Who killed Jesus?

Thank you, Zev.

The patient, and faithful scholarship of your people has given us a life line in the swirling maelstrom of history. I for one am grateful for the legacy, although I am not a Jew. If someone attacks you in my Lord Jesus’s name, it is my very sincere wish that I might be there, to stand with you, and your people, in His name as well.

God bless us both, my brother.

Tris

Monty, evidence is evidence, proof is proof.

C K Dexter Haven, I would have supported Jesus because I hold the view that his actions provoked no Roman threat against the Jewish people, that he was arrested because he criticized religious authority, and that he was passed to Rome when he couldn’t be executed under Jewish Law.

tomndebb, thanks for the answer. I’ll stick with the Gospels until there is real proof otherwise.

Czarcasm, I believe what the Gospels say, some Romans and Jews were morally wrong in their actions against Jesus. Nothing should be done now except discuss and debate as we have been doing. Don’t forget that the report raised questions about the Gospels before I raised questions about the report.

Zev, then the whole thing may have been illegal, good reason to worry about that and decide to send Jesus off to Pilate. Still doesn’t disprove the Gospels. I’m also not claiming to be a rabbi or expert in the law, thanks for your research. The cure for the kind of baseless hatred against each other that caused destruction of the Temple is loving each other as yourself, exactly what Jesus taught.

Love,
-J

**

Doesn’t prove them either…

**

Well, it’s kind of hard to argue with “love your neighbor…”

But what does this have to do with who killed Jesus.

And you still haven’t answered my question.

Zev Steinhardt

Zev, I’m not trying to prove the Gospels, but we are both trying to show why our own beliefs about them are the correct ones.

Here we will use excerpts from Matthew to look at possible levels of moral wrong and motive in the death of Jesus…

“But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.”
“Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him”
“Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?”
“Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk”
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”
“Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him”
“And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled”
“chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness”
“Then the high priest rent his clothes”
“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing”
“the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate”

This is only a sampling, and yet the report says, “The conclusion of most scholars is that the Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus’ arrest and execution. Now that we’ve excluded the most commonly held rationales for Jesus’ arrest, what’s left?”

Look, when it comes to whether or not OJ was guilty, we heard the most cries of innocence from OJ himself. Does it apply here? You tell me.

—Look, when it comes to whether or not OJ was guilty, we heard the most cries of innocence from OJ himself. Does it apply here? You tell me.—

But of course the Pharisees aren’t around to protest at all. By the time the Gospels were written, several generations of leadership had passed, and their movement’s back was broken, and they weren’t around to defend their portrayal. They were the perfect scapegoats at the time.

So, at question IS the Biblical account, because it is wildly inconsistent with the more contemporaneous historical sources that describe such things. If all we had were Jesus’ criticisms of Jewish law, the obvious conclusion would be that he was a Pharisee: that’s how in line with their thinking he was (outside of claiming to be a messiah that would rewrite everything). And yet the Bible portrays these criticisms as somehow beng anti-Pharisee. Something strange is going on here, and it’s not enough to simply wave it away as being logically possible because the Jews suddenly went nuts and contradicted everything we know about them at the time.

Again: why doesn’t the account give any hint that there were powerful divisions between Jewish leadership: with the Pharisees being something of a rebel populist group, and the Sadducees being something of more well-off Roman toadies? Why does it present the Romans in such a positive light, despite the reality of Roman treatment?

Apos: If Jesus spoke a message of freedom from religious tradition mainly to the lower classes, who would he be taking attention away from, rich Roman toadies? No, those who focused on upholding traditions in the lower classes.

Jesus was intended to be the Jewish Messiah, not the Roman Messiah. As stated in my earlier example, is there any reason that Pharaoh should have been painted in a more negative light than Moses, if it turned out that Moses handed the Power of God over to Pharaoh? Of course not, Moses would likely have received most of God’s anger. Apply that model to those who sat in the seat of Moses according to Jesus.

We’ve spent considerable time here on what may be “wildly inconsistent” and I haven’t seen proof or even very good evidence of that yet. It’s my observation that if something is repeated enough times, many will come to believe it as fact. If you tend to listen more to those who like to say that the Bible is fantasy, then you may come to believe that kind of rhetoric, regardless of evidence or lack of it. That is my answer here.

