A series of webposts from a Jewish professor of law at Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, California, on the trial of Jesus:
Trial of Jesus: The Most Important Trial in History
Post of 8/24/2010
With this post, I have decided to end the posts on Sermon on the Mount and begin a new series of posts — the trial of Jesus. Eventually, one day, I expect to come back to the Sermon and pick up where I left off. For the foreseeable future, however, I will be writing on the many aspects of this event, an event that changed the world. Please allow me to explain.
Some of you, my readers, are Christian. Others, like me, are Jewish. Still others may be of the Muslim faith. Some may have no religion whatsoever. Nonetheless, wherever you may be in your own personal search for guidance and truth, what happened over 2000 years ago has changed you and the history of the world, as well.
As I tell students on the first day of class in my Trial of Jesus Seminar, one of the courses I teach at Southwestern Law School (the new semester begins today), consider this: If Jesus of Nazareth were to have been set free at any stage of the various legal proceedings against him (and there were several proceedings, as we shall explore) so that he died, not on a cross, but of natural causes (for my Christian readers, I understand that this was not theologically possible, so I speak not theologically, but philosophically), then there is no Christianity. It does not exist. What does the world look like in this parallel universe?
If there is no Christianity, virtually everyone today who is a Christian would instead be a Jew. Instead of celebrating Christmas, in December, we all would celebrate another holiday, Hanukkah (the first war for religious freedom, which the Jews won against the Hellenized Syrians in 175 B.C.E.). In lieu of Easter, all of us would commemorate Passover (which happened to be Jesus’ last supper). No one would attend church on Sunday, but rather synagogue on Saturday. And depending upon the extent of one’s practice (Judaism is a religion based on deed, not creed), many would not eat shrimp (Leviticus 11:10; Deuteronomy 14:10), bacon (Leviticus 11:7; Deuteronomy 14:8), or cheeseburgers (see Deuteronomy 14:21).
On a wider scale, there would never have been the Crusades or the Inquisition. And, of course, the Holocaust never would have happened in this other universe.
Instead of 18 million Jews today worldwide, there would be 2 billion.
Even more (and again, I speak philosophically), if there is no Christianity, it might well be that there is no Islam. Because some scholars believe that Islam developed out of Mohammed’s dissatisfaction with both Judaism and Christianity, if Christianity is taken out of the mix, it might well be that Islam does not arise and develop.
Instead of 18 million Jews in the world today worldwide, there would be 3 billion.
What happened to this one Jew from Nazareth changed, not just our own personal lives, but the course of the entire world.
I teach the Trial of Jesus because, as I have stated, this one trial changed everyone’s life in the western world and the course of history. It is, therefore, quite appropriate to try to figure out what happened.
But quite frankly, as I cover in class, I am truly not sure what happened and why it happened. For example, notwithstanding the Gospel account (see Matthew 12:14), I am not so sure that the Pharisees were bent on seeking Jesus’ destruction. I think the evidence in the Gospels is overwhelming that Jesus himself was a Pharisee. If so, what exactly was the role of the Pharisees in Jesus’ trial and execution? Moreover, there were so many irregularities at his “trials” (such as they were, as we shall see), that numerous questions arise, questions that I will pose (along with possible answers) in this series of posts. In the process of addressing these questions, readers who are not Jewish will learn much about Judaism and Jewish history, while those who are Jewish will see an aspect of Judaism and Jewish history that they perhaps never considered.
Trial of Jesus: Jews, Maccabees, Zealots, and Judas Iscariot
Post of 8/27/2010
As we try to understand Jesus’ trial and execution — what happened and why — we need to set the stage for what was going on in ancient Judea during Jesus’ lifetime. In this regard, we need to go back to 175 B.C.E. and the unprecedented Jewish military victory that happened there.
In that year, King Antiochus of Syria decided to invade ancient Judea. Why would this powerful king and mighty nation want to invade Judea, a nation that possessed no army and represented no threat to Syria? There were several reasons.
First, Judea represented a strategic location, bordering the Mediterranean Sea and Egypt. Second, Judea represented an opportunity for Egypt or Rome, and Antiochus did not want a powerful foreign nation and potential enemy on his border. Third, Syria was a Hellenized nation and Antiochus wanted another Greco-influenced culture bordering Syria, as this would make his own kingdom more secure from a political perspective. Hence, in 175 B.C.E., Antiochus made the decision to invade Judea, abolish Judaism, and force all Jews to adopt the Greek culture and religion. Things did not work out as smoothly as Antiochus had planned, however.
Although many Jews succumbed to the Syrian Hellenization, others did not. One group of Jews who did not surrender was a family of priests by the name of Hosmonei, who started an armed rebellion. The father was Mattathias; he had five sons. The most prominent would be Judas, who became known as “the Maccabeus.” Judas took command of the Jewish fighters. See 1 Maccabees 2:3.
What the word Maccabee means is not precisely clear. Some scholars believe the term is derived from the Hebrew, meaning, “hammer,” that is, the hammer-like blows that Judas and his followers inflicted on the Syrians. Other scholars believe the word Maccabee is an acronym for the battle cry of Judas: “Who among the gods, O Lord, can be likened unto thee,” inscribed on the Maccabean banner in the word, MaKHBiY. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Asmoneans). Whatever the term means, the Maccabees (as all the Jewish fighters were soon called), defeated the Syrians, and repaired and rededicated the Temple, which had been desecrated by the Syrians and damaged in the fighting. The eight-day December holiday, Hanukkah (meaning “dedication,” and which, interestingly, begins on the 25th day of the Hebrew month Kislev) is, therefore, a commemoration of a great military victory against all odds. A nation that had not had an army for 400 years defeated a great power. This victory would not be lost on Rome, as we shall see.
