Some questions regarding the trial and arrest of Jesus

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Specifically I'm looking for evidence which proves these events as fact or otherwise reasonable to believe in. Obviously I'm not looking for scripture I know the scripture and am not looking forward to wasting my time with arguments that beg the question.

-- The Romans were in full force during the trial, suspecting an uprising. So why is it that Jesus was able to disrupt the going-ons at the temple without being arrested until several days later?

-- What evidence is there to suggest that the Jewish faith granted amnesty to prisoners during times of passover?

-- Why would Pontus, an affirmed butcher, have suddenly started caring about what the Jewish people think and allowed them to choose who gets amnesty between Jesus and Barabbas? And on a related note to anyone knowledgable on Roman history: Did Roman governors have the power to veto an execution taking place in their province?

-- Why would Pontus, or any other Roman governor, have even allowed what surely would have been a high level political prisoner (Barabbas) who was accused of murder and insurrection be granted amnesty?

-- Why would the Sanhedrin who, along with any other Jewish court, was forbidden from sitting at night (Ex 18:24) and forbidden from sitting during a festival (Num 28:18) do just that?

[Silentknight]

A few sources I've read in the past on this subject:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesusaccount.html
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/barabbasjewishandromanlaw.html

In other words, Jesus was arrested, tried, and sentenced under Roman laws, for his own crimes and no one else's. The Jews would not have had the full legal authority to execute him, and it would have been done by stoning, not crucifixion. Furthermore, a brutal Roman prefect like Pilate, who executed hundreds of people in his career, would never have given a second thought about sentencing a pathetic little worm like Jesus, nor would he have deferred judgment to the Jews.

It goes without saying though that Christians who believe Jesus died for our sins are taking the wrong lesson from the story of his crucifixion. The moral of the story, if any at all, is that self-sacrifice and taking responsibility for one's own actions are what will help save the world from its "sinful" state. Jesus was trying to lead by and set an example for others to follow, not absolve a bunch of religious sycophants of responsibility for their own lives.

[V23]

-- The Romans were in full force during the trial, suspecting an uprising. So why is it that Jesus was able to disrupt the going-ons at the temple without being arrested until several days later?

The best answer is that more than likely this rabbi was more than he seemed, if we are to believe that he existed at all. Modern scholarship has pointed out that his education and status lead obviously to strong connections with the Sanhedrein, (the Jewish ruling body) and he probally had the ability to move unfestered in and out of the temple at will. What extent his infuence was with some of the members of the gov. like Joseph of Areimathea or Nicodemus is unknown, however both were considered secret disciples according to the Gospel of John.


-- What evidence is there to suggest that the Jewish faith granted amnesty to prisoners during times of passover?

None. However liberal historians of the bible have some radically different intrerprations of that event. The possibility exists that either the incident was a fictional account OR possibly the story is an account of Pilate actually being more cruel than he is being related in the narrative.


-- Why would Pontus, an affirmed butcher, have suddenly started caring about what the Jewish people think and allowed them to choose who gets amnesty between Jesus and Barabbas? And on a related note to anyone knowledgable on Roman history: Did Roman governors have the power to veto an execution taking place in their province?

On your second question, yes they did, however I don't think they exercised this power very often.


-- Why would Pontus, or any other Roman governor, have even allowed what surely would have been a high level political prisoner (Barabbas) who was accused of murder and insurrection be granted amnesty?

To sum up all your questions in one single motif, Jesus Barabbas, as he was traditionaly known, as far as we know, may have been guilty of only one thing, being a member of the Zealots, which was a politically motivated terrorist group that operated in Roman occupied areas. Even his name is a bit suspect since in the greek translation it may have been a hebrew to greek mistransliteration actually meaning "son of the rabbi" (bar rabbi). His first name being Jesus makes me wonder just exactly who he was.

On one side you have Jesus the Rabbi and on the other you have Jesus the Son of the Rabbi. Hmmmm. What was the real motivation of the crowd to yell for Barabbas?

Here is something else to consider. Our modern ideas of execution dont really apply to first century palastine. The romans had no qualms nailing up anyone of ANY AGE for ANY charges they could come up with. Could it be possible that "Jesus the son of the Rabbi" might have been the son of Jesus of Nazerth? That would explain Pilate's "mercy", (see evil bastard here), and the crowd's reaction. Jesus of Nazerth surrounded himself with known Zealots, (Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot whose name happend to mean "assasin"), is it possible that his young son, anywhere between 6years old to young adult, was a "member", (which probally means he had actually seen a terrorist once), of the Zealots as well? Who knows . . .


-- Why would the Sanhedrin who, along with any other Jewish court, was forbidden from sitting at night (Ex 18:24) and forbidden from sitting during a festival (Num 28:18) do just that?

As far as I know, there is no tradition of the Jewish gov. to keep them from sitting at night. However, Jews at that time could not sentence a criminal to death on passover nor a high holiday, thus why the romans were needed to do the job . . .or perhaps its the best evidence that the Jews really had nothing to do with it and it was all a roman design for Jesus' death.

[David Swidler]

Jewish jurisprudence indeed limits court sessions to daytime, especially capital cases. The Talmudic sources, recorded at least a century later than the time of Jesus, assume this was always the procedure. Interestingly, the Talmud also says that the Sanhedrin no longer judged capital cases as of about the year 30 CE (28 if one uses the traditional Jewish timeline, which most historians do not). Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do.

[slingblade]

All right, I'll explain.

It was me, in the Temple, with the menorah.

Happy?

[David Swidler]

All right, I'll explain.

It was me, in the Temple, with the menorah.

Happy?

Oh, very. I was about to falsely accuse Rabbi Plum.

[Lothian]

-- The Romans were in full force during the trial, suspecting an uprising. So why is it that Jesus was able to disrupt the going-ons at the temple without being arrested until several days later?He disguised himself with a false beard.

[davefoc]

You'd think if there was one part of the story that could be pinned down it would be this one.

OK, the miracle birth stories were a later throw in to tie the life of Jesus into old testament prophesies and maybe add a little touchy feely mysticism, but good grief by the time of his death Jesus is at the height of his fame, even if people weren't writing stuff down at that moment one might have guessed that there would have been enough word of mouth stories that there would have been a fairly reliable story out and about for Mark or proto Mark to be able to put down something with a few less holes than what he came up with.

One major confounding factor is that the gospel writers were part of the Roman empire and there had to be a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment floating around that could be exploited by spinning the story so that it was the Jews fault.

In the end, I don't think there is enough evidence about the death of Jesus to make any reliable conclusions about what actually happened. The story in the gospels is implausible in ways that have been noted above and they are the only source for this aspect of the Jesus story. The only aspect of the entire biblical story of the death of Jesus that can be judged probable is the fact that he was executed by the Romans. Beyond that it all looks like wild ass speculation to me.

[Magyar]

To sum up all your questions in one single motif, Jesus Barabbas, as he was traditionaly known, as far as we know, may have been guilty of only one thing, being a member of the Zealots, which was a politically motivated terrorist group that operated in Roman occupied areas. Even his name is a bit suspect since in the greek translation it may have been a hebrew to greek mistransliteration actually meaning "son of the rabbi" (bar rabbi). His first name being Jesus makes me wonder just exactly who he was.

On one side you have Jesus the Rabbi and on the other you have Jesus the Son of the Rabbi. Hmmmm. What was the real motivation of the crowd to yell for Barabbas?

