A Byzantine

Misquote

Edward Gibbon

The Byzantine Empire remains one of the great historical mysteries. We can go over it’s long and conflicted history some other time. Generally until recently most historians either ignored it or re-acted to it’s history and culture with distaste and amazement.

Hedonism

And

Melancholy

Omar Khayyam relaxing

In the mid nineteenth century the Englishman Edward Fitzgerald published a translation of selected poems or ruba’i’of the mathematician / poet Omar Khayyam. Subsequently Fitzgerald would go on to publish 4 more editions of selected ruba’i’.1 

To Good to be True
The alleged stopping of Euthanasia in Germany in 1941
Main Administration Building of the Asylum at Hadamar

At the beginning of the movie The Mad Women of Chaillot (1969) there is brief written prologue that goes:

This is story about Good Triumphing over Evil. Of course it is a fantasy.1

In this posting I am examining another fantasy of Good triumphing over Evil. In this case it is an historical fantasy of the triumph of Good over Evil, and like most such fantasies it is not altogether false but is distorted and conceals more than it reveals.

It is also a fantasy that helps people feel good and downplays just how really difficult it is to do good and by neglecting the failure, or more accurately turning failure into success it lies. However it does serve the purpose of helping to hide a shameful series of moral failures and in making people feel good about themselves and how supposedly easy it is to do good in difficult circumstances.

The example I’m giving is the Hitler’s order to stop the Euthanasia campaign in August of 1941 due to a sermon by a Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen of Munster (Hereinafter Galen), (1878-1946). In August 1941 Galen gave his sermon and then arranged copies of his sermon to be widely distributed. The public disquiet was so clear that Hitler then ordered that the Euthanasia campaign be halted shortly after Galen gave his sermon. Thus many lives were saved and a brutal regime was forced to back away from its plans to kill even more. It is a nice appealing story which is however so distorted as to be a lie.2

Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen of Munster

The so-called Euthanasia murder policy had been set in motion in August of 1939 its purpose was to kill, mentally and physically handicapped individuals deemed to be burdens on the state and the most common description of the individuals marked for destruction was “useless eaters”.3 Already the Nazi state had sterilized more than 360,000 individuals and was proceeding to the next step.4

Sometime in early 1939 Hitler gave oral instructions to begin the killing of handicapped children, later in the year sometime in August 1939 and again orally Hitler gave orders to begin the killing of handicapped adults.5

During all this there was a considerable amount of preparation and planning done before the mass killings began, which took time but already some killing was already taking place.6 The killing of children was called Kdf and the murder of adults was called T-4. Those were the names of the programs for the murder of the mentally ill in Germany they do not include the murder of the handicapped in areas outside of Germany.

In fact the first mass killings of the mentally and physically handicapped occurred shortly during and shortly after the invasion of Poland. Beginning on September 22, 1939 and continuing for a few weeks c. 2000 mental patients from various Polish asylums were murdered in a wood near the town of Kocborowo. They were shot by specially trained SS death squads. In a grim forecast of what was to come inmates from a hospital in the town of Owinska were stuffed into a sealed room and killed by carbon monoxide gas. The massacre of mental and handicapped patients continued until more than 12,000 had been killed.7

When August 1939 Hitler gave the go ahead to start the mass murder of the handicapped it took some time for the program to set up. However it started in 1940 and continued well into 1941.

Although they used a variety of methods, like injections, starvation etc., the chief method of murder was gas. People would be sent too frequently by bus or truck to one of 6 different facilities and then after being “processed” they would be murdered by gas, in specially constructed chambers.

Now it is known that operation T-4 had a goal of terminating the lives of c. 70,000 people which was the goal that the Nazi’s, in this case specifically Hitler, selected for the program.8 The program was also centralized in terms of co-ordination and control and most of the killing in 1940-1941 was done in 6 centralized facilities. The program of murder was subject to bureaucratic centralized control and many if not most of the people staffing the program were Nazi fanatics or at least psychopathic in their attitudes towards their victims.9

The killing centers were Grafeneck, Brandenburg, Hartheim, Sonnenstein, Bernburg and Hadamar. The inmates were told by the staff arranging them to be murdered, various stories, like they were going out on an excursion, that they were going to be medically examined and such like to put their minds at ease. At Hadamar the victims, who had been taken to the facility in buses, usually grey painted postal buses, were disembarked in one of a series of wooden garages and taken to the main building via a specially constructed wooden corridor. In the main building they were undressed and given military overcoats and then examined by a Doctor who would help in thus fabricating plausible causes of dearth to give to their loved ones.

