![[]](/img/e/eskov/afranius_engl/af-1_1.jpg)
"aeskova@gmail.com" ), afranius999@gmail.com;
English version, 2022: Bogdan Veklych (please support: Zelle and
PayPal "strecosaurus@gmail.com" ), veklych@alum.mit.edu, user
Valinorean on reddit;
review in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/31855.
seals!"
"The procurator needn't bother himself with this question," Afranius
replied, closing the package.
"Do you really have all the seals?" Pilate asked, laughing.
"It can't be otherwise, procurator," Afranius replied very sternly, not
laughing at all.
(M. Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita.)
Mediterranean in quest of a long-sought isle, and the story of a God
crucified on Calvary." As for the latter, in a certain sense he is not
quite right. The artistic and philosophical rethinking of the events
that accompanied the execution of Jesus Christ became a sustained
literary tradition only in the last century, when the Church largely
lost the function of ideological supervision. This theme is usually
present in the narrative in the form of side plots or "a novel within
a novel" (which is the case for Bulgakov and Aitmatov), less often
in the form of independent works (like in the case of Anatole France
or Leonid Andreyev). The texts created within the framework of
this tradition are very different - both in terms of their artistic
level (from the immortal "Master" to Varshavsky's derisive fantasy
story "The Hysteresis Loop") and in the degree of adherence to the
Holy Scriptures and historical realities (from Dombrovsky's very
punctual [M. Dunaev in his article "The Truth That the Head Hurts"
(Zlatoust, N1 1992:306-348), written from a consistently Christian
position, simply blew the literary interpretations of the Gospel by
Bulgakov, Aitmatov, and Tendryakov out of the water; the absence
of Dombrovsky in this series seems to me very significant; not being
an expert in church dogma, I always intuitively believed that Christ
of Father Kutorga most of all corresponds if not to the letter then
to the spirit of the Christian teaching] to the deliberate carelessness
of the Strugatskys). In this last aspect it is worth comparing two
well-known film masterpieces - The Gospel of Matthew and The Last
Temptation of Christ. Needless to say, the versions of different authors
differ most radically, and the Gospel characters become "homonyms" -
consider Pilates of France and Bulgakov, Judases of Leonid Andreev
and Dombrovsky, or Jesuses of Pasolini and Scorsese.
Nevertheless, within this tradition there is one common fundamental
limitation: direct intervention of supernatural forces in the course
Jerusalem". That is why such a key event for the Christian worldview
as the bodily resurrection is always taken out of the scope of the
narrative - even though many of the authors who addressed this topic
were undoubtedly believers. And since I belong to a generation which
was immeasurably more influenced by Bulgakov's Jesus than by his
official prototype, the problem of the resurrection, until very recently,
did not arouse the slightest interest in me.
Slavic Gospel Press ed. Wheaton, IL, 1990, 203 pp. (original title:
The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell, 1981)] who set himself a
very extraordinary task: to prove the fact of the bodily resurrection
of Jesus from a purely rational position. The scheme of McDowell's
constructions is as follows. Relying on the Gospel as a historical
document and drawing on many other (religiously neutral) sources,
he meticulously went through all conceivable possibilities for a non-
supernatural explanation of the extraordinary events that followed
the execution of Jesus Christ (first of all, the disappearance of the
body from the tomb sealed and guarded by Roman soldiers). These
hypotheses were classified by him as follows:
1. The tomb of Christ was not really empty.
1.1. The actual burial place of Christ is not known to anyone; most
likely, his body was thrown into the ditch along with the other
executed (Ginsbert's hypothesis).
1.2. Tomb confusion: in reality the women who first discovered the
"resurrection" came by mistake to someone else's unoccupied tomb
(Lake's hypothesis).
1.3. All the stories about the resurrection are legends that arose many
years after the execution of Christ, having no real basis at all.
1.4. The story of the resurrection is nothing more than an allegory: in
fact, it is about a purely spiritual resurrection.
1.5. All appearances of Christ are the result of individual and collective
hallucinations.
2. The tomb of Christ was actually empty, but it emptied naturally.
2.1. The body was stolen by the disciples.
2.2. The body was moved and hidden by the authorities in order to
prevent the possible machinations of those who were waiting for the
2.3. Christ did not die on the cross; he was taken down from it in a
state of shock and then woke up and recovered.
2.4. "The Easter Conspiracy Hypothesis" by Shenfield. Jesus, believing
in his God-chosenness, decided to create the appearance of the
fulfillment of the prophecies about the Messiah. To this end, he
arranged (with the help of Joseph of Arimathea) his own crucifixion;
to imitate the death on the cross, he drank a drug instead of vinegar.
According to the plan, he was then to be transferred to the tomb,
from where after a while he would come out "resurrected". The plot
failed because a Roman soldier hit Christ with a spear and actually
killed him. Then, however, Mary Magdalene and the disciples mistook
an unknown young man for Christ, but Joseph (who knew the truth)
did not even think to tell them about the mistake.
Having refuted, with varying degrees of persuasiveness, all the
mentioned hypotheses, McDowell considered the space of logical
possibilities to be exhausted and concluded: it is impossible to explain
the disappearance of the body and the subsequent appearances of
Christ from non-supernatural positions. Ergo - we are dealing with a
direct intervention of God in earthly affairs.
It must be noted that an absolutely identical scheme for proving the
fact of the resurrection of Christ was outlined as early as 1906 in B. I.
Gladkov's Public Interpretation of the Gospel, "intended for intelligent
readers, but mainly for unbelievers, doubters, and vacillators". This
author also sequentially refutes "three possible objections to the reality
of the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1. The disciples of Jesus stole His body and told everyone that He had
resurrected;
2. Jesus did not die on the cross but was buried as if he had died, then
came to life and appeared to his disciples;
3. Jesus resurrected not in reality but only in the imagination of His
disciples."
Although formally Gladkov's set of hypotheses is substantially poorer
than McDowell's, it covers the entire real variety of positions that are
fundamentally irreducible to each other (for it is hardly worth arguing
seriously, for example, with a version as full of internal incoherence as
"the Easter conspiracy").
I think that for any person familiar with the laws of logic the
fundamental vulnerability of McDowell's or Gladkov's proof systems
is quite obvious (see below); I emphasize that we are talking about
the system as a whole and not about specific refutations. Thus the
more I was surprised by the statements cited by McDowell that came
and Lord Caldecote, the members of the English Supreme Court,
and Lord Lyndhurst, the British Attorney General. Their verdict
is that the available evidence would be quite sufficient to recognize
the fact of the resurrection during a hypothetical trial. Professor
Greenleaf, a long-time chair of the law faculty at Harvard, the author
of a three-volume treatise on the law of evidence that has become
a classic, even published a special monograph - An Examination
of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by the Rules of Evidence
Administered in Courts of Justice.
I am aware, of course, that my Soviet ideas about Western justice are
drawn mainly from Gardner's detectives. And yet... Try to imagine
lawyer Perry Mason (or prosecutor Berger) trying to convince the
jury that some incident was a result of supernatural forces - on the
sole basis that he personally cannot offer a convincing version of what
happened. Have you imagined this yet? I'm trying to - and I can't: my
imagination is failing me...
When it comes to religion, like many of my colleagues in the natural
sciences, I am not a believer; the fact that in the sphere of Reason
there is no proof of the existence of God, and indeed cannot be, has
always been an axiom for me. Having refused the honest Tertullian "I
believe because it is absurd" and having personally desacralized the
Gospel text, McDowell has deliberately entered a very risky game on
the opponent's field. Unable to resist the temptation, I accepted his
challenge; as one of my friends used to say:
"Don' touch it! But if ya did, don' blame me. . . "
PROOF, in which "the truth of the thesis is established by showing
the falsity of the opposite assumption". In the present case the
falsity of the antithesis is not proved deductively but is concluded
as an inductive generalization, which allows one to assume a case of
incomplete induction (the so-called "hasty generalization").
Moving from the logical side of the problem to the content side, it
should be emphasized that the sequential processing of alternatives
used in the scheme under discussion is meaningful if - and only if - their
set with exhaustive completeness covers the space of logical possibilities
(which, in fact, is what McDowell insists on). Therefore, the following
I have to offer at least one more (non-supernatural) hypothesis which
would explain the complex of events related to the crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus more consistently than all the previously refuted
ones [as a side note, that is approximately what was attempted
(although without much success) by the "investigator for especially
important cases" sent to Jerusalem by emperor Tiberius in the
wonderful movie The Inquiry by Damiani - and by James Cameron
with colleagues in The Lost Tomb of Jesus (also without much success;
and the same comment can be likewise applied to, for example, Toledot
Yeshu)].
Our task, therefore, is identical to the one which is solved in any
classical ("English") detective story, which is essentially putting
together a puzzle. From a fixed number of pieces of given shapes
(established facts), it is necessary to assemble a figure (a version)
so that the fragments adjoin each other without gaps and every
single one is used, including the most "uncomfortable" ones. I'll
repeat just in case: this version must be, first and foremost, "nothing
more than" INTERNALLY CONSISTENT - which, along with
other considerations, will then imply its ACTUAL TRUTH (up to
unimportant secondary details), as we will see, but consistency and
truth are not the exact same question (for example, the former is
necessary for the latter - so, even if one is interested in nothing other
than the actual historical truth, in any case it makes sense to first of
all focus on the former).
This primary focus on internal consistency - refutation by showing
that the opponent's conclusions don't follow from his own assumptions
- allows us, in particular, to avoid discussing the historicity of Christ,
the legitimacy of considering the canonical Gospels as historical
documents, and related issues. It is ridiculous for an amateur to get
into a tangle of problems on which experts - historians, archaeologists,
philologists, linguists - have written an immense amount of literature
[I can quite imagine the value of the insights of amateurs in the field of
my own professional activity, paleontology, here this public regularly
tries to make the scientific community happy with another theory of
mass extinctions; and although some of these amateurs are recognized
authorities in their areas of expertise (for example, in astrophysics),
their constructions only induce gnashing of teeth and allergic rash
in paleozoologists]. Furthermore, if these sources aren't reliable, then
there is nothing to do, the task at hand is trivially easy; thus, we will
simply assume that they are reliable, and from now on proceed from
that assumption. Moreover, we will later see that this assumption -
probably in fact correct (!), and that therefore in this work we'll be
studying actual history. (Sometimes - like here - the real truth, the
proverbial "bottom of it", is not trivial to find! But, stay with me, and
I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.)
The authorship and chronology of the writing of the Gospels is
accepted here in full accordance with the church canon; the problems
of continuity of the four canonical texts with respect to the Logia of
Matthew, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Proto-Gospel "Q" (from
German "Quelle" - source) will not interest us. I will present the
canvas of events mainly according to one of the classical versions that
harmonizes all the New Testament texts with each other - The Life of
Jesus by W. F. Farrar, written from a fully orthodox point of view.
In a number of points, however, the differences between the versions
of different Evangelists seem to be quite fundamental; in these cases
we cannot avoid discussing the source of these disagreements. Within
the framework of our approach, the stories of Saints Matthew, Peter,
Paul, and John, which formed the basis of the corresponding Gospels,
can be viewed... well, let's say, as the testimony of four residents of
a snow-covered Yorkshire estate in which a mysterious crime was
committed by the will of Agatha Christie. In controversial and doubtful
cases concerning the interpretation of texts or historical realities, it
seems fair to me to give preference to the opinion of McDowell (if any
was expressed).
Specifying the initial conditions, let's introduce one important
limitation. In some of the non-supernatural hypotheses discussed by
McDowell, Christ and his associates are assumed to be, simply put,
either swindlers or idiots. And although I myself am indifferent to
religion, and have a rather cold attitude towards the official Churches,
I decidedly dislike these assumptions. After all, no matter what the
Church Fathers say, everybody has their own Jesus. And even if mine
is completely monstrous from the point of view of the orthodox dogma
(as he bears all the "birthmarks" of liberal theology), he won't be a
liar under any circumstances. In any case, both Christ and most of
his companions were soon to give their lives for their beliefs, which
in of itself should cause some elementary respect for them. [Just for
clarity, the cases of outright bad faith do happen in such contexts;
for example, according to Italian historian Sergio Luzzatto, popular
and charismatic friar Padre Pio deliberately mutilated himself with
carbolic acid to create the appearance of bearing the crucifixion
wounds of Jesus. (Nor, of course, can anyone suggest - in view of
Japanese kamikaze or Muslim terrorist suicide bombers - that because
remotely right.) Nevertheless, we will - very reasonably! - assume that
Jesus and the Apostles are trustworthy.] So, when looking through
hypotheses to explain the various "knots" of events, we will proceed
from the following: conscious deception on the part of Christ or the
Apostles can be allowed only after all other possible explanations
have been exhausted ("presumption of honesty"). Looking ahead, let
me note that in the end there will be no such cases at all. With one
caveat.
English Christian philosopher and publicist C. S. Lewis is known
worldwide mainly as the author of instructive fairytales for children.
In one of them a girl accidentally discovers a way to get into a magical
land by passing through an antique wardrobe. The older brother and
sister, having heard her stories about these visits, begin to fear for
the sanity of their little sister and turn to the owner of the house, a
professor, for advice:
"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic
at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister
is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she
doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment
then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that
she is telling the truth."