In 63 B.C.E., the governing descendants of the Maccabees made a decision to invite the Romans to land in Judea, as a bulwark against Egypt and other powers. It was a fateful decision. The Romans soon became not an invited ally but an occupying enemy. By the time Pontius Pilate became governor of Judea, Jews were being killed by the Romans. “There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” Luke 13:1. Roman soldiers also raped Jewish women.
With the cruel occupation came Jewish upheaval, in the tradition of the Maccabees. By the time Jesus was hauled before Pontius Pilate, full-scale guerilla fighting had erupted. “And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.” Mark 15:7. It is a virtual certainty that such fighting had begun well before Jesus’ trial.
One group of pious Jews who took part in this fighting against Roman occupation was the Zealots. Who were these people? They were essentially Pharisees who were armed and willing to fight Roman rule. They believed that by fighting for the Jewish nation, they could actually hasten the coming of the Messiah, who would end Roman domination (I cover the Jewish view of the Messiah in the next post).
While it would be an extrapolation to believe that Jesus himself was a Zealot, it is quite probable if not a certainty that Jesus associated with the Zealots, those who sought to fight and expel Rome from Judea. The Gospel makes express reference to one of Jesus’ disciples as, “Simon, called Zelotes,” that is, the Zealot. Luke 6:15. Does this mean that Simon was zealous in his religious zeal only, or does it mean that he was a member of the Zealots, bent on going to war with Rome? If the latter is the proper meaning, then Jesus necessarily put himself in harm’s way by associating with an insurrectionist. And perhaps twenty centuries ago, one who is zealous in his theological belief can be expected to take up arms in support of that belief. In such case, it really does not matter whether we label Simon a zealot or a Zealot: they are one continuum. But there is more.
A splinter group of the Zealots was the Sicarii, meaning “daggers,” because they carried knives with them and used them to assassinate Romans and those who opposed war with Rome. Thus, the Sicarii were also insurrectionists. Amazingly, Judas Iscariot, the one whom the Gospels state betrayed Jesus, may have been a member of the Sicarii. According to some scholars, “Iscariot” was not a surname as such, but a description of the group he belonged to (with a minor spelling variant), much akin to Simon the Zealot: Judas the Sicarius — Judas the Dagger. We must also add to this the fact that Jesus actually spoke, whether literally or figuratively, equivocally or otherwise, of the need for the populace to arm themselves with swords:
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Luke 21:35-38.
(Compare with Matthew 26:52, “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”)
When we connect the dots, this is what we get: The Jews had a history of fighting foreign oppressors — and winning. Simon was quite probably a revolutionary, as was Judas. The Romans had shed Jewish blood, and the Jews were fighting back. Many had hoped that such fighting would hasten the coming of the Messiah, not a peaceful Messiah, but a warrior Messiah. In any case, whoever Jesus was, it seems to me that the Romans thought Jesus was a threat to the civil order: he represented yet another Messiah (there were quite a few, as I shall discuss) who would lead an armed struggle to free Israel from Rome, and to the extent one is known by the company they keep (and Jesus was in the company of Zealots and Sicarii), Jesus’ fate was sealed.
And so, Jesus was executed as other revolutionaries were — by crucifixion.
Trial of Jesus: Rome and Warrior Messiahs
Post of 8/31/2010
The traditional Jewish view of the Messiah is decidedly different from the traditional Christian view. For centuries prior to Jesus’ birth, Jews had believed that the Messiah would usher in an era when all humankind would experience a golden age. It would be a time when truth would reign supreme, when the world would come to understand that there is only One God. Disease and pestilence would end. Some rabbis believed (although not all) that poverty, too, would cease. All rabbis agreed, however, that foreign subjugation of Israel would end. During Jesus’ lifetime, that meant that Rome would be defeated and its rule of Judea terminated. To the Roman rulers, in conjunction with the Jews’ history of successful rebellion (see post of August 27, 2010), would-be messiahs would necessarily have to be dealt with harshly.
That the Messiah would be a great warrior first manifested itself, quite remarkably, in the person of Cyrus the Great. In 539 B.C.E., Cyrus defeated the Babylonians who, in 586 B.C.E. had destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple and took Judea’s inhabitants captive. After his victory, Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and even allocated money to them to assist them in rebuilding the Temple. With the emergence of what seemed to be a golden age, and with the Babylonians defeated, no wonder the Jews later believed that perhaps Cyrus (who was not a Jew!) was the Messiah.
In this regard, and perhaps inexplicably (some critical scholars believe the concept of the Messiah did not actually begin until the first century B.C.E.), when the Maccabees defeated the Syrians in the latter part of the second century B.C.E, none apparently thought that any of these saviors of Judaism were of the Davidic line (the Messiah would come from David’s lineage). By the time the Romans had occupied Judea, however, the need and desire for a Messiah who would end foreign rule grew stronger.
In the year 6 or 7 C.E. one Judas, known as Judas the Galilean, headed a group of Pharisees and Zealots (some say that Judas actually formed the Zealots; see also post of August 27, 2010) and proclaimed an independent Jewish state. The revolt spread. Eventually, Judas died in a battle with Roman soldiers. His sons, Jacob and Simon, took up the fight. Ultimately, around the year 46 C.E., they were captured by the Romans and suffered the fate of all insurrectionists — death by crucifixion. So ended the revolt. The failed rebellion of Judas is mentioned in Acts 5:37. Importantly, while Judas the Galilean and his sons were waging war against Rome, Jesus lived and taught in Galilee. Is it any wonder that the Romans crucified Jesus, yet another Galilean messiah?
