The Betrayal (46 page)
Authors: Kathleen O'Neal Gear
73
Zechariah 6:13.
74
She's referring, of course, to the murder of John the Baptist.
75
The Greek word
pappas,
became
pappa,
“daddy,” in Latin, and “pope” in English. The term
pappas
was used by early Christians of a bishop to whom they bore a filial relationship, that is a relationship where they stood as child to parent. For example, North African Christians called the bishop of Alexandria
Pappas,
but called the leader of the Roman church, “the bishop of Rome.” There has never been a single pope in Christianity, and this was especially true of early Christianity where many bishops oversaw regional churches. Until the fourth century the bishop of Rome's authority rested in being the “successor of Peter and Paul,” because those evangelists had presumably been martyred in Rome. The narrow reading of Matthew 16:18, however, led Rome to drop Paul's name. But it wasn't until the year 1216, and Innocent III, that the title “successor of Peter” was changed to “vicar of Christ.”
pappas,
became
pappa,
“daddy,” in Latin, and “pope” in English. The term
pappas
was used by early Christians of a bishop to whom they bore a filial relationship, that is a relationship where they stood as child to parent. For example, North African Christians called the bishop of Alexandria
Pappas,
but called the leader of the Roman church, “the bishop of Rome.” There has never been a single pope in Christianity, and this was especially true of early Christianity where many bishops oversaw regional churches. Until the fourth century the bishop of Rome's authority rested in being the “successor of Peter and Paul,” because those evangelists had presumably been martyred in Rome. The narrow reading of Matthew 16:18, however, led Rome to drop Paul's name. But it wasn't until the year 1216, and Innocent III, that the title “successor of Peter” was changed to “vicar of Christ.”
76
When Jesus declared that the “kingdom of God is at hand,” he was not being metaphorical. He meant it. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has taught us that there was a definite timetable according to which the events surrounding the End of the World would unfold, and Jesus was counting them down. He truly believed that his generation would witness the Apocalypse (Mark 13:30). His followers also understood this literally. In I Corinthians 7:29, Paul wrote that “the appointed time has grown very short,” and James said, “the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:9). In I Peter 4:7, it's proclaimed that “the end of all things in at hand.”
77
Mark gives the impression that Jesus' ministry lasted about a year, or perhaps a little longer. The reason for this assessment is that he mentions only one Passover feast, the Passover of Jesus' death. John, however, says Jesus' ministry lasted two or three years. Actually, as Meier points out in
A Marginal Jew,
vol. 1, pp. 403â05, the minimum amount of time necessitated by the events in John is two years plus a month or two. Jesus goes to Jerusalem for the first Passover in his ministry in John 1:35â2:12. At the feeding of the five thousand we are told that the second Passover was near (6:4), and Jesus goes to Jerusalem for his third and last Passover in 11:55; 12:1,12; 13:1; 18:28.
A Marginal Jew,
vol. 1, pp. 403â05, the minimum amount of time necessitated by the events in John is two years plus a month or two. Jesus goes to Jerusalem for the first Passover in his ministry in John 1:35â2:12. At the feeding of the five thousand we are told that the second Passover was near (6:4), and Jesus goes to Jerusalem for his third and last Passover in 11:55; 12:1,12; 13:1; 18:28.
78
M. Sanhedrin VI 4.
79
We did not use the story of Judas' betrayal of Jesus because it is suspect. The embarrassingly meager sum he was paid could not have been a motivation. Not only that, no one
needed
to betray Jesus. While he was in Jerusalem, he was preaching openly in the Temple. He could have been arrested by anyone at any time. There is only one logical reason for Judas to have gone to the authorities that night, and that is if Jesus knew he was going to be arrested and selected Judas to contact the Romans specifically to avoid the riot and bloodshed that might surround his arrest. It is also possible that the story of Judas is a late-first-century attempt to fulfill the prophecies found in Psalms 41:9 and 55:12â14; Isaiah 53; and Zechariah 11:12â13.
needed
to betray Jesus. While he was in Jerusalem, he was preaching openly in the Temple. He could have been arrested by anyone at any time. There is only one logical reason for Judas to have gone to the authorities that night, and that is if Jesus knew he was going to be arrested and selected Judas to contact the Romans specifically to avoid the riot and bloodshed that might surround his arrest. It is also possible that the story of Judas is a late-first-century attempt to fulfill the prophecies found in Psalms 41:9 and 55:12â14; Isaiah 53; and Zechariah 11:12â13.
