MedLawPlus.com®
|
Comments To
Book Review of 'King Jesus' by Robert Graves
(Page 2)
(Go to page 1 of comments)
The following is the continuation of 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: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:13 PM CST
Subject: 'King Jesus'
Dear Jan:
I'd like to continue our discussion of the circumstances surrounding the arrest and execution of Jesus the Nazorean. I've been distracted the last week or so--moved my business web sites over to a new server, researching buying a new car, and preparing for my annual trip to DC.
Let me see if I can accurately recap where we left off. I had put forth the theory that Jesus was sentenced by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy but not stoned (as is the required punishment) and, instead, sent to the Roman proconsul Pilate for adjudication of his case due to the fact that Jesus was a Roman citizen. A Roman citizen could not be killed by the Jewish authorities.
You threw a wrench in this argument by pointing out that a Roman citizen could not be crucified (as Jesus was); therefore, he could not have been a Roman citizen. The proposed explanation for why the Sanhedrin did not execute the required punishment of stoning upon Jesus is that, in fact, the Jewish authorities never had Jesus in custody. The entire gospel account, per your counter theory, of the proceeding before the Sanhedrin is a fabrication. The arrest of Jesus was a Roman operation with the Jewish authorities only in the background and Jesus was taken straight into Roman custody from the time of his arrest at Gethsemane.
At first blush, the point that Roman citizens are not crucified seems to foreclose the possibility that Jesus was the son of Antipater (eldest son of Herod the Great). But on further consideration, I do not think the Gospel narrative is out of line with Jesus being the son of Antipater. In fact, the more I think about, the more it fits. Please allow me to elaborate.
Was Jesus ever in the custody of the Jewish temple authorities after his arrest? The gospel account of "trial" of Jesus before the Jewish authorities differ:
Mark 14: Jesus is taken from Gethsemane to "the high priest, and the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together." Mark 14:53. It was still night. The entire council took testimony from Jesus. Jesus was asked "'Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said, 'I am ... .' And tearing his clothes, the high priest said, 'What further evidence do we need ...? You have heard the blasphemy.'" Mark 14: 61-64. "And early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led him away, and delivered him to Pilate." Mark 15:1.
Matthew 26: "And those who had seized Jesus led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together." Matthew 26:57. The whole council was taking testimony from Jesus that night. Matthew 26:59. "Now when morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death." Matthew 27:1.
Luke 22: Jesus taken from Gethsemane "to the house of the high priest". Luke 22:54. "And when it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes and they led him away to their council chamber." Luke 22:66. Jesus admits to being the "Son of God" and the council members reply "What further need do we have of testimony?" Luke 22:71. The implication is that Jesus was convicted of the crime of blasphemy based upon his own testimony at hearing before the Sanhedrin the morning after his arrest at Gethsemane. Jesus was then brought to Pilate. Luke 23:1.
John 18: Jesus taken directly from Gethsemane to Annas (father-in-law) of the high priest to be questioned. "The high priest therefore questioned Jesus about his disciples, and about his teaching." John 18:19. It is strange that, while Jesus is being questioned by Annas, he is referred to as the high priest at a time when the gospels indicate Caiaphas was the high priest. I assume Annas had previously been the high priest and, just as past presidents are always referred to as "Mr. President" even after they leave office, Annas retains this title. Jesus is then sent to Caiaphas, the high priest, but no record is made in John of the interaction (if any) between Jesus and Caiaphas. There is no mention in John of Jesus before the entire Sanhedrin. The prisoner is then sent on to Pilate. No real verdict by Annas or Caiaphas or the Sanhedrin is recorded in John's gospel. "They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium and it was early." John 18:28.
Thus, the majority of gospels record the following: Some sort of interrogation of Jesus occurred the night of his arrest by the high priest and the chief priests. The next morning (as the Sanhedrin could not meet at night) a summary trial was held before the Sanhedrin where the verdict of blasphemy was rendered. John omits any mention of a trial in the Sanhedrin while the other three mention the trial. My general rule of construction is to take facts mentioned in the majority of gospel narratives that are not otherwise contradicted by facts contained elsewhere in the gospel or by contemporary historian such as Josephus. John only leaves out the fact of a summary trial in the morning before handing Jesus over to Pilate. John does not state facts that contradict there being a summary trial in the Sanhedrin that morning. Also, all 3 of the ther gospels record a trial before the Sanhedrin so I'll take it as true for my theory.
If Jesus was convicted in the Sanhedrin of blasphemy the morning after his arrest, then why was he not stoned to death by the Jews? A very puzzling question. If Jesus were a Roman citizen, the move would make sense: the Jewish authorities would turn over a Roman citizen for adjudication under Roman law. But if Jesus were a Roman citizen, it would have been a violation of Roman law to crucify him. How to square these two seemingly opposed facts?
I have thought about this conundrum for a few weeks and have come up with a theory that smoothes out all the inconsistencies and, amazingly, does not require any great stretch of the facts presented in the gospel narratives.
