Witch Doctors



Greek Doctor and Patient i.e. Victim

One of the most closely forgotten secrets in the history of civilization is that the conventional story of the history of Medicine is largely a crock. That is the story of the long slow advance of Medical science over thousands of years, which saw the steady accumulation of knowledge and with Medicine steadily advancing and getting better and better until today, is largely false. 

Late 19th Century Imperialism

in the Hellenistic World

Map of Hellenistic World

 

There are many tiresome tendencies in scholarly writing, but one of the most tiresome is the Imperialist Judge scholar. This is the writer who judges resistance to what he/she views has progress has illegitimate and beyond the pale. In fact the very notion of resistance especially armed resistance to the "new" "progressive" order is by definition utterly wicked and unacceptable. That this is a reflection of contemporary attitudes reflecting a basic contempt for those of the present day resisting "progress" and "development" is rather painfully obvious.

Hannibal’s Mistake?

Hannibal

In Livy’s series of books about the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.E.) there is a scene in which after the battle of Cannae in which a commander of the Carthaginian cavalry Maharbal has a conversation with Hannibal, who was in command of the Carthaginian army in Italy.

History as Myth

Early Rome

The Wolf Suckling Romulus and Remus

One of the great works of literature is Livy’s History of Rome1 and the most popular section was indisputably the first section describing the early history of Rome. Livy was a very good writer and his retelling of the early history of Rome was exciting and full of stories of heroism and courage and winning against long odds. It was a history of heroism, courage a virtue and has stuck onto the Western tradition. The sheer vividness of the stories has led to them being accepted as history proper by many people. So that people talk about the early history of Rome in Livy’s account has if it was “real” history. Sadly it all too dubious has history, and this is particularly true of the history of the Roman Kings before the establishment of the Republic.

An Historical Screw Up

Map of Mesopotamia

In the early part of the third century B.C.E., two priests of local long established civilizations attempted to introduce to the Greeks the culture and history of their respective civilizations. They were the Egyptian Priest Manetho and the Babylonian Priest Berossus. Both wrote short books giving an outline of the histories of their respective cultures going back to mythological times. In the case of Manetho, who I have discussed in an earlier posting,1 despite the apparent lack of interest by most Greco-Romans in his book enough survived, mainly because Christian writers preserved large sections of Manetho’s chronology. This gave to modern Egyptologists the familiar outline Egyptian history has a series of dynasties and it turned out to be reasonably accurate.2 Despite the fact that Manetho’s account used Ancient Egyptian records his short book was generally ignored by the Greco-Romans and in fact what was preserved by the later Christian writers, i.e., Manetho’s dynastic list was from summaries. It appears that the actual book had swiftly become a rarity and disappeared fairly rapidly. It appears for their history of Ancient Egypt the Greeks and the Romans preferred the mess of Herodotus or the fantasies preserved by Diodorus. So what the pagan writers preserved were cute stories and interesting anecdotes; only later Christian writers with a different mindset preserved much of the dynastic list provided by Manetho.3

With Berossus it is much, much worst. What we have is summaries of summaries of summaries etc., and the information is even more garbled than that of Manetho.

The Dark Side

Augustus

The Roman Empire is too this day greatly admired, but a lot of that admiration is based on the fact that it occurred so long ago so that the bruises of everyday knowledge of Roman power are softened by the nostalgia of distance in time. It is also helped by the fact that Greco-Roman culture was and is so widely admired as the foundation of Western Civilization.

The result is a tendency to whitewash the regime of the Emperors and to represent it as a benign institution except of course when “bad” Emperor’s ruled. Of course it is a common shibboleth in classic scholarship that a “bad” Emperor was one disliked by the Senate. The bottom line is that if the institution of Emperorship was so open to be so easily being “misused” then of course the problem wasn’t just with the individual but the institution as well.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

A Note on Three Myths

Sack of Rome 410 C.E.

The Decline of the Roman Empire is one of the great, artistic, literary, historical, philosophical, sociological, scientific tropes, and clichés of the western and now world tradition. It is also a rather annoying bugbear in terms of exercising an inadvertently malign influence on all the above.1

The Ides of March

Some Thoughts

Caesar getting the "point"
on March 15, 44 B.C.E.

Ides simply means middle in Latin but today what is interesting is that the only ides that people remember are the Ides of March and just why is that?

Colonialism Sucks

Book Cover

It is a truism that the context in which a particular historical period is viewed affect how a particular historical epoch is viewed by then contemporary scholarship. 

The Nile and Diogenes

Lake Victoria, Lake Albert and the
Head Waters of the Nile



It is extremely unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people have heard about the explorer Diogenes who sometime in the first century C.E. was blown off course in the Indian ocean and ended up in the port of Rhapta on the African coast near, or at modernday Dars es-Salaam in modernday Tanzania. 

The Origins of the first Servile War

Diodorus’ Version

Map of Sicily

In the years after Rome’s defeat of Carthage, (201 B.C.E.), Rome became the economic center of the Mediterranean the result was a spectacular growth in the Roman economy which was keeping pace with the spectacular growth of Roman political / military power. The island of Sicily, Rome’s first province out side of Italy, experienced significant economic growth; however the engine of this growth was a huge increase in the numbers of slaves, most of whom were imported into the country en mass to satisfy the insatiable demands of the Romans for agricultural produce and livestock products. The result was the mass importation of human beings to be agricultural workers and shepherds.1

In like manner those that had large possessions in Sicily bought up whole gaols to till their lands – some they shackled, others they overcharged with hard labour, and branded and stigmatized everyone of them: so that such a multitude of slaves, even a deluge, overflowed all Sicily, that the excessive number may seem incredible to all that hear of it; for all the rich men of Sicily vied with the Italians for pride, covetousness, and vicious practices; for many of the Italians who had great numbers of servants, accustomed their shepherds to that degree of rapine and licentiousness, as that they suffered them to rob and steal for want of necessary subsistence from them themselves.2

So says Diodorus the first century B.C.E. Greek historian.

Diodorus further says:

The slaves, distressed by their hardships and frequently outraged and beaten beyond all reason, could not endure their treatment. Getting together as opportunity offered, they discussed the possibility of revolt, until at last they put their plans into action.3

Later Diodorus says:

Because of the superabundant prosperity of those who exploited the products of this mighty island, nearly all who had risen in wealth affected first a luxurious mode of living, than arrogance and insolence. As a result of all this, since both the maltreatment of the slaves and their estrangement from their masters increased at an equal rate, there at last, when occasion offered, a violent outburst of hatred. So without a word of summons tens of thousands of slaves joined forces to destroy their masters.4

Slave owners, not only treated their slaves brutally but they did not feed them, further they encouraged the slaves to rob and plunder to satisfy their needs. They also imported large numbers of slaves to work in the mines of Sicily. This was especially true of the slaves in the country side who were employed as shepherds and herdsman. The result was a massive increase in lawlessness and eventually many slaves became brigands involved in attacking travellers, engaging in murder and pillaging homes. Large areas of the Sicilian countryside became unsafe. Further attempts to control the widespread brigandage were thwarted by the slave owners who benefited by the brigandage in so far as it reduced the cost of the upkeep of their slaves.5

Slaves working in a mine

Finally Diodorus says concerning the Italians who after the second Punic war (218-201 B.C.E.), invested and bought land in Sicily:

The Italians who were engaged in agriculture purchased great numbers of slaves, all of whom they marked with brands, but failed to provide them sufficient food, and by oppressive toil wore them out … (Note there is a gap here in Diodorus account)6

If the above was the background to the slave revolt in Sicily, (c. 136-131 B.C.E.), the spark that stated the revolt was the behaviour of a man named Damophilus and his wife Megallis. Diodorus writes:

