Jesus' Trials
01:27:16 Share

On August 17th, 1980,

Lindy Chamberlain and her husband Michael raised the alarm. Their nine-week-old baby Azaria had disappeared from their tent in a campsite at Uluru in the heart of the Australian desert. Lindy reported that she believed a dingo had taken her baby. Azaria's body was never found. The initial inquest found that a dingo had indeed killed Azaria.

There had been so many rumours surrounding the Chamberlains in the few months between Azaria's disappearance and that first inquest that the coroner allowed cameras into the courtroom as he delivered his verdict. To you, Pastor and Mrs Chamberlain, and through you, to Aidan and Regan, may I extend my deepest sympathy.

You have not only suffered the loss of your beloved child in the most tragic circumstances, but you have all been subjected to months of innuendo, suspicion and probably the most malicious gossip ever witnessed in this country. I have taken the unusual step of permitting these proceedings to be televised today.

in the hope that by direct and accurate communication, such innuendo, suspicions and gossip may finally cease. But it didn't. What happened next was what many commentators have called a trial by media.

Lindy Chamberlain was harangued by the press, spat on by strangers in the street. It was suggested Lindy and her husband were members of a Christian cult and that Azaria in Hebrew meant sacrifice in the wilderness. It actually just means God helped. A year later, Lindy Chamberlain was charged with murder.

While her trial was happening inside the courthouse, outside people sold souvenirs, T-shirts and tea towels carrying images of the Australian dingo and stamped with Azaria Chamberlain Trial 1982.

Americans are, of course, not unfamiliar with the media circus that can surround a trial. Think O.J. Simpson in the 1990s or Amanda Knox, whose murder trial was carried out in Italy, but who still became one of America's most recognisable faces. Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murder and given a life sentence. She spent four years in prison before being exonerated after new evidence was found.

In 2012, a fourth inquest finally put the matter to rest. Azaria Chamberlain was taken by a dingo. Legal trials can have a profound hold on our collective attention. We're fascinated by the process, determined to come to our own conclusion. We debate the innocence or guilt of real people while listening to true crime podcasts and binging Netflix shows.

Despite the dryness of much of the legal theory, the courtroom drama is one of humanity's most successful genres. And so we come to the most famous trial of all time. Every Easter, Christians around the world celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus. We've done big episodes on both the crucifixion and the resurrection with some of the best scholars in the world.

In this episode, we're looking at the days leading up to Jesus' death. What do we actually know about the trial and conviction of Jesus? Was it fair? Was it real? I'm John Dixon, and this is Undeceptions. Undeceptions

This season of Undeceptions is sponsored by Zondervan Academic. You can get discounts on their special Master Lectures video courses and free chapters of many of the books we talk about here on the show. Just go to zondervanacademic.com forward slash Undeceptions.

Every episode of Undeceptions, we explore some aspect of life, faith, history, science, culture or ethics that's either much misunderstood or mostly forgotten. With the help of people who know what they're talking about, we're trying to undeceive ourselves and let the truth... MUSIC

Just a note up front, the trials of Jesus are one of the most controversial parts of the whole Christian story, largely because of the old toxic claim that the Jews killed Jesus. Some have read the Gospels themselves as anti-Semitic because they portray the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem as playing the central role in Jesus' arrest and execution.

Sadly, Christians throughout history have too often read the Gospels exactly that way. Shamefully, even Emperor Constantine justified the unequal treatment of Jews in the Roman Empire on the perverse grounds that, quoting a law from the year 336, "the Jews had slain the prophets and the Lord himself." Awful.

And don't get me started on Martin Luther's rhetoric about Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus. I'm glad to say not everyone in his day agreed with him. The Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger, for one, called Luther's arguments, quote, ridiculous, vile insults, crude invective, which befit no one.

I'm disgusted to say that it was unfortunately Luther's view, not Bullinger's, that shaped much of Protestant Europe for the next few centuries. So historians have to tread carefully here. On the one hand, the sources, including two Jewish ones, Josephus and the Talmud, agree that the leadership in Jerusalem was pivotal in the decision to have Jesus arrested and then executed. That much is clear.

But to extend that to some idea of Jewish guilt in general, as Bullinger says, that's ridiculous and even vile. It would be like holding all Italians responsible for executing the apostles Peter and Paul, and Ignatius, and Fabian, and Babylis, and Cyprian, and so on. It's dumb and it's dangerous.

Well, let's dive straight into this really important topic of the trials of Jesus. I have your great big Wunsch volume right here for you. Tell us about Galilee and Judea in the first century, at least as much of the political religious situation in order to understand the background to Jesus' trial.

Dr. Erhard Schnabel: Yeah, I think many people make the mistake and think probably because it's so long ago and they don't have a sense of historical dimensions that there were the Romans and this was all part of the Roman Empire. But that is not the case with regard to Galilee at the time of Jesus. Galilee was a separate... That's Dr. Erhard Schnabel.

Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts. He has written many, many books, including one of the best pieces of scholarship ever on the trials of Jesus. It's called The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus, which he wrote with David W. Chapman.

It's a compilation and analysis of all relevant ancient sources concerning Roman and Jewish trials and crucifixions. And you can get your own copy from Moore Zeebeck Publishers for just 244 euro.

Bargain. Galilee was a separate region. It was called technically a Tetrarchy, governed by Herod Antipas, the second son of Herod I.

who took over that part of his father's kingdom when his father died, either 6 BC or 4 BC. And he ruled as a Tetrarch, that was his official title, until 39 AD. So he was a savvy political operator who managed to

take into account Roman interests because they were running the province of Syria, which was a Roman province with Roman troops just north of Galilee. So, Galilee was a separate, somewhat independent entity.

