Globusz^® Publishing 

The Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are two separate beings, with very different stories. It is difficult enough to reconstruct the first, and in the attempt we are likely to do damage to the second. It is the Christian belief that this one man out of many men in history literally save the world. It is for this reason that the Western World divides history into BC and AD. Millions of people throughout the world believe that Jesus is the Savior. He was the incarnation of God, coming down into a Virgin womb, and being born in a stable in Bethlehem to save the world from its sins. Revealing his identity to a small band of followers, he taught the human race how to live. But the teachings alone could not save men and women from the consequences of their sins. They could not be saved unless the price of sin was paid; and the price was the supreme sacrifice which Jesus made when he died on the cross. Three days later, to show his triumph over sin and death, he rose from the dead, revealing himself to his disciples, before ascending into heaven where he sits at the right hand of God. At the end of the world he will come again to pass judgment on the human race. This is the Christian faith. For those who are not Christians, it must seem puzzling that such beliefs could be entertained about a historical figure.

There are all kind of questions which are worth asking; and the Christians Church has certainly been asking them during the last two centuries. I have been asking them myself since late adolescents. I am aware that my religion claims to be rooted in history and that certain stories are verifiable due to the dates attached to them, while others are questionable, like his crucifixion and resurrection, which is part of the topic of this paper. Throughout the years, I heard these historical claims retold time and time again. While attending a Catholic school, I absorbed these stories because they were powerful in themselves that they took hold of my imagination, and not because I had historical analysis them. I continued to believe that they were stories with a real historical setting and believe in what was preached. Not until later that I began to question my religious beliefs, for I saw what man was capable of doing to each other. While in the military, I found a book called the "Passover Plot" written in 1965 by the late Hugh Schonfield, believed that Jesus was a preacher and healer, well-educated in the Scriptures, who thought it was his calling to fulfill Old Testament prophecies as the coming Messiah. It opened up a new world which I have been interested ever since.

The Gospels of the New Testament are written in a way not common to other forms of literature. Their construction had a specific purpose which was to convey an evangelical message and were not intended to relate to history. In large, they can only be regarded as enthusiastic religious propaganda. The reason for writing this paper is to show that there is nothing divine about Jesus the Man, only historical and for us to ask the question, "How much of the Bible can be trusted?".

But the task of this paper is to investigate and try to fill in the gaps about Jesus' Passion Week which is covered in mystery. For the Bible leaves a lot to be desired. The Gospels report Jesus' sayings and actions in a language that was not his own (he taught in Aramaic, the gospels are in Greek), and each piece of information was placed into a certain setting devised by the early Church, who arranged, removed, created, and revised certain information that might put Jesus or the Church's ideology in a bad light. Even if we knew that we have his own words, we would still have to fear that he was quoted out of context (1). Also in recent years some Biblical and Dead Sea scholars claim that many of these manuscripts were written in a form of coded representation that used traditional words and passages to which were attributed special meanings relevant to contemporary understanding. These meanings were understood by those who knew the codes or could read between the lines (2). These coded scripts were used to hide from the Romans, Jewish political propaganda.

The sequence of events during Passion Week cannot be determined with assurance, for it would be gratifying if exact information was obtainable. But we are not prevented from catching on to important things which documents communicate when read with historical insight. We can never hope to reconstruct Jesus' motives during his lifetime, but we can make some intelligent guesses about what was going on. Most of the material on Jesus is found in the four Gospels, the Old Testaments, some non-Christian material and the Gnostic books called the Nag Hammadi Library which were discovered in December 1945.

Jerusalem is a hill top town in Judaea, some seventy miles south of Nazareth. In Jesus' time it was the capital of a separate province, Judaea. As well as being the cultic center of Jewish faith, it housed a Roman garrison, and a Galilean, coming there for the first time would have been amazed by the rich architecture, the abundance of people and the heavy presence of Roman soldiers. But the one thing that awe struck most Jews was the Temple. We have a strong sense what it looked like because of the extensive description of it by Josephus' in 'The Jewish War, who was in Palestine at the time of its destruction. It is to this temple that Jesus, in common with all other practicing Jews, must regularly come throughout their life. It is against this setting that we must try to see Jesus and his disciples as they completed their fateful journey to Jerusalem, and to the Temple, that would culminate in Jesus' death.

Before the stage is set for an confusing drama, Jesus had evidently been for some time the focus of public attention to attract the authorities. It is conceivable that they feared an uprising during Passover. Even if Jesus was or was not involved in a paramilitary plot we have enough information that says that he had a number of friends that were Zealots and Sicarii, who were assassins, which Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot belonged (3). Whether or not Jesus knew what would happen to him, he in some way foresaw his death, possibly due to a 'tip-off' or in a way wished for it through his actions, so to demonstrate the power of the Most High to inaugurate the Messianic Age. Perhaps that by now he had come to see himself as a 'king', a man who could unify Israel through political, or religious means and inaugurate a new kingdom. Such proclamations would certainly have caused civil unrest against the Romans, who would then turn around and exact reprisals. It was necessary for the Jewish priestly aristocracy to isolate Jesus, and put a stop to the trouble-making, before it went any further (4).

Jesus had now to prepare for the most difficulty and dangerous part of his mission, which demanded careful organization and timing. He could not look to his disciples to assist him for they were from small towns in Galilee, for they were not familiar with the sophisticated atmosphere of Jerusalem. What Jesus had left to do was be formally anointed and to appear before the people as their rightful Messiah, but for his plan to work, he needed his dependable friends in Judea.

We find that all narratives agree with Jesus and his followers going to Jerusalem, probably towards the end of March in the year 30 CE to celebrate the Feast of the Passover, which lasts one day, and Unleavened Bread, which lasts the next seven days. At this point each gospel has a slightly different story about the events of the Passover, but nevertheless, it reads as a mystery story where the explanations for the most important clues have been withheld. It seems Jesus knew something, which his followers did not. Mark presents Jesus as a Galilean stranger to the Jewish capital for the first time, but yet on two later occasions--- the entry into the city and the Last Supper---we find that Jesus has already prearranged matters. It seems that Jesus had some connections in Jerusalem. The Fourth Gospel tells that Jesus at the outset of his ministry, he had gone to Jerusalem before to celebrate Jewish festivals. The Fourth Gospel which follow these festivals closely, has Jesus coming and going between Galilee and Jerusalem; and his conflicts with Jews, the Pharisees and later the Sadducces had reached fever pitch, months before the final confrontation. Moreover, to emphasis the idea that Jesus came to overthrow Judaism and replace it with a new dispensation, the Fourth Gospel places the incident where Jesus over turned the money changers' tables at the beginning of the story, while the other gospels place it towards the end. The other gospels claim that Jesus only took one trip to Jerusalem. This analysis shows that the Gospel do not relate to each other.

Jesus and his disciples arrived from Galilee on the Sunday a week before Passover. Jesus stayed at the village of Bethany, about three miles from the city itself. There he stayed as the guest of Martha, Mary, and Larzarus. This family for some reason was special to Jesus. Over the last twenty years, scholars have made a whole industry of out of speculations on this theme, as Australia's Barbara Thiering's 'Jesus the Man'. But, the truth is that there is not enough evidence to really know what was his connection to this family of siblings. During his stay at Bethany, Jesus instructed a few followers to go to the far end of the village, and there they would find an ass's colt, and fetch it for him to prepare for his journey into Jerusalem. If anyone tried to stop them they should say, "The Lord hath need of him." The disciples follow his instruction, and the donkey is released by its owner. It is the only occasion that we read in the Bible of Jesus riding rather than walking. According to Matthew, the writers doubled the number of animals involved. Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem !Behold thy king cometh to thee; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding upon an ass, on a colt, the foal of an ass. He will proclaim peace for all nations. His empire will stretch from sea to sea (5). The words employ typical Hebrew parallelism--- 'riding upon an ass, the foal of an ass'. Matthew, is intent that Jesus should fulfill the prophecies to the letter, imagines that there are two donkeys; introducing the second beast to provide it with a function. Jesus rides on an ass, and they put their garments on the foal (6).

The point that can not be missed, is that the King was coming to Zion. He was not coming to establish a powerful kingdom, as would have been the case if he had come riding on a charger, but a kingdom of meekness and peace. As Mark tells the story, its clear that Jesus and Larzarus had made an arrangement with the donkey owner, leaving the disciples in the dark. The link with the passage of Zechariah would suggest that the Messianic kingship of Jesus was about to be revealed. This suggests that some kind of plot was afoot. Even thought there has been a number of ingenious suggestions to what this plot might have been, the truth is that we do not possess enough evidence for more than intelligent guesswork. We do not know how much of the gospel bears any relation to historical reality.

