|
comparative religion >>
general articles >> an affair on golgotha >>
an affair on golgotha
DRUMHEAD
"From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed…" (Matthew 16:21 RSV)
Was Jesus foretelling his own death, or does the original Greek text say other than what tradition has held to all these centuries" 'To be killed,' apoktanthena', in the original Greek, when pertaining to those who are judging someone, "Of judges, to be condemned to death." (A Critical Lexicon And Concordance To The English Ad Greek New Testament: Bullinger: Page 431: kill).
Jesus is not speaking about Pilate, though Pilate condemned him to death but did not kill him. He is not speaking about an executioner, but of the judgment he must suffer at the hands of the priesthood As will be shown more clearly, the Sanhedrin did not have the power to execute a judgment on the basis of their complaints against Jesus. They did not have the authority to condemn, but only to accuse.
All four Gospel narratives agree upon that Jesus was taken before the High Priest. That he was taken to Pilate is not denied, but that ends the similarity of the stories. Once again we are forced to pry between the lines to ascertain what really happened, and what were Jesus' actual words and actions.
"And they led Jesus to the High Priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled." (Mark 14:53 RSV)
"Then those who seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the High Priest, where the scribes and elders had gathered." (Matthew 26:57)
"Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the High Priest's house." (Luke 22:54)
There is almost universal agreement that Jesus was not taken before the entire Sanhedrin, or in fact, before a large gathering of officials. The reasons are numerous and have been gone over countless times by experts. The simplest evidence is placed before us by the Gospels themselves. If Jesus had been taken before the entire Sanhedrin, it certainly would not have convened at the High Priest's mansion, and most assuredly not on the eve of the High Holy Passover.
Luke states that Jesus was taken to Caiaphas' residence, and the other Gospels agree when talking about Peter, who followed Jesus after the arrest, at a discreet distance.
"Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light…" (Luke 22:55 RSV)
"And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the High Priest came…" (Mark 15:66 RSV)
"Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a maid came up to him…" (Matthew 26:69 RSV)
We know at once that this is no formal trial, for the seventy-one members of the Sanhedrin were probably not present. None of the judicial rules were followed, which would never have been possible with the number of Pharisees seated on the governing council. As already noted, no legal trial could have taken place on the eve of a festival. By the very rules of jurisprudence, no guilty verdict could have been issued on the same day of a trial. Most important, the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to issue such an edict!
In the Gospel of John, even though there is an intense hatred of the Jews, the event before the High Priest is nothing more than an examination. Pilate has the real authority. (John 18:19; The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 887)
There are several facts given for this view by theologians. (1) There could be no legal trial at night, (2) nor during a festival, (3) there was no full quorum, (4) no witnesses for the defense were called, (5) there was an instant condemnation and execution, (6) and the claim of Messiahship was not considered blasphemy. Theologians list fourteen reasons to give strength to their argument. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 887)
The rule of the Mishnah (paraphrased) states that "…in capitol cases the trial must be held in the daytime and the verdict must also be reached in the daytime. An acquittal verdict may be reached on the same day, but a conviction cannot be reached until the next day. For this reason, trials could not be held on the eve of the Sabbath or the eve of a festival, the Sanhedrin would have banned from meeting the next day (the Sabbath or the festival). (Sanhedrin 4:1; The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 585)
The only blasphemy punishable by death was when the divine name was used blasphemously. The claim to be Messiah, to be the son of God, or to sit on the right hand of the power of God, was not capitol offenses. But Jesus was not condemned to death for blasphemy; he was not stoned to death by the Jews, but was condemned on the charge of, high treason. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 585)
This is the key to the discussion of the Roman trial, which we will examine shortly. Jesus was condemned to death by Pilate on the charge of, high treason.
All these things are reported by the Gospels. Aside from this, Jesus had many friends among the Pharisees. One indication was their warning for Jesus to flee from the agents of Herod.
"At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, 'Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you'" (Luke 13:31 RSV)
It seems unlikely that Mark would have been able to indicate, "…and they all condemned him as deserving death." (Mark14:64 RSV)
And even, The Interpreter's Bible, finds it difficult to accept Mark vss 61b-62 as being authentic. (Volume 7; Page 890)
There is a need to consider these arguments again. The Sanhedrin could only have heard a case based on religious charges, and there were none.. The evidence was criminal, acts of sedition. Jesus had done and taught nothing for which he could have been charged with blasphemy.
