|
comparative religion >>
general articles >> an affair on golgotha >>
an affair on golgotha
TRIAL
"Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." (Luke 12:2-3 RSV)
"Jesus said: Know what is in thy sight, and what is hidden from thee will be revealed to thee. For there is nothing hidden which will not be manifest… For there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed and there is nothing covered that shall remain without being uncovered." (The Gospel According To Thomas: Harper and Row: 1959; Pl. 81 Log 5-8: 10-14; 20-22)
No effort made to hide God's truth from mankind can ever succeed. The labor of men to make their own desires preeminent over God's will never be fruitful, and Jesus himself warned us of this.
We must understand that, for the most part, the doctrine we follow in our Christian establishments today is not God's Holy writ, established and based in the Gospels, or in the Holy Scriptures. Rather it is those 'traditions' that man has established for himself. This practice has produced the, '…commandment of men' learned by rote…" of which Isaiah speaks. (Isaiah 29:13 RSV)
The very heart of the Christian faith depends exclusively on the crucifixion and resurrection. Every sect of this religion agrees on these two traditions. That they happened is not questioned by the vast majority of Christianity, that the tradition is a reality to those numbers is understood. In Pauline Christianity it is emphatically demanded that a human sacrifice be available for the atonement of man's sins. It is absolutely required that a human, blood offering be accessible to requite the sins of man.
It is here, at the very core of the church's tradition, that our most intense investigation must take place. The words of two thousand years ago, written in a foreign tongue, seem to tell us a far different story than has been admitted. If this is not sufficient reason to conduct the search, then the actions of those who determined the path of Christianity through the centuries, demands that we do so.
Throughout history, those who remained within the 'church', and dared to question these two events were put to death! All their writings were condemned as heretical and destroyed. At least those writings that officials of the church could lay their hands on.
There are also the beliefs of others who remained beyond the reach of Christian adherents, some based on oral traditions passed on to them by early Christian missionaries, some founded on scrupulously executed research, and others through spiritual revelation, which must also be taken into consideration. Along with these, the revealed writings contained within The Dead Sea Scrolls have been brought into the light.
As stated in the body of this thesis, we must know what language was used in the original Gospels, and what those words meant when they originated two thousand years ago. Using definitions for a vocabulary that has been translated from the Aramaic, to the Greek, to Victorian English, and then into American, is a touchy business. This student would never accept the axiom that, 'whatever language is used it says the same thing.' That would be adding insult to injury.
Using American definitions for words that we assume were in an original Aramaic oral tradition are absolutely useless to us. Using our modern terminology for a word that appeared in an original Greek text and meant something totally different in the first century corrupts and demeans our understanding of Jesus and what our Christian doctrines should be.
With this in mind, we must reveal a hidden story behind words that have long been misinterpreted and purposely translated for the sake of keeping a tradition in tact. We turn to the trial of Jesus before Pontius Pilate. Accused by the priesthood, damning evidence is brought to the Procurator's attention. Jesus is a Galilean. The stain of sedition grows darker as Pilate contemplates the situation, one in which he does not want to be involved.
"But they were urgent, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout Judea, from Galilee even to this place. When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean…" (Luke 23:5-6 RSV)
"And Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so." And the chief priests accused him of many things. And Pilate asked him, "Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you." But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered." (Mark 15:2-5 RSV)
"Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so." But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer. Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge; so that the governor wondered greatly." (Matthew 27:11-14 RSV)
Wondered; Pilate was in awe, amazed, wondered greatly, at Jesus' refusal to protest his innocence, which would have been natural for an innocent or guilty party facing a death penalty. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 594)
"And he answered him never a word, inasmuch that the governor marveled greatly." (Matthew 27:14 KJV)
The Greek is explicit. Thaumazein: to wonder, marvel, be astonished or amazed; to wonder at, hence: to admire! (The Critical Lexicon and Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament: Page 895)
There would appear to be more here than just surprise that Jesus refused to defend himself, there is also a tone of admiration. Pilate's continuing efforts to save Jesus, his out-of-character entreaties to the crowd and to the Christ, are ample indications of this attitude on the part of the Procurator.
In Luke, we are advised for the first time that the hearing is a public affair.
"And Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no crime in this man." (Luke 23:4 RSV)
We are also informed that Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime, and his refusal to convict him was relentless.
"Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him… Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him; I will therefore chastise him and release him." (Luke 23:13-17 RSV)
Pilate is so adamant in his desire to release Jesus that he repeatedly cries out against the people's demands.
Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus…"
"A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him." (Luke 23: 20,22 RSV)
In Matthew, Pilate's wife warns him not to sentence Jesus. She sends a message to the procurator.
"Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream." (Matthew 27:19 RSV)
Even here, at the outcry sent up against Jesus, Pilate defies the crowd.
"Why, what evil has he done?" (Matthew 27:23 RSV)
"And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" (Mark 14:14 RSV)
Once again the Gospel stories all agree. For whatever reason, Pilate is hesitant to condemn Jesus to a death he knows he does not deserve. This, plus the fact that he knows why Jesus has been brought to him.
"For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." (Mark 15:10 RSV)
What difference could the death of one Jew make to Pilate, especially a Galilean? He had killed many of them for less reason than he is given here. More than once he had denied the cries of unreasoning mobs, so why give in now? Too much goes unanswered, a great mystery remains unsolved, but he has obviously taken consideration for the plight of this man.
Perhaps he respects Jesus for his stand against a priesthood that Pilate detests; perhaps he wants to demean the scribes and elders. Pilate's concern for Jesus is honest, and made obvious by the Gospel stories.
Even in John's Gospel, a writing that comes to us approximately two hundred years after the fact, the basic plot conforms to the synoptic Gospels, except that Jesus' simple statement becomes a soliloquy more fitting to a high Greek tragedy than the Greek scriptures. (John 18:33-38 RSV)
Pilate finds no guilt in him. He pleads with Jesus more than once, but even when Jesus refuses to ask for release, Pilate pleads with the crowd once again. Pilate's desire to free Jesus is unquestioned, and it is attested to in all the Gospels.
Pilate's wife warns him not to get involved in the matter. To individuals of the first century, signs and portents, visions and dreams, were considered serious matters. They were not just the idle fears of a woman, but a matter that dealt with the gods and the ability to see into future events. Pilate would not have brushed it aside very easily.
Pilate knows that Rome is watching his every move. The fact is Pilate's authority over Jesus is extremely fragile for Jesus is not a provincial. Galilee did not lie in a Roman province but under the rulership of Herod. The only reason he is involved in the case now is because Herod has refused to take care of his own business. It seems as though he has appealed to Rome by sending Jesus back, and Pilate is forced to act under the watchful eye of the Emperor.
After the slaughter of the Samaritans, which Pilate did cause, the Samaritan senate appealed to Vitellius, who was not only pro-counsul but also President of Syria, with complaints against Pilate for his violence against them.
"…Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusation of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he got to Rome, Tiberius was dead." (Josephus: Antiquities: Book XVIII; Chapter IV)
Tiberius died in 37 A.D., though he had heard many complaints concerning Pilate before his death. If the Procurator was under such distress about his actions toward provincials, he dared not mistreat an innocent subject of Herod's rule.
Pilate's reasons for acting as he did at Jesus' trial are not so mysterious as one might suppose.
At this point tradition holds that the Roman soldiers scourged Jesus. Beaten senseless, so weakened that he could not carry the crossbar of his own cross all the way to its destination. Simon the Cyrene was forced to take the cross and carry it for him to Golgotha. Stories of Jesus' agony come down to us from the Roman Church, of beatings with whips that had bone or steel tips, terrible beatings that broke bones and caused near unconsciousness.
Nowhere in the Gospels is this scene reported. No scene like it is recorded anywhere in the Bible. There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us of Jesus being beaten in the manner of the bloody tradition that has been handed down through the centuries. Nowhere in the Gospels does it tell us that Jesus was handed over to the soldiers for the specific task of beating or flogging him. Nowhere in the Gospels does it tell us that the Roman soldiers battered him senseless, punched him, beat him, whipped him, or brutalized him.
A question that will be repeated in this thesis will be asked here for the first time. Why, in a totally Greek text, would anyone introduce a Latin word (flagellum; to scourge) other than to continue a contrived deception?
The worst that is stated appears in the very late addendum of John's report, and it is nothing in comparison to the bloody tale that we have been led to believe.
"…they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands." (John 19:3 RSV)
"…and they smote him with their hands." (John 19:3 KJV)
The Greek word is, rapismata. It means to slap, or cuff someone. It does not indicate the intensity of a beating or a violent assault.