Another question that has arisen during his stay in Bethany is the meaning of his anointing. The Bible says that Jesus was anointed by Mary of Bethany with spikenard(7), while he was at Lazarus' house, further investigation reveals another similar incident in Luke 7:37-38 that occurred sometime earlier when a unnamed women anoints his feet, wiping them afterwards with her hair. In John 11:1-2 this same incident the woman is identified as Mary. John 12:3 then explains how the ritual of anointing Jesus' feet was performed again by the same woman. Two hypothesis about Christ's (from the Greek word Christos meaning the Anointed One) anointing have come up in the last twenty years. The first theory, is about its symbolic meaning to which there is a connection with the rising of Lazarus from the dead, which in a way was an act of rebellion and not a dead man being raised from the dead. The rising of Lazarus showed the Pharisees that Jesus was trying to usurp their religious authority. For, they where the ones who regulated social boundaries, determined cultural norms, defined religious authority, and decided political power. This symbolic action was to make all the lower class Jews to say with intensity that Jesus brought life out of death and would not have been thinking of the heavenly future but the earthly present. Life out of death is how they would have understood the Kingdom of God, in which they began to take back control over their own lives, hopes, and destines (8). With this action done, according to Mark 14: 8 'She hath done what she could : she hath anointed my body a forehand for the burying.' symbolizing that Jesus and Mary had foreshadowed his death and to show he was a marked man for he thought that one of his own would sell him out, or, sooner or later the authorities would get him.

The second theory is that Jesus probably arranged it with Mary, who, according to the Fourth Gospel, was the one who brought the flask of costly oil to anoint Jesus. While in the presence of his disciples she performed the act with out declaring his purpose, thus fulfilling the prophecy of his own death, by saying 'Mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.'(9). It seem that Jesus was suspicious about one of his twelve, for the Fourth Gospel claims that Jesus knew who would betray him (10). So, he may have built a strong suspicion that it might be Judas. We are informed that Judas was the band's treasurer, and was accused of embezzling the small funds. If this is true, it was apparently unknown to the twelve, or they would have done something about it. Perhaps Jesus was aware of Judas's crime and character. So to induce the traitor to act Mary performed the act as he said these words. He would have used words whether or not the question of the poor came up; it seems that the value of the perfume was intended to play on Judas weakness (11).

Another theory has to do with his martial status. According to Laurence Gardner an internationally known genealogist claims that the Gospels contain a number of specific pointers to his married status. The rules of dynastic wedlock were no ordinary affair unlike the Jewish martial norm. For example, three months after a betrothal ceremony, a 'First Marriage', with anointing was formalized to begin the espousal in September. Physical relations were then allowed, but only in the first half of December. This was to ensure that birth occurred in the Atonement month of September. Explicitly defined parameters dictated a celibate lifestyle except for the procreation of children at regulated intervals. If the bride did not conceive, sexual relations were suspended until next December. Once the probationary wife conceived a 'Second Marriage' with anointing was performed to legalize the marriage. The purpose of this delay was to allow for the possibility of a miscarriage, so if a women should proven barren the dynastic husband had the right to a legal change of a wife (11).

To performance of this ancient rite with spikenard was the express privilege of a bride, and was performed solely at the First and Second Marriage ceremonies. Only as the full wife of Jesus could she have anointed both his head and feet. So, during the Second Marriage ceremony at Simon Zealot's house, Judas declares his dissatisfaction at the way things were going. He stated his opposition thus paving the way for his betrayal of Jesus (12). Following the failed revolt by the Zealots against Pilate, Judas became a fugitive. Jesus had no political influence and so he was little use to him. Judas decided to throw in his lot with Jonathan Annas (13), who was a member of the Sanhedrin and who could also negotiate an amnesty with Pontius Pilate.

According to this theory, Judas actually had no interest in seeing the anointing ceremony only to see some kind of political gain on Jesus' part (14). So, the anointing had nothing to do with Judas betraying Jesus, it seems then the writers of the Gospels removed certain parts of Jesus' life (15). This theory has come about due to the discovery of the Gnostic writing as the Gospel of Philip and Thomas, and original sections of the Synoptic Gospels that have been discovered since 1958, when a manuscript of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was discovered in a monastery at Mar Saba, east of Jerusalem by Professor Morton Smith (16). No matter what anointing theory is correct or if they all come together in one way, shape, or form, we will probably never know the whole truth.

Jesus on the following Sunday, which is know as Palm Sunday, rode into Jerusalem in style; coats and palm branches were scattered in his path, and as he went along there was an amount of cheering, 'Hosanna to the Son of David'(17). It is said that this frenetic activity was mainly that of his followers(18). If Mark's account bears any relation to the truth, it seems that the 'crowd' was prepared for his entry. What made Jesus stand out was his riding on a donkey and the chant, for during these festival times the pious were suppose to walk into the holy city, and the strewing of the palms fronds was intended to remind the people of the triumphant entry into Jerusalem of Simon Maccabaeus, the deliverer of Palestine from the yoke of Syrian oppression in 142 BC (19). But Jesus' face was not well known in the city; compared to his homeland in Galilee. For Matthew 21:10 states: 'And when he came into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?', so nothing of consequence happened. According to Mark 11:11, Jesus entered the city, went to the Temple, looked around the city and at eventide returned to Bethany.

So if Jesus entered Jerusalem, a question arises, 'To whom was this gesture aimed at? Was it the occupying Romans, as might be expected if Jesus was a rebel leader? Or was it the Sadducean aristocracy, with all their materialism, lucrative concessions and their only concern with the outward forms of religion? There can be no greater conformation that was the latter than the account of Jesus' famous cleansing of the Temple, the most violent physical act reported in the Bible by Jesus. Reportedly he knocked over the money changers' tables, whipped at the traders, and released the animals intended for sacrifice, loudly declaiming "Take all this out of here and stop turning my Father's house into a market." (20). And "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up." (21). Now this was the man who, with John the Baptist, had told the populace that repentance was what was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, not the paying of a Sadducean priest to sacrifice a innocent animal. If this had not been challenge enough to the Sadducean monopoly, actions of turning over the money - changers tables had made his feelings crystal clear: to Jesus paying for God's forgiveness was every bit a defilement and abomination towards God, as when Antiochus Epiphanes' erection of a statue of Zeus had been two centuries before (22). In other words, Jesus in bring to birth a new way of approaching God in which the ritual observance of the Jewish faith will be replaced by the free worship of the heart. In John 2:21 (foot noted under 21) we can only imagine that Jesus was referring to the temple of the body. So much for the symbolism of the Gospels which some of the early traditions which it draws upon, had gone through a final redaction after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and after the separation of early Christianity from Judaism.

Once this occurred there is every reason to believe that the Sadducean aristocracy received word of this high-handiness, that the next time Jesus showed his face at the Temple he was confronted by them. According to Mark 11: 30 states:' …..the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders came to him demanding "What authority have you for acting like this?" , prompting Jesus' response: "John baptism, did it come from heaven, or from man?". Jesus' answering a question with a question was a response to challenge his questioners authority. If they had been prepared to acknowledge that John the Baptist had been the mouthpiece of God, then Jesus, as his successor, could have claimed the same, and thereby authority over matters concerning the Temple. We are told that those who had put their question to Jesus mumbled that they did not know, but sensed that this was a trap and recognized that they were dealing with a man who threatened their grip on the affairs of the Temple, and the comfortable living that went with it. There can be no doubt that from this point on Jesus was a marked man. Because of the popular support he had attracted in Galilee, he represented a danger to the ruling Sadducean and Herodian aristocracy that, as John 11:52 conveys, they 'determined to kill him.' With this decision taken, their course was now to find the best means to effect this with the least opposition and the least or no blame to fall on themselves (23).

Another Temple incident during the week occurred as they were leaving the the Temple, looking at the huge stones of Herod's architectural extravagance, Jesus says, "Seest thou great these buildings? There shall not be left here one stone upon another, shall not be thrown down." (24). The questions arises whether he predicted its overthrow; and would this in it self have been enough to make the religious authorities seek for Jesus destruction.

The Gospels in their final form are the product of Christian communities. They came from religious groups separated from Judaism, with little or no actual information of what the Temple was like. They wrote with the knowledge that the Temple had been destroyed; and saw in this the, from a Christian point of view, that Judaism in its visible form was finished, and the New Israel, was the Christian Church. In the end this writing is only a symbolic gesture on the part of the Church (25).

All in all, the visit to Jerusalem was an unfortunate non-event, even when he performed his miracle, people did not believe in him (26). Jesus did not receive the acclaim he expected, and he probably realized his days were numbered. His plan to create an idyllic Judaea free from the Roman shackles had failed. The scribes and priests sought how they would put him to death (27). It had fail because his dream of a unified people, both Gentile and Jews, was not shared by his sectarian countrymen. Particular, the Pharisees, Saddudcees, and other similar groups did not want to wave any banner of unification. They want to retain their individual customs, laws, and beliefs—and the Romans, for the most part, did not interfere.

Also at the same time, as mention before about the theories of Jesus anointing, a serious rift occurred within the group. There have been a number of explanations for why he should have wanted to betray Jesus. They range from the Gospel explanation –he was bribed by the high priests—to notions of being disillusioned with Jesus for political reasons, to political intrigue. The whole story is swathed in mystery, for if Judas was expecting Jesus to lead a armed rebellion against Rome, and finally realized that no such rebellion was planned, he would hardly have gained anything from handing Jesus over to the authorities. The likeliest and simplest explanation for what was afoot was the authorities had got wind of some planned uprising, just before the Feast of the Passover. Judas had been discovered by the authorities, rather than betray the true secret of the uprising, decided to betray Jesus. Or, perhaps, Jesus' talk of the coming kingdom, his apocalyptic prophecies, his 'triumphal entry', and overturning the money- changers tables, had made the authorities fear and assume that he was the ring- leader of this uprising. So, Jesus became Judas scapegoat to take attention away from the actual ring-leader of the uprising. Or, even simpler he realized that Jesus was a marked man because of his actions and decided to get out when he still could, while also making a profit. These are only educated guess for the Bible says nothing of Judas' ambitions at all.

