Jesus: Pagan Christ or Jewish Messiah?

Trial and Crucifixion

Jesus says the owner, "will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others."
— Mark 12.9

My God, my God, why did you abandon me?
— Mark 15.34; The Scholars Bible

The passion dramatizes the central message of this story and the Gospel of Mark, namely that Judaism is to be replaced by Christianity, but the theme is most clearly spelled out in the tenant story of Mark 12 which we will discuss now before the death story of Jesus.

Jesus relates that a man planted a vineyard, leased it to his tenants and moved away. When the harvest season arrived, the owner sent a slave to collect the owner’s share of the produce, but the tenants beat the slave and kicked him out. The owner sent many others who were also beaten, ejected or killed. Finally, the owner sent his "beloved Son" who the tenants killed, thinking that he had come for their inheritance. Jesus asks, what will the "owner of the vineyard do?" The owner, Jesus says, "will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others" (Mk 12.9). "They" realize the story is told "against" them (vs. 12) and so want to arrest Jesus but are afraid of the crowd. ("They" apparently refers to the priests, scribes and elders at Mk 11.27.) The tenant story is based on Isa 5.1-7, but Isaiah knows nothing of slaves or sons being murdered.

In Mark, the tenants are the Jewish people, those sent to collect the owner’s share of the produce are the prophets of the Jewish Scriptures, and the son is Jesus. The meaning of the allegory is that the Jewish covenant is only temporary. It will be nullified by "the Jews" when they kill God’s Son. They will then no longer be the people of God; the non-Jews will replace them and be given the vineyard, that is, the kingdom of God.

Many scholars concede that the accounts of the death story of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark, but argue that John’s account of the passion is independent of Mark. But even an admirer of the fourth gospel like Raymond E. Brown writes, "It seems plausible to us that the final writer of Jn knew at least part of the Synoptic tradition, and, in particular, some written form of Mark." Burton L. Mack in his influential A Myth of Innocence, argues that John’s passion is dependent on Mark which he considers to be fiction. We will rarely refer to John’s late account of Jesus’ passion.

In Bethany just outside of the holy city, at the home of Simon the leper, an unnamed woman anoints the head of Jesus, thus preparing him for his burial (Mk 14.3,8,32,33; Mt 26.12). In Luke the anointing occurs much earlier (Lk 7.36-50) and is not a funeral rite but rather an act of love. In John’s gospel, Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, anoints Jesus’ feet with ointment (Jn 12.3,7). When Judas objects, Jesus says to let her keep it for his burial, which is odd since later Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus will prepare Jesus’ body before his entombment.

In the Synoptics the Pharisees play no role in the arrest, trial, and death of Jesus. John is in error when he depicts the Pharisees as playing a powerful role as there is no evidence that in 30 CE they had any such power. They are stand-ins for the Jewish rabbinical leaders of John’s day (circa 100 CE).

The chief priests and scribes were looking for a way to arrest and kill Jesus (Mk 14.1). Judas goes to them and says that he wishes to betray Jesus; they are "greatly pleased, and promise to give him money" (Mk 14.10-11). Where did Judas and the priests meet? How did Judas know that these powerful priests needed help in arresting Jesus?

Matthew begins the process of satanizing Judas by having him ask the priests for money, rather than the priests volunteering it as in Mark. In Matthew’s gospel, Judas receives 30 pieces of silver. This is based on Zch 11.12-13, though Matthew wrongly attributes it to Jeremiah.

Only in Matthew does Judas repent, return the money to the temple, and hang himself (Mt 27.1-10). This is derived from 2 Sam 12.23 and 17.23, where Ahithophel betrays David, and then hangs himself. Acts contradicts Matthew by relating that Judas died when he fell and his body burst open (1.18) but, oddly in the Gospel of Luke, the supposed author of Acts is not aware of Judas’s death by hanging, bursting, or any other method.

What reason is given for the betrayal? In Mark none is given; in Matthew it is money. It was not appropriate that the Son of God be betrayed for mere lucre, so Satan enters into Judas before the Last Supper (Lk 22.3), and in John, too, but during the Last Supper (Jn 13.26-27).

