Quote:
Originally Posted by glyn
The Romans were not that bothered one way or the other. The Sanhedrin had summoned Pilate to judge the matter as only he could award the death penalty. (The Sanhedrin could not). What the bible says of the affair is confusing. Take the crowds calling for Barabas. In Hebrew this is taken to mean bar abbas 'son of the father' - so who were the crowds calling for? And are we sure there were crowds at the trial in the first place? The statement that Pilate washed his hands (of the matter) has passed into lore, but for the Sanhedrin to Admit a gentile to the temple (such as the Procurator) meant they had in effect to create him a temporary jew! Pilate did not have to lose the 'end of his very best friend' to achieve this, but merely a symbolic immersion in water, in the form of publicly washing his hands BEFORE the trial started.
|
You are correct that only the Roman administration could approve a sentence of death, but I don't agree that the NT is unclear about how Pilate was manoevred into it by the ever-clever Caiphus, the chief priest at the time, or what happened at the judgement. Pilate's wife was uneasy about sentencing Jesus to death and told him so. Rather than stand firm and deny the chief priest's petition, Pilate tried to finesse his way out of it by offering the crowd a choice between a notorius criminal and Jesus. To ensure things went his way, Caiphus seeded the crowd with toughs who intimidated people into yelling out Jesus' name, much to Pilate's surprise.
As for Pilate washing his hands afterwards, he wanted no trouble from Jesus' followers so absolved himself of all blame. It's doubtful the washing of the hands was ritual cleansing. The Sanhedin agents would have gone to Pilate's HQ as protocol demanded, not Pilate to the temple as you theorize.
If one accepts, as I do, that Jesus was prepared to die to ensure the longevity of his message, he had the burden of proving he was a messiah. This could only be done by systematically fulfilling all the prophecies contained in the Bible regarding what would befall a messiah. The major prophesy was death at the hands of the people.
Jesus understood that his death must be officially recorded. To ensure this, it had to be carried out by a third party that kept records. This is was where the Romans came in. Had the Sanhedrin been allowed to execute him, they would likely have covered it up and not played along with Judas.
Judas, of course, knew exactly what he had to do and played his part perfectly. And when he went to turn Jesus in, the chief priest knew full well that unless he played his part in the prophecies, Judas would not lead him to Jesus. So he paid the 30 pieces of silver and later, when Judas recanted refused to take back the silver and instead bought a potter's field with them. So sure was Caiphus that Jesus was a false messiah that he felt it was safe to go this far.
Caiphus' real fear was the resurrection prophesy and he believed Jesus' followers would steal his body from the tomb. So, after Jesus' burial he sent guards to watch the tomb day and night. Thereafter, events become harder to understand. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Was he even dead to start with? The only evidence we have that he did rise from the dead is circumstantial, and it relies on the subsequent actions of the apostles for years afterwards. The question is, would these men who were taught that Jesus would rise after 3 days have gone out and laid the foundation for a great religion had Jesus NOT risen? Judging only for myself, if I followed a man like Jesus and something he predicted did not happen, I would go back to the farm and that would be that. Something powerful happened to the remaining 11 apostles 3 days after Jesus' death. What was it?
Quote:
|
Peter was in the team before Jesus joined. He was no fisherman. It is an allegorical reference to recruiting converts for the organisation set up by Herod the Great. Jesus joined replacing his father when he was old enough to do so.
|
Perhaps, but if true what does that change?
The bilical texts were written during Jesus's lifetime. The codification came with Constantine at Nicea in 325. [/quote]
It seems everytime you state this proposition that there is a negative connotation to it. Perhaps I am assuming what you mean. IMO, the people who worked in later years to consolidate the various texts had in mind preventing their adulteration and ensuring their endurance. Afterall, they knew perfectly well that the story of Jesus was the church's most compelling reason for being, and they weren't about to mess with it. What they probably feared were the many contradictory texts beginning to circulate. Every religious movement attracts independent contractors, so to speak, who aim to "cash" in on the original. Unless an authoritative body assembles all the authentic material and puts it seal of approval on it, people will not know which is which.