Christine Here is another fallacy in the word of God. It has 4 parts nd here are the first 2:
We will consider the episode of Jesus' arrest, and the legal action which was
brought against him by the Jewish authorities. The analysis of texts will
emphasise the differences between the synoptic group (Gospels according
to Matthew, Mark and Lucas) and the fourth Gospel (according to John).
What do these differences consist of?
First of all we notice that the three synoptic Gospels agree on the existence of a
Jewish trial, and also on the charges, witnesses, and the final sentence: a death
sentence for the crime of blasphemy, since Jesus declared himself "son of God",
in public. Concerning this matter we may already raise some objections; in fact
a German author, Dr. Weddig Fricke, has written a whole book, full of critical
remarks, showing the impossibility, according to ancient Jewish law, of bringing
a legal action under the conditions described by the synoptic Gospels. Let us
look at some of his most significant assertions:
1 - Legal actions could not be brought in a private house, but only in the
proper place: in the temple area called the "Beth Din", the seat of the
Great Sanhedrin, for capital offenses.
2 - Legal actions can not be brought at night-time,
3 - Legal actions could not be brought on the eve of a holiday,
4 - A sentence could not be pronounced on the basis of an extorted
confession,
5 - Death sentences could only be pronounced at least 24 hours after the
interrogation...
In addition to all of these important objections, we must consider that having
declared oneself "son of God" probably was not a crime of blasphemy nor was
it at all a capital offense. The fact simply is that the expression "son of God" was
very common and could be used to represent all human beings: all the Jews,
according to the Torah, were sons of God; in another case the title might be
used to characterise a devoted man or somebody who had been initiated into a
condition of holiness and had taken particular vows (like those called
"Nazirites"). There are many Hebrew expressions like "son of the truth",
meaning a particularly honest man, "son of the light", meaning someone who is
spiritually enlightened, "son of the darkness", meaning a hardened sinner, etc...
These and many other considerations seriously cast doubt on the hypothesis
that the synoptic authors, presenting their version of the trial, testified to a
historical truth and did not rather proffer a personal interpretation with the
specific goal of supporting particular doctrinaire, ideological and (why
not?) political assumptions.
A definitive blow to the historical credibility of the synoptic presentation is dealt
by the version we encounter in the Fourth Gospel; let us look at the differences:
1 - The synoptics say Christ was arrested by a not well-identified crowd of
people who had been sent there by the High Priest, and they do not reveal the
identity of the one of Jesus' disciples who offered physical resistance. On the
contrary the fourth Gospel tells of a cohort of soldiers and of a tribune, thus
giving us precise information on there having been present a Roman
military force of 600 men (...!!!...), and it clearly says that resistance was
offered by Peter who, on that occasion, had his sword drawn, and cut off the
ear of one of the High Priest's guards. From these circumstances we can easily
understand that military action had been explicitly initiated by Pilate. Otherwise
600 Roman soldiers would never have moved in the depth of the night, just to
arrest an unusual preacher, whose only crime was having declared himself "son
of God".
2 - The synoptics say that as soon as Jesus was arrested, he was immediately
brought to the High Priest Caiaphas' private house. The fourth Gospel, on the
other hand, says he was brought to the house of Annas, the High Priest's
father-in-law.
3 - The synoptics relate that a legal action was brought against Jesus in
Caiaphas' house in regard of which he maintained an obstinate silence, and did
not agree to answer any questions, but only gave a short affirmation when
asked whether or not he was the "son of God". At this juncture the trial should
have come to a rapid end and the death sentence pronounced. The Fourth
Gospel, on the contrary, does not mention any Jewish legal action; instead of
being silent Jesus is said to have answered the questions the people asked him
and even to have participated in a discussion but, since there was no regular
legal action brought against him, no death sentence should have been
pronounced against him, of course. The whole thing looks like a scene from a
waiting room, before Jesus was consigned to Pilate's care; and we can deduce
from this that the entire action was not conceived and initiated by the Jews, but
rather by the Romans, possibly with the connivance of the Jewish authorities.
2 - The death sentence: a Jewish or a Roman
responsibility?
What have we emphasised so far? Two things: first that the Synoptics seem to
be resolved to represent all the actions taken against Jesus (his arrest, trial, and
sentencing) as definitely the will of the Jews. Nevertheless, having described a
clearly impossible trial and an irregular sentence, and having exerted strong
censorship on important issues, which the fourth Gospel speaks about with no
reluctance, they arouse the reasonable suspicion that their version purposely
changes the meaning of events, in order to have them conform to some
preconceived notions we shall not be loath to understand: for example, the Jews
must appear to be guilty of hostility against Jesus, and the Romans exculpated.
The second thing we have emphasised is the indication that all the action against
Jesus was conceived and instigated primarily by the Romans.
We can consider the way blasphemers were usually treated by the Jews: were
they arrested by Roman soldiers? Were they consigned to Pilate, so that he
might try them according to Roman Law? Were they whipped by the Romans
and then crucified? Not any of these things! Blasphemers, recognised as such
after a regular Jewish trial, were stoned to death by the Jews, and the Romans
cared not at all about these affairs.
If we compare the descriptions of the trials, as presented in the four Gospels,
we can find another significant indication. Pay attention to what the computer
analysis emphasised when the description of the Jewish trial according to
Matthew (the irregular legal action brought in the house of the High Priest) was
compared with the description of the Roman trial, according to Mark (the legal
action that was brought in front of Pilate):
J = JEWISH TRIAL, MATTHEW (Mt 26, 62-64)
R = ROMAN TRIAL, MARK (Mk 14, 4-5, 2)
J1 - And the high priest arose, and said unto him,
R1 - And Pilate asked him again, saying,
J2 - Answerest thou nothing?
R2 - Answerest thou nothing?
J3 - What is it which these witness against thee?
R3 - Behold how many things they witness against thee.
J4 - But Jesus held his peace,
R4 - But Jesus yet answered nothing,
J5 - And the high priest answered and said unto him
R5 - And Pilate asked him
J6 - ...tell us whether thou be the Christ...
R6 - Art thou the King of the Jews?
J7 - Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said...
R7 - And he answering said unto them, Thou sayest it...
There can be no doubt about it: the Jewish trial appears just like a copy of
the Roman one, with exactly the same words pronounced; although the
Fourth Gospel mentions no legal action in the house of the High Priest, as we
have already noted. In short, the Synoptic authors reveal their need to depict
the Jews as those who wanted Jesus' death, not the Romans, which is why they
invented the existence of a previous legal action in the house of the High Priest
before the later one in the presence of Pilate.
All these observations give us decisive elements of interpretation: the starting
point of the synoptic tradition is the explicit need to turn the Romans'
responsibility into that of the Jews, perhaps because admitting the
Romans' responsibility would have had unacceptable political
implications. |