For John the Last Supper is characterized as a "supper," not a Passover meal (Jn 13.2,4). Jesus is executed the day before Passover in John and on the first day of the Passover in the Synoptics. John Chrysostom (fl 400 CE) was so anti-Jewish that he thought the Jews postponed Passover for a day so that they could kill Jesus!

In Mark, Jesus orders the disciples to prepare for the Passover meal. They do so on Thursday a little while before sunset (Mk 14.16), but Jesus would not have waited until it was this late, since in Jewish tradition, 15-30 days is recommended.²⁹²

Various kinds of food and drink are regarded as sacred and used in religious rituals. In the Jewish Scriptures, unleavened bread and wine are so used, but in Jewish tradition such rituals do not produce mystical effects. In some pagan magical papyri "the food is identified with the body and/or blood of a god with whom the magician is identified; thus the food becomes also the body and the blood of the magician; whoever eats it is united with him and filled with love for him."²⁹³ Jesus, referring to the consumption of the bread and wine, says, "this is my body... this is my blood of the covenant..." (Mk 14. 22,24). Eating the blood of an animal is explicitly forbidden in the Jewish Scriptures and eating human blood and flesh, even symbolically, occurs nowhere in all of Jewish tradition.

At the supper, Jesus says that his blood is poured out for many (Mk 14.14). "The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities... he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" (Isa 53.11-12).

Jesus predicts that one of the twelve will betray him, the one who is dipping the bread into the bowl with him (Mk 14.20). The name of the betrayer is not given. Matthew identifies Judas, and adds that the Son of Man is fulfilling Scripture (Mt 26.24). It is, of course, unthinkable that the disciples do not condemn Judas when he is identified as the betrayer.

After the meal, Jesus and his disciples head for Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives (Mk 14.32) which is within sight of the temple in Jerusalem. On the way, Jesus miraculously predicts that his disciples will desert him, Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows twice, and Jesus will meet them in Galilee (after his resurrection).

Jesus utilizes the Jewish Scriptures to prove that his disciples' desertion has been prophesied and is thus in accordance with the divine plan. Alluding to Zechariah Jesus says, "You will all become deserters; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'" (Mk 14.27; Mt 26.31; cf. Zech. 13.7).²⁹⁴ Luke softens this harsh image of the disciples as faithless deserters, omitting the prophecy of their desertion (22.31).

In Mark, while the disciples sleep, Jesus experiences great mental agony, though he assents to God's will, i.e., God's plan (Mk 14.34,36). L. Feder rightly points out that Hercules' most impressive trait "is his power to endure the burden of great toil and danger and agonizing personal sorrow"²⁹⁵ and his gruesome death by fire.

In the earliest gospel, Jesus and the twelve leave for the Mount of Olives after the Last Supper. At Gethsemane Judas pops up with the crowd which has come to arrest Jesus even though Mark has not related that Judas had left Jesus. John knows this is a problem, and so his Judas leaves during the supper at Jesus' command.

In Mark, the chief priest, scribes and elders send the crowd to arrest Jesus, but Luke has the aristocratic chief priests and elders personally appear to arrest Jesus! It is incredible that such powerful and aristocratic men would join the Temple police at night to make an arrest, and on Passover at that!

John's gospel fixes this. The dignitaries are not present. Rather, they have sent some officers to arrest Jesus. Yet, unbelievably, John has added a Roman captain with a cohort of 600 soldiers! This seems a bit much. At least the fourth gospel writer knew that only Roman authority could arrest a man for treason, that is, claiming to be a king.

Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss (cf. 2 Sam 20.9ff where Joab kisses Amasa just before killing him with a sword).

In Mark, a man near Jesus draws a sword and cuts off the ear of a slave of the high priest. Over time the gospel writers developed some of the characters. The name of the disciple (Simon Peter) and the name of the slave (Malchus) are revealed in John's gospel (18.10). In Matthew, Jesus says he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect himself if he desired (26.53), again demonstrating that Jesus is not forced against his will to accept his fate. Jesus says that he is fulfilling Scripture, i.e., fulfilling the plan of God (Mk 14.49; Mt 26.56)

Mark says that at Jesus' arrest, "All of [the disciples] deserted him and fled," Mk 14.49-50 (cf. Isa 53.2,12), as Jesus had predicted.

