MedLawPlus.com®
|
Additional Thoughts Upon
"King Jesus" by Robert Graves (Part 2 of book review)
Was Jesus the son of Antipater, son of Herod the Great?
The evidence is sketchy; however, as explained below, if true it would explain a large inconsistency in the activities of Jesus as set forth in the Bible. The following is the best I can come up to support the assertion.
- Jesus is taken from the Sanhedrin to the top Roman magistrate of the territory instead of being executed by the Jews themselves. How come the Sanhedrin did not itself issue a death sentence against Jesus for blasphemy? In fact Pilate has the same question for the priests when they show up with Jesus at the Praetorium.
John 18:31: Then said Pilate unto them [the Jewish officials], Take ye him [Jesus], and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.
The Gospel of John is clearly wrong in the assertion that it was unlawful for the Sanhedrin to put a man to death. Any reputable Jewish scholar will attest that capital punishment was not only authorized by Jewish law but also practiced by the Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus. In fact, the Acts of the Apostles tells us Stephen, something of an early church deacon, was put to death by stoning on order of the Sanhedrin. Acts 7:54-60. What possible explanation can exist for the Sanhedrin to declare to Pilate that they lack authority to put Jesus to death? The only logical answer is if Jesus was a Roman citizen. In such a case, only the Romans could lawfully carry out a death sentence. Jesus would have been a Roman citizen by birth if his father held Roman citizenship. Antipater held Roman citizenship.
- Pilate finds no fault with Jesus's claiming to be King of the Jews. Luke's version of the interrogation of Jesus before Pilate:
"And Pilate asked him, saying, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him and said, "It is as you say." FN2
And Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, "I find no guilt in this man."
Luke 23:3-4. Jesus admits to the Roman magistrate that he claims to be the king of the Jews (a serious political crime under Roman law) and Pilate's response is "I find no guilt in this man"? It makes no sense unless Jesus did in fact possess some legitimate claim to the Jewish throne under Roman law.
- Pilate sends Jesus to Herod Antipas, why? Herod Antipas was appointed tetrarch (an office below king) of Galilee and Peraea (the east bank of the Jordan) under his father's last will. The Roman Emperor Augustus confirmed this decision and Antipas' reign began in 4 BCE. Luke says that when Pilate heard Jesus was a Galilean, Pilate turned Jesus over to Herod Antipas as "he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction". Luke 23:6-7. This is strange. Jesus was accused of a religious crime (blasphemy) in the Sanhedrin over which Herod would have had no jurisdiction. He was then sent to Pilate on the charge of claiming to be King of the Jews, an offense against Rome. Again, it was the Emperor and his delegates who determined the rightful kings of subject territories, not the inhabitants themselves. Thus, Herod Antipas had no jurisdiction over any offense Jesus stood accused of.
It just gets stranger. "Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time ... ." Luke 23:8. Herod was very glad to see Jesus and had wanted to see him for a long time? That's crazy! Jesus was the cousin of, and spiritual successor of, John the Baptist who Herod Antipas had put to death in the beginning of Jesus's ministry. John the Baptist had been put to death for castigating Herod over his marriage to Herodias (both his former sister-in-law and niece). These facts would surely have been made known to Herod Antipas. I find it inconceivable that Herod would be "glad" to meet the successor of John the Baptist (who also numbered among his followers most of John's former disciples). If, however, Jesus were indeed the son of Antipater and, thus, a claimant to the Jewish thrown under a prior will of Herod the Great; Jesus would constitute a serious competitor for Herod Antipas's territory (as well as that of his brothers). Under these facts, Pilate's delivery of Herod's political enemy (Jesus) to him would certainly have made him "glad". One is "glad" when one's enemy is delivered under guard and in chains.
- Pilate and Herod became friends the day Pilate delivered Jesus to Herod whereas before they had been enemies, why? Luke has the following to say regarding the day Pilate turned Jesus over to Herod Antipas:
And the same day [that Jesus was turned over to Herod], Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. Luke 23:12.