Here is something else to consider. Our modern ideas of execution dont really apply to first century palastine. The romans had no qualms nailing up anyone of ANY AGE for ANY charges they could come up with. Could it be possible that "Jesus the son of the Rabbi" might have been the son of Jesus of Nazerth? That would explain Pilate's "mercy", (see evil bastard here), and the crowd's reaction. Jesus of Nazerth surrounded himself with known Zealots, (Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot whose name happend to mean "assasin"), is it possible that his young son, anywhere between 6years old to young adult, was a "member", (which probally means he had actually seen a terrorist once), of the Zealots as well? Who knows . . .


This is very intersting. I've never heard this conjecture before, is this something you came up with or is there some scholarly source? I'd be interested.

C

[Magyar]

ps,

I've never heard of Barabas refered to as Jesus barabas (nor am I familiar with any one ever saying his 1st name.) Also in traditional story he is a murdered - wouldn't this put him outside of being part of JC's club?


Also, wouldn't this idea Jesus bar rabbi lend further credence to the whole
Da Vinci Code group ala the SON was saved - but perhaps died later and thus the daughter was rescued etc? This might need to be moved to another forum?

[Bikewer]

In Ehrman's last book, The Gospel Of Judas Escariot, he reasons somewhat like this:

Jesus' activities in the outlying areas were of little interest to the Romans; just another Apocalyptic preacher. When he arrived at Jerusalem and began to attract large crowds, it became more worrying. The Romans were reasonably tolerant of religion but really down on anything that smacked of sedition.
When JC started talking about the end of Roman rule and himself becoming "King Of The Jews", that was enough for the Romans.
The delay in the arrest may have simply been logistical; they didn't want a big riot that might be caused by seizing him in public.

Such arrests and crucifixions were thoroughly routine with the Romans; "just another rabble-rouser".

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is very intersting. I've never heard this conjecture before, is this something you came up with or is there some scholarly source? I'd be interested.

C


IIRC (and I may not have), I think John Dominic Crosson discussed the zealot connection with Barabbas in one of his many books.

Doesn't Barabbas mean son of the father?

[David Swidler]

IIRC (and I may not have), I think John Dominic Crosson discussed the zealot connection with Barabbas in one of his many books.

Doesn't Barabbas mean son of the father?

"Bar Abba" can easily be slurred into "bar rabba".

[RobRoy]

I've never heard of Barabas refered to as Jesus barabas (nor am I familiar with any one ever saying his 1st name.) Also in traditional story he is a murdered - wouldn't this put him outside of being part of JC's club?

Not at all. All things being equal (though they rarely are), Jesus received all comers. There are any number of potential answers for this. For example, perhaps he was a member of the Sicarii at one point. Certainly, Jesus would have been sympathetic to their leanings, though perhaps not in favor of their methods. As previously mentioned, Judas may also have been a member of the Sicarii; Iscariot being a Hellenized version of Sicarius, or member of the Sicarii.

If we're sticking completely to the "traditional" though, it was the common folk that Jesus was paving the way for, not the rich or influential. A murderer would have been right up his alley.

[Magyar]

In Ehrman's last book, The Gospel Of Judas Escariot, he reasons somewhat like this:

Jesus' activities in the outlying areas were of little interest to the Romans; just another Apocalyptic preacher. When he arrived at Jerusalem and began to attract large crowds, it became more worrying. The Romans were reasonably tolerant of religion but really down on anything that smacked of sedition.
When JC started talking about the end of Roman rule and himself becoming "King Of The Jews", that was enough for the Romans.
The delay in the arrest may have simply been logistical; they didn't want a big riot that might be caused by seizing him in public.

Such arrests and crucifixions were thoroughly routine with the Romans; "just another rabble-rouser".

hmm, ok, but then how does this jibe with the whole Luke, Mark and Peter story that Jesus was so unknown that it was necessary to have Judas "betray him with a kiss" to ID him to the authorities.? I mean either he was just one of many apocolyptic preachers, no different (to the authorities) from dozens of others, In which case WHY single him out?
Or he was becoming a threat. but then why was he so unknown that they couldn't ID him but flet it necessary to arrest him away from the crowds that would stir up trouble?

This to me seems like the S. African police saying we need to arrest Mandela because he is becoming a big problem, but them not knowing what he looks like. IT jsut doesn't fit.

[davefoc]

hmm, ok, but then how does this jibe with the whole Luke, Mark and Peter story that Jesus was so unknown that it was necessary to have Judas "betray him with a kiss" to ID him to the authorities.? I mean either he was just one of many apocolyptic preachers, no different (to the authorities) from dozens of others, In which case WHY single him out?
Or he was becoming a threat. but then why was he so unknown that they couldn't ID him but flet it necessary to arrest him away from the crowds that would stir up trouble?

This to me seems like the S. African police saying we need to arrest Mandela because he is becoming a big problem, but them not knowing what he looks like. IT jsut doesn't fit.

Although, I don't remotely have the knowledge to justify my opinion on this, I am skeptical of Ehrman's reconstruction also. There are many possibilities here and I haven't seen facts presented that make me believe that there is much knowable about this issue. Still, I'd cut Ehrman some slack on your objection. There obviously weren't photographs floating around and probably only very few individuals at that time had pictures circulating that were good enough to serve as a basis for identifying them. Jesus might have been fairly famous and still people wouldn't know what he looked like.

I doubt that he was very famous though. There are no contemporary writings known of about him, there are no artifacts related to him known and the population that he would have been expected to have affected the most, the Jews seem to have only been minimally influenced by him. Still the fairly rapid dispersal of Jesus stories and Jesus based religions isn't easily explained unless his life and death were fairly well known.

[RobRoy]

Still, I'd cut Ehrman some slack on your objection. There obviously weren't photographs floating around and probably only very few individuals at that time had pictures circulating that were good enough to serve as a basis for identifying them. Jesus might have been fairly famous and still people wouldn't know what he looked like.

Also, and in support here, Jesus and his immediate followers likely dressed and looked quite similar with dark hair, beards, robes, dirt, sandles, etc. Not really all that much to distinguish them. To the Romans, who were, relatively speaking, somewhat big on hygeine, especially in comparison with the otherwise backwoods hicks from Israel, it could easily have been an all-Jews-look-the-same syndrome. Add to that that a soldier, in order to stick a pilium in someone, generally doesn't need to know what someone looks like; he just needs the order.

So the order is, "In order to keep these zealots from rioting, and trying to overthrow the Empire, we're gonna grab their chief quietly. Our informant will kiss the man we want to grab. Got it? Good."

It's reasonably plausible.

[plumjam]

Being, I hope, the son of my father, I think I'll start signing forms and stuff with 'Plumjam Barabbas'.

[joobz]

Being, I hope, the son of my father, I think I'll start signing forms and stuff with 'Plumjam Barabbas'.
Well, if your father was jewish, you could be Plumjam Barabbi.
or if he was at anytime bit by a squirel, Plumjam Barabies.

[DouglasL]

Granted it has been a long time since I have read this story in the Bible, but why would the Romans kill Jesus at all? I was under the impression that Pontus Pilot washed his hands of the whole Jesus deal and turned him over to the Jewish authorities.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Granted it has been a long time since I have read this story in the Bible, but why would the Romans kill Jesus at all? I was under the impression that Pontus Pilot washed his hands of the whole Jesus deal and turned him over to the Jewish authorities.

That's what doesn't make sense; the Romans didn't care about Jewish blasphemies and they took away the right to execute anyone from conquered peoples. In order for Jesus to have been executed by the Romans they must have suspected him of sedition. Pontus probablly wouldn't have handed over a high level political prisoner like Barabbas and he certainly wouldn't have indulged in their apparently non-existant tradition of granting amnesty to a condemned prisoner during passover.

[RobRoy]

Granted it has been a long time since I have read this story in the Bible, but why would the Romans kill Jesus at all?

Because the Sanhedrin, essentially the ruling class of Jews under the Romans, provided charges of sedition (tax evasion and claims of overthrowing of the government) along with witnesses.