It is strange that Lewis's professor [mirroring Lewis's own trademark
argument for the divine authority of Jesus, by the way - the so-called
"Lewis's trilemma" that Jesus was either "bad, mad, or God"; but
even in theology, the authority of Jesus actually rests ultimately upon
one and only one thing - his bodily resurrection - and if it didn't
happen, he has none, whatever else might be true (not Christianity)
- as emphasized by St. Paul and agreed by any orthodox theologian]
does not notice point-blank at least one more possibility - a good-
faith misbelief of an honest and sane person. The sources of such
misconceptions are very diverse. These can be, for example, various
natural and physiological phenomena: from atmospheric optical effects
("flying saucers") to oxygen starvation in high mountains, causing
systemic hallucinations ("Bigfoot", "Ghost Mountaineer"). Various
biases, especially ones outside of one's own control or understanding,
can be the culprits (for example, if your parents are Christians, or
Muslims, you can't help but sincerely follow their religion, at least
when you're a child, just like you can't help but speak their language,
as your own most preferred language [the difference between these
two things, however, is that while there are many languages to choose
from, none inferior to the others as long as it's fully functional, the
of these two things, the same for everybody - it is simply not itself a
matter of belief: blind men might argue whether the Moon exists or
not, but the truth won't depend on what conclusion they come to, or
whether they are even aware of the question; truth is not politically
correct and does not respect anyone's preferences, no matter how
strong: say, if there is a crocodile crawling up behind you - but you
don't know that at all, or you don't believe your friends saying that, or
you really wish not to be in this situation... - well, that doesn't remove
the crocodile, it's still there and approaching - that's what objective
truth means]). On the other hand, and what is more important in our
case, any person can become a victim of a deliberate con job.
It is essential here that the organizer of a serious hoax must not
only take care of credibility of the staging itself but must also ensure
presence of eyewitnesses with precisely an impeccable reputation
(since what good is the testimony of a fool or an inveterate liar).
That's why all kinds of specialists in telepathy and psychokinesis
always want famous scientists to participate in their experiments, at
the same time being totally unwilling to perform their miracles in the
presence of professional illusionists. And it is for this specific reason
that the "presumption of honesty" which we accept does not already
by itself imply the actual truth of the resurrection, which was reported
to have happened by multiple trustworthy and honest eyewitnesses.
(It would be strange if nothing interesting happened then - if so, then
why did the religion start in the first place, and with such passion? -
the yes-or-no question is whether there was something miraculous!)
context of events. In 6 A.D., after the death of King Herod the Great,
Palestine lost the remnants of its independence and was occupied by
the Romans; two of the four historical regions of Palestine, Judea
and Samaria, began to be ruled by Roman procurators, directly
appointed by the imperial administration. This caused a sharp rise in
the national liberation movement; its ideology was largely formed by
religious fundamentalists, the Pharisees, and the most organized force
were the national radicals from the Zealot party.
The latter "agreed with the Pharisees on everything but possessed
an unbridled love of freedom. [...] No death seemed terrible to them,
from standing up for the principles of freedom" (Flavius Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews). It was the Zealots who made a decisive
contribution to the kindling of the Jewish War, which began in 66
A.D. and eventually led the Jews to a complete national catastrophe.
Wandering preachers have traditionally played a large role in shaping
public opinion in Palestine. Historians know about a dozen prophets
who preached at about the same time as Jesus Christ and John the
Baptist and were comparable to them in popularity; almost all of them
were executed by the Romans as potential leaders of a Jewish revolt.
Nevertheless, in the years prior to the Jewish War, there were 12 such
uprisings (not taking into account minor riots and terrorist attacks).
The Romans reacted to these events in their usual manner: according
to a story of Josephus, on one occasion they crucified two thousand
people at once in Jerusalem.
The local church-state elite balanced between these two irreconcilable
forces. Having initially arisen on the basis of one of the religious sects -
the Sadducees, by the time described it had completely de-ideologized
and was a party of pragmatists. For the sake of maintaining the
status quo they were ready to cooperate with the Romans or with
the Martians, and at the first opportunity to immediately turn into
the leaders of the national liberation movement (as the communist
nomenclature of the republics of the former USSR has done before our
eyes).
And that, by the way, is what actually happened later. In the twentieth
chapter of The Jewish War Josephus describes the election of a new
- "revolutionary" - administration in the revolted Jerusalem; as the
result of it, "unlimited power over the city" was secured by... unsinkable
High Priest Canaan. Here is a comment on this chapter by Y. L.
Chertok, the Russian publisher and translator of The Jewish War :
"The results of the elections were thus very unfavorable for the
Zealots, despite the fact that after the victory over Cestius and the
expulsion of the Romans from the country they attained a decisive
predominance both in the capital and in the province. [...] Eleazar
ben Simon, the defeater of Cestius, later the chief leader of the war,
was completely bypassed in the elections; an even more powerful
leader of the Zealots at that time, Eleazar ben Ananias, who gave
the war the initial impetus [...], probably in order to remove him
from Jerusalem, received command over a minor province - Idumea.
INSTEAD, THE FRIENDS OF ROME, WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN HIDING FROM THE PERSECUTION OF THE ZEALOTS,
WERE ELEVATED TO THE MOST RESPONSIBLE POSTS IN
A familiar picture, isn't it?
These events, however, would take place a little later. At the time we
are interested in, the Sadducean leadership found it more useful for
itself to demonstrate loyalty to the "imperial center". The unpopular
regime, not unexpectedly, flooded the country with agents of the
secret police. In the same Antiquities of the Jews Josephus writes
that since the times of Herod the Great (a.k.a. the Bloody), tortures,
executions, and "disappearances" of oppositionists have become a
common practice:
"Many citizens, some of them openly, some of them secretly, were
taken to the fortress of Hyrcania and tortured there to death. Spies
were everywhere in the cities and villages, laying in wait for all sorts
of gatherings."
In response, the militants of the Zealot party, the Sicarii, launched a
campaign of terror against the occupiers and local collaborators, the
crowning achievement of which was the assassination of High Priest
Jonathan. The Zealots had wide-branching conspiratorial structures,
and their agents permeated all levels of the state apparatus. In
addition, they often maintained contacts with gangs of bandits (or,
if one prefers, guerrilla detachments), which literally swarmed the
country. Some of these armed formations numbered up to several
hundred people in their ranks; legendary field commander Eleazar, for
example, terrorized the outskirts of Jerusalem for almost twenty years,
outliving several procurators and high priests.
There is no doubt also that the territory of Syria and Palestine was
a place of vigorous activity of the special forces of the Parthian
kingdom, which at the time described was harshly and very efficiently
counteracting the Roman "Drang nach Osten" [the role played in this
"containment strategy" by the Parthian intelligence (which became,
largely due to the personal efforts of King Mithridates, one of the best
secret services in the history of the ancient world) is highlighted in
The Craft of Intelligence by Allen Dulles, the founder and long-term
chief of the CIA]. I hasten to say: I am not aware of any specific
facts regarding the foreign support of the Jewish national liberation
movement. It is unlikely, however, that such sophisticated politicians
as the Parthians were ignorant of the fundamental tactical principle
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
In short, the real Palestine was, according to the modern KGB
terminology, "a country with a complex intelligence and operational
situation", something like Lebanon or El Salvador of the 80s. It
rather poorly corresponded to the idyllic picture that arises when
occupation of the population is edifying conversations and religious
and philosophical disputes.
This historical digression was necessary for me primarily for one
thing. When someone (including McDowell), speaking about Judea
of that time, writes in passing "the authorities did this" or "the
authorities were interested in that", it is simply nonsense. There were
two authorities (plus one more, illegal, although very influential),
and their interests, sometimes coinciding in private matters, were
on the whole completely different. On top of everything, the general
instability of the situation clearly did not contribute to the monolithic
nature of these authorities. Under these conditions the natural
rivalry between groups or individuals within them could take the
form of an open struggle, combining with the most unexpected and
unnatural temporary alliances ("Whom are we going to be friends
against today?") [in this regard, cf. the disposition in the political
leadership and intelligence services of the Nazi Germany, so colorfully
reconstructed in Seventeen Moments of Spring, dear to the heart
of every Soviet person]. One who might think that these are purely
hypothetical constructions should be interested in Chertok's comment
on the twentieth chapter of The Jewish War :
"High priest Jonathan contributed to the appointment of Felix as the
procurator, as a result of which he was hated by the Sicarii. On the
other hand, Felix began to be weary of Jonathan, who repeatedly
reproached him for his cruel and unjust actions, and wanted to get
rid of him. To this end, he entered into an agreement with the Sicarii,
who, despite being Felix's enemies, nevertheless put their services at
his disposal for the assassination of the high priest equally hated by
them."
Biblical scholars have long noted a strange fact: while speaking sharply
against both the degenerated Sadducean elite and the dogmatic
Pharisees, Jesus did not say a single word about the Zealots, whose
activity was one of the most acute problems of that time. Considering
that the Zealots enjoyed the greatest influence and authority in his
native Galilee, English biblical scholar Brandon in his monographs
Jesus and the Zealots and The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth argued that
Jesus, if he did not outright belong organizationally to this movement,
was at least quite sympathetic towards it.
In any case, among the Apostles there was at least one Zealot - Simon
(Luke 6:15), and in his book Jesus and Caesar German biblical scholar
Kuhlmann substantiates the Zealot affiliation of three more Apostles -
Peter, his brother Andrew, and Judas. Let me remind you of a telling
the Apostles with an allegorical call to "sell your cloak and buy a
sword", they, having understood him literally, answer:
"Lord, behold, here are two swords" (Luke 22:38).
But Judea is not Texas, there was no free carrying of weapons there.
Within the framework of the task before us, it is completely unnecessary
to delve into speculations on the topic of the organizational relationship
of Jesus with the national liberation movement. Something else is
essential for us here. In the moments of social upheaval, any socially
significant figure (a category to which Jesus undoubtedly belonged,
along with the other prophets of that time), regardless of their own
plans and desires, becomes a political figure. And that means - either
an independent actor, or an object of manipulation by other forces.
that "the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, equestrian Pontius Pilate"
was not exactly exceedingly cruel but rather completely heartless.
What forced him to turn twice to the case of a certain impoverished
preacher accused of lese-majesty, and instead of immediately executing
him - as they say, "just for the sake of clarity", just as a "sanitary
measure" [like, for example, blasphemers and apostates are executed
in hardcore Muslim countries without a second thought - as a simple
"trash removal", no biggie, like shooting a rabid dog] - to do almost
everything possible to save him?
In an attempt to at least somehow explain Pilate's strange favor,
Matthew the Evangelist refers to an intercession of the procurator's
wife, who supposedly had a vision in a dream. Excuse me, what wife?
Let's suppose the procurator was really married, and, moreover, his
wife's opinion on state affairs meant something more to him than a
door creak. But what was she doing in Jerusalem?
The problem is, the permanent residence of the procurators of Judea
was in the seaside city of Caesarea, and Pilate came to Jerusalem
only a few times a year, to control the collection of taxes and court
proceedings (John 19:20). But, perhaps, she sent a messenger to her
husband from the Caesarean residence? Alas, things don't work out
that way either: the trial took place in the morning, the wife "now has
suffered greatly in a dream because of Him" (Matthew 27:19), and the
distance from Caesarea to Jerusalem is about 120 kilometers as the
this matter (for it can be nothing but a rumor), which was faithfully
reproduced by Matthew, is quite important. We should remember it.
As for Bulgakov's stunning reconstruction, in my opinion, it suffers
from a single drawback: his Pilate is too human. Not in the sense
of "too humane", but too prone to normal human feelings: curiosity,
likes and dislikes, loneliness, and, of course, cowardice. In this sense,
Dombrovsky's Pilate, a major responsible worker of the imperial
nomenclature, looks much more plausible:
"So, the first reason for Pilate's hesitation was that he simply didn't
want to execute anyone to please the Jews. But there was a second
consideration. This time there were reasons of State. The thing is
that Christ, or such a person as Christ, suited Pilate very much.
Surprised? But everything is fairly simple. Pilate learned two things
about the teachings of Christ. Firstly, this wandering preacher does
not believe in a revolution, war, or coup; no, a person must remake
himself from the inside and then everything will happen by itself.
So, he's against rebellion. That's the first thing that suits Rome.
Secondly, the only thing Jesus wants to destroy and destroys all the
time is authority. The authority of the Sanhedrin, the authority of the
Sadducees and Pharisees, and therefore, perhaps even imperceptibly
to himself, the authority of Moses and the temple. And in the solidity
and indisputability of all this lies the most terrible danger to the
empire. This means that Rome needed just such a destroyer. [...] Now
consider the state of the world at that time and reflect upon the
following: didn't these commandments from the mouth of the Galilean
suit Pilate? After all, it was he, the occupier, who was prescribed to
pray for and love. And didn't Pilate, a statesman who knew the East
and the country he was pacifying, understand that this is the very
power which he must rely on?"
I gave such a lengthy quotation only because these considerations,
which frankly lie on the surface, are usually paradoxically overlooked.
The problem, apparently, is that when it comes to the attitude of
the Roman authorities to early Christianity, Nero's lamps of people
smeared with resin and other equally striking episodes are immediately
recalled. All this is true, but we are talking about a different era and
a different region, and politics, according to Churchill's well-known
saying, sometimes puts very unusual partners in one bed.
One can dispute the assessment of early Christianity as a peace-loving
doctrine as much as one likes, quoting "I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34) and other equally remarkable
passages from the Holy Scriptures. The fact, however, remains a fact:
not take part in the uprising and the Jewish war, for which they
were expelled by their compatriots to Transjordan with the stigma of
collaborators. So, if Pilate was really guided by the aforementioned
state considerations in his attempts to save Jesus, then he undoubtedly
hit the bullseye. As for some long-term consequences, the procurator
- by God! - had worries which were more important than someone's
future headache.
