(Gospel of John 18:1 - 18:27)
After he had finished praying, Jesus departed with his disciples, crossing the brook in the Valley of Kidron and entering the olive orchard that lay on the other side. This was a place known well to the betrayer Judas, for Jesus had met there with his disciples many times. Therefore, Judas came there, accompanied by a detachment of Roman soldiers and Temple guards given to him by the chief priests and Pharisees. They entered the grove carrying torches and lanterns -- and weapons.
Jesus, who was aware of what was about to happened, stepped forward and asked them, "Who is it you're looking for?"
"Jesus of Nazareth," they responded.
"I am he," Jesus told them.
Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, was standing amongst them. When Jesus identified himself, they all stepped back and fell to the ground. Jesus asked them again, "Who are you looking for?"
Again they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."
"I already told you I am he," Jesus said. "Since I'm the one you want, let these others go." (He did this to fulfill his claim that he lost none of those given to him by the Father.)
At this point, Simon-Peter, who was carrying a sword, drew it and with it attacked a slave of the high priest, slashing off his right ear. (The name of this slave was Malchus.)
But Jesus bid Peter, "Sheath your sword! Should I not drink from the cup the Father has offered me."
At the behest of their commander, Jesus was then arrested and tied up by the soldiers and the Temple guards. They brought him first to Annas, the father-in-law of the priest for that year, Caiaphas. (Caiaphas was the one who had advised the religious leaders that it was better that one man die for the people.)
Simon-Peter and another of the disciples followed Jesus. Since that other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, he was allowed enter the courtyard of the high priest, while Peter was left standing outside the gate. But the aforementioned disciple spoke to the woman who watched the gate and availed upon her to let Peter in. The porteress then asked Peter, "You're not one of his disciple's, too, are you?"
"No," he replied, "I am not."
Because it was cold, a charcoal fire had been lit and the household slaves and guards stood around it, warming themselves. Peter did likewise.
Meanwhile, the high priest (sic) was interrogating Jesus concerning his disciples and his teachings.
Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world, always teaching in the synagogues and in the Temple, places where Judeans regularly congregate. I have said nothing in secret. But why do you ask me. Ask those who heard me speak. They know what I said to them."
When he said this, one of the guards standing near Jesus slapped him alongside the face and berated him, "Is that the way you answer the high priest?"
Jesus protested. "If I said anything untruthful, you must prove it. But if I'm speaking the truth, then why are you beating me?"
Annas then had Jesus bound and sent him to see Caiaphas, the current high priest.
Simon-Peter was still warming himself by the fire. One of the others there asked him, "You're not one of his disciples, too, are you?"
Peter denied it, insisting, "No, I'm not."
One of the high priest's household slaves, who happened to be a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, questioned him further, "Didn't I see you at the olive orchard with Jesus?"
Again Peter denied Jesus. At once a cock began to crow.
Notes
1. Judas had apparently left the dinner and gone straight to the authorities, the Judean religious authorities, not the secular Roman government. Apparently he had offered to bring in Jesus, arrest him for them provided he would be given a detachment of guards and soldiers. He knew where Jesus might be, in the olive orchard of Kidron (just east of Jerusalem). He found him there. Judas was not the one to arrest Jesus, but he hovered in the background and let the armed men do the dirty work.
2. Jesus, by going to a place familiar to Judas, was obviously making no attempt to avoid arrest, but was willingly submitting himself to it. This is confirmed when he is about to be arrested and says, “Should I not drink from the cup the Father has offered me.” The arrest almost seems like a set-up arranged by Jesus. (In which case, Judas is not a traitor at all, but was doing his master’s bidding.)
3. When Jesus first responds to the soldiers and identifies himself, they step back and fall to the ground. Why? Were they somehow awed by a man who has consistently been described as very ordinary? If they were cowed or moved to reverence, why did they then not demur to tie him up?
4. Jesus asks that the disciples not be arrested but remain free. He does so not out of any concern for the health and well being of his disciples, but merely to give the appearance of fulfilling some supposed scriptural prophecy. There is no evidence that anyone had any intention of arresting his disciples.