There was a certain Damophilus of Enna, a man of great wealth but insolent manner; he had abused his slaves to excess, and his wife Megallis vied with her husband in punishing the slaves and in her general inhumanity toward them. The slaves reduced by this degrading treatment to the level of brutes, conspired to revolt and to murder their masters.7

The slaves sought the advice of a fellow slave named Eunus, who had the reputation of being a wonder worker and psychic. He became the leader of the revolt and he told them to go ahead with their plans.8

Damophilus is described by Diodorus as insolent, and cruel towards his slaves along with being luxury loving and arrogant. Diodorus says that Damophilus:

...emulated not only the luxury affected by the Italian landowners in Sicily, but also their troops of slaves and their inhumanity and severity towards them.9

Diodorus was in many respects, as indicated by his history as having an anti-Roman / anti-Italian bias.10

Diodorus then describes Damophilus as extravagant and luxury loving and a total boor, along with being very wealthy. Damophilus also branded and tortured his slaves on a regular basis; chaining his slaves and devising along with his wife Megallis ways to torment their slaves.11

For example:

On one occasion when approached by a group of naked domestics with a request for clothing, Damophilus of Enna impatiently refused to listen. “What” he said, “do those who travel through the country go naked? Do they not offer a ready source of supply for any one who needs garments?” Having said this, he ordered them bound to pillars, piled blows on them, and arrogantly dismissed them.12

Well the revolting slaves seized control of the city of Enna and captured Damophilus and his wife Megallis just outside the city. The slaves chained and bound them and abused them. Later Damophilus was dragged out in front of an assembly of slaves were upon he was killed in the following manner:

Hermeias and Zeuxis, men bitterly disposed toward him, denounced him as a cheat, and without waiting for a formal trial by the assembly, the one ran him through the chest with a sword, the other chopped off his head with an axe.13

Regarding Damophilus’ wife Megallis her fate was as follows:

He (Eunus) gave Megallis to the maidservants to deal with as they might wish; they subjected her to torture and threw her over a precipice.14

The slaves did not similarly deal with the rest of Damophilus’ and Megallis’ family. Damophilus and Megallis had a daughter who the revolting slaves treated well because she was:

…seen to show consideration throughout, and this was because of her kindly nature, in that to the extent of her power she was always compassionate and ready to succour the slaves.15

In another place Diodorus describes this women, whose name is unknown has:

…remarkable for her simplicity of manner and kindness of heart. It was always her practice to do all she could to comfort the slaves who were beaten by her parents, and since she also took the part of any who had been put in bonds, she was wondrously loved by one and all for her kindness.16

The result of her kindness was that she was treated with consideration by the revolting slaves and escorted to safety to the home of relatives who lived in the Sicilian city of Catana.17

The lesson is clear Damophilus and Megallis reaped their deserved reward for their brutal treatment of their slaves, but their daughter who treated them with kindness reaped the deserved reward for her kindness and humanity.

For has Diodorus says regarding Damophilus, Megallis and their daughter and the larger message:

Thereby it was demonstrated that the others (other slave owners) were treated as they were, not because of some “natural savagery of slaves,” but rather in revenge for wrongs previously done.18

…

Although the rebellious slaves were enraged against the whole household of their masters and resorted to unrelenting abuse and vengeance, there were yet some indications that it was not from innate savagery but rather because of the arrogant treatment they had themselves received that they now ran amuck when they turned to avenge themselves on their persecutors.

Even among slaves human nature needs no instructor in regard to a just repayment, whether of gratitude or revenge.19

Diodorus’ account is in many ways unusual. His sympathy for the slaves was for his time not very common. He apparently believed that arrogance, brutality and pride reaped or should reap the reward of punishment. It is also clear that Diodorus felt very strongly that slaves deserved and were entitled to decent and fair treatment. Further masters who abused their slaves richly deserved the “reward” of drastic punishment. It is quite obvious that Diodorus had little sympathy for abusive slave owners who were killed by their slaves.

Further Diodorus clearly views slaves as moral agents, who could recognize right and wrong and that they had the right, so to speak, to take revenge and also to take note of acts of kindness and consideration.

Such an attitude was unusual at the time when slaves were habitually viewed as less than human and usually not recognized as agents. The general attitude of antiquity seems to have been one of fear and contempt. Slaves were the “other” not quite human and certainly not aware moral agents. Acts of vengeance or rebellion were frequently attributed to the alleged innate qualities of being a slave. Diodorus instead viewed it as rebellion against the basic human decency of the slaves being outraged by arrogant and brutal slave owners.20

From this Diodorus doesn’t just draw a moral concerning the treatment of slaves but a judgement concerning the obligations and behaviour of elites.

Not only in exercise of political power should men of prominence be considerate of those of low estate, but also in private life they should - if they are sensible – treat their slaves gently. For heavy-handed arrogance leads states into civil strife and factionalism among citizens, and in individual households it paves the way for plots of slaves against masters and for terrible uprisings in concert against the whole state. The more power is perverted to cruelty and lawlessness, the more the character of those subject to that power is brutalized to the point of desperation. Anyone whom fortune has set in low estate willingly yields place to his superiors in point of gentility and esteem, but if he is deprived of due consideration, he comes to regard those who harshly lord over him with bitter enmity.21

Thus Diodorus comes to a conclusion that elites should treat their less fortunate neighbours with consideration and at least minimal respect not simply because it is the due and right of those less fortunate but also out of sheer self interest.

In antiquity the attitude of elites, i.e., the rich, to the poor, (which was the great majority of the population), and especially slaves was one of snobbish contempt mixed with not a little fear. Ascribing basic human decency or feeling or moral values to such people was unusual. These attitudes were reflected in the literature produced during those times given how the great majority was produced by and for the elites of the time and so reflected the conceits and snobbery of those elites. Diodorus in his attitude towards the so-called lower orders, especially slaves indicates a belief in their basic human dignity and in their moral value.22

Medieval Portrait of Diodorus

1. Urbainczyk, Theresa, Slave Revolts in Antiquity, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2008, pp. 10-11, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, Bradley, Keith R., Indiana University Press, Indianapolis IN, 1989, pp. 50-55.

2. Diodorus, The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian, v. 2, J. Davis Military Chronicle Office, London, 1814, p. 621-622.

3. Diodorus, Book 34/35, s. 4, quoted in Yavetz, Zvi, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Rome, Transaction Books, Oxford, p. 15. (Book is a collection of source material on the Servile wars in ancient Rome).

4. IBID, s. 26, p. 19.

5. IBID, s. 27-31, pp. 20-21.

6. IBID, s. 32, p. 21.

7. IBID, s. 10, p. 16.

8. IBID, s. 5-11, p. 16.

9. IBID, s. 34.

10. Urbainczyk, pp. 81-90, Sacks, Kenneth S., Diodorus Siculus and the First Century, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1990, pp. 142-154, 157-159.

