Controversy on Christianity Today's website

[Obsidian]

Now another gnostic accuses Jesus of sinning. This debate is ridiculous.

[robrecht]

Under Obsidian's logic, wouldn't Jesus have to be stoned for healing a man on the Sabbath?

No, healing would be OK, as long as he didn't pick up any sticks. But, don't listen to me, my view that 12-year-old girls should not be executed by stoning for having sex with married adults who are in positions of authority over them is apparently troubling.

[KingsGambit]

Now another gnostic accuses Jesus of sinning. This debate is ridiculous.

So you're calling me a gnostic? Do you even know what that word means or are you just making it up as you go along?

[apostoli]

If there was no chance for an execution, then there was also not much of a trap either. So they're going to say that Jesus wished they could implement the law of Moses. Big deal. It's generally understood that death sentences were still handed down occasionally under Jewish law even under the Roman rule, if not by a proper trial, then sometimes in the zealot tradition of Phinehas, Mattathias, Shimon ben Shetach, Judah the Galilean, and the later Sicari. If the crowd wanted Torah justice, and this was a real possibility, then this would be a much more effective trap for Jesus. Was he on the side of the populists or the Roman sympathizers?

Just as a historical aside: it should be noted that the Romans had dethroned the various high priests of the temple, Annas and several of his sons, for unlawful executions - albeit at the time Annas remained in control of the temple and the Sanhedrin. Which is why, according to A.John Jesus was dragged off to Annas' palace, tried and convicted and then taken to the Roman appointee Caiaphas who solely had authority to appeal to Pilate for a death sentence. In short: the Jewish religious leaders/people were prohibited from murdering anyone on their own whim or superstition under Roman law...they had to get permission...

[robrecht]

Just as a historical aside: it should be noted that the Romans had dethroned the various high priests of the temple, Annas and several of his sons, for unlawful executions - albeit at the time Annas remained in control of the temple and the Sanhedrin. Which is why, according to A.John Jesus was dragged off to Annas' palace, tried and convicted and then taken to the Roman appointee Caiaphas who solely had authority to appeal to Pilate for a death sentence. In short: the Jewish religious leaders/people were prohibited from murdering anyone on their own whim or superstition under Roman law...they had to get permission...

It should be noted that scholars are not certain of some of these matters. For example, Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, p 109, can say:

"The conclusion is inescapable: before the year 70 CE the Sanhedrin had full jurisdiction over Jews charged iwth offences against Jewish religious law, and had the authority openly to pronounce and carry out sentences of death in accordance with the provisions of Jewish legislation. Only after the fall of Jerusalem was the Sanhedrin deprived of its right to execute persons whom it had tried and sentenced to death."

Winter's theory was that the unbiblical method of strangulation was introduced subsequently as a means of carrying on capital punishment in a less open and obvious manner, sometimes with and sometimes without Roman implied consent. He notes the testimony of Origen even as late as the third century:

[Cow Poke]

Now another gnostic accuses Jesus of sinning. This debate is ridiculous.

Wow.

[Cow Poke]

But, don't listen to me, my view that 12-year-old girls should not be executed by stoning for having sex with married adults who are in positions of authority over them is apparently troubling.

Not to me -- not in the least.

[apostoli]

It should be noted that scholars are not certain of some of these matters. For example, Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, p 109, can say:

"The conclusion is inescapable: before the year 70 CE the Sanhedrin had full jurisdiction over Jews charged iwth offences against Jewish religious law, and had the authority openly to pronounce and carry out sentences of death in accordance with the provisions of Jewish legislation. Only after the fall of Jerusalem was the Sanhedrin deprived of its right to execute persons whom it had tried and sentenced to death."

Winter's theory was that the unbiblical method of strangulation was introduced subsequently as a means of carrying on capital punishment in a less open and obvious manner, sometimes with and sometimes without Roman implied consent. He notes the testimony of Origen even as late as the third century:

Winter and his theories aside, the fact remains that the historical evidence is that Annas and his Sons were dethroned because of their (from a Roman perspective) indiscriminate murder of people on the basis of 'religious" grounds. Of course the Romans might have turned a blind eye occasionally, if it would prolong the peace. Even in modern times the authorities in the USA (and even in my country) do likewise when mob violence is involved!

What occurred to me in respect of the adulterous woman, was another event of give to Ceasar what belongs to him, and to God what belongs to him! As you indicate the Romans were somewhat open to Jewish custom and if the woman had been subjected to Roman law, the probability (for the sake of peace) is the court would have granted the will of the people.

