Who killed Jesus

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
81

Do you have evidence of this? By the early first century, neither the Pharisees not the Sadducees were dominant political powers. Certainly, members of each group sat in the Sanhedrin. However, I have never seen any indication that the Sanhedrin was under the control of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus (and I have seen several oblique references suggesting that, to the extent that either group held power, there were more Sadducess than Pharisees in the Sanhedrin).

Mt 12:14 occurs twelve chapters prior to the arrest and trial. John 11:47 occurs seven chapters before the arrest and trial. Mark 15:1 does not mention the Pharisees. This is exactly in keeping with the statement that “They are conspicuously absent from the stories of Jesus’ arrest and trial.”

No. The rest of the report is a fair examination of the conflicting New Testament accounts of the trial and execution in light of what is known from non-biblical accounts regarding the actual legal and political practices of the Jews and the Romans at the time in question. I am not sure where you get the idea that the Jews are “let off the hook” as the role of the Chief Priest is laid out fairly clearly. The report simply notes that the execution could only come from the orders of a Roman and that Jewish involvement did not require some massive participation on the part of the whole nation.

82

Live.Org says: << The rest of the report is a methodical gutting of the Gospels to further shift most of the blame to the big, bad Romans in order to let Jews off the hook. The Bible says that Roman-Jewish religious and political leaders, and the common people of the day, helped kill Jesus. >>

I don’t even know where to begin in responding to such ranting.

(1) There was no effort to “gut” the Gospels. To the contrary – if I had wanted to do that, the report would have followed a very different line altogether. I did my best to ACCEPT the gospel versions, including the contradictions, except to note that the gospels are not a history textbook. They are preachings and teachings, and bits are emphasized or de-emphasized as any preaching or teaching would do.

For example, we wouldn’t look at a State of the Union speech as a record or history, either. It’s a political speech, designed for political purposes, not designed to present an accurate historical picture. This is not “gutting” the Gospels, it is recognizing the difference between someone writing history and someone preaching morality.

(2) “Shift the blame to the big bad Romans”? I don’t know what planet you live on, buddy, but the execution was ordered by Roman authorities, under Roman laws, and carried out by Roman soldiers (with additional cruelty that was completely forbidden under Jewish law.) So there’s no need to “shift” any blame.

(3) There was no such thing as “Roman-Jewish religious and political leaders.” I have no idea what you mean by this ridiculous phrase.

(4) The scene where “the common peole” condemn Jesus seems grotesquely incompatible with historical reality. The common people had no voice whatsoever in Roman justice.

It may be that Pilate pulled in a crowd of brown-nosers to give the pretense of “asking the people”, but that is incompatible with what we know about Pilate. He was ruthless and harsh, and the idea of him showing compassion or concern over the execution of one “innocent” persion is absurd historically – but makes a very nice dramatic point for a preacher.

Finally, I don’t know what live.org is, but you do NOT have the right to post Straight Dope copyright material on any other website.

83

Hi C K Dexter Haven:

The “fair use” doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of the copyright statue provides that the “fair use” of a copyrighted work, including reproduction “for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research” is not an infringement of copyright. The law lists the following factors as the ones to be evaluated in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a permitted “fair use,” rather than an infringement of the copyright:

84

Sorry, forgot the source for previous: http://fairuse.stanford.edu

I won’t go point by point, except simply to advise to reread the section on Josephus and identity of “council” members. Give me more evidence or even proof and I will consider that the report does not go FAR out of its way to protect one side while attempting to destroy the credibility of the other.

-J

85

Another point, by the way, on the “claimed to be King” angle. This is another case where “literal” translations can’t quite do justice to the original. The Latin word “rex”, used by the Romans for what Jesus claimed to be, is generally translated to “king” in English, but the Roman interpretation of the word is closer to what we would associate with “dictator”. To a Roman, being King of Anything was a rather distasteful idea, much less king of a section of the Roman Empire.

