The Five Venerated Titles Attributed Upon Jesus & their Idiomatic Culture -for Pakeha

[Brainache]

Thanks for the input about Luke!
I'll reread gLuke today with that in mind.

Sorry not to be clear about the Romans, what I meant to say was why the Sanhedrin even brought in the Romans to clean up the messy situation?

After all, they had the power to order a public stoning for blasphemy, correct me if I'm wrong. I've come across conflicting opinions as to whether the Jewish authorities could actually order a stoning in the 30s, so I'm unsure if stoning was ever an option for Jesus death.

Maybe there was no sanhedrin involvement at all. Maybe that is all later invention to libel the Jews and exculpate the Romans.

If Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple on Passover, the Romans would have arrested him on the spot or as soon as they caught him. There would be no need for the Sanhedrin to bring charges against Jesus at all.

 

[pakeha]

Maybe there was no sanhedrin involvement at all. Maybe that is all later invention to libel the Jews and exculpate the Romans.

If Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple on Passover, the Romans would have arrested him on the spot or as soon as they caught him. There would be no need for the Sanhedrin to bring charges against Jesus at all.

That's an interesting speculation, Brainache.
We could also speculate the other side, that there was no Roman involvement at all.

After all, if Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple on Passover, the Temple officials would have detained him on the spot or as soon as he was found.

 

[Brainache]

That's an interesting speculation, Brainache.
We could also speculate the other side, that there was no Roman involvement at all.

After all, if Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple on Passover, the Temple officials would have detained him on the spot or as soon as he was found.

The Temple had a Roman garrison attached, which was usually reinforced for Passover, so I think the Romans would have been there.

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha, to the original question:

No, they did, and they did not.
Ananus ben Ananus, the High Priest, gathered the Sanhedrin to bring a charge of death penalty by stoning, and Ananus is removed from his position for two violations:
A: He exicuted a death penalty in the absence of the King (law of Judah).
B: He convened the Sanhedrin (Congress) in the absence of the Procurator (imagine if America was rule by Brittain and only allowed to convene Congress when the Queen's Governer was present; not hard to imagine).

The Law of the death penalty required the Congressional Sanhedrin to gather like a Congressional hearing and hear the case for death.
If you did not have the Sanhedrin, even the King, then you could not decree a death penalty, recall all of the Isaiah "Devil" daming of the KJV about a "morning star"?
That wasn't about a devil, but a bad King who was dictating orders without a public representative governing body and was being called a mmorning star due to the idiom of Venus trying to be the Sun, so futile is it in trying to do so.
Kings who conducted in unilateral control were such to them as only their god (the Sun-like of the metaphore) was capable of being so wise and right without need of question (though there is more on the absolute in prophets who even acted like public representstives and argued for the people against their god).

And, to bring it back around, they could not obey their Law of governance regarding the death penalty without the Procurator of Rome in Judea proper.

So this is why the stories have Romev involved in the dramatics of the trial.

 

[Brainache]

Pakeha, to the original question:

No, they did, and they did not.
Ananus ben Ananus, the High Priest, gathered the Sanhedrin to bring a charge of death penalty by stoning, and Ananus is removed from his position for two violations:
A: He exicuted a death penalty in the absence of the King (law of Judah).
B: He convened the Sanhedrin (Congress) in the absence of the Procurator (imagine if America was rule by Brittain and only allowed to convene Congress when the Queen's Governer was present; not hard to imagine).

The Law of the death penalty required the Congressional Sanhedrin to gather like a Congressional hearing and hear the case for death.
If you did not have the Sanhedrin, even the King, then you could not decree a death penalty, recall all of the Isaiah "Devil" daming of the KJV about a "morning star"?
That wasn't about a devil, but a bad King who was dictating orders without a public representative governing body and was being called a mmorning star due to the idiom of Venus trying to be the Sun, so futile is it in trying to do so.
Kings who conducted in unilateral control were such to them as only their god (the Sun-like of the metaphore) was capable of being so wise and right without need of question (though there is more on the absolute in prophets who even acted like public representstives and argued for the people against their god).