The victims were then escorted into the basement / cellar. They were told they were going into a shower and jammed 60 at a time, into a small room and there by the turn of valve they were gassed to death by carbon monoxide gas. The victims took up to an hour to die. Experiencing terror, panic and the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning, such as severe headaches, dizziness, nausea, and shortness of breath. It was not a pleasant death.

Gas Chamber at Hadamar

After fans got rid of what was left of the gas, “disinfectors”, cleaned up and disentangled the bodies. Those who had been marked before hand of potential interest would be autopsied in another room and their brain or other organs of interest sent to various Universities for more research. Gold teeth would of course be removed. The bodies were then burned in crematoria and the ashes randomly distributed into urns to be sent to the family. Bones would be crushed, if they did not fully burn.

People could see the thick cloud of ash from the asylum chimney after each transport to Hadamar and quickly but two and two together. Arrangements were made for families to have Urns with ashes and to deceive them into thinking the ashes came from near were the patient had been in an asylum. Further Doctors had ready a list of 62 possible reasons for death to send to the relatives of the deceased giving the fabricated “reason” for their loved one’s death. They used a carefully designed form letter that had space for a few personal details, to send these lies to the bereaved. Enclosed with this fraudulent letter would be 2 death certificates listing the false cause of death.10

Sometimes it is best to let the facts speak for themselves. I have nothing to add to the above description.

The six killing centers murdered the following numbers of people between 1940-1941.

Grafeneck – 9,839
Brandenburg - 9,772
Hartheim - 18,269
Sonnenstein - 13,720
Bernburg – 8,601
Hadamar - 10,072
Total - 70,273 11

Now the figures listed above are only for German patients murdered in Germany and exclude those murdered abroad; for example those killed in Poland. In this phase of the killing program it is rather sickening to report that c. ½ of the victims were in private or ecclesiastical institutions. It just wasn’t the state institutions that were corrupted by this murderous idea but private institutions including those run by various churches.12

The corrupting ideology behind the Euthanasia murder program was eugenics the idea that lives of certain classes of handicapped individuals were devoid of value and burden on the community at large and so ought to be terminated. The language of Euthanasia was used, but it was not allowing people, legally competent, who suffered from debilitating or terminal diseases to consent to or in fact take those own lives but simple murder. It can be stated without contradiction that “Euthanasia” was used as a smoke screen to hide the fact that it was murder. The fact that those carrying out the murders went to extraordinary efforts to deceive both patients and their families indicates that the killers knew that they were engaged in murder pure and simple.13

Has mentioned above in late August 1941 Hitler gave a stop order for T-4 and this was shortly after Galen gave a sermon and distributed copies of a hard hitting sermon. Not surprisingly many people have assumed a link and in fact they are not wrong, however they are wrong to assume it stopped the killing. The story of Galen’s sermon is as follows.

Galen was made Roman Catholic Bishop of Munster in 1933 and from the get go had a rocky relationship with the Nazis, who he regarded has upstart oafs. He was especially offended by what he saw as Nazi attacks on the church. It appears that Galen had been in receipt of information regarding the Euthanasia program since July 1940, but kept quiet for the time being. It is not completely clear why he kept quiet although it appears that like other members of the Church hierarchy who knew about the program he was concerned that any protest would simply backfire on the church. It appears that he considered going public in August 1940 but was talked out of it by Cardinal Bertram who was concerned about the possible negative effect on the church.

In July 1941 Galen was incensed about the seizure of Jesuit property in Munster by the Gestapo for state purposes decided to act.14 On August 3, 1941 Galen gave his sermon. In it he said:

If you establish and apply the principle that you can kill “unproductive” human beings, then woe betide us all when we become old and frail! If one is allowed to kill unproductive people, then woe betide the invalids who have used up, sacrificed and lost their health and strength in the productive process. If one is allowed forcibly to remove one’s unproductive fellow human beings, then woe betide loyal soldiers who return to the homeland seriously disabled, as cripples, as invalids …Woe to mankind, woe to our German nation, if God’s holy commandment “Thou shalt not kill!”, which God proclaimed on Mount Sinai amidst thunder and lightening, which God our Creator inscribed in the conscience of mankind from the very beginning, is not only broken, but if this transgression is actually tolerated and permitted to go unpunished.15

…

We are not talking here about a machine, a horse, nor a cow …No, we are talking about men and women, our compatriots, our brothers and sisters. Poor unproductive people if you wish, but does this mean that they have lost their right to live?16