That said, the advent of false messiahs did not end. In the year 66, one of Judas’ grandsons, Eliezar, took part in the war with Rome and was a commander of Masada, a fortress and the final Jewish stronghold to fall in Jewish-Roman war (66-73 C.E.). Still others messiahs followed. The most serious threat to Rome was that of Bar-Kokba in another war with Rome, beginning in 132. This warrior, proclaimed the Messiah by one of Judaism’s greatest teachers, Rabbi Akiba, actually defeated several Roman legions before he was defeated and the war ended in 135 — and with it the state of Judea. Hundreds of thousands of Jews died in this war and Judea was laid waste. In fact, the Romans were so fed up with the Jews that they actually changed the name of Judea to Palaestina (Palestine).
Remarkably, even this disaster did not end the messianic hope. It continued for many centuries. Still, Jews since Bar-Kokba’s rebellion have been wary of seeking out a messiah — and for good reason: No good has ever come of it.
That Pilate executed Jesus, another messiah who almost certainly associated with other revolutionaries (see post of August 27, 2010) is not difficult to comprehend. What is difficult to understand is the Jewish role in all of this, a role, real or not, that has caused untold misery to countless number of Jews throughout the centuries. It is this mystery of Jewish involvement in the trial and death of Jesus of Nazareth that we shall take up in the posts that follow.
Trial of Jesus: Role of the Pharisees
Post of 9/03/2010
In my previous post (see August 31, 2010), I explore how it is quite obvious why the Roman authorities would despise Jesus and ultimately have him executed on a cross: whether correctly or incorrectly, he was identified with being yet another messiah and the Messiah in Judaism (at least during those times) was to be a great warrior that would free Israel from foreign subjugation. The way Pontius Pilate dealt with Jesus is the way Rome dealt with all revolutionaries: he was sentenced to death by crucifixion.
Thus it is easy to understand why the Romans sought to put Jesus to death. More mysterious, however, is why the Pharisees would want to kill him: “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. “ Matthew 12:14. That the Gospels relate that the Pharisees — his fellow Jews — would want to destroy him is puzzling for several reasons.
First, the Pharisees and Jesus shared the same theology. Both believed (unlike the Sadducees, a subject I will discuss in the next post) in immortality of the soul, a resurrection of the dead, and the coming of the Messiah. Yes, Jesus and the Pharisees often went at it with each other. But from a Jewish perspective, one must declare, “So what!” That is what Jews do: We debate and argue — and do so passionately. Jews have debated and argued since Abraham “argued” with God in an attempt to save Sodom and Gomorra. See Genesis 18:23-33.
Second, as for Jesus’ regularly ridiculing the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, this is no worse than the Talmud — redacted and penned by the same Pharisaic rabbis — ridiculing the “righteous” among their own:
There were said to be seven classes of Pharisees: (1) the “shoulder” Pharisee, who wears his good deeds on his shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not from principle, but from expediency; (2) the “wait-a-little” Pharisee, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action; (3) the “bleeding” Pharisee, who in his eagerness to avoid looking on a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself to bleeding by stumbling against a wall; (4) the “painted” Pharisee, who advertises his holiness lest any one should touch him so that he should be defiled; (5) the “reckoning” Pharisee, who is always saying “What duty must I do to balance any unpalatable duty which I have neglected?”; (6) the “fearing” Pharisee, whose relation to God is one merely of trembling awe; (7) the Pharisee from “love.” In all but the last there was an element of “acting,” of hypocrisy.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Pharisee: Talmudic Classification), quoting the Talmud.
Most importantly, Jesus himself tells the people that the Pharisees are the successors to Moses and that, as his successors, are to be obeyed: “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.... ” Matthew 22:2-3. If Jesus had disdain for the Pharisees, why did he give them full legitimacy and direct the people to follow them? And why would they (the Pharisees) want to destroy the man who is on their supporter? Yes, yes, I am aware that immediately following this quote Jesus continues to lambaste the Pharisees. Still, his words are absolutely no different than the words of the Talmud, reproduced above.
Indeed, when all is said and done, the Pharisees actually try to assist Jesus and warn him not to go to Jerusalem: “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. If the Pharisees did indeed want to kill him, why did they try to save his life?
Finally, and most puzzling, when Jesus is arrested, while the priests are expressly named, the Pharisees are not so named in the Synoptic Gospels. They are nowhere to be seen in his arrest and trial, and execution. See Matthew 26:47, 59 (compare with John 18:3).
Thus, if the Pharisees did not have anything to do with Jesus arrest, trial, and execution, who among the Jews did? We will explore this in greater depth in the next post.
Trial of Jesus: Priests and Moneychangers
Post of 9/07/2010
As we have previously seen (see post of September 3, 2010), while the Pharisee are not even mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as having taken part in the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus, the same cannot be said of the priests. Indeed, the account presented in the Gospels makes it unequivocally clear that the priests — descendants of Aaron (see Exodus 28:1-3) — were directly involved in the controversy, arrest, trial, and ultimately, the execution of Jesus.
Thus, when a group of Jews decide to do Jesus in, it is the priests (and the chief priests, or family heads, at that; see e.g. Matthew 16:21) who make the decision to kill him. “After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.” Mark 14:1-2. (The scribes were the scholars of the law. The Pharisees had their scribes and the Sadducees, represented by the priests, had their own. It is the Sadduceean scribes that the Gospel writer refers to here.)
Further, when Judas decides to hatch a plan to betray Jesus (why he did so is a subject I will discuss in a coming post), he arranges to hand him over, again, not to the Pharisees, but to the priests. “And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.” Mark 14:10-11.
When Jesus is arrested at the Garden at Gethsemane, it is a priestly contingent of Jewish guards, possibly with a cohort of Roman soldiers, which makes the seizure. “And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.” Mark 14:43. See also John 18:3 (the only account mentioning the Pharisees).
Next, when Jesus is tried before a Jewish tribunal, it is one headed by the priests, not the Pharisees: “And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.” Mark 15:1.
Finally, when given the choice to release Jesus or the insurrectionist Barabbas, the chief priests work the crowd to demand Barabbas be the one who is freed: “But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.” Mark 15:11.
The priests, and the chief priests alone, are the moving force that dooms Jesus. But why did they seek his demise? What did Jesus do to warrant a plot to have him executed in a manner — crucifixion — fully illegal under Jewish law?
Although Jesus’ theology was the same as that of the Pharisees, it was different from the theology of the priestly Sadducees. The Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, did not believe in the oral law, the existence of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and most importantly, the coming of the Messiah, the one who would lead humankind into a golden age and where foreign subjugation of Israel would end. To be sure, there were significant differences between the two theologies. But would this be enough to want to kill Jesus? It strains the imagination to believe so. There were thousands of Pharisees and there is no record that the Sadducees ever wanted any of them handed over to the Roman authorities for death by crucifixion because of their theology. What, then, could explain the priests desire to destroy Jesus?
One possible explanation is Jesus’ interference with the sacrificial system, when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers:
And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
Mark 11:15-18.
Some background information at this point is important. From the Gospel accounts, the Temple’s moneychangers have secured a perpetual reputation of greed and selfishness. Yet, if accuracy is important in understanding what happened to Jesus, the Gospel account is incomplete: The moneychangers actually performed a very valuable service. When Jews from outside Judea came to Jerusalem to make an offering (sacrifices could only be made at the Temple in Jerusalem), they carried money from different countries. The moneychangers, therefore, performed the important job of exchanging money so that animals could be purchased in the local currency. Moreover, while the Gospel account does not make this clear, the moneychangers were never, ever, inside the Temple itself; they had their booths set up in the courtyard, where it was quite appropriate for such transactions.
That is not to say that all moneychangers were fully ethical. It would be unrealistic to think that, any more than it would be to think that today every rabbi, priest, minister, lawyer, teacher, police officer, etc., is of the highest integrity. Most are, but not all. That is just the human experience.
In this regard, when Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers, we may reasonably assume that he was overturning the tables of only the unethical moneychangers: as I stated earlier, the ethical ones performed an important and needed service, and certainly Jesus would not want to interfere with a service that enabled Jews to conform to the law. See Matthew 5:18. But if all this is true and correct, why, then, would the priests seek Jesus’ destruction?
Perhaps it was because some of the priests were profiting from the gouging behavior of the unethical moneychangers. Kickbacks are not an invention of the 21st century. It may well be that the chief priests were getting kickbacks from the sellers of animals (for offerings) and moneychangers. People today kill for money and that the same mentality clearly existed then. Nonetheless, if that were the case, why did Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel (who lived in the generation immediately after Jesus) not suffer the same fate that Jesus suffered when he went to court to have the price of animals lowered when he believed the sellers of the animals were engaged in price gouging? See 7 Jewish Encyclopedia (Jesus of Nazareth: In the Temple) 160, 165. There was apparently no lasting economic consequence to Jesus’ act of overturning the tables (in John 2:15, Jesus does this at the beginning of his ministry, not near the end), but in Rabbi Simeon’s case, as a result of the legal proceedings he initiated, the price for offerings fell dramatically. Yet, neither the sellers of the animals, nor the moneychangers, nor the priests sought to have Rabbi Simeon killed.
Thus, again, we seem to hit a wall as to why the priests would want to have Jesus killed. The Gospel of John may provide an answer, however, one that we shall discuss in the next post.
Trial of Jesus: Caiaphas and Pilate
Post of 9/10/2010
In the last post, we continued to try to determine why the chief priests would want Jesus executed. We saw in that post that whatever ruckus Jesus caused by overturning the tables of the moneychangers, that disruption was minor. In any case, it was much smaller than the trouble caused by Rabbi Simeon who, we learned, actually caused a significant price decline in animals used for sacrifices — something that could not have made the merchants and moneychangers happy. Yet, no harm came to Rabbi Simeon. Why, then, did harm come to Jesus?
There is a passage in John’s Gospel that may shed some light on the problem:
Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
John 11:45-53.
Why would Caiaphas and the chief priests (in the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees are not even mentioned in the arrest and trial of Jesus) want to kill Jesus? As I stated, this passage from John’s Gospel provides some insight. Consider, in this regard, this fictional dialogue between Pilate and Caiaphas:
Caiaphas: You sent for me, sir?
Pilate: Yes. I have been told by my officers that there is a man by the name of Jesus, from Nazareth, who is stirring up the people. Many think he is the Messiah.
Caiaphas: Some do believe that.
Pilate: Another Messiah! Don’t you people ever stop with this nonsense! No rabble rouser is going to overthrow Roman rule in Judea. Do you not remember what happened to Judas the Galilean! [ of August 31, 2010.] He got himself killed and some of his followers crucified.
Caiaphas: Yes, I remember, sir.
Pilate: There are signs of insurrection in the air. [See Mark 15:7.] Just the other day my men had to fight with the Zealots. [Zealots were armed Pharisees who sought to hasten the coming of the Messiah by beginning a war with Rome. See posts of August 27 and August 31, 2010.] Jerusalem is becoming a hotbed of agitation. With your Passover celebration coming up, I fear that this Jesus may lead a rebellion.
