MedLawPlus.com®
|
Comments To
Book Review of 'King Jesus' by Robert Graves
The following is an email exchange between myself and Jan Van Puffelen (of Amsterdam) concerning the central hypothesis of Graves work, King Jesus, i.e., that Jesus was the son of Antipater (who was the eldest son of Herod the Great).
-
From: Joseph Raymond
To: Jan van Puffelen
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:25 AM CST
Subject: RE: King Jesus
Dear Jan:
I will be interested if you come to any further conclusions regarding the lineage of Jesus. Personally, if the story told in the Bible (of Jesus's arrest and execution) is accurate, then I believe he had to be a Roman citizen, otherwise, he would have been stoned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy (a religious crime) and never sent to Pilate on political charges. If Jesus was a Roman citizen and royal, he had to have been from the house of Herod. I wish we had the argument laid out from Graves on why he picks Antipater as the father. Maybe the ancient Romans familiar with the story knew that Jesus had to have been a Roman a citizen, thus, they invented a story about Jesus being the bastard son of a centurion as a plausible explanation (i.e., the only Roman citizens in Palestine at the time were Roman soldiers, Roman diplomatic officers, and members of the house of Herod). They guessed the lowest status of the 3 possibilities.
I can't believe a later Roman emperor (who was Christian) would have any interest in denying the virgin birth story and naming Antipater as the father of Jesus. The Roman church made Jesus a god. Their interest would be with perpetuating the myth.
Best wishes,
Joe
-
From: Jan van Puffelen
To: Joseph Raymond
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2005 5:58 AM CST
Subject: RE: King Jesus
Dear Joe:
>>I will be interested if you come to any further conclusions regarding the lineage of Jesus.<<
I don’t think so.
>>Personally, if the story told in the bible is accurate, then I believe he had to be a Roman citizen, otherwise, he would have been stoned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy (a religious crime) and never sent to the Pilate on political charges.<<
But it may also mean that Jesus was not arrested by the Sanhedrin but by the Romans and that he was accused not of blasphemy but for insurrection. And this is indeed far more likely.
>>If Jesus was a Roman citizen and royal, he had to have been from the house of Herod. I wish we had the argument laid out from Graves on why he picks Antipater as the father.<<
Well, we know that Herod was not a jew and that he was, as such, not of royal jewish blood. The jews in those days were very fond of genealogy and would have know which families descended from the bloodline of David. Such a bloodline is indeed suggested in the NT even though they differ. Jesus may have been the second most important branch of this bloodline after John the Baptist.
Both John and Jesus were following a similar approach to reach the heart of the jews namely via the religion and were open or more covert anti-Herodian, anti-Sadducee, anti-Pharisee and nationalistic anti-roman. Read for instance what John the Baptists said. And the story about the Roman coin and Jesus is now explained as strictly neutral and anti-politic, but is most likely very anti-Pilate (Pilate stole a large amount from the Korban, the state treasury to build an aqueduct) and anti-roman (the jews hated all human images, especially those of the Roman Emperor).
>>Maybe the ancient Romans familiar with the story knew that Jesus had to have been a Roman a citizen, thus, they invented a story about Jesus being the bastard son of a centurion as a plausible explanation (i.e., the only Roman citizens in Palestine at the time were Roman soldiers, Roman diplomatic officers, and members of the house of Herod). They guessed the lowest status of the 3 possibilities.<<
You mean the story of Jesus being the illegal child of the Roman soldier Pantera and Mary the Hairdresser. I remember that this story comes from jewish Pharisee sources. And therefore is highly suspect. They may have invented this story as disinformation to counter the real background and to explain the widowship of Mary and the single parent background of Jesus and give him thus an illegal descent of the most abject source, a Roman soldier and a single woman who earned a living by an abject and suspect profession.
But it is intriguing that the grave of a Roman soldier with this name has been found in Germany. I believe even belonging to a Legion that had indeed been in Palestine. (But I have to check) Thank you for remembering me of that.
>>I can't believe a later Roman emperor (who was Christian) would have any interest in denying the virgin birth story and naming Antipater as the father of Jesus. The Roman church made Jesus a god. Their interest would be with perpetuating the myth.<<
Quite so. Jesus was declared a god only in the 4th century. Constantine was not a Christian (he may have been baptized on his death bed, but that is by no means certain) and was a Roman Emperor who, in most cases became divine after death. So for him it must be quite normal that Jesus must have been divine as well.
Regards (to Irene as well)
Jan
-
From: Joseph Raymond
To: Jan van Puffelen
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2005 3:38 PM CST
Subject: RE: King Jesus
Dear Jan:
>>But it may also mean that Jesus was not arrested by the Sanhedrin but by the Romans and that he was accused not of blasphemy but for insurrection. And this is indeed far more likely.<<
Hum, I had not factored that possibility into my analysis. Here are my thoughts on the possibility that Jesus was initially arrested by the Romans and taken straight to Pilate with the Jewish Sanhedrin playing no official role in his arrest and subsequent execution.
As we have few historical sources to verify the Bible outside of the Bible itself, I think we have to start with this document and try to brush away the inaccuracies. My personal view is that the facts reported in the Bible (as opposed to mythic conclusions drawn from the facts) are largely correct. Later editors built the Christian myth upon these facts that were incorporated into the Bible we possess today after first being massaged to reflect a certain point of view.