The Nazis were infuriated by Galen’s sermon and seriously considered arresting him and sending him to a concentration camp. Galen’s sermon was made illegal and possession of copies of it a crime and several people associated with the production, creation and distribution of the sermon jailed or sent to concentration camps along with people who had it in their possession. Copies were smuggled out of Germany and the allied powers dropped copies of it over German cities. There was even before Galen’s sermon a serious level of unease over the Euthanasia program, despite the effort to conceal and hide it. The Sermon raised the level of public awareness and unease. Creating a problem for the Nazis. Which wasn’t helped by the fact Galen tried to have murder charges levelled against some of those involved.17

Hitler was furious but decided to bide his time. Hitler said:

I am quite sure that a man like the Bishop von Galen knows that after the war I shall extract retribution down to the last farthing. And if he does not succeed in the meanwhile in getting himself transferred to the Collegium Germanicum in Rome, he may rest assured that in the balancing of our accounts no “t” will remain uncrossed, no “i” left undotted.18

Fortunately for Galen Hitler and the Nazis lost the war and were therefore unable to extract vengeance on him.

Aside from infuriating Hitler and creating problems for the Nazis just what effect did Galen’s sermon have on T-4 and the Euthanasia killings? It appears that it played a role in stopping the program, so that Hitler gave a oral stop order in late August 1941, but was not the sole reason and probably not as important as two other reasons. First the T-4 killings had already achieved their goal in terms of the number of killings. Secondly the personal associated with T-4 were needed for the vastly greater killings being planned for in the east, of which the so-called Final Solution, was just a part.19

Also Kdf, the murder of children, was continued on Hitler’s express orders. Also continued was the murder of Concentration camp inmates and prisoners, under the Euthanasia banner called 14f13. Finally only the T-4 program stopped, not the killings. Instead of a centralized bureaucratic system with a few killing centers the program was decentralized and a lot was left to local initiative, strongly urged by the state.20

This is the so-called period of “Wild Euthanasia”, in which the killing was to a large extent decentralized and left to local initiative. The preferred methods of killing was not the mass gassing of the previous period but hunger and / or drug overdoses. Basically patients were frequently starved to death or deliberately given diets that caused severe bodily deterioration so that moderate injections of drugs would kill them.

This included such practices as feeding the patients diets without protein or other essential foods like fats, so that they would die more easily. Sometimes patients were simply, starved to death by not being fed at all. The usual deception and lying was done to conceal how the patient actually died from the bereaved relatives. This campaign continued right until the end of the war.21

An example of how “efficient” “Wild Euthanasia” could be is that between August 1942 and March 1945 4,817 patients were sent to Hadamar of those 4,442 died. A death rate over 90%.22

The records that were kept for the “Wild Euthanasia” killings are not very complete but it appears to have been considerably more than were killed in T-4. The absolute minimum figure seems to be 100,000.23

Aside from those killed above in both the T-4 gassing's and “Wild Euthanasia” there were those killed by starvation and / or medication before the end of T-4 those numbered c. 20,000. To this must be added those killed in KdF at least 5,000 and those killed in 14f13 c. 20,000.24

The above figures total 215,000 people murdered, and this figure is probably too low, and even so they do not include the tens of thousands non-Germans killed in the Euthanasia program in areas conquered by Germany. For example the over 10 thousand killed in Poland in 1939-1940, or the over ten thousand killed in the Soviet Union or the c. 40,000 killed in France. It appears that only c. 40,000 mental patients survived the war in Germany.25

Thus this series of programs, under the Euthanasia euphemism, altogether murdered at least 275,000 human beings and the actual figure is probably over 300,000. Compared to other massacres carried out during World War II by the Nazis this may seem small but remember it is over a ¼ of a million human beings and probably close to 1/3 of a million.

At most c. 95,000 were murdered before the stop order of August 1941 most of the victims were murdered, even in Germany, after the stop order was given. The stop order was not to stop the killings but to stop the mass gassing's of inmates. The killing was ordered to go on by other methods and did so with great, indeed horrible success.

