New Indian-Chennai News + more

The SIX trials of Jesus

Theology as drama, masquerading as history!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/trials.html

The Gospel of Mark's "two stage" trial of Jesus – first, condemnation by the Jewish council, on the charge of blasphemy, followed by the Roman governor's crowd-pleasing order for his crucifixion – is an instructive example of gospel economy: the text is terse, almost cryptic, with barely enough words for even a skeleton of narrative to hold together. In Mark, the trial of Jesus is reported in just two paragraphs, barely twenty sentences or three-hundred and sixty words. In fact, there is no genuine trial at all. The council had already decided Jesus must die, prior to his arrest. In contrast, the Roman governor almost immediately concluded that Jesus was innocent and should be set free!

To make a coherent narrative, the faithful draw on the later – and quite different – accounts of the other evangelists, versions based upon Mark's text which add a detail here, an explanation there. But the combined narrative is overloaded with far too much coming and going and blatant contradiction and what amounts to six"trials" between nightfall and noon the following day!

The story is wholly unconvincing to the rational mind, that reads not history, faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, but  a contrived dramatization of a theological agenda, rife with inconsistency. Yet, as ever, the believer selects his own narrative from the plethora of conflicting testimony, the imagination of faith resolving all difficulties and supplying from his own mind what is lacking in the texts.

 

Mark: The King must Die!

Mark wrote a consoling story in which the death of Jesus atoned for the sins of Israel. Through him, all might rise again. For Mark the "trial" of Jesus was the final, pre-crucifixion scene of his drama, when Jesus faced his detractors. It is nothing more than a theatrical charade: the dramatization of a fictional event that could have only one – a theological – outcome: The king must die.

That was the divine plan. God himself, in the form of his own son, made an atoning sacrifice, a death that redeemed mankind. The betrayal of Jesus by one of his chosen intimates was itself part of the divine plan. Things could not have "gone another way." Mark wrote not of "historic" events that could have unfolded as the chance outcome of human choices and venal motive. The humiliation of the saviour and his terrible sentence had been preordained by God, the sacrifice had been long foretold in scripture and remained imperative for mankind's salvation.

Evidence of "testimony" or even the semblance of a regular trial were quite unnecessary. All that was necessary – and the only reason for a trial at all – was that the real guilty ones must implicate themselves by pronouncing sentence on the Just One. And who are the real guilty ones? Mark made that abundantly clear, despite the brevity of his story: the Jewish priesthood – and the mob influenced by them.

"The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him." – Mark 14.1.

"The chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death." – Mark 14.55.

"The crowd shouted all the more, "Crucify him." – Mark 15.14.

At the same time, Rome – in the personification of the governor Pilate – would judge Jesus innocent and Rome would be exonerated, even though it acted as the instrument of God's will. Pilate, intimidated by the baying Jewish mob, "delivers up" Jesus for crucifixion. But those culpable for the death of Jesus are clearly the Jewish leadership and the Jews who follow them..

 

Before the Sanhedrin

"The chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death ... And they laid their hands on him, and took him ... and led Jesus away to the high priest and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes ...." – Mark 14.1, 53.

Mark's courthouse micro-drama begins with Jesus arraigned before the whole of the Jewish council. Yet bizarrely, it is far into the night on the eve of the Passover festival (aka the first day the Feast of Unleavened Bread). Why has the council left the seizure of Jesus so ridiculously late? In fact, several days have passed since the supposed disruption of the temple traders by Jesus and the resolve of the priests to destroy him. Why the delay? Mark himself anticipated this awkward question and he has Jesus himself verbalise an answer: "Let the scriptures be fulfilled" (Mark 14.49)!

Mark's nocturnal kangaroo court – no legitimate capital trial could have taken place at night – had Jesus standing before an unnamed high priest, all the chief priests, the elders and the scribes. They are the spiritual and social leadership of the Jews. The whole council, emphasises Mark, had already determined to put Jesus to death and merely "sought testimony against him."

How did Mark know this? Only because he was the author of the tale.

The sentence upon Jesus was certain but the precise nature of the charges remained unclear. No witnesses for the defence were called and the "false witnesses" floundered by disagreeing with each other. Yet even so, "some" of those witnesses wereable to agree something that accorded reasonably well with earlier dialogue voiced by Jesus: several references to "rising in three days" (comments that had puzzled his listeners at the time); and words spoken by Jesus in his "Olivet discourse" only shortly before:

"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" – Mark 14.58

"Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." – Mark 13.2

False witnesses or not, the high priest referred to their testimony, and asked Jesus to respond to the statement given by "these men".

The author of Mark gave no impressive response from Jesus – but why would he want to? His template at this point is Isaiah:

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgement he was taken away. " (53.7,8)

Thus Mark's Son of Man "made no answer" at his judgement.

In this ersatz trial, threats of destroying the temple were forgotten. Instead, Mark had the high priest pose the pivotal question: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" The Jewish priest was here used to articulate a later Christian statement of faith because claiming to be the messiah was not of itself blasphemous. Nor was it blasphemy for a Jew to claim to be "a son of God" – they were all sons of God, made in his own image! But the two epithets presented together as a claim to be the unique "messianic son of God" could be construed as blasphemous. Even so, Jesus hadn't "cursed God", which the law required for capital punishment (Leviticus 24.15-16, death by stoning).

Jesus barely moved his lips to confirm the charge: "I am." A short scriptural quote followed ("sitting on the right hand of power" derived from Psalm 110.1 "Yahweh said to my lord, sit at my right hand") and "son of man coming in the clouds of heaven", copied from Daniel 7.13 "With clouds of heaven came one like a son of man.")