Is the story of Jesus' arrest at the Garden of Gethsemane inaccurate? Was he really arrested by the Romans as opposed to the temple soldiers? Here are the various accounts from the 4 gospels of who arrested Jesus:
- Matt. 26:47--"a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people"
- Mark 14:43--"a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders"
- Luke 22:52--"chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against him"
- John 18:3--"Roman cohort, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons"
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are very consistent--chief priests, elders and officers of the temple came to arrest Jesus. John is almost completely different--a "Roman cohort" plus the Pharisees and officers from the chief priests. Thus, John adds a Roman cohort (about 600 soldiers) and the Pharisees to the arresting party as opposed to the account given in the synoptic gospels. John is the last gospel written of the four included in the Bible. It also appears to preserve a tradition that is separate to a degree from that related in the synoptic gospels. Which description is correct? Matthew and Mark mention "a great multitude" and "multitude", respectively, so the existence of a Roman cohort on the scene is not necessarily inconsistent with the description in John; however, it would be an important fact for Matthew and Mark to omit from the story.
The account in John of a Roman cohort being present rings true. It is the Passover, a time when the city of Jerusalem is swelled by Jewish pilgrims. The Roman soldiers were on alert during this Jewish holiday as nationalist tensions run high during the feast. The chief priests wish to arrest Jesus outside the temple complex and plan on using a large contingent of their own temple soldiers to do so. I believe the chief priests would have been required to seek Roman permission for such a large troop movement outside of the temple complex. If the chief priests went to the Roman authorities pleading the necessity of a large troop movement to capture Jesus at this politically sensitive time, they clearly must have argued the high degree of danger he posed. If the Romans agreed, it makes sense that they would send Roman troops to observe and act as backup should an uprising occur. That fact pattern (i.e., a large multitude came to arrest Jesus with temple troops in front backed by Roman soldiers) squares, to an extent, the two separate gospel accounts.
None of the Gospels identify the actual individuals doing the arresting. Those who speak with Jesus at the time of the arrest in the garden are merely identified as "they". One additional incident occurs at this point in the gospel narrative--Peter strikes off the ear of a slave.
- Matt. 26:51--"And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear."
- Mark 14:47--"But a certain one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear."
- Luke 22:50--"And a certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear."
- John 18:10--"Simon Peter therefore having a sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus."
John gives the most detail. The parallel passage from John not only names Simon Peter as the member of the twelve who struck off the ear of the high priest's slave but, also, gives the name of the slave (Malchus). This reinforces the belief that John contains a more detailed and accurate description of Jesus' arrest.
John 18:10 also, I believe, is strong circumstantial evidence for the argument that the chief priests did the arresting with the Roman soldiers in reserve. If a slave of the "high priest" was up in front of the arresting party within arm's length of Peter, then he was surely at the side of his master (the high priest--not a "chief priest" but THE high priest). The high priest must have been right in front arresting Jesus. Peter drew his sword and struck a member of the arresting party but, not only is he unharmed as a result of the attack, is allowed to go free. If a group of Romans were arresting Jesus and one of Jesus's party drew his sword, all reason dictates that the person (i.e., Peter) would have been killed instantly. Would Roman soldiers allow a Jewish zealot to draw a sword in close proximity to one of their officers? Never. Romans meet violence with even more violence.
Trying to make sense of the four gospels as a whole together with historical perspective, I think Jesus was arrested by the chief priests, tried by the Sanhedrin, convicted of a religious crime, and then sent to Pilate charged with a political crime. Why? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Jesus was a Roman citizen thus depriving the Sanhedrin of the authority (under Roman law) to exact the proscribed punishment under their law. Punishment could only be brought to bear on Jesus (as a Roman citizen) if he was convicted of a Roman crime by the Roman authorities.
Interesting topic, enjoyed the discussion.
Best wishes,
Joe
-
From: Jan van Puffelen
To: Joseph Raymond
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2005 3:38 PM CST
Subject: RE: King Jesus
Dear Joe:
... Roman citizens were not subject to the punishment of crucifixion. ...
Regards,
Jan
-
From: Joseph Raymond
To: Jan van Puffelen
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2005 7:16 PM CST
Subject: RE: King Jesus
Dear Jan:
Well blow me over. I hadn't thought of this point which, by itself, could throw a wrench in the whole "Jesus was Antipater's son" argument. I found a site on the internet where somebody quotes Josephus for there being rare exceptions to this law (i.e., crucifixion not for Roman citizens):
"Very occasionally Roman citizens were crucified for high treason, desertion during wartime, and similar serious offenses. For instance, just before the outbreak of the Jewish War in A.D. 66, the Roman procurator Gessius Florus had some Jews who were Roman knights flogged and Crucified in Jerusalem (Josephus,JW §7308)."
Link. The above writer correctly cites Josephus, Jewish War, Book II, Chapter 14; however, when one reads the entire quote, I'm not sure it helps my case: "For Florus ventured that day to do what none had ever done before, namely, to scourge before his tribunal and nail to the cross men of equestrian rank, men who, if Jews by birth, were at least invested with that Roman dignity." Jewish War, Book II, Chapter 14 (emphasis added) Link. Pilate was procurator of Judea some 30 years before Florus. If Jesus was a Roman citizen, Josephus was unaware of this fact writing some 40 years later.
I'll have to give this one some more thought.
Best wishes,
Joe
Go to page 2 for a continuation of this discussion
Add Comment
Index to Reader Comments
|
|
|
|