11. Yavetz, Diodorus, Book 34/35, s. 34-38, pp. 21-22.

12. IBID, s. 38, p.22.

13. IBID, s. 14, p. 17.

14. IBID, s. 15, p. 17

15. IBID, s. 13, p. 17.

16. IBID, s. 39, p. 22.

17. IBID, s 13, 39, pp. 17, 22.

18. IBID, s. 13, p. 17.

19. IBID, s. 40, p. 22.

20. Footnote, 10.

21. Yavetz, Diodorus, Book 24/35, s. 33, p. 21.

22. Footnote 10.

Pierre Cloutier

Claudius’ “Pumpkinification”
Emperor Claudius

One of the most curious pieces of surviving classical Latin literature is The Apocolocyntosis of the Divine Claudius. The author was the stoic philosopher and politician Seneca, (3 BCE – 65 C.E.). It is a viciously satirical treatment and lampoon of the deification of the recently deceased Emperor Claudius (10 B.C.E. – 54 C.E.).1

The term apocolocyntosis, means to turn into a gourd. It means in effect to call some one the equivalent of a cabbage head or vegetable in other words an idiot.2 Robert Graves in his novel Claudius the God, provides a translation of The Apocolocyntosis of the Divine Claudius, but translates the title as The Pumpkinification of Claudius,3 which is certainly is not a exact translation although a very amusing. Of course one has to also note that Pumpkins are in fact a type of gourd.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca, called the younger, was during his life time a philosopher, poet, playwright and politician. He is best known today for his philosophical writings and more specifically his letters on various subjects, although he also wrote plays.4

Seneca

Seneca was a Stoic philosopher and his main influence was on later western philosophy through his philosophical writings. He also had an effect on the development of play writing and theatre and drama through his plays.

Although Seneca in his writings portrayed himself as a Stoic philosopher, basically indifferent to wealth and fame, contemporary attitudes towards him were highly ambivalent. The writer Robert Graves in his novel Claudius the God has his character Claudius says concerning Seneca:

There was a lot more about my wonderful loving-kindness and mercy and a passage putting into my mouth the most extravagant sentiments about the noblest way of bearing the loss of a brother. I was supposed to cite my grandfather Mark Antony's grief for his brother Gaius, my uncle Tiberius's grief for my father, Gaius Caesar's grief for young Lucius, my own grief for my brother Germanicus, and then relate how valiantly we had each in turn borne these calamities. The only effect that this slime and honey had on me was to make me quite satisfied in my mind; that I had not wronged anyone by his banishment except perhaps the island of Corsica.5

The context of the above is a revoltingly suck-up piece of writing that Seneca wrote during his exile in Corsica, (by Claudius), in which Seneca lays on the flattery with a trowel.6

Seneca despite his statements concerning his un-interest in money and power was both ambitious for power and greedy for money. He became both a very wealthy and a very powerful man. He was recalled from exile in c. 48 C.E., and became the tutor of the future Emperor Nero. When Claudius died, was murdered, in 54 C.E., Seneca became one of Nero’s most important advisers and became very rich and was enormously powerful. Seneca eventually fell out of favour with Nero, retired and a few years later was forced to commit suicide after being accused of plotting to kill the Emperor Nero.7

Thus it appears that Seneca was in many ways was indeed what Grave’s character describes as:

-that flashy orator, that shameless flatterer, that dissolute and perverted amorist.8

The term apocoloccyntosis is a mocking pun on the term apotheois which means deification. For after Claudius’ death it was declared that the Emperor Claudius was a god and in fact temples were dedicated to him.9

Seneca probably had a grudge against Claudius for being exiled and further the Emperor Nero seemed to have enjoyed mocking his dead father by adoption Claudius. So that sometime in the 50s C.E., Seneca wrote this piece of satire including it, as per Seneca’s rather servile attitude towards power some flattery of Nero.10

There is some debate over if Seneca wrote this piece of satire but it seems to be settled that he did. The historian Dio Cassius does in fact mention Seneca as the writer of the The Apocolocyntosis of the Divine Claudius, which seems to be conclusive as to authorship.11

The satire is about the now dead Claudius’ attempts to be accepted as a god by the other gods in heaven.

Being Seneca he begins with a piece of servile flattery of Nero:

I wish to give future generations an account of the events in heaven on the thirteenth of October of this new year of grace that inaugurated our present period of prosperity.12

There is then some cutting references to Claudius’ ill health and lameness and some jokes concerning his liberality in granting Roman citizenship. Claudius is also wondering around lost until the god Mercury finds him.

There is then a poem concerning Nero which is quite effusive and revolting in its sucking up. To quote:

As the shining Sun, whenso the ruddy Dawn,
The shades of night dispersed, brings back the day
Looks on the world and starts his chariot off:
So Caesar comes, so Nero appears to Rome,
His bright face fired with gentle radiance,
His neck all beauty under his flowing hair.13

Emperor Nero

Seneca than mocks Claudius’ death:

His last words heard on earth came after he’d let off a louder noise from his easiest channel of communication: ‘Oh my! I think I’ve shit myself’ For all I know, he did. He certainly shat on everything else.14

The Gods then here that Claudius is there and demanding to be heard but that:

He was making some sort of threat, as he kept shaking his head; he was also dragging his right foot. When asked his nationality, he made some answer with a confused noise and in indistinct tones. It was impossible to understand his language: he was neither Greek nor Roman, nor any known race.

…

Claudius flared up at this point and fumed as loudly as he could. No one understood what he was saying. He was, in fact, giving orders for the goddess Fever to be taken away. With his shaky head, which was steady enough only on those occasions, making the familiar gesture with which he had people’s heads cut off, he had ordered her to be decapitated. You’d have thought they were all his freedmen the way no one took any notice of him.15

The god Hercules questions Claudius who responds. There is then a gap in the text before it resumes. Hercules in the missing portion seems to have been convinced to become Claudius’ champion. When the text resumes Claudius is being questioned about his qualifications to become a god.

Their follows a series of speeches about whether or not Claudius should become a god. Just when it seems that Claudius might win the Augustus intervenes, (he is a god having been deified after his death), to condemn the motion. After accusing Claudius of murdering many of Augustus’ descendants, Augustus says:

Do you now want to make this man a god? Look at his body – the gods were angry when it came into the world. In short, let him say three words one after the other and he can drag me off as his slave. Who’s going to worship him as a god? Who’ll believe in him?16

Augustus than asks the heavenly Senate to instead punish Claudius for the wrongs he as done. There follows a list of Claudius’ murders and the recommendation that he be deported. So Claudius is deported.

There follows a digression about Claudius’ funeral and about how Lawyers are in mourning a mock funeral dirge. Part of which goes:

Weep, Weep
For the man’s good judgements.
Who could master
Hearing either
One or neither.

…

Pound, pound
Your breasts
In solemn mourning,
Lawyers for retainers
And all the other gainers!
Weep, weep
Ye new poetic prattlers
And ye tribes of
Lucky dice box rattlers!17

Claudius is sent to Hades, (hell) where is greeted by the spirits of those who he had killed. There follows another listing of Claudius’ victims:

The rumour spread quickly that Claudius had arrived. Up rushed first of all the freedman Polybius, Myron, Arpocras, Ampheus and Pheronactus – all of whom Claudius had dispatched ahead to avoid being anywhere without attendants.18

Claudius is then sent before a tribunal to be tried for his numerous murders and there is then some debate over the appropriate punishment. After some nonsense concerning punishing Claudius by having him toss dice with a box with a hole in it, Gaius Caesar, (the Emperor Caligula), shows up. He claims Claudius as one of his slaves. Claudius is then given to Gaius Caesar who then employees him as a legal secretary.

The piece is very funny and like much satire rather unfair. As per usual Seneca flattered Claudius while was alive but did not hesitate to ridicule him once he was safely dead. Of course what helps to make it even funnier, in a black comic way, is that Seneca who seems to have built his political career on excessive flattery of those in power was eventually forced to kill himself by Nero who he had flattered with oceans of praise.

1. Sullivan, J. P., Introduction, Petronius, The Satyricon, Seneca, The Apocolocyntosis, Penguin Books, London, 1986, pp. 209-218, at 212, Wikipedia Claudius Here.

2. IBID, Sullivan, p. 209.

3. Graves Robert, Claudius the God, Penguin Books, London, 1934, pp. 427-439, and Petronius, The Satyricon, Seneca, The Apocolocyntosis, Penguin Books, London, 1986, pp. 221-223.

4. Sullivan, Wikipedia Seneca the Younger Here.

5. Graves, p. 164.

6. Robert Graves is not inventing this the piece is called The Consolation for Polybius, does indeed exist and does contain some of the most stomach turning suck-up to the then Emperor Claudius imaginable. It can be found at Stoics Home Page Here.

7. Claudius, Seneca the Younger.

8. Graves, p. 402.

9. Claudius.

10. Sullivan.

11. Cassius, Dio, The Roman History, Book 60, s. 35, at LacusCurtius Here.

12. Petronius, The Satyricon, Seneca, The Apocolocyntosis, p. 221.

13. IBID, p. 223.

14. IBID, pp. 223-224.

15. IBID, pp. 224, 225.

16. IBID, p. 228.

17. IBID, p. 230, 231.

18. IBID, pp. 231.

Pierre Cloutier

The Trial of Jesus

Jesus on Trial before Pilate

On this Easter weekend it is perhaps germane to discuss probably the most significant trial in human history, the “trial” of Jesus.

I put trial in quotation marks because I am suspicious that anything that could reasonably be called a trial took place at all. Why I think so will become clear as I get further into this posting. First however we have to mention the four main accounts of the alleged trial or perhaps I should say trials of Jesus.

I am of course referring to the four Gospel accounts of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

Mark:

Ch. 14.

53And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
54And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
55And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
56For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
57And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59But neither so did their witness agree together.
60And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what [is it which] these witness against thee?
61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
65And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.1

Ch. 15.

1And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried [him] away, and delivered [him] to Pilate.
2And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it].
3And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
4And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
5But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
6Now at [that] feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
7And there was [one] named Barabbas, [which lay] bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
8And the multitude crying aloud began to desire [him to do] as he had ever done unto them.
9But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
10For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
11But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do [unto him] whom ye call the King of the Jews?
13And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
15And [so] Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged [him], to be crucified.
16And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.
17And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about
his [head],
18And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
19And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing [their] knees worshipped him.
20And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.2

Matthew:

Ch. 26.

57And they that had laid hold on Jesus led [him] away to Caiaphas the high Priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
58But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
59Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [yet] found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what [is it which] these witness against thee?
63But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
67Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote [him] with the
palms of their hands,
68Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he
that smote thee?3

Ch. 27.

1When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
2And when they had bound him, they led [him] away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.4

…

11And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
12And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
14And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
15Now at [that] feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this
day in a dream because of him.
20But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
22Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but [that] rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [to it].
25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children.
26Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered [him] to be crucified.5

Luke:

Ch. 22.

54Then took they him, and led [him], and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.6

…

63And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote [him].
64And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.
66And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
67Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
68And if I also ask [you], ye will not answer me, nor let [me] go.
69Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
70Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.7

Ch. 23.

1And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
2And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
3And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest [it].
4Then said Pilate to the chief priests and [to] the people, I find no fault in this man.
5And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.
6When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
7And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.
8And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long [season], because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
9Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
10And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
11And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked [him], and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
12And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.
13And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
14Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined [him] before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:
15No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.
16I will therefore chastise him, and release [him].
17(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
18And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this [man], and release unto us Barabbas:
19(Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
20Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
21But they cried, saying, Crucify [him], crucify him.
22And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let [him] go.
23And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
24And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
25And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.8

John:

Ch. 18.

13And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
14Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.9

…

19The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
20Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
21Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
22And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
23Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
24Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.10

…

28Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
29Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
30They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
31Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
32That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests haved delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again
unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault [at all].
39But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
40Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a
robber.11

Ch. 19.

1Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged [him].
2And the soldiers planted a crown of thorns, and put [it] on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
4Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
5Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man!
6When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify [him], crucify [him]. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him.
7The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
8When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
9And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
12And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away.12

A reading of all four accounts one after the other reveals one glaring problem with the gospel accounts. They contradict each other to a fair extent.

Now it is important to remember that the gospels are generally considered to have been written in this order; Mark, (Early to mid 70s C.E.), Matthew, (80s C.E.), Luke, (late 80s-90s C.E.), John, (100-120 C.E.).13 The reason being that this affects how we evaluate each one of the Gospels, given that Jesus died some time between 20 C.E. and 30 C.E. So that the earliest account, Mark, would be c. 40-45 years after the death of Jesus. Not just that but it indicates that there was time for lore and legend to accumulate around the figure of Jesus and this would of course lead to contradictions.

For example Mark, Matthew and Luke have trials involving the Jewish Priestly authorities with Caiaphas and then a trial before Pilate. Luke however adds a “trial” before Herod Antipas, which is not mentioned by the other three Gospels. Further although Mark and Matthew have a “trial’ before the Jewish priestly authorities involving Caiaphas, John as instead Annas questioning him an reports nothing about Caiaphas’ questioning of Jesus.

Those are not minor problems and there are others. In Mark, Matthew and John the “trial” before the Priestly authorities occurs at night, in Luke it occurs during the day. In Mark we hear about “many” witnesses against Jesus who say contradictory things, but in Matthew there are references to two false witnesses. Luke and John do not mention witnesses at all.

Both Mark and Matthew mention accusations that Jesus had threatened the Temple. In both cases Jesus allegedly stated that he would destroy the Temple and in three days build it back up again. This statement also exists in John although it is not part of the trial narrative.14

Luke does not mention this threat at all in either the trial narrative or elsewhere in his Gospel, but he does mention it in Acts, which is supposedly by Luke.15

Now a threat to the Temple was considered a very serious thing indeed because it could be considered a literal threat to damage the Temple, a deliberate incitement to violence. The threat could also be considered a prediction of the end of the world and therefore another incitement to violence. Finally all of the above would all too easily have been taken as part of a Messianic claim, which would be considered an incitement to revolt. Such a Messianic claim would also be considered by the Romans as a threat to their rule in Judea, and / or an incitement to disorder.16

It should remembered that first century C.E., Palestine was a hotbed of religious expectation with Messianic pretenders unpleasantly common. Passover was a time when Jerusalem was packed with pilgrims from all over the Europe and the Middle East and an especially ripe time period for religious hysteria and violence. Not surprisingly the authorities would be on their guard.17

Finally it must be noted that the trial violated several norms of conventional Jewish trials of the time. It was example in some accounts (Mark, Matthew, John) held at night and on the Sabbath, just to name two defects. Other problems include such things as the “council” or Sanhedrin was only allowed to meet in one place and the High Priest's house was not that place, and the Sanhedrin could not initiate arrests, and in fact arrests could not be done at night.18

If Jesus was in fact questioned by the Jewish authorities of the time it appears pretty clear that the so-called trial is dubious. If there was a trial it was illegal. What we have at most is Jesus being questioned and no trial at all.

Supposedly Jesus was convicted of blasphemy. However what Jesus was asked varies from account to account. Mark is quite clear. Caiaphas asks Jesus if he is the Messiah and Jesus says “I am”. Caiaphas in this account then decides no further witnesses are needed and turns Jesus over to Pilate. Behind the claim that Jesus was convicted of uttering blasphemy is the obvious statement that Jesus was claiming to be Messiah during the very tense period of Passover in Jerusalem and this was after the alleged threat to the temple and after the clearing money changers from the Temple incident. Not surprisingly if this was the case Caiaphas would turn Jesus over to Pilate for sentencing.

Matthew fudges Jesus’ answer by having Jesus say to Caiaphas question “Thou hast said”, which can be interpreted as yes or no, although it would usually be considered a no contest to the charge. But it is interesting that Jesus’ “I am” in Mark is fudged by Matthew.

Luke has a whole song and dance with Jesus being asked twice more or less the same question, answering the first time “If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask [you], ye will not answer me, nor let [me] go” . When the question is asked a second time Jesus’ response is “Ye say that I am”. An response that can be interpreted like Matthew but is if anything even more ambiguous and less of an admission of Messianic claims. Here the fudging gets even more extreme.

In John the fudging reaches its climax here Jesus is not asked the question at all but merely asked about his doctrine and Disciples. To that question Jesus’ response is “Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.” Jesus’ answer is to simply not answer the question at all in John, and further the answer is not to the question asked in the first three Gospels.

So we get a progression from Jesus being forthright in answering a question about whether he is the Messiah to greater and greater degrees of ambiguity to an answer that is most definitely not answer at all and the question asked of Jesus about whether or not he is the Messiah vanishes entirely.

The trial in front of Pilate is also apparently a non-event. Not only does it occur on the Sabbath which is dubious in itself. The “trial” in front of Pilate as the following problems. Although it should be noted that it does seem to be the case that the Roman authorities did in fact abrogate to themselves the right to sentence people to death, at least officially so that turning Jesus over to Pilate makes sense.19

In Mark Pilate questions Jesus about his alleged Messiah ship and Jesus answers “Thou sayest it”, which as I indicated above although ambiguous could be considered, quite easily, a yes. When Pilate further questions Jesus; Jesus does not answer. In Matthew Pilate asks the same question and gets the same response. The follow up detailing Jesus’ non response to further questions is more detailed but little different from Mark. In Luke we have the same response to the same question but the stuff about Pilate’s further questions and Jesus’ non-responses disappears. In John we have again Pilate asking the same question and Jesus giving the same response however this time Jesus and Pilate engage in a conversation in which Pilate asks questions and Jesus responds. In fact Pilate asks three questions, after that first one, to which Jesus replies. This directly contradicts Mark and Matthew.

In Mark it is the Chief Priests, who after consulting with the Elders and Scribes accuse Jesus in front of Pilate. In Matthew it is the Chief Priests and Elders who accuse Jesus in front to of Pilate. In Luke it is the multitude after the Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders got together to condemn Jesus and send him to Pilate. In John it is “they” and “the Jews” who accuse Jesus in front of Pilate. The tendency is for their to be a steady expansion of the number of Jesus’ accusers until they encompass a whole ethnic / religious group. Each Gospel makes the groups of accusers a progressively larger going from the earliest Gospel, Mark, to the latest John.

It is at this point that Luke introduces the “trial” in front of Herod Antipas, which none of the other three Gospels even allude too. All of them go straight to the Barabbas story. In Luke’s “trial” in front of Herod Antipas, Jesus is questioned but refuses to answer and is then mocked and sent back to Pilate. This whole event reads like a duplication of the questions and silence in front of Pilate.

Barabbas is in Mark a man accused of insurrection and murder, in Matthew he is called a “notable prisoner”. In Luke he is accused of sedition and murder and in John he is a robber. All four Gospels make reference to a custom of releasing a prisoner on Passover, and that Pilate offered to release Jesus or Barabbas. The differences in describing Barabbas are not very important given that in many respects in the context of the time the descriptions are similar. What is more important is whether or not this custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover is in fact for real. The fact is we do not know. It is highly questionable if Barabbas had in fact been an insurrectionist against Rome that Pilate would have considered releasing him at all. This is assuming that this incident has any basis to begin with. Of course the purpose of the Barabbas story is to show how the Jewish authorities and gradually then the Jewish people preferred a murderer/ robber to Jesus.

Pilate in all four accounts considers Jesus innocent in Mark he says: “What evil has he done?” In Matthew Pilate says the same thing, although more than once, and washes his hands to signify he is not guilty of Jesus’ death, which is omitted by the other three Gospels. In Luke Pilate says to the Chief Priests and the people: “Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined [him] before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:” Pilate to appease the crowd has Jesus whipped, but finding the crowd impossible to appease, after saying the same thing as in Mark and Matthew he gives Jesus to the crowd and Jesus is crucified. In John Pilate says twice “I find no fault in him”. Again like in Luke, although this time with far more graphic descriptions, the crowd is positively baying for Jesus’ blood. In fact Pilate interacts with the crowd like there is a dialogue going on between him and the crowd. Pilate is eventually forced to give in and turns Jesus over to be crucified.

As a side issue only Matthew refers to the story of Pilate’s wife’s dream warning Pilate to have nothing to do with Jesus because Jesus is a just man and therefore innocent. The other three Gospels are silent about this.

Pilate further seems to take the Messianic claim regarding Jesus seriously in two of the Gospels, for example in Mark Pilate refers to Jesus as “King of the Jews”, twice. In Matthew, although Pilate asks Jesus asks if he is “King of the Jews” he does not refer to Jesus as such. In Luke Pilate asks the question as in Matthew, but like Matthew does not refer to Jesus as “King of the Jews”. In John Pilate does refer to Jesus directly as “King of the Jews”, and also says “Behold your King” in reference to Jesus. This is rather suspicious in that if Pilate believed that Jesus was in fact claiming to be the Messiah than executing Jesus as a political criminal / rebel against Rome was what would have been called for in the situation. Pilate thinking Jesus was claiming Messiah ship and releasing Jesus, does not make any sense.

Of course the nonsense in John about the crowd chanting “We have no King but Caesar” is also rather unbelievable unless it was a paid rent a mob. What we know about 1st century Palestine does not indicate that love of Rome was a very popular or common sentiment. Of course this chant is absent from the other three Gospels. But then it goes with the fact that over the four Gospels as we get further from the actual events of Jesus’ death the role of the crowd gets more and more prominent and crowd more blood thirsty. The screams of “Crucify Him!” swell in decibel level. In Matthew we have the crowd shrieking out “Then answered all the people, and said, "His blood [be] on us, and on our children.” This phrase does not exist in the other three Gospels. The torrents of blood that have been shed because of this verse and other phrases in the four Gospels are nothing short of prodigious. John’s continual use of the phrase “the Jews”, which cast the entire Jewish people as enemies of Jesus didn’t help. What also disappears by John is references to the High Priests, Scribes etc., manipulating the crowds, i.e., people.

As the accounts get more recent Pilate becomes more and more unwilling to execute Jesus and further less and less is Jesus execution carried out by Pilate or the Roman authorities. Instead Pilate turns Jesus over to the Jewish authorities or to the “crowd”, “they” “them”. This progresses as the time of writing the Gospel account recedes from the actual death of Jesus. By the time of John’s Gospel Pilate is a complete innocent bearing no responsibility at all and the crowd is murderous mob baying for the blood of Jesus the Messiah. In the Gospel accounts the treatment of Jesus by the High Priests, crowd etc., gets increasingly ferocious and brutal, this at the same time Pilate and by extension the Romans become more blameless.

Of course there are a few problems with the account that render it dubious. For one thing crucifixion is a Roman punishment that was inflicted on slaves and those who offended against Roman rule by acts of rebellion or subversion. Secondly the sign tacked on to the cross Jesus was nailed too refers to Jesus as “King of the Jews”, if this is for real it could only have been in mockery of messianic claims for Jesus. In such a case Pilate would have had no qualms about executing a messianic pretender by crucifixion.20

As for the portrayal of Pilate in the Gospels as some weak willed man pressured, and bullied by others and well meaning; it is rather unlikely. We have for example the historian Josephus who writes:

After this he [Pilate] stirred up further trouble by expending the sacred treasure known as Corban on an aqueduct 50 miles long. This roused the populace to fury, and when Pilate visited Jerusalem they surrounded the tribunal and shouted him down. But he had foreseen this disturbance, and had made his soldiers mix with the mob, wearing civilian clothing over their amour, and with orders not to draw swords but to use clubs on the obstreperous. He now gave the signal from the tribunal and the Jews were cudgeled, so that many died from the blows, and many as they fled were trampled to death by their friends. The fate of those who perished horrified the crowd into silence.21

That is just one of Pilate’s atrocities and it does not give the picture of vacillating man who would give in to pressure. In fact it gives the picture of rather ruthless and unpleasant man. The idea that Pilate could be pressured into doing something he didn’t want to do or that conscience would sway him from doing something dreadful against a innocent man can be quietly dismissed as unlikely.

