My impression, is that Jesus, being familiar with the prophecies, intentionally goaded the sanhedren into requesting his execution. This is what he was praying about that night, and he knew that saying that Caiaphus would see him sitting at the right hand of the Father would make Caiaphus go balistic.
I’m assuming this is in reference to the Staff Report, Who killed Jesus?
What I found interesting was the comparison of Jesus and Jeshua because Jesus in Hebrew would be Jeshua (or Yeshua as there is no J in Hebrew). In English, we would translate the name to Joshua. I wonder if both accounts were of the same man? The only thing is that Jesus would have been referred to as Yeshua bar Yoseph (Joshua, son of Joseph), not Ananias. Still, history has been twisted ere this.
" The main goals of Roman rule in the boonies seem to have been to collect taxes and to put down revolts."
I found this quote interesting. Not necessarily because of the humor content, but to note that governments really haven’t changed that much. If it’s one thing to be learned from Orwell’s 1984, “the only purpose of the State is to protect the existence of the State.” Collecting taxes, and preventing revolts that would preclude the collection of taxes are right in line.
Ain’t progress grand?
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, Paul, glad to have you here. When you start a thread, it is helpful if you provide a link to the Staff Report being discussed. This helps keep us all on the same page (well, mostly) and avoids duplication.
Duck Duck has helped you out here, it being your first post and all. So, as I say, welcome.
Your speculation is certainly within the realm of possibility from an historic point of view, although one is hard-pressed theologically (for Christians.) If Jesus is God, he would surely have allowed free will to prevail, rather than “goad” the officials. God goading seems both inconsistent theologically and ridiculous alliteratively.
There have been lots of speculation on this topic, from the silly to the ridiculous. High on the list of ridiculous was a book called “The Passover Plot” where Jesus and a few cronies faked his death altogether so that they could stage a resurrection a few days later. However, the point is that there’s lots of room for speculation. We have no historic record beyond the gospels, and the point of the gospels is to preach and convert, not to record history (as we think of it.)
Suze, yes, you are correct that both individuals had the same name … but they are clearly NOT the same individual. Well, as clearly as one can ask, given the paucity of evidence. The name was a common one, and the idea of two messianic loonies with the same name is not a remarkarble coincidence. There were several messianic loonies running around at the time, it was like a national fad.
Olsam, you posted whilst I was composing my post, I didn’t mean to slight you by not welcoming you also. Glad to have you with us, even if you put my humour second to an astute political observation.
I read the staff post with great interest, and think that it is funny (not in a ha ha way) that I was just talking about this very thing last week.
To really understand the whole picture, you have to know a few things first. One is the Jewish system of sacrifice and worship. Since the days of Adam, a lamb or ram had been killed on an alter and it’s blood was an offering to God. When Moses set up the Mosaic law, there were specific rules that applied to the blood sacrifices and what each was for. Once a year, a blood sacrifice would be brought to the Temple and ritually killed. The blood of this animal, which was a ram, lamb or bull, was collected in a bowl. The high priest would then take that blood into the Holy of Holies in the temple and would pour out the blood at the Mercy Seat, where God would sit. This blood offering would be a substitution for the blood of the person or family, and the idea is that God would look down from Heaven and see the blood covering the sin and would be appeased. (remember that the wages of sin is death)
Now, on to Jesus. First of all, He was presented as the Lamb of God. Remember Abraham taking Isaac to the mountain to kill him as a sacrifice and a ram appearing in the brambles? The idea that Jesus was the Lamb of God is a thread found all throughout the Bible. The rules for the sacrifical lamb for Passover and for the Temple were very specific. The biggest one that applies to this discussion is that no one could find any fault in the sacrificial lamb, and that no one could find any real fault in Jesus. Caiaphus and the pharasees were offended by Jesus and felt threatened, but he could find no real crime to charge Jesus with. So, Jesus was taken to Pilate to see if there was anything the prefect could find wrong with Him. After all of the beatings and floggings that Jesus received, He did not defend himself at all. Which brings us to the Jews, themselves. Pilate presented Jesus to the mob of Jews standing outside and offered them a choice between a criminal, Barabbas, and Jesus, an innocent man. The Jews made the decision to let the criminal go. That is where Pilate washed his hands of the whole situation and said that the blood of an innocent man would not be on him. Here is the key to the whole thing, which ties into the above paragraph about the blood of the lamb. The Jews answered Pilate, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” Matt 27:25 This simple response is exactly what happened, and what was meant to happen in the first place. Jesus was the Lamb that was to be sacrificed for the purpose of not just covering up the sins of the Jews, but to wipe out the sins alltogether…for once and for all. So, who killed Jesus? The Roman soldiers actually drove the nails, but the blood of the Lamb of God is on us all.
