Excerpt

Based on the historical record presented by independently minded historians, Crucified by Pontius Pilate offers a plausible solution to the baffling problem of Christian origins. It focuses on the trial, conviction, and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Given a bizarre theological interpretation by a proselytizing, organizing genius, Paul, the former Saul of Tarsus, Jesuss crucifixion was transmogrified from an insignificant historical event into a cataclysmic cultural transformation that shaped the course of history. Paul founded a dominant world religion through the apotheosis of a minor figure who barely rated a footnote in history into a manifestation of the Creator. It is an astonishing development, historically unparalleled, saturated with paradox and irony.

Anyone who approaches the New Testament with a trace of skeptical curiosity must be baffled by the accounts of Jesuss crucifixion. Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition. That is the only solidly documented fact about him. It was reported by the Roman historian, Tacitus. This fact is acknowledged in the gospels. They record the trial before Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea. They note the titulus, The King of the Jews. Under this mocking sign on his cross, Jesus was crucified as a rebel against Rome.

The gospels, however, distort their accounts of the trial and crucifixion with bizarre explanations that raise more questions than they answer. According to Marks gospel, the chief charge against Jesus was blasphemy [Mk 13:64]. This charge was an offense against the Jewish religion, issued by the high priest, Caiaphas, at a hearing before the Jewish Sanhedrin (council of elders) before Jesus was handed over to the Roman authorities. With this charge, the Jews themselves could have tried and executed Jesus, via the Jewish mode of execution, stoning. But instead of this logically straightforward procedure, the priests chose instead a devious method, duping the Romans into doing their dirty work for them. According to the gospels, the real story was drastically different from that indicated by the bare historical facts. In the gospel writers versions of these events, a Roman provincial governor executed a Jewish miracle worker for an offense against the Jewish religion, via a method of execution used to punish rebels against Rome! It makes no sense, and the more you ponder it, the less sense it makes.

There is a cogent explanation of the gospels false depiction of Jesuss trial and crucifixion. The first gospel, Marks, was probably written in the very year (71 C.E.) of Titus s triumph, following the savage, four-year Jewish War (66-70 C.E.) Tituss triumph had the usual displays - enemy captives led in chains behind Roman generals, carnival carts piled high with spoils. Simon bar Giora, leader of the Zealot defenders of the doomed Jewish capital. Jerusalem, was strangled as the climax of the triumph. The Jewish rebels fierce resistance reminded Romans of their imperial problems - the perennial threat posed by the Parthians to the Eastern provinces; the necessity of controlling Judea to preserve access to Egypt, the granary for Romes masses; and the temporarily broken transportation link between the Roman provinces of Syria and Egypt.

This historic situation explains the tremendous problem confronting the Christian propagandists. They could not deny Jesuss crucifixion by the Romans, for this fact was evidently embedded in the Christian oral tradition. (To ignore it would be a confession of dishonesty.) But, on the other hand, they could not admit this embarrassing fact without somehow explaining it away. While the Romans celebrated their arduously won victory over the Jews, it was inconceivable that Christians could sell them a religion inspired by a rebel fighting for the same cause as the Jewish war prisoners herded in Tituss triumph. Forced to acknowledge the embarrassing fact about Jesuss crucifixion, the gospel writers concocted a false explanation absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews.

The gospels convoluted accounts of Jesuss trial and execution contradict historical records in countless ways. Presiding at Jesuss trial, Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, is depicted as a vacillating weakling, duped into executing a man he believes innocent. According to Johns gospel, Pilate caved in to the Jewish mobs blackmail: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him: but the Jews cried out... If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesars friend: whoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. [Jn 19: 13] Pilate yields to the Jews blackmail. He orders Jesuss crucifixion despite his repeated affirmations of his innocence.

This craven Milquetoast of the gospels stands in incredibly stark contrast with the Pilate depicted by ancient historians. According to Flavius Josephus, the ancient authority on the Jewish War, Pilate was rapacious, corrupt, headstrong, and brutal. Pilates contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, concurred. Pilate was inflexible, stubborn, and cruel, addicted to venality, violence, and robbery, said Philo. Throughout his 10-year tenure as procurator of Judea, he ordered executions without trials.

To say the least, it is highly improbable that this brutal governor, notorious among a class of officials infamous for their arrogant, unnecessary cruelty, would degenerate into the sentimental weakling depicted in the gospels. The Pilate of history and the Pilate of gospel myth are two totally different individuals.

Matthews gospel compounds this false depiction of Pilate with an even more preposterous claim: that the Jewish mob attending Jesuss trial gratuitously assumed responsibility for his execution: And all the people answered, His blood be on us and our heirs. Mobs can shout rehearsed ejaculations: e.g., Hail Caesar! But they cant spontaneously yell, His blood be on us and on our heirs. And as this novel relates, there are many similar distortions of history propounded by the gospel writers.

Scientific inquiries into the origins of Christianity, however, have never gained traction, even among educated persons. Any challenge to the gospel accounts of Jesuss trial and crucifixion strikes at the heart of Christian faith. This naturally provokes greater resistance than the 17th-century religious protests against the heliocentric theory and the 19th-century denunciation of Darwins Theory of Evolution. Mel Gibsons movie, The Passion of the Christ, released in February, 2004, launched a raging controversy that raised the issue of historic responsibility for Jesuss crucifixion. As a biblical literalist, who claims that one must accept all or nothing of the scriptures, Gibson absolves the Romans and blames the Jews for the crucifixion. The thesis presented in Crucified by Pontius Pilate collides head-on against Gibson and Christian theology generally. In the interest of historical truth, the Jews should be declared innocent of Jesuss death.




-2-