NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/19621

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 7.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!wupost!emory!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!newsroom.utas.edu.au![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Tim O'Neill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:24:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Lines: 118

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO) writes:

> >This is pure nonsense John. Instead of repeating christian myths I would
> >suggest you do some research on the nature of messianic expectation in the
> >intertestamental period. This nonsense of'The Jews were expecting a Kingly
> >Messiah and Jesus was someting quite different.' is a gross oversimplification
> >of a vast and complex subject. The jews of Yeshua's time were actually expecting
> >all sorts of messiahs: spiritual beings from heaven, warriors of the line of
> >David, priestly messiahs, kingly messiahs, prophet messiahs and combinations
> >of the above. I don't believe that Jesus was a revolutionary kingly messiah,
> >but his spiritual/apocalyptic idea of the messianic status was not new at all.
> >It's pretty clear that the Sanhedrin handed him over to the Romans because
> >the Romans wanted to execute him (rightly or wrongly) for sedition, and the
> >Saducees who dominated the Sanhedrin didn't want trouble with the Romans.
> >The fact that Jesus had just led a riot in their temple wouldn't have endeared
> >him to the Saducees either.
>
> I guess we all have our brand of "nonsense"... :)

Mmmm. . . a devastating reply.

> >The gospels' depiction of Pilate is a joke. We know from Josephus and other
> >sources that Pilatus was a ruthless bastard. He oppressed the jewish people
> >mercilessly and showed no signs of sympathy or compassion. The prefecture of
> >Judea was simply a political stepping stone as far as he was concerned.
> >The emperor couldn't give a fig what Pilatus did, as he was sunbaking with
> >his little catamites on the Isle of Capri and the running of the empire was
> >in the hands of the despotic Sejanus: a good friend of guess who? That's
> >right, Pontius Pilatus. So the (supposed) threats of the jewish leaders
> >depicted in the gospels would not have bothered Pilatus at all.
>
> So let me see now, from the historian Josephus, we know that
> Pilate was a "ruthless bastard".  From that we conclude that the
> Gosepls are all incorrect, and that Pilate had a reason for
> killing Jesus while the Sanhedrin did not.  Does really this seem
> reasonable to you?

Let's not get all silly John. I'm saying that the gospel's depiction of Pilate does not
square very well with what we know about the political situation of the time in
general and our information about Pilatus in particular. Of course, it could be that
Josephus et.al. are wrong and the gospels are right. But Josephus doesn't seem to
have any axes to grind when it comes to Pilate, where the gospels do. It was *highly*
inconvenient for their messiah-god to be associated with jewish insurgents, and they
had great incentives to paint the jews as the bad guys (no one liked them anyway), to
depict Pilatus as nice, but weak (he was history by the time the earliest gospels were
written) and to depict Jesus as being executed for something other than sedition.
Therefore, given all this, and a few other highly unlikely details in the trial scenes
(such as the idea that the Prefect would have a custom of releasing dangerous political
prisoners at Passover time: give me a break!) and the trial passages in the gospels
must be considered of dubious historical weight at best.

> >> Yes, that is my awareness that only the Romans had the
> >> jurisdiction over capital cases.  That is the legal part of it.
> >> The other part is that the Sanhedrin was able to use the Roman's
> >> jurisdiction over capital cases to further their end, the
> >> elimination of Jesus.  They frightened Pilate into having Jesus
> >> executed by threatening to go over his head to Caesar.  I guess
> >> in Pilate's eyes, one more man dead so that he might not look bad
> >> back home was worth it.
> >
> >There is actually very good evidence that the Sanhedrin had jurisdiction over
> >capital cases of a religious nature.
>
> What good evidence do you have for this?

The Talmud gives the rules for the Sanhedrin, and it states the full details of capital
crimes of a religious nature and how they were to be heard. The various (conflicting)
stories of Yeshua's trial/s do not conform to these rules at all. As I said before, if Jesus'
crime was blasphemy, then the Sanhedrin had the power as a *religio licta* under
Roman law to execute him for it, just as they executed Stephen a few years later
(why didn't they have to hand *him* over to the Romans, John?) Therefore, the whole
story of 'he's a blasphemer, but we can't execute him so we'll have to force the Romans
to do it' is completely suspect on two grounds: (i) to claim to be the messiah was *not*
blasphemy and (ii) the jews could have executed a blasphemer quite legitmately.
Imperial law actually protected their right to do so. Therefore, the gospel accounts
appear to be fictions which attempt to disguise the fact that Yeshua was executed by
Roman means for a Roman crime because this uncomfortable fact was bad for early
christian PR in the wake of the Jewish Revolt

> >> If it is only to place blame
> >> off the Jewish people, then I agree with your goal since blame for
> >> the death of Christ is shared universally, and one people should
> >> not be made the scapegoat.
> >
> >That's not what the Gospel of John says! 'On our heads and on our children's'
> >are the words used.
>
> Again you seem to only see what you want to see.  That quote (from
> Matthew) does not supercede Jesus's plea to the Father of "Father
> forgive them for they know not what they do". It would seem to me
> that for someone to place blame on an entire race for all time
> would dare to do something that Jesus himself did not do.

Well, you got me there at least, not John but Matt. 27: 25.
I didn't say that Jesus condemned the jews of course, but many hundreds of thousands
of christians have believed and still believe that 'the jews murdered Jesus' and many
millions of innocent jewish people have died as a result. If you agree with me that
these people are dead wrong, then I'm glad we agree on something.

> >> But I disagree with your method of
> >> "rewriting" history or the Gospels to further your aim.
> >
> >History is always being re-written, it's called analysis and interpretation.
> >No-one's re-writing the gospels, we're just putting them in their place
> >as unreliable historical sources because of their demonstrable biases.
>
> Tim, after we've had this conversation, I must say that *your* bias is
> peeking through you thoughts... ::

Of course they are! That's what history's all about. What concerns me is that you have
actually answered few, if any, of my points. Have another go, old son, I'm just warming
up.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil.