Barabbas
Mark's use of the word "insurrectionist" is highly significant, made clearer in the original Greek:
ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.
There was moreover the [one] called Barabbas with the rebels having been bound, who in the insurrection murder had committed.
Matthew, when he came to copying this passage from Mark, substituted "notorious prisoner" for insurrectionist, without further detail; Luke wrestled with Mark's original text and subtly weakened its force: "a man who had been thrown into prison for a certain sedition started in the city, and for murder." John substituted the innocuous "robber".
Why on earth did the later evangelists disguise in various ways Mark's original contention that Barabbas was a rebel, who had committed murder in the insurrection? Because it was an unwelcome indication of when Mark had authored his story: the insurrection was the great revolt otherwise known as the War of the Jews, which ended with the calamity in AD 70!
[emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] mwanafunzi wa shehe kidevu...karibu darsa gavana ukajifunze [emoji4]
Matthew's Mighty Makeover
Matthew, in constructing his own gospel, copied and revised Mark's text in myriad ways. "Difficulties" in Mark's story line were smoothed away; much of the narration was made into direct speech from the mouth of Jesus; unnamed characters were given names; emphasis was added, often by repetition, and theological points were clarified or redirected. The trial of Jesus was no exception.
Where Mark had used the voice of a storyteller to set the scene: "It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread." (Mark 14.1), Matthew credited his hero with actually saying the same words (and added a reference to the crucifixion): Jesus said "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified." (Matthew 26.2)
Matthew named and highlighted the high priest and his pivotal role:
"Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest who was called Caiaphas and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, 'Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people' ... Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest where the scribes and the elders had gathered."
– Matthew 26.3,57
Mark had made a mess of the testimony of the false witnesses, saying that their testimony did not agree but then providing an example where some did agree, yet adding that the testimony did not agree "even so"!
"For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 'We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.' "Yet not even so did their testimony agree." – Mark 14.56-59
Matthew refined Mark's clumsy text by conceding that the false witnesses eventually agreed:
"Many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, 'This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.' "
– Matthew 26.60-61
[emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] mwanafunzi wa shehe kidevu...karibu darsa gavana ukajifunze [emoji4]
[emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] mwanafunzi wa shehe kidevu...karibu darsa gavana ukajifunze [emoji4]
Before Pilate – Matthew dreams up a dream!
Matthew made clear that the priests delivered Jesus to Pilate expressly to have him "put to death" (27.1). It was now Pilate himself, rather than the narrator, who stated that the charges made by the priests were "many" but again, none of these charges were revealed. Only the evasive admission from Jesus that he was the king of the Jews – "You have said so" – stands. Matthew's governor didn't just "wonder" – he "wondered greatly", whatever that meant.
The wholly unrealistic notion that a Roman military governor would capitulate to a noisy crowd on the doorstep of his own headquarters was retained in Matthew's text. But Matthew contributed a little extra colour exclusively his own: Pilate's wife had an unsettling "dream" about Jesus! This bizarre claim - how on earth could the author of Matthew have known this? – served the purpose of "rationalizing" the odd behaviour of a Roman officer: he had been influenced by his wife's bad dream!
"Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him,
"Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream."
– Matthew 27.19
To emphasis his point, Matthew had Pilate, before the crowd, "wash his hands." Not only was the Roman distanced from a sentence he did not himself agree with, the Jews damned themselves by vocalizing their acceptance of collective guilt!
"So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying,
"I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.
And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!' "
– Matthew 27.24-25
nilipo isoma ayat hii [emoji117]Q and A with the high priest
Following closely Mark's text the author of Matthew nonetheless made some significant changes in the "grilling" by the high priest. The first two questions were identical ("Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?") but with the third and most crucial question the formula changes to something more instantly familiar to Christians. Instead of copying Mark's unusual "Son of the Blessed" – a phrase found nowhere else in the Bible and original to Mark – Matthew substitutes the familiar "Son of God". Yet the phrase is an anachronism: the Jews never used the term as the later Christians did.
The question was given solemn emphasis and the reply from Jesus was the same as used later in his response to Pilate.
"I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
Jesus said to him, "You have said so."
– Matthew 26.63-4
To emphasise that Jesus had confessed to the charge is blasphemy Matthew repeated the word:
"He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?"
They answered, "He deserves death."
– Matthew 26.65
Matthew also attempted a clarification of the stranded word "Prophesy!" found in Mark's text. Jesus was taunted to name those who struck him. To damn the Jewish priesthood further the guards from Mark's script were eliminated. Those who struck Jesus were all members of the council!
nilipo isoma ayat hiiView attachment 723282 nikang'amua hizo c$p sio kosa lako ni kipofu anamuongoza kipofu...
nilipo isoma ayat hii [emoji117] View attachment 723282 nikang'amua hizo c$p sio kosa lako [emoji38] [emoji38] ni kipofu anamuongoza kipofu...[emoji15]
Nimejiuliza hili swali asubuhi ya leo
Tunaambiwa na vitabu vya dini kwamba Mungu ni muweza wa yote,yeye hujua kitu kabla hata hakijatokea
Kauli hii inamaanisha kila kinachotokea huwa kina "approval" ya Mungu
Je Mungu ame "approve" machafuko ya Syria?
