Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

The article stated: "If indeed Jewish authorities were at all involved in Jesus’ trial and

death, then according to the synoptics those authorities would have engaged in activities
—holding trials and carrying out executions—that were either forbidden or certainly
unseemly to perform on the holiday ... The synoptic account stretches credulity, not just
because it depicts something unlikely, but because it fails to recognize the unlikely and
problematic nature of what it depicts. It is almost as if the synoptic tradition has lost all
familiarity with contemporary Jewish practice. And if they have lost familiarity with that,
they have probably lost familiarity with reliable historical information as well."

However, history and rabbinic tradition testify that the rabbinic authorities would break
the law to destroy an enemy. First, the testimony of Josephus on the killing of James, the
brother of Jesus:
"Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity (to exercise
his authority). Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled
the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called
Christ, whose name was James, and some others … and when he had formed an
accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for
those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at
the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa
II], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had
already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he
was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for
Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with
what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to
punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from
him, when he had ruled but three months" (Antiq of Jews 20, 9, 1; Whiston translation).
Such action was contrary to rabbinic principles: “Samuel said: The law of the State is
law” (Talmud, Baba Kama 113b; Gittin 10b; Soncino translation). “ ‘Be submissive to a
superior’: that is, to the ruling power” (Talmud, Kallah Rabbathi 4, 8 [53b]; ibid.).
A Jew could kill or rob from Gentiles with no rabbinic penalty, but this would be to break
the 6th and 8th commandments against murder and theft. To break the law in regard to
one considered an apostate (as Christ was), would, according to this pattern, be
something to be overlooked: “Concerning seven religious requirements were the children
of Noah admonished … [including] bloodshed, and thievery … For bloodshed – how so?
A gentile [who kills] a gentile and a gentile who kills an Israelite are liable [for
punishment]. An Israelite [who kills] a gentile is exempt. Concerning thievery? [If] one
has stolen, or robbed … a gentile in regard to a gentile, or a gentile in regard to an
Israelite – it is prohibited. And an Israelite in regard to a gentile – it is permitted”
(Tosefta, Abodah Zarah 8, 4A, B; 8, 5A-E; Neusner translation).
Maimonides is even more explicit in allowing breaking basic Mosaic laws in order to
harm enemies: “It is a mitzvah [commandment] to kill minim and apikorsim. The term
minim refers to Jewish idolaters or those who perform transgressions for the sake of
angering God, even if one eats non-kosher meat for the sake of angering God or wears
sha'atnez [clothes of mixed types of fabric] for the sake of angering God. The term
apikorsim refers to Jews who deny the Torah and the concept of prophecy. If there is the
possibility, one should kill them with a sword in public view. If that is not possible, one
should develop a plan so that one can cause their deaths. What is implied? If one sees
such a person descend to a cistern, and there is a ladder in the cistern, one should take the
ladder, and excuse oneself, saying: ‘I must hurry to take my son down from the roof. I
shall return the ladder to you soon.’ Similarly, one should devise other analogous plans to
cause the death of such people. With regard to a gentile idolater with whom we are not at
war, a Jewish shepherd of small livestock, and the like, by contrast, we should not try to
cause their deaths. It is, however, forbidden to save their lives if their lives are threatened.
For example, if such a person fell into the sea, one should not rescue him. Leviticus 19:16
states: ‘Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is at stake.’ This does not apply
with regard to such individuals, because they are not ‘your brothers’ “ (Mishneh Torah,
Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh 4, 10-11).
One more piece of evidence showing that even the holiest of days would not hold back
rabbinic scholars from destroying an enemy: “R[abbi] Eleazar said: An ‘am ha-arez, it is
permitted to stab him [even] on the Day of Atonement which falls on the Sabbath”
(Talmud, Pesachim [“Feast of Passover”] 49b; Soncino translation).
The evidence is thus clear, breaking rabbinic and secular law was allowed by the rabbis in
order to do away with one perceived as an enemy. The synoptic gospels are thus accurate
in this regard and present a view of 1st Century C.E. Judaism consistent with historical
evidence. There are hundreds of other points of agreement between the stated facts in the
gospels and Paul's letters, and rabbinic literature, that show how well the Christian
writers of Jewish descent knew Judaism, and events therein, in their day.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen