Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Robert Conner
ment, an omission that might lead a cynic to suspect the charge that
led to Jesus hasty execution was even more embarrassing to the early
church than the fact its founder died an ignominious death reserved
for heinous felons. Indeed, the judicial procedure described in the
gospels contains so many incongruities and is so historically implausible that its accuracy overall can be safely dismissed, but if it is conceded that Jesus existed and that some basic elements of his career are
preserved in the gospels, we are left to ponder what charges led to
him being so summarily and brutally dispatched.
It must be acknowledged that the trial accounts present serious, perhaps insurmountable, barriers to historical reconstruction. The gospels, composed decades after the events they purport to relate, almost
certainly contain no direct eyewitness testimonyEusebius says of
Mark, the putative author of the earliest gospel, he had not heard
the Lord, nor had he followed him,2 and it is widely believed that
inconsistencies in the trial narratives reflect apologetic intent as well
as a lack of institutional memory within the early Christian communities. Nevertheless, I would make the case that the charge(s) brought
against Jesus may still be plausibly established.
The gospel account leading up to Jesus arrest is worth briefly unpacking: six days before the festival of Passover, Jesus and his disciples arrive at Bethany, a small town within walking distance of Jerusalem.3 Jesus sends two disciples into the village where they find a
donkey, they throw their cloaks over it, and Jesus rides into Jerusalem
much as described in the prophecy of Zechariah:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and
victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt, the
foal of an ass.4
This is Matthews reconstruction of events:
They brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their outer
garments over them, and he sat upon them. And a very large
crowd spread their outer garments in the road...And the
crowds that preceded him and those following him shouted,
saying, Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed is the one
2
Matthew 12:4-11.
Mark 11:2, Luke 19:30, John 12:14.
7
John 12:16.
8
John 12:1.
9
Mark 11:11, John 12:1.
10
Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 357.
11
Mark 11: 30, 32.
6
the temple authorities feared Jesus.12 Stroumsa, regarding the aggressive imagery of the gospels, notes the deep-seated ambiguity is
directly related to the radical nature of earliest Christianity, a movement born within the chiliastic content of Jewish apocalypticism.13
The confrontations between Jesus and the temple authorities were an
ugly business. Jesus denounced them in offensive terms:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees!14 Hypocrites! You build
the tombs of the prophets and you adorn the graves of the
righteous and you say, If we lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have been their partners in shedding
the blood of the prophets. So you testify against yourselves
that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets! Fill up
the measure of your fathers, you! Snakes! Offspring of vipers!
How are you to flee from the judgment of Gehenna?15
The woes pronounced against the temple leaders culminate in the
prediction that the temple itself will be destroyed:
As he left the temple, one of his disciples said to him,
Teacher, look what large stones and amazing buildings! Jesus said to him, Do you see these great buildings? By no
means will a stone be left upon a stone here and not be demolished!16
Jesus curse on the temple is reported by all four gospels, repeated by
his accusers at his hearing before the temple authorities, and thrown
back in his face during his crucifixion.17 The prediction appears in the
Gospel of Thomas,18 and the witnesses against Stephen accuse him of
12
for expulsion from the synagogue (9:13, ff.); they are deeply
involved in the decision to have Jesus removed, actually summoning a meeting of the council (11:46 ff.).28
Needing a pretext to cover his arrest that would engage the attention
of the Roman prefect, the Jewish authorities approached Jesus with a
trick question: should Jews pay Roman taxes that helped support the
occupation?29 A flat refusal would imply Jesus supported insurrection.
Agreement would alienate the crowd that was unenthusiastic about
paying for its own subjugation. Jesus adroitly turned the tables on the
Jewish leadership: Roman coins bore Caesars image and Jesus responded to the temple leaders, indirectly pointing to their collaboration, Its Caesars coingive it back to him.30 Jesus, it turned out,
had proven a slippery fish indeed.
