Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Paul’s basket escape from Damascus (Robert Eisenman)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
    Luke's account of the Sanhedrin meeting has Jesus specifically claiming to be the "Son of God" as well as Daniel 7's "Son of Man." Were both of those only messianic terms, as far as the Sanhedrin were concerned?
    Probably not. But were they claims of divinity? "Son of man" certainly was not, by all accounts I've read. I'm also led to understand that in some contexts, any righteous man could be referred to as a son of God.

    Originally posted by RBerman View Post
    John 10:33 shows a crowd prepared to stone Jesus for blasphemy, "because you, being a man, make yourself God.” So yes, claims of blasphemy were swirling around Jesus.
    John does seem to suggest as much, yes, but he has his own credibility issues. If it's hard to believe the synoptic version of the trial, John isn't going to be much help.

    Originally posted by RBerman View Post
    None of the gospel texts show a formal verdict from the assembled Sanhedrin; they just interviewed Jesus, freaked out about what he said, and then the guards started slapping him around, and he's taken to Pilate as soon as the morning permits.
    You mean, maybe it wasn't really a trial, but more like a police interrogation? Yeah, that could solve a problem or two.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      I can't figure out what you think I misunderstood. It doesn't matter how far ahead they could have planned anything. If they were concerned about appearances of legality, they would not have held a nighttime trial during a sacred festival. They could have arrested him at any time, yes, but the trial would have to have waited until the festival was over and it would have been held in the light of day.
      As I have pointed out, according to the story, they did not want to arrest him in the day time during the feast as they feared angering the crowds, so they would not have arrested him "at any time". Furthermore, as I have suggested (and RBerman too), the trial was unlikely to have been an official one: that the interrogation that night was not intended to be an official trial
      You still haven't explained the reason for the fake trial. You are suggesting that they induced him somehow to make both blasphemous and seditious statements during the trial, but what was their motivation for doing that?
      I am suggesting that they were trying to induce him to make such statements so they can use it against him in their drive to get him killed. The trial, according to the gospels, started with false witnesses who couldn't even agree on their testimonies, and continued with the high priest charging Jesus under God to answer if he was the Messiah. Jesus answered in the affirmative, which was sufficient for them to push for a sedition charge.
      Last edited by Paprika; 04-28-2014, 02:34 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post

        John writes


        and



        Matthew has


        Mark sets down

        Luke records
        Paprika, I stand corrected. As I was writing my previous post to you, somehow I managed to forget all about the episode of the triumphal entry. Thank you for setting me straight about that, and for doing it in such a civil manner.

        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        Let's consider the historical context: there were many uprisings before Jesus by those who claimed to be messiahs, to be advancing the kingdom of God; most, if not all that we know of went the violent route of revolution. It is thus plausible that the priests were afraid that Jesus would go that route. In hindsight, of course, it is very easy to say that "Oh, of course Jesus wouldn't have gone the violent route", but it would be entirely natural for a distant observer to expect that he would eventually go the normal path of violence.
        As you point out, those previous would-be messiahs had made their intentions quite clear. Whatever it was that made some people think Jesus was the messiah, it was not that he encouraged them to.

        I get it that the priests would not have cared whether he encouraged it. But now we get to the credibility of those assertions that lots of people did think he was the messiah. What did he say or do that would have given them that idea? What made them think that he intended to do anything to chase the Romans out of Judea?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          As I have pointed out, according to the story, they did not want to arrest him in the day time during the feast as they feared angering the crowds, so they would not have arrested him "at any time".
          OK. The arrest had to happen when there weren't a lot of people watching. That doesn't explain the nighttime trial.

          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          as I have suggested (and RBerman too), the trial was unlikely to have been an official one: that the interrogation that night was not intended to be an official trial
          OK. But then . . .

          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          The trial, according to the gospels, started with false witnesses who couldn't even agree on their testimonies
          If it wasn't really a trial, then what were the witnesses doing there? Why did the priests even need witnesses, if they'd already made up their minds to condemn him? If they were worried about making everything look properly legal, then they had to have a real official trial, at an appropriate time.

          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          and continued with the high priest charging Jesus under God to answer if he was the Messiah. Jesus answered in the affirmative, which was sufficient for them to push for a sedition charge.
          Was it? What does "messiah" actually mean? Was not the high priest himself a messiah?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            Paprika, I stand corrected. As I was writing my previous post to you, somehow I managed to forget all about the episode of the triumphal entry. Thank you for setting me straight about that, and for doing it in such a civil manner.

            As you point out, those previous would-be messiahs had made their intentions quite clear. Whatever it was that made some people think Jesus was the messiah, it was not that he encouraged them to.
            Actually, it is precisely was the triumphal entry more than anything else that would have encouraged them to view him as a Messiah. We know that many Jews awaited a Messiah who would defeat the pagans (in this case the Romans) and free them from subjection. When Jesus purposely acts out what was predicted by Zechariah, that the Messiah would come to them riding on a foal of a donkey, close to Passover, the great festival of freedom - this would have been seen as an implicit Messianic claim; indeed Jesus cannot have been unaware of what he was doing.