86

From the registration agreement of the Live.org message board:

87

Hi Monty:

Copyright infringement = posting entire works without permission.
Fair use = posting select quotes for critique, education, etc.

That’s the price of stardom. When you write things for public consumption, people are allowed to comment on it in a way that makes sense.

However, because there seems to be a fear of this, I can easily rephrase quoted material to get the point across without using any of it. I may possibly do that as a favor, but not out of obligation.

Thank you for your concern.

88

On fair usage
Live.Org: we have no problem with fair usage. The Staff Reprot itself enjoys considerable fair usage, in quoting and citing the works of others. However,your initial post left me unclear whether you intended to copy the entire Staff Report on your website, or just to quote selections and provide a link. No problem with the latter, but major problems with the former.

Response on Josephus
I am away from my references, so I will accept your quote from Josephus without trying to confirm (or consider WHICH of the existing texts of Josephus was used):

"Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done… He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight… And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah… And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, ** as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold – these and ten thousand other wonderful things – concerning him…**

The bold font is mine, and is indicative that this is NOT what Josephus wrote originally. Such expressions as “wonderful things” and “if he can be called a man” and so on are what one would expect a Christian writer to say. Josephus never converted to Christianity, and it is highly improbable he would have said such things.

Once you have words and phrases in a text that are suspect, the remainder of the sentences must also be suspect.

The works of the ancients did not, generally, survive over the centuries, unless diligent scribes re-copied them, at least every few hundred years or so. Otherwise, the parchment and paper would have rotted away – this is why a find such as the Dead Sea Scrolls is priceless, finding an environment dry enough and protected enough to find 2000-year old writings.

This means that, for Roman authors, the documents only survived if the Christian monks during the dark ages thought them worth copying. And those monks were not above adding their own thoughts to the ancient works. Hence, we do not know, in this section of text, what Josephus actually wrote, and what later Christian believers added. (Note that we’re not talking gospels here, no one believes that the text of Josephus is holy or sacrosanct.)

Role of the Pharisees
Tomndebb has responded to your quotes about the Pharisees, and I thank him greatly for saving me the time and effort. The very material that you quoted proves my point: while the Pharisees are referenced in the early “plotting” stages, they vanish from the scene when it comes to trial and execution.

The role of the Staff Report
Frankly, other people commenting here have batted me about the head for giving TOO MUCH credit to the gospel authors, whom they view as biased at best, liars at worst. So you bat me about the head for giving too little credit, it would seem. The effort of the Staff Report was to reconcile the conflicting stories presented in the gospels into a coherent whole, consistent with what we know about Roman law and processes in Judea at the time.

There was certainly no effort to downplay the role of the High Priest, only to explain it as politically (rather than doctrinally) motivated. The only part of the gospel account that was viewed in the Staff Report as implausible is the bit about Pilate – strong, domineering, tyrannical, harsh, decisive Pilate – suddenly getting weak at the knees and asking a mob what to do in a capital case. Roman authorities didn’t give two hoots what the mob thought, unless the mob threatened violence (of which there is no indication in the gospel.)

You are certainly entitled to your religious opinions. The Staff Report was trying to summarize the works of scholars in setting forth the historical record. If you want to quote us on your website and then “rebut” it, that’s your right, but you might want to also provide the sources listed at the end of the Staff Report. The Staff Report is not the work of a lone scoffer (much though you would have it be so), but is a summary of the work of the outstanding scholarship on this topic, which includes devout Christian scholars.

So, if you want to go about bashing us for not being religious enough, you’ve got a long, long, long list of scholars, priests, pastors, rabbis, and historians to swing at as well.

89

Fair use: Thanks, I understand.

Josephus: The phrases "wonderful things and “if he can be called a man” are more likely to be his acceptance of what the prophets foretold about a coming false prophet, beast, devil, monster, blasphemer. As a devout Jew he would have considered the warnings to be wonderful because they could be used against Jesus. Check out any Hasidic Gentile organization and you will probably hear the same arguments, as I’m sure you know already.

