From the column, “What About It, Bob?” By Bob Siegel
© 2004 by Bob Siegel All Rights Reserved
This article is not to be reproduced without written permission from the author.

As a writer, the last thing I would ever want to do is to produce something unoriginal. I am keenly aware that this may be the fiftieth article you have digested concerning Mel Gibson’s mildly controversial movie, The Passion.  Still, although some of my points will be familiar, I believe I may add at least one or two new wrinkles to the discourse.

One such wrinkle is that I am not only a Christian, but also a converted Jew.  As a Christian I am familiar with the New Testament and the frequent distortions that occur when people take verses out of context. As a Jew, I was raised to watch out for anti-Semitism and I do see a lot of genuine Jew hatred in the world today.  I do NOT see such bigotry in The Passion.

Let’s be blunt. With the exception of a few artistic liberties, Gibson remained true to the gospel accounts and it is exactly these gospels that Jews (and some others) falsely (but sincerely) interpret as anti-Semitic. The reaction is understandable since the New Testament has been misquoted throughout history by evil religious hypocrites who persecuted Jews and called them Christ-killers.

If hypocrisy is your concern, it may surprise you to learn that you actually have something in common with Jesus, for Jesus hated religious hypocrisy and preached against it quite often.

“Not everyone who says to be ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.  Away from me you evildoers’” (Matt.  7:21-23).

This interesting discourse given early in Jesus’ ministry proved to be very prophetic.  Therefore, hypocrisy in the church, while sad, is not a phenomenon which contradicts the words of Christ, for He not only spoke of hypocrisy but hypocrisy in his own name!

Having acknowledged the inappropriate usage of the New Testament, I must also admit that the New Testament does assign some credit to some Jews for Jesus’ death.

Now stop. Before you clutch your chest or fall out of your chair, allow me to explain.

Any conversation about Jesus is pointless until we understand Jesus’ actual claims. Whatever you personally may believe about Jesus, He actually taught that He was God incarnate, the creator of the universe visiting the world in the form of a human being. (John 8:58, 14:9-10 Even the title, Son of God, was considered a claim to deity in those days.) To the ancient Jews, the idea of a mere man claiming to be the God of Israel was as outrageous and dangerous as false teaching could possibly be.  (unless, of course, Jesus was telling the truth).  But the Sanhedrin (a Jewish puppet court, allowed by the Romans to have limited jurisdiction over internal affairs) did not believe His claim and had no recourse but to denounce Him as a traitor and blasphemer.

Under Roman law, the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to kill Jesus. But they would have if they could. Instead, they gave him to Pilate and he had Jesus killed, thus all the debate over who killed Jesus, the Jews or the Romans. Actually it was a collaborative effort.  Some claim that this New Testament report not only contradicts the facts of history but also does so with an anti-Jewish agenda.  Well intentioned and sincerely misinformed, they fail to take several key things into account:

1) The New Testament does not teach that all Jews killed Jesus, rather certain hypocritical Jewish leaders. Many other Jews in Israel followed Jesus and the original church was made up of Jews. Even some of the Jews who voted to have Jesus executed, later on became Christians themselves (Ex. Paul the apostle possibly, because he had been a member of the Sanhedrin.  But the book of Acts does tell us definitely that many Jewish authorities converted Acts 6:7).

2) The New Testament was itself (for the most part) written by Jews.  Please grasp the significance of this: It is from Jews that we get the account that Jesus was killed by Jews.  Although these authors had converted to Christianity, their love for Israel never went away. Just look at the words of Paul, a former rabbi.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. Rom 9:3-5

3) It was common even in the Old Testament (Or Holy Scriptures, as Jews would call it) for Jewish writers to be painfully honest when fellow Israelites did not obey God. This is one of the greatest arguments that the Bible is trustworthy, as generally nations tend to paint themselves in a positive light.

“OK. Maybe the writers of the Bible weren’t anti-Semitic, but you still haven’t completely addressed the historical inaccuracies.  After all, the New Testament paints Pontus Pilate as a man of conscience and weak backbone who wanted to please the Jews, but the ancient historian, Josephus, portrays him as a brutal dictator who massacred Jews and cared nothing for their cause.”

The New Testament does not deny Pilate’s brutality. In fact, Luke actually corroborates Josephus:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Luke 13:1

Even the passion narratives show us a man who condemned Jesus to death, despite the fact that he found no guilt in the man. That is hardly a glowing testimonial. Remember also that Pilate had Jesus tortured before he was executed. This “scourging”, as it was called in ancient Rome, was portrayed accurately by Gibson.

