I have a related question.
IIRC Jesus had nails hammered throught his arms and legs. Would this not mean that he would die much quicker, due to blood loss? And if so, is this really a worse punishment?
“Worse” than what? Nails (big spikes, actually) were used routinely in Roman crucifixion.
You mean the blood loss from his wrists and ankles? That wouldn’t help any, but I thought that crucifixion killed you through a slow suffocation??
All I know about crucifiction is that it lasts hours. Its a slow and horrible death, but at least it gets you out in the open air.
But I thought that it was the exception to use nails, and normally you just used rope. So, “worse” than being tied up with rope.
The Romans generally used nails. (Spikes 5-7 inches long.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Roman_Empire
Nail 'em up, I say!
Nail some sense into 'em!
There is speculation about the actual cause of death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Cause_of_death
This makes perfect sense to me. The Jews despised crucifixion as a humiliating form of death, one that would have seemed perfect for a “criminal” they despised as a heretic.
Crucifixion was not just despised, it was illegal under Jewish law. Supporting crucifixion for any Jew was a de facto sin. Not only that but Jesus had said or done nothing heretical or illegal or even remarkable under Jewish law. It was no crime to say you were the Messiah.
That would certainly have been remarkable. Caiaphus and his fellows certainly wanted Jesus gone; I’m not certain they cared how. Not that they can be entirely blamed for it, but in my view they weren’t listening. In any event, I don’t think Jesus wanted to be crowned King… of this world.
There has been some interesting research into Judas. Some believe he was a revolutionary who was pissed that Jesus wasn’t calling out the armies and proclaiming himself King, hence he turned the “loser” over to the priests. And later regretted it.
Puh-leez! He effectively said he was Messiah and God.
You may assign a rationality to a mob that I would not. Whatever the “official” standing on crucifixion was for Jews, Jesus was a heretic who they felt deserved their scorn. Could that contempt have boiled into a cry for his death, which would have manifested itself as crucifixion, which they well knew? Of course it could have.
Nobody is to stone anybody until I blow this whistle! Even – and I want to make this very clear – even if he does say “Jehovah!”
Whereas the Gnostic “Gospel of Judas” says Judas turned Jesus over to the priests on Jesus’ orders. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=366302
The Last Temptation of Christ tells it the same way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Temptation_of_Christ So does Robert Graves’ novel King Jesus.
By the way, I hope no one misinterprets this as anything other than a description of the people who wanted Jesus killed. Everyone who wanted him dead was a Jew (or a Roman, I guess), as were all the people who loved him, as were all the people who wept when he died. I don’t want anyone to misinterpret this as a “the Jews are responsible for Jesus’s death” message. Hopefully everyone is over that crap.
Claiming to be the Messiah was not the same as claiming to be God. In Judaism, then and now, those claims would actually be contradictory. The Messiah, in Jewish expectation and scripture is emphatically not God but just the very human heir to the throne of David. It is actually heresy in Judaism to say that the Messiah IS God or to worship him as such.
It was not, and never has been against Jewish law to claim to be the Messiah (after all, somebody has to be). Many have done so and many were doing so at the time of Jesus. You might be thought wrong and you might be thought crazy but it was definitely NOT considered blasphemy regardless of what Mark said. The Tractate Sanhedrin explicitly states that no one is guilty of blasphemy unless he verbalizes the Tetragrammaton. The fact that Mark has the Sanhedrin convict Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah is just one of many factual and procedural errors he makes in his trial story and is one of the reasons that so many NT scholars believe the trial to be a Markan fiction.
I will also repeat that there was nothing very remarkable about claiming to be he Messiah at that time. Josephus claimed that Judea was crawling with self-proclaimed Messiahs at the time and named some of them. None of them were considered heretics and none of them were ever arrested or tried by Jewish authorities. It did not violate any Jewish law and still doesn’t. If the Sanhedrin had a beef with Jesus it was because of the assault on (and possible threatened destruction of) the Temple, not because of any heresy or “blasphemy.” There was simply nothing in Jewish law to support such a contention.
Are you saying that Jesus did not claim to be God? And whether or not it was “illegal” to claim to be Messiah, it certainly wasn’t a common claim. Are you suggesting that enemies of Jesus who questioned his claim to be Messiah couldn’t have orchestrated his death because–because, why? Because people never ignore the law for political purposes?
Jesus was not convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah; he was convicted because when asked the question, his answer was the Tetragrammaton. See Mark 14:60-64:
Notice the first words of verse 62 there?
Not to the Sanhedrin, he didn’t. The synoptics never have him claim it all. The Jewish Messiah is not God.
Read Josephus. Yes it was. And it wasn’t considered heresy.
I’m claiming that Mark’s trial before the Sanhedrin is so riddled with factual and procedural errors (the blasphemy conviction is just one of many) that it is highly implausible as history. Even if the priests had wanted to railroad Jesus (for what reason?) it is not at all plausible that they would convict him of blasphemy for saying something that everybody KNEW was not blasphemous. It makes no sense.
Like I said upthread, it is pretty much a majority consensus in Biblical Higher Criticism that Mark’s Passion is largely an apologetic fiction designed to shift the blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews. I’m not saying anything particularly radical.
No, Mark claims his answer was Ego Eimi, which is Greek and which is not the Tetragrammaton.
Presumably, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic to the Sanhedrin, but again, saying “I am” in Aramaic is still not the Tetragrammaton. It’s only the name of God if you say it in Hebrew and even then, it’s not actually blasphemy unless you curse the name.
The first source is poor, at best. While reasonable minsd can differ over the accuracy of the Gospels, it seems clear that Gnostic texts, including The Gospel of Judas, were essentially forgeries. They were written much longer after events than the Gospels, and have no known links to events (whereas the Gospels were written by those who had heard the events third-hand at worst).
The latter two sources, of course, are intended as fiction. It’s certainly an interesting idea, but I very much doubt God needed Judas to betray him. It makes more sense to believe the Chief priests bribed Judas so they could do it quietly. But they likely would have obtained Jesus within a few days: Jerusalem was simply not that big, and Jesus was not particularly hiding.
Doesn’t it seem odd that whoever wrote Mark’s Gospel would not have known what was and wasn’t considered blasphemous? In that case, if he was trying to shift blame to the Jews, why not have Jesus actually say something that was blasphemous?
Depends on which Gospel you trust. I believe that “I and the Father are one” line is found only in John. Elsewhere Jesus draws a clear distinction between God and himself. Matthew 19:17: “Wherefore callest thou me good? One there is who is good.”