The synoptic Gospels do not even go that far. Jesus is never turned over to the soldiers to be scourged, whipped or beaten, but rather to be publicly humiliated, one of the definitive meanings of the word, 'to scourge'.
"Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the Governor took Jesus…" (Matthew 27:26-27 RSV)
"…and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. And the soldiers led him away." (Mark 15:15-16 RSV)
Each time after Pilate has scourged Jesus, the soldiers take charge of him. It is stated as after the fact in three of the Gospel stories. As to the fourth, Luke is absolutely silent (?) on the matter, even going so far as to leave out the humiliating experience with the soldiers.
"Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spat upon him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe, and put his own clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him." (Matthew 27:27-31 RSV)
One might also note that the entire Second Italian Cohort consisted of six hundred men, and one might doubt that all of them, or even a majority, were present. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 599) But word for word this story is a repetition of Mark.
"And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they struck him with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him." (Mark 15:16-20 RSV)
In Luke, there is no such story, Barabbas is given his freedom and Jesus is immediately led off to be crucified.
"…but Jesus he delivered up to their will. And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene…" (Luke 23:25-26 RSV)
The scriptures use only one word for, scourge, and the only meaning that fit the church's tradition when these writings were finally translated in the 14th century. They added a Latin word to a Greek text. But in the Greek, there were meanings for the word known to the Greeks other than that used in the Gospels. As if in their own defense, the Gospels demonstrate those meanings.
The word, scourge, in the English and the Latin translations mean to whip, especially when used to inflict pain or punishment. But other meanings in the English and Greek translations include meanings of greater validity and importance in the Gospels. It is an instrument to censure, publicly condemn, chastise, to force as though by blows of a whip, to subject to severe criticism or satire, to mock or humiliate. (Enepaizon; Luke 22:63; to sport with or against, to mock, to deride.)
A Critical Lexicon And Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament)
Flagulem, to flagate, to beat, is the only word used in the modern Greek text in this section of verses. It is one that tradition and dogma demand. But it is the other primary definitions to which the Gospels give evidence, it is these other interpretations that the Gospels demonstrate and give credence.
Pilate pronounced Jesus guilty, condemned him to the cross, and with his arrest and guilt now announced, Jesus was censured, drummed out of society. Then he was publicly mocked, derided, and chastised at the hands of the hands of the soldiers. Each of three Gospels speak of this act and are absolute in proclaiming that the soldiers mocked him, humiliated him, gave him a purple robe, spat on him, stripped him, struck him with a reed they had given Jesus as his 'royal staff', and then placed a crown of thorns on his head. Satirized, he was derided as the King of the Jews, humiliated, and then publicly displayed in a march to, The place Of The Skull. But nowhere are we told, or is it even suggested, that he was beaten bloody or even injured.
Josephus (Jewish War II. 14.9) states that it was a Roman custom to scourge the condemned before crucifying them. A leather whip, with pieces of bone and metal set in it, was used. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 7; Page 599)
This fact, however, is tempered by the following information.
Scourging was only permitted against slaves and provincials. As has already been pointed out, Jesus was not a provincial. Roman Law, the Gospel narratives, and Pilate's actions all deny that Jesus was treated in a manner that would validate Christian tradition. And the denial of tradition expressed by the Gospels, reveals a story that many do not wish to hear.
In Luke we have a long dissertation rendered by Jesus to the women who are following him. (Luke 23:27-31 The New English Bible) It is hard to conceive of the battered Jesus that tradition would have us accept when such documentation is placed in evidence. Or are we to dismiss the Gospels as being invalid, without any basis in fact, and something less holy than man's tradition?
In the synoptic Gospels there are only three words written concerning the matter of scourging.
"…with Barabbas free, and Jesus scourged…"
"…Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus…" (Matthew 27:26 RSV)
"…released for them Barabbas and having scourged Jesus…" (Mark15:15 RSV)
In Luke there is no scourging, but John goes beyond the plausible and forces us to ask a remarkable question. How is it that the writer of the Gospel knew nothing of Jewish custom or Jewish and Roman Law? In his ignorance, he does show that Pilate continued to plead for Jesus' life.
"Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him." (John 19:1 RSV)
"Upon this, Pilate sought to release him…" (John 19:12 RSV)
According to John, Jesus is scourged, the soldiers then mock him, and then Jesus is brought back to the public forum where Pilate tries to release him again. No one was ever scourged before the verdict of guilt was pronounced, and Pilate does not take the judgment seat until verse 13. The scourging could not have been a beating but that activity which the Greek text indicates.
To add to this, John continues to err concerning Jewish Law.
"Pilate therefore said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him." The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the son of God." (John 19:6b-7 RSV)
Pilate decrees Jesus as innocent! This is after the scourging! To add to that impropriety, the Jews had no such law concerning calling oneself the son of God. That has already been investigated and discussed.
Taken with Barabbas, the actions are simultaneous. The insurrectionist is free and Jesus has been scourged; publicly decried by being condemned and then mocked and humiliated by the soldiers. This scenario may well be the true story, despite arguments that no known practice allowed for a prisoner to be freed by the will of the people.
What has happened is that the writers have taken a Talmudic rule that the paschal lamb could be sacrificed for someone who has been promised release from prison, and applied it to Jesus. This seems to be stretching a point to the extreme in order to continue the tradition of finding a human sacrifice acceptable as a sin offering. Barabbas had not been promised his release, and Pilate was not a Jew. He would not have been bound or prone to abiding by one, if it had existed in Palestine. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume7; Page 594)
Now, after all his bending and pleading with the crowd, Pilate refuses to rewrite the inscription, King of the Jews, knowing that it is an insult to the priesthood. This contradiction in behavior creates additional doubt. But the worst is yet to come.
In finalizing the subject of 'scourging' in tradition and the Gospels, an honest appraisal must note the following new translations that have appeared within the last few years. We are aware that new text appears all the time, a continuing tribulation to the honest student. Of those that bear weight, The New English Bible is considered to be an excellent version.
"He then released Bar-Abbas to them; but he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified."(The New English Bible: Matthew 27:26)
"So Pilate, in his desire to satisfy the mob, released Barabbas to them; and he had Jesus flogged and handed him over to be crucified." (The New English Bible: Mark 15:15)
Luke has no scourging at all.
"Pilate now took Jesus and had him flogged; and the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns…" (The New English Bible: John 19:1)
First, 'in his desire to satisfy the mob' represents a total contradiction in action on the part of Pilate. Second, 'had Jesus flogged' is a bastardized text. It appears in no Gospel nor does it have a place in the original Greek text. The translators or theologians involved with this invalid wording have done no more than change what is genuine to the scriptures in order to maintain and sustain a tradition of man's invention.
The translation is even further from the Greek text than previously existing documents. In order for this course of action to be plausible, Pilate would have had to follow the dictates of John's rendition. Have a trial without a condemnation, give Jesus to the soldiers to be flogged (and that without a guilty verdict which is a violation of Roman Law), bring him back to the public forum, had a further hearing, and returned him to the soldiers once again.
This comic scene should encourage those who note that John might well be correct in having Jesus on the cross for less than three hours. And if the Gospels are correct and Jesus is first sent to Herod, he would have been crucified long after dark.
Modern pandering cannot hide the insane proceedings this would have demanded. Most important is the fact that the 'scourging' by Pilate, and the soldier's handling of Jesus are not synonymous but are described, as two separate actions that took place in two different time periods, and not one activity and The New English Bible would have us believe.
With each new translation the contradictions become more obvious, the addendums more disruptive. The, Good News For Modern Man, both Protestant and Catholic versions, use approximately the same wording as The New English Bible.
Keep in mind that two men were placed before the 'tribunal', bringing another oddity to our attention. Within the discourse of the Bible, principals are referred to as, bar, 'son of'. Yoshua bar Joseph, Simon bar Jonah, etc. Why then is the insurrectionist referred to as Barabbas throughout the Gospel renditions? It was not his name! His first name was, Jesus!
The New English Bible identifies him correctly as, bar-Abbas, Jesus bar Abbas, Jesus son of Abbas. Two Jesus, both on trial in a confusing, contradictory tale of intrigue and very possible, outside influence of a much later date. Namely, the defenders of a non-biblical tradition, which avoids the truth at any cost.
But scourging is not the major issue here, crucifixion, is. What happened at that late hour, probably the sixth hour, is detailed in all the Gospels, and the story they tell cannot be contradicted. Certain things happened in a given order, and all the Gospels agree without deviation.
