Holy Blood, Holy Grail (52 page)

is in fact a corruption, or mis translation of “Jesus the Nazorite’ or

“Jesus the

Nazorean’ or perhaps “Jesus of Gennesareth’. In the second place there is considerable doubt as to whether the town of Nazareth actually existed in

Jesus’s time. It does not occur in any Roman maps, documents or records. It is not mentioned in the Talmud. It is not mentioned, still less associated with Jesus, in any of the writings of Saint Paul

-which were, after all, composed before the Gospels. And Flavius Josephus the foremost chronicler of the period, who commanded troops in

- 361 -

Galilee and listed the province’s towns makes no mention of Nazareth either. It would seem, in short, that Nazareth did not appear as a town until sometime after the revolt of nD. 68-74, and that Jesus’s name became associated with it by virtue of the semantic confusion accidental or deliberate which characterises so much of the New Testament.

Whether Jesus was “of Nazareth’ or not there is no indication that he was ever a “poor carpenter’. 17 Certainly none of the Gospels portrays him as such. Indeed their evidence suggests quite the contrary. He seems to be well educated for example. He seems to have undergone training for the rabbinate, and to have consorted as frequently with wealthy and influential people as with the poor Joseph of Arimathea, for instance, and Nicodemus.

And the wedding at Cana would seem to bear further witness to Jesus’s status and social position.

This wedding does not appear to have been a modest, humble festival conducted by the

“common people’. On the contrary it bears all the marks of an extravagant aristocratic union, a “high society’ affair, attended by at least several hundred guests. There are abundant servants, for example who hasten to do both Mary’s and Jesus’s bidding. There is a “master of the feast’ or “master of ceremonies’ who, in the context, would have been a kind of chief butler or perhaps even an aristocrat himself. Most clearly there is a positively enormous quantity of wine. When Jesus “transmutes’ the water into wine, he produces, according to the “Good News Bible’, no less than six hundred lit res which is more than eight hundred bottles! And this is in addition to what has already been consumed.

All things considered, the wedding at Cana would seem to have been a sumptuous ceremony of the gentry or aristocracy. Even if the wedding were not Jesus’s own, his presence at it, and his mother’s, would suggest that they were members of the same caste. This alone would explain the servants’ obedience to them.

If Jesus was an aristocrat, and if he was married to the Magdalene, it is probable that she was of comparable social station. And indeed, she would appear to be so. As we have seen she numbered among her friends the wife of an important official at Herod’s court.

But she may have been more important still.

- 362 -

As we had discovered by tracing references in the “Prieure documents’, Jerusalem the Holy City and capital of Judaea had originally been the property of the Tribe of Benjamin. Subsequently the

Benjamites were decimated in their war with the other tribes of Israel, and many of them went into exile although, as the “Prieure documents’

maintain, “certain of them remained’. One descendant of this remnant was

Saint Paul, who states explicitly that he is a Beni amite. (Romans 11:1) Despite their conflict with the other tribes of Israel, the Tribe of Benjamin appears to have enjoyed some special status. Among other things, it provided Israel with her first king Saul, anointed by the prophet

Samuel and with her first royal house. But Saul was eventually deposed by

David, of the Tribe of Judah. And David not only deprived the Benjamites of their claim to the throne. By establishing his capital at Jerusalem he deprived them of their rightful inheritance as well.

According to all New Testament accounts, Jesus was of the line of David and thus also a member of the Tribe of Judah. In Benjamite eyes this might have rendered him, at least in some sense, a usurper. Any such objection might have been surmounted, however, if he were married to a Benjamite woman.

Such a marriage would have constituted an important dynastic alliance, and one filled with political consequence. If would not only have provided

Israel with a powerful priest-king. It would also have performed the symbolic function of returning Jerusalem to its original and rightful owners. Thus it would have served to encourage popular unity and support, and consolidated whatever claim to the throne Jesus might have possessed.

In the New Testament there is no indication of the Magdalene’s tribal affiliation. In subsequent legends, however, she is said to have been of : oyal lineage. And there are other traditions which state specifically that she was of the Tribe of Benjamin.