Here also, Josephus was not calling Jesus the Son of God, he was reporting that the disciples called him the Son of God.

This is hardly a glowing report of Jesus when considered in this light, and exactly what one would expect from a Roman lackey, as well as a possible Piso and thus Herodian and old enemy of Jesus, of which there is some historical evidence of. Read it several times and you should be in complete agreement, it’s fairly clear.

Other versions that depict Josephus as a supporter of Jesus were of course influenced by the Church, not a whole lot wasn’t in coming centuries. We could also say that everything not written in stone about all of human history is a potential fabrication, and even then, it may be. So we have to work with what we have objectively, regardless of religious implications.

Pharisees: In the Gospels, do the Pharisees hold a council against Jesus in attempts to indict him, and is there a council present at his trial? Who else is associated with such a council? Josephus wrote that principal men indicted Jesus. Did Jesus indicate that scribes and Pharisees held the chief – principal – seats in the synagogues? Please answer those questions and I will further consider what you have to say on this point.

Staff Report: Did the Jewish religious system not play a role in politics of the time? Does it now in the modern state of Israel? Has any political leader in history ever orchestrated superficial demonstrations to appear merciful, in order to minimize a more routine policy of heavy-handedness?

Who can forget images of Saddam Hussein patting the little British boy on the head, welcoming him as a “guest” of Iraq? Does that make Saddam any less of a harsh dictator?

Therefore, Pilate’s act of consulting the mob, especially if there was guarantee that they would still condemn Jesus, is more in line with the realities of a somewhat civilized yet often brutal regime, than not.

To conclude, the least of my concerns is that this report is not religious enough since it does much to raise doubts about Christianity among any readers who would embrace its theories, while at the same time, it suggests a certain infallibility concerning other religious institutions.

Like it or not, everyone has religious views, and everyone is prone to bias when it comes to discussing them, even scholars, priests, pastors, rabbis, and yourself. Unless of course you claim perfection. Be assured, I have that long list, and if I had any qualms about making my way through it, I would not be here.

Thanks,
-J

90

**

:confused: Hasidic Gentile organization?

Zev Steinhardt

91

For example…

92

Live:

It’s obvious you’ve an agenda and are letting it interfere with your reading of the staff report in question. Could you do us all a favour and let us know what that agenda is?

93

Well, you figured me out…I’m a spy for the Pope. :cool:

Actually, Monty, tomndebb and I were discussing a related issue on another forum, I was directed to the report, found fault, followed the COMMENTS link, and here I am. Isn’t this the place to comment on Staff Reports? That I posted further on this thread is due to the fact that I received replies to my comments.

Now, do me a favor and be specific about what you think I have not understood about the report, and I will be happy to clarify.

-J

94

“Get the Jews off the hook.” Let’s start with that one. Explain.

95

Excerpts from the Staff Report, in context…

Pharisees and common people are innocent, and Caiaphas was performing a moral act by arresting and flogging Jesus, then delivering him to Pilate for execution, all because Jesus spoke his mind. Thus, only Romans are to blame for an event that took place in a mostly Jewish society. And the Gospels haven’t been gutted in the process.

Fascinating. ;j

96

Dear zev_steinhardt: May I ask why, as a Staff Report expert, you asked me about Hasidic Gentile organizations? Were you not aware that they existed, or that what they taught was similar to my presented version of the account by Josephus?

Dear tomndebb and Pastor Allan: As Christians, do you believe that Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus’ arrest and execution, even though it is written that they held a council against him to destroy him? According to the report, do you believe that the Gospels are, at least in part, false?

Thank you for your reply,
-J

97

No. The Pharisees and the common people (the Jews residing in Palestine) had no authority to execute folks. Did you miss that in the Report? And the job description of the resident dude in charge from Rome was to “maintain the peace and the morals of the people” (or words to that effect). That you disagree with those morals doesn’t mean the person holding them is immoral.

