The Problem with Jesus’ Arrest and Trial by James Still
The following says that the gospel accounts of how the Jews handled the accusations against Jesus does not fit Jewish tradition. I would add that the gospels written decades after the events and the writers not asking a Jewish scholar to check over them is a red flag.
Now on to the article. It is to be found on infidels.org
There is a problem when dealing with the various contradictory biblical accounts
of Jesus' arrest and trial as they relate to each other and Jewish practice of
the day. We are told in Mark's gospel that after Jesus enters Jerusalem he is
soon arrested praying at the Mount of Olives with his disciples who flee upon
his arrest. (Mk. 15)
The High Priest Caiaphas, a Sadducee priest and a Roman-appointee, actively
sought to prevent open rebellion against Rome lest it escalate and endanger what
little autonomy the Temple priests were given by Caesar Augustus. It was
Caiaphas who sent out the Temple police to arrest Jesus, most certainly on
grounds that Jesus was seditious (rebellious) against Roman authority.
Our evidence is good that Jesus did act politically seditious against Roman
authority:
1. Several of Jesus' disciples were known Zealots, e.g., Simon the Zealot (Lk.
6:15); Simon Peter who was known as "Bar-jona" (Mt. 16:17) a derivation of of "baryona"
Aramaic for "outlaw" which was a common name applied to Zealots; James and John
shared the nickname "Boanerges" or in Hebrew "benei ra'ash" which is to say
"sons of thunder" another common Zealot reference; and the most famous Zealot
was Judas Iscariot, "Iscariot" a corruption of the Latin "sicarius" or
"knife-man" which was a common Roman reference to Zealots.
2. The Zealot movement was a breakaway from the Pharisees who themselves
sympathized with the nationalistic causes espoused by the Zealots and were
awaiting a Messiah to seize the throne of Israel. Jesus himself is attributed
with many sayings that are Pharasaic in origin, e.g., Mt. 7:12, Mk 2:27, Jn
7:22, B. Yoma 85b (Talmud), Mt. 7:15; and Jesus' own affinity for the poor
demonstrate Pharasaic philosophy. Jesus' actions that are not depoliticized in
the gospels (partially referenced here) indicate that Jesus sympathized with the
Zealot cause.
3. The Zealot Judas, refers to Jesus as "Rabbi" a Pharasaic-title. (Mk 14:45)
Many scholars subscribe to the "walks like a duck, must be a duck" philosophy
and go as far as to say that Jesus himself was a Pharisee rabbi. The evidence
does seem to support this conclusion, although Jesus seems to favor a more
apocalyptic flavor of fringe Pharasaic thought. The "Jesus as Essene" theory
still captivates many scholars as well--a theory that would also support his
role of political Messiah as argued here.
4. Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble. (Lk
22:36-38) and at least one of Jesus' supporters scuffled with the Temple police
to aid in resisting Jesus' arrest. (Mk 14:47)
5. The manner in which Jesus entered Jerusalem was that of a Jewish king who
claimed the throne. Convinced that he was King of the Jews and in deliberate
fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on an ass's
colt. The people greet Jesus with strewn palms and cries of "Hosanna!" the
ancient cry of Jewish independence. For Jesus to not have known the seditious
actions that this implied, and the political impact that his act caused, would
be incredulous to say the least. (This is in direct contrast with the Gospels
which attempt to contradict Jesus' action and claim that he was not seeking an
earthly kingdom--clearly absurd given the circumstances.)
Jesus was said to have been arrested due to a charge of blasphemy. The evidence
for this is highly suspect. We begin to immediately question the gospel-accounts
regarding the preliminary investigation and it is likely the gospel writers knew
nothing of Jewish law regarding such matters. Additionally, the gospel accounts
may be trying to smooth over Jesus political mission since when they wrote they
had the benefit of hindsight and knew the political outcome of Jesus' actions
did end in failure. The gospel's attempt to depoliticize Jesus while at the same
time supporting his brief stint as the King of the Jews by reporting events that
they seemed to not understand the Jewish context for. Let's look at the story as
Luke relates it and then discuss the context problems.