            I get it that the priests would not have cared whether he encouraged it. But now we get to the credibility of those assertions that lots of people did think he was the messiah. What did he say or do that would have given them that idea? What made them think that he intended to do anything to chase the Romans out of Judea?
            It was very likely due to the fact that they had certain expectations of the Messiah, and presumed that he would fulfill that. If you ask why they had such expectations, we would have to embark on an exploration of Jewish eschatological expectations around that period.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              OK. The arrest had to happen when there weren't a lot of people watching. That doesn't explain the nighttime trial.
              As I see it, having captured Jesus unexpectedly due to Judas' betrayal, they were yet unprepared as they had no basis in either Jewish or Roman law to push for a charge with the murder sentence. So, as you put it, it was likely akin to our "police interrogation" in some aspects.

              If it wasn't really a trial, then what were the witnesses doing there? Why did the priests even need witnesses, if they'd already made up their minds to condemn him? If they were worried about making everything look properly legal, then they had to have a real official trial, at an appropriate time.
              I think the idea was that that having the witnesses there was an excellent trial run for the actual trial that (I presume) would have taken place had not Jesus made the incriminating statement that he was the Messiah. This is in addition to my earlier point, that it was an excellent opportunity to incite incriminating statements from Jesus by interrogation.

              You and others say that the trial depicted that Friday night could not have been a official trial. I agree; it was not intended to be an official trial. The question remains as to whether and how the events make sense, and I hope I have managed to sketch such a possible set of circumstances that it would make some sense.

              Was it? What does "messiah" actually mean? Was not the high priest himself a messiah?
              Well, it looks like we might have to have that discussion on second-Temple Jewish expectations after all. "Messiah" means "anointed one"; by the time of the second-Temple period many Jews (though not all) anticipated a messiah who would defeat the pagans etc and thus the usage of the word 'messiah' seems to have focused onto this expectation.

              Comment


              • Is this thread goofing up for anyone but me? Often when I try to read pages past the first one, it just brings up the first page again.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                  Is this thread goofing up for anyone but me? Often when I try to read pages past the first one, it just brings up the first page again.
                  Seems to be okay for me.
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                    Is this thread goofing up for anyone but me? Often when I try to read pages past the first one, it just brings up the first page again.
                    I've had that problem with several threads. When that happens I have to type in the page number to get it to work.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                      Probably not. But were they claims of divinity? "Son of man" certainly was not, by all accounts I've read. I'm also led to understand that in some contexts, any righteous man could be referred to as a son of God.
                      "Son of God" and "Son of Man" were both loaded terms which could mean different things in different contexts. For instance, Ezekiel uses "Son of man" as Psalm 8 does, to mean "mere human." But Daniel 7's "Son of Man...coming with the clouds" (a phrase Jesus uses in Mark's account of the Sanhedrin showdown) is a messianic figure to say the least, given a dominion over the whole world, beyond the wildest dreams of Jewish self-rule. "Son of God" can mean anything from angels (Job 1) to human kings (Psalm 2, Psalm 82) to those who emulate God morally (Matthew 5:9, John 1:12), but it can also describe a degree of intimacy and identification with God which at least some of Jesus' audience found scandalous and raised accusations of blasphemy.

                      John does seem to suggest as much, yes, but he has his own credibility issues. If it's hard to believe the synoptic version of the trial, John isn't going to be much help.
                      I see the different accounts as supplemental. But of course as a Christian, I'm predisposed to analyze them generously.

                      You mean, maybe it wasn't really a trial, but more like a police interrogation? Yeah, that could solve a problem or two.
                      That was the direction I was thinking; it seems plausible both in the abstract and also upon reading the gospel accounts.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        The problem with this is that the freeing was under Roman law by the Roman prefect of someone convicted under Roman law.
                        OK find me a Roman law that says you can trade one murderer for one Jewish blasphemer. It even sounds silly typing it.

                        NORM
                        When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                          OK find me a Roman law that says you can trade one murderer for one Jewish blasphemer. It even sounds silly typing it.

                          You're the one saying that there was "no mechanism" for it. You show that it couldn't have been done.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                            You're the one saying that there was "no mechanism" for it. You show that it couldn't have been done.
                            I'm not worshipping a book that makes up these stories. The burden is on the fantastic, not the usual. There is nowhere in either Jewish or Roman law that says you can trade one murderer for one blasphemer. I mean: just look at that sentence! It's ridiculous to even imagine such a thing. Unless, you are trumping up some sort of conspiracy story against the Jews.

                            NORM
                            When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                            Comment


                            • Source: The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes by William L. Lane

                              Two forms of amnesty existed in Roman law, the abolitio or acquittal of a prisoner not yet condemned, and the indulgentia, or pardoning of one already condemned. What Pilate intended in the case of Jesus, who at this stage of the proceedings had not yet been sentenced by the court, was clearly the first form. It was the governor's custom to release one prisoner upon popular request at the Feast of the Passover, and apparently he believed that the people would ask for Jesus. This mistaken conviction, with the consequences to which it led, becomes the focus of Mark's concern in the verses which follow.