This is all about why he tried to save Jesus. But why didn't he
succeed? Why, having said "A" (it doesn't matter why - for the reasons
of State, in defiance of the hated Sanhedrin, or simply out of a noble
whim), did he not go all the way and use the entire gigantic scope
of his powers? The standard answer, "he was worried that the locals
would signal the Boss", does not seem very convincing. By that time,
all the relations with the local authorities had already been completely
soured; one delation more or one delation less - what difference would
it really make?
Moreover, such an experienced administrator as Pilate could not have
been unaware that a delation as such is never the true reason for
organizational conclusions; it can only be used as a formal pretense
if your fate is already decided anyway. Furthermore, the procurator
already committed his misdeed at the very moment when he attempted
to shield the "state criminal"; whether this attempt was successful or
not, from the point of view of the totalitarian regime of Tiberius (if the
case had come to trial), is of secondary importance. Therefore, since
we take serious state considerations to be the driving force behind
Pilate's actions, we will look at his "full astern" from this angle as well.
Let's pay attention here to one very significant circumstance, which
for some reason remains persistently unnoticed (or deliberately
ignored) by Bible commentators. It is a well-known fact that the
Christian tradition does its best to whitewash Pilate (in the Coptic
and Ethiopian Churches he is even canonized as a saint), placing all
the blame for the tragic death of Christ on the Jews. However, in
addition to Pilate's two acquittals, there was another one - by the
tetrarch (king) of Galilee, Herod Antipas; this circumstance - within
the framework of traditional ideas - is altogether outrageous. Let me
explain. The claims to the Jewish throne, officially incriminated to
Jesus ("Are you the king of the Jews?") above all affected the interests
of Herod as a representative of the not quite legitimate Idumean
dynasty, and not the Sanhedrin at all. However, the Sanhedrin
stubbornly insists on the death penalty, while Herod - just like Pilate
- does not notice, point-blank, anything to object to in the actions of
but some "idiotic kindness of heart": the dish with the head of John
the Baptist is a quite sufficient confirmation of this.
And in general, not a single ruler, being of sound mind and disposing
memory, would deliberately prevent the execution of some dubious
prophet - maybe a madman, maybe a rebel. As on a similar occasion
the khan from The Enchanted Prince by L. Solovyov said to his vizier:
"Since he's been captured and is in prison, why not cut his head off
just in case? I don't see any reasons for abstention! Mutiny isn't your
Peshawar sorcery or some such, jokes are out of place here!"
The reasoning of Christian commentators such as "The innocence of
Christ was so obvious that even such a cruel and depraved person as
Herod did not approve the verdict of the Sanhedrin" is patently utter
childish babble; for one thing, the real guilt or innocence does not
even matter in such situations. Herod could only refuse to perform the
PRECAUTION glorified by the aforementioned khan under certain
pressure, the source of which is quite obvious. Thus, Pilate's efforts to
save Jesus must have been even more serious and thorough than what
follows from the Gospel texts directly.
Herod's position (independent or forced - it doesn't really matter),
usually ignored as an unimportant detail, in fact, radically changes
the picture of the alignment of forces. The stern and honest Roman
official, alone opposing the Jews, monolithic in their religious
fanaticism, disappears. Instead, there appear two holders of supreme
power, both Roman and Jewish, who are pestered with stupid
complaints by one of Jewish public organizations. Let me remind
you that the Sanhedrin did not perform the functions of a criminal
tribunal, only of a purely religious one, and the case with which it
turned to Pilate did not fall within its competence in any way. The
Sanhedrin had every legal right to recognize Christ as a blasphemer or
a heretic and on this basis to sentence him to stoning, presenting its -
religious - sentence for a purely formal affirmation to the procurator
[precisely to stoning - the method of execution that was prescribed
for the crimes against the Faith; a few years later High Priest Ananus
would sentence James the Brother of the Lord to stoning, and he would
do this without even informing the Roman procurator (Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 9:1)]. Instead, heretic Jesus, with a
completely incomprehensible persistence, was being "imputed politics"
and was demanded from Pilate to be crucified as a state criminal - a
candidate to the Jewish throne. As a result, the Sanhedrin, which did
not have sufficient authority from the beginning, in its confrontation
with the secular authorities (in the persons of Pilate and Herod) took
opponent does not seem to have a single even lousiest ace up his sleeve,
Pilate suddenly and inexplicably capitulates. What's the matter?
And it is that 23 not much less sophisticated representatives of the top
of the Jewish hierarchy also understood the essence of the teachings
of Christ and the threat coming from further growth of the popularity
of the young prophet - both to the temple of the Mosaic faith and to
them personally. And having realized that, they made a paradoxical
but, as it turned out, spot-on move: they arrested Jesus and turned to
Pilate with a flagrantly illegal demand - to execute him as a political
criminal. As a result, a magnificent "chess fork" arises: either the
hated competitor will be eliminated by the hands of the Romans, or
the procurator will release him, thereby confirming that notorious
preacher Jesus is a Roman "agent of influence" and turning him into a
political corpse.
There are good reasons to believe that the second option seemed to
the Sanhedrin both more desirable and more likely. Let me remind
you that if the only goal of the high priests was to get the head of
Christ, then it would be much easier for them to use the trouble-free
option of the religious sentence. In any case, Pilate's sanction for the
execution of the "King of the Jews" clearly took them by surprise, like
a man theatrically asking for dismissal and then really getting fired.
...The procurator realized that he had lost: any further struggle for
Jesus had lost its meaning. It was possible, of course, to simply pardon
the Galilean - and thus kiss him sweet goodbye as a political figure -
but that would have been pure capitulation. By contrast, it was still
possible to try to extract some benefit from the death of the popular
prophet (since benefit in this case is anything detrimental to the
Sanhedrin). And now, pointedly washing his hands of it (literally),
Pilate - absolutely not forced to do so by anyone! - hands Jesus over
to the soldiers for torture, and then demonstrates to the people: the
Sanhedrin is to blame. From now on, the Sanhedrin will be to blame
for everything, even the bile that the Roman soldiers would serve
to Christ instead of a narcotic drink (Matthew 27:34). It must be
admitted that in the end, having lost a piece, Pilate won the initiative
and, to a certain extent, equalized the game. The stubbornness and
inventiveness of this ruthless chess player do indeed command respect,
but what the guide for his canonization could be, I must confess, is
a mystery to me. [Besides, shouldn't a Christian saint (who didn't
die earlier than Jesus) at least be a Christian?.. Or at the very very
least, you know, not be the guy who tortured and killed Jesus?! (Talk
about loose standards!) However, to be fair, the torture of Jesus
only John's Gospel preserves this important order of events, in Mark
and Matthew this bit looks decidedly more meaningless - except for
one other possibility, discussed later), with the point being inducing
some extra pity in the crowd (note that even according to John this
presentation was for the second time, after the first one didn't work),
can be most consistently interpreted as yet another Pilate's effort to
save him.]
Still, didn't Pilate have at least a theoretical possibility to save
Jesus without exposing him as a Roman project? Yes, he did - and
he did not fail to try to use it. "On Passover it was the governor's
custom to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd" (Matthew 27:15);
indeed, if Jesus had been chosen by the crowd in the square, then the
procurator could have released him without problems, because there
would be no "Roman trace" visible here. Miracles, however, do not
happen: the crowd, of course, chose bar Abbas (which means "son of
a father" in Aramaic, "bar" being equivalent to Hebrew "ben" - that
is, probably meaning someone whose father is unknown, such as a
son of a prostitute - could this by any chance translate from ancient
Aramaic slang as "S. O. B."?) - it would be strange if the Sanhedrin
showed sloppiness and did not take care of the proper preparation
of the "voice of the people". This completely natural and predictable
"people's choice" nevertheless looks like a complete surprise for Pilate.
He repeats his petition three times, enters into useless and humiliating
bickering with the crowd - in short, he completely loses face.
So, the natural development of events seems to have taken the
procurator by surprise. If this is the case, it is logical to assume that
there was some factor unknown to us (but known to the procurator)
which was supposed to disrupt this natural development - and yet it
didn't. And if so, what was it, and also, why did it not work?
narratives of John, on the one hand, and the Synoptic Evangelists,
on the other hand, are well-known ("There are actually not four
Gospels but three and one."). And, probably, Merezhkovsky is right -
"The dispute about John is the greatest mystery of Christianity, and
perhaps even the mystery of Christ himself." Nevertheless, to me - a
non-religious and thus theologically completely virginal person - the
other, seems quite normal and natural.
It may seem strange, but I find myself prepared for such a perception
precisely by my professional practice. The thing is that in the natural
sciences, knowledge is fundamentally reductive. Therefore, as a rule
any long-term coexistence of alternative concepts indicates that they
are in fact complementary and simply reduce the studied reality to its
different aspects. So, in my perception, the opposition of John with
the Synoptics is not fundamentally different from, for example, the
relationship between the wave and corpuscular theories of light, which
describe a single object in different ways and only when paired with
each other give an adequate idea of it. I will again allow myself to
quote Merezhkovsky's apologia Jesus the Unknown:
"Correctly - maybe even more correctly than the Synoptics - John
guesses what Jesus wanted. What he did, we learn from Mark, what he
said - from Matthew; what he felt - from Luke; and what he wanted
- from John, and, of course, the most primary, the most genuine is in
this - in the will." [emphasized by D. M.]
But this is all fine and wonderful at the general, conceptual level;
within the framework of the task before us, when it is the specific
details of the events that are important, the situation changes. We
will continue to often encounter the fact that some of the colorful
episodes described in detail by John are completely absent from
the narratives of the Synoptics and vice versa - this is normal. The
scene at Calvary, however, is unique in this sense: here the versions
of John and the Synoptics are pitted against one another "crossing
swords", contradicting each other literally in everything. And since my
constructions are based on complete trust in all the facts (although by
no means always in their interpretations) reported by any Evangelist, I
find myself in a rather difficult situation, from which there is no obvious
way out [one can, however, put forward the following hypothesis: the
three Synoptic Gospels are real memoirs, while the Gospel of John was
written many years later on their basis ... well, let's say, as a historical
novel in which the truth and artistic fiction form an indissoluble unity,
and the second reality, being created by the hand of a genius (or a
God-inspired person - as one likes), separated itself, as it should, from
its historical foundation and became absolutely self-sufficient; I must
confess that accepting such an assumption (permitting disavowal of
some of John's testimonies) would greatly facilitate my life; alas! - the
initial conditions of the problem I am solving (including the equality
of the four canonical texts) are defined rigidly and are not subject
to revision; besides, the distinctness of this Gospel makes sense if it
The discrepancies begin with a characteristic "trifle". John confidently
testifies: "Carrying His own cross, He went out to the place of the Skull
which in Aramaic is called Golgotha" (John 19:17). By contrast, the
Synoptics unanimously assert that a certain Simon of Cyrene carried
the cross of the Lord, moreover, they provide some quite checkable
biographical data about this person - "the father of Alexander and
Rufus" (for example, Mark 15:21). Here one can no longer soar to the
specificity of the "Word-Logos" or get away with casuistry like "both
are right but each in their own way"; one must answer honestly - who
got it wrong?
I once happened to hear the following purely philological argument
in favor of the documentariness of the Gospel texts. It was about a
well-known episode:
"At about three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eli,
Eli, lema sabachthani?' which means 'My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?' Some of those standing there, having heard this, said,
'He's calling Elijah.' Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge,
filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Him
to drink. And the rest said, 'Wait, let's see if Elijah comes to rescue
him.' " (Matthew 27:46-49).
Now, since (if I understood this all correctly) such a literary device as
deciphering the motivations of side characters through uncommented
direct speech arose only within the framework of the European
psychological novel in the nineteenth century, we are dealing with a
stenographically exact record of an eyewitness. Maybe because I am
not a philologist myself, all this sounds quite convincing to me. Note,
however, that we are talking here specifically about the narration of
the Synoptics - dry as an official report, and therefore especially sad.
It is here that, betrayed and abandoned by all, perishes the Man, who
does not at all resemble the characters from the Lives of the Saints,
forged from chromium-molybdenum steel.
Of course, you will not find these words in the Gospel of John.
Instead, you will find, for example, a quotation from the Jewish Holy
Scripture, which Roman soldiers reproduce by heart at ease (John
19:24), otherwise what if those around them might accidentally not
notice the fact that they are not just playing dice with the clothes of
the executed at stake, but are also fulfilling an ancient prophecy? [By
the way, it is quite clear that many "facts" about Jesus recorded in the
Gospels, such as for example his birth in Bethlehem, were born purely
out of the belief that he must fulfill the messianic prophecies. And yet,
it is obvious that Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah - he didn't help or
theological point of view - as Jews aren't Christians, he's not helping
them with soul salvation or morally shepherding them either. The
way this obvious inconsistency is resolved by Christians is by saying
that he will be the Messiah, later, in his second coming... It's just
like those legally required asterisks in the end of fancy ads, leading
to a footnote explaining in tiny script that things are actually not so
fancy!] There is also an exalted conversation that a person dying in
most severe torments conducts with his mother and "beloved disciple",
that is, John, standing near the cross (John 19:26-27) [the medical
aspects of the execution by crucifixion were described in detail by
McDowell; it is usually believed that death occurs from the pain shock
combined with the dehydration of the body and a heat stroke, but in
reality this is not entirely true; a few hours after being crucified, a
pulmonary edema develops due to a difficulty in ventilation, and the
immediate cause of death is asphyxia; because of this, the crucified
cannot conduct any coherent lengthy conversations].
Stop! But the Synoptics have neither Our Lady nor a disciple in sight.