Different parts of the Roman Empire were governed in different ways at different times. Romans liked to install friends of Rome, client kings who were known to the local population but absolutely loyal to Rome.

When Jesus was born, King Herod the Great was one such friend. Sometimes the client-king model didn't work out, and Romans had to install direct Roman governors, backed up by Roman soldiers stationed throughout the region.

Judea itself transitioned this way in the years and decades after Herod the Great. When he died in 4 BC, the region was split up and governed by his sons. Herod Antipas was given Galilee in the north, Archelaus got Judea in the south, and so on.

But Archelaus wasn't great, and after AD 6, the Romans got rid of him and installed governors to rule Judea directly, while Galilee remained with Antipas. So I want to ask you, thinking of Judea in particular and Roman rule there, the caricature is that the Romans were just brutal despots. Were they? Or could they be reasonable on a good day?

The Romans obviously could be brutal. Augustus had himself celebrated as a savior, and he certainly saved the empire from civil war or what used to be the Roman Republic. But he was a military dictator who ruthlessly killed antagonists.

such as Cicero, when they won the war against the Roman insurgents that lasted from AD 66 to AD 100. There were thousands and thousands of people who were killed.

and who were sold into slavery. Now, in the provinces or in the Roman territories, the Romans did not really intervene much. They were happy when there was peace and quiet, when taxes were collected. Otherwise, they left the locals to their own laws.

that had been in place since hundreds and hundreds of years. So they didn't try to impose Roman identity, even though members of the provincial elites often for career reasons strove to prove their Roman allegiance.

As I said, the Romans ousted Archelaus in AD 6 and brought Judea and Samaria under direct Roman administration, which meant installing prefects or governors. The fifth of those prefects of Judea, appointed in the year 26, was Pontius Pilate.

What was he like? How did he compare to previous governors? It's actually interesting that Pilate is one of the most often referenced individuals in the New Testament. He is mentioned by name 57 times.

And that compares with Peter explicitly referenced 156 times. And then we go down to Herod, both King Herod and Herod Antipas mentioned 43 times and Caiaphas mentioned nine times. And there is actually one inscription from Caesarea.

from a lighthouse that identifies him correctly as a prefect of Judea. What is interesting is the fact that Lou calls him a friend of the emperor and it's not clear whether this is an official title because friends, the amici of the emperors were aristocrats who were the emperor's daily company.

Or they were aristocrats with whom the emperor had regular social contact. Or thirdly, the amici could be Sandersonites who were permitted to appear at the emperor's morning reception. And so because we know basically hardly anything about Pilate, we don't know what his relationship to Tiberius was, the emperor of the time. If it was used as

a title. There might have been maybe even some family connections of the Pontius Pilate family with Tiberius in some fashion, but we have no information about that as well.

But I don't think Pontius Pilate was one of the better ones. The Romans are occupied. That's my dear friend, mentor, ancient historian, New Testament commentator, retired Bishop of North Sydney, and the man who first ordained me, the Right Reverend Dr Paul Barnett.

He's in his late 80s, but he's still pumping out the history books, including one just published titled The Trials of Jesus, Evidence, Conclusions and Aftermath.

It's a super accessible, masterful work that opens up the trials and introduces us properly to the various players who participated in Jesus' conviction. If you're listening in April or May 2025 and take part in our listener survey, you'll get a chance to win a copy of this book, along with other books from this season, but not the giant Schnabel book. Sorry, that's staying on my bookshelf.

Head to undeceptions.com forward slash survey to do that. Back to Paul. The Romans occupied Judea in AD 6, and with that they introduced a personal taxation payable directly to the Roman ruler. And this was seen to be a violation of the book of Numbers, which said that only God could number the people.

And so there was a theological zealot-type movement reacting against the Romans, not just against their presence, but against all that it symbolised in terms of the loss of sovereignty from the Almighty to a corrupt Roman. And corrupt he certainly was.

From day one, he was trouble. And from that time, it was very difficult for the people in Judea, but not just the people in Judea, because people in Galilee and other provinces realised that Rome was at hand. And if there's trouble in their province, well, the Romans would quickly move in. And according to Josephus, who's our chief court source of knowledge,

The uprising in AD 6 was the prelude to a series of rolling uprisings for the next 60 years. And some of the Roman governors were okay, mostly not. What begins in AD 6 gets finished in AD 66 when the Romans invade and ultimately destroy the city and the temple. And that's the wider context of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.

The history of first century Judea and Galilee is dotted with mini-revolts that the Romans had to continuously snuff out. When Pontius Pilate comes on the scene, there is already tension in the air between the Jewish people and their Roman leaders. By the way, even though, as Eckhart said, Pontius Pilate is one of the most frequently cited people in the Gospels, very little is actually known about him.

Outside the New Testament, we have passing references to him in Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus. But Tacitus even gave him a different title, which has caused some confusion in academic circles. In 1961, archaeologists discovered what is now known as the Pilate Stone.

It was discovered by fluke, as so often happens, on the coast of Israel in the ancient town of Caesarea Maritima, which was the capital of Roman Judea in the time of Pontius Pilate. The stone resolved a little dispute. The Gospels call Pilate the hegemon of Judea, the prefect or governor of

The Roman historian Tacitus, and Josephus by the way, calls him the Procurator of Judea, which is a slightly different Roman title that we now know wasn't used until a few years after Pontius Pilate. Tacitus writes, "...Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of the Procurator Pontius Pilate."