With the apparent confession by Jesus of his blasphemy, "they all" condemned him as "deserving death" and some members of the Sanhedrin even struck and spat on him (all unlawful acts).

 

Before Pilate

Having described a very problematic night-time "blasphemy trial", Mark moved the story on to the next morning when "thewhole council consulted" and then sent Jesus, a bound prisoner, on to the Roman governor for a second, "civil trial". Why a second trial was necessary Mark does not explain, though the assumption is that the Sanhedrin did not have the authority for capital punishment. This restraint was made overt only in the later gospel of John (18.31).

The hearing before the council had been brief – but the morning interview before Pilate was even briefer. Supposedly, the accusations made by the chief priests before the governor were "many" (15.3) although Mark failed to mention a single one! Instead, the trial hinges on a single question from Pilate himself, and not one raised in the earlier trial: "Are you the King of the Jews?"  This straightforward question from the Roman elicits a terse and evasive response from Jesus: "You have said so."

The reader is left to imagine that the Jewish priests, in private consultations with Pilate, have emphasised that a claimant to messiahship, ipso facto, was a would-be king, and therefore a political threat to Rome. But Pilate was not so easily persuaded. At first, he merely "wondered" (15.4) and later "he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." (15.10). This "perception of envy" was the peg on which Mark would absolve the Roman. So reluctant was Pilate to find Jesus guilty that the prefect argued repeatedly with a Jewish mob baying for Jesus's crucifixion. But at length Pilate gave into the mob, delivered up Jesus for crucifixion and released a known "rebel, insurrectionist and murderer" called Barabbas.

As if!

Barabbas

Mark's use of the word "insurrectionist" is highly significant, made clearer in the original Greek:

ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.

There was moreover the [one] called Barabbas with the rebels having been bound, who in the insurrection murder had committed.

Matthew, when he came to copying this passage from Mark, substituted "notorious prisoner" for insurrectionist, without further detail; Luke wrestled with Mark's original text and subtly weakened its force: "a man who had been thrown into prison for a certain sedition started in the city, and for murder." John substituted the innocuous "robber".

Why on earth did the later evangelists disguise in various ways Mark's original contention that Barabbas was a rebel, who had committed murder in the insurrection? Because it was an unwelcome indication of when Mark had authored his story: theinsurrection was the great revolt otherwise known as the War of the Jews, which ended with the calamity in AD 70!

 

Matthew's Mighty Makeover

Matthew, in constructing his own gospel, copied and revised Mark's text in myriad ways. "Difficulties" in Mark's story line were smoothed away; much of the narration was made into direct speech from the mouth of Jesus; unnamed characters were given names; emphasis was added, often by repetition, and theological points were clarified or redirected. The trial of Jesus was no exception.

Where Mark had used the voice of a storyteller to set the scene: "It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread." (Mark 14.1), Matthew credited his hero with actually saying the same words (and added a reference to the crucifixion): Jesus said "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified." (Matthew 26.2)

Matthew named and highlighted the high priest and his pivotal role:

"Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest who was calledCaiaphas and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, 'Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people' ... Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest where the scribes and the elders had gathered." 
– Matthew 26.3,57

Mark had made a mess of the testimony of the false witnesses, saying that their testimony did not agree but then providing an example where some did agree, yet adding that the testimony did not agree "even so"!

"For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 'We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.' "Yet not even so did their testimony agree." – Mark 14.56-59

Matthew refined Mark's clumsy text by conceding that the false witnesses eventually agreed:

"Many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, 'This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.' " 
– Matthew 26.60-61

 

Q and A with the high priest

Following closely Mark's text the author of Matthew nonetheless made some significant changes in the "grilling" by the high priest. The first two questions were identical ("Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?")  but with the third and most crucial question the formula changes to something more instantly familiar to Christians. Instead of copying Mark's unusual "Son of the Blessed" – a phrase found nowhere else in the Bible and original to Mark – Matthewsubstitutes the familiar "Son of God". Yet the phrase is an anachronism: the Jews never used the term as the later Christians did.

The question was given solemn emphasis and the reply from Jesus was the same as used later in his response to Pilate.

"I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 
Jesus said to him, "You have said so."
– Matthew 26.63-4

To emphasise that Jesus had confessed to the charge is blasphemy Matthew repeated the word:

"He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" 
They answered, "He deserves death."
– Matthew 26.65

Matthew also attempted a clarification of the stranded word "Prophesy!" found in Mark's text. Jesus was taunted to name those who struck him. To damn the Jewish priesthood further the guards from Mark's script were eliminated. Those who struck Jesus were all members of the council!

 

Before Pilate – Matthew dreams up a dream!

Matthew made clear that the priests delivered Jesus to Pilate expressly to have him "put to death" (27.1). It was now Pilate himself, rather than the narrator, who stated that the charges made by the priests were "many" but again, none of these charges were revealed. Only the evasive admission from Jesus that he was the king of the Jews – "You have said so" – stands. Matthew's governor didn't just "wonder" – he "wondered greatly", whatever that meant.

The wholly unrealistic notion that a Roman military governor would capitulate to a noisy crowd on the doorstep of his own headquarters was retained in Matthew's text. But Matthew contributed a little extra colour exclusively his own: Pilate's wife had an unsettling "dream" about Jesus! This bizarre claim - how on earth could the author of Matthew have known this? – served the purpose of "rationalizing" the odd behaviour of a Roman officer: he had been influenced by his wife's bad dream!

"Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him,
"Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream."
– Matthew 27.19 

To emphasis his point, Matthew had Pilate, before the crowd, "wash his hands." Not only was the Roman distanced from a sentence he did not himself agree with, the Jews damned themselves by vocalizing their acceptance of collective guilt!

"So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying,
"I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.
And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!' " 
– Matthew 27.24-25