There are only Galilean women that had followed Christ everywhere
- Mary Magdalene, James's Mary, and Salome, and even they do
not stand near the cross but look from afar (Mark 15:40; Matthew
27:55). How could it happen that all the Synoptics unanimously did
not notice such a "minor detail" as Apostle John and Queen of Heaven
standing by the cross? And here, quite inopportunely, the vision of
the Bald Mountain that visited Bulgakov's Ivan Bezdomny pops up
in the memory - "and this mountain was cordoned off by a double
cordon"; not much of an authority, of course - and yet... Frankly, I'm
at a loss as to what can be done here - should I perhaps just accept
the above interpretation of Merezhkovsky with depressing directness
and conclude that Jesus only wanted his mother and beloved disciple
to be near him?..
Here's what I'm driving at. Acting here as the counterintelligence
officer Philip from Hemingway's The Fifth Column, who "believes
nothing he hears, and almost nothing he sees", I, of course, couldn't
help but ask myself also the following question. The man crucified
between two thieves on the fifteenth day of the spring month of Nisan
- was he really the same one who entered Jerusalem earlier under the
cries of "hosanna"? If the conversation with the mother and disciple
reported by John really took place, then yes, undoubtedly [well,
unless somehow it wasn't the same cross at the same time as for the
Synoptics... what is the source of the discrepancy in John's (19:14)
and Mark's (15:25) timing? - could John have thought backwards from
if we're dealing with two crucifixions, Minority Report style, one a
show for the public ending in an actual death - see below - and one to
convince Jesus himself, later drugged and left to wake up in a tomb,
that he was killed and then resurrected - as he possibly expected
he would?]. But if nothing happened on Calvary beyond what the
Synoptics described with such scrupulousness, I'm sorry but it could
be anyone hanging off the middle cross - perhaps a bandit like the
other two, or maybe a zealot partisan. [Note, before we move on, that
this option is also nicely compatible with Islam! In case you didn't
know, the most standard Muslim version of the events is that it was -
unbeknownst to most - captured Judas hanging off the middle cross,
getting hoisted by his own petard, in perfect satisfaction of justice.
Why? Because God is great, the greatest (you've certainly heard this
fundamental principle before - that's what "Allahu akbar! " means),
and wouldn't let His grand prophet and Messiah down, especially in
such a pathetic and pointless way. The Islamic doctrine does, however,
absorb the killing of great prophet Yahya ibn Zakariya, that is, John
the Baptist, who Muslims revere as much as Christians do - but the
death of Jesus on the cross is explicitly denied by Quran.]
It suffices to assume, for example, that for the sake of their own
interests the Roman authorities wished to strengthen the position of
the sect led by Jesus, and he entered into a deal with them ("the ends
justify the means") - and there will be practically no unknowns left
in the whole story of resurrection. Then, by the way, the role of the
episode with the dressing of Jesus in a purple robe (a military cloak)
becomes clear - after the trial, but before the flagellation and ascent
to Calvary (for example, Mark 15:7-20). After the flagellation, another
person was dressed up in the clothes taken from Jesus - the one who
was to take the place on the middle cross.
Personally, I am not only not going to defend this version but also
to seriously analyze it - because this would require rejection of the
"presumption of honesty", which is obligatory for me (according to the
conditions of the problem). But I have a right to this uncommented
dismissal, while McDowell does not. And since he was completely
seriously engaged in the refutation of the "Easter conspiracy"
hypothesis, which doesn't add up at all and in which Christ and
Joseph of Arimathea cheat four-handedly like a pair of card sharps, he
was simply obliged to consider the rather obvious "Uncrucified Christ"
hypothesis.
At the same time, I do not want at all to say that McDowell's position
in this direction would be indefensible. He could probably refer to the
the conversation with a repentant outlaw:
"Truly I tell you, now you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).
The proponent of the hypothesis could, in turn, object: the face of the
man on the cross could be distorted beyond reliable recognition; the
high priests probably did not come close to the cross, while the head
of the crucified (if the crucifixion is happening not on the canvases
of the classicists but in real life) droops face down; the organizers of
the staging must have taken care of increasing the resemblance of
the persons involved; no one could hear the conversation with the
bandit except for the legionnaires, and the value of their "testimony"
is easy to understand, etc. In short, both sides have a lot of space for
maneuvers here.
The point, however, is not in these details; even if McDowell manages
to refute the "Uncrucified Christ" hypothesis convincingly enough,
his position will not become less unenviable. After all, he based his
proof system on the fact that he had studied (and refuted) all non-
supernatural options - and now there is suddenly such an incident...
It's just a small illustration to the simple truth that the space of
logical possibilities is fundamentally inexhaustible, and nothing can
be done about this.
So McDowell's dreadnought seems to have run into a floating mine
before it even left the harbor. And although the efforts of the team
may perhaps help keep the ship on the move (and going forward
in strict accordance with our initial assumptions, the testimony of
John about him and Jesus's mother standing next to the cross will
be accepted as true - with the Synoptics, for some incomprehensible
reason, not knowing about this - and the security somehow allowing
it [pertaining to the former and the time discrepancy, perhaps this is
all explained if we assume that John arrived at the place much later
than the others because he had been busy comforting Jesus's mom,
and protecting her from the sight of the process of execution?.. - he
does seem to have arrived in her company, so it's a possible guess!]),
its utility as a combat unit from now on will be quite nominal. And
yet, much more serious surprises await Captain McDowell in this
campaign...
forerunner of the Lord ("He who follows me is stronger than I am"),
who considered himself "unworthy to untie the strap of His shoes",
John was the first to recognize the divine essence of Jesus:
"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World."
A furious castigator of ecclesiastical and secular rulers ("You brood of
vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"), he paid with
his life for exposing the lawlessness and depravity in which Herod, the
tetrarch of Galilee, was mired. At first glance, this character (by the
way, his historicity is beyond doubt) has decidedly nothing mysterious
about him whatsoever. Let us, however, carefully and impartially
analyze John's relationships - first, with Jesus, and, second, with the
authorities (especially with Herod Antipas).
The (only) meeting of Jesus with John took place on the Jordan River,
in the waters of which the prophet baptized the crowds of people who
flocked to him. Jesus, among others, asked for baptism;
"But John held Him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by You, and do
You come to me?' " (Matthew 3:14).
During the ritual, the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of
a dove (visible, however, only to the Baptist). All four Evangelists
describe the baptism of Jesus almost identically, but after that
significant discrepancies between the Synoptics and John begin, as
usual.
According to the version of John the Evangelist, the next day John
the Baptist gave Jesus two of his novitiates - Andrew and another
one, not named, who then became his first disciples. Later, Jesus
with the community formed around him returned to Galilee, where
he performed the first miracles. He then undertook his first Passover
pilgrimage to Jerusalem; here he drove out the money changers from
the Temple for the first time, and one night he also had a conversation
with Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin.
"After this Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside,
where he lived with them and baptized. Now John was also baptizing
at Aenon near Salim [...] THIS WAS BEFORE JOHN WAS PUT IN
PRISON" (John 3:22-24).
Let's remember the last phrase - it is very important. Since more
people now come to Jesus than to John to be baptized, disciples of
the latter express dissatisfaction with the success of the "competitor".
John reproaches them for this jealousy, likening Jesus to a bridegroom
and himself to his best man at a wedding, who should not envy his
friend but rejoice for him ("He must become greater; I must become
less" - John 3:30). After this, any mention of the Baptist disappears
Let us now return to the phrase "this was before John was put in
prison". It looks like before writing his Gospel John had read at least
one Synoptic Gospel (which had all appeared earlier than his) and,
at least here, directly attempted to correct it as to how things really
were. Because if one is to believe the Synoptics, Jesus left for the
desert immediately after his baptism (for prayers and overcoming
temptations), and that's where the news of John's arrest found him
(Matthew 4:12, Mark 1:14). After this message he went to Galilee and
only there found - among the fishermen of the Lake of Gennesaret - his
first students, Andrew and Simon. The importance of this seemingly
minor detail - when exactly the Baptist was arrested - becomes clear
from the further story of the Synoptics.
Matthew and Luke then tell about the so-called "Embassy from John
the Baptist" - having heard about the miracles performed by Jesus,
the prophet sends two of his disciples to him to find out:
" 'Are you the One Who is to come, or should we expect someone else?'
And Jesus replied: 'Go back and report to John what you hear and
see - the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy
are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is
proclaimed to the poor.' " (Matthew 11:3-5).
When the disciples of John left, Jesus utters a panegyric to the
Forerunner:
"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen
anyone greater than John the Baptist [...] And if you are willing to
accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:11-14).
This episode, if you think about it, contradicts the entire previous
narrative. The Forerunner not only continues his activity in parallel
with the Lamb of God who has already come into this world, but,
in any case, if you have some reason to believe that the Messiah has
arrived (and didn't he already conclude that long before?), you should
at least go see for yourself instead of sending an inspection composed
of disciples. The Synoptics, however, have a ready answer to such a
question: the Baptist did not come himself just because at that time he
was in prison (Matthew 2:11), where he ended up almost immediately
after the baptism of Jesus.
But John objects to them: nothing of the kind, the Baptist remained
at large for a very long time and worked in the field of baptism
side by side with Jesus. Having understood the true meaning of this
episode much better than the Synoptics, the Evangelist seems to have
deliberately excluded it from the narrative. For it is quite clear from
it that the Forerunner, at best, doubted whether Jesus was really
way, the Synoptics are silent about the reaction of the Baptist to the
report of his messengers. And if so, what is the value of everything
uttered by the Baptist during their personal meeting ("Lamb of God",
"should you be baptized by me") and of the divine sign in the form of
a dove, given personally to John? Let me also note here that the whole
scene of baptism (as well as the subsequent "instruction of John about
Christ" - John 3:22-36) is based on what is called "hearsay evidence"
in jurisprudence - recall that the baptism happened before Jesus even
had any disciples, including the future Gospel narrators.
If one is unbiased in the analysis of everything said (let alone done)
by John, they will inevitably come to a baffling conclusion: the
Forerunner never recognized - clearly and unequivocally - in his
distant relative (according to Luke) the One who "following him will
be stronger than he is". Some statements of the Baptist about Jesus
(for example, "and no one accepts his testimony" - John 3:32) force
Christian commentators to make lamentatious comments along the
lines of "the Evangelist did not quite accurately convey the thought of
the prophet"... Some episodes can be simply read differently than is
customary. For example, here is how Gladkov describes the baptism
scene:
"Recognizing that John was sent from God to baptize, Jesus, as a
Man, having previously fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord,
begins his ministry by fulfilling the last Old Testament commandment,
just announced by God through John. AS A SINLESS MAN, HE
DID NOT NEED REPENTANCE, AND THEREFORE DIRECTLY
DEMANDED BAPTISM FROM JOHN. John immediately realized
that this was not an ordinary man standing before him, and therefore
said, 'I need to be baptized by You, do You come to me?' "
Here is how I imagine this going down. To a most authoritative
prophet, leaving the Pharisees and Sadducees in awe and instructing
huge crowds of people, comes a young man unknown to anyone. He
then declares that because he is sinless, he only needs baptism (or
something equally provocative, from anyone else's point of view).
John, completely amazed at the young man's impudence, spreads his
hands with feigned humility:
"Then you're at a wrong place, fella - because in such a case, I should
get baptized by you, not vice versa!"
Zing! The spectators are delighted: John got him real good!
Christian commentators often assert that John himself directed to
Jesus the crowds of people who came to him; this, however, is in
no way confirmed by the Gospel texts. It is possible that some of
experienced departure of many disciples later - a normal occurrence),
however, this transition was clearly not of any organized or mass
character. The version of John the Evangelist that the Baptist himself
"gifted" the first disciples to Jesus, as we remember, is unanimously
refuted by the Synoptics. Here is a most characteristic detail: after
the execution of John, his disciples came to inform Christ about this
(Matthew 14:12), but none of them joined the community led by him!
The desire of John's disciples to stay close to the Teacher, especially
during difficult times, when he was in prison, can only command
respect. However, now John was gone; it seems quite natural to join
the one whose forerunner their beloved teacher considered himself
to be (as the Evangelists are convincing us). Nothing of the kind,
however, occurs. The Johannites (Mandaeans), by the way, are still
around (!) and to this day retain their isolation from Christians (even
though they were - incorrectly - called "Saint John Christians" by
some European travellers), existing in the form of one of ancient sects
or minor religions. Thus, we can just ask them directly! And it turns
out that they have their own Holy Scripture, which recognizes John
the Baptist as the greatest prophet and religious figure ever and in
which Jesus (together with his lengthy interaction with John and
baptism [of which John is reluctant, but, curiously, he does it after
receiving a sign from God - this bit is, most likely, a loaned story
from Christianity, and he simply baptized him as a general courtesy])
is explicitly mentioned... as a false prophet and a "deceiver". And
if you think about it, it's all quite natural. How, in your opinion,
should someone look like in the eyes of John - a gloomy puritan
- who reportedly miraculously turns water into wine for festivities
and hobnobs with harlots, tax collectors, and sometimes even - it's
horrifying to even say! - with uncircumcised Gentiles?
So, we observe a very remarkable asymmetry in assessments: John
for Christians is the greatest prophet and a highly respected figure in
general, while Jesus for the Johannites is a false messiah. And there is
no reason to believe that these assessments formed in each of the sects
contrary to the statements of their founders. Thus, when describing
the events, the Evangelists faced a hard-to-solve problem. On the one
hand, Jesus Christ - the Son of God, whose every word is the Truth -
very highly valued John the Baptist (to this they were witnesses); on
the other hand, John, as far as they knew, had sent "mixed signals"
towards their Teacher at best. How can this tension be resolved?