Galen’s very brave public statement although infuriating to the Nazi authorities and very embarrassing did not stop the killing. What it helped to stopped was a particular mode of killing that it must be remembered had already achieved its stated goal when it was stopped and further its practitioners were being prepared for another campaign of murder so that they were willing to for gore for the time being. Also as I’ve said before the killing did not stop at all it went on and on using other methods. Galen’s protest despite postwar myths did not stop the Euthanasia campaign. That particular hopeful myth must be laid to rest. To quote:

Hitler’s stop order of August 1941 did not end the destruction of those considered “unworthy of life.” The belief that his stop order ended the killings is based on postwar myth. The stop order applied only to the killing centers; mass murder of the handicapped continued by other means. Moreover the stop order did not apply to children’s euthanasia, which had never utilized gas chambers. As with children, after the stop order physicians and nurses killed handicapped adults with tablets, injections and starvation. In fact, more victims of Euthanasia perished after the stop order was issued than before.26

Two Victims of the Euthanasia programs

1. I’m relying on my memory since it has been 30+ years since I’ve seen the movie.

2. An excellent example of this myth is A Lost Chance to save the Jews, in The New York Review of Books, April 27, 1989, by Conor Cruise O’Brien at Here. See also O’Brien’s response to a letter critiquing his view of the stop Euthanasia order at Here, dated October 26, 1989.

3. Chorover, Stephan L, From Genesis to Genocide, MIT Press, Cambridge MASS, 1979, quoted on p. 101.

4. Evans, Richard J., The Third Reich at War, Penguin Books, London, 2008, p. 77.

5. Friedlander, Henry, The Origins of Nazi Genocide, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC, 1995, pp. 39-41, 62-64.

6. Burleigh, Michael, Death and Deliverance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 93-129, Friedlander, pp. 62-80, Evans, pp. 77-90, Muller-Hill, Benno, Murderous Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988, pp. 39-45.

7. Evans, pp. 75-77.

8. IBID, pp. 99-100.

9. Burleigh, pp. 93-161, Muller-hill, pp. 39-65.

10, Burleigh, pp. 144-153, Friedlander, pp. 107-110.

11. Friedlander, p. 109.

12. Burleigh, p. 173.

13. IBID, pp. 43-92, 183-219, Friedlander, pp. 23-38, Chorover, pp. 93-104, Muller-Hill, pp. 7-13, Lifton, Robert Jay, The Nazi Doctors, Basic Books Inc., New York, 1986, pp. 22-44.

14. Burleigh, pp. 175-178.

15. IBID, quoting Galen, p. 178.

16. Lifton, quoting Galen, p. 94.

17. Burleigh, pp. 178-180, Evans, pp. 97-101, Lifton, pp. 90-95.

18. Burleigh, quoting Hitler, p. 178.

19. Friedlander, pp. 151-163, Lifton, pp. 135-148, Evans, 100-101, Sereny, Gitta, Into That Darkness, Andre Deutsch, London, 1974, pp. 79-90.

20. Friedlander, pp. 39-61, 131-163, Lifton, pp. 96-102, 134-146, Burleigh, pp. 93-129, 220-266, Evans, pp. 524-530, Muller-Hill, pp. 15, 63-65.

21. IBID.

22. Evans, p. 527.

23. Muller-Hill, p. 65, Friedlander, p. 151, Chorover, p. 101.

24. Lifton, p. 142, Friedlander, pp. 61, 150.

25, Muller-Hill, p. 65, Evans, 528-530, Burleigh, pp. 220-237, Friedlander, pp. 151-163, Chorover, p. 101.

26. Friedlander, p. 151.

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 Pacification

Scales of Justice
One of the most disturbing features of our age is an unreflective nostalgia for the past. Usually it for a past that never existed and those that bemoan the passing away of that past are those that would not ever be caught dead actually living in that past.

One of the most prevalent features of this mindless nostalgia for what never was is the notion that in the past crime was less and we were safer.

This is a myth. Of course if you are talking about say the 1950’s then you would be right the rate of violent crime as in fact gone up considerably since then. However if you go back considerably further you find out something completely different. What you find is interpersonal violence on a truly massive scale.

Thus in Europe c. 1000 C.E. most European societies were characterized by blood feuds and codes of personal vengeance. This was combined with a code of personal honour which made it permissible to punish with violence all sorts of real and alleged violations of personal “honour”.1

Not surprisingly society was characterized by a vast amount of insecurity, instability and interpersonal violence. The lack of over arching institutions tended to create a fragmented society in which groups of individuals were pitted against other groups.

It was in England that we have the clearest picture of the emergence of a powerful set of behavioural and intellectual mores that began to inhibit the use of violence to settle issues of “honour” and real dispute.