A claim of being, Messiah, was not blasphemy under Jewish Law, nor was a claim to be, "son of God". It was often used of those who appeared, or claimed to be, inspired. This would include priests, kings, or even men who were thought to be God's prophets.
"And when he entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, "Who is this?" And the crowds said, "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee." (Matthew 21:10-11 RSV)
And most important of all, these were not the charges they made against Jesus in front of Pilate! Their charge to the Procurator was, sedition!
"And they were more fierce, saying, "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry…" (Luke 23:5 KJV)
"…I adjure you before the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the son of God." (Matthew 26:63 RSV)
Why this specific question? It could never have been asked unless someone had overheard the disciples' discussion with Jesus. It was their pronouncement, obviously heard by others, which only proves further that Jesus and his most intimate followers were never alone.
The only other option left to us would be to question the Gospel writer's knowledge of the Law, the Jewish Law. Is it possible that a Jew, writing in the first century, would think that such a statement could be construed as, blasphemy? I think not.
Jesus himself never said those words, and when Peter spoke them Jesus insisted that his disciples say nothing of that nature to anyone. But even if Jesus had openly admitted to being, Messiah, son of God, or, Messiah, son of David, he would not have been guilty of a religious crime, nor even of being in bad taste. A hearing or a meeting of his enemies where they may well have questioned him, yes; but in fact, there is nothing to substantiate the probability of a trial, and certainly not on the basis of religious charges. No such evidence was ever brought against him.
Whether or not the council had the right to condemn anyone to death is still questionable. Under the Roman occupation they would have had to obtain permission from Pilate. This they attempted to do as is evidenced by the Gospels.
"Then said Pilate unto them, 'Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.' The Jews therefore said unto him, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.'" (John 18:31 KJV) (See also: The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 585)
Those who met with the high priest were desperately trying to find some charge on which Jesus could be convicted, regardless of its merits. The Gospels also validate this. However, in this instance only the immediate inner circle would have been present.
"Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward." (Matthew 26:59-60 RSV)
"For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree." (Mark 14:56RSV)
The questioning of witnesses was an inviolate rule of the Pharisees, and each of them would have been questioned separately and in private. There is absolutely nothing they are able to charge Jesus with, until they repeat his words concerning the Temple.
"…But he answered, 'You see all these, do you not Truly, I say to you there will not be left one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."
"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands…'" (Mark 14:57 RSV)
"…this fellow said, 'I am able to destroy this temple…'" (Mark 14:57 RSV)
A subtle question comes to the fore. In all that the Gospels give us access to, Jesus spoke the words reported here. Why then, are these people considered false witnesses? Indeed, the reports they made all indicated charges relating to treason and insurrection, and they were the words that Jesus spoke.
The High Priest did not want to make himself, or the Sanhedrin, a cause for the people to riot. They had not lost their great fear of Jesus' numerous followers. And so, impotent as they were, the priesthood intended to place that burden on Pilate's shoulders.
Luke probably comes closest to giving us a clear picture of what might have happened on that night. It also indicates that the priesthood might have been angry because Jesus, and the people, had said he was God's prophet.
"And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." And he could do no mighty work there…" (Mark 6:4-5 RSV)
Mark is explicit that even the writer of the Gospel considers Jesus a prophet. (Matthew 21:11 RSV)
"Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him, they also blindfolded him and asked him, 'Prophecy, who is it that struck you?'… When day came, the assembly of elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said…" (Luke 22:63-66 RSV)
If the fact of later additions to the Gospels is even a question, the following should suffice to assure us of the practice in this verse.
"The longer reading involving the question… ("Who is it that has struck you?")… appears to be an assimilation to the text of Matthew 26:68, or Luke 22:64. The shortest reading, 'Prophecy', supported as it is by the Alexandrian text and several early versions, best accounts for the rise to the other readings." (A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament: Bruce M. Metzger: Pg. 115 on Mark 14:65).