Er, except that as the Divine Incarnation of God, Jesus chose to come and to be sacrificed, so couldn’t it be considered a form of suicide?
If you wanted to look at it that way…
Otherwise, I’d say that the blood of a Sacrificial Lamb is only on those who believe that the Sacrifice in question will accomplish anything, in this case, the Christians. I think the rest of the human race may safely wash their hands along with Pontius Pilate.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, Lioness, glad to have you here.
You’ve essentially retold the gospel story from the theological point of view. No one at Jesus’ trial talked about Mosaic sacrifice, or blood of lambs. It’s only later interpretation that applies those terms.
The essence of the Staff Report was to (a) try to separate the “preaching” of the gospels from the known historic facts and (b) try to use modern morality to determine where the responsibility lay.
BTW, just as a quick side comment: the gospel says “the Jews” were gathered in the courtyard and Pilate asked them what to do. Historically, this is extremely unlikely and implausible. However, even within that context, clearly not ALL “the Jews” were in the courtyard. Not even all the Jews of Jerusalem were in the courtyard. We’re talking about, what, 50? 100? from any particular political party? Or a small number of people who were coming to ask Pilate for favors?
I always liked the quote by Lenny Bruce:
But on a more serious note, how do the authors of this report relate to the Talmudic mentions of Jesus? Are they considered to be historically accurate?
The Talmudic references to Jesus of which I am aware were written long after, and are more a response to Christianity than to Jesus.
There are plenty of contemporary (or nearly so) references to Christianity as a religion or sect or “dangerous cult”… but none to Jesus as a human being.
I just wanted to pop in to say that that article was yet another oustanding job by Dex. Thanks for an interesting and informative read.
Haj
Although I saw it mentioned briefly, I don’t believe anyone asked the question of where this leaves the story of Barabbas. I am not well-versed enough to be able to quote specific passages of the gospels but I do believe that Barabbas is mentioned in one of the four. Is this then just part of the early Christians’ attempts to give the Romans less culpability in the matter? Is there any evidence outside of the Bible that the incident took place? I would certainly agree with the evidence that Pilate was more ruthless than was depicted, but it makes me wonder where the tale of the choice between Barabbas and Jesus fits into the picture.
Why does a site that tries to seperate voodoo from fact, host these types of religious discussions?
Sure Christianity is a popular mythology, but that doesn’t make it fact. Just because Brittany Spears sells a lot of records, that doesn’t make her Mozart. Taking the Bible as gospel (excuse the pun) may not be the wisest move.
You mention that these gospels (not actually written by any aposlte by the way) may have tried to skew blame away from the Romans? OK, sounds reasonible, but wouldn’t the authors then find no problem in skewing the deeds of this Jesus guy? Maybe even do a little flat out fabrcation? If they are tailoring their account about the Romans, they are obviously concerned with appearances and forwarding their cause/beliefs. etc. Why not make the whole thing up? OK maybe a little too big of a leap of faith for y’all.
But I think its ridiculous to let the main focus of thse gospels, this Jesus character, escape the same level of scruteny given to this tale’s supporting actors. You bend interpretation of the Bible, and give its authors freedom of falibility about the villians, but on the same token you take their word wholesale for the good guys. Who says Jesus was even hassling anybody in the Temple? Who says he was even there? I mean if your going to believe this fable, a more logical reason for putting the guy to death would have been that stunt with the bread and fishes. You think local merchants would have tolerated such a threat to their livelyhood?
Anyway, I have two collections of literature, fiction and non-fiction. Guess where the Bible goes? Damn Gideons.
The story of Barabbas heightens the drama of the story by increasing the culpability of the people who demanded the death. As far as history is concerned, it is not likely to have happened, nor anything like it.
Roman government of ruthless and efficient, not stupid. Can you imagine the governor of Texas appearing on TV and asking, “Shall we execute this man or that man? The other goes free because, you know, the holidays and all.” The Roman government is about 100 times less likely to do the same. (source: Crossan, Historical Jesus)
I like Crossan’s speculation or scenario in which Jesus, the country boy, preached free access to God, restoration of humanity to humans, and egalitarianism. The first time he got to Jerusalem and saw the Temple operating in a way antithetical to his view of God, he went kind of nuts and overturned the money tables. Would have been fine if it had not been Passover. Perhaps he was taken out and crucified by some petty official and never even made it up the chain of command to Pilate. (I have embroidered on Crossan’s description.)
