The evangelists come to the unanimous conclusion that Jesus was arrested without grounds. The High Priests and Council did their best to find charges: 'And the chief priest and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death: and found none' (Mark 14:55).

Until now it has not been explained what damaging information Judas could really have betrayed. He does not report at any stage of the trial, is not present at any hearing, nor does he appear as a witness for the prosecution. It does come out that the elders paid him thirty pieces of silver. What for? For the identification of a man who was known all over the town. But had he, and there the affair becomes and remains inexplicable, given concrete grounds for accusation in addition to the kiss of betrayal, the authorities would not have been so helpless. Furthermore, Judas would certainly not have turned traitor for thirty pieces of silver. There must have been something else involved that we shall never know about. Judas could easily come by money, much more than thirty pieces of silver. Just as the Essenes had their communal life organized with a central fund, Judas looked after the money for Jesus'

group. No, there must have been something more to it.

Sentence and execution remain shrouded in mystery.

Jesus was handed over to Pontius Pilate, who considered him innocent, but had him crucified in the end. According to St. John, the governor defended himself: 'Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him' (19:6). The Roman governor had been in the country long enough to know that Jews would not crucify anybody. Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, so his offer was meaningless.

The Jews obstinately went on: 'We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God' (7). Why should the Romans worry about that? Religious disputes did not interest them. Nevertheless, John asserts: 'When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid' (8). What was he afraid of? He possessed the military and political power and was in charge of the police force. He said as much to the silent Jesus: 'Knowest thou that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?' (10). So why on earth should he be afraid? Pilate ruled so despotically that he was recalled later. If he had really considered Jesus innocent, he could have released him in spite of the Jewish protests. Since a crucifixion subsequently took place, he must have had political grounds, and as we know political grounds are often left unmentioned.

'God's word' also shows considerable variations when it comes to Jesus' last words on the cross.

According to Mark (15:34) and Matthew (27:46), he cried in a loud voice: 'My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?'

According to Luke. 'he cried: 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.'

According to John (19:30), his words were: 'It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.'

The four gospel accounts also differ about the women's visits to the tomb of Jesus.

Mark (16:1-8) says that Mary Magdalene. Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices to anoint Jesus. On the way they were wondering how they would move the stone from the tomb, when they saw that it was already open and that a young man in a long white garment sat inside. He told them not to be afraid, for Jesus whom they sought had risen from the dead. They were to tell the disciples this. But the women fled in a panic, 'neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid.'

John (20:1-2) describes things differently. According to him, only Mary Magdalene went to the grave early on the first day of the week and found the stone already removed. In a panic she ran to Simon Peter and the other apostles, telling them that they had taken Jesus away to an unknown place.

Luke (24:1-6) only mentions 'women' (not mentioned by name), who went to the open tomb and found it empty. While they stood there sadly, two men in 'shining garments' said to them: 'Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen.'

Matthew makes the whole scene very dramatic (28:1-9). Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James went to the tomb, which was closed. Fortunately an earthquake began at that moment and the angel of the. Lord, his face like lightning and his robe as white as snow, came down from heaven, moved the stone, sat on it and spoke to the women. He showed them the place where Jesus lay and said that he had risen, and that they were to inform the disciples quickly. The fact that they also met Jesus on the way is no longer connected with the visit to the tomb.

Should not the countless collaborators on the Bible at least have taken care to synchronize the central event of the resurrection in the accounts? If, for some incomprehensible reason, the legendary 'original texts' of 'God's word' did not contain a unified description they should have been edited for the good of the simple Bible reader who must now ask for all eternity: what really happened?

The apostles' reaction to the phenomenal events is also most remarkable. They did not believe a word of the story told by the women, among whom were the two Mary's and Joanna. 'And their words seemed to them idle tales, and they believed them not' (Luke 24:11). John (20:9) even affirms: 'For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.' This is quite incomprehensible.

Throughout their four books the evangelists noted down Jesus' pronouncements that he would die and rise again, yet at the end they knew nothing about it.

Even without divine inspiration of the ultimate truth the account of Jesus' ascent into heaven is also contradictory.

According to Matthew (28:16-17), Jesus had summoned the disciples to a mountain near Galilee for the appearance. When they saw him, they worshiped him. 'But some doubted'. Still? Matthew has nothing further to say about an ascent into heaven.

Mark (16:19) has only one sentence to cover the important event: 'So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.' It was as simple as that.

Luke (24:50-51) makes Jesus himself lead the disciples 'out as far as Bethany'. While he was blessing them, 'he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.'

John (21) has nothing to say about the ascension into heaven.

The most important events in Jesus' life (as recorded by 'God's word' - a fact I have devoutly acknowledged in this textual comparison) were undoubtedly the resurrection and the ascent into heaven. The evangelists recorded so many unimportant details that one cannot understand why they did not describe the two central events on which the Christian dogma is based in colourful gripping images and genuinely inspired language.

If Jesus had ascended into heaven in full view of everybody, or at least in the circle of his disciples, the news would have spread through the streets of Jerusalem like a forest fire on the very same day, for the people had taken a lively interest in the trial and crucifixion. But not a single Roman or Jewish historian noted down a single word about these earth-shaking events! The evangelists show only the most rudimentary knowledge of them and they were not eyewitnesses. It is a crux interpretum.

I am one of many hundreds of millions of 'Christians', who are dictated to from the cradle and pay taxes for the privilege, but cannot believe in a dictatorial religion. I am not an atheist. I admire the magnificent drama which was written around the central figure of Jesus of Nazareth, I admire the products of Christian culture in painting, sculpture and music. I recognize most of the laws and rules governing human conduct in the codex of the Christian faith (as they are in essence peculiar to all religions, myths and legends).