Luke tells us in chapter 26 that Jesus was taken in the middle of the night to
the home of Caiaphas for questioning. Frustrated at Jesus' answers to their
questions as to whether or not he claimed to be the Messiah, the scribes and
priests hit Jesus in the face and spit on him in disgust. There are several
problems with this gospel account:
1. It was against Jewish law for the Sanhedrin to meet outside of the designated
Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple and would not have been violated under any
circumstance.
2. The Sanhedrin had an express rule that it could not meet at night because
justice must be carried out in the "light of day."
3. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem was probably during the Feast of the Tabernacles,
not Passover. (the palm leaves strewn in front of Jesus as he entered Jerusalem
would not have been in bloom during Passover) The Sanhedrin would not have met
during the eight-day festival for any reason.
4. The Elders of the Sanhedrin would no more strike or spit on an accused
person, than would the Supreme Court of the U.S. hearing a case! Luke's account
is completely out-of-context and shows remarkable ignorance as to the
machinations of Jewish Law.
5. It was not blasphemous to declare oneself a "Messiah" or a "Son of God" any
more than it would have been to claim to be an angel. The Pharisees who composed
the majority of the Sanhedrin would dismiss such a charge at once since
blasphemy could only be applied to anyone who claimed to be God Almighty. Jesus'
declaration that he was a Messiah, merely referred to his earthly desire to
ascend to the throne of David--an act of sedition against Rome surely, but not
one of blasphemy.
If the Gospel of John is to be our authority, his account disagrees with the
Synopticists in that the High Priest Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and
charges him with sedition, not blasphemy, as the Synoptic Gospels allege.
Clearly, the pseudipigraphical author of John is not as ignorant of Jewish Law
as are the Synopticists for his account is in context with our findings thus
far. If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin
would not be necessary, the affair would be preliminarily investigated by the
High Priest before turning the matter over to the Roman authorities. (Indeed
Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious.
In the trial of Peter as reported in Acts, the Pharisees sided against the High
Priest and voted to release the accused.)
We can safely conclude at this point that Jesus was indeed supportive of the
Zealot movement if not in deed, then certainly in principle. If Jesus were
seeking the throne as the evidence suggests, he would have enlisted the aid of
the militant Zealots. Also his actions as a claimant to the throne of
Israel--which surely would have involved a rebellion of some sort for the Romans
were not likely to cede authority quietly--made him guilty of sedition against
Rome. Jesus was a patriot for the restoration of Israel. His motives were
political and the context of his actions as we find in the more credible
portions of the Gospels supports this conclusion.
Further complicating the truth of the Gospel accounts is the motivations and
actions of the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, whom Jesus is brought to by the
High Priest. Jesus is handed over to Pilate, accused of sedition, and Pilate
questions Jesus personally asking him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" to which
Jesus replies "I am." For some reason, the priests are said to go on "heaping
accusations" against Jesus despite the fact that his sedition was clearly
established by Jesus himself. Even stranger still, Pilate seems to not even care
that Jesus claims to be the King of the Jews and Pilate "wonders" if Jesus is
dangerous. (Mk 15:1-5) At this point the author of Mark is either blatantly
ignorant of the facts, or spinning a good yarn for the sake of his overall
story.
This account is quite out of context with the monster that Philo wrote Gaius
Caesar about, reporting that Pilate was inflexible and "cruel." Further,
Josephus reports several occurrences where Pilate flagrantly incites insurrection
in order to ruthlessly purge it with his soldiers. Pilate was eventually
recalled to Vitellius (then Legate of Syria) after a particularly violent attack
on the Samaritans in 36 CE, and was ordered sent to Rome in order to stand
accusations of the slaughter. (Antiquities 18.4.85) The anti-Semitic Pilate was
not the sort of governor that would have acted with even the slightest civility
toward a Jew who openly admitted to sedition. Pilate's dismal record of purges
and punishments against seditious behavior was anathema and history shows him to
be one of, if not the cruelest of the Procurators of Judaea.
These irreconcilable problems with the arrest and trial of Jesus show that the
Gospel accounts cannot be trusted with the truth of the matter. With the
mystique and misunderstanding surrounding Jesus' arrest, coupled with the legend
and myth attached to the accounts at later times, the truth may never be fully
known. But we can surmise a few things: Jesus was a political figure and a
claimant to the throne of Israel. His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem as that of
a long-awaited Messiah who would destroy the Romans and seize his rightful
kingship ended in failure and crucifixion as a rebel.------------------