One of today's popular theories according to some Dead Sea Scroll and Biblical scholars, it seems that political intrigue was involved for Simon the Zealot had been at odds with Jonathan Annas about a plan for open warfare against Rome, and their political rivalry came to a head. There was also disagreement between Jonathan and Jesus whether baptized male Gentiles converts should be circumcised. Trapped in the middle of all this was Judas who was determined to side with whoever looked to be the most politically valuable. Judas, who was a wanted man by the Romans, decided to side with Annas, for he had influence in the Sanhedrin, in hope that he would arrange an amnesty with Pontius Pilate. As for the question over Gentile converts into Judaism Judas opposed Jesus. At the same time Simon was in a weak position: he face criminal charges along with Thaddeus (28) for leading a Zealot revolt. If it could be proved that Jesus supported the war faction, there might be a possibility that Jesus would be charged. So, for Judas to clear his name he had to hand over some wanted Zealot leader to save himself from being executed (29). In my eyes these theories are interconnected in some way.

Soon after the debacle that was the so-called 'triumphal entry' into Jerusalem, it was time for the celebration of the Passover. Hordes of pilgrims joined the city's residents for the ritual of the Paschal Lamb, in accordance with Exodus 12: 3-11. The Feast of the Unleavened Bread was now near, and Jesus, with his disciples, along with 200,000 to 400,000 pilgrims crammed into the city. This pilgrimage festival is one of the three that all male Jews were suppose to attend each year. Although the Bible requires only males to attend, men brought their families (30). The Paschal Lamb had to be eaten in the confines of the holy city. Bethany, the village were Jesus was staying, laid outside the catchment area. Any Jew who was caught eating the Paschal Lamb outside the scared city would be punished by the religion police with a beating of 40 strokes (31). Thus, the pilgrim, plus the extra soldiers to keep the peace, surged into the city for their meal. In spite of the cold weather at that time of year many pilgrim had to eat their meal outside for there were no more vacancy (32).

The Gospels tell us that it was on the first day of Unleavened Bread Jesus' disciples asked where they were going to eat their Passover meal. Since they had made no arrangements, they were perhaps expecting that they would have to eat their meal out doors. Jesus told them to go into the city, where they would see a man carrying a pitcher of water. They were to follow him, and when he turned into a house, they were to ask, "The Master saith where is my guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready." (33). Two questions have a raised that asks who was that man carrying the pitcher? And how could the fugitive Zealots afford to move openly in Jerusalem? There have been a few explanation which sound absurd, the truth of the matter, for the first question is we shall probably ever know who this man was. Unexplained figures, like the man who gave the donkey to Jesus for his entry into the city, slip in and out of the narrative without introduction or explanation. The only thing that can be said is that this man was one of Jesus' Judean connection. We are also not told who provided the money for this large upper room, though Judas was the treasurer, it was he who perhaps was behind the arrangements (34). The answer to the another question is that it was in this room that the friends of Jesus made their way on that cold dark evening. So, who could see or notice any enemies of the state coming or going into the city who, by the way, would mingle with the pilgrims and be covered up to protect themselves from the cold.

It is easy to imagine the noise and smell as the scared barbecue was being cooked for a 200,000 or more people. Where every meal was the same, as decreed by the book of Exodus (35). With this picture in mind, the fourteen ( Jesus & the Twelve and the unnamed Beloved Disciple[36]), reclined (37) at the table for the paschal meal. Jesus then delivered to his Disciples a apocalyptic address, drawing his imagery from the Book of Daniel, to describe the Coming of the Lord (38). It is conceivable that he believed that the Day of the Lord would happen at this very Passover. We are told that during his last week he came in contact with people and friends, who were Zealots, Pharisees, and members of the Sanhedrin such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. It would seem he emphasized this Passover with great significance, as though the Messianic Age was at hand. Then as a symbolic enactment of how he wished his followers should regard others, he then removed his outer garment, draped himself with a towel, and like a slave, began to wash the feet of followers. But his companions did not understand the gesture, for there was some protest. By this time, he must have had heard of a plan to arrest him, when he announced that one of them would betray him, they were astounded, and unaware of what he meant.

When the meal began he recited to his Disciples the account of the Exodus from Egypt (39), the significance of this, was Egypt read as Rome. Before I move on there are a few points one should look into. Notice that there are no women at this supper. He must have thought that this evening might end in violence, and did not wish the women to be present. It is also at this point, that the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics differ in what Jesus said and how he said it. According to the Gospels, Jesus delivered a long discourse to his guests, culminating into a long prayer to the Father and the 'Church' might be one. These chapters contain passages, especially John 14-17, seem to be of literary creation. They bear no resemblance to the way he spoke in other parts of the Gospels. They are concerned with the Church, and with collective views of the Christians which seem unlike the individualist Jesus, who confronted Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman in single encounters and said that the way to the Father was through individual rebirth, and not by Church membership. These chapters which speak of Christians being driven out of synagogues because of their views and kinship with the Father through Jesus, bear the hallmarks of being interpolated. Its hard to believe that any discourse of the sort fell from Jesus lips during the supper (40).

The Book of John compared to the others, further complicates the construction of the meal. I am regarding the Last Supper, we cannot tell what has been altered or omitted to make room for the long discourse created for Jesus by the author (mention above and about the breaking of the bread), for there is no reference to the ceremony of the bread and wine, which he used to speak of sacrifice. It seem that the author has the last supper as a preparatory meal to the Passover Supper (Last Supper) for Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover meal. To support this, he seems to have telescoped the synoptic tradition, so as to combine the Wednesday evening supper in Bethany with the Passover supper on Thursday evening in Jerusalem. The scene of the Wednesday supper is shifted from Bethany to Jerusalem, so that it becomes the Last Supper, while the main features of the Wednesday event are pushed back by introducing an account of an earlier supper at Bethany six days before the Passover. At this supper Mary anoints the feet of Jesus with ointment and Judas protests the waste and leaves to bargain with the chief priests. When the author fuses the Wednesday meal with the Last Supper he cannot use the same incident again, and so substitutes for it an action of Jesus himself in washing the feet of his disciples (41).

On the other hand, there seems to be some symbolism, it could be that the material was arranged in an order to make a theological point. His Jesus is the true Paschal Lamb, who dies a day earlier than the other Synoptic Jesus. This is to show believers that he is the true lamb of God by being lifted up on the cross at the very hour when the Paschal Lamb is being sacrificed (42). So another question arises, On what day was he crucified? Scholar seem to prefer Friday, 15th Nisan or April 8, instead of Friday the 14th , for the other Gospels coincide with each other while the Fourth Gospel is symbolic. Since the Passover meal falls on the 15th of Nisan of the Jewish calendar (according to the Gospel, Jesus was crucified on that day before the Sabbath) the Last Supper was on a Thursday, the Passover Preparation Day. This means then that the Last Supper was not the Passover meal. So it might be possible to fix the date of Jesus' crucifixion by finding on which years between 27 and 36 AD (Pontius Pilate's term of office), the 15th fell on. Or, another possibility is that Mark, as the first of the synoptic writers, simply got his facts wrong, and that the authors of Luke and Matthew, because they copied from Mark made the same mistake, John thereby provided the only true date. But the only honest verdict is we simply do not know the exact year he was crucified.

Lastly, the question of the Eucharist comes to mind. One explanation for John's silence on the subject of the Eucharist could be that he did not wish the ritual to fall into the wrong hands. Keeping the ritual secret, just like the Templars or the Freemason conceal their rituals from the rest of the world (43). We know that the early Christians met in secret to break bread and bless wine, it is assumed that they did this every week, because this ritual has been a continuous repetition until the present day. The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas (44) and the Q Gospel (45) do not exhibit any awareness of a Last Supper tradition, but the (46) 9-10 is significant. It describes a communal and ritual eating together, from the second half of the first century, with no hint of the Passover meal, Last Supper, or the passion symbolism built into its origins and development. What Jesus created and left behind was the tradition of open commensality, and after his 'death', certain Christian groups created the Last Supper and the Eucharist as a ritual that combined that commensality from his life with a commemoration of his death (47). Why the Gospel of John (The Fourth Gospel) does not attribute Jesus with having given communion to his disciples is because he did not do any such thing at the Last Supper, and that he ate a meal with his friends, some scholars believe.

Another theory that has been written about lately, is that Jesus was part of an Essenes sect. According to Josephus, they did not observe the traditional Jewish festivals, therefore did not uphold the ritual of the Paschal Lamb at the Passover. As evidenced by one of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Qumran in the late 1940s and 1950s. One of the scrolls known as the Community Rule, the famous Last Supper corresponds, in fact, to the Messianic Banquet or the 'Lord's Supper'. That it occurred at the same time as the Passover celebration was coincidental, for the Messianic Banquet had a different significance.

The primary host of the banquet were the High Priest and Messiah of Israel. The people of the community were represented by appointed officers who together formed the Council of Delegate Apostles. The Rule lays down the correct order of precedence for the seating, and details the rituals to be observed at the meal (48). It concludes: And when they gathered for the Community table….and mix the wine for drinking let no man stretch forth his hand on the first of the bread or the wine before the Priest, for it is he who will bless the first fruits of the bread and wine ….And afterwards, the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hands upon the bread, and afterwards all the congregation of the Community will give the blessing, each according to his rank. (49).