5. Simon-Peter, acting either out of instinct or from a poorly conceived plan, decides to take violent action to prevent the arrest of his master. He draws his sword and slashes off the ear of a slave. It is a rather feeble and ineffectual display of bravado. One wonders if the slave was even armed. In any case, the violence ceases when Jesus indicates he will submit to arrest. The hot-headed Peter sheaths his sword. No concern is expressed for the plight of the earless slave who was probably just doing what he was told.
6. It seems incongruous that one of the disciples would carry a sword. Wasn't Jesus a preacher of peace? Why would arms be carried by a follower of the Son of God, who could surely guard his crew from any danger through whatever sort of miracle was demanded? Why would any be necessary? Surely a sword would not, on the outskirts of Jerusalem be need for protection against wild animals or even be the proper weapon to do so. Modern sensibilities make one suspicious of men of God who pack heat. In all times and places the religious rarely bear arms; Friar Tuck of Robin Hood's crew, a skilled swordsman, is one of the few exceptions that spring to mind, and he was a part of a band of thieves.
7. The name used for the commander of the soldiers is chiliarch, who would be the commander of a thousand men. This is patently absurd. A thousand men would not crowd into an orchard to arrest one unarmed man. Probably the author of John was ignorant of Roman military terms or he wanted exalt the reputation his Messiah by claiming that it took what would be for us a very large battalion to bring him in. If the latter is the case, one may ask how many other gross exaggerations have made it into the narrative.
8. When he is arrested, Jesus is bound, probably nothing more elaborate than having his hands tied with a rope or strip of cloth. Apparently the restraints were at some point unfastened, since after his interrogation session with Annas, he is bound again and taken to see Caiaphas. It is likely, then, that when was Jesus as struck by Annas’ guard, his hands were free. Significantly, Jesus did not strike back, nor did he turn the other cheek, but naturally complained about his unfair treatment.
9. It is historically accurate that Annas, a high priest, was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest, but the author of John evinces an incomplete understanding of Temple practices of the time. As has been mentioned before, high priests were not chosen on a yearly basis. Caiaphas served as high priest for almost twenty years, holding the office under Pontius Pilate's governorship. The narrative refers to Annas as a high priest. Technically, he was a former high priest, but might have been called high priest as a courtesy title. Annas could probably be described as a high priest emeritus and probably had considerable clout even during his son-in-law's term. It seems a presumption and a breach of protocol, however, that he should see and question Jesus before the current high priest had done so. And why Jesus was brought to him and not to Caiaphas first is an unanswered question. (Caiaphas was out to lunch -- or rather, breakfast?) Peter and the other disciple go to house of Caiaphas, probably not aware that Jesus had been taken instead to Annas’ house. It is possible, though, that Annas and Caiaphas, being in-laws, might have lived in the same residence or in adjacent homes, or had offices in the same building.
10. Jesus is insufficiently respectful to Annas and merits a slap on the face for his cheekiness. He is not uncooperative, but expresses an attitude of defiance that obviously did not set well with the religious authorities. There is, of course, a history of animosity between the two parties.
11. Peter famously denies Jesus three times. (The third denial might be excusable: if he admitted to cutting off an ear, he would place himself in legal jeopardy.) He has the courage to draw and use his sword, but is a coward about admitting his relationship to Jesus, a man now in trouble with the law. Why would he not boast about being a follower of the Son of God? Did he have doubts? Was he just thinking about his own hide? If so, why did he bother to follow Jesus in the first place and go to seek him when he was arrested? Peter gives the impression, at least at this point in his life, of being an impulsive man of bold bluster who is, at heart, a weasel.
12. It is interesting that the name of the slave whose ear was lopped off by Peter is given, but not the name of the disciple who accompanies him when they seek information about Jesus’ arrest.
Showing posts with label Caiaphas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Caiaphas. Show all posts
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
The Priest's Conspiracy Against Jesus
(Gospel of John 11:45 - 11:57)
Many of the Judeans who had been visiting Mary came to believe in Jesus when they witnessed what had happened. Some, though, went to the Pharisees to report to them what Jesus had done. As a result, the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin, the religious council. "What are we going to do?" they asked each other. "This man is performing a lot of miracles. If we let him continue, everyone will believe in him. Then the Romans will come and destroy not only our Temple, but our nation as well."