Horse apples. The society was an occupied territory, occupied by Rome. Thus, Roman law ruled.

Gutted isn’t the same thing as examined.

Was it Twain who said “Tell me your denomination and I’ll tell you your argument” or was that the other way around?

How does that explain your comment about “letting the Jews off the hook” then?

The Hasidim aren’t a Gentile movement, btw; they’re Jewish.

p.s. You might want to bone up on the definition of the word “seem” as CK used it in the Report.

98

No, I missed nothing in the report. I read that “we’ve excluded the most commonly held rationales for Jesus’ arrest” even though the Gospels say that the Pharisees held a council against him, to destroy him. I suppose you may also reason that if I called the police on you, I would have nothing to do with the arrest since I may not have been the one to slap the cuffs on.

Some cultures have advocated sex with children, do you not believe that they are immoral just because your morals are different? Who’s whitewashing now?

Ah, so the high priest and his council were Romans, not Jews? And the Jewish population was so benign that it had to eventually be destroyed by Rome, I suppose…

Gutting…ok, cutting them in half, maybe I’ll give you that if it sounds nicer. But do it to a fish and it’s still dead either way.

As for Mark Twain, so…what are you? If you are non-Christian, you may have your own reasons for defending this. If you are Christian, why would you believe any of the Gospels if you believe that parts of them are false? Advice: let Mr. Twain rest in peace.

You can follow the links provided, I believe that you will see a title:

“Jews and Hasidic Gentiles…”

You may want to bone up on them. Yes Monty, there are Hasidic Gentiles too! :smack:

99

Live.Org: << the Gospels say that the Pharisees held a council against him, to destroy him. >>

The Gospels do not, however, say that the Pharisees did any followup from their council. They did not testify against him, they did not bribe Pilate, they did not petition Pilate for his execution, they did not write to Rome, they did not murder him in his sleep. They held a council and then… they vanish from the story. It may be that they brought the evidence against him to Caiaphas, of course, but that was hardly necessary. Caiaphas would have got the information from any number of sources: overturning the tables in the Temple would not have gone unnoticed by authorities.

In short, “blame the Pharisees” is simple-minded and incompatible with the gospel account.

<< We could also say that everything not written in stone about all of human history is a potential fabrication, and even then, it may be. So we have to work with what we have objectively, regardless of religious implications.>>

You seem to misunderstand how historians or archaeologists work. They DO, in fact, take every document as potential fabrication. Merely finding something that was written (or carved in stone) does not make it true. Ancient kings carved massive stones in praise of their accomplishments – how they defeated the river god, how the sun god begat them, etc etc. Merely being carved in stone doesn’t make it true. People wrote down myths and fairy tales for their children, and just being written down doesn’t make them true.

Historians look at any document (written or carved) and ask who wrote and when and why? how did it survive to us? And every document IS suspect. Yes, we “work with what we have objectively” which means we take NO document as absolute truth, until/unless it is independently verified.

There is no original copy of Josephus, and there is clear evidence in existing texts (however old) of later tampering by Christian scribes (as we have described many times.) And we know that Josephus was a complete sycophant, who would distort anything to please his Roman patrons. So we are in the awkward situation that Josephus is our primary independent source for information about that era, and he is an unreliable source on several counts.

We treat the gospels the same way. This is a scientific and historic approach, not a religious one. We recognize that the gospels are viewed as literal truth, letter-for-letter perfect by many people. However, from an historic perspective, we cannot however accept that when we see inherent internal contradictions. We are willing to accept (for the sake of the Staff Report) that the gospels have got the main gist of the story right, but that different details may be emphasized or de-emphasized depending on who was speaking when.