At this point, the outlines of a coherent historical scenario began to be discernible. And, as far as we could see, it made sound political sense.

Jesus would have been a priest-king of the line of David, who possessed a legitimate claim to the throne. He would have consolidated his position by a symbolically important dynastic marriage. He would then have been poised to unify his country, mobilise the populace behind

- 363 -

him, drive out the oppressors, depose their abject puppet and restore the glory of the monarchy as it was under Solomon. Such a man would indeed have been “King of the

Jews’.

The Crucifixion

5)

As Gandhi’s accomplishments bear witness, a spiritual leader, given sufficient popular support, can pose a threat to an existing regime.

But a married man, with a rightful claim to the throne and children through whom to establish a dynasty, is a threat of a decidedly more serious nature. Is there any evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was in fact regarded by the

Romans as such a threat?

During his interview with Pilate, Jesus is repeatedly called “King of the

Jews’. In accordance with Pilate’s instructions, an inscription of this title is also affixed to the cross. As Professor S. G. F. Brandon of

Manchester University argues, the inscription affixed to the cross must be regarded as genuine as much so as anything in the New Testament. In the first place it figures, with virtually no variation, in all four Gospels.

In the second place it is too compromising, too embarrassing an episode for subsequent editors to have invented it.

In the Gospel of Mark, Pilate, after interrogating Jesus, asks the assembled dignitaries,

“What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?” (Mark 15:12) This would seem to indicate that at least some Jews do actually refer to Jesus as their king. At the same time, however, in all four Gospels Pilate also accords Jesus that title.

There is no reason to suppose that he does so ironically or derisively. In the Fourth Gospel he insists on it quite adamantly and seriously, despite a chorus of protests. In the three Synoptic Gospels, moreover, Jesus himself acknowledged his claim to the title: “And Pilate asked him. Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou say est it.” (Mark 15:2) In the English translation this reply may sound ambivalent -

perhaps deliberately so. In the original Greek, however, its import is quite unequivocal. It can only be interpreted as “Thou hast spoken correctly’. And thus the phrase is interpreted whenever it appears elsewhere in the Bible.

- 364 -

The Gospels were composed during and after the revolt of A.D. 68-74, when Judaism had effectively ceased to exist as an organised social, political and military force. What is more, the Gospels were composed for a Greco-Roman audience for whom they had, of necessity, to be made acceptable. Rome had just fought a bitter and costly war against the Jews. In consequence it was perfectly natural to cast the Jews in the role of villains. In the wake of the Judaean revolt, moreover, Jesus could not possibly be portrayed as a political figure a figure in any way linked to the agitation which culminated in the war. Finally the role of the Romans in

Jesus’s trial and execution had to be whitewashed and presented as sympathetically as possible. Thus Pilate is depicted in the Gospels as a decent, responsible and tolerant man, who consents only reluctantly to the

Crucifixion.” But despise these liberties taken with history, Rome’s true position in the affair can be discerned.

According to the Gospels, Jesus is initially condemned by the Sanhedrin the Council of Jewish Elders who then bring him to Pilate and beseech the

Procurator to pronounce against him. Historically this makes no sense at all. In the three Synoptic Gospels Jesus is arrested and condemned by the

Sanhedrin on the night of the Passover. But by Judaic law the Sanhedrin was forbidden to meet over the Passover.”9 In the Gospels Jesus’s arrest and trial occur at night, before the Sanhedrin. By Judaic law the Sanhedrin was forbidden to meet at night, in private houses, or anywhere outside the precincts of the Temple. In the Gospels the Sanhedrin is apparently un authorised to pass a death sentence and this would ostensibly be the reason for bringing Jesus to Pilate. However, the Sanhedrin was authorised to pass death sentences by stoning, if not by crucifixion. If the

Sanhedrin had wished to dispose of Jesus, therefore, it could have sentenced him to death by stoning on its own authority. There would have been no need to bother Pilate at all.

There are numerous other attempts by the authors of the Gospels to transfer guilt and responsibility from Rome. One such is Pilate’s apparent offer of a dispensation his readiness to free a prisoner of the crowd’s choosing.