Regarding the lack of historicity of the passion narratives, the reader should recall the number of miracles performed by Jesus. He miraculously predicts his arrest, the desertion of his disciples, Judas's betrayal, Peter's denial of Jesus, and his own trial, suffering, death, and resurrection. In addition, in John, the arresting crowd is miraculously knocked to the ground. Also, the Johannine Jesus commands the authorities to let his disciples go, which fulfills Jesus' prophecy that he would not lose any of his disciples. (Presumably John means other than Judas!)

Judas is derived from the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, Judah, but R. Brown thinks the name is not suspect, though he grants that, Judas "is etymologically related to 'Jew'...."²⁹⁷ (Greek Judah) and he concedes that Judas could be seen as the hostile "quintessential Jew," as Augustine does when he holds that Peter represents the church and Judas represents the Jews.²⁹⁸

W.B. Smith, G. Volkmar, and Hyam Maccoby, among others, have argued that Judas never existed. R. Brown²⁹⁹ disputes this, but lists some of the arguments advanced for this thesis:

1. the paucity of evidence in the Christian Scriptures;
2. "John (the brother of James) is named more frequently than is Judas (30 times)... compared to 22" mentions of Judas;
3. "the staged nature of the scenes" as at the Last Supper where each disciple asks if he is the one who will betray Jesus, Judas speaking last (Mt 26.21-25);
4. Judas appears in a setting in which an earlier gospel does not have him, e.g., the anointing at Bethany (Jn 12.4-5);
5. the conflicting accounts of Judas's death in Matthew and Acts.

R. Brown seeks to invalidate the arguments against the existence of Judas by saying that they interpret "silence."³⁰⁰ We would counter that when the Jewish Scriptures fail to mention Jesus, it is reasonable to conclude that the prophets have not heard of him which is an argument from silence. R. Brown is wrong when he concedes that nearly all of the gospel evidence about Judas is unreliable, but insists on the historical existence of Judas.³⁰¹

Consider how much of Judas's story is lacking in the earliest account of Mark. He knows nothing about the 30 pieces of silver paid to Judas nor that he is a thief; he is not named at the Last Supper and Mark omits Judas's repentance and his death. After the arrest of Jesus, Judas disappears.³⁰²

We have to wait more than a hundred years after Mark's gospel (written about 70 CE or later) to find a mention of Judas outside the Christian Scriptures. Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons writing about 180 CE, uses neither Matthew nor Acts in discussing Judas's fate, knowing only that Judas was kicked out of office, not that he died.³⁰³ It is only with Origen in the early third century that we find a writer who refers to Judas's death by hanging (Matthew), though he does not know of the alternative death by bursting (Acts). We do not find a reference to both of the accounts of Judas's death in Matthew and Acts until the late fourth century CE.

Jesus is led to the (unnamed) high priest late on Thursday evening where "all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes [are] assembled" (Mk 14.53-54). (The Sanhedrin never met at night; thus, Luke places the trial in the morning.)

In Mark, the "whole" Sanhedrin (all 71 members apparently) is "looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death" (Mk 14.55). Matthew has the trial take place at the high priest's house, but the Sanhedrin was not convened there,³⁰⁴ nor did the high priest preside over the Sanhedrin at this time.³⁰⁵ In Mark no legitimate witnesses testify against Jesus. Against Luke and John, Mark and Matthew relate that some witnesses falsely charge that Jesus had said he would destroy the Temple, but their testimony is not in agreement and so is apparently dismissed (Mk 14.56-59; Mt 24.60-61). According to the Scriptures, at least two witnesses are required for a verdict in a criminal trial (Num 35.30; Dt 17.6, 19.15). Matthew adds two witnesses.