So if the various Gospel accounts contradict each other to a certain extent what can we say about what happened that fateful night and day?

I think one thing can be dismissed the idea that there was a trial or trials. AS mentioned before proper Jewish trials were NOT at night or during the Sabbath. That and the contradictions in the account that indicate that the Gospel writers had no clear knowledge of what happened would indicate that the following scenario is likely.

Jesus was accused of making a statement that was perceived as a threat to the Temple, which was taken seriously because of the incident with the money changers in the Temple and Messianic claims by or on behalf of Jesus. The fact it was Passover week made things doubly dangerous. So it appears that Jesus was arrested as a trouble maker. Whether by the Temple, (Priestly) authorities on their own or with Pilate’s permission did so is debatable. One thing is sure all the stuff in the Gospels about the Scribes, High Priests etc., acting out of envy can be dismissed as so much speculative mind reading.

Jesus is then questioned by one of the Priestly authorities, whether there are one or many or who it is speculation along with if there were witnesses or how many. Whether Jesus overtly or ambiguously claimed to be the Messiah is again unknown. One thing is probable there was no trial; Jesus was simply questioned.

In fact there is the question of whether Jesus claimed to the Messiah. The fact that Mark continually has Jesus say things that he then tells his disciples to keep secret more especially the claim that Jesus is the Messiah is suspicious. Perhaps Jesus never made such a claim but that others made it for him. Certainly the different answers Jesus gives when questioned are no help in clarifying the matter. The secrecy that Mark claims Jesus told his disciples to keep about his alleged Messianic claim disappears from the other three Gospels. I may explore this issue at another time.22

The thought attributed to Caiaphas in the Gospels, about one man dying for the people makes more sense than the Chief Priests etc., being animated by jealousy and envy, given as it indicates a desire to avoid mass violence. Of course the stuff about Jesus being abused by the Chief Priests etc, can be dismissed as little more than attempts to vilify the Jewish establishment and then all Jews and excuse the Romans. It would appear that only a few people were involved at this stage of events and they probably thought they were acting to prevent disorder and thus justified.

Jesus would then be turned over to Pilate who after a bit of questioning simply ordered Jesus to be put to death probably on the grounds of preventing unrest and quelling disturbances by executing a known trouble maker. The fact that Jesus’ disciples were not arrested would appear to indicate that this was not felt to be a serious affair that would be ended by Jesus being executed.

The Trial before Herod Antipas can be dismissed as an almost certain invention.

Of course once again as in the case of the “trial” before the Jewish authorities, there is no “trial” before Pilate only a few questions and an order that Jesus be executed Roman fashion as a threat to the peace. Certainly the Governor had the authority to do so and given Pilate’s record Pilate was certainly capable of engaging in what amounts to an execution without trial. I doubt it caused Pilate any anxiety or a crisis of conscience.

I doubt that a crowd or mob was involved at all, all that was required was a few private meetings behind closed doors a bit of questioning inside and the whole affair was handled and Jesus sent to his death.

Later, most anxious to curry favour with the Romans and to distance themselves from Jews and Judaism the Gospels progressively has time elapsed from Jesus’ death put more and more responsibility on the Jewish authorities, then “the Jews” and less and less on the Romans including Pilate. All designed to show that the Christians unlike the Jews, who had recently revolted, were no threat to Rome and separate from the Jews.

Also it must be noted that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death is intended to show how prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus and therefore it is designed not to be a description of a historical event but as prophecy fulfilled in the Gospel accounts. Therefore the Gospel accounts are littered with numerous allusions to prophecies real or alleged in the Old Testament designed to show how even in the manner of his death Jesus fulfilled prophecy. The result being was that the account of Jesus’ death was tailored to make it fulfill these prophecies. As history much of the account of Jesus’ death is dubious precisely because it is designed to show how Jesus is prophecy fulfilled.23

The consequences of this shifting of blame was to stoke massively if not cause centuries of Christian anti-semitism, characterized by rivers of blood and hatred.

The canonical “trial” we have today is a mishmash of four different Gospel narratives, which ignores that at a certain level the narratives are incompatible and contradictory. Putting them altogether does not eliminate the problem of contradiction but merely aggravates and heightens it by piling up the problems rather than cutting away them.

There was no “trial” of Jesus just a dark, shadowy procedure and of dubious legality done by men used to welding power capriciously. The effect was totally unforeseen effect. After all a few days later occurred, what ever it really was, the Resurrection event which changed the world.

1. Gospel of Mark, King James Bible Online Here.

2. IBID, Here.

3. Gospel of Matthew, King James Bible Online Here.

4. IBID, Here.

5. IBID.

6. Gospel of Luke, King James Bible Online Here.

7. IBID.

8. IBID, Here.

9. Gospel of John, King James Bible Online Here.

10. IBID.

11. IBID.

12. IBID, Here.

13. Boulton, David, Who on Earth was Jesus?, O Books, Winchester UK, 2008, pp. 49, 64, 67, 72.

14. See Gospel of John, King James Bible Online Here

ch. 2, v. 18-22.

18Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21But he spake of the temple of his body.
22When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

15. The quote is from Acts, ch. 6, v. 12-14:

12And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him] {St. Stephen}, and caught him, and brought [him] to the council,
13And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
(Acts, King James Bible Online Here)

16. Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1985, pp. 61-76.

17. Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1991, pp. 208-224, Who Killed Jesus?, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1995, pp. 82-118. For Messianic pretenders in 1st century C.E., Palestine see Josephus, The Jewish War, Penguin Books, London, 1959, Book 2.

18. Dimot, Max I, Jews, God and History, Signet Books, New York, 1962, p. 62.

19. Finley, M. I., Aspects of Antiquity, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1977, p. 183.

20. Crossan, 1995, pp. 147-159.

21. Josephus, Book 2, p. 131.

22. Boulton, pp. 338-339.

23. Crossan, 1991, pp. 368-394, 1995, pp. 1-12.

Pierre Cloutier

The Fall of the Roman Republic a Note

The Roman Empire 60 B.C.E.

The fall of the Roman Republic and its replacement by the Roman Imperial Empire was one of the most epoch shaking events in history for failure would have meant the end of the Roman state and empire.

As I said in an earlier posting the obvious if not only solution to the serious problems with the Roman Republic governing an empire with a governmental structure geared to running a city state was autocratic one man rule. The problem was the ethos and political sense of the Roman ruling classes basically forbade accepting the rule of one man and hence elevating one man has superior to them all. The very idea of “King” was anathema to the Roman ruling class and utterly unacceptable. The problem was the cooperation of this ruling class was absolutely essential in order for the state to function, but they would also likely bring down or kill anyone who aspired to dictatorial or one man rule.1

In fact it was not just the fact that the Roman ruling class was so opposed to one man rule; it was also in many respects hopelessly corrupt and out of control. In many respects the greed and brutality of the Roman Ruling class was so vicious and so widespread has to endanger the very survival of the state. A classic example was the violence and corruption by which the Roman ruling class opposed the extension of Roman Citizenship to Italians in the period 100-90 B.C.E., including murdering the politician who championed it. The result was the near destruction of the empire at its core. The details of this war are poorly given in our sources but the war seems to have been bloody and very brutal.