I’m a little unclear on a minor aspect of this article.
“The prefect had the exclusive and absolute right to sentence anyone to death. (ASIDE: There was one minor exception to this: the priests could summarily execute anyone who transgressed Temple grounds, in violation of posted warnings.)”
“The Temple guards, acting on the high priest’s orders, arrested troublemakers. The high priest judged their cases, although he could not sentence them to death.”
(Don’tcha love it when someone throws your quotes back at you?)
My first thought was that this was an inconsistency. But then it occurred to me that a distinction could be made between someone who “transgressed Temple grounds” and a “troublemaker”, clearly a geographic one if nothing else. Transgress the actual Temple grounds and the priest could kill you. Keep it outside in the street and the priest could only arrest you. (Which would then bring up the question of how far outside the Temple the priest had any real authority, but I digress.)
But then, later still, the article says:
“But Caiaphas could not order the execution himself. The high priest could recommend executions but could not order them. Only the prefect could do that.”
This was regarding the punishment for Jesus who had attacked the money changers in the Temple. Were the money changers not actually on the Temple grounds? Did Caiaphas get caught in some jurisdictional legal loophole?
Could the priests order an execution or not? What circumstances cause a distinction?
<< Could the priests order an execution or not? What circumstances cause a distinction? >>
The priests could order the execution of someone who trespassed into the most sacred inner rooms of the Temple… but not for any other reason. Jesus’ was in the public rooms, overturning the moneychangers’ tables; he did not violate the innermost rooms, and thus the priests did not have the right to execute him.
BTW, I think I mentioned, although the priests had the “right”, the indications are that they never did.
O2hose says:
Well, I personally agree, but here’s the problem. The New Testament, like the Old, does record some events that are clearly historical fact. It also gives incredible insight into life in that area, during that period. The problem is separating the historical facts from the preaching embellishments.
OK, you’ve asserted that it would be naive to accept all the biblical accounts as literally true. But the other side is that it would be foolish to throw out the whole thing as mere “fiction.” Discarding the New Testament as “mere fiction” means the loss of an incredible source of information about the historic period.
So, we try to judge what things are probably factual and what things are probably exaggerations for the sake of preaching. That was the approach taken by the Staff Report.
Actually, a late thought has occurred to me in response to o2hose.
I got the same kind of flak when I wrote about “Why did water melt the wicked witch of the west?” and What kind of ape was Tarzan raised by?"
Some responded, “it’s fiction, who cares?” I personally like the game of taking a text and working with it to try to answer such questions.
Of course, now I’m gonna get flak for comparing the bible to the Oz books, but I’m hoping folks understand what I mean – it’s the same discipline, of textual analysis, regardless of where it’s applied.
I think I gotta get a life.
Well, I thought it was a good Staff Report. Of course, it pretty much fits what I think myself, being one of those poor benighted lapsed Christians who lost his faith after reading Hyam Maccoby :D.
:wally:
Dear sirs.
I outline here a part of the book “Jews, God and History” by Max I. Dimont, which presents a version about the theme, not considered by The Straight Dope. I would appreciate hearing your opinion.
Sincerely yours,
Moyses Worcman
Sao Paulo, BRASIL
“Any person familiar with Jewish judicial procedures in Biblical times will find it difficult to take the Gospel accounts literally. According to Jewish law at that time, no one could be arrested at night. It was illegal to hold court proceedings after sundown on the eve or the day of the Sabbath or a festival. The Great Sanhedrin could convene only in the Chamber of Hewn Stones, never in the palace of a High Priest or in any other dwelling. Nor could the Sanhedrin initiate an arrest. No one could be tried before the Sanhedrin unless two witnesses had first sworn out charges agains him. As there was no prosecuting attorney, the accusing witnesses had to state the nature of the offense to the court in the presence of the accused, whho had the right to call witnesses in his own behalf. The court the examined and cross-examined the accused, the accusers and the deffense witnesses. The Talmud, in fact, decreed that even as a condemned man was led to his place of execution, a herald had to precede him crying out to all: “So and so, the son of so and so, is going foth to be executed because he has committed such and such offense, and so and so are his [accusing] witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come and state it. (The Talmud, Sanhedrin, Mishna 43 a)” These facts make it very unlikely tha a Jewish High Court would defy every law in its own code and act act contrary to time –honored custom. Such action by the august body of the Sanhedrin is as inconceivable as the United States Supreme Court´s seizing a man at night, searching for “witnesses” during the night to accuse him of a crime, comdemn him to death without a trial, and clamor for immediate execution – all within the space of twelve hours.”