Scenario: Threatened Shrine

[Always]

The point of the brutality was to discourage future attempts.
On the subject of Judas, through the centuries, it has often been popular to try to rehabilitate Judas in some way. There are Apocryphal and non-canonical old texts like this. More recently we have Sayers'"The Man Born to be King," Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell, all of which I like, but there is this whitewash of Judas. After all, we can relate to Judas in a way; he's human. However, the Bible just says that he was a thief (John 12:6); I think we should leave it at that.

[fluke]

Jeff,

There was another rebellion in the time before Jesus: the rebellion of Simon Iscariot (yes, notice that name, then read John 6:71 "He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him."). Though Iscariot is not a sur name but a title. Select members of the Zealot sect earned the title Iscariot. This Greek corruption of the Hebrew "Ish sicarroth" means "man of the short dagger" and they were basically the green berets of the zealots. Several thousand zealots were crucified at crossroads throughout Judea. That allowed the most people to see what happened when you stood up to Rome.

I see where you're going with the Sadducees, but I cannot agree. By the time of Jesus, what had started out as a God-fearing line of priests had disintegrated into a group of power-hungry men. They were rich and wanted to stay that way. Not every priest was a Sadducee, but every Sadducee was a priest. In fact, the Essenes also started out as a group of priests. They left the temple because the Sadducee line came to power, and they were not of the correct clan to be High Priest. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, they often refer to the temple being broken and the priests corrupt.

Amazingly, we Christians have got the bad guys wrong in the trial and crucifixion. We tend to place the blame on the Pharisees but the Gospels lay the blame on the Sadducees (as you are seeing). The men named at the trials are known Sadducees. One thing I like about Passion of the Christ is that Gibson points this out. One of the Pharisees steps forward early in the trial and says "Where is the rest of the council? Why are we meeting at night?" He is then tossed out of court. You can tell the parties in the council chamber by the color of their head dress. Pharisees wear one color, Sadducees wear another.

[The Pharisees stand with the Sadducees when taking Jesus to Pilate because they have already lost the debate and are now showing solidarity. It's a Jewish thing.]

The Sanhedrin was not allowed to meet at night according to their own policies. This was to show that all their deeds were done in the light. The Sanhedrin was made up of both Sadducees and Pharisees with the balance of power fluctuating over the years. In the time of Herod the Great, the Pharisees held the majority of seats. Thanks to a purge by Herod, the Sadducees gained a majority of seats and held them until the destruction of the Temple 70 years later.

Now, this is very important to the trial. The leader of the Pharisees was always co chair of the Sanhedrin and held the title "nasi" (prince) and "av bet din" (Father of the House of Judgment). In every capital case, the av bet din was required to be present. But Caiphas didn't dare tell the current av because that man was staunchly against the death penalty (because then there was no chance of repentance). Most likely, though the exact years of his administration are unknown, this was Rabban Gamaliel the Elder who appears in Acts telling the Sanhedrin to let the Apostles go "lest we stand against God."

I even imagine a scenario in which, on the night of the Passover, the leaders met to talk about disbanding. Perhaps Nic or someone else has all but convinced them to give it up because obviously God is not condoning their plots. If He were, wouldn't there be miracles happening to help us? At that moment, when Nic is about to win the argument and dissolve the plot, Judas arrives.

I can see some Pharisees doing that. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Rabban Gamaliel the Elder would be the best ones in that position. Though maybe not Gamaliel. His word was law in that time, and if he stood up to Caiphas, many priests would have moved to the sidelines to avoid getting caught between an immovable object (Caiphas) and an irresistible force (Gamaliel).

More information on the sects at the time of Jesus and afterward can be found in Nunnally's commentary on Acts. Contact info here. Email him for info on how to purchase from Global University. I have an electronic version but cannot give that away.

To end this with a bit more Rabbinic tradition, "As I received, so I pass on to you. I received Torah from Waverly Nunnally. He received from Ben Zion Waccholder."

[Kristen]

fluke - thanks for the insight into the Sanhedrin and the link to Prof. Nunnally.

I'm late to the party, I know -- life happening while I made other plans, dontcha know -- but humor me.

As I started reading Jeff's scenario, the first thing I was reminded of was Athens. (It wasn't until halfway through that I figured out we were in Jerusalem.) Pericles' answer to a similar dilemma was to evacuate the city, let the Persians destroy it, and rebuild the Acropolis afterward. A lot of Athenians didn't like that answer at the time, but from the perspective of history, Pericles is a genius.

I feel he also demonstrated that a nation's citizens are more important than even its most sacred buildings.