What happened was that despairing of getting Roman Citizenship many of the Italian states allied with Rome succeeded from Rome and set up their own state, with their own Senate and capital. When Rome tried to crush the revolt, called the Social War, proved impossible to crush. Which was hardly a surprise given that the Italian allies, who had fought in Rome’s wars also were just as good at war making as full fledged Romans. After c. 1 year of indecisive warfare with all of Etruria about to go over to the rebels, and thus sealing the collapse of Rome as a major power, the Roman Senate finally did the right thing. Citizenship was offered to allies who remained loyal, then to those who quite the rebel cause. The rebellion instead of being crushed simply petered out. However it had been an incredibly close call. This event is amazingly enough not given the status it deserves in the historical records as one of the most important events of ancient times. Because failure to solve this issue would have but an end to the Roman Empire by fatally dividing Italy.2

After that close call, which indicated that the Roman ruling class, as personified by the doings of the Roman Senate was losing its grasp of doing the sensible and expedient and instead acting in crass, narrow minded self interest with potentially fatal consequences, Rome plunged into a series of destructive civil conflicts, pointless intrigues, purges and much gratuitous, pointless violence. During all this the empire continued to expand and so did the venality and corruption of the Roman officials sent to govern the empire. So at the same time the empire expanded it was creaking at the seams ready to fall apart.3

The long history of the various intrigues, machinations etc, which occurred in the period after the Social War, are not germane to the topic of this post except to note that they indicate the steady loss of command of the situation by the traditional governing institutions of the state, most especially the Senate, and those institutions steady loss of political sense. In effect the idea emerged that the state existed so that members of the Roman Ruling class through their command of the state could personally profit from such control over the state. Not surprisingly this attitude was deeply resented by other members of the state who had citizenship rights and felt they also had a right to benefit from the Roman state. Of course all sorts of other groups also through their champions tried to influence the state. The fact that the Roman State, although Oligarchic, had democratic features through its popular assemblies insured that those who felt they were being exploited would have both a voice and champions. The Senate and other supporters of the ruling class position, called Optimates, through its systems of clientele and patronage could deflect and eliminate much of this popular opposition but could never quite defuse it; especially since various members of the ruling class for reasons of self advancement and in the interest of jockeying for power felt it expedient to support the popular cause against the ruling class.

The resulting conflict of the orders was frequently bloody and quite ruthless, with purges, massacres, terror and all round mayhem. All of which further weakened the state. The Republic was dying a long slow and quite contorted death. But in the end the chief characteristic of the decline of the Roman Republic was the almost incredible, but the undeniable loss of political sense in the Roman ruling class and it's seeming hell bent suicidal drive to self destruction.4

The event that more than anything signifies the terminal stupidity and lack of sense of the Roman Ruling class as shown by the Roman Senate is a series of events in 61-59 B.C.E. Basically the Roman Ruling class through its instrument the Senate managed to quite effectively cut its own throat.

Before going into these events I should give an overview of a man who in many ways is an outstanding example of why and how the Roman ruling class self destructed and literally had to be saved against its will. I am of course referring to Cicero, (106-43 B.C.E.).

Cicero also called old chick pea, has a wonderfully inflated reputation as a great mind. Well he certainly had a great, literary, oratorical, philosophical mind, but has a politician he was utterly hopeless. In many respects a legend in his own mind. Cicero was in many respects a totally clueless reactionary intellectual who had little real understanding of what the developments of his own time meant.

Bust of Cicero

What Cicero wanted was a “concord of the Orders”, basically an agreement among the various members of the Roman ruling classes to band together to fight off both popular revolts and measures and one man rule. Part of this ethos was an un-wavering belief in the right of the Senatorial class in alliance with what Cicero called the “New M en” to use the state for their own benefit. This along with Cicero’s almost fanatical belief in private property rights makes him nothing more than a backward looking reactionary.5

…Cicero, in despair and longing, wrote of an ideal commonwealth that had once existed, the Rome of the Scipiones, with the balanced and ordered constitution that excited the admiration of Polybius:…6

Cicero’s view of private property rights was such that he viewed any attempt to deal with the truly horrible problem of indebtedness, that was helping to choke the Roman Republic with significant economic and political problems, that did not uphold the property rights of lenders to the maximum dictated by the law as nothing less than a unwarranted attack on the most fundamental rights of property. The simple fact is that a very large percentage of the debtors could not pay the full amounts owing or that the steadily rising interest amounts were making these debts more impossible to pay. That all this created disastrous class conflict and further tied up enormous amounts of money in unproductive enterprises. Also an enormous amount of the wealth of the lenders was in loans that could not ever be paid to them. Some sort of debt relief was the only possible solution but this Cicero adamantly opposed as an attack on property. The fact that at this rate the lenders would get very little was ignored or that the enraged debtors facing perpetual, never ending debts frequently stopped paying anything at all or contemplated murdering the lenders was simply brushed aside.7

Cicero foolishly also fancied himself a brilliant politician and painted a hugely inflated picture of himself as a gifted politician and sneered, which given his oratorical abilities was quite wounding, at other much more gifted politicians. Cicero, thinking himself gifted at the art of political intrigue, engaged in dubious political intrigues and was with monotonous regularity out manoeuvred by other politicians like Caesar / Crassus or Pompey.8

But then the Roman politician Brutus is supposed to have described Cicero as follows:

…as long as Cicero can get people to give him what he wants, to flatter and praise him, he will put up with servitude.9

In the end Cicero fancying himself a hero in rhetorical speech tried to use Caesar’s heir Octavian (Called later Augustus) against Mark Anthony. Cicero hoped to use Octavian and then discard him. Unfortunately Cicero did not seem to realize that all the speeches he uttered against Mark Anthony meant little in terms of real power. Octavian and Mark Anthony got together and made an agreement and Cicero, considered, rightly, a duplicitous double dealer was proscribed and killed. Right to the end Cicero never understood what was going on or that has a politician he was at best mediocre and likely totally incompetent. What he also was; was totally unaware about how to solve Rome’s serious political and economic problems.10

If the Roman ruling class included among its members, people has intelligent as the very gifted Cicero who unfortunately was an inept politician one can easily guess how blinkered the average member of the governing classes was. The classic example, or perhaps the moment when the Roman ruling class finally lost it and demonstrated to the world its supreme almost sublime idiocy occurred in the years 60-59 B.C.E. it involved the handling of the three most powerful politicians in Rome at the time and how the Roman ruling class through its instrument the Senate completely dropped the ball.

It occurred in the following manner. By the year 60 B.C.E., the three most important Roman politicians were Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. They were each pissed off, one after the other, by an arrogant and frankly brain dead Senate, which seemed to have had a death wish.

Head of Pompey

Pompey, (106-48 B.C.E.) was at the time the most powerful of the three. He had just returned from a spectacularly successful, military and political mission in the east. During which Pompey had quelled various threats to Rome and added much new territory and more importantly added massive new revenues to the Roman state. He had also consolidated Roman authority in the eastern Mediterranean. Pompey had also come back very wealthy. Pompey had also in fact came back with a huge army prompting fears that he intended to establish one man rule. Certainly he could have done so. Instead he disbanded his army upon entering Italy and indicated that he was perfectly willing to work with the Senate. He did however have two requests. The first was that all the decisions he made regarding reorganizing the east be ratified by the Senate. The second was that land be given to his veterans.11 As one of our sources says:

At this time Pompey entered Italy and had Lucius Afranius and Metellus Celer appointed consuls, vainly hoping that through them he could effect whatever he desired. He wished in particular to have some land given to his soldiers and to have all his acts approved; but he failed of these objects at that time. For, in the first place, the optimates, who even before this had not been pleased with him, prevented the questions from being brought to vote.12

Two politicians Lucullus, (who had preceded Pompey in the east) and Cato the Younger helped organize Senate opposition to Pompey:

When Pompey got back, the Senate, wishing to curtail his great reputation, were all the more urgent in encouraging Lucullus to take an active part in politics. By this time Lucullus had abandoned himself to the pleasures of an easy life and to enjoyment of his wealth; most things made little impression on him and he seemed to have lost all zest for action. However, in the case of Pompey he plunged straight into the fray. He made a vigorous and indeed overwhelming attack on him in connection with those administrative arrangements of his own which Pompey had cancelled, and, with the support of Cato, gained a majority for his own views.13

There was also a whole string of lesser slights that added to Pompey’s quite understandable annoyance.