“How do you explain Pilate’s fear in the gospels?  He seems to be putting Jesus to death to please the Jews. Doesn’t that contradict his previous behavior?”

This obvious change of attitude is easily explained when we supply an important missing piece of the puzzle. Before Pilate’s encounter with Jesus he had another encounter, a not so pleasant encounter, with Emperor Tiberius.  And this ruler of Rome actually brought Pilate’s anti-Jewish policies to a screeching halt!

Among his other unpopular practices, Pilate had erected some Roman shields at his Jerusalem palace and these shields bore pagan inscriptions, offensive to the Jews. Four prominent Jewish princes represented their people by writing a letter to the emperor, after pleading in vain to the stubborn governor of Judea to have them removed. Tiberius responded sharply with a letter of his own and demanded that Pilate remove those shields at once! (Philo, Embassy To Caligula)

Decide now for yourself if Pilate’s political back and forth persona makes more sense. He has been rebuked by the Emperor for his treatment of the Jews. Out of the blue, Jesus is thrown his way and as governor, it is his decision alone to convict or acquit. Out of fear, he now wants to please the Jews. But which Jews?  The leaders and representatives of the Jewish court who want Jesus dead but cannot legally execute him themselves, or the many followers of this very popular Jesus person?  At first, Pilate seemed to be catering to the people at large but that changed when the Sanhedrin heads played their final wild card:

From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” John 19:12

Could Pilate, after finding himself on the bad side of Caesar, ignore these words about opposing Caesar?

But I have saved the most interesting information for last.

In the Talmud (an ancient rabbinic storehouse of law, wisdom and commentary) Jesus is described as both a sorcerer and an apostate and it is clearly admitted that the Sanhedrin condemned him to be executed.

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged.  For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to Apostasy.  Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.  But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover  (Sanhedrin 43A, Babylonian Talmud from Tannaaitic period  70-200 Ad. Translation from Jacob Shachter, Sanhedrin, Translated into English With Notes, Glossary And Indices, Chapters 1-6 by Jacob Schachter, Chapters 7-11 by H. Freedman, London, 1948: Soncino, p.281-2). 1

Yeshu, of course, is the Hebrew word for Jesus.  “Hanging” was another way of describing a crucifixion.2 Apostates were people who broke from the faith and/or preached heresy.  Jesus’ divine claims certainly placed Him into this category.

Why did the Talmud go on to conclude that Jesus was also a sorcerer?  Because in those days, if you didn’t like a religious personality but could not deny the fact that He was doing miracles, the only recourse was to call Him a sorcerer, or tool of the devil.

Conclusion:

I hope the complexity of this subject has been clarified a little. Ironically, much of the discussion assumes that Jesus’ death was somehow contrary to God’s plan.  Please understand; God did not send His Son, only to have His plans fouled up. He didn’t say, “Crucifixion? How dare they! There goes that trip to the Bahamas that Jesus was planning to take with His disciples!” On the contrary, Jesus planned to die and Jesus had to die. If He did not die, and rise from the dead three days later, none of us could be forgiven of our sins. The ultimate teaching of the New Testament is that we are all responsible for Jesus’ death. If not for our selfish natures, He would not have needed to pay the penalty we were simply unable to pay.

Scripture taken from THE HOLY BIBLE
New International Version  NIV
Copyright  1973, 1979, 1984 by International Bible Society
Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.
All rights reserved.

Footnotes:

1) Jacob Neusner, who edited his own translation of the Babylonian Talmud uses Schachter’s translation for this passage and admits that the text “is omitted in censured editions of the Talmud and is not found in the standard printed text” (Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of Babylon, An American Translation XXIII Tractate Sanhedrin, Brown Judaic Studies 84, 1984, Brown University, p. 74).

2) As far back as the time of Moses, it was a Jewish custom to hang executed criminals on a tree even if they had first been put to death some other way such as stoning  (Deut.21:22-23).  Although the Romans crucified Jesus, handing Jesus over to Pilate for punishment was as close to executing the sentence themselves as the Sanhedrin could possibly come in those days.  Even though crucifixion was not a Jewish form of execution, the Roman purpose in crucifixion closely paralleled the Jewish purpose in hanging.  Jesus, in a manner of speaking, was hanged publicly for all to see.  Setting such an “example” to other potential offenders was the Roman reason for crucifixion  ( Josephus,  War, 7, Tacitus Historia 4, 3, 11).  Therefore, the Romans as well as Jews shared the practice of a public example even though they had different ways to execute people.  Certainly Paul made the connection between the death of Jesus and the hanging described in Deuteronomy 21, for he actually quotes the verse in Galatians 3:13 while talking about Christ’s crucifixion.

Share this on