Jesus came preaching the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God31
and the overthrow of the old order, including, as we have seen, the
destruction of Herods temple. It is impossible to imagine that any
prophet foretelling the overthrow of king and kingdom in the midst
of Passover, a festival commemorating the deliverance of the Jews
from the yoke of Gentiles, would be tolerated. It is also impossible
that Jesus did not realize this. The annual festivals, with their crowds
caught up on the high tide of nationalistic religious fervor, presented
perfect opportunities for revoltJosephus tells of the whole city,
overrun with people from the country, the majority carrying weapons
(to pleon oplitwn) during the feast of Pentecost.32 It is reasonable to
assume that the multitude of Jewish pilgrims, who had traveled with
their families from far and wide33 on roads plagued by highway robbery, arrived at festivals armed in self-defense. Paul attests to the risk
that accompanied travel between citiesalways on the move, in
danger from rivers, in danger from bandits (lhstwn)...34 Significantly, the men crucified along with Jesus were robbers (lhstai);35 the
dense Passover crowds represented an abundance of opportunity for
criminals.
28
Given the potential for disorder and insurrection among the Passover
throng, Pontius Pilate, the embodiment of law and order, traveled to
Jerusalem from his usual residence in Caesarea accompanied by a
large contingent of troops. A permanent garrison in the fortress of
Antonia, adjacent to the temple precinct, warily surveyed the Jewish
pilgrims from the ramparts, alert for signs of disturbance. In the event
of problems, the Jewish and Roman leadership would present a unified front, dealing swiftly and efficiently with rabble-rousersWhen
the governor arrived in town, death came with him.36
According to the gospels, Jesus and his entourage were a source of
consternation.
Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees assembled the
Sanhedrin and they said, What will we do? This man is performing many signs! If we tolerate him like this, everyone will
believe in him and the Romans will come and take away both
our Temple and people!
...
So from that day forward they planned how they might kill
him.37
The gospel accounts of Jesus arrest and trial are riddled with inconsistenciesLuke reports the temple police used spies to follow Jesus
in preparation for his arrest38 so it makes little sense to suppose they
would pay Judas to betray his location. It has been suggested that
Judas betrayed Jesus claim to be the King of the Jews,39 but the
record is not wholly consistent with that explanationThat Jesus
never asserted directly or spontaneously that he was the Messiah is
admitted by every serious expert...The firmness of early Christian
emphasis on Jesus Messianic status is matched by the reluctance of
the Synoptic tradition to ascribe to him any unambiguous public, or
even private, declaration in this domain.40 Mark has Judas indicate
which man is Jesus by approaching him and kissing him,41 whereas in
Johns gospel, Jesus steps forward and identifies himself not once but
three times42 while Judas simply stands by.
36
Carmichael points out that the gospel accounts of the arrest and trial
are related in contradictory and ambiguous ways; both the procedure
and the content of the trial are deeply confusing.43 Cohn, who has
produced a thorough analysis to the trial narrative concludes, The
spectacle of the Roman governor coming out of his court to ask the
people assembled outside why they would not try his prisoner, and
acquiescing in the finality of their reply that, notwithstanding his invitation, they had no power to, is just too grotesque for credence.44
It is already established by the gospels that the temple authorities arrested Jesus by night, hastily interviewed him, pronounced his guilt,
and hustled him away to Pilate for speedy execution. It is therefore
absurd to have Pilate stand Jesus before the crowd and argue for his
acquittal. The gospels, especially Matthew and John, want Jesus to
have been condemned by the Jewish mob, against Pilates better judgment...The stories of Pilates reluctance and weakness of will are best
explained as Christian propaganda; they are a kind of excuse for Pilates action which reduces the conflict between the Christian movement and Roman authority.45 The Gentile author of Luke exonerates the Romans by shifting the blame for Jesus death to the chief
priests and scribes,46 omits the presence of Romans at the moment of
Jesus arrest47in contrast with John48and deletes the reference to
Gentile sinners found in Matthew and Mark.49 Luke has Herod
Antipas officers abuse Jesus,50 not the Romans who perform this task
in Matthew and Mark.51 Nonetheless, Luke concedes, perhaps inadvertently, that Pilate murdered Jews.52
According to the gospel of John, Pilate leaves his court and asks the
assembled throng of the unwashed, What accusation do you bring
against this man?53 indicating, so far, none had been brought.
