If Jesus was arrested by the high priest’s goons, why would the high priest hand Jesus over to Pilate?
My own research has exploded the usual explanation that capital punishment was reserved for Roman dispensation. Stephen was stoned after being tried by the Sanhedrin and Jocephus records several instances where Jews executed other Jews. The only source that claims Rome had a monopoly on the death penalty is gJohn, and it seems likely that this is a fabrication created in service of the author’s ongoing effort to exculpate the Romans involved Jesus’s crucifixion.
So again, why did the high priest and his cohort hand Jesus over to Pilate? Why didn’t they just stone him?
Well I’m not sure about that, but I do know the talmud’s prescription for blasphemy was a good stoning, so crucifixion wouldn’t have been an option for the Jews themselves. I suppose if they really wanted Jesus to be cursed by tree hanging, they could petition Rome for help, but that seems like it would be a bit of a fuss when the condemned is just an unknown preacher who caused a stir in the temple.
I’m no expert in Jewish law, but here are some issues with the entire account in the Gospels (all of them) that I’ve read:
1) The gospels say Jesus was arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin at night, but it’s against Jewish law to be arrested at night
2) It was illegal according to Jewish law to hold court on the eve or day of the Sabbath or a festival
3) Mark says Jesus was taken before the tribunal of the Sanhedrin in the court of the palace of the high priest, but a jury of this sort could only be held in the Chamber (or Hall) of Hewn Stones
4) The Sanhedrin could not initiate an arrest
5) A trial could only commence if there were at least two witnesses (there was only Judas)
As Luke9733 says above the Jews didn’t crucify people (I’m not sure it was so much that it was “reserved” for the Romans, but that Jewish law only proscribed stoning). See Mishna 43a: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
None of the above ideas are mine. I read about them years ago in a book called “Jews, God and History” by Max I. Dimont.
Aleph82: you say in your second post that the Sanhedrin might could have petitioned Rome for help, but in my opinion I don’t think that ever would have happened. The Romans occupied Jerusalem during Passover to prevent any attempt at a revolt. The Romans were a crushing, brutal, oppressive force that the Jews did not want around (have you read Bart’s post about the trickery Pilate used in Jerusalem to hide his soldiers in the crowd to better grab and beat the citizens?). I don’t think they wanted anything to do with the Romans, let alone ask them for help with something that they could handle themselves once the Romans left the city after Passover.
I think that if the overturning of tables event happened in the Temple that the Jews would have preferred to not make waves about it, wait for the Romans to leave Jerusalem and then handle the matter themselves. The alternative, in their minds, might have been the Romans finding out about it and possibly fearing an uprising they might have reacted violently against the entire city. If we look at this from a historical perspective and ignore how the arrest of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and his appearing in front of the high priest adds to a sympathetic narrative that also puts the Jews in a bad light (as the bad guys who murdered Christ) then the likelihood of the whole sequence with the Sanhedrin disappears. My opinion is that the Romans found out that Jesus was saying he was king of the Jews, arrested him and executed him post haste without the Sanhedrin having any involvement (unless one of them put a bug in the ear of the Romans). That idea does not conflict with Jesus attacking the money-changers in Temple, in fact this may have been the event that spurred the Romans to look into this Jesus fellow and found out what he said.
“Aleph82: you say in your second post that the Sanhedrin might could have petitioned Rome for help, but in my opinion I don’t think that ever would have happened. The Romans occupied Jerusalem during Passover to prevent any attempt at a revolt. The Romans were a crushing, brutal, oppressive force that the Jews did not want around (have you read Bart’s post about the trickery Pilate used in Jerusalem to hide his soldiers in the crowd to better grab and beat the citizens?). I don’t think they wanted anything to do with the Romans, let alone ask them for help with something that they could handle themselves once the Romans left the city after Passover.””
Rather than collapse it, this reinforces my (understated) point that it would have been “fuss”. You do go a step further than I would have though when you argue that the Jewish authorities likely would have kept the incident hush hush until the Romans left had they been able to, and your argument is convincing, in my opinion. I’m sold on this point.
” If we look at this from a historical perspective and ignore how the arrest of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and his appearing in front of the high priest adds to a sympathetic narrative that also puts the Jews in a bad light (as the bad guys who murdered Christ) then the likelihood of the whole sequence with the Sanhedrin disappears.”
I’m not going to argue that gospel authors didn’t have an vested interest in making Rome look better and often did so by making the Jews look worse, but that’s a whole lot to ignore! Multiply attested in all four gospels, and you can actually see Luke the Pacifist squirm as he inks the part about the swords and the high priest’s slave.