Mark 14:65, in the edited versions reads, "And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophecy!" And the guards received him with blows." Totally edited, save for one word, "Prophecy", as if to say, if you are a prophet, then prophecy! The original rendition would tend to valid this student's contention that the priests were angry with him for being considered a prophet of God.
"Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him, they also blindfolded him and asked him, "Prophecy! Who is it that struck you?" (Luke 23:63 RSV)
"Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, "Prophecy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?" (Matthew 26:67 RSV)
Each writer embellishes on Mark's edited story, but John will have none of this. In that Gospel, Jesus answers the high priest at length, and for his outspoken attitude, is slapped once by an 'officer'.
"When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" (John 18:22 RSV)
There is no beating, there is no spitting or haranguing.
But another interesting dilemma is raised by this story. The beating of Jesus by the Roman cohort does not exist in the Bible. Here we read that Jesus was beaten, and rather severely, by members of the Sanhedrin and the 'officers' who were present. Mark's rendition obviously influenced the others. It might well have instigated the non-biblical tradition of his beating at the Roman trial by those who picked up on this verse, which now proves to be totally in error itself.
One need not be a prophet to know what misdirection this has caused in later generations. In this instance, one may assume that John's Gospel is the most proper.
After his arrest, Jesus was held at Caiaphas' home for the remainder of the night, and was then taken to Pilate in the morning. He was only asked one question.
"If you are the Christ (Messiah), tell us!" (Luke 22:67 RSV)
It is an effort to qualify the second civil charge for which they could take him to the authorities. Even Jesus' response to the question, "Are you the son of God, then," has no meaning. The high priest and the council are not attempting to charge Jesus with religious misconduct, nor was it ever their intention.
In the light of his entrance into the city, and with his anointing, Pilate's question becomes far more incriminating, and for us, revealing of the true nature of the case against him. Still, it was not the charge that brought him the death penalty.
"Are you the king of the Jews?"
Now the light of day has risen and the real trial begins. Jesus is to be accused of two things before Rome, treason and insurrection. Pilate was Rome, and one must remember that He was a man who did not mind threatening to put thousands to death, and then actually doing it. We repeat Josephus' account of the bloodshed.
"But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city… but as soon as they knew it (the Jews), they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days, that he would remove the images… On the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon the judgment seat… and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them round, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death." (Josephus: Antiquities Of The Jews: Bk XVIII, Chapter III.1)
"So he (Pilate) habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bade the Jews himself go away; but they boldly cast reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not, nor did they spare them in the least; and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition." (Josephus: Antiquities Of The Jews: Book XVIII; Chapter III.2)
The Jews took Jesus to Pilate with their charges, asking that the Procurator pronounce, and carry out, the death penalty. But here, statements made in the Gospels bear additional scrutiny, both in the history they presume to report, and Pilate's attitude toward Jesus. When Jesus is taken to Herod, Luke says something that strikes a bad note.
"When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and hen was hoping to see some sign done by him." (Luke 23:8 RSV)
Is the evangelist watching the same game we are? Herod tried every way he could to kill Jesus. He feared him because he believed him to be John reincarnated, he feared him because of the power he held over the people, he feared him because the masses were openly trying to persuade him to lead a revolt against his throne and the Romans.. Are we now to believe that Herod welcomed him with open arms? That he suddenly admired him?
"The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, 'Get thee out, and depart hence; for Herod will kill thee.'" (Luke 13:31 RSV)
Jesus is sent back to Pilate.
"…Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?' For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up.'" (Mark 15:9-10 RSV)
"For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up." (Matthew 27:18 RSV)
The Interpreter's Bible, agrees that envy hardly does their feelings justice. The cleansing of the Temple was an offense to them, and as did Herod, they feared the power of a prophetic movement led by Jesus. It might easily have ended their hold over the people. (Volume 7; Page 595)
Note the emphasis on, 'prophetic movement'. Jesus was most assuredly known to be a prophet of God in his own day by the people, his disciples, and his enemies. It is no wonder that the priesthood would be concerned with Jesus being called a king, for that would be an open insult to them. It is quite true that they feared Jesus' influence among the people, and they considered him a seditionist because of his statements about the Temple. Calling Jesus a king was a slap in the face.
Another bone of contention arises. This time it is voiced by professional theologians.