A factor in the emergence of these norms was the emergence in pre-Norman times of the idea of the King or Royal government as the fount of the law. In this scenario the idea was that the King was the arbiter of disputes and attempts by private parties to settle disputes outside of this norm were violations of the King’s prerogatives, in effect a form of treason. Of course the spread of the idea of the “King’s Justice” via the system of Shires, local courts, Sheriffs etc., was not because of benevolence but because this provided a potent avenue for the extension of Royal power and just as importantly the extension of the Royal powers of taxation and expropriation. In other words it was good for the Royal treasury. In England the Kings profited by trying homicide cases through fines and confiscation of property.2

Even the rates of violence were by contemporary standards quite astounding. For example in 14th century London the rate was between 36-52 murders per hundred thousand per year. Oxford with its tradition of feuding, brawling and drunken students had a rate of over 100 murders per hundred thousand per year.3

Thus in quarrels with neighbours or drunken brawls some especially if they were male had a good chance of ending up dead, especially in a environment in which all sorts of slights were thought to excuse if not justify violence in response.

What happened was that the gradual process by which the “King’s Justice” was used to curtail violence among the elite, because of its threat to the Kings power and ability to collect revenue gradually percolated through all layers of society. Basically uncontrolled violence was viewed as a threat to both personal safety and the sanctity of property.

It is of interest that in contrast to England this process started much later in most of Europe.4

Now this process could only happen in England because of the emergence of courts and enormous pressure from the Royal administration and bureaucracy to use the courts to settle disputes rather than take personal vengeance or some other violent solution. This was so despite a violent culture that exalted violence as a solution to problems. Despite these problems by 1200 C.E., the government had managed to take one step forward by virtually ending the institutional blood feud. Royal courts were already instituting the practice of legally binding people to keep the peace. Also Royal courts had acquired by then virtually sole jurisdiction to try and punish violent offences or those having violent / severe punishment. Although the nobility might engage in a posture of violence and murderous talk there was already a tendency to use the courts instead and engage in rhetorical violence instead.5

By the 15th century violence was ratcheted to a new lower level. Frankly by then in virtually all of society there was a tendency for friends and neighbours to try to lower the level of violence and to prevent disputes from escalating into a violent resolution. Not simply because violence was considered immoral but because once blood was shed you would get the costly, time consuming intervention of the Royal courts which would hamstring peoples lives for what could seem like an interminable amount of time. The result was the flourishing of an entire culture of postured violence, of rhetoric and bluff all designed to SEEM threatening and violent but really just play acting. This was further redoubled by the ever greater use of the courts to settle disputes. The only acceptable violence was on behalf of God and the authorities all other violence was deemed illegitimate and in effect immoral if not evil.6

By the 17th century in contrast to countries like France were the institutional apparatuses of the State barely penetrated locally, England had a fairly well developed system of governmental authority to impose local order.

In France as indicated above the authorities were not much interested in imposing order unless it interfered with collection of taxes or seemed like incipient rebellion. Flying off the handle and the easy resort to violence to settle disputes were common so was widespread antipathy between different classes. Battles between poachers or gamekeepers occurred. So did extralegal violence to settle disputes. Life was riddled with assaults and homicides.7

In England by then the pacification had proceeded, culture and life was permeated with the idea that while threatening violence was in some cases permissible actually doing it was quite another matter. Instead there were the courts where people were encouraged and frequently coerced to go in order to settle disputes. In fact England by this time had acquired the reputation of being a very litigious society. And even if people did not go to court there was a powerful tendency for people to try to settle matters by informal arbitration before things got out of hand. Cash payments to settle issues was commonplace.

Even more remarkable English criminals had a strong tendency, compared to the continent to NOT accompany their criminal acts with excessive violence. For example beating or killing people you robbed was generally not done and was decidedly less frequent than elsewhere. In effect self policing had become common and people were restraining themselves as part of the effort to impose order.8

In the 18th century the decline continued so that by 1800 C.E., the murder rate was apparently below 2 per hundred thousand.9 The rather horrible list of capital crimes was tempered by procedural rules and juries who were increasingly reluctant to inflict violent punishment. England had for example no routine torture of alleged criminals as part of the process of investigation unlike much of the continent. Despite the truly Draconian penalties in law remarkably few people actually suffered the full legal penalties. According to the best available figures between 1749-1771 only 81 people were convicted of murder in London / Middlesex. Whereas in Rome, ¼ the size of London, in ½ that time period had 4000 murders.10

What the century saw was the emergence of a “Middle Class” ideology that emphasized politeness and civility and frowned upon any sort of violent assertiveness, especially violence. A key part of this was the campaign against duelling which was considered a reversion to barbaric and uncivilized manners and as such to be both opposed and suppressed as murder plain and simple. At the same time English criminals continued their trend of avoiding gratuitous physical violence and were commented on by continental visitors for being “humane” in comparison to continental criminals.11

This was accompanied by the decline and in fact “death” of the concept of personal honour that required the cultivation of status and the punishment of alleged and real slights to ones honour by means of personal action.