This stone, which was set up by Pilate himself, calls him Prefect of Judea. In this instance, the Gospels are closer to the fine details than the greatest Roman source of the ancient world. Do you think he was a little bit anti-Jewish? I mean, there was a sort of anti-Jewish mentality.

feeling anyway. But was he particularly so? I'm thinking of his raising the Roman standards in Jerusalem. I'm thinking of the coins that he minted with pagan symbols on them and so on.

Pontius Pilate remained in power for over 35 years. So he must have been very successful. He was actually the longest serving prefect. If he had been lousy and if he had been entirely anti-Jewish interest, he could not really survive very long. What is interesting is actually the coins of Pilate. He issued three series of coins.

And he did not, for example, depict the image of the emperor. If he really was anti-Jewish, he would insist that the image of the emperor would be on the coins, which would greatly upset the Jews, who were not allowed to pick any person in pictorial fashion.

And so he seems to have pursued three aims with the coins he minted. As a prefect of a Roman territory with a largely non-Roman population, he wanted to honor the Roman emperor and his family. He wanted to honor Tiberius. He wanted to emphasize that Rome held political power in Rome, but he did not rub it in, so to speak. He did not put...

the emperor's image on these coins. And I mean, we could talk about Philo's report about the decision of Pilate to set up gold-plated shields in Herod's palace in Jerusalem. The anger of the Jews seems to have been provoked by the fact that the reference to Tiberius

contained the expression for Tiberius, the son of the divine Augustus, grandson of the divine Julius Caesar. And so a German classical scholar comments that if this is correct,

Pilate did not deliberately try to provoke the Jews. He simply used the standard formula for the name of Tiberius as attested in many other epigraphic documents. And so there was a Jewish protest and something like a Jewish rebellion, although not in a military sense. This action does not seem to have been deliberately anti-Jewish.

The German classicist Eckhart is referring to here is Werner Eck. He's a really big name in the field. He has indeed argued that Pontius Pilate wasn't particularly anti-Jewish, just a bit tone deaf. He did what most Roman governors would have done in any other province. He didn't have it in for the Jews.

Others have pointed out that the preceding governors of Judea had been more sensitive to Jewish concerns. They avoided putting pagan symbols on coins they minted in Judea, for example. Pilate, by contrast, famously minted coins with instruments of pagan worship depicted. I have a couple of them.

One depicts the litus, basically a magic wand used in Roman rituals. Another shows a simpulum. That's a ladle used in pagan temples to pour out liquid offerings to the gods. From a Jewish point of view, that's not cool.

Still, Werner Eck and Eckhard Schnabel may be right. Perhaps Pilate was just careless and tone-deaf, not anti-Jewish. Back to this thing about the Roman standards set up at night. Here's Josephus reporting it. Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius... Did you hear that? Yes, Josephus too makes the small error of calling Pilate procurator instead of prefect.

sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. This excited a very great tumult among the Jews when it was day, for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden underfoot, for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city.

Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens themselves had at the procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Caesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable.

But upon Pilate's denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights. On the next day, Pilate sat upon his tribunal in the open marketplace and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer.

and then gave a signal to the soldiers that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons. So the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight,

Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces unless they would admit of Caesar's images and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Scary stuff, right? These Jewish leaders were surrounded by Pilate's special soldiers with drawn swords. If they didn't submit, they were dead. That was Pilate's message. Want to know what happened next?

It's perhaps the first successful non-violent protest in recorded history. Picking up from the scary bit: "Pilot also said to them that they should be cut in pieces unless they would admit of Caesar's images and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords."

Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition and gave order that the ensigns should presently be carried out of Jerusalem.

Josephus, Jewish War, Book 2. How cool is that? Let's move on to understanding the Sanhedrin. What is the Sanhedrin? How did they relate to Roman rule? The Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative, judicial and executive body of the leading citizens of Judea. It was not merely a court of law, although it did function as a court of law.

It was an assembly of notables who were responsible for the affairs of Jerusalem and Judea, even in a secondary manner for Jewish affairs in the Diaspora.

They were obviously not in charge for matters in which the Roman proconsuls or the Roman prefects in Judea had jurisdiction, such as conscription of military troops, taxation, and death penalty cases. The main priests were members, the leading citizens of Jerusalem, lay leaders. There were Sadducees, there were Pharisees.

Later sources tell us that the Sanhedrin had 71 members, 70 members plus the president, who would have been the high priest. But we actually cannot be certain that this was the case in the first half of the first century.

The Sanhedrin seems to have been created by King Herod I as a religious court. It remained in place until the destruction of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The Pharisees played a prominent role during the time of Herod, but the composition of the Sanhedrin changed. And the Romans seemed to have favored the priestly and non-priestly nobility, not Pharisees who would have been lay leaders or scribes.

You might like to go and listen to our episode called Jewish Jesus, episode 117, for more background on the different sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus. It's vital background for a genuine understanding of the Gospels as historical sources.

A quick reminder, the Pharisees were known for their strict adherence to Jewish law, both written and oral law. The Pharisees were ordinary people, not priests, and their teachings were very popular, especially in the synagogues. At various times, there were Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. The Gospel of John mentions one, Nicodemus.

That said, at the time of Jesus, we're pretty sure most members of the council were not Pharisees. Many were Sadducees. The Sadducees insisted on only the written law, not the oral law of the Pharisees. They were kind of conservatives. They closely aligned with the priestly class and with the management of the temple.