Whatever ritual we are dealing with, supporting the synoptic view that this was the Passover meal we are told that there was wine on the table, indicating a celebration, (for according to the ritual requirements of the day, everyone at the Passover meal had to drink four cups of wine, even if it was from the poor dish), by way of introducing the meal, Jesus reportedly used words close to those of the Jewish Kiddush or Blessing, traditional said by the head of the family before the Sabbath or on the eve of a festival (50). So much for what he said and did, Jesus introduced a quite chilling new element onto this rite, which was the bread and wine became flesh and blood that was about to be sacrificed. While the Kiddush acknowledged God as the Creator of bread and wine, ignoring the additional human hands that contribute to these products, Jesus recognized the additional human contribution, the same also applied to his own body which was now, like the bread and wine, about to be sacrificed. The imaginative and emotional power of this rite, is the symbolic bases of Catholic Church's rite of Holy Communion. It is hard to say what came first the cult or the story.

Towards the end of the meal, Jesus sent Judas out or Judas left the room, (another Bible discrepancy) but the gospels agree that, all his friends assumed he was going to give alms to the poor, it was conventional to give alms to the poor at Passover enabling them to drink their ritual four cups. Again, the betrayal theories have surfaced but none can be proved. The Disciples did not know, and still less do we, why Jesus sent Judas out of the supper early. Any number of things could have happened to Judas between the time he left the Upper Room, and his arrival at Gethsemane. He could have been sent by Jesus to the Zealots, or who ever where planning the uprising, asking them to come to Gethsemane and listen to reason one last time. Another possibility, is that some of Jesus belligerent followers had heard and believed that the Day of Judgment was staged to take place that evening, and decided to they would help it along by having an armed uprising against Rome. Jesus could then have asked Judas to go to the religious authorities and take them into his confidence about the planned uprising. The chief priests probably panicked and insisted that Judas take them, with their troops, to Gethsemane to bring him in for questioning. Or, Jesus could have sent word to his other followers—the Zealots -that they should consider an uprising in the city that night. Judas could have been intercepted and forced to come to Gethsemane to identify the leader. For the historian, there can be nothing but frustrated and rather fruitless guesswork. In the end, he revealed to the authorities the whereabouts of Jesus' post-supper rendezvous.

After Jesus broke the last bread and drank the fourth cup of the evening, and sang a hymn, he embraced and parted his Beloved Disciple and led his disciples towards the Garden of Gethsemane on the lower slope of the Mount of Olives, oddly, in Luke's Jesus this was his first trip, so how could Jesus have known were he was going, it seems to me he knew his way around Jerusalem very well, another discrepancy in the Bible says that it was his favorite place. At this time Jesus tells Peter that he would deny him three times before the cock crows and for his disciple to disperse and fend for themselves for they would be treat as rebels.

The Garden of Gethsemane was the spot where he often went to pray or speak with his disciples when he stayed in Bethany, as the Bible states. But tonight he felt the need of the solace of human companionship. He therefore took Peter, James and John with him when he went aside from the others. Mark says he was restless and depressed, and confessed to them, 'I am in low spirits.' For the Christian believers, the Agony in the Garden is one of the solemn moments in the Passion. It is the point were Jesus in his human nature wishes that the cup of suffering could pass from him, but in his divine state he is the only one on his death who can deliver the world from sin. Jesus is never more representative of humanity than when he prays to the Father to have the cup of suffering taken from him. These three disciples were called on to see his suffering, for they had supposedly seen his transfiguration on the mountainside (51).

Compared to Jesus who had a reputation as a toper (52), they fell asleep, for they were slightly drunk because of the ritual four cups of wine and were full from the meal they ate. So in reality they fail to witness the confrontation between Jesus and the Heavenly Father. Since the Disciples were asleep, Jesus, in his state, would not have been able to write the account of his suffering. It is reported in Luke 22:44, " in his anguish…his sweat fell to the ground like great drops of blood." Considering the interesting information many medical specialist interested in the death of Jesus point out that the 'Bloody sweat' strongly suggests a rare medical condition called heamatidrosis, in which the subcutaneous blood vessels rupture into the exocrine sweat glands. This condition is triggered by extreme emotional stress (53). The question I ask is, 'if the disciples were asleep who saw his suffering then?'. The answer is no one, for the prayer in agony was a literary creation by the writers of the Bible, that outstrips the Homer and Shakespeare, for the reader or listener gets caught up in the agony.

What happens in the next twelve hours will baffle us for as long as we continue to read the Bible. Few incidents in the history of mankind have been more dramatized, rehearsed, ritualized, meditated upon, and mythologized as the final hours of his life that it becomes cultic, but vivid. Gethsemane found Jesus in agony of anticipation waiting for some great event. Hardly able to keep awake, Peter, through the olive trees, saw torches and heard clanking of swords and armor. Jesus then appeared to wake them up for the third time ( an idiom of some kind for three time he prayed, three time he returned to wake them and there were three disciples.), hardly had Jesus finished speaking Judas arrived with the constable of the court, some Roman soldiers accompanied by the Sanhedrin police and servants of the chief priest who were all under the authority of the Sanhedrin as stated in the Gospel of John. Judas had given instruction to secure the man he would embrace with a kiss (the greatest archetype of human betrayal is encapsulated in the words: "Judas bertrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss" [54]) and the arrest was made with speed (55). What happened next was a scuffle. Although it was generally prohibited to bears during Passover time, it was (and still is) permitted to act in self-defense during the festival. So by tradition, during the confusion and the dazed state of the disciples Peter drew his sword, for they only had one, and struck the ear of the high priest's officer called Mulchus. But otherwise there was no other resistance. With Jesus taken the three scattered and fled, probably no attempt was made to pursue them for the had the so-called ringleader in their hands, so they had no use for small fries. If Jesus had been expecting that the heavens would open up, and the Day of the Lord was about to dawn, he must have been hideously disappointed.

Before I move on with this investigate, the high priest's servant comes into question for the Fourth Gospel is the only one to mention this man's name? Some scholars believe that he was an Arab, because from Josephus and other inscription the Malchus or Malichus was in common use among Arabs and Syrians. While others like Dr. Aileen Guilding believe that author of the Fourth Gospel added or made himself believe this could have been the man's name, and demonstrates how he might have reached this belief. He did not do so by asking those present at the arrest nor by searching for it. This author wished to establish that Christianity is the New Israel, a replacement for the Old Israel and the old religion of Judaism (56). He does so by arranging the stories about Jesus in patterns that reflect and echo reading assigned in the Synagogue Lectionaries for various feast of the Jewish year. As in his washing of the disciples' feet, Jesus echoes Synagogue Lections for Passover from the book of Numbers 8:1. So, the Malchus (meaning the king in Hebrew[ Malko]) comes from the reading for the Feast of Dedication which speaks of God as the Shepherd-King (57). It comes from one of the remaining manuscripts which survive in Syriac (58). John's Greek Malchos was a mere transcription of this Semitic form.

The whole story is a literary paradox, since their technique is the reverse of 'realistic', and it was largely built up by a system of Midrash of commentary upon Old Testament stories. Jesus, at this point of the story is understood by references to Joseph, betrayed by his brothers, and sold into hands of slavery Judas/ Judah by his brother. I wonder, if Joseph in Genesis had been sold into slavery by Reuben, whether the Gospels would not have supplied Jesus with a treacherous friend called Reuben also (59). In the end it seems that the Fourth and the other three Gospels started with the old Scriptures and made up parts to fit the prophecies of Zechariah.

Mark alone has a postscript of a young man clad only in a linen cloth, who followed behind when Jesus was led away. They seized him; but he struggled free, leaving the cloth in their hands, escaping naked. Like the man with the pitcher he drifts in, whom the author doesn't quite know what to do with him. This same man will be mentioned again at the resurrection. It is hard to know what Mark makes of him. Some scholars, such as Prof. Morton Smith in his book, Jesus the Magician, thinks that the young man has assembled for a naked initiation rite in the garden. Others like the late Hugh Schonfield think that this man was the Beloved Disciple, who probably had received word that the Council had sent troops to arrest Jesus and tried to warn him, but he was to late. So he began to follow, was seized, and only got by leaving his garment in the hands of the guards. He ran back to the city, dressed, and made at once for the house of Annas where Jesus was being interrogated. While some others like Dr. Barbara Thiering, believe this to be Simon the Zealot. For the man to flee naked would have been symbolic of Simon having been unfrocked from his pervious high ecclesiastical rank, while being described as a young man relegates him to his demoted status of Community novice ( 60). What ever reason this man was there, we are never going to know what was he doing there.

Jesus' trial was hardly a trial at all, for if Jesus had committed a serious offense against religious laws there would have been a long and elaborate trial. It would have been too much of an important matter to rush through in the middle of the night. The trial before the Sanhedrin ignore this simple point of Jewish legal procedures. In John there is no trial. Jesus is interrogated, slapped in the face for his impertinence, and handed over to Pilate. The whole scenario, in the Gospels are full of these ambiguities. According to three of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was initially arrested, brought to Caiaphas the high priest's house, was arraigned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin on the night of the Passover, then they brought him to Pilate and beseeched the Procurator to execute him. While Luke's Gospel indicates that although Jesus was taken to Caiaphas house first, the Sanhedrin did not meet until it was day. Historically this makes no sense at all. By Judaic law the Sanhedrin was forbidden to meet at night, in private house, or anywhere outside the precinct of the Temple and to meet during Passover (61).