In the 19th centuries this developments reached a climax in that the growth of philanthropy, and a culture that frowned quite vigorously on the idea of spur of the moment violence as a solution to problems. Basically more and more people absorbed basic inhibitions to violence that even inhibited spur of the moment behaviour. The idea was that giving into those spur of the moment impulses indicated a failure to control oneself. To commit violence even in the face of provocation was considered a moral failure by the individual who was considered bound to use other non-violent ways of registering his anger or disgust and not just act out. Even criminals had by then absorbed the ethos that violent acting out was unacceptable. The ethos that emerged found displays of violence for entertainment profoundly disturbing and began to ban them even if they involved animals. There was also a climate of respectability and the idea of proper appearance that fostered a lower crime rate.12

The result was by 1900 the English homicide rate was below 1 per hundred thousand.13

Of course all this came at a price in conformity and exploitation but as indicated by reforms of the Victorian period, the continued decline in the homicide rate was not incompatible with significant political and social reforms which however much they diffused economic and political power away from the landed elite did not cause an upsurge in violence.

In most of western Europe they had to wait until the 19th century for the great pacification. In much of eastern Europe until the 20th century. As for 20th century developments there was in England and the in western Europe a rise in the crime rates in the 1960’s and 70’s although contrary to hysteria it was not a rise to unprecedented levels.

The fact is the great pacification worked and is still working at least in England and Europe.

1. Leyton, Elliott, Men of Blood, McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto, 1995, pp. 99-101.

2. IBID, pp. 99-103, Moore, R. I., The Formation of a Persecuting Society, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Pub., London, 2007, pp. 102-104, 123-128.

3. Leyton, p. 102. Leyton gives the homicide rate of 13th century England as 10 to 20 times the current rate, p. 103. This works out to 10-20 murders per hundred thousand.

4. IBID, p. 103.

5. IBID, pp. 103-105.

6. IBID, pp. 105-107.

7. IBID, pp. 107-108.

7. IBID, pp. 107-109.

9. IBID, p. 109.

10. IBID, p. 109.

11. IBID, pp. 107-112.

12. IBID, pp. 112-114.

13. IBID, p. 115.

Pierre Cloutier

Innkeeper

Hittite relief of the Goddess KuBuba

Sometimes history throws you a loop that is tantalizing but also annoying in its brevity and lack of detail such is the story or should I say lack of Story concerning Kug-Bau (alternative spelling Ku-baba), queen of Kish c. 2400 B.C.E. She is the only Queen mentioned in the Sumerian King List and has such she stands out very much in the list.1

Kish was one of the most important city states of ancient Babylonia / Sumer. In fact the first non-legendary dynasty to be listed in the Sumerian King list is in fact the first dynasty of Kish. In fact when a ruler of one of the many city states of Babylonia / Sumer was claiming some sort of domination over all of Babylonia / Sumer he would frequently title himself “King of Kish“ and try to be crowned there. If the Sumerian King List is anything to go by the rulers of Kish were very frequently the most powerful city state in Babylonia / Sumer, through out this time period.2

Map of Ancient Sumer

One of the most consistent aspects about Kingship in the Mesopotamian world is that it was a very masculine activity. Queens could of course weld considerable power but Queen’s regnant seem to have been very rare indeed.

So just how did this even happen? We do not know! However we do have two sources. The first is the Sumerian King List, which exists in c. 17 versions and in very fragmentary condition,3 which says:

Then Mari was {defeated} {(ms. TL has instead:) destroyed} and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Kug-Bau, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kiš, became king; she ruled for 100 years. 1 king; she ruled for 100 years. Then Kiš was {defeated} {(ms. TL has instead:) destroyed} and the kingship was taken to Akšak.

…

{Then Akšak was defeated} {(ms. S has instead:) Then the reign of Akšak was abolished} and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Puzur-Suen, the son of Kug-Bau, became king; he ruled for 25 years.4

Another translation of the above passages is:

Then Mari was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Ku-Baba, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kiš, became king; she ruled for 100 years. One queen ruled for 100 years.