I was under the impression that Pontus Pilot washed his hands of the whole Jesus deal and turned him over to the Jewish authorities.

Nopers. According to the Bible, Pilate turned the decision over to the gathered people, offering to release Jesus or Barrabas. The people chose Barrabas, and Pilate says "I am innocent of this man's blood. It is your responsibility!" (Matthew 11:24). The folk agree, and Pilate has Jesus flogged and crucified. (Matthew 11:26).

Once turned over to Pilate, Jesus remained in Roman custody and was crucified by Roman soldiers.

[DouglasL]

Thanks Kthulhut Fhtagn and RobRoy I have wondered about that story, but I just did not care enough to look it up myself. :o

[Darth Rotor]

Granted it has been a long time since I have read this story in the Bible, but why would the Romans kill Jesus at all? I was under the impression that Pontus Pilot washed his hands of the whole Jesus deal and turned him over to the Jewish authorities.
Roman imperial rule in Judea was hardly benign. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment used now and again with trouble makers, and those rising up in rebellion against the Romans. (James Carroll does a fine job of presenting this to the modern reader in Constantine's Sword.)

I'll need to get you a worthy cite, but if Jesus was causing a public disturbance in Jerusalem, as seen by the Romans, and the Roman contacts among the locals, the Jews, were also worried about the trouble he was stirring up, it's not irrational for the Romans to put this potential insurrection/civil unrest down quickly and brutally, as was their habit in the region.

From a Roman perspective, it was a necessity for ensuring their rule/authority sustained.

ETA:
From here: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Ancient-Classical-History-2715/Roman-Law-Crucifixion.htm
There are historical records of mass crucifixions took place in 71 B.C. when Spartacus led a slave rebellion against Rome. He ultimately failed, and the 6,000 captured slaves were crucified.
--snip--
Read any account of the Servile Rebellions --snip-- (See the excellent book "Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome" by Richard A. Bauman.)
--snip--
The Christian-Catholic religions claim that Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans for sedition, with the crucifixion as punishment --snip--
The Jews knew of crucifixions even before Roman rule, for around 87 B.C. the Jewish king Alexander Janneus had 800 rebellious Pharisees crucified. Josephus, who witnessed the crucifixion of his fellow Jews during the siege of Jerusalem (A.D. 66-70), called it "the most wretched of deaths." It continued to be the punishment for high crimes until the time of Emperor Constantine, when it was finally abolished.
DR

[A Christian Sceptic]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus


All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and this fact is consistent with Jewish accounts of Roman cruelty in general and Pilate's cruelty in particular. Crucifixion was the penalty for political insurrection, used as a symbol of Rome's absolute authority; those who stood against Rome were utterly annihilated. Jesus Seminar scholar John Dominic Crossan points to the use of the word "kingdom" in his central teachings of the "Kingdom of God," which alone would have put Jesus on the radar of Roman authority. Rome dealt with Jesus as it commonly did with essentially non-violent dissension: the killing of its leader. It was usually violent uprisings such as those during the Roman-Jewish Wars that warranted the slaughter of leader and followers.


and


Aside from the fact that the gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredriksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning (the fates of Saint Stephen and James the Just for example) and not crucifixion. This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood [8], and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or or to their own.[9]

Furthermore, talk of a restoration of the Jewish monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation. Further, Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, during Passover, when popular emotions were running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. And during these festivals, such as the Passover, the population of Jerusalem would swell, and outbreaks of violence were common. Scholars suggest that the High Priest feared Jesus' talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state might spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak. Scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The best answer

<snip>

design for Jesus' death.

Hey V23 - Welcome back. Nice to see you here again. (If you ever left). How goes the journey?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's another reference with some of the same info already mentioned:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html#trial (There are several good pages linked to this little paragraph.)

One point that I don't think has been raised yet is that the gospels present three incompatible sequences of events (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/trial.html) of the trial.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This necessarily assumes that the Jewish leaders were scrupulously obedient to Roman law, and never broke their own laws, customs or traditions even for their own advantage. In response it has been argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the trial have not been well understood [8], and that Jewish leaders were not always strictly obedient, either to Roman law or or to their own.[9]

This argument just presents another problem: how could Jesus be a serious enough threat to suspend the most basic rules governing a trial but still not well known enough (or egregious enough) for contemporary writers to have recorded the event?

[boloboffin]

I've played around with the notion that the Sanhedrin was trying to intercede on Jesus' behalf (http://boloboffin.blogspot.com/2004_02_15_boloboffin_archive.html#107714737828206 809), but he would have none of it and forced them to deliver him to Pilate.

The word most often used to tell what Judas did, paradidomi, doesn't carry the connotation of betrayal. A related word, prodidomi, is used for betrayal, but that word is only used once in connection with Judas. If the meeting between Jesus and the Jewish leaders wasn't antagonistic in nature, then Judas is simply a go-between, setting up the meeting. Zitger's correct that in this case, there would be no treachery involved in this act at all. Didn't Jesus himself send Judas out from the Last Supper to do what he was going to do?

Zitger also points out the anomalies of calling this meeting a trial. The different Gospels don't agree in what happened here. Luke lacks a description of the earlier "hearing," recording only the daylight meeting of the Sanhedrin. Yet Matthew and Mark say that the Sanhedrin met at the night meeting. This was against Jewish law, as was a trial during Passover. John records a highly informal questioning at the hands of Annas, who sends Jesus to Caiaphas. Caiaphas takes him straight to Pilate, with no Sanhedrin meeting at all.

Finally, my point: If this was an attempt to railroad Jesus through the Jewish legal structure, then why the conflicting witnesses? If the object is to frame Jesus, then why couldn't they find two people to pay to say the same thing? No, we are to believe that these Jewish leaders are frothing at the mouth to condemn Jesus, but they go through the bother of actually vetting the witnesses. They're snapping Jewish laws in half left and right, but they ran out of money when they bribed Judas?

It makes more sense that this meeting was not meant to be antagonistic towards Jesus. The situation is tense - Roman soldiers went with the group that escorted Jesus back to the meeting. Something is up. But every person who slams Jesus is not corroborated by others. Jesus is in the clear - until he claims to be the Messiah, with Roman soldiers at hand. At that point, what else could the Jewish leaders have done? Caiaphas was an appointee of Pilate, who could remove him at a whim. If Jesus was determined to proceed with this course of action, how could the Jewish leaders have stopped him?

[davefoc]

Based on the posts so far in this thread:

The biblical story about the events leading up to the death are problematic because:
1. The biblical accounts differ on significant details
2. The reputed actions of the Sanhedrin seem to be in conflict with the rules they usually operated under.
3. It seems unlikely the the Romans would have executed an individual at the behest of the Sanhedrin for crimes that weren't against Roman law
4. There is no extra biblical evidence for an annual stay of execution and the events surrounding the freeing of Barrabas and the execution of Jesus seem implausible
5. The fact that the condemned man was named Jesus Barrabas seems suspicious given the similarities of the name to possible titles for Jesus.
6. Given that the Christian religion was being developed by non-Jews for a Roman audience the pro-Roman anti-semitic spin is suspicious.

Based on these kind of arguments secular scholars have argued that the biblical account of the death of Jesus is unlikely to be accurate and have gone on to speculate about what the actual details surrounding his death might have been.

But there isn't much evidence left after much of the biblical account is discounted. Jesus might have been a routine rabble rouser and the Romans executed him for that or Jesus might have pissed off the Jewish hierarchy and they plotted against him to get the Romans to kill him. At this point in time there just aren't any reliable sources available that allow the story to be pinned down. The situation seems to be that even secular people would like to know what the details are about the story and in the absence of reliable data scholars just make stuff up to satisfy the demand for answers. But the truth of the situation seems to have been irretrievably lost. That fact won't sell books or even get people to read your internet site but it is all we are left with today.