The council finds no evidence against Jesus (Mk 14.55). Again, the Jewish Scriptures provide material for Mark, "the governors and satraps sought... to find... occasion against Daniel; but they found against him... no occasion" (cf. Dan 6.4 LXX).³⁰⁶

In Mark and Matthew no charge is brought against Jesus until the end of the trial when he is convicted of blasphemy, but claiming to be Messiah was not a crime. Could other charges have been leveled against Jesus? Some have suggested that Jesus' death could have been brought about because of his conflict with the Pharisees and scribes over ritual law, i.e., healing on the Sabbath, ritual washing of hands, etc. But in Mark and Matthew, no charges like this are raised, even though Jesus was tried in Jerusalem where the Pharisees had some power.

Also, criminal charges could have been brought by the Sanhedrin against Jesus since he attributed to himself divine characteristics by allowing himself to be called Lord and claiming the authority to forgive sins and regulate the Sabbath, etc. And, if Jesus claimed to be the "only" Son of God in a literal, not metaphorical sense, this would be un-Jewish, and perhaps a criminal offense.

At the trial, the high priest asks Jesus if he will defend himself, but he is "silent and [does] not answer," fulfilling Isa 53.7. The high priest then asks, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" But how does the high priest know that any of the titles, Messiah (Christ), Son of the Blessed, Son of Man, Son of God, apply to Jesus? Jesus is called the "Son of God" by demons, but they are silenced at his command, and no humans even suspect that these titles apply to him; at most, the people think Jesus is a prophet (Mk 8.28).

Asked if he is the Messiah, Jesus answers, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mk 14.61-62), a union of Dan 7.13 and probably Ps 110.1.³⁰⁷ Hearing Jesus' admission, the high priest tears his garments and judges that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy. The priest asks the Sanhedrin for its decision and "All of them [condemn] him as deserving death" (Mk 14.64). S. Lachs points out that the high priest "was not allowed to tear his clothes in mourning for the dead"³⁰⁸ and so probably he would not do so here either. He also points out that the rabbinic writers held that blasphemy could not be punished by a court, but only by God.³⁰⁹ Some members of the Sanhedrin and some of the guards spit on him and beat him (Mk 14.65), behavior not likely to occur during a meeting of this distinguished court.

The historical inconsistencies and implausibilities contained in the accounts of the arrest of Jesus and his trial before the council force us to agree with Burton L. Mack that these events are fiction, a good deal of which has been constructed from passages in the Jewish Scriptures.

Mark does not tell us why Pilate is in Jerusalem. The elders, scribes and the whole council who brought Jesus to Pilate apparently stay, and yet Mark does not relate that anyone other than Pilate witnesses Jesus' trial (Mk 15.2-5). Pilate asks Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus answers ambiguously, "You have said so." Mark says that the chief priests accuse Jesus of many things, but Jesus makes no response. Pilate is amazed at Jesus' silence, but he needn't have been astonished. Isaiah 53.7 says, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like the lamb that is led to the slaughter...."

Suddenly a crowd pops up and asks Pilate to release a prisoner on the festival day as was his custom (Mk 15.8). Pilate, based on the ambiguous answer and silence of Jesus, has concluded that Jesus is innocent and offers to release Jesus, "the King of the Jews." But stirred up by the chief priests, the crowd demands that Barabbas, an insurrectionist and murderer, be freed and yells, "Crucify him!" Why is the murdering rebel freed? To keep the peace one assumes!

In Matthew, Mrs. Pilate needs even less evidence of Jesus' innocence than her husband. She has had a dream that Jesus is innocent, and sends word to her husband that he should have nothing to do with the death of this "innocent man" (Mt 27.19). Pilate washes his hands saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood..." (Mt 27.24). This is based on Deuteronomy 21.6-8, where the elders of the town wash their hands saying, "Our hands did not shed this blood." This practice is also found among the Greeks and Romans (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2.719).

In a passage that has caused much bloodshed, Matthew intensifies the guilt of all Jews throughout all time when he has the Jewish crowd cry out, "his blood be on us and on our children" (Mt 27.25). Compare this with Sam 1.16 where an Amalekite killed Saul at his own request and David says to the killer, "Your blood be on your head; for your own mouth has testified against you, saying 'I have killed the LORD's anointed [messiah].'"