In the Gospel the Sanhedrin is apparently unauthorized to pass a death sentence, this is the reason why they brought Jesus before Pilate. However, the Sanhedrin was authorized to pass a death sentence by stoning for crimes against the religious laws. If the Sanhedrin had wished to depose of Jesus, it could have arraigned him for blasphemy and sentenced him to death by stoning (62). There would have been no need to bother Pilate at all. It appears that the Sanhedrin was trying to pass the blame on the Romans. On the other hand, according to Josephus, Jewish rulers who mediated between the Romans were held responsible for outbreaks of civil disturbances (63). If Jesus was in fact going to start a rebellion, Pilate would certainly have come to the chief priests and asked them why their police had not acted upon it, arrested the ring-leader and handed him over to the proper authorities. This is probably why the Sanhedrin gave Jesus to Pilate. The demonstration in the temple and Judas' possible betrayal was enough to arrest him. So the crime was probably a capital offense against Rome or the authorities decided he had committed a capital offense. Therefore, the means of execution for crimes against the state were by crucifixion. Due to the lack of information, one will probably never know what crime Jesus committed or if he was a scapegoat for something bigger, a rebel leader, or claiming to be the Messiah or a king.

Here the authors of the Gospel tries to transfer the guilt and responsibility from Rome. One such act is Pilate turns over Jesus to Herod the Galilean tetrarch, because he discovers that Jesus is from Galilee (which could be true). The other is of Pilate's readiness to set free a prisoner of the crowds own choosing. According to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark this was a custom of the Passover festival. Historians agree that no such policy ever existed on part of the Romans, and that the offer to liberate either Jesus or Barabbas, who was a political terrorist and not a bandit (64), is sheer fiction, including his reluctance to condemn Jesus, and his submission to the mob. The Bible depicts Pilate as a decent and tolerate man, reluctant to crucify Jesus. In reality he was ruthless (65). The purpose of such fictionalization is to exonerate the Romans, and transfer the blame to the Jews, thereby making Jesus acceptable to a Roman audience. This shows that all the Gospels invented certain parts of the trial scene, so, there is very little that can be treated historically.

The reason that the Jewish people were blamed for the death of Jesus has been an anti-Semitic fraud perpetrated by the Church. The only hard fact we possess is that Jesus was condemned and crucified by the Romans. The early Christians Church fearful of persecution from the Romans, did their best to obscure the truth of who crucified Jesus. Therefore blaming the Jews by inventing the idea he was condemned for blasphemy, and plotting to destroy the Temple. If one reads between the lines it seems that the Jewish nation heard him gladly, and that the Council acted secretly to get rid of him, because they feared a popular demonstration by the Jews in Jesus' favor instead of theirs and that the Romans would come down hard on them, if an uprising occurred, so they had to make an example of him. The reason Pilate did not make an effort to arrest his followers was because he regarded Jesus, due to the charges given to him, as a would be king without an army and a religious fanatic, for if he thought he was a rebel leader Pilate would have no compunction about rounding up his followers and crucifying them all. While this is indisputable, the truth is we do not know what he was planning.

Of the details of this crucifixion, all the Gospels relate that Jesus was beaten, whipped, and crowned with a crown of thorns, apparently weakened by this treatment he and two other, who might have been close to him, as some scholars suggest (66), were taken outside the city walls, nailed to crosses and left to die. Only a few followers watched. Jesus supposedly died before nightfall.

What ever the trespasses for which Jesus was crucified his apparent death on the cross is fraught with inconsistencies. The Roman practice of crucifixion adhered to precise procedures (67). The incidents in the Gospels that stand out that might prove that Jesus did not die on the cross, is that after a night of torture, he talked to the court in a very clever way, obviously in full possession of his mental powers. As far as torture is concerned, Jesus was not treated any differently from others. On carrying the cross, he was relieved of the burden of carrying the cross-beam of the Cross, by Simon of Cyrene, for a good part of the stretch to the site of execution. They also report that Jesus was nailed to the cross at the sixth hour(noon) and gave up the spirit at the ninth hour(about 3 p.m.). This unexpected rapid death surprised Pilate and asked the centurion in charge if everything was in order (68). Many studies have been carried out to try to explain his rapid death. Which is possible due to his maltreatment which undermined his condition and the torture of the crucifixion, fatigue, pain, and the stress. For even today, despite the laws of physiology, a man will sometimes die from a single innocuous blow. But this hypothesis just does not fit into the coming scenario. It seems suspicious and convenient that he was given a sponge soaked in vinegar, then, supposedly died right before the soldiers began breaking legs. By doing so, it permits him to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy to a carefully contrived plan (69).

According to popular tradition the crucifixion was a large scale public affair, and yet the Gospels say that most people witnessed it from afar. It seems that this crucifixion was a private one, leaving room for a mock crucifixion. Such charade would have necessitated some connivance on part of Pontius Pilate or someone influential. Granted Pilate was a cruel man he was also corrupt. The historical Pilate, as opposed to the one depicted in the Bible, would not of had spared Jesus' life, but for a bribe and a guarantee of no further political or religious agitation, a deal could have been worked out, for he grants Joseph of Arimathea Jesus' body. According to Roman law at the time, a crucified man was denied all burial. The bodies were left on the cross, at the mercy of the elements and carrion birds, also guards were posted to prevent friend or family member to remove the bodies (70). Yet Pilate grants Jesus' body to Joseph of Arimathea. This clearly attest to Pilate's part of some kind of deal made between the two. This also show that this man was a secret disciple of Jesus who was a wealth and powerful man in Judea.

Crucifixion was both execution and punishment, death by torturous ordeal extended over a number of days. Firstly, the victims outstretched arms were either strapped or nailed at the wrists to a beam, which was then hoisted up and placed horizontally across a upright beam. Suspended with all his weight solely from the wrists, a man's lungs would compress, and within six hours he would be dead from asphyxiation. To prolong his agony, a small wooden cross piece was fixed horizontally to the vertical post, for the delinquent to prop himself up as long as his strength held out. This would relieve some of the chest pressure, so a person could live for a week or more, if he did not die from hunger, thirst, or from the elements. So, if all three had been crucified without the small cross beam they would have died within hours before nightfall, for which the Sabbath began. If they were crucified with the added support they would have lived for a longer time. For in the autobiography of Josephus, Vita, one can find an informative passage which tells of a friend of his who was rescued and survived a crucifixion. So, it seems odd that Jesus died so quickly.

With this information the question arises why did he not last long compared to the others, considering his strong spirit and is it not odd that he died after taking the bitter drink? Was it really vinegar and wine that he drank? The Gospels report"Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they fill a sponge with vinegar, and put it on a hyssop(a plant used for ritual sprinkling), and put it to his mouth, he said, 'It is finished": and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost (71).

Let us look more closely at this incident. One notices how the vinegar drink was introduced into John's narrative as if it had been brought to the Crucifixion for that very purpose. It was in line of Jewish customs to offer a person sentence to death wine spiced with myrrh and incense, to alleviate pain by a slight narcotic effect. But the Bible does not mention a spiced wine, for the authors all agree it was a bitter wine. In Latin vinegar is called acetum, from acidus, 'bitter'. It was part of the preparation Joseph, Nicodemus and a Roman centurion made in order to carry out the plan. One can only speculate what were the contents of the drink. In those days there was a wide assortment of pain relieving and intoxicating substances, and the healing arts of the period were excellent at mixtures that had unusual effects. Perhaps the mixture was made of a bitter wine and opium. This mixture had been well-known to Jews in pre- Christian times, also the poppy plant Papaver somniferum was widespread in Palestine at that time (72). Hence one may surmise that he was given this mixture while on the cross.

The effects are very strong that it leaves a person in a state of stupor in which a person is completely without sensation. The main active ingredient is morphine, which has a sedative narcotic and breath-inhibiting effect. The alkaloid papaverine has a pronounced cramp-relaxing effect. Mixed with many other effective components, opium solutions can be well adjusted for a particular purpose. Not only then was Jesus given a pain-killer, but a dose that was designed to make him lose consciousness in a short time and so to give the appearance that he was dead. The appearance of sudden death was enhanced by that the opium lowered the heart rate, calmed the breathing to a degree, and makes the body completely limp. In the hands of experienced therapist this was very useful.

According to John, the sponge was offered to Jesus on a hyssop stem. Hyssop is a plant with a weak stem and hardly suitable to hold a wet sponge, even if a bundle was used it does not have the rigidity. So, the instrument used to offered Jesus the sponge was confused by a simple error: hyssos (short spear) was taken from hyssop (73). It is a soldier who offers Jesus the sponge, on a cane, as the others Gospels relate. It may have been that John again meant the symbolic significance of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb. During Passover a special role was played by the hyssop as the sprinkle as described in Exodus 12:22.

In apocryphal 'Acta Pilata' this soldier was the captain who supervised the Crucifixion, his name was Longinus. According to a testimony by Gregory of Nyssa, Longinus later became a bishop in his Cappadocian homeland. He is also the one who Pilate summoned to confirm Jesus' death, then Pilate released the body of Jesus and who was moved by the events of the Crucifixion that he praised Jesus as the true Son of God in Mark 15:39, 27:54 and Luke 23:47, this is questionably whether he said that or not. But the latter may mean that he had some connection with Jesus and his followers. This makes the many problems about the Crucifixion understandable. Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, both Jewish councilors and Longinus, a centurion, were all secret followers of Jesus with influential positions. Even though the Crucifixion itself could not be stopped because of Jesus passed actions, their positions and influence managed to save Jesus' life.