80
Luke, 22:54â55.
81
A condemnation (guilty sentence) is found only in Mark 14:64. Matthew 26:66 records that the members of the Sanhedrin “said” he was guilty. Luke 22:71 has the members merely saying, “What need we any further witness?” And John deletes the entire trial, probably because he understood Jewish law better than the other Greek-speaking evangelists. In fact, the ignorance of Jewish law betrayed by Mark, Matthew, and Luke is colossal.
It is simply impossible that there was a trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. According to Jewish law, the Sanhedrin could not try a criminal case in a private house, even the high priest's house; it was not allowed to try cases at night, or on festival days, or the eve of festivalsâall of which the gospels say happened. The conclusion, therefore, must be that there was no
trial
before the Sanhedrin.
However,
it is likely that the Sanhedrin did hold a Council meeting to examine the charges upon which Jesus would be tried by Rome the next morning. Members of the court could and did consult with each other in their private homes at night. This was perfectly lawful (M. Sanhedrin V 5). The question, then, is why would they have bothered? It was the eve of Pesach, or Passover. They all had complicated ritual obligations to attend to, not to mention the burden of preparing for and hosting many family members who had arrived for the festival.
trial
before the Sanhedrin.
However,
it is likely that the Sanhedrin did hold a Council meeting to examine the charges upon which Jesus would be tried by Rome the next morning. Members of the court could and did consult with each other in their private homes at night. This was perfectly lawful (M. Sanhedrin V 5). The question, then, is why would they have bothered? It was the eve of Pesach, or Passover. They all had complicated ritual obligations to attend to, not to mention the burden of preparing for and hosting many family members who had arrived for the festival.
It has been suggested that the Sanhedrin met to gather evidence for Rome. First of all, there was no Roman law requiring such a preliminary hearing, even for a capital offense. And to suggest that Pontius Pilate would have asked a Jewish court to conduct an inquiry about a crime under Roman law is ridiculous. It would have undermined Pilate's supreme authority in such casesâa thing he would never have tolerated.
There is only one reason that men of good conscience would have considered Jesus' arrest to be a matter of utmost urgency that necessitated convening the Council on the eve of a feast day:
There was more at stake than just one man's life.
There was more at stake than just one man's life.
Jesus was, according to all sources, beloved by the majority of the people, and certainly some members of the Sanhedrin felt the same way. At least Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus could have been counted upon to
defend
a beloved Jewish son against the hated Roman oppressors. But we also know that Pilate had already assembled three legions around Jerusalem specifically because he expected trouble over Passover. Or maybe because he wanted to provoke trouble.
defend
a beloved Jewish son against the hated Roman oppressors. But we also know that Pilate had already assembled three legions around Jerusalem specifically because he expected trouble over Passover. Or maybe because he wanted to provoke trouble.
Our conclusion is that the Sanhedrin probably met for the reasons defined in this novel: It must have been trying desperately to find evidence to prevent Jesus' crucifixion, which it greatly feared would spark a revolt that would result in the destruction of Israel.
The finest analysis of this matter is found in Judge Haim Cohn's book,
The Trial and Death of Jesus,
pp. 94â190.
The Trial and Death of Jesus,
pp. 94â190.
82
Codex Theodosius IX 3,1.
83
B. Shabbat 88b.
84
See the
Anchor Bible Dictionary
entry for “Annas.”