…
Then Akšak was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Puzur-Sin, son of Ku-Baba, became king; he ruled for 25 years.5

First is must be mentioned that the Sumerian King List is a very problematic document. Only a few of the Kings mentioned in the list have yielded contemporary documents indicating that they existed and some of them like Dumuzi a fertility god seem to be clearly mythological.6

Then it must be realized that the Kings listed are in a chronological order. The first author of the King list who was copied by his successors seems to have assumed that each dynasties in the list ruled over the whole land of Sumer and Akkad. This is almost certainly wrong. It appears that the dynasties recorded were in many respects contemporary with each other. The phrasing that such and such a city was defeated / destroyed and Kingship carried off seems to be nothing more than a stock phrase meaning very little in real terms.7

We have for example in the Sumerian King List itself the following absurdity. We have listed as the son and successor of Puzur-Sin a man named Ur-Zababa, followed by 5 more kings reigning a total of 66 years. Following that Kingship is taken to Uruk whose King reigns for 25 years before Sargon the great takes Kingship to Akkade. Thus a total of 91 years separates Ur-Zababa from the Kingship of Sargon the Great who reigned, supposedly for 56 years.8 The problem is that Sargon the great is describe in the Sumerian King List as “the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa”!9 Also stories describe Ur-Zababa and Sargon as contemporaries.10

Finally the length’s given to the reigns of the Kings in the list are frequently absurd. For example 28,800 years, 1,200 years, and 900 years, and Kug-Bau is given a reign of 100 years and her grandson Ur-Zababa a reign of 400 years.11 Despite the above the Sumerian King List is considered to be fairly accurate as a list of Kings in various city states and their order.12

The first rendition of the Sumerian King List may have been during the reign of Narum-Sin, grandson of Sargon the Great and subsequently rewritten and added to until the end of the dynasty of Isin in the 18th century C.E.13

The other document is the so called Chronicle of the Esaglia (also called the Weidler Chronicle). It purports to list lessons learned by Kings in the past and especially warn of dire consequences for ignoring the cult of Marduk. It dates sometime after 1100 B.C.E.14

The passage goes follows:

38' In the reign of Puzur-Nirah, king of Akšak, the freshwater fishermen of Esagila
39' were catching fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk;
40' the officers of the king took away the fish.
41' The fisherman was fishing when 7 (or 8) days had passed [...]
42' in the house of Kubaba,[3] the tavern-keeper [...] they brought to Esagila.
42a' At that time BROKEN[4] anew for Esagila [...]
43' Kubaba gave bread to the fisherman and gave water, she made him offer the fish to Esagila.
44' Marduk, the king, the prince of the Apsû,[5] favored her and said: "Let it be so!"
45' He entrusted to Kubaba, the tavern-keeper, sovereignty over the whole world.15

Another translation of the same passage goes as follows:

During the reign of King Puzur-Nirah of Aksak, fishermen from the Esaglia caught fish on the banks of […] they caught fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk, but the king’s officers seized them. The fishermen […] Seven days having gone by, the fishermen (again) caught fish, […it] into the home of Ku-Baba, the innkeeper, […] for the large beer vat. They carried […] to the Esaglia as an offering. At this time its foun,dation. (?) BREAK, newly, for the Esaglia, […] Ku-Baba offered bread to the fishermen and offered wine to them, (but) she hurried to [deliver] the fish to the Esaglia. Marduk, the king, the ,son. Of the prince of Apsu, looked benevolently upon her and she said “Let it be so!” Ku-Baba was entrusted with the whole kingship over all the lands.16

Not is this passage late it is obviously a propaganda piece designed to help discourage Kings and that agents from taking goods and merchandise from the Temple of Marduk by claiming that those who do will be punished and those who give the temple what it is entitled to will prosper.

That being the case it does seem to be an interesting indication that even more than 1000 years after Kug-Bau’s reign she was still remembered, with a reputation for piety, and those legends about her were positive.

So what do those the above, very laconic, documents tell us about Kug-Bau? They tell us that she started out in what we call a fairly “middle class” situation. Occupations were usually hereditary among the peoples of ancient Babylonia / Sumer so her parents were probably also Innkeepers also. Since women could own and run businesses in ancient Babylonia / Sumer and Inn keeping seems to have been one of the ones with a fair number of female practitioners.17

This was certainly not the sort of occupation that would lead to becoming ruler; usually. So just what did Kug-Bau do that got her to power? The answer is we do not know. The Esaglia Chronicle would appear to indicate that perhaps Kug-Bau was helped to power in alliance with the local Priesthood, although it would not have been the Priesthood of Marduk but possibly the Priesthood of the Sumerian supreme God An / Anu, or perhaps Enlil.18

Now we know from the Sumerian King list that Kug-Bau was the founder of a dynasty, in this case the third dynasty of Kish. This would seem to indicate that Kug-Bau took power after some sort of calamity or coup seemed to necessitate the replacement of the ruling dynasty. Perhaps some sort of defeat in war? The very fact that Kug-Bau was able to take, hold on to power and establish a dynasty would seem to indicate a very high level of political skill on her part. Certainly given that in ancient Babylonia and Sumer Kingship was regarded as almost entirely outside of a women’s role; we can be assured that Kug-Bau was quite a politician.