And, to bring it back around, they could not obey their Law of governance regarding the death penalty without the Procurator of Rome in Judea proper.

So this is why the stories have Romev involved in the dramatics of the trial.

Are you talking about James or Jesus?

 

[pakeha]

A good point. Still, with feelings running high for the festivities, it might have been an unpopular call to have Roman soldiers dragging away a fundie from the Temple.
I wonder why the Temple officials didn't take care of the matter on their own.

 

[JaysonR]

Brainach, I was talking about James, Jesus, all Kings of Judah, Hasmonian Law, Herodian Law, Babylonian Law, and Roman Law.

 

[Brainache]

A good point. Still, with feelings running high for the festivities, it might have been an unpopular call to have Roman soldiers dragging away a fundie from the Temple.
I wonder why the Temple officials didn't take care of the matter on their own.

They were unarmed.

The Romans had swords, and so did at least one of Jesus' gang according to the stories.

 

[Brainache]

Brainach, I was talking about James, Jesus, all Kings of Judah, Hasmonian Law, Herodian Law, Babylonian Law, and Roman Law.

Ananus had them all stoned?

 

[JaysonR]

Pakeha,

One of the queer ponderings of this period, outside of the Bible, is how Rome made some critical errors in governance regarding Judea, and they are surprising only because they seem to us so clear in consequence that it almost begs us to question intention, but we have to keep in mind hindsight bias, and that there were far more political variables to ingest during the events than we are receiving of the primary events through to today.

Governments through time show a record of what seem like obviously poor choices in hindsight.

 

[JaysonR]

Ananus had them all stoned?

No, Ananus was only one example.
Who he was exicuting actually did notbmatter to the point; he only served to show the legal relationship between the High Priest, Sanhedrin, King, and Procurator of Rome.

 

[Brainache]

No, Ananus was only one example.
Who he was exicuting actually did notbmatter to the point; he only served to show the legal relationship between the High Priest, Sanhedrin, King, and Procurator of Rome.

I was under the impression that those relationships were somewhat fluid. That what was possible in the 60s, might not have been possible in the 30s.

I was under the impression that Pakeha was asking specifically about the Roman involvement in Jesus' execution: ie Why was he crucified, not stoned?

I may be wrong of course. As many here will point out, I'm no expert.

 

[pakeha]

...Governments through time show a record of what seem like obviously poor choices in hindsight.

Of course you're right, JaysonR.
What I'm exploring in my own way is whether the Romans were actually involved in Jesus' death.

I was under the impression that those relationships were somewhat fluid. That what was possible in the 60s, might not have been possible in the 30s.

I was under the impression that Pakeha was asking specifically about the Roman involvement in Jesus' execution: ie Why was he crucified, not stoned?

I may be wrong of course. As many here will point out, I'm no expert.

Never mind, Brainache.
Welcome to the non-expert club!

I'm wondering if the Romans were involved in Jesus' death, since disturbing the peace was a beheading affair, as John the Baptist's fate teaches us.

That wiki article on Jewish capital punishment was horrifying, but instructive.
I had no idea of what stoning entailed and why it was inflicted.
Or beheading.

A good point. Still, with feelings running high for the festivities, it might have been an unpopular call to have Roman soldiers dragging away a fundie from the Temple.
I wonder why the Temple officials didn't take care of the matter on their own.

They were unarmed.

The Romans had swords, and so did at least one of Jesus' gang according to the stories.They were unarmed.

The Romans had swords, and so did at least one of Jesus' gang according to the stories.

Jesus' gang brought swords into the Temple?
In any case, this would have been a beheading offense, correct me if I'm wrong, and the same Herod as had John the Baptist beheaded could've done the same to Jesus, or is there something I'm missing here?

 

[Brainache]

Of course you're right, JaysonR.
What I'm exploring in my own way is whether the Romans were actually involved in Jesus' death.




Never mind, Brainache.
Welcome to the non-expert club!

I'm wondering if the Romans were involved in Jesus' death, since disturbing the peace was a beheading affair, as John the Baptist's fate teaches us.

That wiki article on Jewish capital punishment was horrifying, but instructive.
I had no idea of what stoning entailed and why it was inflicted.
Or beheading.