—If Jesus spoke a message of freedom from religious tradition mainly to the lower classes, who would he be taking attention away from, rich Roman toadies? No, those who focused on upholding traditions in the lower classes.—

Ah, so now it’s a matter of jealousy about his views stealing the spotlight from similar views, not actually opposing his views?

I still don’t see how that avoids my (admitted) conjecture about Jesus being yet another failed Pharisee thinker (though probably not an actual trained Pharisee), who, to continue to be worth worshiping, had to have those links reversed later on, especially after the Temple was destroyed.

—Jesus was intended to be the Jewish Messiah, not the Roman Messiah.—

THE messiah of that period was supposed to liberate everyone from Rome’s domination. One valid possibility is that Jesus thought he was just such a messiah (who expected god to swoop in and empower him to drive the Romans out), and the Romans offed him for his troubles, as they did many such messiahs. At first, perhaps, people cursed others for lacking the faith that would have made his mission successful, sowing dissension with other Jews. But then, some people claimed instead that dying was his intention all along, and instead of being a defeat, was actually the intended victory: developing a theology that both rejected the faithless Pharisees (they thought Jesus had failed: what did THEY know: Jesus kicks ass!) and developed an account of why Jesus really WASN’T a failure, after all, but instead was reinterpreted as bringing secret victory to those who could appreciate it.

All speculation, but perfectly plausible (indeed, because it happened with other such figures as well)

—As stated in my earlier example, is there any reason that Pharaoh should have been painted in a more negative light than Moses, if it turned out that Moses handed the Power of God over to Pharaoh? Of course not, Moses would likely have received most of God’s anger. Apply that model to those who sat in the seat of Moses according to Jesus.—

That’s some twisted logic there, and beside the point to boot.
At question here is why the Romans are painted in a good light at all, when this is not how anyone else under their rule in Judea in that period paints them. And again, this makes Jesus condemanation of the Pharisees in particular even more off-kilter with reality: far from handing over God’s power to anyone, the Pharisees WANTED to kick out Rome. It was other parts of the Jewish leadership that toadied up to Rome in the interests of not being crushed.

—If you tend to listen more to those who like to say that the Bible is fantasy, then you may come to believe that kind of rhetoric, regardless of evidence or lack of it.—

Doesn’t that suggest that maybe you should look into the scholarship on this issue? Perhaps learn what a Pharisee actually was, apart from the entirely idiosyncratic picture of them we get in the Gospels (written decades after the accounts we have of what the Pharisees actually were like and what they cared about?)

It seems to me that that you are willing to ignore any historical evidence that does not conform to the Gospels and that you have demonstrated a real unfamiliarity with the 1st century milieu of Roman-dominated Judea. Since no one has claimed that the Bible is “fantasy” you are now throwing up a straw man argument. Basically, your original objection to the Staff Report was based on the fact that it contradicted your beliefs. You seem willing to ignore any history that does not conform to your beliefs, so we are at an impasse.

It happens.

Apos, tomndebb: Just because a certain theory deviates from what the Bible and Gospels say does not make it any less religious or more scholarly. It just means that it deviates from what the Bible and Gospels say.

The report does not consider what possible Pharisee Josephus wrote about “principal men among us” indicting Jesus, and the need for Pilate to avoid the kind of public outcry that eventually led to his removal.

We also know that religious leadership, as glaringly seen in the Catholic Church of history and modern times, will resort to bribery, cover-up, and even murder to protect authority over the masses, and often pressure their governing bodies to assist, as in the case of Roman involvement. To claim that any man-made religious institution is infallible laughs in the face of reality.

Rome likely saw Jesus as a minor cultural celebrity, the antithesis of American shock-rocker and religious critic Marilyn Manson. Offensive, but fairly harmless. Jewish religious leadership saw Jesus as a humiliation and wanted to shut him up, convincing Pilate to handle it since they could not.

Therefore, Jesus was not sacrificed to spare the population from Roman threat due to his actions, but because Jewish religious leadership felt threatened and wanted to censor him. Instead of media censorship, we saw crucifixion.

At every turn, the Gospels seem to agree more with real-world probabilities and actual events than other theories proposed, and other evidence exists to support that idea even more.

—Just because a certain theory deviates from what the Bible and Gospels say does not make it any less religious or more scholarly.—

You are being flatly dishonest by asserting that this was anyone’s contention. We are arguing that certain theories and researched facts flatly ARE more scholarly, and that they deviate from the Gospel accounts in many key respects. That you reject them out of hand is your own deal.