[RobRoy]

This argument just presents another problem: how could Jesus be a serious enough threat to suspend the most basic rules governing a trial but still not well known enough (or egregious enough) for contemporary writers to have recorded the event?

That's a good question. :)

Not being a scholar in this area at all, I would offer the two following points: Perhaps there were accounts, but they were lost. Alternately, that this particular execution wasn't really out of the norm for Pilate, so it didn't merit much recording.

If the first, we might recall that Judea wasn't of great importance, so any accounts would be few, perhaps one or two official accounts, and thus easily misplaced or lost. If the latter, the account may have been recorded, but was not recorded in any great depth.

How many official accounts of Pilate and his activities do we actually have? My understanding, and as others have offered above, is precious few, rendering the question, unfortunately, moot on both ends.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's a good question. :)

Not being a scholar in this area at all, I would offer the two following points: Perhaps there were accounts, but they were lost. Alternately, that this particular execution wasn't really out of the norm for Pilate, so it didn't merit much recording.

If the first, we might recall that Judea wasn't of great importance, so any accounts would be few, perhaps one or two official accounts, and thus easily misplaced or lost. If the latter, the account may have been recorded, but was not recorded in any great depth.

How many official accounts of Pilate and his activities do we actually have? My understanding, and as others have offered above, is precious few, rendering the question, unfortunately, moot on both ends.
I was thinking of contemporary Jewish writers. (Judea was insignificant perhaps to Romans, but not to Jews.)

For example, Philo of Alexandria. Here's a paragraph written by Paul Tobin:

Philo of Alexandria

For the Jewish sources the first major candidate would be the writings of Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a Jewish philosopher who lived from around the third decade BC to around the fifty decade AD. This makes him a full contemporary of Jesus, who probably lived from c.6BC to c.AD30. We find in Philo's philosophy, Jewish ideas mixed with Greek thought. It was Philo who introduce the concept of Logos, which he called the Son of God, the Paraclete, the mediator between God and man. All these were later shamelessly plagiarized by Christians to refer to Jesus. Philo was also someone who maintained an active interest in the welfare of Israel. If there was a Jew who taught of himself as the Son of God and the Logos (as the gospel of John tells us Jesus did) and miraculously rose from the dead, it is highly improbable that Philo would not have heard of him. Yet in more than fifty works of Philo known to us today, there is not a single allusion to Jesus or to his followers. [1] My source (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html).

I could accept perhaps that Jesus was so unremarkable as to escape the attention of Philo. My point is that that doesn't jibe well with Jesus being so remarkable as to warrant suspension of the normal rules of a trial by the Sanhedrin. The two arguments don't go together very well.

[RobRoy]

I was thinking of contemporary Jewish writers. (Judea was insignificant perhaps to Romans, but not to Jews.)

I sorta was too, but also anyone else who might have been in-country. :)

I think the point stands, though I'll welcome any holes you want to poke. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there was a Jewish, Greek or Roman author(s) at the time in Judea, but given the relative unimportance of Judea, their work may have been considered insignificant, thus lost? Unless it's carved in stone, one good rainstorm (book-burning, call of nature, need for for a light, etc.) is all it takes to destroy a first-hand account.

I could accept perhaps that Jesus was so unremarkable as to escape the attention of Philo. My point is that that doesn't jibe well with Jesus being so remarkable as to warrant suspension of the normal rules of a trial by the Sanhedrin. The two arguments don't go together very well.

Can I flip it around on you? What do you think the answer might be?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't it reasonable to assume that there was a Jewish, Greek or Roman author(s) at the time in Judea, but given the relative unimportance of Judea, their work may have been considered insignificant, thus lost? Unless it's carved in stone, one good rainstorm (book-burning, call of nature, need for for a light, etc.) is all it takes to destroy a first-hand account.
Re-read the above paragraph I quoted. 50 known works of Philo and no mention of Jesus. Another one (on the same page quoted above) is the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias. Quoting Tobin again:

It is therefore extremely surprising that in his two great works, a history of the war of independence and a chronicle of events from Moses to Agrippa II (d. AD100), not a single reference was made to Jesus. Photius, the ninth century Byzantine theologian, who knew both books commented on this fact with astonishment.
Not only do we have extent histories, we also have historical commentary (from the 9th century) on how surprising the lack of mention is.


Can I flip it around on you? What do you think the answer might be?
I think the explanation that best fits the facts are that whatever actual events weren't so remarkable. An oral tradition resulted in huge exaggerations of whatever might have happened (on the order of American tall tales like Paul Bunyan and Mike Fink). The authors of the gospels (most likely not even familiar with the geography of Palestine at the time) wrote fictionalized accounts of this oral tradition. Also, it's obvious that the gospel writers had their own agendas. (Matthew, for example, makes it sound very much like Christ was strictly for Jews, while John makes it sound like Jesus himself wasn't even a Jew.)

Personally, I think the evidence points to the arrest and trial story being a work of fiction.

[RobRoy]

Re-read the above paragraph I quoted. 50 known works of Philo and no mention of Jesus. Another one (on the same page quoted above) is the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias.

But my understanding was that Philo of Alexandria was not in Judea, but mostly lived in Alexandria, Egypt, though he had spent some time in Rome itself as part of a delegation. Am I wrong here?

And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but Justus of Tiberias' works survive only in fragments, and he's about 30 years off from being Jesus' contemporary?

Again, not a scholar in this area at all, so your corrections are welcome.

Not only do we have extent histories, we also have historical commentary (from the 9th century) on how surprising the lack of mention is.

But if we're saying that Jesus was reasonably below the radar, as you suggest below . . .

I think the explanation that best fits the facts are that whatever actual events weren't so remarkable. An oral tradition resulted in huge exaggerations of whatever might have happened (on the order of American tall tales like Paul Bunyan and Mike Fink). The authors of the gospels (most likely not even familiar with the geography of Palestine at the time) wrote fictionalized accounts of this oral tradition. Also, it's obvious that the gospel writers had their own agendas. (Matthew, for example, makes it sound very much like Christ was strictly for Jews, while John makes it sound like Jesus himself wasn't even a Jew.)

Then Jesus wouldn't have appeared in a contemporary history, right?

[fromdownunder]

My point is that that doesn't jibe well with Jesus being so remarkable as to warrant suspension of the normal rules of a trial by the Sanhedrin.

I might jump in here with some speculation. The Synoptics have what we know as the last supper occuring as the Passover feast. Which means that the events between that and the final decision by Pilate, including the betrayal, the Sanhedrin "trial' , sending Jesus off to Pilate, who then sends him to Herod, then back to Pilate again, then the final appeal to the crowd.... it all reads like a speeded up Keystone Cops version of events.

So let's move on to John. The author of John specifically states that the "last supper" was not the Passover, but actually occured probably on the Tuesday evening. There is (vague) evidence that the Tuesday Passover feast was in accordance with the Essene calendar which differed to the traditional Jewish calendar at that time. If the author of John is correct, this gives us some more time to play with.

So, it is entirely possible that Jesus, who had come riding into Jerusalem stirring up a massive crowd into thinking that he was the Messiah (deliberately - riding in on an Ass was a blatant attempt to fulfil OT prophesy), was in fact upsetting the local Jewish authority who needed to get rid of him for their own safety. Any Jewish Rab annoying the hell out of Pilate could lead to repercussions for all of Judea - Pilate was not exactly the most compassionate ruler.