"And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other." (Luke 23:12)
Nothing is known from any other source of information about ill feelings between these two men. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 8; Page 399)
Why would they have been at enmity? They were both appointed by Rome, they ruled separate areas of Palestine, yet there was no question as to who wielded the greatest authority. Herod was not a Jew and hated them as much as Pilate. So whom do we believe?
We must consider Pilate's attitude toward the Jews again. He hated them. His entire purpose in being appointed to Judea was to put down their rebellions and to secure the province for Rome. And to the fore, came the Galileans, the revolutionaries and seditionists of the day. He had no qualms about putting them to death.
In questioning the charges brought to Pilate against Jesus, there were no acts of violence against Rome to substantiate the charge of insurrection. And if he claimed to be Messiah King, that was Herod's problem, and that of the priesthood. Then what was Pilate's cause against Jesus? History answers, though that which is spoken of was not Pilate's doing, it was Sabinus' act of violence.
"These Jews, as they are here called, whose blood Pilate (Sabinus) shed on this occasion, may well be those very Galilean Jews, '…whose blood Pilate (Sabinus) had mingled with their sacrifices.' (Luke 13:1-2). These tumults being usually excited at some of the Jews' great festivals, when they slew abundance of sacrifices, and the Galileans being commonly much more busy in such tumults than those of Judea and Jerusalem." (Josephus: Antiquities: Book XVIII; Chapter III.2 footnote)
"…and the Galileans being commonly much more busy in such tumults…"
Pilate found no guilt in Jesus, and to the mind, might well have applauded his efforts in embarrassing and distressing the priesthood by his actions. He refuses to condemn him, and is decent enough to Jesus, which is evidenced by his lack of threat, and the sincere question he asks, which are recorded in the Gospels.
Pilate was under threat of forfeiture from Rome because of his brutality against the Jews. He eventually lost his position for this very reason. Rome frowned upon officials who mistreated provincials, and Pilate had already been warned. In this case, Jesus was not even a provincial, so Pilate had cause to hesitate about his handling of the case. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 597)
Then why did Pilate condemn Jesus?
"And Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, 'I find no crime in this man'. But they were urgent, saying, 'He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee, even to this place!' When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean.'" (Luke 23:4-6 RSV)
History, including biblical history, tells us that this was far more incriminating than just a reason for sending Jesus to Herod. Pilate discovers that Jesus is a Galilean! No more damning fact could have been brought against him, nothing could be more certainly have condemned him to death than to rank him with the terrorists of the day.
The cheers of the multitudes when he entered Jerusalem, the Hosannas, his public anointing, his words against the priesthood, his cleansing of the Temple, and his Galilean disciples and followers now converged to pronounce his sentence.
The charges were political, the decision was made on political motivations, and Jesus was to be executed as a political dissident. There was nothing religious in these activities except that which was placed on them by those who later took up the cross. The many who, "…came in his name", saying that he was the Christ.
There was no Christian church in Jesus' day, no New Testament, no Greek scriptures, no Gospel, and Paul had not begun his selfish crusade. There was nothing but Jesus, alone in the presence of the priesthood, Pilate, and Rome. His mother, the mother of James, those few who were women who had not fled would not see him again until he was on the way to Golgotha.
This is no fiction, this is no addendum, this is history true and brutal.
"Now, there came about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Josephus: Antiquities: Book XVIII; Chapter III.3)
Josephus sets the date of the crucifixion at, 33 A.D. Jesus would have been between thirty-eight and thirty-nine years old. The church has explored the events of this act beyond that which is humane, yet what he said and thought in his last hours on this earth, remain blank pages. In the narratives of the crucifixion and the resurrection, the scriptures have been freely altered to suit the needs of the 'church' from the first century until this very day. But let us deal with another facet of man's pedantic nature.
"…those that loved him at the first did not forsake him."
Who was at the cross when Jesus was being crucified? It is an interesting question that history asks, and the answer will surprise many who have not given it proper consideration, including many 'influential' theologians.
The Apostles were gone! They had fled, including Peter, who had denied him and then run away. The twelve were gone, nowhere in sight, and the cheering crowds were now looking for other heroes and following other masters. So who was there on the Place of the Skull?