They were famously aristocratic and supportive of maintaining good relationships with their Roman overlords. During Jesus' lifetime, the high priest of the Jerusalem temple was Caiaphas, the son-in-law of the previous high priest, Annas. What we had in the early part of Roman operation was the corrupt rule of a high priest called Annas and his son-in-law, Caiaphas,

and Annas had five sons, three of whom later became high priests. So there's a continuous high priesthood of that particular dynasty for 30 or more years.

As a matter of fact, the tomb of Caiaphas seems to have been discovered in Jerusalem. There is an ossuary of the deceased person, are no longer there, but this ossuary contains the inscription or the graffito, Yehoseph, son of Kepha, Joseph, son of Kepha, which scholars take as a reference to Caiaphas.

He was a third member of the Annas family to serve as a high priest. But being in office for 18 years means that he must have been a very savvy political operator because he served under three different Roman prefects.

And so again, the German New Testament scholar was convinced that Caiaphas must have been a genius of balance, diplomatically flexible in his dealings with the prefects and the Herodian rulers, conscious of his power and yet not hated by the people to a degree which would have prompted strong protest.

What is interesting is that Luke mentions both Annas and Caiaphas when he dates the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist, which is the only precise date given in the New Testament.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod Tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip Tetrarch of Iteria, and Trachonitis and Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

And that gives us about a date of AD 28. Would you concur with that? Yes, correct. Yes. Okay, that's all background. But it's important because Judea and Galilee are the primary locations for the ministry of Jesus. They are the jurisdictions for the trials of Jesus, which we'll get to after the break.

This episode of Undeceptions is brought to you by our season sponsor, Zondervan Academic, and their new book, Beautiful, Disappointing, Hopeful, by New York pastor Drew Heughan. Drew moved to Manhattan in September 2001 and was confronted by just how quickly life in a beautiful, hopeful city can be shattered by darkness and disappointment.

as he experienced the events of September 11. His book shows that Christianity provides not only the tools to celebrate and be grateful for life, but also to mourn, to lament in healthy ways. With its practices of gratitude, grief and grace, Drew argues that biblical Christianity is the best lens through which to process the highs and lows of life.

This is not happy, clappy Christianity. It's nitty gritty. You can grab a free chapter of Drew's book, Beautiful, Disappointing, Hopeful, as well as discounts on a bunch of other titles just by going to zondervanacademic.com forward slash undeceptions. zondervanacademic.com forward slash undeceptions.

Before we speak specifically about Jesus' trials, do we know of other trials in Judea that can give us a general background?

Yeah, the problem generally is if one investigates Roman criminal law in the provinces, that there are very few cases that are mentioned in the primary sources. We know a lot from the city of Rome itself, especially through Cicero, obviously. Yeah, one case is...

Mentioned by Josephus, a Jesus son of Ananias is mentioned. Another Jesus. Yes. 30 years later or something, right? Well, Jesus was a somewhat common Jewish name. It's really the Old Testament Joshua, which in Greek is Jesus.

This Jesus, son of Ananias, appears around the year 62, some 30 or so years after the life of Jesus and eight years before the destruction of Jerusalem in the Great Jewish Revolt. He went around prophesying the city's demise and incensed the people of Jerusalem who didn't like bad omens. Fair enough, really.

He began on a sudden cry aloud: "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry as he went about by day and by night in all the lanes of the city. Josephus, Jewish War 6

First, the Jewish authorities let him do his thing. He is harmless because he has no followers. But eventually, the Sadducees regard this as a provocation and think maybe the Romans might intervene, which they want to avoid. And so they start a trial.

So something very similar happened in the case of Jesus. The Jewish aristocracy, they arrest him, they torture him, they interrogate him without success because he stays silent. And then they conclude he wants to create a commotion or rebellion. They transfer him to the Roman governor and the governor or prefect then concludes that the man is insane.

and releases him and doesn't do anything. Jesus, son of Ananias, was released by the governor, Albinus. A few years later, the destruction of Jerusalem actually happened. And this Jesus, who'd kept up his eerie dirge for years by now, is struck on the head with a stone and dies.

The point, you may be wondering? The case of Jesus' son of Ananias shows that Jewish leaders did turn people over to the Roman authorities for interview and trial. That's what happened to Jesus. But he wasn't let go. It's time to talk about Jesus. So before he gets to Jerusalem for that last time...

What tensions already existed between him and various kinds of authorities that might have created a shadow looming over him?

Of course, Herod Antipas had executed John the Baptist because he had criticized Antipas' divorce from his first wife, who was a princess of the king of Nabatea, and he married a close relative that, according to Jewish law, he was not supposed to marry. It constituted incest.

And so he had John imprisoned, eventually executed. And Jesus' ministry arose in the context of John the Baptist's ministry. Now, according to Luke, Antipas was intrigued about Jesus.

When Jesus starts to perform miracles, he says, "Who is this about whom I hear such things?" Luke 9:9. So here Antipas is not a threat for Jesus.

Mark states that the Pharisees and Herodians, supporters of the Herodian family, to which Antipas, of course, belongs, conspired early in Jesus' ministry to eliminate him. And we do not know whether Herod Antipas was behind this plot. Luke reports that Jesus calls Herod Antipas, Fox.

an ironic designation that appeals to the cleverness connected with foxes in antiquity. And that could either be negative, someone is shifty or wily, or in a positive sense that someone is intelligent and dubious.