According to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, this was a “custom of the

Passover festival’. In fact it was no such thing.z Modern authorities

- 365 -

agree that no such policy ever existed on the part of the Romans, and that the offer to liberate either

Jesus or Barabbas is sheer fiction. Pilate’s reluctance to condemn Jesus, and his grudging submission to the bullying pressure of the mob, would seem to be equally fictitious. In reality it would have been unthinkable for a

Roman Procurator and especially a Procurator as ruthless as Pilate to bow to the pressure of a mob. Again, the purpose of such fictionalisation is clear enough to exonerate the Romans, to transfer blame to the Jews and thereby to make Jesus acceptable to a Roman audience.

It is possible, of course, that not all Jews were entirely innocent.

Even if the Roman administration feared a priest-king with a claim to the throne, it could not embark overtly on acts of provocation acts that might precipitate a full-scale rebellion. Certainly it would have been more expedient for Rome if the priest-king were ostensibly betrayed by his own people. It is thus conceivable that the Romans employed certain Sadducees as, say, agents provocateurs. But even if this were the case, the inescapable fact remains that Jesus was the victim of a Roman administration, a

Roman court, a Roman sentence, Roman soldiery and a Roman execution an execution which, in form, was reserved exclusively for enemies of Rome.

It was not for crimes against Judaism that Jesus was crucified, but for crimes against the empire.z’

Who Was Barabbas?

6)

Is there any evidence in the Gospels that Jesus actually did have children?

There is nothing explicit. But rabbis were expected, as a matter of course, to have children; and if Jesus was a rabbi, it would have been most unusual for him to remain childless. Indeed, it would have been unusual for him to remain childless whether he was a rabbi or not.

Granted, these arguments, in themselves, do not constitute any positive evidence. But there is evidence of a more concrete, more specific kind. It consists of the elusive individual who figures in the Gospels as Barabbas, or, to be more precise, as Jesus Barabbas for it is by this name that he is identified in the

- 366 -

Gospel of Matthew. If nothing else, the coincidence is striking.

Modern scholars are uncertain about the derivation and meaning of

“Barabbas’. “Jesus Barabbas’ may be a corruption of “Jesus Berabbi’.

“Berabbi’ was a title reserved for the highest and most esteemed rabbis and was placed after the rabbi’s given name. “”Jesus Berabbi’ might therefore refer to Jesus himself.

Alternatively, “Jesus Barabbas’ might originally have been “Jesus bar Rabbi’ - “Jesus, son of the Rabbi’. There is no record anywhere of Jesus’s own father having been a rabbi.

But if Jesus had a son named after himself, that son would indeed have been “Jesus bar Rabbi’.

There is one other possibility as well. “Jesus Barabbas’ may derive from

“Jesus bar Abba’; and since “Abba’ is “father’ in Hebrew, “Barabbas’

would then mean “son of the father’ - a fairly pointless designation unless the “father’ is in some way special. If the “father’ were actually the

“Heavenly Father’, then “Barabbas’ might again refer to Jesus himself. On the other hand, if Jesus himself is the “father’, “Barabbas’ would again refer to his son.

Whatever the meaning and derivation of the name, the figure of Barabbas is extremely curious. And the more one considers the incident concerning him, the more apparent it becomes that something irregular is going on and someone is attempting to conceal something. In the first place Barabbas’s name, like the Magdalene’s, seems to have been subjected to a deliberate and systematic blackening. Just as popular tradition depicts the Magdalene as a harlot, so it depicts Barabbas as a “thief’. But if Barabbas was any of the things his name suggests, he is hardly likely to have been a common thief. Why then blacken his name? Unless he was something else in reality something which the editors of the New Testament did not want posterity to know.

Strictly speaking the Gospels themselves do not describe Barabbas as a thief. According to Mark and Luke he is a political prisoner, a rebel charged with murder and insurrection. In the Gospel of Matthew, however,

Barabbas is described as a “notable prisoner’. And in the Fourth Gospel