Roman soldiers, part of Pilate's contingent; the two thieves whom Josephus identifies as revolutionists, certainly not criminals. The chief priests, scribes and elders, a few of the general public, and the women were there. Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome, Zebedee's wife who was the mother of the 'sons of thunder'.
But then we are challenged by man's egoistic nature. And in answer, we must state the theologian's position clearly.
"The fact that there has been no mention of these women disciples or ministrants to Jesus has led some scholars to suppose that (Mark 15:41) verse 41a is a gloss." (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 909)
This is in reference to, "…and Salome, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him…" along with its reference to other women in general. Someone needs to reference the Bible again.
The newly translated and released, Dead Sea Scrolls, speak openly of Jesus' female disciples, and rightly so. We would discover that Mary Magdelene was one of his principle disciples, which would have included her among the twelve, had she been a man. Mark here mentions it, and I would venture a guess that if he had not mentioned the woman named, "…and also many other women who came up with him from Jerusalem."
"There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Magdelene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." (Matthew 27:56 RSV)
Jesus would have been alone on, Golgotha, and there would have been no witness to what followed.
In defense of the obvious, women are mentioned throughout the Gospels. A woman drew him out to perform his first public miracle at the wedding feast. His first recorded healing was that of Peter's mother-in-law, and there follows the raising of Jairus' daughter, the woman with the flow of blood, his first encounter of Mary at the fountain, and the Syrophonecian woman who amazed him with her faith.
There were the sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha. Salome is mentioned in at least two of the Gospels, Mark and Matthew, as the wife of Zebedee, and of course we have Anna the prophetess, and Elizabeth. Who went to the tomb? Who was witness to that empty place, and to whom did Jesus first appear after the crucifixion? Could we begin to assert that those who followed after him so closely, tended to him so intimately, were not also his closest followers, his disciples?
These were all women who were connected with Jesus physically and spiritually, and though Jesus was familiar with the lowly estate of women in his time, he did not treat them so. We are fortunate that there is any reference at all to women during Jesus' ministry considering their estate in the first century, and Paul's garish treatment of women.
There is no reason to continue such attitudes and practices within our own scholarship. The church is still the prime seducer of its female congregations, which is evidenced by the recent Southern Baptist admonition that keeps women in that sect as virtual 'bond servants'. But there is no excuse for us to continue this sexist prejudice in our own spiritual search. Jesus himself takes a stand against such practices.
In the, Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel According To Thomas, appears as a valid text on the teachings of Jesus. It is written by an eyewitness, Didymous Judas Thomas, who is also mentioned in the Gospels. (The Gospel According To Thomas: Log 1-4.10; Page 3)
In the closing passage, there is an encounter between Jesus and Peter concerning the women disciples, notably, Mary Magdelene. Jesus' response appears to be one of sarcastic anger, not the first time he displayed this attitude toward Simon Peter.
"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go out from among us, because women are not worthy of the Life. Jesus said: See, I shall lead her, so that I will make her a male, that she too may become a living spirit (pneuma), resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (The Gospel According To Thomas: Log 114; Page 57)
Women were a real part of Jesus' ministry and life. They are described as the only two witnesses to his place of burial who are spoken to by the mysterious being(s) at the empty tomb. This is reported, with later enhancements, in all the Gospels. They are the first to see, what is reported to be, the risen Christ. So here we have, "…those who loved him at the first did not forsake him", and they were loyal to him at the end.
At their visit to the tomb, a new woman is named with Mary Magdelene and Mary the mother of James, Joanne.
"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, 'All hail.' And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." (Matthew 28:9 RSV)
And the twelve are not to be found.
"…and the other women that were with them, which told these things unto the Apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." (Luke 24:10-11 RSV)
The twelve are without understanding.
"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:17 RSV)
The twelve are without faith.
It is obvious from these attitudes on the part of the disciples, and some of the women, that there was no understanding whatsoever about a risen Christ, or a resurrection theme. Their knowledge was limited to what they had been taught by Jesus, and what they understood from life experience.
And it is at this point that we must begin to examine the stark contrast in meanings that are presented by the Gospels themselves beyond those few areas that we have discussed. It is a powder keg of contention that has been buried by the church for centuries, and after seven hundred years, is only now beginning to rear its ugly head once again.
|
JESUS AND HELL