Fact, there is no place in the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus is compelled to carry his own cross. In each of them, word for word, Simon of Cyrene is given the cross at the very beginning of the journey to, Golgotha. Jesus is never given the cross, and in fact, leads the way.
"As they were going out, they met a Cyrenian named Simon; this man they pressed into service to carry his cross." (Matthew 27:32 The New American Bible: St Joseph Edition)
"They pressed into service a passer-by, Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country; the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross." (Mark 15:21 The New American Bible: St Joseph Edition)
"As they led him away they took hold of a certain, Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country; and after laying the cross on him, they made him carry it behind Jesus." (Luke 23:26 The New American Bible: St Joseph Edition)
And to the dismay of those who would continue to honor that tale of horror, John contradicts the popular cult myth and all the other Gospels by having Jesus carry the cross all the way to, Golgotha. No Simon, no unbearable weight, but Jesus carrying his own cross all the way to the hill.
"So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his known cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified him…" (John 19:17 RSV)
Tradition has him stumbling pitifully down a cobblestone street, falling under the weight of the wood, but in the synoptic Gospels, he never lifts it. Another is chosen to carry it for him. And though John's Gospel does have him carry it, he carries it all the way to, Golgotha, with no apparent problem. Which is to be believed?
In all the Gospel stories, the details of the trial, Pilate's words, and the actions of the crowd are highly comprehensive. And as each Gospel in turn, by its age, reports these scenes, more and more is added for our benefit. There is a great deal of detail as to his humiliation at the hands of the soldiers. As is usual with the Gospels, the later in time the story appears, the more is added to the event. In this case, however, all the Gospels agree almost word for word, the only additions being those of John.
Was the treatment of Jesus by the soldiers a sign of Pilate's respect for the man? Perhaps it was meant to insult the priesthood and defy the public outcry. Whatever the soldiers did would have been done on the order of Pilate. If one follows the picture of Pilate's affinity toward Jesus that is given to us by the Gospels, the Procurator might well have ordered that Jesus be neither beaten nor made to carry the cross, which was soon to bear his weight. Jesus would have to bear the pain of crucifixion, but nothing compared to the weight of the legends we force him to carry today.
Even more astounding at this point is a statement made by the interpreter of, The Gospel According To Luke, in, The Interpreter's Bible. It brings an insurmountable question to mind that has serious repercussions for all of Christianity.
Basilides used the introduction of Simon of Cyrene, who purportedly carried the cross for Jesus in three Gospels, in the second century to corroborate the Docetic belief that this man was crucified rather than Jesus. (The Interpreter's Bible: Volume 8; Page 403)
Amazingly, the Holy Qur'an relates exactly the same religious doctrine, and it is known to be extremely accurate concerning other aspects of the Gospels. And now we discover that, The Dead Sea Scrolls, tell us the same story of Simon being crucified in Jesus place. To this we may add the now extinct Docetic faith, the Cathars, the Waldenses, and The Knights Templar. Within the Christian community of non-believers, those listed refused to bear the Roman cross upright since they did not believe Jesus died on the cross.
We must also be aware that the Greek nation, whose language and philosophies help form the New Testament, did not use the sign of the Cross until well into the eighth century. If these facts are not enough to cause great discomfort amongst the Christian clergy, keep in mind that in Islam alone there are over a billion souls who accept this revelation.
But we must now look at another 'tradition' of men that is prompted by John 20:25. This Gospel was written for the mature church, one in which a great many doctrines had already been set down by Paul. Other than in the 'revelation of Thomas', where is it stated that Jesus was 'nailed' to the cross? Even Paul, who reveled in Jesus' death, does not dare to suggest that this actually happened. There is not even a hint of such a physically impossible procedure mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament, let alone the Gospels. This allusion comes to us from a text far removed from the actual event.
Common sense alone seems to indicate that Pilate's treatment of Jesus did not extend to the cruelest of imaginings, from which even the two criminals crucified with Jesus were spared.
But the church must have their resurrected Lord, and here, John assists in continuing the cult myth. A saved and living Jesus, which he insisted he was, must not be allowed a voice, not even through those who have been silenced by the genocidal attacks of the Church. But dead martyrs are never silent, for they have God's word to speak for them.
|
JESUS AND HELL
