isn’t Blasphemy, they were willing to hang some men for being “witches” and it appeared their only crime was to be Sadducees. And there was the time where 800 Pharisees were crucified for “high treason”. Perhaps it was “witchcraft” or “high treason’ instead- in fact, High treason seems rather likely. I don’t know why they crucified Rabbi ben Joezer, but since I gave a cite, maybe Zev can check that also. Those are all documented. OTOH, they could ahve read something else into Jesus’s words that they DID consider Blasphemy, could they not? Could that saying that one is the Son of G-d be Blasphemy? Or that He would “destroy the Temple” (Mark 14.58)- would that be Blasphemy? The actual words in Mark are “… the high priest asked him"Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said " I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven”.

(Of course, we have to also know that John doesn’t mention any charge of Blasphemy, he just says that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate (after questioning), where He was executed for claiming to be “King of the Jews”, and certainly that’s fine on all accounts)

I do know that the "hanging of the witches’ generated much controversy after the fact, and was roundly condemed as being outside the Law-but it still happened . Note also that “hanging” in this sense is rather close to crucifixion.

I am rather suprised that worthies like “Baruch A Levine, Prof of Hebrew and Judaic studies, NY Univ” “Lee Levine, prof of Jewish History and Archaeology- the hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, and Director- the Seminary of Judiac studies, Jerusalem” “Nahum M Sarna- Dora Golding Prof of Biblical studies, Emeritus, Brandies Univ and General Editor Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary” “Rabbi Micheal Shekel, Jewish center of Sussex county NJ” and “Ben Zion Wacholder- Soloman Freehof Prof of Jewish Law and Practice, Hebrew Union coll, Ohio” and others didn’t catch this glaring error in their book. :dubious:

Oh, and Zev? What about the Temple Scroll of Qumran which according to the book allows hanging in a case of “High treason” (see 11Qtemple 64.8). The sticking point seems to be that the Mishnah interprets Deut 21.22-23 as hanging the body AFTER being stoned, but the QT interptrets it as hanging first. In Qumran cave scroll#4 “Pesher on Nahum” mentions (according to Oxford) “hanging up men alive upon the tree”.

92

I’m glad you finally conced that the trial was not legal. As to the possibility that it was simply a sham, kangaroo trial that was still historical- I said myself that this is the opinion of many Christians. Personally, I don’t find it plausible, and from what I’ve read, virtually no Jewish scholarship regards the trial as historical. There are reasons other than the legalities to regard the trial as fiction which are related to critical literary and historical analysis of Mark (and this is an area where I actually do have some formal training), but having said all that, the plausible historicity of the trial is obviously a matter of individual opinion.

No and no. The “Son of God” phrase was not a literal claim to divinity but (in this case) an elliptical claim to Messiahship. The phrase “Son of God” was a figurative description for inividuals chosen by God, not a claim of literal divine descendancy. In particular it was used to signify Kings, especially kings in the Davidic line.

A threat to destroy the Temple might be a crime, depending on the circumstances, but it wasn’t blasphemy which (as has been pointed out now by me, cited in the Mishnah and reaffirmed by Zev) was limited only to the utterance of the Tetragammaton.
And what does claiming to be the Messiah have to do with sorcery or witchcraft? Moreover what do sorcery and witchcraft have to do with blasphemy?

93

Somewhat relevant, I think.

C K Dexter Haven’s ( and helpers ) very nicely done column on “Who Killed Jesus?”:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjesuskill.html

A long ( eventually locked ) thread discussing the column:

  • Tamerlane
94

Thanks Tamerlane. A few quotes from that very interesting article:
"In summary, the gospels’ descriptions of the actions of the high priest and his council in arresting Jesus agree with Josephus’ description of how Jerusalem was governed at the time. The evidence is consistent with the interpretation that Caiaphas had Jesus arrested because he was a troublemaker. Jesus alarmed some people because of his attack on the Temple and his remark about its pending destruction. Caiaphas was concerned that Jesus would incite a riot, and so sent armed guards to arrest him, gave him a hearing, and then recommended execution to Pilate, who promptly complied. This is the way the synoptic gospels describe the event, and this is the way things happened in other cases as several stories by Josephus show.

Caiaphas’ actions were political. He had the official and moral responsibility to preserve the peace and to prevent riots and bloodshed. If he even thought about it as a choice, he was obliged to choose between having Jesus killed or letting Jesus live and preach, inciting riot and leading to massacre of the population and of Jesus’ followers by Roman troops. So he decided that the best political move was to preserve the peace by arresting Jesus and having him executed. "

This seems to indicate that Caiaphas did arrest Jesus, gave him SOME sort of hearing, then sent him on to Pilate. However- more for Political charges and reasons than religous ones. Noting the times as they were, and the political climate, this sounds like a pretty good theory. And note- none of us- myself, Diogenes, C K Dexter Haven, (and to some extent even Zev, but he doesn’t postulate a theory) KNOW what happened then- everyones ideas are simply that- THEORIES. Some are better than others.

95

I don’t know if a “threat” of destroying the Temple would be Blasphemy, nor do you. It is pretty clear that your grasp of the Law at that time is as weak as mine.

However, note that the charge included that Jesus would both destroy the Temple and raise it up in onely three days.

96

Actually, I do know, for a fact, that threatening to destroy the Temple is not blasphemy, nor is offering to rebuild it.

Your constant retreats into more and more feeble arguments from pretended absence are starting to become embarrassing.

97

How can you say that when Zev has stated that there is only one specific phrase that counts as Blasphemy?

98

And- which phrase is that?

99

.
The proper name of God is a technically a Hebrew phrase.

100

And, could they not have said “he threatened to destroy the Temple of Yxxx”?

Or could he also not have said “I am the Son of Yxxx”?

The Apostles were all jewish, remember, and in the OT they never say the name, either.