If Jesus was close to suffocation – which almost all medical opinions assume was the cause of death – the loud cry before he died would be quite impossible. A suffocating person could hardly manage a whisper. But Jesus cried out "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" and 'It is finished!" he, after he received the drink and gave up the ghost. There are two possible answers; the first is that he actually said these phrases after he started to feel the narcotic effects increasing and began to recite psalm XXII silently which was so relevant to his suffering until he reached and voiced its closing words aloud before entering into a deep, induced state of sleep. It is customary among Jews at prayer to emphasis in speech the commencement and conclusion of a liturgical composition, psalm, praise, or prayer covering the intermediate matter in an undertone (74). The second is that the authors changed (accident or on purpose for the end of psalm XXII reads as 'He has done it') or added these phrases from psalm XXII to credit him with the assurance 'that all things were now accomplished, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled'.

The two other men crucified with Jesus, who probably had been through the same abuse, were still alive. Being that the Sabbath was at hand, the Romans broke their legs. The way they died is graphically described in John 19:31-32. Throughout the Roman empire, Palestine was the only area that this act was done. Having their legs broken, they could not straighten themselves up, and so they would suffocate within a few hours. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead they did not break his legs. This is very strange behavior for these hardened men. The theological interpretation, the prophecy in Exodus 12:46 had been fulfilled, is not helpful. It is beyond question that they had their doubts about his being 'dead', otherwise, they would have spared him the lance thrust in the side. Unfortunately, the Gospels do not provide us with any answers why this sudden change of mood, and the privileged lance thrust to the side.

The terms used in the Greek original for the thrust of the soldier, nyssein, means a light scratch, puncture or stab to the skin, not a full forced thrust with deep penetration. The procedure served as a kind of 'official conformation'of death: if the body did not show any reaction to a light stabbing, it could be assumed that the person was dead. It was not meant to be a death thrust at all; Jesus was considered to be dead and for this reason he had been spared having his legs broken.

The exegetes find it difficult to explain the emergence of the blood and water. some see it as a miracle, since the circulation stops at death; for others it is the symbolic interpetation of the elements blood and water. Scientific explanations have come to surface since the Catholic Chruch as allowed the sciencific community to analyse the the Shroud of Turin. Scientists from the East Midlands Forenic Laboratory consider that the lance wound may have pierced the pleura, causing blood and water to flow out, a watery fluid had collected between the lungs and thorax during violent treatment (75). They see no life-threatening danger.

We should not set aside the passage in the Gospel, we have to assume that the writer wanted to put a special emphasis on this passage. For those how can read between the line this emphasis on the testimony of the blood and water which flowed from Jesus' side, probably means he was still alive, for the dead do not bleed.

The fact that the crucifixion took place on the day of Passover preparation was advantageous in a way, because it meant that they could speed up the 'burial' without arousing suspicion among the persecutors of Jesus. They had to make sure that Jesus had really died on the cross. The moment Jesus was seen hanging unconscious from the cross, Joseph made haste to secure the body as soon as possible. He exerted his full influence on Pilate to achieve the release of the body. Joseph was pressed for time, and any means would have justified (even bribery) to him when it came to shortening the slow bureaucratic process. Everything had been carefully planned by Joseph and his helpers until the unexpected lance thrust. Pilate released the body and at once Jesus was taken down from the cross and brought to a nearby tomb.

Mystery surrounds the reason why such a rich man, apparently influential enough to gain ready access to Pilate emerged only at this moment and why not a single one of Jesus' associates did not try to organize a burial for him. Joseph we are told, provided the grave linen and spices for the burial, and the tomb itself. Although a Jew would normally have been buried in his Sabbath-best clothes, Jesus had had all his clothes removed and shared out as part of the pickings by the execution squad (76). Joseph is also described as purchasing a length of linen in which to wrap the naked corpse. These hints that the Gospels leaves us show that Jesus may had had connections with aristocrats or was one himself.

According to the gospels, Joseph of Armithea laid Jesus in his newly owned family tomb in which no one had been buried yet (John 19:41). This is described as having been in a garden, close to the execution site so the body could be brought quickly to safety (John 19;41-42). This information by itself has aroused suspicion. Information has been discovered that provide details that Joseph had made the necessary preparations early on (77).

It was essential to have an unused tomb ready: to place Jesus in a tomb in which others were already buried would have given rise to legal objections, because people who had been executed would normal be thought to dishonor the bodies of the faithful which had already been placed in the tomb. There would be no objection to the to a 'burial in an empty tomb, particularly since, as Joseph reports, political criminals who were executed by the Romans could be allowed an honorable burial which would be denied to an ordinary criminal (78). Naturally Joseph of Arimathea could not say that he was busy preparing a tomb for Jesus. Therefore we read in the Gospel that Joseph brought the body of Jesus to his own new family grave.

From this information a question arose 'why should Joseph who came from Arimathea near the Samarian border, build a family tomb in Jerusalem? He certainly had no intention on moving there. We read in the texts that after the burial he returned to his hometown. In compliance with tradition Joseph would have had his family tomb in his hometown. The tomb may have served as an alibi, to avoid moving the seriously wounded Jesus very far and to satisfy Jesus persecutors in thinking him dead in the grave.

The burial of Jesus is described in quite a different way compared to other Jewish burials of that time. He was not pushed into the tomb cavity, but instead laid on a bench. For the gospels show that when Mary Magdalene sees the angels, as they are called, 'one at the head the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.' (John 20:11, 12). This may prove that Jesus had certainly not been pushed into a kok, a typical Jewish tomb consisted of a chamber cut into the rock, in which oven like cavities that were about 50 cm wide, 80 cm high and 200 cm deep were cut. The bodies were inserted lenghtwise into these (79). So in this case no one could have sat at the head end. The tomb that was used was the shaft tombs that were used for a short time in the late Roman period. They were most widespread and typical tomb structure used in Jesus' time, called the kokim (80).

The kokim tomb was reached through an entrance below ground level, which was often closed with a rolling stone. It consisted of a large inner chamber, on the sides of which a number of kokim were usually cut. Inside the kokim , at the center of the inner chamber there was a square hollow, used as a drainage area. At the side of the tomb, at the same level as the entrances to the tomb holes, was a bench were the bodies were laid for the washing and the oiling. Lamps were placed in niches. Jewish law did not allow burials at night, but in these cave-like structures illumination was required during the day (81).

Scholars have some difficulty with this strange burial of Jesus. They often try to avoid it by saying Jesus' burial was unusual because the Sabbath was approaching as the sun went down on Good Friday, and no burials were allowed to be performed on the Sabbath. Therefore haste was needed. The burial of Jesus is then seen incomplete, a hurried operation to satisfy the customs. But this idea makes little sense.

For one thing the view that no burial could be undertaken on the Sabbath is not correct. The Rabbinical texts do not state this unequivocally. One rule states that a burial is allowed on the Sabbath, and another is the corpse should first be covered with sand to preserve it until the Sabbath is over, when the burial can be completed (82). Moreover Joseph and Nicodemus had already taken a stand which overruled all the customs, so it is likely that they would care much about keeping the Jewish customs when it came to actions of extreme importance.

Although there did not have to be a shortened, hastily performed burial merely to comply with the customs, everything suggests that Jesus' followers acted quickly and efficiently. So what happened in the tomb? Lets take a look, once they had taken Jesus down from the cross, they wound the his body in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of Jewish burial customs (John 19:40). In Mark 15:46, Jesus was not only covered with a cloth, but that the body was wrapped up quite closely, one could almost say packaged up. The interpretation of these sentences have caused many exegetes also some difficulties. To find out the meaning of these sentences one has to refer to the original Gospels that were written in Greek, for the verb to wrap (83). This term is used by Herodotus to describe the wrapping of an Egyptian mummy and the bandaging of a Greek soldier's injury. It is also found in literature in connection with a certain way of preparing food, first wrapping it in fig leaves (84). Evidently this word was preferred to describe the packing due to the aromatic substances absorbed in the cloth.

In order to justify this these descriptions, several scholars have suggested that a kind of embalming was intended. They refer to the 100 lb. Of aromatic substances which Nicodemus procured (John 19:30). But the Rabbinical texts refer only to an oiling of the bodies of the departed. The addition of the spices is nowhere mentioned, let only in these quantities, and was never part of the Jewish custom; nor was embalming for it was a repulsive act according to the Jews.

What was the significance of these herbs, which had no role in a burial? The Gospels mention that an aloe and myrrh was used. The aloe that was probably used was aloe vera, for it grew not far from the classical trade routes in south- western Arabia, which led from southern Arabia to the Mediterranean. So this plant was able to survive the from Arabia to Palestine without drying out. The second spice was myrrh which probably came from Somalia, according to ancient Egyptian records (85). The Egyptian used it for embalming but the Jews used it for its disinfectant power.