                              The historicity of the paschal amnesty has been disputed often, primarily because Josephus offers no evidence that such a custom ever existed. There is, however, a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the populace. This practice is illustrated by a papyrus document (see Note) which may be dated A.D. 85, reporting the trial of one Phibion, who had locked up his alleged creditor and certain women of his household. The magistrate, G. Septimius Vegetus, the governor of Egypt, said to the defendant: "You deserve to be scourged for having imprisoned, on your own responsibility, a decent man and his women, but I will deal more humanely with you and will give you to the populace." Although there is no evidence here of a regular amnesty on a feast, the case is analogous to the one before Pilate: the governor released a criminal at the wish of the people, an action that was consistent with his imperial authority. Moreover, a provision in the Mishnah tractate Pesa-chim VIII 6a ("they may slaughter for one... whom they have promised to bring out of prison..."), which is judged to belong to the earliest strata of the Mishnah, implies that the custom of releasing one prisoner or several at the Feast of the Passover must actually have existed in Jerusalem in the first century.

                              Note: Papyrus Florentinus 61, 59 ff. on which see J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 301-303 and especially n. 7 (p. 303). A. Steinwenter, "II processo di Gesii," Jus n.s. 3 (1952), pp. 471-490 calls attention to an Ephesian inscription dated A.D 441 where Phlege-thius, the proconsul of Asia, reminds the people of Smyrna that they deserve punishment, but adds, "because of the shouts of this illustrious metropolis of the Ephesians, and because their petitions ought not to be set aside, we release you." The action of these two Roman officials in the eastern empire at an interval of centuries shows that Pilate's action fell within his imperium. Cf. Acts 3:14.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              This webpage gives an interesting breakdown of the Mishnah involved. I don't know much about the source, so take it with a grain of salt.

                              Tractate Pesachim, Chapter 8, Mishnah 6
                              הָאוֹנֵן, וְהַמְפַקֵּחַ אֶת הַגָּל, וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהִבְטִיחוּהוּ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים, וְהַחוֹלֶה וְהַזָּקֵן שֶׁהֵן יְכוֹלִין לֶאֱכוֹל כַּזַּיִת, שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן. עַל כֻּלָּן אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, שֶׁמָּא יָבִיאוּ אֶת הַפֶּסֶח לִידֵי פְסוּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אֵרַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל, פְּטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי, חוּץ מִן הַמְפַקֵּחַ בַּגַּל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא מִתְּחִלָתוֹ:

                              We may slaughter [a paschal lamb] and include [in the subscription party] a newly bereaved person, someone who is performing a rescue from rubble, someone who was promised their release from incarceration and the infirm or the aged who are able to eat an olive's-bulk. We may not slaughter it and include any of these by themselves, for they might cause the paschal sacrifice to become disqualified. Therefore, if they actually become disqualified they are excused the duty of observing the Alternate Paschal lamb, with the exception of someone who is performing a rescue from rubble, who is already ritually impure.

                              Discussion (Continued)
                              7: Similarly, Levi was incarcerated during the afternoon of Nisan 14th, but had been promised that he would be released in time for the Seder service. In most cases Yehudah may include Levi in the subscription party that he is organizing.

                              If Levi is a prisoner of non-Jews and they have promised to release him in time for the festival, there is no halakhic reason to assume that they will not do so, so he may be included in Yehudah's group. If Levi is in a Jewish gaol one of two things may happen. If he is outside Jerusalem and the authorities have promised to release him in time for him to reach Jerusalem and celebrate the Seder there, Yehudah may include Levi in his group. However, if the hapless Levi has the bad luck to be incarcerated in Jerusalem he is not necessarily released, but Yehudah may include him in his group nevertheless, and must take Levi his share of the lamb so that he can eat it in prison.

                              Comment


                              • Source: The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes by William L. Lane

                                It was the governor's custom to release one prisoner upon popular request at the Feast of the Passover

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                That is what Mark wrote.

                                Source: Lane

                                The historicity of the paschal amnesty has been disputed often, primarily because Josephus offers no evidence that such a custom ever existed.

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                Not just Josephus. No other contemporary writer mentions such a custom, either.

                                Source: Lane

                                There is, however, a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the populace.

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                No one is disputing that pardons and acquittals could occur, or that it could happen in response to popular demand. Mark's claim is more specific than that. He claims that the Roman governor of Judea had made a custom of doing it on the Jewish Passover.

                                Source: Lane

                                there is no evidence here of a regular amnesty on a feast

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                Then we don't have corroboration of Mark's statement.

                                Source: Lane

                                the case is analogous to the one before Pilate: the governor released a criminal at the wish of the people

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                But not because it was his custom to do so during a certain religious holiday.

                                Source: Lane

                                Moreover, a provision in the Mishnah tractate*Pesa-chim*VIII 6a ("they may slaughter for one... whom they have promised to bring out of prison..."), which is judged to belong to the earliest strata of the Mishnah, implies that the custom of releasing one prisoner or several at the Feast of the Passover must actually have existed in Jerusalem in the first century.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Does the Mishnah offer any suggestion that the custom was followed by the Roman governor?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,504 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X