Here's how: to select among the many sayings of John the Baptist
(both authentic and ones attributed to him by hearsay) precisely those
of the Teacher of the Evangelists. The absence of recorded texts
greatly facilitated this task. Some of the sayings attributed to John
could even be born among the followers of Jesus themselves; then,
after circulating among the masses of the people for some time (and
acquiring new "details" along the way - such as the attribution to
John), they returned to the Evangelists, who happily wrote them
down as some kind of "independent testimonies" - an effect well-known
in sociology. The "beloved disciple" - the author of the fourth Gospel,
John - went further than the others along this path. He not only
introduced the episodes of "gifting" Jesus with his first disciples and
"instruction about Christ", drawn from rumors (and missing from the
Synoptics), but also excluded from the narrative the mention of the
"inspection" of the Mentor by the disciples of the Baptist (which,
on the contrary, he probably was a witness of, along with the other
Apostles [but, say, in his mind it could instead just be the disciples'
whim due to their lack of faith, and thus an unimportant detail; or
maybe even not and he did view it as compromising, then see below]).
So, did the Evangelists deliberately try to support the reputation
of their Teacher with the opinion of an authoritative independent
source - correcting the real statements of the latter in the appropriate
direction? Absolutely not! It is quite clear to any believer that the
authority of Christ - in the eyes of the Apostles - did not need any
"independent evidence" at all. For this reason I am fully convinced
that the aforementioned selection of the statements of the Baptist by
the Evangelists is a sincere attempt to save his own authority - as
he, for some reason, hesitated in recognizing the completely obvious
divine chosenness of Jesus. In the eyes of the Evangelists, all they
were doing is omitting embarrassing lapses of faith, a common human
weakness that, of course, not even John the Baptist is safe from -
just like, for example, no one in the Bible is ever mentioned going to
the toilet, there is obviously no good point in speaking about such
all-too-human things... And the Evangelists certainly succeeded in
these efforts, literally creating that John the Baptist which now exists
in the Christian lore. Meanwhile, the real John - as I strongly suspect
- would rightly have to take a place if not right next to the Pharisees
and other "Elders of the Jews" then in any case very far from the Son
of Man.
Turning to the analysis of another line of relationships of John the
Baptist, namely with the authorities, I will make one reservation. The
circumstances of the tragic death of the prophet were known to the
Evangelists only by hearsay, and the same applies to any inhabitant
police services. For this reason, the information gleaned from the New
Testament texts is not considered here to have a priority over what
is contained in Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. Let me
remind you that it is the only non-Christian source directly featuring
such Gospel characters as John the Baptist and James the Brother of
the Lord. Because of this, the Church treats the Flavian testimonies
with great reverence; in particular, the place where the Baptist was
imprisoned, the fortress called Machaerus (Bible Encyclopedia, I:342),
was taken from this source.
Mark (6:17-29) describes the death of the prophet in the following way.
John, even while being imprisoned, continued to maintain influence
over Herod:
"Herod was afraid of John. He knew that John was a righteous and
holy man, and so he protected him; he did a lot, obeying him, and
liked to listen to him."
The prophet, among other things, continued to insist that the tetrarch
should break up with Herodias, who he had married after divorcing
his former wife (a daughter of Arab king Aretas) and destroying the
marriage of his brother Philip.
"For John had been saying to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have
your brother's wife.' So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and
wanted to kill him; but she was not able to."
The opportunity presented itself when during a feast the daughter of
Herodias, Salome, impressed Herod with her dance so much that he,
simply put, lost his mind:
"And he promised her with an oath, 'Whatever you ask I will give you,
up to half my kingdom.' "
Neglecting half of the kingdom, the princess, at the instigation of
her demonic mother, asked the lord for the head of the annoying
denunciator.
"The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his
dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her."
And a few minutes later, the squire sent to the dungeon delivered to
the bloodthirsty beauties a dish with the severed head of the prophet.
Well, of course, it's a well-known thing: all evil comes from women -
verily said, they are the "the Devil's vessel" (and if anyone has any
doubts, re-read Wilde's Salome)...
Josephus, however, recounts this story in a different, much more
prosaic way:
"And since many people came to him [John the Baptist], for they
were very fond of his preaching, Herod was afraid that such a strong
considered it best to prevent any complication by putting him to
death rather than to rue his negligence later after the excitement of
a turmoil. So John, on this suspicion of Herod, was chained up and
imprisoned in the aforementioned fortress of Machaerus and killed
there. Afterwards the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of
Herod's army [in the war with Aretas - K. Y.] was sent as a punishment
upon Herod for the death of this man." (Antiq. XVIII, 5:2).
So, nothing personal - just politics, and nothing but politics. To
compare these two versions, let's turn to the factual side of the matter
- what we actually know about the marriage of Herod Antipas to
Herodias.
Firstly, what was Herod's previous, dissolved marriage like? Let's give
the floor to a commentator of Antiquities of the Jews, hieromonk
Joseph:
"Touching by the boundaries of his tetrarchy with such long-standing
predators as the Arabs, Antipas did a lot to secure all his subjects
with newly erected fortified outposts on the outskirts of the country.
And his marriage to a daughter of the Arab king Aretas is suspected,
not without reason, of simple political prudence, which ensured peace
of his country better than any fortifications and armaments, unless
this marriage was suggested to him by Augustus."
The dissolution of this forced, dynastic marriage union - by the way,
at the initiative of his wife - resulted in Herod's unlucky border war
with Aretas, but that's a completely different story.
Secondly, Herodias was formerly the wife of not an actual brother (as
it is usually thought) but a step-brother of Herod; aforementioned
hieromonk Joseph substantiates this circumstance in detail. It is not
surprising that in the presentation of Josephus all this looks like
a completely ordinary story of a second marriage; and in general,
marriage among the Jews was not a sacrament but a civil status, so
divorces were quite common. Let me note that Josephus himself was
a Pharisee, who were reputed to be the finest experts on the Law of
Moses, and did not have any warm feelings toward Herod, a Hellenist.
He, one must think, would not have missed an opportunity to kick
this worthy offspring of Herod the Bloody - had this story contained
at least a hint of crime.
On the other hand, Herodias is always perceived as a cold, calculating
predator, who firstly violated all marriage laws in order to wed the
lord of Galilee, and then vigilantly guarded, blade in hand, the cozy
place at the throne. But again, things just don't add up. A few
years later, emperor Caligula ordered, so to speak, "to free Herod
of failure to fulfill his duties", and exiled him to Spain, where he died
- in poverty, oblivion, and almost complete loneliness, with only one
person remaining by his side and sharing his exile with him until the
last day - Herodias... So I'm thinking: would this woman suddenly
take the cries of some unwashed-unkempt puritan about her "moral
character" seriously?
Let's now turn to the Gospel episode of the beheading of John the
Baptist itself. Let's start with a seemingly elementary question - where
did it happen? So, the lord with his courtiers, military leaders and
elders celebrates his birthday; in view of the absence of any special
instructions in the text it is logical to assume that the feast took place
in its usual place - in the Tiberias Palace of Herod near the Lake of
Gennesaret. But at that time John was languishing in the fortress
of Machaerus, which is beyond the Dead Sea - this follows from the
testimony of Josephus, accepted by the Church! Let's note: from the
story of the Evangelists it follows that Herod did not just give the
order for the execution of the Baptist (for this it would be possible
to send messengers from Tiberias to Machaerus, the distance between
which is about 60 kilometers in a straight line) - no, he immediately,
just after a few minutes, presented his stepdaughter with a dish with
the severed head of the prophet.
In an attempt to resolve this obvious contradiction, some Christian
commentators try - quite arbitrarily - to move the feast scene to
Machaerus (as the saying goes, if the mountain won't come to
Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain). Gladkov,
for example, even links this to political events:
"Insulted [by a divorce from his daughter - K. Y.] Aretas began a
war against Herod; as a result, Herod with all his court moved to
Machaerus, where he imprisoned John the Baptist, and lived there in
his palace."
Well, to start with, Machaerus is a small border fortress on the
outskirts of the Arabian Desert, and there was some living space in it
but, of course, no palace. This fortification was just recently, at the
beginning of the tepid border war between Herod and Aretas, captured
by the Jews from the Arabs, who had controlled it in previous years.
Quite a strange fantasy - to go to such a place to celebrate a birthday,
don't you think so? Besides, who has ever heard of taking your whole
court to war, including your own children and household?!
Here's another detail. After the reckless oath of Herod, Salome "went
out and asked her mother, 'What shall I ask for?' 'The head of John
the Baptist,' she answered. At once she hurried in to the king with
a platter right now.' " (Mark 6:24-25). So the cold-blooded princess
decided to perform her breathtaking strip show [speaking of which,
Oscar Wilde's note "Salome dances the dance of the seven veils" in his
play - tantalizingly, with no further explanations - is sometimes said
to be the definitive origin of striptease as such] in front of the drunken
guests just because, without a specific goal in advance?
These considerations make me extremely skeptical of the Evangelists'
version. At the same time, from an artistic point of view, this story is
truly magnificent: clear folklore elements ("Ask me for even half the
kingdom!") organically combine in it with strict plot architectonics;
and even the semantic hieroglyph "head on a platter" - what a scope
there is for aestheticizing art critics and psychoanalysts! Of course,
in order to preserve the dynamism of the action (the immediate
fulfillment of a reckless oath), it was necessary to sacrifice some
realities of life - to transfer John to Tiberias (or Herod to Machaerus),
but such a sacrifice seems quite justified. It seems absolutely incredible
that something this splendid would spontaneously "stick together"
from various rumors about the death of a popular prophet circulating
among the people.
All this allows me to make the following assumption: the rumor
faithfully reproduced by Evangelists Mark and Matthew about the
circumstances of John the Baptist's death arose as the result of a
campaign of "active measures" [which is a modern term for influencing
the public opinion outside of the channels of the official propaganda;
classic "active measures" are described in The Tale of Hodja Nasreddin,
when disguised guards in teahouses and caravanserais try to convince
the people of Bukhara that their favorite has long been in the service
of the emir; a more recent example is the dissemination through
KGB-controlled newspapers (mainly in Third World countries) of the
tale that the HIV virus was created in Pentagon laboratories (see
The KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to
Gorbachev by K. Andrew and O. Gordievsky, 633-634)]. Its goal seems
quite transparent: to remove a significant share of the blame from
Herod (who allegedly "did a lot, obeying John, and listened to him
with pleasure"), presenting the tetrarch as a simple-hearted victim of
eternal female guile. Who was the initiator of this highly professional
(as can be judged by its result) influence on the public opinion of
Palestine?
The answer, it seems to me, will come by itself if we can correctly
answer another question closely related to the first one: who arrested
John the Baptist? Now I'm feeling that the reader is beginning to look
the Evangelists and Josephus here. Therefore, I hasten to clarify my
question: suppose John really was executed by Herod; but who and on
what basis had carried out the arrest ? There are no specific indications
in this regard in the Gospel texts; meanwhile, the situation here is not
at all so simple, and here's why.
The fact of the matter is, John was a native of Judea, in which he
spent his whole life. The places of his seclusion and preaching were
the Judean Desert and the Jordan River Valley near Bethabara and
Aenon. He sometimes appeared on the Jordanian left bank, in Perea,
but, apparently, he had never been to Galilee at all. Therefore, John's
sermons should have become a headache primarily for the Judean
high priests and the procurator, and not at all for Herod. The Judean
leadership, meanwhile, treated the prophet rather favorably (at least
at first), and many Pharisees and Sadducees even desired to be
baptized by him (Matthew 3:7).
Further, if the tetrarch of Galilee wished to get his hands on the
scandalous preacher, it would not have been so easy: Judea was, after
all, more or less a foreign land, and on top of that, the relations
between the Judean and Galilean authorities left much to be desired.
But maybe John, for reasons unknown to us, pestered Herod so
badly with his preaching that Herod decided to ignore the laws and
proprieties and sent the capture group to a foreign land? [If someone
were to believe that the foreign actions of the NKVD, the victims
of which were Kutepov, Trotsky, and a multitude of other Russian
emigrants, are something unique in history, that would be a mistake;
for example, the French special services kidnapped and killed OAS
members who had taken refuge abroad with great pleasure and
ignoring the protests of their neighbors - thereby continuing a good
tradition laid down during the kidnapping of the Duke of Enghien
by Napoleon's gendarmes.] This cannot be ruled out, but then the
reaction to this event by Jesus, who was at that moment in Judea,
becomes absolutely incomprehensible: "When Jesus heard that John
had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee." (Matthew 4:12).
So, let's try to summarize all of the above. Firstly, a very influential
and popular spiritual leader preached in Palestine in parallel with
Jesus Christ. Secondly, his relationships with the Son of Man do not
appear to be as idyllic as it is commonly believed. Thirdly, the death
of this leader is associated with a number of unclear and suspicious
circumstances, which I propose to reflect upon.
tragedy - namely, the resurrection of Lazarus. It was after this incident
that the high priests decided that the popularity of the new prophet
and miracle worker had reached a dangerous point for them, and it
was time to take serious measures. And it is at this moment that fate,
as if by order, sends them an invaluable gift - a defector, Judas; what
a coincidence...
Among the miracles performed by Christ, the resurrection of
Lazarus really stands apart. Unorthodox Gospel commentators have
rightly pointed out that almost all the healings performed by Christ
concerned mental or psychosomatic disorders. These were various types
of paralysis and blindness, epilepsy, lethargic sleep (of the daughter
of Jairus); in the case of lepers, it could actually be severe, advanced
eczema. The possibility in principle of curing such disorders with the
power of suggestion (neuroinduction) is, as they say, "a medical fact".
