The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His ExistenceRemsburg, John E. (John Eleazer)
Religion
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence
Remsburg, John E. (John Eleazer)
Jesus Christ -- Historicity; Jesus Christ -- Rationalistic interpretations; Rationalism
When every step thus far taken by the council had been illegal, why
should it have been so particular in regard to the witnesses? The
fact is the Evangelists were ignorant of Jewish laws. They believed
that while the prosecution of Jesus was unjust it was yet conducted
according to the established rules of Jewish courts. Referring to
Mark, Dr. Wise says: "In his ignorance of Jewish law, he imagined the
trial which he described was lawful among the Jews. He proves this,
in the first place, by the very statement that witnesses were sought
and produced. A court convoked and acting in rebellion to law and
custom can be considered only a band of rebels. What use have such men
of witnesses? Being lawless from the beginning, no legal restraint
makes the presence of witnesses necessary.... He certainly thought
of an honest, lawful trial, in the legal form; an honest and legal
examination of witnesses, a fair consideration of the testimony,
and after mature reflection the rejection thereof on account of
insufficiency" (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 69, 70).
302
What did the so-called false witnesses that appeared against him
testify that he had said?
"I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days"
(Matthew xxvi, 61).
"I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three
days I will build another made without hands" (Mark xiv, 58).
303
What had Jesus said?
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (John
ii, 19).
Passing over the discrepancies of Matthew and Mark, if they have given
the substance of these witnesses' testimony, then they were not false,
but truthful witnesses; for Jesus, it is seen, had given utterance to
such a declaration. If he referred to the temple of his body, as John
affirms, and the Jews misunderstood him, the fault was his, not theirs.
Josephus gives an account of a so-called prophet who, a few years
later, boasted of his supernatural powers in much the same manner
that Jesus is said to have done:
"There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that
said that he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common
people to go along to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay
over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said
further, that he would show them from hence, how, at his command, the
walls of Jerusalem would fall down" (Antiquities, Book xx, chap. viii,
sec. 6).
304
Was he questioned by the Sanhedrim?
Synoptics: He was. They tried to convict him by his own testimony
(Matt. xxvi, 62-64; Mark xiv, 60-63; Luke xxii, 66-71).
A Jewish court did not question a prisoner. A prisoner could not even
plead guilty.
305
To the priest's question, "Art thou the Christ?" what answer did
he give?
Mark: "Jesus said, I am" (xiv, 61, 62).
Luke: "He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe"
(xxii, 67).
306
When did his trial before the Sanhedrim take place?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account