A two-part question, the first of which revolves around the Christian religion and th

[سواها قلبي]

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

7- The Trial:

The Gospels do not agree on the number of trials; therefore, we will limit ourselves to discussing only two.

A. The First Trial: Before the Jewish Sanhedrin:

Mark says:

“ 53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. 54 But Peter followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he sat with the servants and warmed himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree. 57 Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, 58 "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.' " 59 But not even then did their testimony agree. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" 61 But He kept silent and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62 Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?"
And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65 Then some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands.”

Nineham says: It is not easy to see how this part came about... and the question of its historical value has been - and still is - a subject of lively debate... and it is necessary to present the main reasons for doubting its historical value... and discuss them briefly as follows:

1- Saint Mark describes the trial as having taken place before the Sanhedrin, an official body consisting of seventy-one members headed by the High Priest, representing the supreme legal authority in Israel.

Since the Sanhedrin list mentioned in the Mishnah shows the detailed steps that must be taken before that body, the comparison between those procedures and what Saint Mark mentions about the trial of Jesus reveals a number of contradictions, most of which are worthy of consideration.

2 - But... was it possible for the members of the Sanhedrin to meet... even just to carry out such formal judicial procedures that precede the trial in the middle of Easter night... or if we consider that St. Mark's calendar of the week of events is inaccurate... could they have met in the middle of the night before Easter?

A formal trial at such a time seems unbelievable... Most scholars completely doubt that a session would be held at such a time... even for preliminary investigations (Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, pp. 398-401).

B. The second trial before Pilate:

Mark says:

" 1 Immediately, in the morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council; and they bound Jesus, led Him away, and delivered Him to Pilate. 2 Then Pilate asked Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"
He answered and said to him, "It is as you say." 3 And the chief priests accused Him of many things, but He answered nothing. 4 Then Pilate asked Him again, saying, "Do You answer nothing? See how many things they testify against You!" 5 But Jesus still answered nothing, so that Pilate marveled. 6 Now at the feast he was accustomed to releasing one prisoner to them, whomever they requested. 7 And there was one named Barabbas, who was chained with his fellow rebels; they had committed murder in the rebellion. 8 Then the multitude, crying aloud, began to ask him to do just as he had always done for them. 9 But Pilate answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?" 10 For he knew that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd, so that he should rather release Barabbas to them. 12 Pilate answered and said to them again, "What then do you want me to do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?" 13 So they cried out again, "Crucify Him!" 14 Then Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has He done?"
But they cried out all the more, "Crucify Him!" 15 So Pilate, wanting to gratify the crowd, released Barabbas to them; and he delivered Jesus, after he had scourged Him, to be crucified. "


Nineham says:

Although the trial is presented to us as having taken place in the open air - the account of Saint Mark cannot in any way be considered an eyewitness report, and in fact it is not a report at all.

We have not been informed of how Pilate learned of the charge (and in verse 2 we find that he already knew of it) and why there is no mention of a formal judgment (unlike Luke 23 , who says:

" 24 So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. "

Regarding what has been said about the custom of releasing one of the prisoners, the view of most scholars is that:

He knows nothing about such a custom as described here. The claim that it was the custom of the Roman rulers to release one of the prisoners on Easter, and that the masses were the ones who determined his name regardless of his crime, is a claim that is not supported by any evidence at all. Rather, it contradicts what we know about the spirit of Roman rule over Palestine and its method of dealing with its people.

However, the content of the dialogue between Pilate and the crowd is also problematic. It appears that Pilate was presented with a choice between two convicted criminals, such that if he released one, he would have to execute the other. At the end of the following passage (verses 2-5), we find that Jesus was not condemned. According to the story, there is no justification preventing Pilate from acquitting Jesus if he believed in his innocence and pardoning Barabbas as well. In Matthew's account of this story, the name of that rebel is mentioned twice (in 27:16, 17) in most versions as: Jesus Barabbas, and the common belief is that this was the original reading.