Now, according to John, the "last supper" occured on Tuesday evening. On this basis, the Sanhedrin, who would not have met during the evening anyway, may have tried him during the Wednesday on the day, sent him to Pilate later that day, who then sent him to Herod...etc... until we get the whole thing back to Pilate on the Friday morning.

So, we expand the speeded up, possibly impossible Synoptic versions into three days, which could both explain a legal trial by the Sanhedrin, and the comings and goings over this brief period.

To summarise: Jesus was a stirrer who had possibly upset the Romans by his grand entrance. The Sanhedrin neede him dead. But (at this point) the locals loved him and thought he was the Messiah. So, they could not publicly be seen to be trying to stone him (even though this was still legal AFAIK)). So they made sure that he would die under Roman law.

Of course, I think that the whole thing Easter week thing is fiction anyway, but the above does get rid of a couple of issues.

Norm

[JoeTheJuggler]

But if we're saying that Jesus was reasonably below the radar, as you suggest below . . .



Then Jesus wouldn't have appeared in a contemporary history, right?
My point was that if this is so, then it flies in the face of Jesus being such a big deal that all the basic rules governing a trial by the Sanhedrin had to be suspended.

Either Jesus was a big deal and we can believe the trial happened contrary to the rules and customs, or he was not a big deal and that's why there's no mention of him in contemporary histories. But both arguments seem incompatible from where I sit.

[autumn1971]

What if Romans often crucified people, and there was a tradition of messianic figures appearing and claiming divine authority, and a group of folks decided that their rabbi was the true rabbi, and they assigned this rabbi a very common name along with a common tale of woe, and filled in the details later (like a generation or two later)?

Sorry, I had misplaced my razor,
Occam

[Blue Mountain]

Many years ago I read a book, written from a Christian perspective, about the trial of Jesus. I recall very little of it now with one exception. When Jesus appeared before the Sanhedrin, the charge was blasphemy. But the Jewish authorities wanted him out of the picture, because (as has been speculated here) they were in place at the pleasure of the Roman rulers and were afraid of what even a minor uprising would do to their positions. So they packed him off to Pilate, because only the Romans could execute someone.

But when the delegation got to Pilate, the charge changed. Suddenly it wasn't blasphemy, a Jewish charge that the Romans couldn't care less about, it was sedition. Then, by skillful manipulation of a mob, they essentially railroaded Pilate into condemning Jesus to execution.

An aside: Within the Protestant tradition that I'm familiar with, the Jews are not "held responsible" for the execution of Jesus. Yes, the Jewish authorities at the time were the prime movers behind the events, but the teaching of the churches I attended was that they were simply the agents of God in that affair. If anyone ever asked the question about who was responsible, the issue of the Jews was sidestepped in favour of a theological explanation that Jesus' suffering and death was for the atonement of our sins (Lamb of God and all that stuff.)

I haven't been inside a church in over a decade now, and no longer count myslef as part of the Christian tradition, but I am finding this discussion very interesting

[RobRoy]

My point was that if this is so, then it flies in the face of Jesus being such a big deal that all the basic rules governing a trial by the Sanhedrin had to be suspended.

Either Jesus was a big deal and we can believe the trial happened contrary to the rules and customs, or he was not a big deal and that's why there's no mention of him in contemporary histories.

No, I get what you're saying. I do. What I'm saying is that, at the time, Jesus was of concern. Once he was removed, he faded away like a Donna Rice joke. Why comment on a brief upstart who had threatened and then utterly failed to upset the Senhedrin's power?

But both arguments seem incompatible from where I sit.

Agreed. I'm only spitballing potential answers and seeing if anything sticks. There is nothing concrete to what I'm offering, and as davefoc said, "the truth of the situation seems to have been irretrievably lost."

[JoeTheJuggler]

So they packed him off to Pilate, because only the Romans could execute someone.
This point, of course, is untrue.

The Jews had capital punishment.

I think this version (that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate because they had no death penalty) was only made in the Gospel of John.

Both Matthew and Mark say that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death (Mark 14:64 and Matthew 26:66).

Luke's account doesn't have the night time trial at all. In the brief "trial" at daybreak (in Luke), they call no witnesses but treat Jesus' words as a confession. No mention is made of condemning him to death, but he is taken to Pilate.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I get what you're saying. I do. What I'm saying is that, at the time, Jesus was of concern. Once he was removed, he faded away like a Donna Rice joke.

That the Jesus story was remarkable for a brief time, but quickly faded away so wasn't mentioned by contemporary writers, disagrees with the history of the Christian church. We know there was an oral tradition for some 40-50 years before the gospels were written. In other words, the Jesus story surely didn't fade away. If anything, it grew in importance.

I think the more likely reading is that the story (at least parts such as the trial) didn't exist until the oral period. The same way urban legends grow. (I agree whatever "historical" events or people this was all based on are lost forever, but I guarantee they were NOT as they are given in the gospels.) That would also account for the conflicting versions of the story when they finally came to be written down.

[JoeTheJuggler]

duplicate

[aggle-rithm]

One problem with the biblical account: It is unlikely Pilate and Jesus spoke the same language. Jesus would have spoken, at most, Hebrew and Aramaic, while Pilate would have spoken Latin and Greek. The whole philosophical "what is truth" exchange between them would have required a translator.

[RobRoy]

That the Jesus story was remarkable for a brief time, but quickly faded away so wasn't mentioned by contemporary writers, disagrees with the history of the Christian church.

We know there was an oral tradition for some 40-50 years before the gospels were written. In other words, the Jesus story surely didn't fade away. If anything, it grew in importance.

It grew in importantance for the Christians. Does that mean that a Jewish, Greek, or Roman historian/author had to find it significant enough to note at the time? On the other hand, that also doesn't mean someone didn't. Such a note could easily have been lost, right?

I think the more likely reading is that the story (at least parts such as the trial) didn't exist until the oral period. The same way urban legends grow. (I agree whatever "historical" events or people this was all based on are lost forever, but I guarantee they were NOT as they are given in the gospels.) That would also account for the conflicting versions of the story when they finally came to be written down.

So, out of curiosity, if there was a historical Jesus that "all this" was based on, what do you think happened to him? I understand I'm asking for conjecture here, just curious.

[JoeTheJuggler]

One problem with the biblical account: It is unlikely Pilate and Jesus spoke the same language. Jesus would have spoken, at most, Hebrew and Aramaic, while Pilate would have spoken Latin and Greek. The whole philosophical "what is truth" exchange between them would have required a translator.
Excellent point! It does ruin the story to think this exchange (any of the versions of it) would have gone through an interpreter.

It grew in importantance for the Christians. Does that mean that a Jewish, Greek, or Roman historian/author had to find it significant enough to note at the time?
Christians were big enough in Rome to have been famously scapegoated by Nero for the fire of 64. Again, I don't think it fits a big flash that faded as much as something that started obscurely and grew very fast.

So, out of curiosity, if there was a historical Jesus that "all this" was based on, what do you think happened to him? I understand I'm asking for conjecture here, just curious.
Personally, I think there was at least one of these kind of figures (messiahs/teachers/agitators) that was crucified. He may even have been named Jesus, but I don't see any reason to think any more similarity to the Jesus of the gospels exists.

Just like I think there probably was a guy named John Henry who worked laying railroads. The legendary story was doubtless a composite reflecting the spirit of all the steel drivin' men. Ditto Paul Bunyan and lumberjacks, Mike Fink and keelboatmen and so on.

Don't get me wrong, the place of the Jesus story is waaay different than the place of these tall tales in our culture. It is our myth the same way the Romans had Jupiter and Apollo and all those stories.

Also, I think the Jesus story is a powerfully compelling story. Aspects of the story are so well done.

