In their own words, they stated this. "But the chief priests (pharisees) and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." -- Matt. 27:20.
"Then answered all the people (a pharisee Edomite majority), and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." -- Matt. 27:25.
One cannot erase what is written or add verses not in Scripture.
FYI. The chief priests were Sadducees appointed by the Romans - an illegal chief priesthood since they were not from the priestly line of Zadok. The people knew it and they knew it. The people hated them. Most of the later conflicts between the Apostles were with the Sadducees who did not believe in resurrection and were corrupt. They controlled the Temple by permission of the Romans and were the ones ripping the people off. The year that Jesus died, the Pharisees were essentially kicked out of the Temple proper area where the Sanhedrin previously met adjacent to the Temple - a place called the chamber of hewn stone. They were relegated to the outer court area with the rest of the people.
The Sadducean high priesthood, with a very small number of Pharisee collaborators, orchestrated a kangaroo illegal court to interrogate Jesus. They were looking for a crime to give them reason to have him tried by Pilate on charges of sedition. It was not a full Sanhedrin which did not have the authority to pass sentence on a capital case. No capital cases were allowed to be heard during the the entire month of Nisan - the season of Passover. There were many reasons why this was an illegal court which did not have the authority to pass a death sentence - which the Romans barred them from administering as well. Therefore, the Sadducees had to get Rome to do their dirty work.
The "multitude" present at Pilate's tribunal were preselected agitators - the very same thing that happens today. There is nothing new under the sun. This was NOT the same large group of worshippers that welcomed Jesus into the city just a week prior that mostly consisted of fellow Galileans that had followed Jesus' ministry for three years. Matt. 27.25 must be understood in the context of the crowd of agitators assembled at the praetorium. Most of the people in the city were getting ready for the Passover holiday and were clueless about what was taking place at the praetorium. Pilgrims that were just arriving in the city for the holiday also did not know what was taking place until they were told later. Everyone was focused on the holiday and the Sabbath.
They could not fit a huge number of people in the courtyard of Pilate's praetorium where Jesus was on trial. The praetorium was part of Herod the Great's former palace located on the western hill above the the upper city. Herod Antipas also shared this same complex with Pilate on the opposite side of the palace grounds. This was Antipas's residence when he was in Jerusalem. His normal capital residence was in Tiberius.
Pilate and Antipas' close proximity is what allowed Jesus to be shuttled back and forth between the two without alerting the rest of the city. Jesus had a huge number of supporters and the last thing the Sadducees wanted was for the people to find out that their beloved rabbi was being railroaded by the high priests.
The common people did not have access to this area in order for the Roman guard to maintain control. Only family members and supporters for the accused would have been allowed at the praetorium when Pilate was seeing prisoners. The Sadducees had placed their agitators posing as supporters of Jesus. It was too early in the morning for the disciples to have rallied the troops before the tribune to petition Pilate on Jesus' behalf. By the time they arrived, Jesus had already been convicted and was being led off to execution. Those that took the curse of blood were only those present at the tribunal - not the entire city nor the entirety of the people. John was the only one that stayed close - but from a distance. The rest had fled and were in hiding after Jesus was arrested. Therefore, the rest of the people did not know what was taking place until it was too late.
You can go ahead and piece together whatever narrative you wish based upon interpretation not grounded or rooted in the original languages, culture, and historical records. The historical and archeological evidence paints a much different picture for anyone that takes an unbiased look at the evidence according to the historical record, from multiple sources, and let it speak for itself.
As far as my original statement - it still stands. If we are to believe that Jesus died for us to save us, then we are the reason for his death - no matter who was the instrument used by the Father to give us such a precious gift. To shift blame somewhere else, is to cheapen and negate what Jesus accomplished. We are the reason for his death. Otherwise, his resurrection is meaningless.
"The chief priests were Sadducees appointed by the Romans - an illegal chief priesthood since they were not from the priestly line of Zadok."
First, disregard the "(pharisee)" in parentheses next to the chief priests. Copy/paste error. Albeit, the Pharisees enjoyed the popularity of the vast public.
" And, "...while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have the populace obsequious to them, (but) the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." (Ref. Jose. "Antiquities of the Jews," Whiston, pg. 281).
The fact of the matter was the people favored the Pharisees, while the rich and powerful (i.e., the slave owners) favored the Sadducees.