Both substances were commonly used for the treatment of large injured areas, because they could be easily made into ointments and tinctures. Some researchers claim that the Jews often mixed myrrh with labdanum, the resin of the cistus rockrose. This was used for bandages (86). One has to see such mixtures as the most specific means for the rapid and effective healing of wounds, combined with the greatest possible efficacy against danger of infection, of that time period. Therefore there can be no doubt that Nicodemus procured these medicinal herbs with the sole purpose of healing the wounded Jesus. In the seclusion of the tomb chamber, preparations for the healing of Jesus went underway. The bitter wine drink helped him to sleep deeply beyond pain, and the medical packing with the herbal ointments were applied to the body.

It draws the conviction that the writers of the Gospels intended to reveal an event to the attentive reader, while concealing it from the eyes of the ignorant: Jesus was not meant to be buried, because he did not die on the cross. thus they make it clear to us that the show of a burial according to Jewish customs was presented, while in reality Joseph and Nicodemus were about to 'bring Jesus back to life' in the privacy of the tomb building. And they did not try to do this by miracles but by applying the art of medical healing.

Joseph and Nicodemus knew they could not leave Jesus in the tomb long. The Jews were extremely suspicious and feared that his followers might steal the body to pretend there had been a miraculous resurrection. According to Matthew 27:62-6, they asked Pilate for someone to guard the tomb. The Sabbath prevented them from forming a watch at the tomb. One can not say for sure whether a Roman watch really was assigned to the tomb or not----only Matthew reports it. It does seem, however, as if it was introduced to add a dramatic effect to the angelic apparition which was going to occur. For a request to the Romans to guard a dead body must have seemed peculiar, and it is very unlikely that they would have complied to such a request. During the Sabbath, then, the helpers had time to take care of Jesus, but as soon as he came around they had to move him quickly elsewhere, to avoid further problems with the Jewish authorities. This may be one of the reason why Jesus was not in the tomb.

There is some variations between the Gospels over what actually happened on the third day----Sunday. Matthew 28:1 tells us that Mary and Mary Magdalene made their way to the tomb, while Mark 16:1 includes Salome. Luke 24:10 introduces Joanna but omits Salome, whereas John 20:1 has Mary Magdalene arriving alone. Also Mark, Luke and John claim that when the women/woman arrived the tomb was opened and no guards. However, in Matthew the sentries were on guard and the tomb was closed, until the angel of the Lord descended upon them and rolled back the stone. There are also variations on who and how many of Jesus' followers entered the tomb and the number of "angels" where at the tomb and their location. There is only one true fact in all of the confusion: When the women/woman came to the tomb with oils to for anointing on the first day of the week, they found the stone rolled aside and the tomb empty, Jesus was no longer there. Shocked, they/she ran to Peter and John and lamented that 'they' had taken the Lord's body. When they arrived and peered in the tomb, they saw only linen clothes, with no trace of Jesus anywhere. Mary Magdalene, who stood weeping before the tomb, asked the gardener if he had carried the body away. When he addressed her by name, she realized it was Jesus.

The period in which the events during these three days are in such a muddled manner that no precise historical conclusion can be drawn up from the Gospels. The three days which were said to have passed between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection denotes a mystical number which played a role in the older Resurrection myths of other civilizations. Jesus may have well been looked after for a longer time until he gradually came to show himself to his followers.

In John 20:19-26, after the so-called Resurrection, Jesus is said to have had entered through locked doors, so why was the stone rolled then? it would have been more astonishing if it had been necessary to push the stone aside to let the ladies in and only to find that Jesus had vanished from the sealed chamber. The tomb shows that someone had to act quickly and moved Jesus. The men in the robes that where still in the tomb perhaps where there to collect certain items and seal the tomb when they were caught. Again the gospels use persons who come and go throughout the story. The shocked ladies then received clear replies to their questions as the Luke text indicates: "Why seek the living among the dead". There is an interesting confirmation to this information the apocryphal Gospel of Peter where it states that the three men were seen emerging from the tomb and one of them was support by the two.

Another interesting point, is that Mary mistook Jesus to be the gardener, the answer that has come about is that he was 'buried' naked, so simple garments were worn. Also due to his injuries, the herbal medical solution probable left a brown coloration on his skin, which made it look as if he had been constantly working outside. As for Jesus saying to Mary "Touch me not!" (John 20:17) This could mean that he was still in pain and needed to be treated with care and could not bear to be touched.

It is possible that the Resurrection tradition in the Bible comes from a source which knew about the efforts to heal Jesus. According to the work of Father Günther Schwarz, opens a new view to the matter. For the terms 'rise' and 'coming back to life' which is found in the translations of the Bible, originally derive from an Aramaic verb which means 'resuscitate'(87).

Since the rescue operation was not allowed to become generally known, the Crucifixion and death of Jesus had to be interpreted differently. For this the old pagan ideas were dug up: the death was made into the death of atonement--God offered his beloved son for the sinful humanity. However an immortal God has to rise again. The old rebirth ideas of the pagan religion was not suitable for a Christ. They were too widespread---every prophet could be a reincarnation. As the Son of God he could not re-body himself in another person. Therefore he had to be physically resurrected. By making Jesus the key to the Resurrection theology this makes it possible to form the attraction of Christianity to this day: through God's offering of his son this allows mankind to share in his bodily immortality on the day of judgement, and this without any personal effort at all.

Other discrepancies appear in the Bible as in how many women and which one saw what and whom (88), though this documentation is a hopeless jumble of confusion, scarcely helped by the enigmatic Mary Magdalen, a major witness in Jesus' resurrection reveals that had someone invented the resurrection story one might have expected them to do so more convincingly than, for instance, representing women as the prime witnesses, when women's testimonies carried no or little weight in Jewish Law (89).

A theory that has come up is that the Disciples bribed the guards and carried his (dead) body away to Galilee either for his recuperation (where he could have died) or burial (if he had died) and spread the rumor that he had risen from the dead. And if they concocted a story they would probably have said that the first witnesses were Peter, James Jesus' brother, Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. Then invent stories and claim to have seen him and been with him, to keep this new religion alive. Perhaps they succeeded in their task and Jesus is probably buried in Nazareth near his mother's house, or in Capernaum by the shores of lake where he spend most of his time preaching. Or perhaps, they failed. Having been disturbed by the women, whom came to anoint the body for burial, or frightened into thinking that the Roman military or Jewish religion police were come to investigate a complaint of grave robber, they could have abandoned the body in a near by spot.

While there are undeniable reporting flaws regarding Jesus' claimed resurrection, and at a time distance of 2,000 years knowledge of exactly what happened is beyond us. We can only conclude that of the 500 plus witnesses, or whether they were from first or second hand accounts, something very powerful had fired into them a strong belief that many sacrificed their lives. So, given such attestation, can the resurrection of Jesus be accepted as a real historical event? And was the one time flesh and blood man more than just an ordinary man? Whatever the answer, already was born a faith in such a matter that it was powerful enough to survive not only the early years of persecution, but even into our own time.

The truth is that Jesus remains a disturbing mysterious figure, that Christianity in all its Orthodox and heterodox manifestations has repeatedly attempted to make sense of him. His death was a negligible fact in history. What is the signification of one crucifixion among so many other? There have been many answers, but in the end, from reading the Gospel, I realized that his death was much more important to the early Christians than his life; that is probably why so many scholars view the pursuit of Jesus as irrelevant. The writers of the Gospels are not trying to make us admire him, but for us to accept him as the Messiah; by stating his theological attributes, they tell us nothing about him as an historical being.

Yet, in spite of the Christ of theologians, his ideas having been incoherently pieced together, Jesus has survived. One of the reasons for the spread and survival of Christianity has been its adaptability. Today, for example, there is a the idea of Christian pacifism, which formerly taught the doctrine of the just war. While the Catholic Church thinks it is teaching the teachings of Jesus it will be found that it pursues a distorted version of two or three of his ideas while contradicting the others. Had he attended the Councils of Christendom----Nicaea to the Second Vatican Council----his gratitude might have turned into dismay. If it was even half possible that an historical personage existed who said the words attributed to him in the Bible, there could be no greater insult to his memory than to recite the creed, invented in a Hellenized which was a few centuries away from both Jesus and ourselves. Nor could one insult him by claiming that he had founded the a Church which for many years of its history was devoted to persecuting anyone who dared to question its creed. Wars, crusades and inquisitions have been perpetrated in the name of Jesus. When the Gospels were written, the Jews are repeatedly seen as the unenlightened enemies of Jesus. It is easy to see how the Bible writers felt the need to distort history in this way, for the were the embattled minority, fighting to save their skin from the Romans. After the Church triumphed over the Romans and the Jews, the deadly legacy of anti-Semitism remains.

We are told that before Jesus died, he wept over the city of Jerusalem, and seemed to foresee its tragic fate, dying with the phrase on his lips "My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). Perhaps if he had foreseen the whole of Christianity history and the rest of the world, his despair would have been more greater and he would probably have exclaimed. “Why died I not from the wound? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breasts should I suck? For now should I lien down and been quite; I should have slept; then had I been at rest (Job 3:11-13).

1. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, ch. 6, p. 57-77.