The statement Kug-Bau, “who made firm the foundations of Kiš (Kish)”, would appear to indicate that Kug-Bau re-established Kish’s power and greatly strengthened the state, and perhaps also greatly extended Kish’s power and influence throughout Babylonia / Sumer.

The closing section is a bit bizarre. Kish is said to have been defeated and Kingship taken to Aksak for 93 years and then Kingship is restored to Kish and in the hands of Puzur-Sin the son of Kug-Bau who reigned for 25 years. Obviously that is false. Further Kug-Bau is supposed to have reigned after carrying off Kingship from Mari yet according to the Esaglia Chronicle Puzur-Nirah who according to the Sumerian King List was the third King of the dynasty of Aksak that succeeded Kug-Bau!19

It seems to be obvious that the break that the author of the Sumerian King List introduces is an error. Although rather amazingly some people call the list of names staring with Kug-Bau’s son Puzur-Sin as the fourth dynasty of Kish. This is almost certainly a mistake and what as in fact happened is that the author has broken the third dynasty of Kish into two parts.20

So it appears that in fact Kug-Bau’s reign ended simply with her death and the passing of the throne to her son.

Kug-Bau had a curious sort of afterlife, aside from showing up in legends, in that she seems to have become assimilated with a goddess Kubaba / Kububa known later on in Greco-Roman times as Cybebe or Kybebe, a Mother Earth Goddess. As Kubaba this cult spread throughout Mesopotamia, Palestine and Asia Minor; later on under the name Cybebe, / Kybebe this cult spread throughout the Roman Empire.21

It is more likely that Kug-Bau was named after a Goddess than that she inspired the cult by being deified; still it is likely that she had some influence on the cult and was to a degree assimilated to the Goddess. It is also possible that this is another example of a mythological figure, in this case a Goddess, getting into the Sumerian King List. This is rather doubtful given the circumstantial detail of her being an Innkeeper and the rather earthy statement she built up the power of Kish. It appears that Kug-Bau was indeed a real person.22

Certainly there is massive room for speculation and perhaps a few historical novels to put some flesh on the very bare bones facts we have about Kug-Bau.

Did Kug-Bau when she was Queen of Kish sometimes wistfully recall those times when she was a Innkeeper serving her customers another tall cold one? We will likely never know. But the story of the Innkeeper who became a Queen and founded a dynasty will continue to fascinate.

Map of Kish

1. Roux, Ancient Iraq, 3rd Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1992, After p. 498, in the Chronological table the fifth page, Bertman, Stephen, Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, p. 91.

2. Bertman, p. 24, . Saggs, H. W. F., The Greatness that was Babylonia, Mentor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 60-61, Roux, pp. 138-139.

3. Glasser, Jean-Jacques, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2004, pp. 117-118.

4. From The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL), Sumerian King List, (SKL) Here, Glasser, pp. 118-127, includes translation and transliteration of original Sumerian.

5. From Livius, Sumerian King List, (SKL) Here.

6. Saggs, pp. 55-56, Bertman, p. 50, Khurt, Amelie, The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 B.C., v. 1, Routledge, New York, 1995, pp. 29-31, Roux, pp. 107-108, 123-125.

7. IBID, Roux, pp. 138-145.

8. ETSCL, SKL, Livius, SKL, Glasser, p. 123.

9. IBID, Glasser.

10. IBID, p. 267. See also story Sargon and Ur-Zababa, ETSCL Here.

11. IBID, pp. 121-123, see also Livius, SKL, and ETSCL, SKL.

12. Roux, pp. 123-124.

13.Glasser, p. 118.

14. IBID, pp. 263-264.

15. Livius, The Weilder Chronicle, (WC) Here.

16. Glasser, p. 267.

17. Hawkes, Jacquetta, The First Great Civilizations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973, pp. 104, 114-115.

18. For more about those Gods see Bertman, pp. 116, 118.

19. Glasser, pp. 123, 267, Livius, SKL, WC.

20. For an example of this see Wikipedia, Sumerian King List Here.

21. Wikipedia, Kubaba Here.

22. See Footnotes 6 & 7.

Pierre Cloutier