Aleph82 said
I’m not going to argue that gospel authors didn’t have an vested interest in making Rome look better and often did so by making the Jews look worse, but that’s a whole lot to ignore! Multiply attested in all four gospels, and you can actually see Luke the Pacifist squirm as he inks the part about the swords and the high priest’s slave.
I’m just saying that none of it probably happened exactly like any of the Gospels describe it. They were after all written with an agenda 
Behind every lie there is some grain of truth. I believe Jesus existed and I believe he was crucified. It’s all the stuff that’s been written about what happened in between that I think needs to be questioned. That said, I don’t want to come off sounding like I dispute every single little thing that’s written in the Gospels because I don’t. I’m just saying that if the things I wrote about Jewish law are true then you have to question the whole Sanhedrin sequence.
I too am skeptical about the whole account in the Gospels.
Why would they just arrest Jesus and nobody else? Why would they hand Jesus over to the Romans for blashemy when that was a capital offence under Jewish Law and so they could have stoned him to death like they apparently did Stephen and James?
Who wrote down the account of the Sanhedrin Trial anyway as no disciples were present? Ditto the words of Jesus in the Garden when all the others were sleeping? Is it likely the Romans would give any Jew a trial when they were supposed to have crucified tens of thousands of Jews previously and so any trial would have taken forever and and finally, why would Jesus needed to have carried a cross or post to Golgotha when there must have been thousands of empty ones there from previous crucifixions?
The whole narrative was likely made up to suit an agenda.
Aleph82 said
If Jesus was arrested by the high priest’s goons, why would the high priest hand Jesus over to Pilate?My own research has exploded the usual explanation that capital punishment was reserved for Roman dispensation. Stephen was stoned after being tried by the Sanhedrin and Jocephus records several instances where Jews executed other Jews. The only source that claims Rome had a monopoly on the death penalty is gJohn, and it seems likely that this is a fabrication created in service of the author’s ongoing effort to exculpate the Romans involved Jesus’s crucifixion.
So again, why did the high priest and his cohort hand Jesus over to Pilate? Why didn’t they just stone him?
The Gospel writers did not have many facts. They knew that Jesus did something in the temple area, that Judas defected and cooperated with the High Priest, that Jesus was seized by a force from the High Priest, and that he was handed over to the Romans who executed him as a royal pretender. To this they added a lot of guesswork. The simplest explanation for the handing over of Jesus is that it was a method that was very efficient and very fast. The alternative would have taken weeks and could have created popular unrest during the festival. A Roman execution instantaneously punctured the possible popular belief that he was the Messiah, and scared his followers out of the city. At the same time the High Priest passed the buck to the Romans.
gmatthews said
I’m no expert in Jewish law, but here are some issues with the entire account in the Gospels (all of them) that I’ve read:1) The gospels say Jesus was arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin at night, but it’s against Jewish law to be arrested at night
2) It was illegal according to Jewish law to hold court on the eve or day of the Sabbath or a festival
3) Mark says Jesus was taken before the tribunal of the Sanhedrin in the court of the palace of the high priest, but a jury of this sort could only be held in the Chamber (or Hall) of Hewn Stones
4) The Sanhedrin could not initiate an arrest
5) A trial could only commence if there were at least two witnesses (there was only Judas)
As Luke9733 says above the Jews didn’t crucify people (I’m not sure it was so much that it was “reserved” for the Romans, but that Jewish law only proscribed stoning). See Mishna 43a: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
None of the above ideas are mine. I read about them years ago in a book called “Jews, God and History” by Max I. Dimont.
Aleph82: you say in your second post that the Sanhedrin might could have petitioned Rome for help, but in my opinion I don’t think that ever would have happened. The Romans occupied Jerusalem during Passover to prevent any attempt at a revolt. The Romans were a crushing, brutal, oppressive force that the Jews did not want around (have you read Bart’s post about the trickery Pilate used in Jerusalem to hide his soldiers in the crowd to better grab and beat the citizens?). I don’t think they wanted anything to do with the Romans, let alone ask them for help with something that they could handle themselves once the Romans left the city after Passover.
I think that if the overturning of tables event happened in the Temple that the Jews would have preferred to not make waves about it, wait for the Romans to leave Jerusalem and then handle the matter themselves. The alternative, in their minds, might have been the Romans finding out about it and possibly fearing an uprising they might have reacted violently against the entire city. If we look at this from a historical perspective and ignore how the arrest of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and his appearing in front of the high priest adds to a sympathetic narrative that also puts the Jews in a bad light (as the bad guys who murdered Christ) then the likelihood of the whole sequence with the Sanhedrin disappears. My opinion is that the Romans found out that Jesus was saying he was king of the Jews, arrested him and executed him post haste without the Sanhedrin having any involvement (unless one of them put a bug in the ear of the Romans). That idea does not conflict with Jesus attacking the money-changers in Temple, in fact this may have been the event that spurred the Romans to look into this Jesus fellow and found out what he said.