Another group of miracles, such as feeding people with five loaves of
bread and two fish, turning water into wine, or walking on water, can
be (for example) likewise understood as attesting to the fact that "the
power of Christ compels you" - they are easily interpreted as private
recollections of delusions due to a mass hypnotic-like state [another
example of this is the notorious "Fatima sun miracle"; note that this
does not imply any intentional misleading but merely an altered
state of mind, which can even spontaneously arise and self-reinforce
in a crowd, especially a religiously tuned one; and there are other
possibilities too, not mutually exclusive: a different recent example
of a spontaneous bona fide miracle narrative - originating through
rumor evolution, and also even having its own written "gospel" - is
the so-called "Zoino stoyaniye" ("п-пЎпЈпҐпЎ яЃя‚пЎяЏпҐпЈпЅ", "The standing of
Zoya") - or, the Holy Fire, widely sincerely believed by the Orthodox
Christians to be a regularly occurring miracle... finally, on the question
whether Jesus performed or intended to perform any miracles there
is no better authority than Jesus himself, and his answer is no (Mark
8:12), or at least it was at that moment - and, by the way, the
same situation later repeated with Muhammad, who, despite having
explicitly stated that Quran is his only miracle, is widely believed by
the faithful to have travelled on a winged horse, split the Moon, etc.].
However, the resurrection of Lazarus (to which John was a direct
witness) - a man who died a few days before, was buried, and was
presumed to have already begun to decompose (John 11:39) - strongly
a temporary impression like the "Fatima sun miracle" - he's still there
tomorrow!
Now, as a side remark, if things go "for the principle", some non-
supernatural hypotheses can be considered here as well, of course. The
cases of "revivals" of people who have been in a state of "false death" for
a long time (when a person's metabolic rate drops to indistinguishably
low levels, and there are no such manifestations of vital activity as a
detectable heartbeat) are now quite widely known. First of all (if these
stories are to be trusted), there are Indian yogis, who, willingly putting
themselves in such a state and then leaving it, are able to spend some
time underwater or under a layer of earth, and there were similar
spontaneous accidents (especially in low-temperature conditions).
Secondly, there are the more interesting (from the point of view of our
case) zombies [the word "zombie" is used here in its original meaning,
originating in the black voodoo cults of West Africa and the Antilles -
not, for example, in the sense of zombifying that was the goal of shady
CIA operations ARTICHOKE and MKUltra, which even became the
subject of a Senate investigation], which are temporarily induced into
this state by the "sorcerer", who then demonstrates them to their
fellow tribesmen as resurrected by the power of his magic. Recently,
physiologists have come much closer to understanding the mechanisms
of "false death" - for example, it was found that the functions of the
heart that is being "switched off" are taken over by the hepatic portal
system, which has its own contractile automatism.
However, all this is only mentioned incidentally; I have no desire
to write a script for an enticing thriller tentatively titled A Zombie
Named Lazarus. First of all, it is only possible to assume that Jesus
acted as a voodoo sorcerer by rejecting the "presumption of honesty",
which is obligatory for me. Second, let's not forget that the extremely
complex technique of immersing a person into a "zombie state", which
requires centuries-old traditions, was in all likelihood simply unknown
to the ancient Jews. Moreover, there are no hints that even their
neighbors, who Jesus could have theoretically learned this technique
from - the Chaldean magicians or the priests of Phoenicia and Egypt -
had any idea of such a technique. Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine
that such an impressive practice would not be properly noted in the
extensive historical literature about this region.
Speaking of the resurrection of Lazarus, let's firstly note that it
appears only in the Gospel of John; all the Synoptics keep silent about
this event. This is so strange that, for example, Farrar felt it necessary
to specifically comment on this discrepancy, suggesting three possible
1. Generally, the narratives of the Synoptics mainly dealt with the
Galilean part of the ministry of Christ, and the Judean part of it
(which includes the events in Bethany) is given in much less detail;
John has the opposite correlation. Such an explanation seems very
strange since the Synoptic Gospels directly feature some (much less
significant) episodes related to the stay of Christ in the house of
Lazarus and Mary with Martha.
2. The Synoptics could consider this resurrection no more significant
than the miracles they had previously seen. Hmm, well, all three
actually thought the revival of a decaying corpse to be yawn-worthy?
(Furthermore, specifically when it's Lazarus, not when it's Jesus?)
3. Farrar notes the "special restraint of the Synoptics towards the
Bethany family"; they call it "the house of Simon the leper" (John, on
the contrary, does not mention any lepers), Mary is called simply "the
woman", without any clarifications. He believes that at the time of
the writing of the Synoptic Gospels there was still a threat of physical
elimination of Lazarus and other witnesses of the resurrection by the
Judean authorities (John 12:9-11). Clearly, under these conditions it
was not a good idea to supply the investigators of the Sanhedrin with
any information about the Bethany family. On the other hand by the
time the Gospel of John was written, this reason for the "sealing of
the mouths" was already gone, and it became possible to speak about
the miracle. Is this logical? I don't think so. Let me remind you how
the resurrection ended:
"Then many of the Jews who came to visit Mary, and saw what Jesus
had done, believed in Him; but some of them went to the Pharisees
and told them what Jesus had done." (John 11:45-46).
Of course - "If there's something strange | In your neighborhood, | Who
you gonna call?" - well, in the absence of Ghostbusters (who would
indeed be the best option in this case!), just the regular authorities
- and they will sort it out... So I think the Apostles, had they even
wanted to, would not be able to reveal to the sleuths anything hitherto
unknown to them about the Bethany family.
To summarize, none of the versions proposed by Farrar seem to me
convincing in the slightest. But, in my opinion, two other explanations
of these discrepancies are possible (and, as a side note, both are in
accordance with the subtle soundness constraint, to be discussed later,
that events not essential for Christianity's existence should not feature
startling coincidences):
1. The episode with the resurrection of Lazarus, which appeared only
in the chronologically latest of the four Gospels, simply had no real
course, as usual, we seek no easy ways and refrain from accepting
such an explanation - especially since not going the easy way may pay
off in the form of a deeper insight. Besides, this option is, as always,
prohibited by our strict assumptions anyway: under them, we have a
direct truthful eyewitness testimony of Apostle John. So, the following
option remains:
2. The silence of the Synoptics is explained by the fact that they, unlike
John, were sure that something was off about this resurrection, and it
was better left not reminded of. In this regard, it seems appropriate to
cite the version of New Testament commentator Renan.
He believed that the resurrection of Lazarus was "an intrigue of
the sisters from Bethany, Mary and Martha. Outraged by the bad
reception given in Jerusalem to their adored Jesus, the sisters tried
to arrange something that would shake the skepticism of incredulous
Jews. Such an event could be the resurrection of a man who was
well-known in Jerusalem. When Jesus was beyond Jordan River,
Lazarus fell seriously ill. The terrified sisters sent for Jesus, but before
he appeared in Bethany, the brother was already on the mend. Then
the sisters had a brilliant idea - pale, not yet recovered Lazarus was
wrapped in graveclothes and placed in the tomb." After Jesus, who
was taken to the tomb, wished to look at his friend, the stone blocking
the entrance was rolled away, Lazarus went outside, and everyone
believed in the "miracle".
Did Christ know about this? Renan believes that he, like for example
Francis of Assisi, was simply unable to curb the thirst for miracles that
overwhelmed his supporters. The apostles, however, were genuinely
outraged by this obvious swindle, even if it was done for a good
purpose (remember one of the designations for the Bethany family in
the Synoptic Gospels - "the house of a leper"), but they couldn't wash
Jesus's supporters' dirty linen in public.
But why didn't John see through this staging? The answer here,
undoubtedly, lies in the very personality of this Apostle. The man who
wrote the Apocalypse must certainly be somewhat out of this world
(note that the words "out of this world" really do not mean the same as
"out of his mind"). What seemed quite obvious to Peter and Matthew,
who stood more firmly on this earth, did not seem so to John at all.
In the unreal world that he had created for himself and lived in - and
which would later become inhabited by billions of people - miracles
like the resurrection of Lazarus were indeed completely normal and
natural. (Later he would immediately believe in the resurrection of
Jesus upon merely seeing the empty tomb, with no other clues - John
would silently need some "independent reassurance" in the legitimacy
of the resurrection of Jesus, and that the direct comment of God the
Father himself on Jesus, which we'll discuss later, was it.)
Returning to the "general line" of our investigation, we should note
two important points connected with the sojourn of Christ in Bethany.
Firstly, the Apostles and the Teacher repeatedly visited the house of
Mary and Martha, both before and after the resurrection of Lazarus.
Secondly, it was from this house, after the episode of anointing of
Christ, that Judas went to the Sanhedrin. Let's now turn to this
character, perhaps the most mysterious one of all.
Palestinian peoples were not particularly warm; this is often mentioned
as the reason for the not-too-enthusiastic reception of Jesus in Judea
and its capital - Jerusalem ("Aren't you from Galilee? Look into it, and
you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee." - John 7:52).
This circumstance, however, did not prevent Judas, who furthermore
joined Christ quite late, one of the last among the Apostles, to become
one of the Twelve and even to become the treasurer. This alone clearly
testifies to the trust and authority he enjoyed in the community. And
Jesus, by the way, does not at all create the impression of some sort
of a "holy fool", unable to put two and two together in earthly affairs,
in particular, of someone not people-savvy.
It is not for nothing that the canonical version of "betrayal for thirty
silver coins" seemed unconvincing to many, and they looked for other
explanations for Judas's act; in this sense, he is undoubtedly the most
popular of the Gospel characters. Most diverse versions were proposed
here: a burning resentment against "deceiver" Christ, whose kingdom,
as it turned out, would not be of this world; the desire to find out
whether a person who claims to be the Messiah would be able to save
at least himself [like in an old Soviet joke: "Comrade Stalin, a man
came who claims to be a clairvoyant, able to see the future, and he's
asking for an audience with you, what should we do? - ...Shoot him. A
clairvoyant would foresee that, so get rid of this charlatan."]; the desire
to accelerate in this way the onset of the kingdom of God on Earth (a
variation: to provoke a popular uprising). Here's just one characteristic
case: Zeffirelli's grandiose film Jesus of Nazareth is, generally speaking,
but even here Judas is presented in a non-canonical manner.
The heretical version expounded by Borges and attributed by him to
fictional Swedish theologian Runeberg is noteworthy in this regard:
"...He begins with a convincing observation that Judas's act was
redundant. [...] In order to identify the Teacher who preached in
the synagogue daily and performed miracles before gatherings of
thousands, the treachery of an apostle is unnecessary."
He then says that Judas's true motive was "hypertrophied, almost
limitless asceticism. Ascetic, for the sake of the greater glory of God,
defiles and mortifies the flesh; Judas did the same with his spirit. He
renounced honor, goodness, peace, the kingdom of heaven, like others,
less heroic ones, renounce pleasure." Well... we, perhaps, will not soar
up to such heights of theological thought. Let's try to look for the
motives of Judas's act somewhere closer to "the objective reality, given
to us in perception".
"Thirty silver coins" as a motive of betrayal, however, does not
stand up to criticism even for the most pragmatic reasons: what did
this insignificant amount mean compared to the capabilities of the
treasurer of the Apostles? If greed was indeed the driving force behind
Judas's actions, then he should have quietly siphoned money from the
community's cash box entrusted to him, indefinitely. Only a complete
idiot (or a sovok ) kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.
And indeed, did Judas steal? John writes about it with full confidence
(John 12:6); it is strange, however, that not one of the Synoptics
said a word about such a colorful detail, which greatly enlivens the
image of a traitor. What remains to be assumed is that John, as had
already happened to him, heard the sound of the bells, but didn't
know where the clapper was - that some time before the tragedy, a
tense conversation between Jesus and Judas on money matters took
place. This, however, was not an accusation of Judas in shortage -
otherwise, Peter and the other Apostles would not have dismissed this
episode in their narratives as unimportant. Let's remember this.
It should be noted that the text of the New Testament contains one
direct indication that Christ foresaw the betrayal of Judas long before
his last trip to Jerusalem. We are talking about John's interpretation
of the Teacher's statement after The Bread of Life Discourse and the
subsequent desertion of many of his companions.
" 'You do not want to leave too, do you?' Jesus asked the Twelve.
Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, who shall we go to?' [...] Jesus
replied, 'Have I not chosen the twelve of you? Yet one of you is a
devil!' He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, while being
However, things are not as simple and unambiguous as they seem to
John.
To begin with, generally speaking, it does not follow from this text that
Jesus had Judas in mind - even though this is retrospectively logical,
it is only a conjecture. Anyway, suppose the statement reproduced
by John was indeed uttered, and furthermore let's assume that it did
refer specifically to Judas. From all this, however, it does not at all
follow that it was about the COMING BETRAYAL, and not about
some other act of this character, already accomplished at that time.
By the way, under what circumstances did Judas die? The version of
Matthew became generally accepted - "went away and hanged himself"
(Matthew 27:5). Meanwhile, in the Acts of the Apostles something
completely different is said: "his body burst open and all his intestines
spilled out", and furthermore, "everyone in Jerusalem heard about
this" (Acts 1:18-19). Farrar, however, believes that "these versions
do not contradict each other too much", and even invents a kind of
hybrid: the hanging Judas's rope breaks, he falls from a height to the
ground, his belly bursts... The plausibility of such a construction, in
my opinion, needs no comment [Archpriest A. Men, at least, honestly
writes that "the information contained in Matthew 27, 3-9 and Acts
1, 16-20 is so far quite difficult to reconcile"... hold on, what do you
mean "so far "?!].