Anchor Bible Dictionary
entry for “Annas.”
85
Matthew 22:41â45.
86
This is exactly the same argument Gamliel uses to defend Peter a decade later (Acts 5:26â39) in his trial before the Sanhedrin. There is no reason to assume Gamliel would have argued differently in Jesus' case.
87
Mark 14:56, 14:59.
88
Psalms 4:2, 57:4; Jeremiah 49:18, 33; Ezekiel 2:1; and Daniel 7:13.
89
Most scholars agree that Matthew's “Son of God,” and Mark's “Son of the Blessed” are later interpolations from a time when the dogma of the divine descent of Jesus had already been introduced into Christian belief. Please see the
Anchor Bible Dictionary
for more information on these terms.
Anchor Bible Dictionary
for more information on these terms.
90
The Gospel of Philip, 73:22â23.
91
The Gospel of Nicodemus, chapters XIIâXIII.
92
While Jews were not allowed to return to Jerusalem after the siege in the year 70, Christians were. Christians were at first expelled along with Jews, but were permitted to return a few years later because they proclaimed they were not part of the Jewish community, and said they welcomed the destruction of the Temple as the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies. They were allowed to resettle the Mount Zion portion of the city. For more on this, see Meir Ben-Dov's
Historical Atlas of Jerusalem,
pp. 142â52, and the
Anchor Bible Dictionary
entry for “TempleâJerusalem.”
Historical Atlas of Jerusalem,
pp. 142â52, and the
Anchor Bible Dictionary
entry for “TempleâJerusalem.”
Jews were finally given permission to return to Jerusalem in the year 362. The new emperor, who would become known as Julian the Apostate, gladly allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem. He hated Christianity. Right after he decreed the end of the Christian empire, he ordered the Jewish Temple rebuilt in Jerusalem. To place “one stone upon another” wasâin Julian's mindâto conquer the false messiah. He reigned for less than two years, dying during a failed invasion of Persia. More prophetic to Christians was the fact that Jews excavating the new foundation of the Temple touched off mighty explosions of gaseous deposits, which ended the last attempt to rebuild the Temple. Christians, naturally, saw this as the miraculous intervention of God. (See more on this in Carroll, pp. 205â207.)
93
These are the oral legends that circulated at the time of the Council of Nicea. The best recommendation for all matters pertaining to
Constantine is James Carroll's book
Constantine's Sword.
For more on his political agenda, see pp. 191â93.
Constantine is James Carroll's book
Constantine's Sword.
For more on his political agenda, see pp. 191â93.
94
Yes, the Square of the Column is real. See Meir Ben-Dov,
Historical Atlas of Jerusalem,
p. 120.
Historical Atlas of Jerusalem,
p. 120.
95
Most scholars hold that the probable location for Pilate's Praetorium is Herod's Upper Palace along the western wall of the city. We do not agree. There is a total lack of any early Christian tradition regarding that location. The earliest Christian writings say that the Praetorium stood near the western slope of the Tyropoeon valley, opposite the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. In 333 C.E., the Anonymous of Bordeaux, who provides us with the earliest pilgrim account, reported that the crumbling walls of the Praetorium faced the Tyropoeon valley, and in 450 C.E. a church was built on the site. If early Christian tradition is correct, the only thing that could have stood in these locations was the ancient royal palace of the Has-moneans.
96
Judge Haim Cohn's analysis of Roman law as it applied to the trial of Jesus before Pilate is fascinating reading, pp.142â90.
97
In rabbinic literature the evidence for the term “rabbi” as a mode of address prior to the year 70 is scant. Before 70, men were apparently not referred to by the title “rabbi” (e.g. Hillel, Shammai), but after 70, they were. For example, Rabbi Aquiba. Though Luke does not use the term “rabbi” for Jesus, Matthew does, and it is apparently polemical, since Judas is the only person who calls Jesus “rabbi.” Mark and John also call Jesus “rabbi.” But these usages are probably anachronistic. After all, the gospels were written just before or after the year 70. We know of one literary reference in the period before 70 C.E. where
rab
is used to designate a teacher (
t. Pesah.