—To claim that any man-made religious institution is infallible laughs in the face of reality.—

What laughs in the face of reality is to claim that even man made instiutions are capable of very publically violating every professed code they believe in without a care in the world, when they could have easily conspired more secretly if that was their aim. The Gospels tell the story in a manner that makes sense only to those looking for bold one-dimensional bad guys who trapse their evil around to make the audience howl.

----Rome likely saw Jesus as a minor cultural celebrity, the antithesis of American shock-rocker and religious critic Marilyn Manson. Offensive, but fairly harmless.—

Quaint anachronistic reference aside, this is ridiculous. Rome almost certainly would see Jesus exactly how they saw other “messiahs”: as people wishing to overthrow their rule. That is what “messiah” MEANT to people in those days, very litterally (saving Israel from domination), that is what it WAS. Rome had many of these people executed, so yes they DID find them threatening.

—Therefore, Jesus was not sacrificed to spare the population from Roman threat due to his actions, but because Jewish religious leadership felt threatened and wanted to censor him. Instead of media censorship, we saw crucifixion.—

Why would they feel anymore threatened by him than they did by the Pharisees, who held virtually the same philosophies as him, and were likewise populist wanderers seeking revolution and liberalization.

When I read the Gospel of John it is clear to me, at least, that the message of that story is that God sent Jesus for the express purpose of being killed so that the resurrection could take place and be known about and thereby sinners would be saved. So God killed Jesus and the humans involved, Romans etc., were merely His instruments.

Of course I think that story is nonsense, but that, to me, is the message of John.

ummmm, At every turn, your last few posts have gotten further from reality now.

The reason that Josephus does not mention what Pharisees were “principal men” is that the opponents of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, were in political power at the time of Jesus. We know this from other historical reports.

We have evidence that some religious leadership will resort to immoral means on some occasions to protect their power–and still no evidence that Jesus was a powerful threat or that the Pharisees had power.

Your analysis of how Roman leadership and Jewish leadership would have viewed Jesus appears to be exactly reversed. Rome always reacted to claims of kingship in the historical record. Judaism (the religion) and the Judean political authorities are on record as not seeking the death of people whose views ranged from “a little different” to “diametrically opposed.”
While you would like to believe that you have established a rationale in your mind, you continue to ignore the historical record that shows that the Jewish leadership tolerated a wide range of beliefs and techings.

Nothing becomes “scholarly” by simply deviating from the biblical account. Views are scholarly when they compile as much historical information as possible and draw logical conclusions from known facts. It is your refusal to consider any known history outside the New Testament that leads you to your conclusions.

Apos:

No, this has been implied throughout these discussions. What researched facts? Name one bit of proof presented in the report that disproves the Gospels. Again, there is none, otherwise the Bible would have already been discredited completely on a global basis.

The actions don’t seem to have been that public, otherwise there may have been more historical evidence of them. As far as one-dimensional, claiming that Pilate was too evil to consult the crowds, when recorded evidence shows that he was removed due to public outcry later, might also fall into that category.

According to the Gospels, Rome was not aware of or concerned about any claims of kingship by others until notified by Jewish authorities after they failed to convict on religious grounds, show some proof otherwise.

Pharisees are said to have enforced traditions of the elders among the lower classes, the threat of Jesus’ message of religious freedom and his stinging criticisms of that particular sect would have been a good motive to start the wheels turning to silence him forever.

tomndebb:

If Josephus was a Pharisee and claimed that “principal men among us” indicted Jesus then there is only one conclusion. Are you saying that Pharisees had absolutely no political power or influence at that time?

We have written evidence in the Gospels, because you reject that evidence does not exclude it as valid evidence. You have not been able to produce any other recorded evidence about those specific events that prove otherwise.

According to the Gospels, Rome did not know about claims until reported by Jewish authorities, who pursued Jesus on religious grounds well before that issue was raised. Also, your report claims the following: “Except during major festivals the prefect stayed away from Jerusalem, because the Jews were very sensitive about offenses against their religion in their holy city.” How sensitive, enough to censor through crucifixion? That’s what the Gospels say and there is no other historical record nor proof to indicate otherwise.