One of the priests, Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, disagreed, "You know nothing at all about it! Can't you see, it's better that one man may die, than the whole nation destroyed." He did not mention it, but upon becoming high priest, Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die not only for the sake of the nation, but for the sake of bringing together the scattered followers of the Hebrew god and uniting them in solidarity. Therefore, from that time on they conspired to bring about Jesus' death.
Because of this, Jesus no longer appeared in public among the Judeans, but exiled himself to the village of Ephraim near the desert and remained there with his disciples.
As the time for the celebration of the Hebrew Passover drew near, many people from all parts the country came to Jerusalem to undergo purification rituals prior to the Passover. Those who gathered in the Temple courtyard kept looking for Jesus and asked themselves, "What do you think? Will he come here for the Passover or not?" The chief priests and Pharisees ordered that anyone learning the whereabouts of Jesus report it, so he could be arrested.
Notes
1. The religious establishment, who are already threatened by Jesus and his beliefs, are fearful that if the populace accepts Jesus, it will have dire political consequences. These do not seem obvious. But one assumes this scenario: If the Judean people hail Jesus as the Messiah, they may regard him not only as a spiritual leader, but as a temporal one, one who will lead them against the Roman governor in a war of independence. Rome will respond to any act of rebellion by crushing it militarily, destroying the Temple, denying the people the religious freedom they now enjoy, perhaps even obliterating the political identity of the Hebrew people. Such would be the fear of the priesthood, who had considerable power under Roman authority and had a vested interest in preserving the status quo. And the writers of the Gospels would know this as a reality, for a Jewish rebellion did occur and the Temple destroyed by 70 AD, only a few decades after Jesus’ time.
2. The high priest Caiaphas puts down the other priests and tells them how stupid they are, yet, oddly, in his remarks, he seems to agree with them. Claiming that Jesus must be sacrificed for the well-being of the country, he presents himself as a patriot, rather than a priest merely defending his authority and striving to preserve the orthodox creed.
3. Before he became high priest, Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would not only save his country, but more: his death would somehow encourage a return of emigrants of Hebrew extraction who had left Palestine to settle elsewhere, and perhaps achieve greater comity between the Hebrew people who live in Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. He wants to use Jesus and the passion he has engendered in his followers to further his own political agenda, greater unity among Hebrew peoples, either in a political or religious sense -- goals which are by no means ignoble.
4. His life threatened, Jesus has gone to ground, but people are still talking about him and wondering when he will make his next public appearance. The impression is given all through the Gospels that Jesus was a significant national figure. However, save for the Gospels, which are, of course, religious propaganda and written more than a generation after his death, historical sources are silent about him and give no credit even to his existence.
5. The impression is given here that those who held the office of high priest were selected or appointed yearly. This is inaccurate and makes one suspect the author’s common knowledge of Judaic affairs. Caiaphas, or, more properly Joseph ben Caiaphas, mentioned by the historian Flavius Josephus, served continuously as high priest for almost two decades. He was appointed high priest by the Roman governor of Iudea, Valerius Gratus, in 18 AD. He was retained by his successor, Pontius Pilate, but was removed by the governor of Roman Syria Lucius Vitellius in 37 AD. Members of his family also served in the office and he was a son-in-law of the high priest Annas, who may have exercised considerable power even while Caiaphas was officially high priest. He was obviously of the wealthy Judean elite and must have maintained a congenial working relationship with the Roman government.
6. The Sanhedrin, a council and a court, actually met every day. It would not have been convened merely to discuss the fate of the troublesome evangelist Jesus. This particularly Sanhedrin had 23 members. The high priest would not have served as its chairman, a post held by an independent officer known as a nasi. However, the Gospels give an opposite impression.
7. It is not certain where the town of Ephraim was or its precise identification. At the edge of the desert, it was probably no farther than 15 east of Jerusalem.