Jesus warns his disciples of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod, according to Mark 8:15, but it's not clear from the context what that means.

And what is interesting is that Jesus is not reported to have had any ministry in Sepphoris and Tiberias, the capitals of Herod Antipas. So maybe, we can only speculate, he deliberately avoided these two urban centers in order not to have a deliberate or provoked confrontation with Antipas.

singing

This crowd of thousands here in Jerusalem is celebrating what for many Christians is the most important period of their faith, known as Holy Week. It starts with Palm Sunday, marking the day Jesus entered Jerusalem and was honoured by crowds laying palm leaves at his feet. The week goes on to mark his crucifixion. That's a clip from a few years ago now, with CNN reporting on Palm Sunday celebrations in Jerusalem.

If you're listening to this episode on the day it was released, then yesterday was Palm Sunday. It traditionally marks the beginning of Holy Week, the seven days leading up to Easter, where Christians commemorate the death and resurrection of Jesus. Palm Sunday is the day Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey. He's met by large crowds cheering him on and laying palm branches in his path as a sign of victory and triumph.

The procession catapults him inevitably towards arrest and crucifixion. Jesus eventually comes to Jerusalem in some kind of triumphant parade, and within a week or so, he's dead. So tell us what are the key factors in those closing days or weeks in your view?

Yeah, I think there were maybe five. Five developments that played a role, a decisive role. If we go back to earlier tensions, the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees, as reported in the Gospels, was often amicable, but sometimes hostile.

For example, Jesus claimed the authority to forgive sins, which would place him next to God, or at least he seems to claim divine dignity because in Jewish theology only God can forgive sins. And in several parables, Jesus explains his behavior with the behavior of God. And so there's a hostility of the Pharisees concerning Jesus.

At that time, Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests."

"Or haven't you read in the law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. "If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." "Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shrivelled hand was there.

Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out, and it was completely restored.

Just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. Matthew chapter 12. Professor Schnabel has five developments, historically speaking, that led to Jesus' arrest and trial. I don't mean to be a tease, but only plus subscribers will be treated to that five-fold nerdiness. For the rest of us, let's pick up at his last couple. Sorry, sort of.

Another specific event is Jesus' approach to Jerusalem. That was very deliberately planned. Jesus didn't walk as pilgrims usually did when they walked to Jerusalem. He organized for a donkey to be used that, if one was willing to do so, could be linked

with David's, or with Solomon's approach to Jerusalem as the fulfilling of messianic prophecy. The crowds, they welcome him. The next day, the great crowd that had come for the festival heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!"

Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, as it is written: At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him, and that these things had been done to him. Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead, continued to spread the word.

Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him."

The fifth development, often called the cleansing of the temple, but Jesus does not do any cleansing. He drives out sellers who conveniently offer blemish-free animals for sacrifices. He drove out buyers.

which means that he made it impossible for people to buy these animals and offer sacrifices. And then he overturns the temples of the money changers, which actually ensured that the validity of the temple tax, which had to be paid by every Jewish male 20 years or older in the currency of the Tyrian half shekel. And the commercial side of the temple was considerable.

I think Josephus says there's a quarter of a million lambs slaughtered at a Passover. And each of those sacrifices had a tax and the money changes from corrupt Roman coinage to an iconic coinage brought huge volumes of money into the temple.

So when Jesus launched his assault on the money changers and the merchants, it was not a small matter of symbolism against those people, but really it proved to be an assault on the flow of money from the temple into the pockets of the high priest and through his pocket to the Roman governor.

Jesus was not a Levite. He was not a priest. He had no authority in the temple. This was not an official action. If you wanted to glance at the temple, he would have had to talk to Pilate and say, "Look, there are irregular things going on. Let me help clean this up." No, this was a prophetic demonstration where we understand the significance if we look at the direct speech.

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said,

"Is it not written, My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of robbers." The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching. Gospel of Mark Chapter 11

So Jesus announces that the Temple Mount will be called a house of prayer for the nations. There have been several Old Testament prophecies, Isaiah 56, verse 7, one of them, that in the Messianic periods, the nations will come to Zion and worship there. And so Jesus says,

The time of fulfillment for these prophecies has come. The time is close where the nations will come to faith in the one true God.

And then the allusion to Jeremiah 7:11 indicates that Jesus announces the destruction of the temple, which He does explicitly, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, only a few hours later when He returns to Bethany. Do you regard this as the final trigger, as it were, that led to Jesus' arrest? Yes, I think it was.

And so we arrive at the night of Jesus' arrest. It's the night of the Last Supper, when Jesus broke bread and drank wine with his disciples, a remembrance meal that became the world's oldest Christian liturgy, with the possible exception of saying the Lord's Prayer, which Jesus taught his disciples to say from quite early in his ministry. Anyway, it's the night Jesus was betrayed by one of those disciples, Judas Iscariot.

While he was still speaking, a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

But Jesus answered, "No more of this." And he touched the man's ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour, when darkness reigns."

Jesus is taken to Annas, the senior high priest, who interrogates him and has him beaten. Then Jesus is sent to Caiaphas, the ruling high priest. The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Gospel of Matthew chapter 26.

