Truth About The Crucifixion — Page 230
place for himself and his suite in order to be able ultimately to start a campaign of liberation. Such a situation was destined to confront many political leaders in this century. So do I understand the words of John not as metaphysics but as a mention of a historic event. We know that the author of John's gospel differs from the synoptic ones by what is called “pneumatism”. If we manage to remove this distortion we can get welcome new information even from this source. None of the synoptics mentions e. g. Jesus considering going out of the reach of Rome eastward and continuing his mission there. The scholar of history should then ascertain whether there was any real hope of a shelter for Jesus out of the reach of Rome. It was then the capital of an overwhelming power and his supporters had hardly any hope of finding a refuge anywhere. But J. Rawlinson does not agree with the famous historian Gibbon on the “long arm of Roman influence. " In his opinion the Parthian empire was larger than that of Rome and in the six wars waged among them, only once did Rome win a persuasive victory. Fortunately enough priests did not have in Parthia as great influence as the Jewish ones had in Palestine. The Parthians were tolerant in religion and therefore the Jewish diaspore was in Mesopotamia in full bloom. Jesus could have expected a good reception: First, from the government because the Parthians did help the Maccabeans a hundred years before and because Jesus was now an enemy of their enemies. Secondly, he would be welcome to the people because of his bringing a message of love. peace and transcendental hope. But after the year 70 A. D. Jerusalem being destroyed, Jesus could no longer think of any political return to Palestine. 222