The omission of the word Jesus from the versions circulating among us can be simply explained on the basis that although the name Jesus was common in the days of Christ, Christians soon came to regard it as a sacred name that transcends ordinary use, and that giving it to a criminal is considered offensive. (Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, pp. 411-416).

Matthew added two stories to Mark's account: one recounting the end of Judas—a topic we will address later—and the other relating the dream of Pilate's wife. Matthew also clarified that Pilate categorically declared his innocence of the blood of the crucified man, stating:

" 23 Then the governor said, "Why, what evil has He done?"
But they cried out all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!" 24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it." 25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." 26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified. "

But scholars doubt the incident of Pilate washing his hands – as John Futon says – considering that “the act of washing one’s hands as proof of innocence is more of a Jewish custom than a Roman one… as Deuteronomy 21- says:

" 6 And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands .. 7 Then they shall answer and say, 'Our hands have not shed this blood, "

It is highly unlikely that Pilate would have done anything like this... (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 436)

We will suffice with this much regarding some of what is said in the trials and the gaps found in them, and then we will go on to a number of elements related to the crucifixion issue. It does not need much to cite the statements of scholars, as the differences in the Gospels regarding it are clear and do not need comment.


There's more to come... Your brother, Al-Athram

[سواها قلبي]

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

8-
The Crucifixion:

A- The Cross Bearer:

Mark says:
“20 And when they had mocked Him, they took the purple off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him out to crucify Him. 21 Then they compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear His cross. 22 And they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull.”

*** Matthew and Luke agree with Mark that the one carrying the cross was Simon of Cyrene, but John states something else; he says:

“16 Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. Then they took Jesus and led Him away. 17 And He, bearing His cross, went out to a place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha,”

Nineham says:
It was customary for those condemned to crucifixion to carry their own crosses. John asserts that this was indeed what happened in Jesus' case. However, according to the accounts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, an unknown person named Simon of Cyrene was forced by the Romans to carry the cross instead of Jesus.

Regarding the location of Golgotha, the tradition that it lies within the Church of the Holy Pitr cannot be traced back further than the fourth century, and it remains a subject of debate. Other locations have been suggested in our time, but definitively determining one of them is still far from certain. (Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, p. 422)

That is, the talk about the Holy Sepulchre, in which Christians say Christ was buried, and which was one of the apparent reasons for the Crusades, which their instigators claimed were launched to liberate that Holy Sepulchre from the hands of the infidels, and which lasted for more than 280 years, in which tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims were killed, and many cities were destroyed and the blood of many innocent people was shed - all of this was based on nothing.

B. The drink of the crucified:

Mark says:
“23 Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it.”

Matthew says:
“34 they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink.”

C. The Cause of the Crucified One:

Mark says:
“26 And the inscription of His accusation was written above: THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

Matthew says:
“37 And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

John says:
" 19 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS."

Nineham says: Opinions have differed greatly regarding the accuracy of what was written about his illness. Some scholars believe that the precise wording was known through eyewitness accounts, while others believe that it is unlikely the Romans used such a dry formula, and that what Saint Mark specifically mentions about his illness is simply to show that Jesus was executed as the Messiah. (Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, p. 424)

*** The difference between the Gospels in the title of the reason for the crucifixion - which is no more than a few simple words written on a tablet read by the spectators - is a measure of the degree of accuracy of what the Gospels narrate. As long as there is a difference - even in form as in this case - the degree of accuracy can never reach perfection in any way.

By analogy, we can assess the accuracy of the titles of Christ mentioned in the Gospels, especially when a Gospel attributes to one of its believers the following statement:

This man was righteous, while another Gospel says at the same time: This man was the Son of God. Or when one Gospel, through the words of a disciple of Christ, says: "Teacher," and another says: "Master," while a third says: "Lord."
The truth here always remains a point of contention.


There's more to come... Your brother, Al-Athram