Caiaphas: Some say he is against bloodshed, although he does speak of a new “kingdom of heaven.”
Pilate: I also hear that he is in the company of some of these revolutionaries, these Zealots. [See Luke 6:15.] I am not sure about this Jesus, but I am not taking any chances. Hand him over to me by tomorrow and I will deal with him.
Caiaphas: Tomorrow? Tonight is Passover. Besides, the people may not stand for it. He is charismatic and popular.
Pilate: You will hand him over to me by tomorrow or I will go house to house if necessary and kill any number of Jews that I need to kill in order to get this Jesus. Once I get him, with your cooperation or without your cooperation, I will then crucify him and make an example of him. His death will make it clear that Rome will not tolerate insurrection.
Caiaphas: But, sir. I —
Pilate: You will hand him over to me! You Jews are familiar with sacrifices. Well, let him be your sacrifice — to save the nation. Your nation of Jews! Now go.
Caiaphas: Very well, sir.
Well, there it is. This is a fictional dialogue, to be sure. Yet, I am not so sure that something like this did not happen. In fact, I think that such a scenario is the only scenario that makes sense: that Jesus was handed over to Pilate because the priests had no choice: it was Jesus or scores or even many hundreds of Jews would die in Pilate’s search for him. John’s Gospel would seem to support this position.
Pilate was duty bound to keep order in Judea. He was ruthless and he did what he needed to do — prevent insurrection, which was already starting. “And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.” Mark 15:7.
So Jesus was sacrificed for the purpose of saving many. But he was not sacrificed, in my opinion, because the priests (or the Pharisees) had it in for him. The priests did what they had to do to save many innocent Jews.
There is a law in Judaism that states that if evildoers come to a Jewish village and demand any one Jew, the entire village must suffer death rather than hand over one Jew to the evildoers. On the other hand, if evildoers come and demand a specific Jew, he must be handed over, lest all die.
So it was with Jesus.
Trial of Jesus: Right to Remain Silent and False Witnesses
Post of 9/14/2010
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. . .” These words are, of course, familiar to most Americans and are known as the Miranda rights, named after the famous case, Arizona V. Miranda. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal has a right to remain silent and the right to counsel during a custodial interrogation. Interestingly enough, in that Supreme Court case, the court made reference to Jewish law. Why? In Jewish law, a legal system that has been in existence since 1400 B.C.E., nothing, absolutely nothing, that an arrestee says can be used against him. While the right to remain silent can be waived in American law, Jewish law has an “absolute” Miranda rule: the arrestee cannot waive or give up this right.
How, then, did the Judean government prove its case against wrongdoers if admissions and confessions were not allowed? The Torah gives the answer: “By the testimony of two witnesses: At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.” Deuteronomy 17:6. Later still, the Torah makes it clear that the two witnesses rule is applicable for any crime, not just capital crimes: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” Deuteronomy 19:15.
This two witness requirement was well known to Jesus when he taught what to do with a sinner who will not admit the error of his ways: “But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” Matthew 18:16.
When Jesus appeared before a Jewish “tribunal” (the type of tribunal that it was will be the subject of another post), the presiding officer of the tribunal presented two witnesses to testify against Jesus: “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” Matthew 26:59-60.
The witnesses who lied would have been guilty of perjury, for which the “eye for eye” doctrine would apply — the only time, outside of murder, it did.
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Deuteronomy 19:16-21.
In any event, saying that one will destroy the temple and rebuild it, is a strange statement, to be sure. Still, it is not a crime under Jewish law. But these are not the only problems with Jesus’ trial. In addition, and most importantly perhaps, he is convicted based upon what he says, in clear violation of his “Miranda rights.” The high priest asks Jesus if he is “the Christ, the Son of God.” Matthew 26:63.
Significantly, claiming to be the Messiah is not a crime in Judaism. Further, the title, “son of God,” simply means a righteous person. Again, it is not a crime to claim to be righteous. Moreover, to the extent that the high priest meant “Son of God,” in a literal sense, that simply could not have been in the mind of the high priest: Within Judaism, God quite fundamentally does not have a Son. Why this is so can be addressed in any comments or in a subsequent post, but suffice to say that Judaism teaches that God does not have a Son. Thus, this question as to Jesus’ identity as the Son of God could not even have come into the mind of the high priest. Indeed, it took the church 300 years, until the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.), to figure out Jesus’ identity. How in heaven’s name (no pun intended) could the high priest have been so insightful?
In any case, Jesus responded: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.” Matthew 26:64-66.
Never mind that what is described is not blasphemy (that is the subject of another post). For our purposes here, it is important only to note that Jesus is convicted based upon what he said, in contravention of Jewish law.
Thus, the Gospel account is either wrong (purposefully or accidentally) or accurate and indicates a “kangaroo court.” But if the latter, we have to ask, why? As we have seen in previous posts, the Pharisees had the same theology as Jesus and were not even present in the arrest and trial of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. And while the Sadduceean priests had a different theology, why would they want to single out Jesus — and not other Pharisees? Perhaps the answer is not so black and white. Perhaps the answer is in the gray zone: Jesus was the sacrifice needed to save other Jewish lives. (See post of September 10, 2010.) In this scenario, it might well be that Jesus was not a criminal defendant, but someone caught up in a political whirlwind. The high priest had no choice but to turn Jesus over to Rome. One Jew dies or many hundreds die. (Id.) Rather than getting angry at the high priest, perhaps he should be pitied for the horrific choice he had to make: an ancient Sophie’s Choice.
