Murder at Golgotha Read online

  Murder at Golgotha

  Ian Wilson

  Introduction

  The idea for this book was born after my husband Ian saw the Mel Gibson movie The Passion of the Christ. Maybe you too saw the film, along with the many millions of others around Easter 2004. Or maybe you heard the reports about the film's violence, and decided there was no way you were going to sit through that amount of cruelty.

  Whatever your viewpoint, the chances are that quite a number who went to see the movie probably only had the vaguest idea of the events dramatized and went out of simple curiosity. The one certainty is that almost all who did, believers and nonbelievers alike, came out totally shell-shocked by the violence and inhumanity they had just seen. Very likely also, many had little idea how much of the events portrayed had been fact and how much fiction.

  Like it or loathe it, Mel Gibson's movie certainly raised the awareness of things religious, especially in his two home countries, his former home Australia, and his present home, the United States of America. Certainly in Australia, as in the United Kingdom, the phasing-out of religious education in schools has led to generations of under-forties possessing only the sketchiest idea of the Christian story and the crucifixion. It is now fashionable to knock anything vaguely religious, and the proliferation of legal actions against members of the clergy has simply fuelled the trend towards the anti-religious in all forms of the media. The religious scene in the United States has been likened to "a pitched battlefield," largely as a reaction to the Gibson film. So be it.

  Some of the most popular recent television series have been those put out under the Crime Scene Investigation umbrella. For example, CSI: Miami and CSJ: New York are watched every week by literally millions of viewers not only in the United States, but also in other English-speaking countries. Individual episodes are generally well-crafted, frequently demanding close attention from the viewer to follow the various twists and turns as the crime is solved. There is a high reliance on forensic science as the glamorous stars examine the body, the crime scene, and the motives for the crime. Hopefully, the perpetrator will be brought to justice by the end of the episode.

  Occasionally, the body is missing, demanding even more detective work to establish the truth of the whole scenario. While in real life, crimes in which the body is never found all too often end up in the "unsolved" box, fictional TV dramas such as Cold Case serve to show how even seemingly long-forgotten crimes can sometimes be resurrected and the truth at long last discovered.

  But who would have believed that a murder case nearly two thousand years old could ever become "hot" again, and still without a body? Yet that is certainly what has happened by the screening of Mel Gibson's blockbuster movie The Passion of the Christ. The body is certainly still missing. The witnesses are long dead, and the crime scene changed beyond all recognition. Nonetheless this was the most famous murder in all history. Various movie treatments over the past decades, including Mel Gibson's Passion, have given their own spin on the events, but can the truth be more clearly established?

  Certainly it can be, and that is the purpose of this book (though without any special intent to be a critique of Mel Gibson). Our aim is to re-examine much the same sequence of events followed in his movie, and to see how historical evidence, archaeological evidence, medical evidence, the Shroud of Turin, and other relevant items can all help to lead us towards what really happened. And the true events, as much as we can determine them, take nothing away from the drama and the vividness of the story.

  Because of other writing commitments, Ian dictated much of the content of this book during a glorious winter weekend in Queensland, Australia. I then transcribed the tapes, and using as much original narrative as possible, edited the tapes to produce a manuscript which Ian then lengthened and reworked to ensure that it presents as full and accurate a picture of the events as is possible, given our present-day knowledge.

  The book has been written for the honest enquirer who may know nothing, a little, or even a lot, about the story of Jesus. Hopefully it will introduce the subject to those who would like to be a little better informed about the Passion and murder of Christ. Certainly it is now for you, the jury, to follow the steps of what really may have happened as the Passion is played before you.

  —Judith Wilson

  1

  A Crime Scene Gone Cold?

  Nearly two thousand years ago Jesus Christ was murdered in full public view, during daylight hours, in what was most likely the year A.D. 30. The crime scene was a hill called Golgotha, the "Place of the Skull," just outside the city of Jerusalem in the then Roman-occupied province of Judaea.

  In ways that no one could have anticipated at the time, the murder would turn out to be the most famous in all history. In the course of subsequent centuries it changed the lives of millions of people on every continent of the world. It inspired Michelangelo to sculpt his Pieta, Leonardo to paint his Last Supper, and Handel to write his Messiah. In ways that Jesus could never have wanted, it also led to the persecution of Jews, to Christians killing fellow Christians over doctrinal differences, and to ongoing strife with the younger religion called Islam.

  Jesus' murder would also become the most reenacted in all history. Beginning with humble miracle plays back in the Middle Ages, such reenactments developed in our own time into highly developed dramatizations for cinema audiences. And never was any reenactment more dramatic and realistic than Mel Gibson's 2004 movie The Passion of the Christ.

  I am still in a state of shock, having sat through two hours of almost uninterrupted, gratuitous brutality." "Graphic beyond belief . . . How anyone will be able to sit through this thing is the real mystery." "The film is unrelentingly violent. It's blood-soaked. Jesus gets so whipped you can see his ribs, blood spatters all over the cobblestones, and the sound is frighteningly realistic. And it doesn't stop after a pivotal scene or two—it goes on and on and on.