There is very little outside evidence, but even Josephus can be seen to agree with the Gospels. Theorizing that Pilate was too evil to consult the crowds, that Jesus was initially pursued over claims that he was King of the Jews, and other ideas promoted by the report are based on pure conjecture and perhaps wishful thinking, not on any known history.

tomndebb, also an expanded response to previous post…

Theories you have presented are either not believable or ambiguous when held against the Gospels, and also seem geared to promoting a certain idea rather than efforts to explore all the known evidence. The Staff Report claims, “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.” Josephus as a possible Pharisee claims “principal men among us” indicted Jesus and again, that Pilate had political reasons to shift responsibility back to the Jewish population present at the event, in order to avoid the kind of public outcry that led to his removal. Yet, the report seems to ignore these possibilities.

Many people claim that the Bible is fantasy, my point is that if you listen to them often enough, are overly impressed with their stated credentials, etc. then you may start believing that, with no real proof to support their claims.

No, it is because the report appears to be removing or minimizing the role of Jewish religious leadership in the Gospels, and I wanted to see if we could find out why, especially when some of the experts contributing to the report qualify themselves as being Christians. Not really even a hint of, “well, it could have happened according to the Gospels” but instead, firm claims that actual events deviate sharply from them.

The report says, “Each author had his own biases and agenda.” I suggest that no author of the Gospels or even of a modern day report is immune to promoting his or her own personal biases and agendas. The question I have is, which ones are really at work here?

“My” theories are actually those of the overwhelming number of Christian scholars working in this area of analysis. The fact that you, who have apparently read so little as to be unaware of this do not find them convincing, is neither surprising nor particularly relevant.

Jews and Muslims rarely study this aspect of history, so when a majority of scholars have discerned that the Pharisees were not the movers behind the trial of Jesus, it is a majority of Christian scholars who put this forth.

For example, both of the first two works I pulled up on the subject, John McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (itself referring to several earlier works) say the same thing–that the Pharisees were not likely involved. So, on a casual inspection, I get 100% confirmation of Dex’s statement from two thoroughly Christian works (with references to earlier Christian works saying the same thing). None of the scholars involved have a vested interest in getting Pharisees “off the hook” (to use your phrasing) so it would appear that they came to those conclusions based on external evidence. At this point, the agenda seems to be in your court.

tomndebb: The Pope could support your theories and that would also be irrelevant to me, and there is also no proof that deeper agendas are not in play on any side, but we’ll leave that alone for now.

What else are your theories based on, besides assumptions that Jesus posed a threat to Rome, even though the report also says, “Jesus’ trial was not news in Rome,” and that his conflict with Pharisees amounted to little more than high-spirited discussions over dinner?

Do you have any written evidence contradicting the Gospels, or only theories based on what you think was the case at that time?

As a Christian, do you believe that Jesus is the Lord and Master over Jews and all humanity?

Since JP II is no scripture scholar, his support or opposition would be irrelevant to me, as well.

As to all the “agendas”: any given student of scripture may or may not have a bias or an agenda based on any number of events or experiences. When I find that the overwhelming number of reputable scholars tend to agree on basic points (while fighting each other tooth and nail on other details) I tend to figure that they are responding to an honest appraisal of the historical record. Since there are many cases in which the various books of scripture can be found to have been contradicted by historical evidence on the specifics of events that are portrayed, I have no problem looking for the religious meaning without insisting that the books were written as history.

As a Christian I believe that Jesus is Lord. I have no idea what impact that belief might be supposed to have on the various narratives that describe his mission on earth.

tomndebb: Thanks for your reply. I meant that if the Pope as an educated representative of Christianity supported alternate theories without hard evidence or proof, while some recorded evidence does exist for the Gospels, I would be suspicious.

Zev: Thanks again for your research into Laws, I won’t let it go to waste by taking the easy way out and declaring their actions illegal without looking into your information further.

-J

You’re welcome. That’s all fine and well. However, you still haven’t answered my question of whom you feel, specifically, is responsible for the death of Jesus.

Zev Steinhardt

Pardon me for barging in here, but now I’m curious:

The Gospels pick on the Pharisees a lot. The Sadducees, by contrast, only get mentioned in the Gospels 9 times, and even then, 5 of those 9 times the Sadducees are lumped together with the Pharisees as representing the same degree of “evil.”

To my ears, that sounds like the writers of the Gospel considered the Pharisees to be a much greater problem than the Sadducees were.

The Sadducees (and not the Pharisees) were the ones in power at the time of Jesus, right? By any chance, had the Sadducees lost political ground to the Pharisees by the time the Gospels were written (say, 70 C.E. or later)?