And in general, suicide on the basis of remorse, after all the exploits of
Judas during the arrest of the Teacher, is psychologically completely
unconvincing. This does happen with people who have committed
betrayal by succumbing to violence or blackmail; Judas acted freely,
quite deliberately, and coolly. [For obvious reasons we're leaving aside
the common narrative that at the moment of betrayal he was possessed
by Satan (John 13:27, Luke 22:3) who later left him; note, by the
way, that this would mean that Judas himself is not guilty. And if
this is interpreted non-supernaturally as some sudden and temporary
insanity... well, let's leave this kind of "explanation" for the case if
there is nothing better, as a very last resort.]
Yet, what's even more mysterious is the scene of the arrest of Christ in
the Garden of Gethsemane. That is, here the number of incongruities
(if we stick to the canonical version) is not even big, the episode simply
consists of them entirely, without a remainder. Let me again give the
floor to Dombrovsky:
"In this story there is something extremely confusing. After all, Christ
did not hide but spoke publicly. Even without Judas, they could
perfectly well seize him any day. 'What are these swords and spears
you. Why didn't you take me then?' "
"That's a reasonable question", smiled Surovtsev [NKVD officer - K.
Y.]. "That is, of course, it is reasonable only from the point of view of
Christ. Arrested people often ask about such things. They are unaware
that there are also operational considerations."
Interesting - what were these "operational considerations"? So, let's
formulate the questions:
1. The arrest of Christ could be carried out at any moment during
the day on the streets of Jerusalem; the number of his supporters
was very small, and they, of course, could not effectively oppose the
temple guard. Let me remind you that the authorities did not have
any special problems with the arrest of incomparably more popular
John the Baptist. Why then was it necessary to let the Galileans in the
evening out of the city into the wooded outskirts of Jerusalem, where
it would be difficult to control their movements even in daylight? In
other words: what exactly did the Jewish authorities gain by incredibly
complicating the arrest procedure and transferring it to a remote
secluded place, in the dead of night?
2. Judas's behavior during the arrest seems completely irrational. His
task was to bring the capture group to the place (indeed unknown to
anyone in Jerusalem), which he succeeded in. After that, any normal
traitor would try to move deeper into the shadows (both figuratively
and literally), not into the proscenium, demonstrating to everyone
his exceptional merits. Seriously, what need was there for a public,
theatrical identification of Christ? During the days that he preached in
Jerusalem, he was undoubtedly mentally "photographed" from every
angle by members of the Judean secret police, who, of course, must've
been present during the arrest. [And if somehow Jesus looked like a
very good spy - extremely generic and easily confusable with every
second man where he lived, so much so that even professionals needed
help "finding Waldo" (by the way, if the popular images do resemble
what he actually looked like, it is very easy to notice even now that
being a Jesus lookalike is extremely easy indeed, probably second
only to Hitler, but unlike for the latter it's easy even inadvertently),
then this would also be of great interest in evaluating resurrection
appearances. By way of analogy, imagine that Jesus was East Asian
and the disciples were from rural Alabama, and then present to them
someone who may or may not be their resurrected Teacher - they
would probably not be able to tell if that's definitely him or maybe
another person. We will return to this point again: the ultimate source
of the disciples' certainty that who they saw was resurrected Jesus
exception, the stigmata...] And why did Judas need to pretend to be
the commander of the capture group ("Concerning Judas who served as
leader for those who arrested Jesus" - Acts 1:16), which he, of course,
in reality was not? After all, even if the high priests unanimously went
mad and put a defector at the head of the detachment (a traitor, as
is well known, remains a traitor, no matter who he betrays), then the
Romans who participated in the operation would never in their lives
allow some Jewish bandit, who had just sold his leader, to command
them.
3. It is worth paying attention to the composition of the capture group
- it is very strange from any point of view. Firstly, as already noted, it
included not only Jews, but also Roman soldiers, who are not directly
subordinate to the initiators of the arrest - the high priests. In order
to make legionnaires participate in the operation, it is necessary at
least to notify the procurator, and this means losing precious time to
inevitable negotiations - and what for? This might have been justified
if Caiaphas had expected a serious armed resistance; such a risk,
however, was negligible - compared to the very real possibility that
the alarmed sect would simply disappear into the night, and then you
can go whistle for them. Secondly, the Romans, who number no more
than two or three dozen, are commanded by a "leader of a thousand"
(military tribune). The participation in the operation of an officer of
this rank (corresponding to a colonel) clearly indicates that Pilate
took the "request for international assistance" with full seriousness.
Why then does he begin to play the fool the next morning, portraying
benevolent neutrality towards the prisoner? Thirdly, among the Jews,
in addition to the temple guard (and likely sleuths), there were a lot
of the high priest's slaves with their weapons. I wonder - what kind of
need suddenly arose in such a "total mobilization", and what was this
ragtag good for - besides only getting in the way of the professionals?
4. It is completely incomprehensible why the capture group did not
take any measures to detain the Apostles. Even if the authorities
decided not to give a damn about their previous complicity in
subversive propaganda, during the arrest of Christ there was, after all,
direct armed resistance [and, say, according to an old Russian version
of The Jewish War (IX: 3), many people were killed during the arrest
of Jesus - this isn't true but it reflects understanding of this fact].
Nevertheless, the ear of the high priest's servant Malchus, cut off by
Peter (John 18:10), is left without any consequences and the Apostles
are allowed to disappear without hindrance. This seems especially
incomprehensible against the background of further events of the same
Christ's entourage, regardless of his participation in an armed clash
with the guards.
5. As Sherlock Holmes said, "the more ridiculous and brute a detail
seems to you, the more attention it deserves. Those circumstances
that, at first glance, only complicate the matter, most often lead you
to the solution." In our case, such a detail is... the torches; yes, the
same torches which the capture group came to the place with (for
example, John 18:3). The thing is, the events took place on Passover
night, which coincides with the full moon. Torches could be needed in
order to carry out a search in a previously cordoned off area of the
garden in pitch darkness (although even here they would do no less
harm than good), or to identify the detainees. Who and why, however,
needed to arrange illumination in the moonlit garden, unmasking the
capture group on its way to the already known place?
ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE OFF THE SCREEN
Never mentioning the name of Judas, he made several completely
unambiguous hints, after which the only thing left for Judas to do was
to run, taking advantage of the loophole left for him by the Teacher:
"Since Judas had the money box, some thought Jesus was telling him
to buy what was needed for the festival, or to give something to the
poor. As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was
night." (John 13:29-30).
Why Jesus did not name the traitor - whether he was not completely
sure of his information and his hints were a test, or he simply did
not want bloodshed (there were some pretty tough guys among the
Apostles, such as that same Peter) - is not so important. Another
thing is more interesting: how did Jesus get information about treason
in his inner circle?
This question may seem completely foolish: clearly Christ knew about
this by virtue of his divine omniscience; and how could he receive any
such information without it also being noticed by the Apostles, who
were always with him? Well, I won't comment on the topic of divine
omniscience, but I'll allow myself to argue against Christ's lack of
stable contacts outside of his usual circle described by the Evangelists.
First of all: why is the Last Supper called the Secret Supper ("пѓп№пЉпҐп№яЏ
the previous day is sometimes called Spy Wednesday, also not without
a reason.] What is known about the house where it took place, from
which Christ and the Apostles then departed to Gethsemane? There
is no need to strain your memory or look for a Bible - you won't
find much information on this subject in it. Which is very strange:
the Evangelists always speak in some detail about the owners of the
houses where the Teacher stayed for any reason, but there is not a
word about the location where such an important event took place [in
the Christian tradition, the tomb of David, which is on the southern
slope of Mount Zion (Bible Encyclopedia I:323), is taken for the Zion
Upper Room - the site of the Last Supper; it is this room that appears,
for example, on numerous paintings dedicated to this episode; we,
however, cannot possibly accept this point of view; the fact that it was
built only in the fourth century AD is half of the problem - and the
other half is that the Scripture directly states that the Last Supper
took place in a residential building (see below)]. In my opinion, the
description of how Christ and the Apostles found this house deserves
citing.
On Thursday morning the Apostles ask the Teacher: where is he going
to eat the Passover meal? - whereupon Christ sends Peter and John
to Jerusalem, providing them with the following instructions:
" 'As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you.
Follow him to the house that he enters, and say to the owner of the
house, 'The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may
eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large room
upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.' They left and found
things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover."
(Luke 22:10-13).
This episode, frankly, seems to be taken not from the Holy Scripture
but from Seventeen Moments of Spring (or, rather, from Aquarium).
It's absolutely clear that it is about liaisons, exchanges of physical and
verbal passwords, a safe house, and the classic method of detecting
surveillance (through counter-surveillance carried out by the partner
of the "man with a jar"). It is also clear, by the way, that Peter
and John were sent precisely to check whether the meeting place
was exposed. The owner of the apartment, in strict accordance with
the requirements of secrecy (which, apparently, have not undergone
changes over the past twenty centuries), never saw its visitors - that's
why there is no information about him in the Gospels.
Evangelists clearly did not find all this worthy of attention; for us,
however, it is very significant that Jesus maintained secret (or at least
the Apostles. The members of the latter (which included the "man
with a jar"), on the contrary, knew the Apostles at least by sight.
Intrigued by the secret contacts of Jesus, I began to study the text
of the New Testament under this angle, immediately discovering a
number of promising episodes. However, at the third or fourth of them,
I resolutely said "Stop!" to myself, feeling that I was starting to fit the
facts to the concept. It will not take long along this path to become like
our half-witted "patriots" who are able to detect manifestations of the
Judeo-Masonic Conspiracy even in the six-pointedness of snowflakes.
[However, to be fair, in our Russian realities - unlike in the West,
where the entire conspiracy direction of thought is rightly shunned
and knee-jerked by rational people - malicious conspiracy by the
government or government-supported forces usually just genuinely is
the correct explanation - thus making someone like me fundamentally
more likely than a Western skeptic to discover the correct explanation
for the resurrection of Jesus. (Speaking of the difference in this
"worldview assumption" as an aside, in a non-democratic country there
is no such thing as a bet along the lines of "they would never do that"
- and at least here in Russia, it's usually "well, of course they would!"
And even in democratic countries there are occasionally characters like
Richard Nixon or Henry Kissinger (read The Trial of Henry Kissinger
by Christopher Hitchens) - and much more, just have a listen to Noam
Chomsky on the US foreign policy. Chomsky will explain to you, for
example, the actual reason why 9/11 happened, although there is one
even better authority on the matter - Bin Laden himself, and here
is what he had to say: "Before I begin, I say to you that security is
an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit
their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so,
then let him explain to us why we don't strike, for example, Sweden?
And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like
those of the 19 hijackers. No, we fight because we are free men who
don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our
nation, just as you lay waste to our nation." "I say to you, God knows
that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it
became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of
the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and
Lebanon, it came to my mind. The events that affected my soul in
a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to
invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that.
This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others
were terrorised and displaced. I couldn't forget those moving scenes,
Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished
over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless
except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation
that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard it
but didn't respond. In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe
ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense
feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to
punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers
in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor
in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that
they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from
killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to
me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and
children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and
democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance." Needless
to say, a sane person cannot appreciate his methods, but the same
cannot be said about his motives... Anyhow, the direct relevance
of these quotes to the present work is the following, which you can
call "Yeskov's razor": don't explain with God what can be explained
with politics! - even more specifically, don't explain with the local
God what can be explained with shady Western foreign policy in the
Middle East.)] And yet there is one episode that we should consider -
the Transfiguration of the Lord.
Shortly before his third (and the last) trip to Jerusalem, Christ,
accompanied by Peter, John, and James, went up a still-unidentified
"high mountain" to pray. Then a series of events took place [from
which we will omit direct miracles like the shining of the face and
clothes of Jesus (unless it was simply caused by a stray ray of sunlight)
and possibly the voice of God without comment (because the relevant
comments were already made; by the way, if there was indeed a voice
not just in Peter's mind, did it really belong to God? - after all, there
were people there - see below - and one of them, while being invisible
to Peter at the moment, namely with the visibility obscured at least
by mountain fog - "a cloud appeared and surrounded them... a voice
came out of the cloud" - could have easily, even casually, said "This
is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." -
deliberate staging or lying here is excluded by the direct presence
of Jesus, so to be real it... merely had to belong to Jesus's actual
father, reported by Celsus to be a Roman named Pantera - and there
is another, even simpler, possibility for his identity, see below; this
Mary had sex, but she certainly did - remember, Jesus had a brother,
James: besides the authentic testimony of Josephus - "the brother of
Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" - we might even
have the former container of his remains, the famous James Ossuary,
notably precovered on an old photograph later and withstanding
authenticity trials)]:
"Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became
fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. As
the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, 'Master, it is good
for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters - one for you, one for
Moses and one for Elijah.' (HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS
SAYING.)" (Luke 9:32-33).
Jesus, however, did not confirm with a single word the speculation
that the people who talked to him were really Moses and Elijah. Then
the incident in the fog happens (whether in reality or in Peter's altered
mind; by the way, if it did happen in reality, it could be interpreted as
a direct corrective answer to Peter's speculation - one of the two people
replying "I'm not Moses or Elijah, I'm his dad" amalgamated with a
natural compliment to Jesus - which, if so, in turn implies that had
Jesus even wanted to explicitly correct Peter, who obviously "didn't
know what he was saying", this would've been accomplished already,
or so Jesus thought), after which comes another very interesting part:
"As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus forbade them, saying,
'Don't tell anyone about what you have seen, until the Son of Man
has been raised from the dead.' " (Matthew 17:9);
"They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the
dead" meant." (Mark 9:10).