There is one last point to keep in mind: the Romans typically did not care about the religious infighting of its subjects. It was only concerned with keeping law and order. Yet, claiming to be the Messiah, while not a crime in Judaism, was a crime under Roman law because messiahs led insurrections. (Id.)
Trial of Jesus: Nighttime Trial and a Unanimous Verdict
Post of 9/17/2010
As we continue to analyze the Gospel account of Jesus’ trial, we see that Jesus was not only arrested at night, but that the “legal proceedings,” such as they were, actually began at night. If a duly constituted “council,” that is, Sanhedrin, convened at night and tried Jesus, this was in violation of Jewish law. Jewish law strictly prohibits a trial in a capital case from beginning at night. But there is more.
At the end of the “trial,” all of the “judges” sought to put Jesus to death: “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” Matthew 26:59. But a fundamental principle of Jewish law is that if the vote of the tribunal is unanimous in favor of conviction, the defendant is immediately set free. Why was this so? The basis is simple: If not one of 23 (Lesser Sanhedrin) or 71 (Great Sanhedrin) judges could find something in the defendant’s favor, then the court had to have been a “kangaroo” court. The deck had to have been stacked against the defendant. By presenting a unanimous vote in favor of conviction, the court (if it were a court) was setting itself up to have Jesus released. Of course, that was not to be the case.
In a later post, I will discuss the differences between the Lesser Sanhedrin and Greater Sanhedrin. In the meantime, suffice to say that we continue to see how the proceedings against Jesus were remarkably illegal. Consequently, one has to ask: Why would an unlawful legal proceeding be so blatantly illegal. Anyone with any knowledge of Jewish law would know that this was illegal. Query why the judges did not act under at least the thinnest color of legality? This has always been a mystery to me. If the judges had it in for Jesus (and it is not clear, as discussed in prior posts, why they would have had it in for Jesus), why did they do their deed so blatantly in violation of the law? The inference that I am raising is simply this: If it is not realistic to believe that a court would so flagrantly violate the law, could it be that the Gospel accounts are not accurate?
Trial of Jesus: Charging the Witnesses
Post of 9/21/2010
As we continue to explore the trial of Jesus, we now examine how the witnesses under Jewish law were generally charged, that is, sworn in, before they gave their testimony. Here is what the judges told them, as stated by the Talmud:
How were the witnesses awestruck in criminal cases? They were brought in and warned: Perhaps your testimony is based only on a supposition, or on hearsay, or on that of another witness, or you have had it from a trustworthy man; or perhaps you are not aware that finally we will investigate the matter by examination and cross-examination. You may also be aware of the fact that there is no similarity between civil and criminal cases. In civil cases one may repay the money damage and he is atoned; but in criminal cases the blood of the person executed, and of his descendants to the end of all generations, clings to the originator of his execution. So do we find in the case of Cain, who slew his brother. It reads [Gen. iv. 10]: “The voice of the ‘bloods’ of thy brother are crying unto me from the ground.” It does not read “blood,” but “bloods,” which means his blood and the blood of his descendants. [According to others it reads “bloods” in the plural, because his blood was scattered all over the trees and stones.] Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world. And also because of peace among creatures, so that one should not say: My grandfather was greater than yours; and also that the heretic shall not say: There are many creators in heaven; and also to proclaim the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He. For a human being stamps many coins with one stamp, and all of them are alike; but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, has stamped every man with the stamp of Adam the First, and nevertheless not one of them is like the other. Therefore every man may say: The world was created for my sake, hence I must be upright, just, etc. Should you (witnesses) say: Why should we take so much trouble upon ourselves? To this it is written [Lev. V. 1]: “And he is a witness, since he hath seen or knoweth something; if he do not tell it, and thus bear his iniquity.” And should you say: After all, why should the blood of this man cling to us? To this it is written [Prov. xi. 10]: “When the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.”
Talmud Sanhedrin, Mishnah, 37a (Rodkinson ed.).
This is powerful and truly awe inspiring and better than our own, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” To be sure, the witnesses are not given such a warning in the Gospel account. Indeed, to the contrary, the judges, such as they were, actually know that the witnesses are lying. “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” Matthew 26:59.
Yet, again, we must therefore ask: What exactly is going on here? The Gospel account is so incongruent with basic procedure that we must ask: was this a kangaroo court, or was this not accurately reported?
Trial of Jesus: Judges, Deliberation, and Justice
Post of 9/24/2010
We continue to explore the trial of Jesus. In my past posts, I have made the point that what happens during this “trial” (such as it was), simply did not comport with the fundamental rights that a criminal defendant had under Jewish law. In this post, I remain on that theme, focusing today on the role of the judges in their deliberation.
Initially, we should note that Jewish law employs an “inquisitorial” system, not an “adversarial” system, as we have in our country. What is the difference between the two? Under an inquisitorial system, the judges themselves question the witnesses. In an adversarial system, the lawyers for the parties (the district attorney for the state and the defense attorney for the defendant) do the questioning by examination and cross-examination. We should also note that in ancient times, the parties did not have lawyers, as we know them and their roles today, Thus, the judges had a heavy burden, which burden was recognized in the Torah, where it declares of the judiciary:
You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
Deuteronomy 16:18-20.
Of course, the Gospel account paints a different picture of the judges, such as they were, in Jesus’ trial, if a trial it even was: “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” Matthew 27:59.