Very strange indeed unless Jesus constituted a serious political threat to Herod Antipas. Roman governors and lesser officials sent to rule provinces and other territories of the Roman Empire went there with one main purpose: not the advancement of Rome but, rather, personal financial gain. It was during foreign service that a Roman nobleman stood the best chance of attaining wealth. Thus, a logical reading of the facts would be that Pilate delivered a political enemy to Herod and Herod, in return, promised financial gifts to Pilate. Might Pilate have initially balked at sentencing Jesus to death in order to drive up the amount of the bribe from Herod (and maybe his brothers as well)? The above-quoted statement in Luke makes absolutely no sense unless Jesus had a legitimate claim to the Jewish throne under Roman law. How could Jesus have a superior claim to the Jewish throne unless he was the heir of a son of Herod the Great higher in succession than Herod Antipas and his brothers?
- Pilate expects a bribe from Jesus. Pilate asks Jesus if he is the King of the Jews. Jesus responds "yes, I am." Pilate further asks Jesus what else he has to say in response to the charges. "But Jesus made no further answer; so that Pilate was amazed." Mark 15:5. Why was Pilate amazed? What did Pilate expect to hear? Roman magistrates were for sale. A plausible explanation is that Pilate expected Jesus to offer a bride, something along the lines of promised payments to Pilate should Jesus be made King of the Jews. Selling a kingship is big business in the old Roman empire and something that would acutely interest Pilate. Jesus refused to play the game but Herod Antipas (Pilate's former enemy) was more than willing. If Herod Antipas offered a large bribe to Pilate for the execution of Jesus, it would explain why the two become fast friends despite being former enemies. All the facts would fit.
Let's step back and look at the problem of Jesus as a pretender to the Jewish throne in a wider context. It is something that has troubled me for some time. I take Jesus for an intelligent man. He rode into Jerusalem on his donkey with a small band of scraggly followers preaching peace and love. He had no army. How exactly did he expect to simultaneously rest control of Israel away from the Herodians, the Sanhedrin and, more importantly, the Roman army? Obviously it was not through military conflict. It's clear that he expected to win the people over to his side but on what basis? A few miracles? No, ancient peoples of the east placed huge importance upon blood lines for claims to kingship. The Jews were no different. If Jesus thought he could ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, proclaim himself to be King of the Jews and have the Jewish people back him, then it makes sense that he possessed some sort of heirship to the throne. Being the bastard son of Joseph of the house of David (a person of no high standing in the Jewish community) would not seem to qualify Jesus as royalty. If Jesus held a legitimate claim to the Jewish throne under Jewish law, then he might expect to win the people over.FN1
Secondly, there is the problem of the Romans. They are the immovable force in the region. How did he expect to contend with them? Insurrection is a capital offense in a Roman Provence. Based upon the facts presented in the Bible, Jesus's actions in Jerusalem look like a suicide mission. If, however, Jesus were a Roman citizen of royal birth with a legitimate claim to the throne under Roman law, it may explain Jesus' boldness in action. Further, if this were the case, Jesus shows himself to have been a political neophyte (which he surely was).
The whole scenario of the Jesus's actions in Jerusalem, his trial, and execution make much more sense if Jesus was indeed a royal claimant to the Jewish thrown. Granted, there are only thin inferences from Bible sources to support this position but it is a fascinating theory nonetheless.
Book Review of "King Jesus" by Robert Graves (part 1)
Comments (3)
Footnote 1: According to Graves, one claimed the throne under Jewish law through marriage to a princess of the house of Michal. Although Jesus's mother was supposedly a princess of the house of Michal, Jesus would have had to himself been married to princess to make the claim.
Footnote 2: The King James Version of the bible translates the Greek original of Luke 23:3 as "And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it." Newer translations such as the New American Standard Translation have Jesus's response as "It is as you say." One translation sounds like a coy equivocation by Jesus while the other has Jesus boldly affirming to Pilate that he is in fact the King of the Jews. How to square the two competing translations?
The original Greek of Luke 23:3 reads: "o de IhsouV ejh, su legeiV." I do not read Greek but my friend Jan van Puffelen translates this passage literally as: "Says Jesus: you say it". Thus, a literal translation to English gives us the impression of an equivocation by Jesus. However, it is my understanding that, in Greek of the period, the words would rather be an affirmation. Thus, newer translations such as the New American Standard have Jesus confirming Pilate's statement with "It is as you say." Here is an historical list of English translations of Luke 23, verse 3. I accept the newer translation as it fits better with the prior context of Jesus's arrest set forth in the bible: i.e., he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (which, from the Old Testament, signifies the king is entering the city) and he attacked the temple complex challenging the authority of the chief priests. Those bold actions strike me as coming from one publicly claiming to be the King of the Jews.
|
|
|