King Alexander 1 Janneus feared the very end of the Hasmonean dynasty. Before his death, he confided in his wife the idea that he had hoped would preserve it. His wife was not to let on that he had died when he did, but instead return back to the city as if in victory over their enemies and then call the leaders of the Pharisees in so as to make a deal with them. And this was that they (the Pharisees) agree to let her remain as regent (Queen) and leave the Hasmonean dynasty to exist; and in exchange, she granted them all power over the government. Salome Alexandra (Regent), then continued to rule after the death of her husband Alexander 1 from 79 to 70/69 BCE. One of the focal points in the war occurred upon the death of Salome Alexandra, as that is apparently what led to a great civil battle within the war as a whole.
Whereupon she served as a figurehead and whether reluctant or not, supporter of the Pharisees. Her son, then after her, likewise served the same purpose. He was John Hyrcanus II. He ruled from the time of his mother's death in 70 BCE till 40 BCE, and he was finally put to death by King Herod in 31 BCE. Even though the Pharisees were in great power in Judea, the Romans and rulers elsewhere were still in opposition and the fighting continued. Nevertheless, the Hasmonian dynasty ended ignominiously at the hands of a slave named Herod who rose up and exterminated the family and reigned in their stead. In addition, if that was not enough, he took the name of the Hasmoneans for himself. As the Hasmoneans lost their influence, it fulfillment of the verse: “The stranger among you will ascend higher and higher, while you will descend lower and lower” (Deuteronomy 28:43). The majority of the populace was Edomite.
“When, years before, John Hyrcanus had forced Judaism on the Idumeans [Edomites] he evidently conjectured that the new, though unwilling, converts could learn to identify their own destiny with that of his people”, The Jews, their History, Culture, and Religion, pg. 121
"From this time the Idumeans [read: Edomites] became an inseparable part of the Jewish people”, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, in Volume 8, page 1147.
“The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted them to Judaism, and from then on they constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants”, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966), pg. 594, also in the The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589.
Herod was an Edomite and the priesthood answered to King Herod, who in turn was a vassal king friendly to Rome. The temple was referred to as Herod's temple because Herod recognized it as a lodestar of Jerusalem and greatly contributed to its riches. During his reign, he rebuilt the Temple. The Pharisees were discontented because Herod disregarded many of their demands with respect to the Temple's construction. The Sadducees, who were closely associated with priestly responsibilities in the Temple, opposed Herod because he replaced their high priests with outsiders from Babylonia and Alexandria, in an effort to gain support from the multitude. Herod's outreach efforts gained him little, and at the end of his reign anger and dissatisfaction were common amongst the people. Herod was in his decline at this time, and it was a decline into madness. Josephus records that he suffered from various sicknesses and suffered from hallucinations. For the inhabitants of Jerusalem the thought of another claimant to the throne of a sick and unpredictable monarch was unthinkable. Herod immediately went to the chief priests and scribes of the people. These were all men whom he had appointed. There was only one chief priest, but Herod had appointed and then deposed so many in his reign that no doubt we have here a reference to the fact that not only the incumbent high priest but also those who had been deposed were brought together.
However, it is well recognized the Pharisees held sway in In 66 CE, when the Roman general Vespasian swept into Jerusalem, Judaism was a cultic, oral religion, with Herod's massive temple as its lodestar. Everything happened in the temple complex. Four years later, Vespasian's son Titus razed it to the ground.
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis.
"How to praise him now that the temple was gone?"
The sages agreed: Jews would have to become a people of the book, or they would disappear.
Hence, they were NOT a people of the book before this time.
The Talmud was compiled as a result of the absolute destruction of Herod’s temple, in which every stone was carried away leaving no trace of it’s existence. Thus, Christianity is arguably an older religion than Judaism (not Hebraism).
"I know the blasphemies of them, which say they are Judahites, and are not, but are from the synagogue of Satan". - Rev. 2:9.
"As far as my original statement - it still stands. If we are to believe that Jesus died for us to save us, then we are the reason for his death - no matter who was the instrument used by the Father to give us such a precious gift. To shift blame somewhere else, is to cheapen and negate what Jesus accomplished."
You seem to be conflating the bearing of false witness by those priests resulting in Jesus death with the purpose of His Divine sacrifice. To claim I or other Christians bore false witness against Jesus causing his death is misplaced and simply untrue. To claim we all killed Jesus is as false of a deduction as saying -- Mary is the mother of Jesus and then claiming her as the 'mother of God'. It's a false deduction.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate. This was not a question of ethnicity as much as theology. Hence, the theological discussion with the Samaritan women at the well. Jesus corrected her on her wrong think.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
Amen brother. If we want to know who killed Jesus - look in the mirror.