Did the Sanhedrin have the power to try Jesus for a capital offense? The first-century Jewish historian, Josephus (Ant 20.202-203), relates that a high priest convened the Sanhedrin and tried and executed some of his enemies. This was done between procurators. When the new one arrived in Jerusalem, the high priest was removed from office. Luke and John know that the council could not try capital cases, which is why the third and fourth gospels omit the formal trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. In John, "the Jews" tell Pilate that Jesus is a criminal, and the prefect tells the chief priests to "judge him by your own law" (Jn 18.29-32). "The Jews said to him, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death'" (Jn 18.31). Did not the powerful Roman official know about his own powers under Roman law?

After the murderer, Barabbas, is released, the Roman soldiers take Jesus away, mock and spit on him and strike him on the head (Mk 15.19,20; cf. Isa 50.6).³¹⁰ But a prefect would never have executed a man after publicly announcing his innocence, nor would he have released an insurrectionist. After the scourging by the Roman soldiers, Jesus is led away to be crucified (Mk 15.20). A stranger, Simon of Cyrene, carries Jesus' cross part of the way.

It is unlikely that it was a Roman custom for the victim to carry his cross. The condemned, especially one who has been flogged, would not have been physically able to carry a large and heavy cross, the vertical beam alone being about nine feet long. The upright beam of the cross was probably embedded at the place of crucifixion, the cross beam being supplied at the place of execution.

Why does John contradict the Synoptics by flatly saying that Jesus carries the cross by himself? Perhaps R. Helms is correct when he says that John may be attempting to counter the Gnostic claim that Jesus was not crucified, Simon having taken his place on the cross.³¹¹

Mark uses cross in a metaphorical sense when he has Jesus say, "whoever wishes to follow me, let him deny himself, let him bear his cross and let him follow me" (Mk 8.34). Luke takes this saying of the early church too literally, and has Simon actually follow behind Jesus while carrying the cross (Lk 23.26).

The issue of who was present during the crucifixion again illustrates the confusion of the passion accounts in Mark and the other gospels. In addition to the centurion's presence at the crucifixion, Mark includes women, among whom Mark names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome (Mk 15.39-40). (These are the women who had ministered to Jesus out of their own funds in Galilee, though Mark up to 15.41 has not mentioned any such.)

Luke, against Mark and Matthew, says that the disciples did not desert Jesus at his arrest and claims that "all his acquaintances" are present at the cross (23.49). Luke is again rehabilitating the disciples. Only the late gospel of John relates that at the cross Jesus entrusts his mother to the care of the "disciple whom he loved" (Jn 19.26). But why is Jesus' mother not given into the care of her surviving sons?

On the cross, Jesus is offered drink, "they gave him wine mixed with gall, but having tasted it he refused to drink" (Mk 15.23; Mt 27.34). Compare this with Psalms 69 (17), "they gave me also gall for my food, and made me drink vinegar..." (Ps 69 [70]:21). John fuses Ps 69 with Ps 51.7, and adds that Jesus is offered the wine on a branch of hyssop (Jn 19.21-30). John is heavily into the lamb of God imagery and hyssop was used for sprinkling the blood of the Passover lamb on the doorposts of Jewish homes (Ex 12.21).³¹³

The soldiers cast lots to see who gets Jesus' clothing (Mk 15.24). "'they parted my garments... among themselves, and cast lots for my raiment' (Ps 21 [22]: 18 LXX)."³¹⁴ The seamless tunic in John (19.23) comes from Ex 28.32.³¹⁵ The gospels indicate Jesus' clothing was removed before the crucifixion (Mk 15.24). As R. Brown points out, if Jesus were nude or nearly nude, this would violate the Jewish custom against public nudity.³¹⁶ The Mishnah concludes that the inclusion of nudity in an execution would violate Jewish religious laws.³¹⁷ Nudity would cause conflict in the community which Rome was anxious to stabilize.³¹⁸

