Reverend Kenny Nailimup
Matthew thus relates the trial scene:
“And they that had
laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the
scribes and the elders were assembled. ... Now the chief priests, and elders,
and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him
to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet
found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This
fellow said, I am able to destroy the
Mark’s account of the trial scene (Mark 14, 15:1) is substantially identical with Matthew’s; therefore I do not repeat it.
Luke records the scene entirely different. To get the connection, I shall repeat a few verses offered in connection with the story of the “denial.”
“But a certain maid beheld him [Peter] as he sat by the fire, and said,” etc. “And he denied,” etc. “And ... the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. ... And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. And as soon as it was day the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you ye will not believe. And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.” (Luke 22:56-71; 23:1)
John gives a still different account of the scene:
“Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.” (John 18:12-13, 19-24)
The first two [unknown] authors called Matthew and Mark, practically agree in their accounts of the trial:
· It was before Caiaphas;
· It was during the night when Jesus was captured;
· False witnesses testified;
· Jesus made statements which were considered blasphemous, and was judged worthy of death; and
· On the next morning he was carried before the Roman governor, Pilate.
But Luke completely discredits the reports of Matthew and Mark. For Luke makes it plain that there was no trial during the night; Jesus passed the night in the courtyard with his guard and Peter; and the next morning, “as soon as it was day,” the council assembled, “and they led him into their council.” The proceedings are related with some minor differences, of which only one need be noticed. The high priest asked Jesus: “Art thou the Christ? ... And Jesus said, “I am” (Mark 14:61-62); but Luke says that Jesus replied: “If I tell you, ye will not believe” (Luke 22:67). John says that Jesus was first taken to Annas, at whose house some proceedings and one of Peter’s denials seem to have taken place; then “Annas sent [Jesus] bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.” Whether by night or day does not appear.
After the proceedings before Caiaphas, Jesus was taken to Pilate for final sentence. There are many variants in the four records of the proceedings before Pilate. Luke represents the proceedings before Pilate as held in the presence of the accusers of Jesus: “And led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him. ... And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. ... And Pilate ... said unto them ... behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accuse him” (Luke 23: 1-2,10,13-14; cf. Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:1-4). But John declares that the hearing before Pilate was ex parte, without witnesses or accusers present: “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled. ... Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? ... Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus” (John 18: 28, 29, 33). Pilate said to the Jews: “Take ye him, 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” (John 18:31). A little later, “the Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die” (John 19:7).
“I wash my hands of His blood,” Pilate said at last, actually dipping his hands into a basin of water.
“I am innocent
of the blood of this just
The real, the historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. Pontius Pilate was singularly crass in his treatment of the Jews, offending them repeatedly. He was spiteful, unjust, greedy and indiscreet.
· As soon as he was appointed, he
carried Roman standards bearing the image of Caesar into
· He took the temple treasure to build an aqueduct into the city, an action that one might have thought would be welcomed—but the Jews put God before any beneficent actions of the foreigner.
· He strongly favored the Priestly Party of the Sadducees—disliked by the masses—and its leaders, the Annas family.
According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious anti-Semitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by anti-Semites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name “Barabbas” is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic “bar Abba” which means “son of the Father.” Thus “Jesus Barabbas” originally meant “Jesus the son of the Father;” in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name “Barabbas.”
Luke tells us in chapter 26 that Jesus was taken in the middle of the night to the home of Caiaphas for questioning. Frustrated at Jesus’ answers to their questions as to whether or not he claimed to be the Messiah, the scribes and priests hit Jesus in the face and spit on him in disgust. There are several problems with this gospel account:
Elders of the Sanhedrin would no more strike or spit on an accused person, than
would the Supreme Court of the
If the gospel of John is to be the authority, this account disagrees with the synopticists since the High Priest Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and charges him with sedition, not blasphemy, as the synoptic Gospels allege. Clearly, the pseudipigraphical author of John is not as ignorant of Jewish Law as are the synopticists because his account is in context with the findings thus far revealed. If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin would not be necessary; the affair would be preliminarily investigated by the High Priest before turning the matter over to the Roman authorities. Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious.