One of my favorites is the fiction of the agony in the garden (there were no eyewitnesses, according to the story itself, so the account had to be made up). It shows this god-man figure whose friends have basically abandoned him having a moment of hesitation. How touching and human! Then, he comes right back to "thy will be done" as a lesson to all his followers. Right after that, he's betrayed by one of his most trusted friends and thrice denied by another. It's a great story!

[davefoc]

One problem with the biblical account: It is unlikely Pilate and Jesus spoke the same language. Jesus would have spoken, at most, Hebrew and Aramaic, while Pilate would have spoken Latin and Greek. The whole philosophical "what is truth" exchange between them would have required a translator.

This is an issue that I have tried to pin down, but it is conceivable that you are wrong.

In the biblical accounts Paul and Jewish Christians seem to be talking the same language. The only writing that survives is in Greek. Greek seems to have been widely spoken in the Mediterranean area and it is conceivable that Jesus and Pilate would have been fluent in Greek or that Greek/latin and Aramaic/Greek translators were so common that a language difference between Jesus and Pilate might have been insignificant.

There were Hellenistic Jews and these might have even spoken Greek instead of Aramaic as their first language.

But regardless of this, the whole story would be much more credible if some of the original writings had been in Aramaic. The people who were closest to knowing the facts of the situation were the original followers who probably spoke Aramaic as their first language and there is nothing left of what they wrote (various documents are suggested as possibly deriving from them, but none of them were originally in Aramaic and when I've looked around I haven't found any of the documents to have any useful information about the possible nature of the life and death of Jesus).

Tobin's site made an interesting point about Mark, I thought. It is just a collection of independent stories hung together by transitional sentences. This makes it seem like Mark was just taking the various oral stories that were out and about and stringing them together. To me this suggests that the Christian Church theology was created by non-Jewish people enhancing a few word of mouth stories that were circulating.

I think this seriously calls into question the tie in between Peter and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church. I think a better model is that the Jerusalem Church had nothing to do with founding the gentile church except as perhaps the popularizer of some of the Jesus oral history which later served as source material for the Jesus story writers.

As an aside, I think most people are aware of this but the Herod mentioned in the posts is not Herod the great the guy who was in charge at around the time of the birth of Jesus. This is Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the great. Herod the great's power was divided amongst his sons when he died.

[RobRoy]

Christians were big enough in Rome to have been famously scapegoated by Nero for the fire of 64. Again, I don't think it fits a big flash that faded as much as something that started obscurely and grew very fast.

I noticed you didn't really answer my questions. Is there a reason for that?

Personally, I think there was at least one of these kind of figures (messiahs/teachers/agitators) that was crucified. He may even have been named Jesus, but I don't see any reason to think any more similarity to the Jesus of the gospels exists.

Thanks, I appreciate your response. Your concept is mostly in line with my own.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Greek seems to have been widely spoken in the Mediterranean area and it is conceivable that Jesus and Pilate would have been fluent in Greek or that Greek/latin and Aramaic/Greek translators were so common that a language difference between Jesus and Pilate might have been insignificant.
I think there are some Aramaic words attributed to Jesus. At any rate, Jesus stuck to rural Jewish towns except for his trip to Jerusalem in the last days of his life. Here's the assessment of one scholar (quoted on Tobin's site again):

...there is much to suggest that Jesus confined himself to a strictly Jewish world. Important trade-routes passed through Galilee, and there were several notable Hellenistic cities. But Jesus is not reported as having any contact with these major towns of Sepphoris, Tiberias and Gabara. He sticks purely to Jewish rural areas. The thirty or so words of his vocabulary preserved in the gospels are the brand of Aramaic spoken in Galilee: there is no evidence, and no likelihood, that he knew Greek or cared for Gentile culture.
Link (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/rural.html).


Re: the description of Mark as a cobbling together of various oral sources:

To me this suggests that the Christian Church theology was created by non-Jewish people enhancing a few word of mouth stories that were circulating.
I agree at least in regards to the Christian Church as we know it.

The Nazarene or Jewish followers of Jesus were fairly distinct from the Gentile Christians. The Jewish church believed you had to adhere to the old laws still (that is, you had to be a Jew). The church in Jerusalem seemed to bear some emnity to Paul who pretty much invented the theology that most Christians today follow (more or less).


I think this seriously calls into question the tie in between Peter and the founding of the Roman Catholic Church. I think a better model is that the Jerusalem Church had nothing to do with founding the gentile church except as perhaps the popularizer of some of the Jesus oral history which later served as source material for the Jesus story writers.
That sounds right.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I noticed you didn't really answer my questions. Is there a reason for that?
What questions did I miss?

I was merely making the point that the argument that Jesus was such a big deal that the normal rules for a trial were suspended doesn't fit well with the idea that Jesus wasn't important enough to be mentioned in extent contemporary writings.

You speculated that maybe he was a big deal at the time, but then faded into obscurity. I replied that I didn't see that as fitting the facts very well either, which seems to be that the story started obscure and got bigger and bigger with time.

I realize that the lack of mention in contemporary Jewish writing is absence of evidence, which is not evidence of absence. However, it does argue against the story being very big or remarkable at the very least. And the lack of mention in extra Christian sources is by no means the only line of evidence that these accounts are unreliable as history.

[RobRoy]

What questions did I miss?

No worries. I was just curious if it was a deliberate miss.The questions are in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3852783&postcount=45). Specifically:

1 - Does that mean that a Jewish, Greek, or Roman historian/author had to find it significant enough to note at the time?

2 - On the other hand, that also doesn't mean someone didn't. Such a note could easily have been lost, right?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No worries. I was just curious if it was a deliberate miss.The questions are in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3852783&postcount=45). Specifically:

1 - Does that mean that a Jewish, Greek, or Roman historian/author had to find it significant enough to note at the time?

2 - On the other hand, that also doesn't mean someone didn't. Such a note could easily have been lost, right?
Those sound like rhetorical questions. I didn't think they needed replies.

Number 1: I guess it depends on what you mean by "had to". Nothing had to happen.

However, I find it inconsistent that Jesus was a big enough thing that the Sanhedrin would be willing to suspend all of their basic rules of trial, but that he was not remarkable enough to have been mentioned in the extent contemporary histories.

Number 2. Yes, mention of Jesus could have been lost. However it is still strange that ALL mention of him would have been lost unless he was a fairly obscure person at the time.

A friend of mine I've had a similar discussion with is of the opinion that Jesus was such a big deal that the authorities (all of them) conspired to expunge all mention of him and that's why the story only survived in oral form until around 70.

Again, the absence of mention of Jesus in the contemporary literature alone doesn't make me think he was an obscure figure (or a composite).

There are all sorts of inconsistencies in the gospels. Some elements are very obviously fictional. Taking that into consideration, the absence of mention becomes a bit more telling.

An example of these inconsistencies which ties into the question of the stature of Jesus is the need for Judas to I.D. Jesus even though Jesus was such a big threat that exceptional measures were needed to put a stop to his ministry. He was such a big threat none of the authorities could recognize him? (I'd have to look it up, but at least one of the texts says that Jesus' organization was infiltrated with informants.)

[RobRoy]

Those sound like rhetorical questions. I didn't think they needed replies.

No worries. They were meant for answer, as I was a bit confused as to your stance.

Thanks for your response.

An example of these inconsistencies which ties into the question of the stature of Jesus is the need for Judas to I.D. Jesus even though Jesus was such a big threat that exceptional measures were needed to put a stop to his ministry. He was such a big threat none of the authorities could recognize him? (I'd have to look it up, but at least one of the texts says that Jesus' organization was infiltrated with informants.)

I thought I'd addressed this a little above, but I can't recall. Heading home now, so I'll have to look later, probably Monday.