Jesus' gang brought swords into the Temple?
In any case, this would have been a beheading offense, correct me if I'm wrong, and the same Herod as had John the Baptist beheaded could've done the same to Jesus, or is there something I'm missing here?

I think the whole "Trial by Pilate" is fiction. Peter supposedly cut a Roman's ear off when they came for Jesus (this is the apologetic version, remember). I'm assuming the Romans just dragged him off and nailed him that day, or the next. No time to drag him off to a remote castle and chop his head off, just: "...out of the door, line on the left, one cross each".

 

[JaysonR]

There's two reasons:
A: if the account is accurate culturally, then it would suggest a normality for the Procurator to plan and order all exicutions during Passover to be crucifixion to disuade interest in acting out the Moses liberation celebration a bit more than symbolically.
B: the account is fiction drawn from the sensational crucifixions of Jews during the Temple destruction, and the point of the Jesus figure not warranting the crucifixion they were given was just an oversight by writers who did not know of the unwarranted level of the judgement.

Considering the poetic use of crucifixion by Rome to imply the rights of the wealthy being stripped for treason, I think A is more sensible, especially considering the Luke text's literary education and talent.
Then, not only does the figure fit into the political termoil of the times, but also their rights are being attempted to be stripped in sign by the Romans in jest (King plaque), as then the stripping of his rights of god is shattered during his death by godlike disasters.

Culturally, there is a poem woven; it is pretty fascinating.

 

[pakeha]

I think the whole "Trial by Pilate" is fiction. Peter supposedly cut a Roman's ear off when they came for Jesus (this is the apologetic version, remember). I'm assuming the Romans just dragged him off and nailed him that day, or the next. No time to drag him off to a remote castle and chop his head off, just: "...out of the door, line on the left, one cross each".

I won't say you're wrong about the Pilate trial.
Why would there even be a Roman trial and crucifixion if Herod could simply have the man beheaded, as he did John the Baptist?


A Roman's ear or that of a Temple servant?
Were there Romans at the arrest?

Is any of this story something on which to base an HJ?

 

[Brainache]

I won't say you're wrong about the Pilate trial.
Why would there even be a Roman trial and crucifixion if Herod could simply have the man beheaded, as he did John the Baptist?


A Roman's ear or that of a Temple servant?
Were there Romans at the arrest?

Is any of this story something on which to base an HJ?

It isn't much, I'll grant you, but don't forget it is just one piece of a bigger picture.

And still we are only talking about plausibility, not certainty.

 

[pakeha]

It isn't much, I'll grant you, but don't forget it is just one piece of a bigger picture.

And still we are only talking about plausibility, not certainty.

What bigger picture?

What is more plausible, that Herod beheaded another smart-ass fundie or that Pontius Pilate tried and condemned the fellow?

Keep in mind that for the Jews, the scourging and subsequent blood loss was not something they'd subject a fellow Jew to, no matter how much of a nuisance he was.
Anyway, I'm off to work and promise not to think of scourging as I observe my boss' antics this afternoon.

 

[Brainache]

What bigger picture?

What is more plausible, that Herod beheaded another smart-ass fundie or that Pontius Pilate tried and condemned the fellow?

Keep in mind that for the Jews, the scourging and subsequent blood loss was not something they'd subject a fellow Jew to, no matter how much of a nuisance he was.
Anyway, I'm off to work and promise not to think of scourging as I observe my boss' antics this afternoon.

Maybe Jesus in Jerusalem on Passover wasn't within Herod's reach at that time, whereas John out in the Wilderness near the Jordan River was within his reach. This is Agrippa I, not Agrippa II at this stage. It was before the "Tetrarchy" was established.

 

[pakeha]

Maybe Jesus in Jerusalem on Passover wasn't within Herod's reach at that time, whereas John out in the Wilderness near the Jordan River was within his reach. This is Agrippa I, not Agrippa II at this stage. It was before the "Tetrarchy" was established.

Wasn't it Herod Antipas who's life bridged both John the Baptist and Jesus' careers?
Wasn't JtB in Jerusalem when he was arrested by Herod?