Okay, so he is arrested and he goes through two major trials, maybe a third, a bonus, we can talk about that. But there's a Sanhedrin trial of some kind and then there's a Roman trial. Can you tell us something about the different charges that would have been laid against him at those different trials? Let's first talk about the Jewish trial that took place during the night of

And Mark and Matthew report that there were various witnesses who were brought before the Sanhedrin. They are interrogated, which indicates this was not a kangaroo court because these witnesses were thrown out. Their witness did not agree. And according to the Mishnah redacted around AD 200, a witness needed to be questioned about when something happened there.

in terms of the time of the year, the month, the week, the day of the week, whether it was in the morning, in the afternoon, what were the circumstances, very detailed questions if there was the slightest discrepancy, the witness had been thrown out. The Mishnah, by the way, was a collection of oral traditions from the 1st century BC to the 2nd century AD.

It wasn't actually written down until after Jesus and after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, but it reflects many oral traditions that circulated in Jesus' day. Mishnai Jewish law was actually very pro-accused. Jewish law made it very difficult to convict someone on a capital charge.

And so their witness was thrown out. And then Caiaphas turns to Jesus, and it seems some of these witnesses at least say that Jesus said that he wanted to destroy the temple, which Jesus had never said. He said something similar, according to the Gospel of John, where he challenged Jesus.

people on the Temple Mount that they should destroy the Temple and he would rebuild it in three days. And Sean comments that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about his body, that he would be dead for three days and then be erased from the dead. And so it seems the witnesses are confused about what Jesus exactly said. So he's not convicted on that charge.

And then Caiaphas turns to Jesus and says: "I charge you under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." "You have said so," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

In other words, he states he has divine dignity, that he is the judge of the world. He is their judge. And if you don't believe that, you have to regard it as blasphemy. And so Jesus is convicted as a blasphemer. And then he's transferred to the Roman authorities with the charge that he seduces the people.

The Gospels of Matthew and Mark focus solely on Jesus' blasphemy conviction. The Gospel of Luke adds an important detail to the trial. It says the religious authorities accused Jesus before Pontius Pilate with the words, "...we found this man misleading our nation, forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king." That's Luke 23.

In other words, Jesus was being accused in two ways. As a seducer of the people under Jewish law, someone leading others astray from the truth of God, and as a seditionist under Roman law, someone challenging Caesar's authority.

These are roughly the same charges, one religious and one political. Given the backdrop of Jewish uprisings against the Romans, this was a very serious charge.

That would mean, in the context of blasphemy, he seduces the people to believe things about Jesus that are not true. For example, that he has the authority to forgive sins. That may have been part of it. That would be blasphemy, and that he has divine dignity.

In Jewish law, there was the charge of being a seducer of the people, the Hebrew terms or Aramaic terms are Mesit and Madiach. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery.

That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known,"

"Gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.

Deuteronomy chapter 13.

They are mentioned in Deuteronomy, also in the temple scroll from Qumran. There they are described as prophets and dreamers who entice people to idolatrous worship.

And blasphemy would always mean something else than the one true God is worshipped. And so the Mesid is a lay person who seduces individuals. The Madiach seduces an entire town. And

This is actually what the report in Luke says, that the high priest takes Jesus to the Roman prefect and says he seduces the people. That charge is eventually being discussed that he makes himself king, which is what Pilate actually does not believe.

Jesus appears before him as a completely non-influential figure, a figure that does not come in military garb or with military pretensions. If you can believe the trial narrative in the Gospel of John, Pilate actually wants to release Jesus three times.

and it is only on account of the pressure of the Jewish leaders that he gives in and has Jesus sentenced. One needs to know Jesus was a provincial, he was not a Roman citizen, he had no rights at all. Pilate could actually legally do with Jesus whatever he wanted to do. So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews? You have said so.

Jesus replied. Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man." But they insisted, "He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here." On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean.

When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at the time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer.

The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. Gospel of Luke chapter 23

Because you mentioned a third option, maybe I can address that very quickly. Jesus is taken to Herod Antipas, the person in charge of him in Galilee. But Herod Antipas had no jurisdiction in Jerusalem. So it seems what is happening is that Pontius Pilate

sought the advice of Herod Antipas. He has Jesus sent to Herod Antipas, then Herod Antipas sends him back. It was standard practice in Roman trials to seek the advice of a counsel in a criminal case that was before the court. So Roman governors regularly consulted counselors whose members were chosen by the magistrate's direction. And the verb that Luke uses is

Pilate sends him to Herod Antipas. Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man, as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence, and I have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. As you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death.

Therefore I will punish him and then release him." But what was the key charge against Jesus from the Roman point of view? What might have been written down in Pilate's official report?

Well, this was summarized on the little plaque that was attached at the top of Jesus' cross where he was crucified. It simply said, "Jesus, King of the Jews." The Jewish leaders want this changed.

to say he only said he is king of the Jews. And of course, Pilate doesn't believe he is king of the Jews, and he refuses to accommodate the more precise statement that the Jewish authorities want to have written. I mean, Jesus did state to Pilate that he is king, but that his kingdom is not of this world.

Pilate could most easily justify, if he ever would have to justify in Rome the execution of Jesus, if he could say, "Well, he claimed to be a king, whatever the details, I couldn't let this happen."

I had him crucified, which is actually, again, a method of execution that was demanded by the Jewish authorities because of the shame that was attached to it. The Romans usually crucified by decapitation,

Jews normally crucified by stoning, and crucifixion was reserved for either traitors of a country, and so it could be argued someone who claims to be king and he is not, he is a traitor of his country, and then slaves who maybe killed their master. And so they were crucified to put, well, the fear of the authorities into people.

Do we have evidence of this being a normal practice of placarding one's crime? Yes, there are some other primary sources that indicate that the verdict which explains the death penalty of a person was published at the place of execution. Pilate wasn't eager to convict Jesus. Romans weren't in the habit of formally executing people unjustly.