Have a good weekend if I don't get back to this sooner.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Have a good weekend if I don't get back to this sooner.
Thanks, and likewise! :)

[Blue Mountain]

This point, of course, is untrue.

The Jews had capital punishment.

I think this version (that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate because they had no death penalty) was only made in the Gospel of John.

Both Matthew and Mark say that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death (Mark 14:64 and Matthew 26:66).

Luke's account doesn't have the night time trial at all. In the brief "trial" at daybreak (in Luke), they call no witnesses but treat Jesus' words as a confession. No mention is made of condemning him to death, but he is taken to Pilate.

My understanding is the Romans had removed the right of execution from the Jews. So the Sanhedrin could pronounce Jesus guilty of blasphemy and even condemn him to death for it, but they could not actually carry out the execution. That would have been a breach of Roman law.

That's the reason Pilate got involved in the first place: the Jewish authorities needed the Roman ones to carry out the execution. But because the Romans would have no interest in a Jewish religious matter, the charge that Caiaphas and his followers made when they presented Jesus before Pilate changed from blasphemy to sedition.

[davefoc]

On the issue of Jesus and his language:
Thanks for the link. I didn't realize how strongly the evidence cut against the idea that Jesus might have spoken Greek. Still my point wasn't completely wrong. It is still conceivable that he might have (although it is less likely than I realized) and it is still conceivable that multilingualism was very common back then and people just didn't have much trouble communicating when their native languages weren't the same because there were always people around who could translate. The Romans were experienced occupiers and getting around language barriers was probably something they knew how to do.

Of course my point that the biblical stories would be much more credible if they could be traced to an Aramaic source seems even stronger now. And in the absence of an Aramaic source I'm still inclined to believe that there just isn't enough reliable information here to do a very good job of picking the most likely scenario.

On the issue of how well known Jesus was:
One piece of evidence with respect to this is that Josephus mentioned John the Baptist more than ten times and he mentions Jesus only three times (in the passages for which authorship is controversial). This of course supports the idea that Jesus wasn't all that famous during his life but doesn't prove it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My understanding is the Romans had removed the right of execution from the Jews. So the Sanhedrin could pronounce Jesus guilty of blasphemy and even condemn him to death for it, but they could not actually carry out the execution. That would have been a breach of Roman law.
Do you have any evidence of this Roman imposed moratorium on Jewish executions? It sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis that attempts to make sense of conflicting stories.

The trial before the Sandhedrin and stoning of St. Stephen (Acts 6-7 where a young Saul/Paul famously held the cloaks) also contradicts this notion.

On the issue of Jesus and his language:
Thanks for the link. I didn't realize how strongly the evidence cut against the idea that Jesus might have spoken Greek. Still my point wasn't completely wrong. It is still conceivable that he might have (although it is less likely than I realized) and it is still conceivable that multilingualism was very common back then and people just didn't have much trouble communicating when their native languages weren't the same because there were always people around who could translate. The Romans were experienced occupiers and getting around language barriers was probably something they knew how to do.
Yes--and a Greek-speaking Jesus is especially possible in the John version.
The Gospel of John paints a completely different picture of Jesus (compared to the uneducated, strictly rural Jewish guy of the synoptics) as a non-Jew (almost a Greek) teacher. In John, Jesus hardly uses the parable, but rather goes for long discourses. He also refers to Jewish law as "your law" as if he weren't a Jew himself. In John, Jesus visited the big city (Jerusalem) repeatedly. (Only once in the synoptics.)

Which really strains the idea of "historical Jesus" of the gospels since we have two pretty drastically different characters!

On the issue of how well known Jesus was:
One piece of evidence with respect to this is that Josephus mentioned John the Baptist more than ten times and he mentions Jesus only three times (in the passages for which authorship is controversial). This of course supports the idea that Jesus wasn't all that famous during his life but doesn't prove it.
Good point.

I only know of two places where Josephus mentions Jesus--the paragraph in Antiquities 18:3:3 (that was at the very least tampered with by Christians, because Josephus was not a Christian, yet the paragraph reads as if it were written by a believer) and the mention of the death of James "brother of Jesus that was called Christ" in 20:9:1 of Antiquities.

Is there another? (I'm no scholar--I only rely on other sources.)

[Blue Mountain]

Do you have any evidence of this Roman imposed moratorium on Jewish executions? It sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis that attempts to make sense of conflicting stories.

The trial before the Sandhedrin and stoning of St. Stephen (Acts 6-7 where a young Saul/Paul famously held the cloaks) also contradicts this notion.

The primary source for the statement is the gospel of John:

Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."

"But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

Unfortunately, most commentaries accept this statement without question and make no attempt to determine its accuracy. However, I found this reference (http://dev.bible.org/drupal/NeXtBible_Copyright) on NeXtBible:

The historical background behind the statement: We cannot legally put anyone to death is difficult to reconstruct. Scholars are divided over whether this statement in the Fourth Gospel accurately reflects the judicial situation between the Jewish authorities and the Romans in 1st century Palestine. It appears that the Roman governor may have given the Jews the power of capital punishment for specific offenses, some of them religious (the death penalty for Gentiles caught trespassing in the inner courts of the temple, for example). It is also pointed out that the Jewish authorities did carry out a number of executions, some of them specifically pertaining to Christians (Stephen, according to Acts 7:58-60; and James the Just, who was stoned in the 60s according to Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1 [20.200]). But Stephen’s death may be explained as a result of “mob violence” rather than a formal execution, and as Josephus in the above account goes on to point out, James was executed in the period between two Roman governors, and the high priest at the time was subsequently punished for the action. Two studies by A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1-47; and "The Trial of Christ," Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament [SPCKTC], 97-116) have tended to support the accuracy of John’s account. He concluded that the Romans kept very close control of the death penalty for fear that in the hands of rebellious locals such power could be used to eliminate factions favorable or useful to Rome. A province as troublesome as Judea would not have been likely to be made an exception to this.

(I believe the large section I quoted above falls within NeXtBible's copyright statement (http://dev.bible.org/drupal/NeXtBible_Copyright): In general, we encourage you to use and quote the NET Bible and the included references in your studies, teaching, and publications.)

If you (or anyone) wishes to deconstruct this reference or the studies made by A. N. Sherwin-White, go right ahead. I don't have a dog in this fight.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My take is that the account of the trial in John is even less reliable than the accounts in the synoptics. First, there's confusion about the identity of the high priest (Caiaphas). In 18:13 Jesus is brought to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. In the questioning (18:19-23), we're told it is the high priest who questions Jesus. But after the questioning, Jesus is then taken to Caiaphas (18:24). But Caiaphas is the high priest! (And we have extra-biblical confirmation of this from Josephus.)

There is archeological evidence from the period (carved stone notices that gentiles caught trespassing in forbidden areas of the Temple will be put to death) that support the right of Jewish authorities to use the death penalty.

Also, the reading offered above in the account of the stoning of St. Stephen ignores the fact that Stephen was tried before the Sanhedrin. Also, if it is to be taken as a sort of mob "lynching"--how likely is it that the Romans would allow this sort of death penalty, but not a regulated one conducted by the Jewish court?

[davefoc]

OK, there seems to be a general consensus here that the details about what actually happened with respect to the trial and execution of Jesus is lost.

But is there a consensus about what the mostly likely situation is with regard to the reason Christ was killed?

1. Christ was killed because he pissed off the Sanhedrin and the Sanhedrin manipulated the Romans into executing him.

2. Christ was killed because the Sanhedrin saw Jesus as a threat to the Romans and they turned him over to the Romans as part of their role as Roman Toady.

3. Christ was killed by the Romans because he was a rabble rouser disturbing the Roman imposed peace.

Other possibilities?