Many of the Judeans who had been visiting Mary came to believe in Jesus when they witnessed what had happened. Some, though, went to the Pharisees to report to them what Jesus had done. As a result, the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin, the religious council. "What are we going to do?" they asked each other. "This man is performing a lot of miracles. If we let him continue, everyone will believe in him. Then the Romans will come and destroy not only our Temple, but our nation as well."
One of the priests, Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, disagreed, "You know nothing at all about it! Can't you see, it's better that one man may die, than the whole nation destroyed." He did not mention it, but upon becoming high priest, Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die not only for the sake of the nation, but for the sake of bringing together the scattered followers of the Hebrew god and uniting them in solidarity. Therefore, from that time on they conspired to bring about Jesus' death.
Because of this, Jesus no longer appeared in public among the Judeans, but exiled himself to the village of Ephraim near the desert and remained there with his disciples.
As the time for the celebration of the Hebrew Passover drew near, many people from all parts the country came to Jerusalem to undergo purification rituals prior to the Passover. Those who gathered in the Temple courtyard kept looking for Jesus and asked themselves, "What do you think? Will he come here for the Passover or not?" The chief priests and Pharisees ordered that anyone learning the whereabouts of Jesus report it, so he could be arrested.
Notes
1. The religious establishment, who are already threatened by Jesus and his beliefs, are fearful that if the populace accepts Jesus, it will have dire political consequences. These do not seem obvious. But one assumes this scenario: If the Judean people hail Jesus as the Messiah, they may regard him not only as a spiritual leader, but as a temporal one, one who will lead them against the Roman governor in a war of independence. Rome will respond to any act of rebellion by crushing it militarily, destroying the Temple, denying the people the religious freedom they now enjoy, perhaps even obliterating the political identity of the Hebrew people. Such would be the fear of the priesthood, who had considerable power under Roman authority and had a vested interest in preserving the status quo. And the writers of the Gospels would know this as a reality, for a Jewish rebellion did occur and the Temple destroyed by 70 AD, only a few decades after Jesus’ time.
2. The high priest Caiaphas puts down the other priests and tells them how stupid they are, yet, oddly, in his remarks, he seems to agree with them. Claiming that Jesus must be sacrificed for the well-being of the country, he presents himself as a patriot, rather than a priest merely defending his authority and striving to preserve the orthodox creed.
3. Before he became high priest, Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would not only save his country, but more: his death would somehow encourage a return of emigrants of Hebrew extraction who had left Palestine to settle elsewhere, and perhaps achieve greater comity between the Hebrew people who live in Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. He wants to use Jesus and the passion he has engendered in his followers to further his own political agenda, greater unity among Hebrew peoples, either in a political or religious sense -- goals which are by no means ignoble.
4. His life threatened, Jesus has gone to ground, but people are still talking about him and wondering when he will make his next public appearance. The impression is given all through the Gospels that Jesus was a significant national figure. However, save for the Gospels, which are, of course, religious propaganda and written more than a generation after his death, historical sources are silent about him and give no credit even to his existence.
5. The impression is given here that those who held the office of high priest were selected or appointed yearly. This is inaccurate and makes one suspect the author’s common knowledge of Judaic affairs. Caiaphas, or, more properly Joseph ben Caiaphas, mentioned by the historian Flavius Josephus, served continuously as high priest for almost two decades. He was appointed high priest by the Roman governor of Iudea, Valerius Gratus, in 18 AD. He was retained by his successor, Pontius Pilate, but was removed by the governor of Roman Syria Lucius Vitellius in 37 AD. Members of his family also served in the office and he was a son-in-law of the high priest Annas, who may have exercised considerable power even while Caiaphas was officially high priest. He was obviously of the wealthy Judean elite and must have maintained a congenial working relationship with the Roman government.
6. The Sanhedrin, a council and a court, actually met every day. It would not have been convened merely to discuss the fate of the troublesome evangelist Jesus. This particularly Sanhedrin had 23 members. The high priest would not have served as its chairman, a post held by an independent officer known as a nasi. However, the Gospels give an opposite impression.
7. It is not certain where the town of Ephraim was or its precise identification. At the edge of the desert, it was probably no farther than 15 east of Jerusalem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)