2. Thiering, Barbara, Jesus the Man, ch. 4, p. 28-35.

3. There are two means for Judas nickname, 1. The Syrian Semitic verb skariot was an equivalent of the Hebrew verb sikkarti 'to deliver up'. It has been suggested Judas Iscariot was therefore Judas the Deliver referring to his betrayal of Jesus. (Osman, Ahmed, The House of the Messiah, ch. 15, p. 81) 2.Sicarius was his Roman nickname for him, meaning the Assassin, named after the sica a curved dagger. The Greek form of the nickname was Sikariotes and it corruption to Sicariote was in due course further corrupted to Iscariot. (Gardner, Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, ch. 4, p. 64)

4. Thiering, Barbara, Jesus the Man, Chapter 19, 20, 21, 22. These four detailed chapters all lead up to why Jesus was betrayed and arrested due to his actions against the group's inner circle.

5. Zechariah 19: 9. 9 ; quoted Matthew 21: 4, 5.

6. A. N. Wilson, Jesus, Flamingo, 1992, p. 176.

7. this sweet-smelling ointment came from the nard plant which in Jesus time only grew in the Himalayas at heights around 15,000 feet. This expensive ointment was used for matrimonial and funerary rites.)

8. Crossan, John D., Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, p. 93 - 95.

9. Schonfield, Hugh, The Passover Plot , 1966, p. 153- 156 quoted from John 13: 18, also see Psalm 9.

9. John 6:64, 70-71.

10. Schonfield, Op. Cit. , p. 153- 156.

11. For a more details see: Revd. Fleetwood, John, The life of Our Christ and Savior Jesus Christ ,ch. 1, p. 10 -11; an extract by Dr. Paxton outlines the customary rules of Jewish matrimony as distinct from the more restrictive dynastic regulations. Josephus, The Jewish War, II, ch. 8, p. 13.

12. John 12: 4-5.

13. was the name of James of Alphaeus in the Twelve Apostles. He was a Hellenist who was part of John the Baptist's group, later joining Jesus' group who worked to bring the Hellenist high priests into power. He supported Gentile members and taught peace with Rome, opposing military zealotry. Jesus supported him on the Gentile question but opposed him on priestly superiority. Thus Jonathan had a personal animosity towards Jesus, despite their agreement on certain subjects. After Jesus death he opposed Paul, who took part in Annas deposition in 37 AD. He was later put to death in 57 AD by the Roman governor Felix, for he constantly interfered in Felix's management of the state.

14. Gardner, Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, p. 89, and ch. 6, p. 95- 97. Thiering, Barbara, Jesus the Man, Chapter 20, 21, 22 are detailed chapters about the action that lead to Jesus' betrayal.

15. Ibid., p. 84- 91, The Bridegroom and the Bride Ibid., Ch. 17 is about his marriage to Mary Magdalene, a.k.a. Mary of Bethany, and unknown woman. Picknett, Lynn and Prince, Clive, The Templar Revelation, ch. 12, p. 323- 348. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and Holy Grail, ch. 12.

16. Gardner, Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, p. 91- 94, Suppression of the Marriage Evidence. For more details see Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and Holy Grail, ch. 13. Smith, Morton, The Secret Gospel, 1974.

17. Matthew 21:9.

18. Luke 19:36 - 39 & Mark 2: 10.

19. First Book of The Maccabees, 13 - 51.

20. John 2: 16.

21. John 2: 21.

22. Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence, p. 115.

23. Luke, 19: 47 - 48.

24. Mark 13: 2.

25. Wilson, A.N., Jesus, p. 185.

26. John 12: 37.

27. Mark 14: 1.

28. was one of the Twelve Apostles who took part in an uprising in 32 AD. He was a known zealot leader and a wanted man, who was later arrested along with Jesus and Simon, but was released due to the tetrarch Herod Antipas' intervention. In 44AD he lead an imagined 'entry to the Promised Land' by commanding the waters of the Jordan to part, and was executed.

29. Thiering, Barbara, Jesus the Man. Gardner, Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Chapters 4, 5, & 6. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and Holy Grail, Chapter 12. Schonfield, Hugh, The Passover Plot.

30. E.P., Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE- 66 CE, p. 125-8. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18. 19.

31. Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Oxford, 1955, p. 16 & Mark 3:3.

32. Mark 13: 24, 25.

33. Mark 14: 14, 15.

34. John 12: 6 & John 13: 29.

35. Exodus 12:5- 12.

36. The Beloved Disciple is another mysterious person mention in the Bible. But there are quite a few references to this person. It seems that he was a priest or a servant to the high priest in Jerusalem, who was very close to Jesus, for at the crucifixion Jesus entrusted his mother to him. He was also a specialist in curative healing and remedial medicine, because he became the revered saint of the Knights Hospitallers of Jerusalem.

37. At the Passover meal, it was customary for the Jews to demonstrate their liberty as the sons of the Lord by reclining, and not sitting, at the table. Whereas slaves eat standing, at the Passover, people should recline when they eat, to signify that they have passed out of bondage into liberty, as a Jewish writer of 300 AD explained. Jeremias, Joachim. Op. Cit., p. 36

38. Mark 13:24, 25.

39. Exodus 13: 14.

40. Wilson, A.N., Jesus, p. 196.

41. John xviii. 28; xiv. 14 & xiii. 1.

42. Wilson, A.N., Jesus, p. 196.

43. Jeremias : op. cit., p. 73.

44. The Gospel of Thomas was found in Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, in the winter of 1945, and is in view of many scholars, completely independent of the canonical gospels.

45. An example of a hidden source inside the four canonical gospels is the reconstructed document known as Q, from the German word Quelle, meaning source, which is imbedded within both Luke and Matthew. Those two authors also use Mark as a source, so Q is discernible wherever they agree with one another but lack a Markan parallel.

46. The Teaching or Didache, is a catechetical, liturgical, and disciplinary manual whose earliest sections may go back between 50 and 70 AD.

47. Crossan, John D., Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, p. 130.

48. Allegro, John, The Dead Sea Scrolls, ch. 7, p 131; ch 12, p 164; ch 13, p 168.

49.The Scroll of the Rule, Annex II, 17-22.

50.Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence, p. 121. It also show the difference wording between the Jewish and the Christian Blessing, they are identical in meaning.

51. Matthew 17: 2 & Mark 9: 8.

52. Matthew 11: 19.

53.Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence, p. 124.

54. Luke 22: 48.

55. Luke 22:48.

56. Guilding, Aileen, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship, p. 232.

57. Zechariah, 11:4.

58. Burkitt, F.C., The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names, 1906.

59. Wilson, A.N., Jesus, p. 203.

60. For more information see Thiering, Barbara, Jesus the Man. ch. 21,22, & 23.

61. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and Holy Grail, ch. 12 p. 367. Cohn, H., Trial and Death of Jesus, p. 97.

62. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and Holy Grail, ch. 12 p. 367.

63. Sander, E.P., Jesus and Judaism, p. 314-315.

64. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and Holy Grail, ch. 12 p. 368-371. Crossan, John D., Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, p. 140- 143. A. N. Wilson, Jesus, p. 218.

65. Maccoby, H., Revolution in Judaea, p. 57. Crossan, John D., Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, p. 136- 140.

66. Thiering, Barbara, Jesus the Man, ch. 23 & 24, p. 144-153. Gardner, Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Ch. 6, p. 94-115.

67. Kersten, H. & Gruber, E.R., The Jesus Conspiracy, p.243-249. Cohn, H., Trial and Death of Jesus, p. 230. Winter, P., On the Trail of Jesus, p. 62.

68. Mark 15:44.

69. Schonfield, Hugh, The Passover Plot , p. 177-178.

70. Cohn, H., Trial and Death of Jesus, p. 238.

71. John 19:29-30.

72. Kersten, H. & Gruber, E.R., The Jesus Conspiracy, p.253.

73. Ibid., p.253.

74. Schonfield, Hugh, The Passover Plot , p. 178.

75. Hoare, R, The Testimony of the Shroud, p. 53.

76. This piece of evidence plus the detail given in John 19:24 tells us that Jesus wore a seamless robe, woven in one piece form neck to hem. This little piece of information suggest that Jesus had been wearing clothes that were worth something. When put together with the archaeological excavations at Capernaum of a villa of substance where Jesus lived, and the figure that appeared after his death to bury the body, suggest that Jesus was far from being a pauper, which repels the fact that he was a common criminal. Wilson, Ian., Jesus: The Evidence, p. 76-79.

77. Kersten, H. & Gruber, E.R., The Jesus Conspiracy, p. 251. Bagatti, B and Testa, E., Il Golgota e la Croce, p. 24.

78. Flavius Joseph, De Bello Judaico IV, 5,2.

79. Bagatti, P.G and Milik, J.T., Gli scavi del 'Dominus flevit'. La necropoli del periodo Romano.

80. Kersten, H. & Gruber, E.R., The Jesus Conspiracy, p. 232.

81. The Mishnah (Baba Bathra 6:8) describes the only correct design for a tomb building.

82. Schabbat 23, 5 & Ketub 20, b.

83. Savio, P., Ricerche storiche sulla Santa Sindone, p. 33.

84. Zaninotto, Giovanni, Teatimone oculare della risurrezione di Gesu, p. 148.

85. Kersten, H. & Gruber, E.R., The Jesus Conspiracy, p. 237.

86. Moldenke, H.N and Moldenke, A.N., Plants of the Bible. Anderson, A.W., Plants of the Bible.

87. Schwarz, Father Günther, Wenn die Worte nicht stimmen. 30 entstellte Evangelientexte wiederhergestellt, p. 56.

88. John 20:11-12, Mark 16:5-8,

89. Wilson, Ian., Jesus: The Evidence, p. 147. A. N. Wilson, Jesus, p. 241.