This isto say the leastmost surprising: how could Jesus have been
admitted into the praetorium unless a charge was pending against
43
10
68
11
75
12
Charges of evildoing through magic were leveled at Jesus closest associates. The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnus, an attempted refutation
of Porphyrys Against the Christians, preserves this charge made
against the apostle Peter: This man Peter is proved unrighteous (adikwn elegcetai) in other matters also. A certain man called Ananias
and his wife Sapphira...he killed though they had done nothing wrong
(eqanatwse mhden adikhsantaj)... 83 From the pagan standpoint,
Peter had murdered Ananias and Sapphira by magical cursing, 84 a
premeditated criminal act captured by the term adikhma (adikma),
deliberate wrongdoing.
By the standards of Roman law, Christianitys founding documents
celebrated criminality. The category of evil doing (kakon poiein) by
magic was well established: ...if I have given a pharmakon [farmakon,
potion or poison, my note] to Asklepiadas or contrived in my soul to
do him harm (kakon ti autw poisai) in any way...85 Magic and murder by poisoning were closely associated in legal texts; the Latin
veneficus might be either a poisoner or a magician or both, and veneficium, like the Greek farmakeia (pharmakeia), can refer to spells or
to a generalized notion of magic. The Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis, the Cornelian law on assassins and poisoners, established in 81
BCE, was the principle law under which magicians were prosecuted
because the very name poisoner (veneficus) was the same as that for
magician...to Romans of the first century CE, magic was the ultimate supertitio.86
In short, Porphyry claimed that Peters curse on Ananias and Sapphira was subject to legal sanction. Peter is adikoj (adikos), a criminal.
Commenting on the phrase kai ei tij me adikhsi epeikina aposteyon,
And if anyone shall injure me henceforth, turn [him] away! Kotansky points out that the verb adikein (adikein) generally means to
damage, injure, but when it occurs in the formula ei tij adikein is
used specifically of committing legal injury or wrong and cites several instances of such use from decrees and letters.87 Magical injury offended true religion; as Marcus Aurelius said, Wrongdoing (adikwn) is
sacriledge.88
83
13
14
Galatians 1:8-9.
Betz, Galatians, 25.
103
Galatians 3:1.
104
Neyrey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 72, 97.
105
Blumell, Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus, 57.
102
15
Meyer & Smith, Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power,
193, 207.
107
Mark 11:21, 22.
108
Mark 11:15-17.
109
Eitrem, Some Notes on the Demonology in the New Testament, 14-15.
110
Ritner, Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, 185.
Specifically cited, Mark 11:12-22, Matthew 10:11-15, 21:18-19, Luke
9:5, 10:13-15, Acts 18:6.
16
John 13:21-28.
John 5:7.
113
John 12:27-28.
114
John 11:33, 38.
115
That Jesus has the power to read thoughts is everywhere stated in John
(1:47-48, 2:24-25, 4:16-18, 5:42, 6:61, etc.). Jesus has foreknowledge of
which disciples do not believe and of who would betray him (6:64).
116
Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae III, 265, to cite but one of many examples.
117
Mark 5:12-13.
118
Davies, Magic, Divination, and Demonology Among the Hebrews and
Their Neighbors, 104.
119
Abusch, Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 7.
112
17
18
128
John 12:9-11.
Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic, 74.
130
Fuhrmann, Policing the Roman Empire, 49.
131
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius VII, 39.
132
Rives, The Religious History of the Roman Empire, 75, 92, 98.
133
Heintz, Simon: Le Magicien, 32.
...faisaient de la magie dans lAntiquit une sorte de supra-religion,
au-dessus des tats...
134
Luke 23:2.
135
Acts 13:10.
129
19
136
Matthew 27:63.
Matthew 27:64-66.