In their own words, they stated this. "But the chief priests (pharisees) and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." -- Matt. 27:20.
"Then answered all the people (a pharisee Edomite majority), and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." -- Matt. 27:25.
One cannot erase what is written or add verses not in Scripture.
FYI. The chief priests were Sadducees appointed by the Romans - an illegal chief priesthood since they were not from the priestly line of Zadok. The people knew it and they knew it. The people hated them. Most of the later conflicts between the Apostles were with the Sadducees who did not believe in resurrection and were corrupt. They controlled the Temple by permission of the Romans and were the ones ripping the people off. The year that Jesus died, the Pharisees were essentially kicked out of the Temple proper area where the Sanhedrin previously met adjacent to the Temple - a place called the chamber of hewn stone. They were relegated to the outer court area with the rest of the people.
The Sadducean high priesthood, with a very small number of Pharisee collaborators, orchestrated a kangaroo illegal court to interrogate Jesus. They were looking for a crime to give them reason to have him tried by Pilate on charges of sedition. It was not a full Sanhedrin which did not have the authority to pass sentence on a capital case. No capital cases were allowed to be heard during the the entire month of Nisan - the season of Passover. There were many reasons why this was an illegal court which did not have the authority to pass a death sentence - which the Romans barred them from administering as well. Therefore, the Sadducees had to get Rome to do their dirty work.
The "multitude" present at Pilate's tribunal were preselected agitators - the very same thing that happens today. There is nothing new under the sun. This was NOT the same large group of worshippers that welcomed Jesus into the city just a week prior that mostly consisted of fellow Galileans that had followed Jesus' ministry for three years. Matt. 27.25 must be understood in the context of the crowd of agitators assembled at the praetorium. Most of the people in the city were getting ready for the Passover holiday and were clueless about what was taking place at the praetorium. Pilgrims that were just arriving in the city for the holiday also did not know what was taking place until they were told later. Everyone was focused on the holiday and the Sabbath.
They could not fit a huge number of people in the courtyard of Pilate's praetorium where Jesus was on trial. The praetorium was part of Herod the Great's former palace located on the western hill above the the upper city. Herod Antipas also shared this same complex with Pilate on the opposite side of the palace grounds. This was Antipas's residence when he was in Jerusalem. His normal capital residence was in Tiberius.
Pilate and Antipas' close proximity is what allowed Jesus to be shuttled back and forth between the two without alerting the rest of the city. Jesus had a huge number of supporters and the last thing the Sadducees wanted was for the people to find out that their beloved rabbi was being railroaded by the high priests.
The common people did not have access to this area in order for the Roman guard to maintain control. Only family members and supporters for the accused would have been allowed at the praetorium when Pilate was seeing prisoners. The Sadducees had placed their agitators posing as supporters of Jesus. It was too early in the morning for the disciples to have rallied the troops before the tribune to petition Pilate on Jesus' behalf. By the time they arrived, Jesus had already been convicted and was being led off to execution. Those that took the curse of blood were only those present at the tribunal - not the entire city nor the entirety of the people. John was the only one that stayed close - but from a distance. The rest had fled and were in hiding after Jesus was arrested. Therefore, the rest of the people did not know what was taking place until it was too late.
You can go ahead and piece together whatever narrative you wish based upon interpretation not grounded or rooted in the original languages, culture, and historical records. The historical and archeological evidence paints a much different picture for anyone that takes an unbiased look at the evidence according to the historical record, from multiple sources, and let it speak for itself.
As far as my original statement - it still stands. If we are to believe that Jesus died for us to save us, then we are the reason for his death - no matter who was the instrument used by the Father to give us such a precious gift. To shift blame somewhere else, is to cheapen and negate what Jesus accomplished. We are the reason for his death. Otherwise, his resurrection is meaningless.
First, disregard the "(pharisee)" in parentheses next to the chief priests. Copy/paste error. Albeit, the Pharisees enjoyed the popularity of the vast public.
" And, "...while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have the populace obsequious to them, (but) the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." (Ref. Jose. "Antiquities of the Jews," Whiston, pg. 281).
The fact of the matter was the people favored the Pharisees, while the rich and powerful (i.e., the slave owners) favored the Sadducees.