[blobru]

OK, there seems to be a general consensus here that the details about what actually happened with respect to the trial and execution of Jesus is lost.

But is there a consensus about what the mostly likely situation is with regard to the reason Christ was killed?

1. Christ was killed because he pissed off the Sanhedrin and the Sanhedrin manipulated the Romans into executing him.

2. Christ was killed because the Sanhedrin saw Jesus as a threat to the Romans and they turned him over to the Romans as part of their role as Roman Toady.

3. Christ was killed by the Romans because he was a rabble rouser disturbing the Roman imposed peace.

Other possibilities?


4. Internal power struggle, Judas had Jesus whacked, something like that. (Seriously, maybe the inner circle betrayal is the one historical detail, the rest just anti-Jewish hype to shmooze the crowd as they start to attract more non-Jews and hoped to attract powerful Romans to the cause. So much of it seems too tailored to the evangelical whims of the gospel writers: "What, you don't like the bit where the Romans are doing the killing? Fine, I'll make it the Jews... how's that?" Deconstructing the fable is fun, but A LOT of guesswork too.)

:halo:

5.. Mobbed by adoring fans.
6.. Sat on a rabid scorpion.
7.. Cut himself shaving and bled to death
8.. Myrrh overdose.
9.. Fell down and hit his head.
10. Couldn't really "walk on water". Or swim.
11. Family carpentry business was rushing to fill a big crucifix order; one tipped over and crushed him.

[aggle-rithm]

Other possibilities?

4. He is still alive and is occasionally spotted shopping at a Walmart in Pensacola, Florida.

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, there seems to be a general consensus here that the details about what actually happened with respect to the trial and execution of Jesus is lost.

But is there a consensus about what the mostly likely situation is with regard to the reason Christ was killed?

1. Christ was killed because he pissed off the Sanhedrin and the Sanhedrin manipulated the Romans into executing him.

2. Christ was killed because the Sanhedrin saw Jesus as a threat to the Romans and they turned him over to the Romans as part of their role as Roman Toady.

3. Christ was killed by the Romans because he was a rabble rouser disturbing the Roman imposed peace.

Other possibilities?
Another possibility is that no one person like "Christ" (i.e. the Jesus of the Gospels) actually existed, but the details were legends that grew as a composite of events that happened to several people mixed with invented fiction. Maybe a teacher, maybe a political revolutionary, maybe several self-proclaimed messiahs (which at the time did not mean a claim to being God).

[davefoc]

Another possibility is that no one person like "Christ" (i.e. the Jesus of the Gospels) actually existed, but the details were legends that grew as a composite of events that happened to several people mixed with invented fiction. Maybe a teacher, maybe a political revolutionary, maybe several self-proclaimed messiahs (which at the time did not mean a claim to being God).

This is of course a possibility. I think of it as a permutation of the Mythicist view. A little personal digression: I first became aware of the idea that there was an argument that Jesus didn't exist at all about five years ago. I have no memory of every being a religious believer but I was surprised that I found myself being annoyed by the article. Jesus might not have been able to walk on water but dag nabbit he existed and I didn't like somebody telling me he didn't'.

I'm way over my little pique, and my opinion of the likelihood that Jesus existed or didn't exist has gone up and down over the years as I have read what various people have to say about the idea.

At this moment, I think it is likely that an individual existed that satisfies the minimal requirements for an historical Jesus. It is possible that some of the Jesus mythology developed out of the life details of somebody else. The details elude me right now but I realize there were a variety of people with the name of Jesus that had some elements of their lives that were similar to Jesus but didn't quite live in the right time. I don't know enough to completely reject the idea that elements from their lives weren't a significant part of the Jesus story creation, but in the end my view of what is most likely is shaped by what people that are more knowledgeable about this subject than me have to say. The majority of them seem to favor the existence of a single identifiable historical Jesus and my understanding of the available facts supports that (but of course they don't prove it).

My question probably should have been preceded with a statement that made clear the assumption that Jesus existed and that he was executed. Once that assumption is made there is quite a bit of evidence to base some kind of guess about the details concerning the execution of Jesus. Unfortunately, none of that evidence is definitive and what we are left with is sifting through it and making a guess as to what the details were that led to the execution of Jesus. I was just curious as to what the result of that sifting process was for the people who had taken part in this thread.

[boloboffin]

4. Jesus forced the authorities to crucify him

a) to force God into rescuing him and beginning an apocalypse to rescue the Jewish people (big mistake)

b) having convinced his followers that he was the Messiah, to teach them that salvation through politics and revolt was utter vanity (art film reason).

[RobRoy]

Another possibility is that no one person like "Christ" (i.e. the Jesus of the Gospels) actually existed, but the details were legends that grew as a composite of events that happened to several people mixed with invented fiction. Maybe a teacher, maybe a political revolutionary, maybe several self-proclaimed messiahs (which at the time did not mean a claim to being God).

This being the case (and it seems reasonable to me), do you think that the writers were deliberate in their composition, or were they drawing together elements that seemed likely to belong to the Jesus-legend, and just got some things mized up with others?

[JoeTheJuggler]

This being the case (and it seems reasonable to me), do you think that the writers were deliberate in their composition, or were they drawing together elements that seemed likely to belong to the Jesus-legend, and just got some things mized up with others?

I think some of both. I think there was more than one oral story being kicked around by the time the gospels were written.

(By the way, this is certainly true with the Old Testament as well. I'm just now reading a book about the authorship of the books traditionally attributed to Moses, and there are at least 3 identifiable oral traditions that were written down in those books. In many cases you get the exact same story told in 3 different versions.)

So the writers had a lot to choose from (or maybe only knew of certain versions). Mark was written first, and Matthew & Luke obviously drew from Mark and another lost source (called Q--a list of sayings attributed to Jesus). Some of the changes were obviously intentional though. There are errors in Mark that are sometimes "corrected" in Matthew and Luke. Also, you frequently get the same story told almost word for word the same, but with significant changes. Those changes had to be intentional.

And then you get bits like the Nativity story or the visit of the Magi that were almost certainly fictional. (Whether they were fictional legends that existed in oral form or were created by the author of the gospels they appeared in is anyone's guess.) I think the agony in the garden and Peter's denial are also purely fictional.

The agony in the garden, as I mentioned earlier, is told from an omniscient narrator's point of view--even though there were no eyewitnesses to it, and Jesus was immediately arrested afterward. Both the agony in the garden and Peter's denial have that 3 times repetition that just feels like fiction.

Also, the way that Peter's denial is interspliced with Jesus' trials feels like fiction. If we had two different eyewitness accounts (one eyewitness who was on the scene of Peter and one who witnessed the trial), even though both happened at the same time, you'd be inclined to read one account all the way through and then the other account. At the very least, someone was exercising artistic and editorial license with the narrative.

[blobru]

4. Jesus forced the authorities to crucify him

a) to force God into rescuing him and beginning an apocalypse to rescue the Jewish people (big mistake)

b) having convinced his followers that he was the Messiah, to teach them that salvation through politics and revolt was utter vanity (art film reason).


A bit like the "Gospel of Judas": Jesus wants Judas to betray him; his crucifixion symbolizes the absurdity of religion that warrants [flesh] sacrifice; Judas will be most accursed among men (the other apostles stone him to death in this account, for killing their "god"), but most blessed among spirits.

Anyway, something like that seems the only other logical possibility beyond the three davefoc's posted: assuming he was executed, if it's not the Jews, the Jews and Romans, or the Romans behind the execution, it has to be Jesus or [one of] the apostles.

(There are also the skeptical rejoinders in the Quran, where Jesus only appears to be executed (someone, perhaps Judas, masquerading); or the early Jewish, where his body is stolen; just to further complicate things).