I’ve never heard or read these things about Jewish laws not allowing an arrest at night or hold a trial on the eve of a Sabbath or festival. Do you know which ancient sources say this? Is this mentioned in the Old Testament or by Josephus or Philo?
I Googled some of it before I posted and found some things on all of them, but I didn’t spend much time reading. I gave the book title I got them from in my post. The author (and his father) was known for his knowledge of the Talmud and his book has been in print continuously since the 60s. Bart did prove one thing wrong from his book (not related to this) in one of his blog posts, but I don’t know if what Bart pointed out was known when the book was written. Just pointing that out to say that I don’t think the book is the end-all-be-all on Jewish history.
I was wrong in my point #5 of my post though. The gospels say there were multiple witnesses, but none of their stories agreed so they were dismissed.
I may not have understood Dr. Ehrman correctly. But he’s always my main “source,” and I’ve gotten the idea – rightly or wrongly – that at least in that particular decade, the Romans were the only ones who could order a death penalty.
One thing I’ve read somewhere else: The High Priest Caiaphas was removed from office at about the same time as Pilate, and that’s led to speculation that the two of them actually had developed a close working relationship.
As regards arrests at night, etc., the way things are “supposed to” be done and the way they actually are done can be very different!
I can’t help thinking the whole thing makes the most sense if we assume the priests wanted to execute Jesus for “blasphemy,” but couldn’t. So they handed him off to the Romans, to be executed for allegedly having called himself the future “King of the Jews.” That was the original meaning of the term “Messiah”; but in practice, the term had come to mean different things to different people, and the priests only made an issue of it when they needed an “excuse” to ask the Romans to execute someone.
Also…it’s hard to imagine the Sanhedrin interviewing “witnesses” on short notice, late at night. So I think they’d really taken witnesses’ statements, beforehand; but the only one worth much was that of a disillusioned former disciple.
Sure, there are always exceptions to rules, but some of these laws were religious based and those are the ones that tend to be observed, well, religiously I don’t know if breaking these laws would be the same as we think of when it comes to “looking the other way” today. Look at any of the Middle Eastern Muslim countries, how often do you think they look the other way? Your point is valid, but since we’re just tossing things around I think it’s something to consider.
I don’t even know if what I posted is true, I was hoping someone would confirm or deny what I posted…
Greg Matthews said
I think that if the overturning of tables event happened in the Temple that the Jews would have preferred to not make waves about it, wait for the Romans to leave Jerusalem and then handle the matter themselves. The alternative, in their minds, might have been the Romans finding out about it and possibly fearing an uprising they might have reacted violently against the entire city. If we look at this from a historical perspective and ignore how the arrest of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and his appearing in front of the high priest adds to a sympathetic narrative that also puts the Jews in a bad light (as the bad guys who murdered Christ) then the likelihood of the whole sequence with the Sanhedrin disappears. My opinion is that the Romans found out that Jesus was saying he was king of the Jews, arrested him and executed him post haste without the Sanhedrin having any involvement (unless one of them put a bug in the ear of the Romans). That idea does not conflict with Jesus attacking the money-changers in Temple, in fact this may have been the event that spurred the Romans to look into this Jesus fellow and found out what he said.
Are you familiar with what EP Sanders argued about this event? The gist of it is that the “overturning of tables” was sort of a physical parable (performance art?) about the destruction of the temple the details got exaggerated in the telling. Just for the sake of having a pet theory, assume he was arrested on the spot by “temple guards” to avoid drawing in Romans soldiers: Jesus creates a ruckus. Fearing the involvement of Roman soldiers, Temple guards quietly arrest him or maybe they just quietly bounce him. Maybe they also figure this guy is a trouble maker and needs to be dealt with.
Wilusa said
I can’t help thinking the whole thing makes the most sense if we assume the priests wanted to execute Jesus for “blasphemy,” but couldn’t.
Either they couldn’t or wanted to avoid being seen persecuting a fellow Jew at a potentially explosive time. A time, Passover, that should mean Jewish unity in the face of their enemies. Also, there’s a no reason to assume Judas wasn’t already a CI, so to speak.
