Comments on Paper 1 for REL 2240, Fall 2014, Why Was Jesus Executed?

1) Stick to the point.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, city located in Judea, and raised in Nazareth in Galilee. Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus during the month of December, but there is no exact date regarding Jesus' birth. According to Christians' beliefs, he was born from a virgin and his conception was due to the power of the Holy Spirit over her.

What does this have to do with the reasons for Jesus' execution?

Nothing.

So it should not be in a paper about Jesus' execution. The papers you are writing are very short. It took Raymond Brown two books to analyze the reasons for Jesus' execution, there is such a huge amount of evidence to be considered. So you cannot waste a single word.

2) Cite some sources:

It's known that Pilate's wife later became a Christian and that dream might well be the reason for it.

I am a big fan of George R. Martin's series of novels A Song of Ice and Fire (televised as Game of Thrones). This passage actually reminds me of some of the dialogue (from A Storm of Swords):

"Blood of my blood," said Rakharo "when cowards hide and burn the food and fodder, great khals must seek for braver foes. This is known."
"It is known," Jhiqui agreed, as she poured.
"Not to me." [Said Daenerys, Mother of Dragons...]

You can, of course, include well-known facts in your paper without giving a source. Paris is the capital of France. In Panama, the most widely spoken language is Spanish. But you need to be absolutely sure that you have a facts - how do we know that Pilate's wife became a Christian? We don't. A quick check on-line would reveal that the earliest source that states Pilate's wife became a Christian is a sermon given by Origen in the 3rd Century. The story is elaborated in a document known either as the Acts of Pilate, or the Gospel of Nicodemus, which dates from the 4th Century. So, the source of information was written 200 years after Pilate's wife supposed conversion. That is not a credible source of information.

This is why citing sources is so important. When you give a supposed fact of ancient history, what is the source? When was it written? How long after the event? Is it credible? By simply referring to what is known, you are hiding the lack of proper research. In this case, if you went to the trouble to find a source to cite, you would probably realize that the sources are not trustworthy. (If there had been a credible source that said Pilate's wife became a Christian, I would have included it in the folder I gave you with sources concerning Pilate).

3) Read your sources carefully.

If we look back to Josephus once again, as Sanders states in Jesus and Judaism, Josephus write in War about how the Sanhedrin plays no real role in government, another council is mentioned as a real part of government, one called Boule (314). So then if the Sanhedrin was really not a legal entity of the Government, why was it allowed to give Jesus a trial?

This is good work. An excellent source is cited, Sanders' book, Jesus and Judaism, and the student is aware of the way that Sanders, in turn, is basing his judgement on the primary source material, the works of Josephus. But a closer look at what Sanders says on p. 314 reveals a misunderstanding:


In the Life, Josephus assigns the Sanhedrin a role in directing the war. He depicts himself as writing to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for instructions while he is commanding troops in Galilee (Vita 62) ... In the War, however, the Sanhedrin plays no role in government.


We hear, rather, of various leading groups and of a council,boul ē .  The standard answer to this problem is that the terms are synonymous,* and they may well be. Yet even so, in the War the boulē does not seem to bear the same responsibility that is assigned to the Sanhedrin in some passages in the Antiquities, in the Life and in Rabbinic Literature.

There is a subtle, but important difference. The student reports Sanders as saying that Josephus says, in the War, that the Sanhedrin was not part of the government. That makes it sound as though there is some passage where Josephus says "The Sanhedrin was not part of the government, and was never in charge of trials." In that case, it would be very strange to find the Sanhedrin trying Jesus.