I repeat many times: the gospel writers were not historians, trying to record factual events. They were religious enthusiasts, trying to preach to people to convert. They saw no need to stick to historical factual events, since they thought the return of Jesus was imminent, when history would become meaningless in a Messianic Age. Thus, if you were preaching to a group of Jews, you might well “blame the Pharisees” and if you were preaching to a group of Romans, you might well “blame the Jews.” And if you wanted to stay alive to preach to others, you would certainly not blame the Roman authorities, Roman law, and Roman occupation.

<< everyone has religious views, and everyone is prone to bias when it comes to discussing them >>

Heh. I bent over backwards to work within the gospels, and that’s not enough for you. :: shrug ::

There is only one bias in this area: if you take the gospels to be literal truth, you’re on one side. If you take the gospels to be the imperfect work of imperfect humans, written in human time and subject to human history, then you are on the other side, and can consider them as historic (rather than religious) documents.

<< And the Jewish population was so benign that it had to eventually be destroyed by Rome, I suppose… >>

The Jews revolted against harsh and oppressive Roman rule, and so the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews. You seem to imply that you think the Jews deserved it.

That comment, and your other comments, leave me in a quandry. I knew that the Staff Report would invite the rantings and ravings of those who want to blame the Jews, punish the Jews, kill the Jews… I chose to do it anyway, because I thought the topic was of interest to many of our readers.

On one hand, we do not tolerate bigotry, racism, anti-semitism, or other forms of hatred here. On the other hand, we opened the door by daring to suggest that what most biblical scholars and historians accept as obvioius: that blame belongs to the authorities and legal system (such as it was) designed to keep the peace.

I am also in the awkward position of both author of the Report and moderator of this forum, which leaves me not entirely objective.

However, as Moderator of the Forum, I am laying down the ruling: the discussion will henceforward stick to history and archaeology. Religion belongs in the Great Debates forum, and if you want to open up a “How should we punish the Jews for killing Jesus” thread in that forum, please be my guest.

Consider this a warning: there is a line, however gray and fuzzy it may be, and you are sticking one toe over it.

100

It is written that they “plotted” against him. No specific action of theirs is described. Thus, their “plotting” could easily have resulted in the numerous accounts of Pharisees coming to Jesus and asking him loaded questions. (“See this coin? Whom should we honor?”) You are the one who has declared that the Pharisees “were” the council–as opposed to my acknowledgement that Pharisees were very likely one faction on the council. The Sadducees were in direct opposition to the Pharisees and it seems likely that they were in control of the Sanhedrin at the time in question. Where is the evidence that the Pharisees were in control? In addition, we have not established the political position of the scribes. Since they were certainly not identical to the Pharisees (since the phrase is “scribes and Pharisees,” clearly distinguishing them), what party did they represent and what role did they play. There were Sadducee scribes–were there others?

The reason that the Pharisees play such a prominent role in the Gospels is that the message of Jesus had more in common with that of the Pharisees than it did with any other group. Just as the Moody Bible Institute rails against Catholicism (at least prior to 9/11) far more than it even mentions Islam, so the Gospels spent more time distinguishing between Jesus and the Pharisees than it did naming other groups. There is no evidence in the Gospels that then link the Pharisees to the trial–that appears to be a later assumption, much like the association of Mary Magdalene with the harlot who washed the feet of Jesus. There is no connection between the two in the Gospels, but many people in the past 2,000 years have made that connection despite the lack of evidence.

Gospels “false”? Only if one sets up the Gospels as a literal rendition that claim to be history. I do not. I take them as efforts by people who wanted to proclaim the message of Jesus to demonstrate his message through his life. In that context, they are subject to the same sort of minor errors of any personal recollections. The truth of their message is that Jesus came, preached, demonstrated love, suffered, died, and rose. In this all the Gospels agree. Obviously, even the resurrection is subject to charges from neutral observers of falsification or imagination. However, the messages of the Gospels are consistent in proclaiming that event. Reconciling the separate genealogies or the last words of Jesus on the cross or identifying the specifics of the trial are an attempt to impose a “news journal” consistency on the Gospels when they werew never intended for that purpose.