- Assume Robert Graves is correct and Jesus was in fact the son of Antipater, eldest son of Herod the Great.
- Graves further theorized that Mary's marriage to Antipater was recorded in the Temple before her later marriage to Joseph (after the death of Antipater).
- Jesus was recorded on the Roman census as a son of Joseph, a Jewish citizen, not as the son of Antipater. Thus Jesus has never been recorded in the records of the Roman Judean administration as a Roman citizen.
- The temple priests knew by the dates of Mary's marriage to Antipater, the date of the birth of Jesus, and the marriage of Mary to Joseph that Jesus was conceived while Mary was married to Antipater. Let us further suppose that Jesus bore a physical resemblance to Prince Antipater and none to Joseph. Thus, the temple priests know whose son Jesus is but there is no definitive record of it in the Roman archives. Under Jewish law, Jesus is the son of Antipater (who was married to Jesus' mother at the time of his conception) but not recorded as such under the Roman census records.
- Jesus has attacked the legitimacy of the high priest and chief priests. Due to his royal blood and popular support among the poor, he is a serious threat to the Herodian priests. They must move against Jesus but fear the wrath of Caesar if they kill him. Jesus is a true prince.
- Pilate has a vast spy network. He knows the rumor of Jesus' parentage. He also is fearful of killing Jesus lest there be retribution from Caesar. In fact, I believe Pilate was eventually removed from office for the very crime of abusing his authority in governing the Jews.
- When the temple priests come to Pilate with Jesus, he asks why they have not judged Jesus under their own laws (i.e., he sees nothing in it for him to condemn Jesus, only political risk, let the temple priests deal with Jesus themselves). The chief priests persist that Pilate must try Jesus on charges of insurrection against Roman rule (not blasphemy).
- Pilate interviews Jesus who admits that he is king of the Jews. Pilate replies that he finds no fault with the man! If Pilate finds no fault in Jesus' claim to be king of the Jews, then Pilate must have believed that Jesus had a legitimate claim to the throne.
- Pilate, before passing judgment, sends Jesus to Herod Antipas. Jesus is a blood relative of Herod Antipas and rival for the throne. "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. The clear implication of this passage from Luke is that Pilate was bribed by Herod Antipas to such an extent that Pilate now agreed to do Herod Antipas's bidding.
- Pilate sentences Jesus to death but puts on a public performance so there are witnesses to his uneasiness in sentencing Jesus to death. He publicly "washes his hands" of the matter and puts the blood of Jesus on the head of the Jews. If Caesar is upset that Jesus was put to death, Pilate is trying to lay the groundwork to shift the blame to the Jewish priests.
- With a wink and nod (meaning, in American English, with complicity), Pilate authorizes Jesus' removal from the cross after less than a day without Jesus' legs having first been broken (so he would suffocate). Pilate wanted to have his cake (accept Herod Antipas's bribe) and eat it too (avoid the penalty for killing Jesus without authorization from Caesar), thus, he authorized the ruse by which Jesus' life was spared from the cross.
I like this theory very much. It's a great drama in addition to fitting the puzzle of the gospel narrative. I'll have to expand it into a short novel. :o)
Best wishes,
Joe
-
From: Peter V. Salsedo
Sent: April 11, 2009
Subject: King Jesus & Roman citizenship
The idea that Jesus had to be a Herodian in order to have a claim on the throne of Israel and Roman citizenship is only true if you accept a biblical chronology of events. That has been the case ever since the science of archeology was established and Robert Graves and every generation before him has accepted that chronology as fact; and, therefore, scientific dogma despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it. In recent years, however, archeology has been undergoing a revolution that threatens this dogma by examining the mountain of ever mounting evidence that challenges the hegemony of biblical chronologies in favor of chronologies that do not and, as a result, demonstrate how the bible condenses and displaces historical people and events in order to create a chronology all its own which induces and is supported by faith rather than scientific evidence, analysis and proof. With respect to Jesus and his Roman citizenship, there is an alternative theory based on the historical revision of two separate events that provide him with the claim to not only the throne of Israel, but also the throne of Persia, as well as, the throne of Rome, itself, thus making Jesus the rightful king of most of the entire civilized world during his lifetime. This is the theory posed by Ralph Ellis concerning The Exodus and the origin of the Jews as the descendants of the Hyksos Shepherd Kings of Egypt and Jesus as the last Pharaoh of Egypt (whom the Dead Sea Scrolls identify as The Egyptian False Prophet) and the heir to the Roman Empire on the basis of having been the great grandson of Julius Ceasar and Cleopatra by way of their daughter, the exiled queen of Parthian Persia, Thea Muse Ourania and her daughter, Julia Ourania (the Virgin Mary of the Bible).
Go to page 1 for the beginning of this discussion
Add Comment
Index to Reader Comments
|
|
|
|