138
Eitrem, Some Notes on the Demonology in the New Testament, 41.
139
Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, LXIX, 7.
140
Josephus, Jewish Wars II, 229.
141
Samain, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 15 (1932): 458-459.
My translation of pour...lpithte de Matthieu dsigne un homme
qui a sduit la foule, non seulement par sa doctrine et ses paroles, mais
aussi par ses gestes prodiges: cest dire un magicien.
142
Aune, Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt II, 23.2 (1980), 1540.
137
20
Celsus specifically alleged that Jesus was some wicked sorcerer, hated by God (qeomisouj hn tinoj kai mocqhrou gohtoj)143 and that he
had learned magic in Egypt, the ancient seat of sorcery.144 And while
Origen strenuously denied that Jesus was a magician, he does not
hesitate to label other Christians with whom he disagreed frauds and
sorcerers (planoi kai gohtej).145
To substantiate their claim that Jesus practiced magic, the temple
authorities cite Jesus prediction: After three days I will raise myself
(egeiromai),146 adding that should Jesus disciples make off with his
corpse, This last deception (planh) will be worse than the first.147
If the verb egeiromai (egeiromai) is construed as middle voice, indicating what the subject does to or for himself, it would appear that Jesus
predicted that he would raise himself from the dead. Parallel passages
in the Synoptics suggest precisely such an interpretation: and they
will flog him and kill [him] and after three days he will raise himself
(anasthsetai). 148 Matthew 149 and Luke 150 preserve the tense and
voice of the verb when quoting it, but some copyists may have considered that the literal reading, he will raise himself, presented doctrinal problemsthey substituted a different verb and changed the
voice to passive: egerqhsetai (egerthsetai), he will be raised.
In defense of the apparently ridiculous charge made by the Jewish
leaders, it must be pointed out that the Jesus of the gospels clearly
foretells that he will raise himself from the dead:
In response the Jews said to him, What sign are you
showing us that you are doing these things?
In reply Jesus said to them, Destroy this temple and in
three days I will raise (egerw) it.
143
21
Then the Jews said, This temple was built in forty-six years
and in three days you will raise it? But he said that about the
temple of his body.151
Instead of displaying another sign on the spot, Jesus promises one
it will be his greatest and will give the best apology imaginable for his
death. That he is to accomplish his own resurrection is virtually unique in the N[ew] T[estament]. If there was any doubt that he had
been alluding to his own death (and resurrection), it is dispelled by
the formula, in three days.152 In fact, the fourth gospel is quite explicit on this point:
That is why the Father loves me, because I lay aside my life
in order that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me,
but I lay it aside of my own volition. I have the authority
(exousian ecw) to lay it down and I have authority to take it
up again. This is the order I received from my Father.153
It is crucial to note the claim of authoritythe belief that some people have supernatural powers as a gift154is elsewhere consistently
linked to the performance of miracles.155 After this shocking declaration the Jews respond, He has a demon and hes raving!156 The contrast is clear: Jesus claims to have authority and his opponents claim
he has a demon; both are claims that Jesus can perform amazing
works of power. The question, as the context reveals, is the source of
Jesus power.
The remarkable notion that Jesus could raise himself from the dead is
mentioned in a letter of Ignatius, composed around the beginning of
the 2nd century. Writing against the Docetist heresy that claimed Jesus was a spirit that only appeared to be material, Ignatius says, He
suffered all these things on our account that we might be saved, and
he truly suffered as also he truly raised himself (wj kai alhqwj
anesthsen eautou).157 That raising oneself from the dead is exactly
the sort of thing a magician might do is confirmed by Hippolytus accusation that Simon Magus made precisely such a claim.158
151
John 2:18-21.
Miller, The Complete Gospels, 187 (footnote on John 2:19).
153
John 10:17-18.
154
Luck, Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome, 165.
155
Compare Luke 4:36, 9:1.
156
John 10:19.
157
Ignatius, Ad Smyrnaeos, 2.
158
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies VI, 15.
152
22
159
23
24
REFERENCES
25
26
27
28