Kama haku "approve" kwa nini yametokea?
Mungu haoni kama kuna watoto wanateseka pale,mpaka aombwe?kwa nini anayaacha yaendelee?
Labda wanaosambaza kampeni ya Pray for syria mnaweza jibu maswali haya
View attachment 714688 View attachment 714687 View attachment 714686
endelea kupiga kelele sisi Wafuasi wa Yesu Tupo Gado [emoji117]Lucid Luke revamps the entire story
The more polished writer of Luke's gospel regurgitate, reorganized and embellished Mark's simple tale to produce a trial scene of around 900 words, three times the length of the original. It is a masterful cut and shunt of his less sophisticated source material – the texts of Mark and Matthew, and Peter.
Luke's version of the trials has several major revisions:
1. The ridiculous night trial was dropped completely. Only "When day came" was Jesus brought before the Sanhedrin.
2. All references to the nonsense of "false witnesses" were dropped.
3. The lampooning of Jesus, with blindfold, smacking, and taunts of "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" is moved by Luke from post-trial to pre-trial! The jibes and "many other insults" come from guards holding Jesus at the high priest's house.
4. The high priest is unnamed and his role is not highlighted. Rather, the "priests, elders and scribes" act and speak in unison. Collectively they chorus their questions: "If you are the Messiah, tell us."; "Are you, then, the Son of God?"; "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!"
5. This groupthink continues when the assembly collectively bring Jesus before Pilate. Luke has them list the various charges that had been only alluded to in Mark and Matthew: "perverting our nation"; "forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor"; "saying that he himself is the messiah, a king."
6. Pilate in Luke's edit neither "wonders" nor "wonders greatly", nor does he "perceive envy" in the priests. Instead, he immediately finds Jesus innocent of all charges: "I find no basis for an accusation against this man." (23.4)
7. Logic would suggest that Pilate should have released Jesus at this point. But apparently the "chief priests and the crowds" were insistent and just happen to mention that Jesus was from Galilee. And here, in his most novel innovation, Luke introduced yet another "trial", this one before Herod Antipas, who just happened to be in town! For no obvious reason, Pilate sends Jesus across to Herod for a mind-numbing interrogation:
"He questioned him at some length, but Jesus gave him no answer." – Luke 23.9
Herod, it seems, had hoped to be entertained by Jesus with a miracle (How did Luke know that?) but the wonder-worker said and did nothing.
8. The notion that Herod Antipas (the killer of John the baptist) also executed Jesus is a variant of the story found in the gospel of Peter. Clearly, the author of Luke worked this material into his own revision. As a result, a second "mocking of Jesus" appears at this point: in Luke, the jibes take place before Herod and his guards and not in the praetorium before a battalion of Roman troops, as in the gospels of Mark and Matthew!
"Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then he put an elegant robe on him, and sent him back to Pilate."
– Luke 23.11
What on earth has been achieved by this fictitious traipse across town? Luke provides a curious answer: "That same day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies." (Luke 23.12) This odd comment appears to have been distilled from the gospel of Peter, in which Antipas played a more significant role.
9. According to Luke, Pilate now called together "the chief priests, the leaders, and the people." How long did that take? What time did they assemble? Bear in mind that (according to Mark) Jesus had to be up on his cross by 9 am ! Pilate announced to the assembled multitude that both he and Herod had found Jesus not guilty of any charge and that he would be flogged and released.
10. Luke dropped all reference to a ridiculous "custom of releasing one prisoner before the feast" (Mark 15.6; Matthew 27.15). However Luke continued with the no less ridiculous fiction of having the Roman governor eventually accede to the mob demand to set free a murderer! Three times he repeats his verdict but "their voices prevailed."
What nonsense
endelea kupiga kelele sisi Wafuasi wa Yesu Tupo Gado [emoji117] View attachment 723443 [emoji117] View attachment 723462 allah naye katoboa Wakristo peponi Wasihofu [emoji117] View attachment 723468 najua kelele zoote hizi huna hakika ya hatma yako [emoji117] View attachment 723475 [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] kazana na kelele upunguze hofu...
endelea kupiga kelele sisi Wafuasi wa Yesu Tupo Gado [emoji117] View attachment 723443 [emoji117] View attachment 723462 allah naye katoboa Wakristo peponi Wasihofu [emoji117] View attachment 723468 najua kelele zoote hizi huna hakika ya hatma yako [emoji117] View attachment 723475 [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] kazana na kelele upunguze hofu...
Two High Priests – or clumsy editing??