Why would they hand Jesus over to the Romans for blashemy when that was a capital offence under Jewish Law and so they could have stoned him to death like they apparently did Stephen and James?
i think there is a verse in luke where angry jewish people grab jesus and attempt to topple him, but jesus passes through them without them noticing.what does this mean? that each synoptic is creating fiction about what the jews were able to do or they knew that jews did have power to kill jesus any time they pleased?
spiker said
Greg Matthews said
I think that if the overturning of tables event happened in the Temple that the Jews would have preferred to not make waves about it, wait for the Romans to leave Jerusalem and then handle the matter themselves. The alternative, in their minds, might have been the Romans finding out about it and possibly fearing an uprising they might have reacted violently against the entire city. If we look at this from a historical perspective and ignore how the arrest of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and his appearing in front of the high priest adds to a sympathetic narrative that also puts the Jews in a bad light (as the bad guys who murdered Christ) then the likelihood of the whole sequence with the Sanhedrin disappears. My opinion is that the Romans found out that Jesus was saying he was king of the Jews, arrested him and executed him post haste without the Sanhedrin having any involvement (unless one of them put a bug in the ear of the Romans). That idea does not conflict with Jesus attacking the money-changers in Temple, in fact this may have been the event that spurred the Romans to look into this Jesus fellow and found out what he said.
Are you familiar with what EP Sanders argued about this event? The gist of it is that the “overturning of tables” was sort of a physical parable (performance art?) about the destruction of the temple the details got exaggerated in the telling. Just for the sake of having a pet theory, assume he was arrested on the spot by “temple guards” to avoid drawing in Romans soldiers: Jesus creates a ruckus. Fearing the involvement of Roman soldiers, Temple guards quietly arrest him or maybe they just quietly bounce him. Maybe they also figure this guy is a trouble maker and needs to be dealt with.
I’ve had Sanders’ book for about a year now and I think I’ve made it to page 3. If you could see my reading backlog you’d understand.
MikeyS said
I too am skeptical about the whole account in the Gospels.Why would they just arrest Jesus and nobody else? Why would they hand Jesus over to the Romans for blashemy when that was a capital offence under Jewish Law and so they could have stoned him to death like they apparently did Stephen and James?
………
The whole narrative was likely made up to suit an agenda.
And the agenda was?
As the story stands it makes no sense why the Romans were involved. However, remove the theology as in a charge of blasphemy re claiming, in the eyes of the Jews, to be equal to God – and consider a political issue. It’s the King of the Jews issue that required Pilate (Rome) to be involved. Theological issues are the sideline, the top-dressing, as it were.
So, now we have the unrealistic story about an illiterate wandering carpenter preacher somehow thinking he was a King of the Jews! Delusional would be the first thing to come to mind. That the Romans would take an interest in such a person – a figure with no outward means of challenging the power of Rome to rule Judea – is simply nonsensical. Yes, there are zealot type reflections in the gospel story. (enough for Reza Aslam to write his ‘zealot‘ book. A book I read somewhere is going to be turned into a movie…) However, during the time of Tiberius ‘all was quite‘…Tactius: His.5.9.
Why did the High Priest hand Jesus over to Pilate asks the OP.
Because it was Rome that executed the last King of the Jews – and it was that history that the gospel writers were remembering, were reflecting, in their Jesus crucifixion story.
One needs to go back in Jewish history to a King of the Jews who did challenge Roman rule in Judea – and paid the price for doing so – executed, beheaded, hung on a cross/stake.
Wikipedia: Antigonus II Mattathias
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
That Hasmonean/Jewish history is the historical template that gospel writers used for their Jesus crucifixion story. It is memories of that historical tragedy that are reflected in the gospel crucifixion story – history retold, history remembered, history preserved, in the form of a political allegory.
———————
‘‘Richard Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus.
If ‘Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity’ is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction,
But as will become clear in following chapters (especially Chapter 11), such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and
thus is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start
examining the evidence), and a very low consequent probability (though it
suits the Gospels well, it just isn’t possible to explain the evidence in the
Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard
to explain as well). Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated, I’m sure it’s very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume its prior probability is too small even to show up in our math. This decision
can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must
assign it a higher prior or consequent, but that I leave to anyone who thinks
it’s possible.”
(my bolding)
Greg Matthews said
If you could see my reading backlog you’d understand.
I feel your pain. But what are you going to do? Books are food.
maryhelena quotes Richard Carrier on the historicity (or lack thereof) of Jesus
If ‘Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity’ is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction,
And any explanation is possible if you start out presupposing that your conclusion is already true before you begin…
Stephen said
Greg Matthews saidIf you could see my reading backlog you’d understand.
I feel your pain. But what are you going to do? Books are food.
maryhelena quotes Richard Carrier on the historicity (or lack thereof) of Jesus
If ‘Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity’ is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction,And any explanation is possible if you start out presupposing that your conclusion is already true before you begin…
Why presuppose that someone is doing that? Surely, at some point one should acknowledge good faith on the part of a researcher? Assuming bad faith can so easily becomes an opt-out for dealing with arguments being made…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)