If annoying Pompey to this degree indicates a lack of political sense then the Senate compounded the problem by annoying Caesar.

Head of Caesar

Caesar, (100-44 B.C.E.) by this time was an important politician in Rome were he was the leader of a powerful faction. Caesar had recently completed a tour as Governor of Baetica, (part of Spain), were he had engaged in military operations. Caesar had been awarded Triumph. Now Caesar was also interested in becoming Consul for the following year, however he would lose his Triumph if he entered Rome before hand. So Caesar asked permission to stand for election as Consul by proxy. The Senate led by Cato refused.14

Many of the Senators were willing to consent to it, [Caesar standing for election by proxy] but Cato opposed it, and perceiving them inclined to favour Caesar, spent the whole day in speaking, and so prevented the Senate from coming to any conclusion.15

Then realizing that Caesar would almost certainly become Consul in 59 B.C.E. if not in 60 B.C.E, the Senate decided to slap him in the face. Now generally Consuls after their terms were done were given provinces to govern and what provinces would be given were selected by the Senatee several years in advance. It was decided to give the Consuls for that year the woodlands and cattle drifts of Italy. This was a deliberate insult aimed against Caesar.16

Having thoroughly pissed off Pompey and Caesar, the Senate had to complete the triangle by pissing off Crassus.

Head of Crassus

Crassus, (c. 112-53 B.C.E.) was one of the wealthiest men in Rome, if not the wealthiest, he was also a successful general and after Pompey’s return from the east was filled with envy and dislike of Pompey. Crassus controlled an important political faction which was also antagonistic to Caesar as well.17

Crassus considered himself an advocate of those with business interests and he had taken under his wing a group of tax farmers who had purchased a contract to collect tax revenue in Asia, (tax farming). Those revenues proved to be much less lucrative than expected, in fact they proved to be a net loss. Crassus campaigning on their behalf requested some sort of relief from the purchase price. The Senate again led by Cato rejected the claim. Crassus was now upset.18

Thus the Senate managed to alienate the three most powerful men in Rome. If doing just one of those things was dumb; doing all three at the same time was simply insane. Pompey, Caesar and Crassus disliked and distrusted each other giving the Senate room to manoeuvre, and play them against each other, instead the Senate managed to offend all three. The Senatorial aristocracy had apparently lost all political sense. The result was inevitable.19

It appears that Caesar took the initiative:

He [Caesar] entered the city and immediately adopted a policy which deceived everyone except Cato. This was to effect a reconciliation between Pompey and Crassus, the two most powerful people in Rome. Caesar brought these men together, making them friends instead of enemies, and used their united power for the strengthening of himself. So before anyone was aware of it, he had, by an action which could be called a simple piece of kindness, succeeded in producing what was in effect a revolution. For the cause of the civil wars was not, as most people think, the quarrel between Caesar and Pompey; it was rather their friendship, since in the first place they worked together to destroy the power of the aristocracy and only when this had been accomplished quarrelled amongst themselves.20

And in another source:

Thus the three for these reasons formed their friendship and ratified it with oaths, and then managed public affairs among themselves. Next they gave to each other and received in turn one from another, whatever they set their hearts on and whatever it suited them to do in view of the circumstances.21

Thus was created the First Triumvirate, which was very quickly to turn the Roman state into their tool for increasing their power and the Senate was totally incapable of thwarting Them. This event announced the death throes of the Roman Republic.22

Subsequently Crassus got killed in a hair-brained invasion of the Parthian Empire and Caesar and Pompey fell out afterwards over who would be dominant in the Roman state. A civil war resulted, during which Caesar defeated Pompey and Pompey was murdered to please Caesar. Caesar shortly after was assassinated by an aristocratic plot because so many of his fellow Roman aristocrats could not bear Caesar’s autocratic ways.23

The rest of story need not detail us except to note that Octavian / Augustus eventually came on top and the Roman Republic was suceeded by the Roman Empire which finally put an end to the anachronistic Republic and established an Empire that would last for hundreds of years.24

1. Grant, Michael, History of Rome, Faber and Faber, London, 1978, p. 198.

2. Appian, The Civil Wars, Penguin Books, London, 1996, Book 1, s. 34-54, Grant, pp. 156-158, Florus, Epitome of Roman History, Book 2, s. 6, Lacus Curtius Here.

3. Grant, pp. 127-142, Cowell, F.R., Cicero and the Roman Republic, Penguin Books, London, 1948, pp. 270-279, 356-382, de Ste. Croix, G.E.M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 1981, pp. 350-372.

4. IBID, de Ste. Croix, Grant, pp. 150-152, Cowell, pp. 280-309, Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press, 1939, pp. 10-27.

5. IBID, Cowell, & 219-235, de Ste. Croix, 352-357, 286, Syme, pp. 15, 37, 146, 88, 319-320, Grant, pp. 168-172.

6. Syme, p. 319.

7. de Ste. Croix, Footnote 5, Grant, pp. 193-194, Cowell, pp. 195-196, 293-295.

8. Grant, pp. 168-172, Syme, p. 138, 320-321.

9. Syme quoting Brutus, p. 138.

10. Syme, pp. 140-146, 192, Grant, p. 199.

11. Grant, pp. 172-174, Syme, pp. 28-46, Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, Penguin Books, London, 1958, Pompey, s. 43-44, 48-49.

12. Dio, Cassius, Roman History, Book 37 s. 49, Lactus Curtius, Here.

13. Plutarch, Pompey, s. 46.

14. IBID, Footnote 11, Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, Caesar, s. 13, Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Penguin Books, 1957, Julius Caesar, s. 18-19, Syme, pp. 28-46.

15. Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, The Modern Library, New York, 1955, Cato the Younger, p. 935.

16. Grant, p. 173-174, Suetonius, Julius Caesar, s. 19.

17. Grant, pp. 164-165, 173, Syme, pp. 27-46, Plutarch, The Fall of the Roman Republic, Crassus, s. 1-14, which gives a good outline of Crassus’ career before this crisis and his considerable wealth.

18. Grant, p. 173, Syme, p. 35, Appian, Book 2, s. 13, Dio, Book 38, s. 7.

19. Suetonius, Julius Caesar, s. 18-20, Plutarch, The Fall of the Roman Republic, Pompey, s. 46-47, Caesar, s. 13-14, Crassus, s. 14-15, Dio Book 37, s.55-57.

20. Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, Caesar, s. 13.

21. Dio, Book 37, s. 57.

22. See Grant, pp. 168-174, Syme, pp. 27-46.

23, Grant, pp. 196-198, Syme, pp. 47-58, see also Plutarch’s lives of Crassus, Pompey and Caesar, See also Suetonius’ life of Julius Caesar, and Appian, Book 2, s. 14-119.

24. For a summary of Augustus’ achievement see Grant, pp. 198-221.

Pierre Cloutier