The authors of John inherited a situation in which Mark had not named the dastardly high priest who denounced Jesus for blasphemy; and nor had Luke named the high priest anywhere in the entire arrest and trial sequence. However John appears to have worked from Matthew's story that gave the name Caiaphas as high priest and so the writers of John emphasised this claim:
"Caiaphas, who was high priest that year said to them, 'You know nothing at all' ..."
"Being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation ..." – John 11.49,51
The references to "that year" are bizarre considering that Caiaphas was high priest for eighteen years! But what year was that year? If it was the year of the trial and crucifixion, then in Acts "Luke" had written that the same council which had crucified Jesus and now questioned Peter and John, was led by a high priest named Annas:
"The next day their rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family." – Luke 4.6
Luke's comment followed closely his source – Josephus: "Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests." (Antiquities 20.9.1).
Josephus does not say Caiaphas was a son-in-law to Annas (aka Ananus in Josephus) but John does.
We also learn from Josephus that Annas had been appointed by Quirinius, the Roman Legate of Syria, in 6 AD (Ant. 18.2.1) and had been removed from office by Valerius Gratus, the Roman Prefect of Judea, in 15 AD – at least fifteen years before any supposed crucifixion!
Aware that Luke had favoured Annas as the purported high priest around the time of the trial while Matthew had opted for Caiaphas, the authors of John "harmonised" the conflicting claims with an unprecedented "two high priests scenario", maintaining that both Annas and Caiaphas were high priest simultaneously although no rabbinical or historical source endorses such an idea.
Now an odd "time marker" also found in Luke is in his introduction of John the Baptist, where Luke writes: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius ... during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" (Luke 3.1,2).
Are we really to believe that Annas and Caiaphas shared the high priesthood both in the fifteenth year of Tiberius and again in the year of the trial and crucifixion (arguably the eighteenth year of Tiberius)? The "time marker" comment is doubly curious because Luke does not repeat this claim of two high priests anywhere else and certainly not in connection with the trial of Jesus.
In fact, Luke refers only to a single unnamed high priest during the arrest scene and on numerous occasions throughout his work:
" ... one of them struck the slave of the high priest" (22.50) [εἷς τις ἐξ αὐτῶν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τὸν δοῦλον] ...
" ... bringing him into the high priest's house" (22.54) [τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως·]
Luke referred to a singular high priest at key moments in Acts (4.17; 7.1; 9.1; 22.5; 23.4), where an informed writer might have given the high priest's name (or names) – when the apostles were arrested, for example, or when Saul/Paul was given his arrest warrant for Damascus – yet Lukecited no name. Three other high priests were appointed and dismissed after Annas was deposed– Ismael, Eleazar, and Simon – before Caiaphas was appointed high priest in 18 AD (Ant. 18.2.2). Caiaphas held the position until being removed by Vitellius in 36 AD.
So how viable is the claim for two high priests? The tenure of the two named high priests – Annas and Caiaphas never overlapped – it is a gospel fiction. The apologetic that Annas remained high priest "in Jewish eyes" is a nonsense. The high priesthood was controlled by the Romans after the province of Judea was created and the Romans both appointed and removed Annas and other high priests as they saw fit.
hizo kelele za kijiba cha roho ni ndogo sana [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji117]The Trial – John's final edit
The posse of fraudsters who wrote the gospel of John may have been the last to work on the inheritance from Mark but their handiwork surpassed all that had gone before.
The trial sequence in John is around 1400 words – more than four times the length of the original. But John's gospel, read in isolation, does not make much sense.
Unlike the gospels of Matthew and Luke, intended by their original authors to displace the competition, John was authored by a church that had come to recognize the usefulness of alternative visions of the truth, and John was clearly designed to augment, not replace, the earlier gospels.
Consider what is NOT to be found in the gospel of John:
There is no night-time convening of the whole Sanhedrin as found in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, and no morning convening of the Jewish council either, as claimed in all three other gospels.
There is no reference to false witnesses, no searching questions about who Jesus claimed to be, no cries of "blasphemy", no tearing of garments, no verdict of "deserving death."
Having jettisoned all this, what John does provide are some novel story elements and a lot more dialogue from the mouth of Jesus.
hizo kelele za kijiba cha roho ni ndogo sana [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji117] View attachment 723744 [emoji106] leta mikelele ruksa gavana ila ukae ukijua [emoji117] View attachment 723759 [emoji38] [emoji38]
hizo kelele za kijiba cha roho ni ndogo sana [emoji38] [emoji38] wasio Amini wako ktk hasara [emoji117] View attachment 723757 [emoji106] leta mikelele ruksa gavana ila ukae ukijua [emoji117]]
The KEY question
Mark
But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?"
And they all condemned him as deserving death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!"
And the guards received him with blows.
Matthew
But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?"
They answered, "He deserves death." Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"
Peek-a-boo
Luke
When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council.
They said, "If you are the Messiah, tell us."
He replied, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God."
All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?"
He said to them, "You say that I am."
Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!"
John
Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him."
The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God."
Not only was there no such law but blasphemy required stoning not crucifixion!