Moreover, Jewish law requires the deliberation of the judges in a thoughtful manner. When the daytime trial ends (and trial must begin in the daytime, not at night, as was the case with Jesus), the judges eat (but not drink) and then deliberate until the morning. Any judge that had previously been in favor of conviction can change his mind for innocence, but not vice-versa. A majority plus one was needed to convict; a simple majority was sufficient for acquittal. The details are laid out in the Talmud:
The judges [after the testimony is completed] then go out in pairs, and eat something -- not much, but do not drink wine the whole day. They continue their discussion (outside of the court) all night, and on the morrow they come early to the court. He who was among the defenders says: I defended yesterday, and am still of the same opinion. The same is it with the accuser -- he has to say: I accused, and am still of the same opinion. The one who has accused may retract from his statement of yesterday, to the advantage of the defendant. This is not allowed to him who has defended. If some of them erred in their statements, the scribes of the judges remind them of it. And again, if the conclusion is to the advantage of the defendant they free him immediately; and if not, they arise to be numbered. If twelve of them acquit and eleven accuse, he is acquitted. But if twelve accuse and eleven acquit, and even if eleven accuse and eleven acquit, but the twenty-third says, “I am in doubt”; even if twenty-two are for acquitting or accusing and one says, “I don’t know,” judges are to be added. And to what number? Two and two, till the whole number reaches seventy-one. And then if thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted; but if vice versa, the discussion is prolonged until one of the accusers accepts the opinion of the acquitters.
Talmud Sanhedrin, Mishnah, 40a (Rodkinson ed.).
The point of all of this is that the judges took their duties most seriously. That seemingly was not the case with Jesus, however, where he is condemned almost immediately:
At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
Matthew 26:60-66.
Thus, all the members of this tribunal condemn Jesus. See also Mark 14:64. But that flies in the face of the law, as we have seen. Interestingly, if all of the members of a tribunal vote to convict, then the defendant is set free immediately:
Rabbi Kahana said: If all the persons of the Sanhedrin are accusing, the defendant becomes free. Why so? Because there is a tradition that such a trial must be postponed for one night, as perhaps some defense may be found for him; but if all accuse him, it is not to be supposed that some will find any defense for him over night, and therefore they are no longer competent to decide in his suit.
Talmud Sanhedrin 17a (Rodkinson ed.)
The point is that if none of the 23 judges could find anything in favor of the defendant — not even one judge — the “fix” had to have been in to convict. Thus, the defendant is set free. Again, recall that with Jesus, all of the tribunal declared him guilty, immediately and without any deliberation. None!
What exactly is going on here?
Trial of Jesus: Witnesses, Disciples, and Blasphemy
Post of 9/28/2010
What I next cover in the Trial of Jesus is the testimony of witnesses and the charge of blasphemy. As with our own judicial proceedings, a defendant accused of a crime under Jewish law had an absolute right to bring forth witnesses to testify in his defense.
One question that I have long had about the trial of Jesus is why none of his own disciples appeared before the tribunal (such as it was and the subject of another post, soon) to testify. Why did not Jesus’ own disciples appear to testify to support their teacher? Indeed, when Jesus was arrested, they all scattered. Matthew 26:56. Later, Peter denies his teacher three times. Matthew 26:69-75. Why would they not appear to testify in Jesus’ behalf?
One could say that they were afraid. But afraid of what? Perhaps they were afraid that they, too, could suffer the same fate that would await their master. See Matthew 16:21. Nonetheless, fear, whether rational or irrational, can make people do things that they ordinarily would never do. In this case, fear made the disciples deny their teacher. Of course, had they testified in his behalf, it is quite possible — if not probable — that Jesus would have been set free (and the course of world history changed). What could their testimony have been? That Jesus did not commit blasphemy.
Blasphemy is a capital crime for which Jesus was convicted. See Matthew 26:65. But Jesus did not commit blasphemy. What is blasphemy?
Initially, it is important to understand the God actually has a personal name. It is comprised of the Hebrew consonants, yud, hay, vav, hay. Modernly, in English, it is written as, Yahweh. This name, the “Tetragrammaton,” is sacred and, with one exception, is never pronounced. When the Temple stood, on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the High Priest would pronounce the Name in a sacred and awe inspiring ceremony.
The basis the crime of blasphemy is Leviticus 24:10-16:
And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Thus, as the Talmud further explains, blasphemy is cursing God with God’s own Ineffable Name; it is not enough merely to utter the Name. The Talmud illustrates how one would commit blasphemy: One would declare, “May Yosie strike Yosie,” with “Yosie” being used as a substitute for the Name. See 3 Jewish Encyclopedia 237-38 (Blasphemy).
Clearly, Jesus did not blaspheme: He did not curse God while uttering the Ineffable Name. Further, claiming to be the Messiah is not even a crime, and regardless of what the “son of God” means (see post of September 14, 2010), this is simply not blasphemy.
Trial of Jesus: Courts and the Role of the Sanhedrin
Post of 10/01/2010
Continuing our examination of the trial of Jesus, we next explore the role, if any, of the Sanhedrin. In this regard, the preliminary question is: what was the Sanhedrin? The short answer is, the Sanhedrin was the highest tribunal in ancient Judea. The longer answer gets somewhat more complicated, adding to the mystery surrounding the trial and execution of Jesus.
Initially, ancient Judea had three levels of courts. The first was the beth din, “house of judgment.” This was comprised of a three-man court. It had jurisdiction over civil cases (e.g., torts and contracts), and criminal cases where the punishment was lashes. Every town had a beth din.
Next was the Sanhedrin, and here it gets confusing and enigmatic. The term Sanhedrin is a Hebrew-Aramaic term referring to an “assembly.” The confusion comes about because there were two Sanhedrins: a Lesser Sanhedrin and a Great Sanhedrin. First, let us discuss the Lesser Sanhedrin.