Now, earlier, someone suggested that there was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Highly probable in my opinion. If Jesus had supported the mob, he could have been accused of sedition to the Romans...

[Catholicity]

So should society be safe and forbid marriage until 24?

In some cases I think that'd be a very good Idea. However, I wouldn't cry if society raised the legal age of marriage to 21 for both men and women.

[Cow Poke]

In some cases I think that'd be a very good Idea. However, I wouldn't cry if society raised the legal age of marriage to 21 for both men and women.

I think that would just encourage more shackups.

[apostoli]

In some cases I think that'd be a very good Idea. However, I wouldn't cry if society raised the legal age of marriage to 21 for both men and women.

Just as an aside: In the last year or so, Spain changed the age of consent from 13yo to 16 yo, so as to conform to international standards. Not that long ago, 60 or so years ago, in some USA states, girls as young as 9yo were legally sold off into marriage... Imo, we moderns like to stick our heads in the sand and not acknowledge our corporate past history, that was only challenged by a few brave suffragettes, and once brought to the attention of the populace caused change. God works in mysterious ways, and the advent of WW2 as anyone with half a brain will acknowledge changed the role of women in society, and in alienation of Moses, gave women the right over their bodies...

[DesertBerean]

i think that would just encourage more shackups.

^this.

[robrecht]

Winter and his theories aside, the fact remains that the historical evidence is that Annas and his Sons were dethroned because of their (from a Roman perspective) indiscriminate murder of people on the basis of 'religious" grounds. Of course the Romans might have turned a blind eye occasionally, if it would prolong the peace. Even in modern times the authorities in the USA (and even in my country) do likewise when mob violence is involved!

What occurred to me in respect of the adulterous woman, was another event of give to Ceasar what belongs to him, and to God what belongs to him! As you indicate the Romans were somewhat open to Jewish custom and if the woman had been subjected to Roman law, the probability (for the sake of peace) is the court would have granted the will of the people.

Now, earlier, someone suggested that there was an attempt to entrap Jesus. Highly probable in my opinion. If Jesus had supported the mob, he could have been accused of sedition to the Romans...

Can you tell me what sources you're relying upon and what sense of 'dethrone' you're talking about here? In general, 'Rome' was 'dethroning' and 'enthroning' high priests from the time of Herod the Great. I whole-heartedly agree that the pericope describes a trap, a very deadly one for both Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. My general view seems to be in agreement with what you are saying so I would appreciate more details.

[Obsidian]

In some cases I think that'd be a very good Idea. However, I wouldn't cry if society raised the legal age of marriage to 21 for both men and women.

A proposal for more wicked laws. When will we ever stop.

[apostoli]

robrecht,

I apologise that I can't direct you to a single source/book for my opinion. My opinion has developed over the decades from a load of sources, particularly in discussions with the Rabbi (mainly the Chief Rabbi at the Greater Synagogue here in Sydney) and students at various Yeshivas that I have encountered in person or over the internet (email). As you know I'm a committed Christian and RCC by that conviction, and so, as one of my Catholic teachers once suggested to me "If you what to know anything about Jewish society, now or in the past, ask a Jew"...

Can you tell me what sources you're relying upon

Read any history book that deals with Rome's legal system in the occupied territories of palestine, or for that matter any authoritative work on the Roman legal system in the first century. There are masses of them, so your local library should have something worth reading.

Can you tell me what sources you're relying upon and what sense of 'dethrone' you're talking about here?

As you well know, the high priesthood was bought and sold and fully corrupt since at least the time of the Maccabees. That is common knowledge! As for Annas and his clan, the Talmud accurses his entire family for their corruption. There are numerous Jewish sources that document the tyranny of his clan. Likewise the dethronement of Annas and his sons John and Alexander and his son-in-law Caiaphas (and later sons not mentioned in scripture) is common knowledge. Again I direct you to your local library...

In general, 'Rome' was 'dethroning' and 'enthroning' high priests from the time of Herod the Great.

But as scripture indicates they were very careful about doing so. Note that in Jesus' time (and after) there was a continiuum involving the one family.

I whole-heartedly agree that the pericope describes a trap, a very deadly one for both Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. My general view seems to be in agreement with what you are saying so I would appreciate more details.

To be 100% honest with you, I only just twigged onto the prospect that Jesus was (with the account of the adulterous woman) being setup for a charge of sedition to be laid before the Romans. As with most people, my focus had previously been on the woman and not the ramifications of the event...