Further complicating any possible truth in the gospel accounts is the motivations and actions of the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, to whom Jesus wa brought by the High Priest. Jesus was handed over to Pilate and accused of sedition. Pilate personally questions Jesus asking him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replies “I am.” For some reason, the priests are said to go on “heaping accusations” against Jesus despite the fact that his sedition was clearly established by Jesus himself. Even stranger still, Pilate seems to not even care that Jesus claims to be the King of the Jews and Pilate “wonders” if Jesus is dangerous. (Mark 15:1-5) Either the author of Mark is blatantly ignorant of the facts or spinning a good yarn for the sake of his overall story.
The authors of the world’s greatest fairy tale go to great lengths to defame the Jews and falsely accuse the Sanhedrin of condemning the fictional Jesus to death. This just proves their ignorance of all things Jewish.
Let us look at the laws of a Jewish Sanhedrin which judged capital cases. The sources are Talmud tractate Sanhedrin and Miamonides Laws of Judges:
· No capital cases were allowed
to be tried outside the court chamber in the
· No capital cases were tried at night; nor on the festival; nor the eve of a festival, as the guilty party had to be put to death the following day and executions were not allowed on Sabbath or festivals.. Anyone arrested on the eve of Sabbath or a festival was held in custody till after the Sabbath or holiday and then tried;
· No defendant can be convicted on his own testimony or confession; and
· No defendant can be convicted unless he was warned by two qualified witnesses and then within seconds of the warning he ignored the warning and committed that sin which he was warned not to commit.
Then we have the question of what sin was Jesus accused. Was he a blasphemer or was he a Maysit U Maydeeach ― one who persuades a Jew to worship idols? To be a blasphemer one must curse god using the ineffable name, which Jesus did not do. Thus one more flaw in the fairy tale.
We also must discuss the issue of a Jew who turns over another Jew to gentile authorities to be killed. One who does this is called a mosair ― an informer and is punished by death. So any Sanhedrin that turned a Jew over to the Romans was signing their own death warrant.
Last but not least one must know that Sanhedrin had only four prescribed methods of execution:
· Beheading, or
Crucifixion was not one of them! Regarding crucifixion, most historians agree that that the Romans tied their victims to the cross and did not use nails. Once an accused was convicted, Sanhedrin then sent out messengers for 40 days to announce that so-and-so was convicted of such-and-such crime and sentenced to be executed. During that time witnesses who had proof of the accused’s innocence were allowed to come testify.
According to Jewish law, convicting someone of a capital crime requires a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. After hearing testimony from eye-witnesses, the judges vote. If at least thirteen of the judges vote “guilty” the defendant is executed.
There is a surprising exception to this; however if ALL the judges vote guilty, then the defendant is acquitted. Here is why:
There are two ways to look at everything. There is no situation in this world without some merit or positive side. If not one judge was able to see the good side and declare the defendant innocent, something is wrong. The positive side of the case must have been missing during the presentation of the evidence. Therefore, he is acquitted.
Jewish Historian Rabbi Shlomo Rottenberg wrotes in his book Toldot Am Olam that Jesus of Nazareth
never existed. The fictional Jesus was
borrowed from Yeshua Ben Satda who was born in the Jewish year 3671 or 81 BCE.
His mother was Miriam the hair dresser and her husband was Satda. Miriam became
pregnant with her son Yeshua from a Roman centurion named Pandera. Thus Yeshua
lived in the time of the Hasmonean King, John – Hurkenos and was a student of
Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Perachiya and escaped with him to
One hundred years later the fairy tale was created primarily by Paul based on the life of Yeshua Ben Satda. Along came other writings by persons unknown, with age-old mythical details thrown into the mix; such as virgin birth; wine-to-water miracle; resurrection and more. All of this mix was later manipulated, as needed, by early church fathers, copyists and editors. But the “piece de resistance” was the abolition of Jewish Law to make the fiction more palatable to the pagans.
So if you believe the fictional tale of the trial that never took place; you deserve Santa, the Easter Bunny and Jesus.
"Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all." -Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991)
Citation of Hebrew scripture and sources in articles or analyses is not in any way an acceptance, approval or validation of the Jewish religion, its works or scriptures. The Hebrew bible, like the Christian New Testament, is fictitious; From a 6-day creation of the universe; a cunning, walking, talking snake; big fish tales; world flood and an "Invisible Man in the Sky" ― it is all fiction, a bold sham perpetrated on mankind.