4.13â14), and there is one ossuary in Jerusalem that also dates to around this time period that is inscribed RAB HANA. We have, as a result, chosen to use the term
Rab
in the same way that one would say “teacher.” For a more detailed discussion on this, please see Meier, vol. 1, pp. 119â20.
rab
is used to designate a teacher (
t. Pesah.
4.13â14), and there is one ossuary in Jerusalem that also dates to around this time period that is inscribed RAB HANA. We have, as a result, chosen to use the term
Rab
in the same way that one would say “teacher.” For a more detailed discussion on this, please see Meier, vol. 1, pp. 119â20.
98
The silence of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Pilate has been seen as a fulfillment of Isaiah 52:13â53:12. Whether or not Jesus deliberately
intended to play the role of the Isaianic servant by remaining silent “as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (KJV), or whether he was obeying the Jewish custom of proper behavior when insulted, we cannot say. But Jesus undoubtedly knew these passages very well.
intended to play the role of the Isaianic servant by remaining silent “as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (KJV), or whether he was obeying the Jewish custom of proper behavior when insulted, we cannot say. But Jesus undoubtedly knew these passages very well.
99
There is no report of Jesus' trial in the imperial archives of Rome, though Pilate would have been required to make such a report. (See M. Craveri,
The Life of Jesus,
p. 392.)
The Life of Jesus,
p. 392.)
Does that mean there was no trial? It may. After all, a “confession” would have made an official trial unnecessary. Also, there is a letter quoted by Philo, a contemporary of Yeshua's, regarding Pilate. In his
De Legatione ad Gaium,
Philo quotes a letter from King Agrippa I to Emperor Caligula, which describes Pilate's government as characterized by “his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners and his endless savage ferocity.” Pilate was well known for executing prisoners who had never seen trial. Add to this the fact that the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55â115 C.E.) writes in his
Annales,
15:44, only that Pilate had Jesus executed. He mentions no trial.
De Legatione ad Gaium,
Philo quotes a letter from King Agrippa I to Emperor Caligula, which describes Pilate's government as characterized by “his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners and his endless savage ferocity.” Pilate was well known for executing prisoners who had never seen trial. Add to this the fact that the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55â115 C.E.) writes in his
Annales,
15:44, only that Pilate had Jesus executed. He mentions no trial.
100
The date was Nisan the 14th, or, by our calendar, April 7, the year 30. See Meier,
A Marginal Jew,
vol. 1, pp. 401â02. Keep in mind that at around 7:00 P.M. that night the date changed to Nisan the 15th, and Passover began. If Jesus “rose” on Sunday, it had technically only been two and a half days.
A Marginal Jew,
vol. 1, pp. 401â02. Keep in mind that at around 7:00 P.M. that night the date changed to Nisan the 15th, and Passover began. If Jesus “rose” on Sunday, it had technically only been two and a half days.
101
Joseph of Arimathea, a scholar of the law, and a pious Jew, would certainly have requested the bodies of any fellow Jew who died that dayâif for no other reason than to obey Jewish law.
102
Digesta, 48,24,1, and Tacitus,
Annales,
6,29.
Annales,
6,29.
Other books
From Pack to Pride by Amber Kell
Bill Crider - Dan Rhodes 08 - Winning Can Be Murder by Bill Crider
Cockney Orphan by Carol Rivers
The Eye of the World by Jordan, Robert
Warhol's Prophecy by Shaun Hutson
Whiskey and Lace (Lace Series) by Leigh, Adriane
The Emerald Dragon (The Lost Ancients Book 3) by Marie Andreas
Tzili by Aharon Appelfeld
To Wear The White Cloak: A Catherine LeVendeur Mystery by Newman, Sharan
In Dubious Battle by John Steinbeck