King Alexander 1 Janneus feared the very end of the Hasmonean dynasty. Before his death, he confided in his wife the idea that he had hoped would preserve it. His wife was not to let on that he had died when he did, but instead return back to the city as if in victory over their enemies and then call the leaders of the Pharisees in so as to make a deal with them. And this was that they (the Pharisees) agree to let her remain as regent (Queen) and leave the Hasmonean dynasty to exist; and in exchange, she granted them all power over the government. Salome Alexandra (Regent), then continued to rule after the death of her husband Alexander 1 from 79 to 70/69 BCE. One of the focal points in the war occurred upon the death of Salome Alexandra, as that is apparently what led to a great civil battle within the war as a whole.
Whereupon she served as a figurehead and whether reluctant or not, supporter of the Pharisees. Her son, then after her, likewise served the same purpose. He was John Hyrcanus II. He ruled from the time of his mother's death in 70 BCE till 40 BCE, and he was finally put to death by King Herod in 31 BCE. Even though the Pharisees were in great power in Judea, the Romans and rulers elsewhere were still in opposition and the fighting continued. Nevertheless, the Hasmonian dynasty ended ignominiously at the hands of a slave named Herod who rose up and exterminated the family and reigned in their stead. In addition, if that was not enough, he took the name of the Hasmoneans for himself. As the Hasmoneans lost their influence, it fulfillment of the verse: “The stranger among you will ascend higher and higher, while you will descend lower and lower” (Deuteronomy 28:43). The majority of the populace was Edomite.
“When, years before, John Hyrcanus had forced Judaism on the Idumeans [Edomites] he evidently conjectured that the new, though unwilling, converts could learn to identify their own destiny with that of his people”, The Jews, their History, Culture, and Religion, pg. 121
"From this time the Idumeans [read: Edomites] became an inseparable part of the Jewish people”, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, in Volume 8, page 1147.
“The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted them to Judaism, and from then on they constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants”, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966), pg. 594, also in the The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589.
Herod was an Edomite and the priesthood answered to King Herod, who in turn was a vassal king friendly to Rome. The temple was referred to as Herod's temple because Herod recognized it as a lodestar of Jerusalem and greatly contributed to its riches. During his reign, he rebuilt the Temple. The Pharisees were discontented because Herod disregarded many of their demands with respect to the Temple's construction. The Sadducees, who were closely associated with priestly responsibilities in the Temple, opposed Herod because he replaced their high priests with outsiders from Babylonia and Alexandria, in an effort to gain support from the multitude. Herod's outreach efforts gained him little, and at the end of his reign anger and dissatisfaction were common amongst the people. Herod was in his decline at this time, and it was a decline into madness. Josephus records that he suffered from various sicknesses and suffered from hallucinations. For the inhabitants of Jerusalem the thought of another claimant to the throne of a sick and unpredictable monarch was unthinkable. Herod immediately went to the chief priests and scribes of the people. These were all men whom he had appointed. There was only one chief priest, but Herod had appointed and then deposed so many in his reign that no doubt we have here a reference to the fact that not only the incumbent high priest but also those who had been deposed were brought together.
However, it is well recognized the Pharisees held sway in In 66 CE, when the Roman general Vespasian swept into Jerusalem, Judaism was a cultic, oral religion, with Herod's massive temple as its lodestar. Everything happened in the temple complex. Four years later, Vespasian's son Titus razed it to the ground.
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis. "How to praise him now that the temple was gone?" The sages agreed: Jews would have to become a people of the book, or they would disappear.
Hence, they were NOT a people of the book before this time.
The Talmud was compiled as a result of the absolute destruction of Herod’s temple, in which every stone was carried away leaving no trace of it’s existence. Thus, Christianity is arguably an older religion than Judaism (not Hebraism).
"I know the blasphemies of them, which say they are Judahites, and are not, but are from the synagogue of Satan". - Rev. 2:9.
You seem to be conflating the bearing of false witness by those priests resulting in Jesus death with the purpose of His Divine sacrifice. To claim I or other Christians bore false witness against Jesus causing his death is misplaced and simply untrue. To claim we all killed Jesus is as false of a deduction as saying -- Mary is the mother of Jesus and then claiming her as the 'mother of God'. It's a false deduction.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate. This was not a question of ethnicity as much as theology. Hence, the theological discussion with the Samaritan women at the well. Jesus corrected her on her wrong think.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.