To put it simply, the three Apostles happened to witness a meeting
between Jesus and two people, one of which could be Jesus's father
(who definitely had to exist - otherwise Jesus's birth was a miracle
[the Evangelists or who they were writing after definitely weren't
eyewitnesses of the Nativity or any related stories - which only bloated
as time went by, cf. the apocryphal Gospels; for this reason it is
not unlikely that the Nativity narratives (without the finding in the
temple of teenager Jesus) are the only chunks of the New Testament,
not counting the Apocalypse, that are simply one hundred percent
false top to bottom (even though some apparently locally well-known
people referenced in them by name, especially Anna the daughter of
Penuel, might well be real), the same kind of (spontaneous!) thing as
п-пЎпЈпҐпЎ пІпЈя‚пЈпЅ, the "gospel" of "Zoino stoyaniye"; by the way, speaking
of eyewitnesses of Jesus's birth, why the unbelievable extreme paucity
especially her direct speech? - you'd think, of all the people... and the
one and only time she does say an actual, very believable, motherly
thing (Luke 2:48), it is "Son, why have you treated us like this? YOUR
FATHER and I have been anxiously searching for you."; another
argument for Joseph being Jesus's father (and Panter being Mary's
grandfather, according to another non-Christian source, presumably
someone locally relatively well-known - with the confusion probably
arising because Jesus was called son of Panter in the same intended
sense in which he is called son of David and Abraham in Matthew 1:1)
is that John doesn't have Nativity narratives - and he lived with Mary
(John 19:27) after Jesus's death, so who if not he would know if there
was actually anything unusual about Jesus's birth, he certainly had
plenty of time to ask - and furthermore he directly mentions Joseph in
uncommented quoted speech as Jesus's father (1:45, 6:42); nor is there
any hint that the disciples had ever met Joseph - he doesn't appear
outside of the Nativity narratives and John's two purely nominal
references at all (!) - unless we count Jesus's genealogy and supposed
descent from David, important for the messianic claims, which doesn't
make too much sense if Joseph was only his stepfather (and thus the
appearance of genealogy linking Jesus to David plausibly precedes the
appearance of the Nativity narratives - and by the way this genealogy
is not a single thing, differing radically in the versions of Matthew
and Luke, in particular, they don't agree on the name of Joseph's
dad...); nor does John mention the "voice of God", despite having
been its direct witness (!) - so, ... is it possible that he, and not Peter,
understood Joseph's reply from the fog correctly?..]), that was clearly
not really intended for their eyes. Otherwise, why would the Teacher
demand that they keep their mouths shut - until the afterlife? (If those
were simply saints from Heaven [despite the qualifier "he didn't know
what he was saying"], and also Jesus was presciently talking about his
resurrection coming soon after this, not in the end times (or just much
later), then what would be the point of this, furthermore very brief,
silence period?)
Let's return, however, to the main thread of our investigation - to the
events of Thursday of the Holy Week. So, how and when could the
information about the betrayal of Judas be privately passed on to Jesus
(who passed it on is a separate topic)? There are countless possibilities
here (as a random example, through an almost undetectable liaison
disguised as a beggar on a temple porch), but in this case the simplest
one can be assumed: Jesus found the corresponding message in a
predetermined place in the safehouse apartment - "large, furnished,
There is, however, another mystery. After the Last Supper, Jesus with
the eleven Apostles left Jerusalem and went to Gethsemane, the olive
garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives, which is east of the city [by
the way, the village of Bethany, which is associated with a number of
remarkable events (see above), is located on the same Mount of Olives
as the Garden of Gethsemane, only the former is on its southeast
slope, and the latter is on its western slope]. Judging by the length of
the conversations that took place along the way, the journey was not
a short one. In the Garden of Gethsemane, after his prayer to "let this
cup pass", Christ was arrested. The Gospel texts do not contain any
hint that the Teacher shared his plans with the Apostles in advance -
where exactly he was going to go from Jerusalem. Nevertheless, Judas,
who had left the Last Supper long before it ended, accurately led the
capture group exactly where it was supposed to be - to the Garden of
Gethsemane.
I hope we will not attribute the gift of omniscience to this character?
Then let's think logically. Well, how Judas guessed the place itself
is more or less clear: apparently, Gethsemane served as a refuge for
the Apostles during the last days ("Each day He was teaching at
the temple, and each evening He went out to spend the night on
the mount called the Mount of Olives" - Luke 21:37); in the Garden
of Gethsemane there is indeed a rock with a large cave, which, in
all likelihood, served as the dwelling place for the Apostles (Bible
Encyclopedia, I:159). It was probably from here that they went to
Jerusalem for the Last Supper. Another thing is not clear, however:
why was Judas confident that Jesus would return that night to
his - already known - base? Putting himself in the place of the
Teacher, Judas would have to assume that he would try to escape
and immediately disappear from the neighborhoods of Jerusalem, as
he had repeatedly done before (for example, John 10:39-40). (These
"disappearances" of Jesus are very interesting in their own right, by
the way, but we are not talking about them now.)
It has become customary to proceed from the assumption that on that
night the basis of all the actions (or rather, inaction) of Christ was his
firm intention to "drink from this chalice". Meanwhile, for the success
of real operations and search activities, investigators need to at least
correctly reflect on the motivations of the wanted person. Do Judas
and the guards of the Sanhedrin seem capable of such an accurate
penetration into the thoughts of Christ? This question, in my opinion,
is rhetorical. Also, suppose Jesus did make a final decision about his
own life. However, could a man like him have deliberately put his
remaining with them? At the moment of arrest, the Teacher declares:
"If you are looking for me, let these men go then. (This happened so
that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: 'I have not lost even
one of those you gave me.')" (John 18:8-9).
However, to be frank, his own contribution to the fact that the
disciples remained alive seems minimal. It's just "criminal negligence"
by the arresters that they were not killed on the spot after the incident
with Malchus!
All these considerations suggest the following. That night, in the
Garden of Gethsemane, some very important unfinished business
waited for Jesus - so important that, without attending to it, he
could neither leave Jerusalem (even under the threat of arrest), nor
voluntarily surrender to the high priests; and Judas knew about it. It
can be assumed that in the garden, the place of his last refuge, Jesus
had to either take something in an agreed place, or, on the contrary, to
leave something, or - more likely - to meet someone. And if a certain
person was indeed waiting for him in the garden (recall, for example,
a night-time visit to Jesus by Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin,
a year before), then it becomes clear why Jesus, regardless of the
danger, tried to get to Gethsemane (and to get there first).
When was this meeting supposed to take place (whether it actually
happened is a separate question)? I think, at the very moment when
Jesus went into the depths of the garden to pray, and here's why. Let's
compare the scenes of this prayer and of the Transfiguration of the
Lord (see above). In both cases Christ withdraws from the disciples
in order to pray in solitude. In both cases he is accompanied by the
same three Apostles - Peter, John, and James. In both cases all three
"bodyguards" strangely fall asleep. Aren't there too many coincidences
here, and isn't it really a repetition of the same or very similar meeting,
incomprehensible to the Apostles (with the possible partial exception
of John)? Moreover, there is also a direct indication that Jesus was
not alone in the garden (Luke 22:43); the Evangelist believes that an
"angel" was with the Teacher, but that is pure conjecture...
Let's also ask the following question: could the Apostles see the person
talking with the Teacher in the depths of the garden (if such a meeting
did take place)? I don't think so, and here's why. Let us recall another
event of the same night - Peter's disavowal of Jesus in the courtyard
of Caiaphas's house: "It was cold, and the servants and officials stood
around a fire they had made to keep warm; Peter was also standing
with them, warming himself." (John 18:18). This was in the courtyard
of a city mansion; it certainly wasn't much warmer in the Garden of
assume that the Apostles likewise made a campfire to keep warm. And
this means that they weren't able to discern things outside of the area
illuminated by it.
Okay, but could the three accompanying Apostles, who ingloriously
fell asleep, have noticed anything? By the way, in the light of the
assumption just made, this strange sleep becomes understandable
and natural. One must think that the disciples, after a few minutes
of their vigil (speaking of which, did the Teacher assign the duties of
watchmen to this trio?) froze to the bone and decided to go to the
fire to warm up - just for a second! Alas, such "seconds" always end
in the same way - instantly they became abask in the warmth and
coziness, and, you know... So, one wouldn't have high hopes for their
testimonies either, but they still probably noticed something - before
and after their stay near the campfire. In any case, the information
about the "angel" who visited Jesus must come from them - there is
simply no one else who it can be coming from.
"a prominent member of the Council who was himself waiting for the
kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43); in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter,
he is described as "a friend of Pilate and the Lord" - hmm... It was
he who took, with the permission of the procurator, the body of the
executed criminal - the "King of the Jews" - and then buried him in
a tomb he owned. Evangelists present Joseph as a "secret disciple of
Christ" (John 19:30), although there is no mention of his contact with
Jesus or the Apostles in the preceding text of the New Testament -
neither before nor, what's especially strange, after the burial. Although
there is a tradition according to which he was the first to preach the
Gospel in Britain, it seems unlikely even to the official Church (Bible
Encyclopedia I:364).
He was assisted by Nicodemus, who was also a member of the
Sanhedrin. Unlike Joseph, Nicodemus (openly) met Christ twice, and
the first time he spent the whole night in conversation with Jesus
(John 3:1-21); in another episode, he openly spoke to other members
of the Sanhedrin about his support of Jesus (John 7:50-52). Therefore,
it can be assumed that the initiator of the burial was in fact not
Joseph but Nicodemus. The narrative regarding the further fate of
the Apostles" - Bible Encyclopedia II:17), and therefore instills more
confidence in its truth.
In any case, the fact is that two prominent representatives of the
local establishment did something quite daring and defiant at the
very moment when it became clear that the jokes were over and all
the "official" disciples of Christ were trembling and thinking only
about their own salvation (in the perfectly non-theological sense, for
once). What motivated them to do this? Purely just "waiting for the
Kingdom of God"? Hmm... Joseph and Nicodemus, by the way, had
a lot to lose - in contrast to the disciples, who had the social status
of Aladdin (and unlike the genie [or Muhammad with respect to his
Companions, by the way], Jesus didn't help them much with that - if
anything, it's the opposite).
This was all a preamble. And now it's time to go directly to one of
the key episodes of this story, the importance of which cannot be
overstated - the disappearance of the body of Christ from the guarded
tomb. (Just as a reminder for clarity, we're proceeding from the
assumption that there were no supernatural events but the historical
data of the Gospels is reliable - including everything miraculous only
"by inference", as opposed to real-time events "requiring CGI".) This
tomb, which as mentioned above belonged to Joseph of Arimathea,
was a new burial chamber just recently cut out in a rock, located
in a rather secluded place near Jerusalem; the latter circumstance
greatly facilitated the task of the guards. The entrance to the tomb,
blocked with a heavy stone (weighing one and a half tons, according to
McDowell) and sealed with an imperial seal, was guarded by Roman
guards. The fact that the tomb guard was specifically Roman (that is,
highly disciplined and, moreover, neutral with respect to intra-Jewish
squabbles [are these the reasons why there was a panicked request for a
Roman guard in the first place - in a city packed with temple guards?])
played a significant role in the argumentation of McDowell and
Gladkov, and was substantiated by them in detail and convincingly
[the following objection can be put forward here: in response to the
request by the high priests "Pilate told them, 'Take the guard, go
and protect the way you know' " (Matthew 27:65); these words of the
procurator can in principle be understood as a refusal ("You have
your own temple guards - so deal with your scandals yourselves!");
McDowell, however, gives purely linguistic arguments in favor of the
fact that in the original Gospel text (unlike in many translations into
European languages) all three verbs should be read in the same mood
- imperative; the phrase in question is thus really "have the guard, and
please"].
On the third day at dawn, the guards, having found to their amazement
that the tomb was empty, immediately informed the high priests about
this. "Having met with the elders and gathered a meeting, they gave
the soldiers enough money and told them, 'You are to say that his
disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were
asleep, and if this rumor reaches the governor, we will convince him
and keep you out of trouble.' Having taken the money they did as
they were taught." (Matthew 28:11-15). Later Pilate concluded that
the high priests confirmed the innocence of the soldiers by giving them
a bribe, and did not punish the latter.
Firstly, while I can imagine that some Jewish hierarchs really believed
in the divine, messianic essence of Christ, the Romans are another
matter. Everything that we know from historical and literary sources
about their mentality allows us to assert that at the time under
consideration the Roman society was essentially irreligious. This
is what is usually invoked to explain the fundamental inability of
the civilization of classical antiquity to resist the expansionism of
Christianity that began several decades later. Therefore, the very
idea that the pragmatic Romans, who treated even their own gods
without much piety, were ready to take some Jewish fairytales about
the Messiah resurrecting on the third day after death seriously seems
absurd to me (e.g. see Acts 26:24).
Secondly, it should be recalled that the disciplinary regulations of the
Roman army were very severe. McDowell notes that soldiers who fell
asleep on duty were subject to the death penalty, without alternatives
(and regardless of the result of such negligence). Bearing these two
considerations in mind, all the actions of all the participants in the
incident - everyone, the guards, the high priests, the procurator -
should be recognized as completely ridiculous (regardless of the reason
why the tomb became empty). It's as if all of them agreed to do
exactly what contradicts the real interests of each of them the most.
Judge for yourself.
For example, the guard discovers the loss of the guarded object in
the morning. If the soldiers really did keep watch all night, they can
be sure that this most unpleasant incident was not their own fault -
but no one else would believe that. And so if the guards themselves
discovered the loss (hmm, how, exactly? did they break the seal for no
reason, "just to check"?), then the most logical thing in this situation
is to wait until guard removal and brazenly report that everything is
in order - hoping that this would work. If later the Jewish authorities