There's this entire tradition of Romans thinking of themselves as the people of justice. But expediency was a form of Roman justice. At the Passover, the crowds in Jerusalem swelled at least by 100%. Some think 400%. The festival itself was a celebration of liberation from a pagan enemy, the escape from Egypt and all that.

And these were already turbulent times. So Pilate could very easily simultaneously have believed Jesus wasn't a genuine threat to Roman order and that there was a not insignificant chance that crowds might rally in support of this pretender. With this, he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, I find no basis for a charge against him.

"But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release the king of the Jews?" They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising. Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head.

They clothed him in a purple robe and went up to him again and again saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they slapped him in the face. Once more, Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is the man.

As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him." The Jewish leaders insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus. But Jesus gave him no answer. "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Do you realize I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above,

Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free. But the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar! Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar!" When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the stone pavement.

which in Aramaic is Gabbatha. It was the day of the preparation of the Passover. It was about noon. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" "Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered. Finally,

Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. This episode of Undeceptions is brought to you by Speak Life and their new video-based course, 321, presented by the wonderful Aussie, now living in England...

Glenn Scrivner. G'day, mate. Glenn is a fantastic public advocate for the Christian faith in the UK. And in this course, he walks you through the core beliefs of the Christian faith. Glenn provides a basic Christian perspective on life, the world, and our place in it. 321 is a fantastic new way to explore Christianity. And it's also a brilliant way to share and deepen your faith if you're already a believer. So,

So it's both for skeptics and for believers. You can do 321 online in just a couple of hours or you can space it out over a few weeks. I'm really excited about this because honestly, Glenn is an awesome bloke. Head to 321course.com forward slash Undeceptions to give it a go. There's no spam and no cost. That's 321course.com forward slash Undeceptions. You won't be disappointed. Music

I woke again today with another judgment to give. Bring on the witness or the liar. On a day like this, they're much the same. Let's press pause. I've got a five-minute Jesus for you.

Well, for this one, I've got a little help from my mate Ben Shaw. Before he passed away a few years ago, we recorded a lot of songs together. And this is from our album Ode. It's a song called Who's On Trial. Yep, it's a song about Pontius Pilate waking up that fateful day with another judgment day.

Pilate stands in judgment of Jesus, but is haunted, we imagine in the song, by the way Jesus responds and doesn't. You spoke your crime with a foolish tongue, but you held your head like your kingdom come. Am I the judge or the accused, Pilate asks. On a day like this, who can tell?

Ben and I were trying to probe the idea that when you dare to condemn something or someone so good, so wise, so pure, you're in fact condemning yourself. In a strange way, then, the trial of Jesus is the judgment of us all. Here's the rest of the song. Who's on trial? Who's on trial?

I cast my vote and I deposed In speaking I was silenced Made my judgement Am I bound without you? Won't you tell me now? Who's on fire? Who's on fire? Who's on fire?

You can press play now. I want to ask you, with your historian's cap on, the degree to which you think the gospel accounts of the trials of Jesus fit the history. Because many people, for many decades, have said they're basically pious fiction. What do you say? Well, with respect to others who take a different view, I think the...

The accounts of Josephus and the Gospels do synchronise. The uprising by Judas the Galilean in AD 6, which carried over into Judea itself, he was defeated by the Romans because he was said not to approve of Roman taxes and for Roman rule.

And Luke's description of what Jesus was accused of is almost identical of the behaviour of Judas the Galilean. So it was not that difficult from one point of view to put Jesus in the same frame. And the uprising, according to Josephus, the uprising in AD 6 by Judas the Galilean is the prelude to a series of uprisings of warlords

and revolutionaries that rolls on ultimately into the invasion of the Romans in AD 66. I think it is a historical reconstruction that works. So I'm comforted by that, that what we believe theologically about our Saviour is not pious fiction,

But it's rooted in a very real and what we might say brutal history. For my skeptical listeners, Eckhart, how historically plausible are the gospel's accounts of the trials of Jesus from a Roman and Jewish historical and legal perspective?

Yes, that has been repeatedly questioned, the historicity of the trial. And well, the criticism actually goes back to a New Testament scholar with the name Hans Lietzmann to a talk he gave before the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1931. And then it was taken up by skeptics.

Hans Lietzmann was a famous early 20th century church historian at the University of Berlin who built on earlier arguments that sought to prove that the Jewish Sanhedrin did have the right of capital punishment and could have executed Jesus without the ratification of the Roman leaders if they wanted to.

The main argument was the Sanhedrin had full jurisdiction in capital cases. If they had been, as they were in charge, if they had had a trial against Jesus, he would have been stoned to death. But because he was crucified, that means a Jewish trial never happens.

But recent research into the legal situation in Roman provinces confirms that an interrogation by local provincial authorities often preceded a Roman trial in the same case. And so...

It was, for example, also said Jesus was tried on the day before the Sabbath, which was also the day before the Passover, which rabbinic law did not allow executions on the day before a Sabbath. Jesus was tried during the night. Some critics say rabbinic law did not allow for criminal cases during the night.

And Jesus was convicted of a capital crime on the same day his trial had begun, whereas rabbinic law demands an interval of at least a night between the judge's arguments and conviction. Mark and Matthew, a false argument, do not report that witnesses were admonished to speak the truth.