  These are just a small sample of reviewer reactions to a film whose maker intended it to be as true and accurate a re-creation of the original events as humanly possible, a re-creation "directed by the Holy Ghost."

  But was Gibson's The Passion of the Christ truly divinely inspired? Was it the closest that we can ever get to a re-creation of the last hours leading up to the Golgotha crime scene?

  Mel Gibson's chief inspiration, and the bloody imagery that caused such revulsion amongst cinema audiences, derived not from the Christian gospels or historical sources but from the mystic visions of an early nineteenth-century German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, as recorded by a poet, Clemens Brentano. And, very sadly for Gibson's otherwise brilliant achievement recreating on celluloid what Emmerich "saw" in her mind, any critical evaluation of these visions reveals them as lurid, hyperimaginative fantasies typical of the type of personality psychologists define as "hysteric." They have no sound historical or medical foundation.

  What makes this situation all the sadder, given the huge energy and investment that went into the Gibson movie, is that today more than at any time in history we have forensic technologies that can reveal so much of what truly happened. Gibson was actually offered such forensic expertise, but turned it down in favor of the Emmerich fiction. The fact is that, even after such a long time lapse, the Golgotha of around A.D. 30 has far from gone entirely cold as a crime scene. Written testimony, topographic data, medical expertise, forensic techniques, and archaeology can all shed some surprisingly strong light on what really happened.

  Accordingly, a searching revisit to the original events is the prime purpose of this book. As if from the viewpoint of a crime scene investigator, we will be questioning and reexamining every assumption about the last hours of Jesus' life, likewise about the manner and aftermath of his death. We will be r
esifting the Christian gospels as "witness" statements for which passages of these may be genuinely firsthand, and which have come down to us at second- or thirdhand. We will be looking at what is known from outside the gospels of how the Romans conducted their executions by crucifixion, how they fastened the victims to their crosses, and how long these might endure such an ordeal. We will be considering the possible authenticity of the various claimed relics of Jesus, such as the wood of the cross, the "crime" notice affixed to his cross, and the sheet in which his dead body was wrapped after being taken down from the cross. No possibly relevant clue will be dismissed out of hand. Likewise, nothing normally taken for granted will pass without fresh questioning.

  Some of the huge difficulties of such an undertaking should not be underestimated. Over the centuries since Jesus walked its streets, Jerusalem has been changed almost beyond recognition. Within forty years of Jesus' death Jews throughout Judaea revolted against Roman rule, and the Romans had the greatest difficulty resubjugating them. As punishment, when they retook Jerusalem they razed to platform level the magnificent Temple where Jesus had preached during the last week of his life. When two generations later the remnant of surviving Jews revolted a second time, the Romans destroyed much of the rest of the city. They purged it of its Jewish citizens, sending them scattering across the world, and rebuilt it to a completely new layout as an all-Roman city, Aelia Capitolina.

  Subsequent captures by Arabic Moslems, by French Crusaders, and by Turkish Moslems all similarly contributed to a relentless cycle of rebuilding, destruction, and rebuilding once more. It has been estimated that Jerusalem has been conquered thirty-seven times since its foundation, with no less than eleven changes of its dominant religion since Jesus' time. Present-day Old City Jerusalem is a noisy, bewildering maze, partly covered over, its alleyways teeming with small shops and stalls. It abounds with guides for the very simple reason that even those who arrive in the city armed with guide books can rarely find their way to, or identify, the sites they may have traveled thousands of miles to see.

  While at above-surface level, nearly all the Jerusalem buildings that Jesus might have known have long since disappeared during the last few decades, Israeli archaeologists have unearthed many of their buried remains. These findings will be helpful to our crime scene investigation. Whenever anyone wants to build a new house or office block in central Jerusalem, there is a near guarantee that digging down to foundation level will reveal long-buried ancient ruins. The Israeli government rightly insists on bringing in archaeologists whenever this occurs, and as a result of their endeavours, more has been discovered about the Jerusalem of Jesus' time during the last four decades than at any previous time in history.

  And as well as possible archaeological evidence, written evidence from witnesses of the period survives. Very few events of ancient times have four, different, near-contemporary accounts of what occurred, yet that is certainly what we have in the form of the gospels ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is true that theological studies have long shown that these documents are not entirely the immediate, first-hand, eyewitness statements that we might wish for. Indeed, during the nineteenth century a whole clique of German Protestant theologians made quite an industry of representing these as written by people who had never known Jesus at first hand, and who had lived long after the events.

  But the recent Israeli archaeological findings have been showing the writings to be of greater value as testimonies than many have given them credit for. For instance, ruins of the building with five porticoes, where Jesus is described as healing a paralyzed man, have come to light during excavations. Referred to as "Bethzatha" in the John testimony (John 5:2), a number of clues show this to have been the very setting John mentions. This is but one of many indications that the gospels were written not long after Jesus' death, from the recorded reminiscences of (though not necessarily by) people who had been in Jerusalem with Jesus, who had attended his healings, who had listened to his preachings, and who knew how he was killed.