The Lesser Sanhedrin was composed of 23 members and handled most cases of capital punishment. Lesser Sanhedrins were found throughout Judea and in Jerusalem. The Lesser Sanhedrin did not hear appeals from a beth din. Appeals, as we know them, from an inferior court to a superior court, did not exist; each court had its own unique jurisdiction.
The highest tribunal was the Great Sanhedrin, a court of seventy-one. From here it gets quite complicated because there were actually several Great Sanhedrins. Ancient Judea had a Great Sanhedrin that was the highest political body in Judea (henceforth “Great Sanhedrin Political”); it also had a Great Sanhedrin that was the highest religious body in the land (henceforth “Great Sanhedrin Religious”). The Great Sanhedrin Religous apparently started in Moses’ times, as the Torah relates: “And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.” Number 11:16. Adding Moses to the seventy bring us to seventy-one. The Great Sanhedrin Political had its beginnings much later.
Apparently, the Great Sanhedrin Political is the body that the Gospels refer to when it relates how Jesus appeared before the “council.” For example, we read, “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” Matthew 26:59. Importantly, the Great Sanhedrin Political was composed of the aristocracy, that is, the priestly Sadducees, which is consistent with the Synoptic Gospel writers failing even to mention the Pharisees by name in the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus. Moreover, if Jesus were before some Great Sanhedrin, it would make sense that he was before a political body. As previously discussed, his trial was almost certainly a political matter and not a religious one. See post of September 10, 2010.
As for the Great Sanhedrin Religious, it seems that the Sadducees and the Pharisees competed for power in this body and that at any given time, one or the other had a monopoly over it. By Jesus’ time, however, it seems that the Pharisees dominated the Great Sanhedrin Religious.
While the Great Sanhedrin Political dealt with certain criminal cases (e.g., trial of a false prophet), the Great Sanhedrin Religious dealt with non-adversarial matters (e.g., clarifying uncertain issues of law).
If Jesus were tried for the crime of blasphemy, however, and recall that this is the crime for which he was convicted (see Matthew 26:65), Jesus would have had to have been before the Lesser Sanhedrin, which alone had jurisdiction over most capital crimes and, specifically, for the crime of blasphemy.
Still, it is not clear that Jesus was before any legally constituted tribunal. Why is this? Because the trial of a defendant, regardless of what tribunal it was (Great or Lesser Sanhedrin) had to take place in a courtroom. Jesus’ trial, such as it was, took place in the house of the high priest. “Having arrested Him, they led Him and brought Him into the high priest’s house.” Luke 22:54. Holding court in the house of the high priest would be the same as holding court in the house of Chief Justice John Roberts — it simply cannot happen. Just as we have rules of procedure, so, too, did the Jews of Judea.
Moreover, if Jesus were executed in the year 30 C.E. or thereafter (as most scholars believe), it is noteworthy that the Great Sanhedrin Political had lost the power to carry out the death sentence by that time; only the Roman governor had the power to execute someone.
If you are interested in going into this in more detail, please see 11 Jewish Encyclopedia 41-44 (Sanhedrin), from which I derived much of this post.
To conclude this post, we see, yet again, how so much of what the Gospel relates presents an enigma for us in trying to understand who, or what, killed Jesus.
Trial of Jesus: Capital Punishment and Crucifixion
Post of 10/05/2010
As we near the end of this series of posts on the trial of Jesus, we come to perhaps the ultimate question in trying to figure who — or what — killed Jesus: Who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus?
Of course, the easy answer is that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor did. As governor, only Pilate could send someone to death. Moreover, crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and a ghastly one at that. Jewish law provided four modes of capital punishment: stoning, strangulation, fire, and decapitation. The common thread among these four methods — obviously grotesque from a 21st century perspective — is that death was very quick, if not instantaneous (stoning involved pushing the defendant from a second story building onto the ground below). The Roman form of punishment — crucifixion — was purposefully meant to be agonizingly slow. The victim could take up to three days to perish, typically succumbing to death because of shock or thirst. See 4 Jewish Encyclopedia 373-74 (Crucifixion).
The Romans always put the crime of the victim on the cross. In Jesus’ case, his crime was, “King of the Jews.” That is the Messianic title of “King Messiah.” Jesus was not the first “Messiah” to die in this fashion; nor was he the last. The sons of Judas the Galilean, another “Messiah” who preceded Jesus, met their end by crucifixion. The common thread for Jesus, the sons of Judas, and others who suffered crucifixion was that they were deemed insurrectionists and threats to the social order. Hence, death by crucifixion was their agonizing end. Id.
Would a Jewish court hand over a Jew to enemies for crucifixion? Because crucifixion was an unlawful means of capital punishment, one must question the Jewish role in all of this — notwithstanding the Gospel accounts, which are not fully consistent. For example, the Pharisees are not mentioned at all in the Synoptic Gospels as it relates to Jesus arrest and trial, although they are prominent in John’s account. Of course, that is not to say that the priests were pure: they were puppets of Rome.
Still, would a Jewish tribunal (if a tribunal it were) sentence a Jew to death by such horrific means in such a cavalier manner (see Matthew 26:65)? In this regard, consider the Talmudic discourse on capital punishment: One rabbi declared, “a Sanhedrin that imposes the death penalty once every seven years would go down in history as bloodthirsty.” To this, another exclaimed, “Once in seventy years!” To this, yet another rabbi exclaimed, “Were I [and a colleague] on the Sanhedrin, no one would ever suffer the death penalty!”
To paraphrase Winston Churchill (in explaining the former Soviet Union), trying to understand what or who killed Jesus is perhaps best described as, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”
________
Copyright 2010 by Ira L. Shafiroff. All rights reserved.