But what Sanders is actually saying is that whereas in the Antiquities and the Life (Vita in Latin), Josephus talks about the Sanhedrin making decisions one would associate with the government, in the War, he never uses the word Sanhedrin. He does talk about a boulē making decisions. Usually, the Greek words sunedrion and boulē would both be translated into English as council. For example, in Matthew 26:59, the Revised Standard Version (the translation used in the Oxford Annotated Bible) has: "Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death." In that case, the word translated as "council" is sunedrion. So, as Sanders states, the easiest solution is to say that in some of his books, Josephus used the word sunedrion and in other books the word boulē, but they are two different words for the same thing. In general, in Greek cities, people used the word boulē to refer to a ruling council. So Josephus may have adopted that word to be easily understood by Greek readers. However, when Jews wrote about the history of Jerusalem, they used the word Sanhedrin to refer to a council that would decide legal cases. In Panama, the legislative body is La Asamblea. I could translate that into English as the Assembly, which is the closest word. If I were talking to someone familiar with Panama, that is what I would do. But, in England, many schools start the day with a meeting where the head teacher addresses all the students, and this is called an assembly. If I told someone in England that in Panama, there was an important meeting of the Assembly coming up, they might wonder why I was so concerned about what was happening in a school. So, if I were speaking to people in England, I might translate La Asemblea as Parliament, because the Asemblea is to Panama what Parliament is to the United Kingdom. But then, if I were speaking to Americans, the word I would use is Congress. So too, Josephus might be varying the word he uses in Greek simply because he has different audiences in mind. The * indicates where Sanders has a citation, in which he lists other scholars who have adopted this solution - two different words for the Council/Sanhedrin. Sanders then says that, even if we agree with this solution - it might be right - it still isn't clear how much power this Council had. In some of Josephus' writings, it seems to be an important decision-making body, at other times, it seems to be there merely to advise whoever is in power. He isn't sure whether there was a set of people who were entitled to sit on the Council, or whether perhaps, it was more informal - a ruler about to take a controversial decision would gather together people known to be wise to consult with them. The English word "court" is ambiguous. In the Middle Ages, a King would have a court - a set of important people who live with him, and can be consulted on important matters, who would watch as he judges cases and announces his decisions. But today, the word "court" is used for the judicial body that tries cases according to very strict procedures, and the King or Queen is not present.

In later Rabbinic writings, the Mishnah for example, the Sanhedrin is described as something like a court in the latter sense - an organized body with a set of procedures for trying cases. One of the handouts I sent you contained a set of procedures supposedly used by the Sanhedrin for trying capital cases. So, if we take what we have in the Mishnah at face value, the Sanhedrin was entitled to try Jesus and find him guilty of an offense that deserved the death penalty according to the Torah.
Sanders however is turning to Josephus' works because he thinks that what we have in the Mishnah is a later idealization. Just as I rejected the story of Pilate's wife above, Sanders has doubts about the procedures laid down in the Mishnah. But if Sanders' alternative reconstruction is correct, that does not mean that the Sanhedrin was exceeding its authority by conducting a trial. Sanders thinks that perhaps there was no necessity to have a trial at all:

The accounts of Josephus of the way in which the Romans related to Jewish leaders show that it is by no means impossible that, in a matter such as this, the Romans would have dealt entirely with the chief priests ... It is also clear from Josephus that whoever was in power - whether a Hasmonean, a Herod or a Roman Procurator - could execute of free whom he wishes without a formal trial ... The confusion in the Gospels about the events which immediately led to Jesus' execution may well point to the fact that there was no orderly procedure which was noted and remembered. (p. 317)

So, according to Sanders' reconstruction, there might not have been any formal entity that was required to give Jesus a trial before he was executed. If they had wanted, the chief priests could have just told Pilate "We'd like you to kill this man, we think he's a trouble-maker." But they might have asked other people to come along while they interrogated Jesus, and that meeting could be called a "sunedrion".

A final note. The same student who referred to Sanders says, towards the conclusion of the paper:

...Jesus was taken to the Sanhedrin where he awaited trial, was sentenced by mostly Pharisees and killed by Pilate.

Here is Sanders' conclusion:

There could have been a hearing before a group which represented others than the chief priests, but I think we cannot know that to be the case. The situation seems to require only the involvement of the priests, but we cannot definitely exclude the participation of other leaders. The Pharisees cannot be decisively eliminated from participating because it remains possible (although not necessary) that there was a hearing by the Sanhedrin and that scribes were present. We should recall however that it is difficult to find any substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. (p. 318)

So, the student cites Sanders as a source, but ignores Sanders' conclusion, which is that the chief priests were definitely involved in the execution of Jesus, but the Pharisees may not have been. It is fine to disagree with Sanders, but if you are going to cite him as an authority, you must be careful to report what he says accurately. (I understand that his work might not be easy to read - I can see how easy it would be to misunderstand what he is saying about boulē and sunedrion, but you are learning to read difficult material). Also, if you take him to be an authority then, if you disagree with him, you need to explain why.


Back to REL 2240