  And while—even in the case of Roman emperors—we may often know details of these lives only from copies of lost original documents made by medieval scribes, Jesus is better documented in near-contemporary manuscripts. Experts can often accurately date manuscripts to within a couple of decades, using clues from the way handwriting and punctuation have changed over the centuries. In the case of the events of Jesus' life, manuscript scraps identifiable as from the Matthew and John testimonies have been found that are datable to within a century of Jesus' lifetime. Three fragments from a papyrus copy of the gospel of Matthew, found in Egypt at the end of the nineteenth century, and preserved in Magdalen College, Oxford, England, have been dated by German specialist Carsten Thiede to around A.D. 70. And a single scrap from a papyrus copy of the gospel of John, preserved in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England, is generally accepted by scholars to date no later than the second century, and quite probably from about A.D. 120. From the crime scene investigation point of view, we may consider the gospels as testimonies—attestations by individuals with a good claim to be consulted for their insights on the original events—and this is how we will refer to them from now on.

  It has also long been fashionable to pay no attention to any of the various so-called relics of Jesus—for example, certain scraps of wood which are supposed to be from his cross, nails which are supposed to have been driven through his hands and feet, the notice affixed to his cross describing him as "King of the Jews," and the Shroud in which he was wrapped after death.

  This disregard is on the grounds that they are almost bound to be fakes, due to widespread forgery of such items in the Middle Ages. The great Reformation leader Martin Luther forcefully encouraged this dismissive attitude towards relics back in the sixteenth century. German theologians reinforced it during the nineteenth century, and it has prevailed until quite recently.

  But now, thanks to the availability of evermore sophisticated forensic techniques, relics associated with Jesus' killing can be examined rather more dispassionately, and altogether more authoritatively, more than ever before. And as we will see, some turn out to have far greater credibility and evidential value than has previously been supposed.

  The final issue that we will be addressing—one that inevitably raises the biggest questions of all—concerns what can have happened to the body of Jesus, so that it disappeared, seemingly without trace, less than two days after its burial? In the case of most investigations of a killing, there is at least a body that can be subjected to autopsy, and from which all sorts of clues can be drawn as to the circumstances of death. But in the case of Jesus the witness testimony is quite emphatic that his body vanished in some strange way from the tomb in which it had been laid while it was being closely guarded. The same witness testimony also speaks of him making appearances to the disciples in which he seemed to be very much alive, and—particularly puzzling—being seen eating solid food, yet also passing through solid, closed doors.

  This is indeed some very strange stuff to be dealing with. And inevitably we should not expect to be able to come up with all the answers. Nevertheless, let the crime scene investigation begin. . . .

  2

  The Victim Profile

  In any crime scene investigation the case file will generally have the victim's name written on its front cover. So should the name on our victim's file be "Jesus Christ"?

  The short answer is no. So commonly is "Jesus" used in the English language, even as an expletive, that many suppose it to be the name that Jesus was actually called by those who knew him. But this is forgetting that the language which Jesus, his parents, and his disciples spoke between themselves was Aramaic, which was to Hebrew as modern Italian is to classical Latin. To reflect this, Mel Gibson set The Passion of the Christ's dialogue partly in Aramaic, and in the movie Jesus' disciples correctly address their master as "Yeshu." Because our testimonies were written first in Greek, then in Latin, "Jesus" is simply the form these adop
ted from "Yeshu."

  Similarly, "Christ" is simply the Greek word for "Messiah." In Hebrew this means the "anointed one," and it was the title that Jewish kings traditionally received after the ritual anointing that was the equivalent of their being crowned as king. Because the coming of a new Messiah/Christ was the Jewish people's great hope for freeing themselves from Roman rule, Jesus would never have openly advertised himself as Jesus "Messiah" or Jesus "Christ." Or, at least, not until he was fully prepared to take the consequences. To the people of his own time he would simply have been known as "Yeshu son of Joseph," after his father, or "Yeshu of Nazareth," after his hometown, this latter notably being the form that our testimonies preferred.

  In any crime scene investigation, one important task is to build up a profile of the victim, because information about his social and psychological background can yield clues to the motives for someone wanting him killed. Though Jesus lived at a time before birth certificates, there is general agreement amongst the witness statements that his mother was named Mary. Three of the same four sources—the exception being John—name Mary's husband as Joseph, whose occupation according to Mark 13:55 was that of a carpenter. Despite Joseph's relatively humble status—also, two lengthy attestations that he was not Jesus' biological father—both the Matthew and Luke witness statements provide Jesus with an ancestral pedigree, via Joseph, stretching back to the royal dynasty of Israel founded by King David, and indeed beyond. So Jesus theoretically had some royal blood flowing through his veins, assuming that Joseph did play some part in his paternity.