They do not report that the capital case begins with reasons for acquittal. In a Jewish trial, first witnesses had to be brought that spoke for acquittal. That is not mentioned. And so there were several arguments

other arguments like the words of Jesus were taken to be blasphemy even though Jesus did not pronounce the divine name when critics assumed that was required for the charge of blasphemy to be there. And here it is crucial to know that Jesus was tried as a seducer of the people.

And when that was the case, because seducer of the people does seduce the people, several of the usual criteria for a criminal trial no longer applied. And so in capital cases involving a seducer, not all rules of general criminal cases apply it.

Therefore, one could say no legal rules were broken. He was a seducer, so it's better to try him during the night where no one is around. He was tried not in public, but in the Sanhedrin, and the verdict was spoken immediately. He was executed a day before the Sabbath, so that actually a day before a major festival, so that many people could see that he was actually

convicted and executed and that the power of his seduction would be broken. Also, we should note that Mark and Matthew, of course, report selectively. Ancient sources always do. And so we cannot know whether the witnesses were admonished to speak the truth or not.

Their silence does not prove that there was no such warning. And Matthew and Mark do not report that the capital case began with reasons for acquittal, which does not mean that this did not happen, because two of Jesus' sympathizers were members of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who were involved in his burial. And they could actually have spoken first.

Although that is speculation that we do not know. The obvious question might be to someone listening to us, how would anyone have known what happened in those secret trials in the Sanhedrin and then in the Roman trial such that Christians could have reported it in the Gospels? Well,

Well, there was Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, and he belonged to one of the richest families in Jerusalem. It was reported that, I think it was his uncle, when he moved from Jerusalem, his retainers always spread carpets in front of him so that his feet would never touch the dust of Jerusalem.

and that his family, just with their own funds, could supply food for the population of Jerusalem for several months. So this was Nicodemus, there was Joseph of Arimathea, also a member of the Sanhedrin. So they were present, and we may speculate Paul, the apostle Paul, had contact with Gamaliel, who was a very prominent member of the Sanhedrin. He was his student. Gamaliel was the most

prominent, today we would say, university professors in Jerusalem, which is what the Jewish Talmud tells us. And so he was, of course, a persecutor of Christians, and he would have presumably access to trial records, which we should assume were taken down, both in the Jewish trial and in the Roman trial.

So we have at least three candidates who could have had access to trial records. In our final minute, Eckhart, could you, in a sentence or two, tell me sociopolitically, why was Jesus crucified? And then, in maybe a minute, why do you think, or maybe I should put it this way, what did Jesus think of his own demise?

Jesus himself said, according to Mark 8, right after Peter said, you are the Messiah, that he is the son of man who would die, who would give his life as a ransom for many. And this is

interpreted right a few weeks after Jesus' death and resurrection by Peter when he speaks in Jerusalem for the first time in public, reported in Acts chapter 2. Peter discusses the crucifixion

and the resurrection and says that this happened so that your sins can be forgiven. Jesus did not want to avoid his death. He was not suicidal, but he was willing to die. It was part of his mission. He announced his death several times.

three times very explicitly, but about a couple of dozen times more obliquely. He talked about his death, and on some occasions he talked about it in terms of forgiveness of sins, like during the Last Supper with his disciples as well, which was then taken up by Paul also in 1 Corinthians.

Jesus' death can be thought of in two levels. It can be thought of as in a reconstructable and imaginable history involving corrupt high priests, a corrupt Roman governor, and there's ample testimony to that in Josephus and Philo.

Antisemitism is a big topic in the world at the moment. Well, it was alive and well back then. But then those who are eyewitnesses of Jesus, namely Mark through Peter and John, the beloved son,

who spent three years or so with Jesus day in and day out, learning from him the things that he hadn't explained in public, he explained in private and certainly a mountain of other information so that when the day of Pentecost comes and the Holy Spirit comes, they are ready, they're prepared to begin their testimony to who Jesus was.

And that testimony ultimately becomes the canon of the New Testament, the four Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament and the Book of Acts. And those texts leave us in no doubt that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God who came to teach us and to love us and ultimately to die for us so that we might be connected existentially with the great God of the universe who is our Father.

And that is the message which has touched the hearts of millions of people over the centuries. And the wonderful thing is it's not just an invented idea, it's not fiction. It's based in reality, it's based in history, it's based in the words of honest eyewitnesses. MUSIC

There's a lot going on at the moment for our team at Undeceptions. If you like our last episode, Our Hymn, then check out our new documentary called The First Hymn, available to stream now in the United States and coming soon for Australia and our global audiences.

Head to thefirsthymmovie.com for all the info. It's a project eight years in the imagining, almost three years in the making. It's the story of an ancient piece of papyrus found in the deserts of Egypt and how it made its way to the middle of a Christian rock concert in the heart of America's music scene.

As always, you can head to underceptions.com and leave us a question. Now, you can do it by text, but we love hearing your voices. So why not be bold and leave us a voice message so we can put it into one of our next Q&A episodes. Be brave. You'll also find a full transcript of the episode on our website as well as the show notes with all the links to all the stuff that we've talked about. See ya. Music

Undeceptions is hosted by me, John Dixon, produced by Kayleigh Payne and directed by Mark Dingo Hadley. Alistair Belling is a writer and researcher. Siobhan McGuinness, our online librarian. Lindy Leveston remains my wonderful assistant. Santino DiMarco is chief finance and operations consultant, editing by Richard Humwe. Our voice actors today are Yannick Laurie and Dakota Love. Special thanks to our series sponsor, Zondervan, for making this Undeception possible.

Undeceptions is the flagship podcast of Undeceptions.com. Letting the truth. An Undeceptions Podcast.