According to Mark a sign reading, "The King of the Jews," was affixed to the cross indicating the charge for which Jesus was executed (Mk 15.26; cf. Isa 53.12). R. Brown concedes that, "we have no evidence of the custom of affixing [a sign] to the cross."³¹⁹ And where is the sign located? Mark does not say; Matthew indicates that it is over Jesus' head; Luke has it over Jesus, and John, trying to smooth things out, says that the sign was "on the cross." Those passing by the cross deride Jesus; they shake their heads and mock him, saying that he should save himself (Mk 15.29-30; cf. Ps 22.7). They say, "let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down" (Mk 15.36). Isaiah writes, "He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering..." (Isa 53.3; cf. Mk 9.12; 15.29-32).

Jesus is crucified along with two (unnamed) bandits, one on each side of him (Mk 15.27). The Psalmist writes, "For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me" (Ps 22.16). Isaiah writes, "he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors" (Isa 53.12; cf. Mk 15.27). Mark and Matthew describe those crucified with Jesus as bandits, a word which has strong political connotations. Luke, wishing to de-politicize Jesus' death, changes the word to criminals (Lk 23.32).

In Mark and Matthew, Jesus' despairing last words on the cross are, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?" (Scholars Bible, Mk 15.34; cf. Mt 27.46; Ps 22.1). In Luke and John this is too much for their divine messiah so the last words are changed, removing Jesus' deficient faith. Luke's Jesus calmly commends his spirit to God (23.46). The Johannine Jesus triumphantly proclaims, "It is finished" (19.30). Epictetus wrote that since one's true ancestors are the gods, we should cheerfully be willing to die for God.³²⁰ The pagan centurion at the foot of the cross after Jesus' death exclaims that Jesus was truly "God's Son" (Mk 15.41). Luke thinks it is too much that the soldier would miraculously draw this conclusion and so Luke has, "Surely this man was innocent" (Lk 23.47). Isaiah says that, "... he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole..." (Isa 53.5; cf. Rom 4.25; 1 Cor 15.3).

The evangelists were children of their time. They believed as did pagans that miraculous events accompany the death of a great or divine man. Mark, at 15.33, records that the whole Earth was in darkness between noon and three on Friday afternoon. Some apologists say that this refers to an eclipse of the sun, but modern astronomy shows that no solar eclipse was visible from Judea at the time Jesus died in the early 30's CE. All of the Synoptics state that the curtain which closed off the inner Holy of Holies in the temple was torn in two. The divine presence has deserted the temple. The evangelists think that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity.

To "bear your cross" is an ancient metaphor. The idea that a divinely inspired man or a demigod could be unjustly convicted and die on the cross was not alien to the Greco-Roman world. Martin Hengel in his book Crucifixion, concedes that in Stoic thought "... an ethical and symbolic interpretation of the crucifixion was still possible." A staple of the ancient novel was the hero who barely escapes crucifixion.³²¹ (For more on this see Chapter 9.)

Some conservative exegetes have tried to explain why Jews in the gospels are depicted as embracing the crucifixion, a Roman method of execution which was much hated in Jewish tradition. The apologists claim that Jews crucified people. But Paul Winter is surely correct when he says that we do not know of a "single instance [during the war, 66-70 CE] in which the Jewish guerrillas... resorted to the method of crucifixion in disposing of those who had fallen into their hands. Crucifixion was not a punitive measure used by Jews or adopted by Jewish judicial institutions at any time in history."³²²

In Matthew, Jewish authorities request guards to watch over Jesus' tomb because Jesus said that he would be raised on the third day (Mt 27.64), but Jesus had taught about his resurrection only in private, and only to his disciples. After Jesus is raised from the dead, the soldiers are bribed by the priests to say that Jesus' body was stolen while they slept. If Roman soldiers admitted they were asleep on duty, there would have been more crucifixions, and soon!

R. Helms correctly asserts that "... the [passion] accounts are... fiction, composed for theological purposes."³²³

[ Home ] [ Who was Jesus? ] [ Jesus/Book ] [ Jesus/Articles ] [ Trial and Crucifixion ] [ Links ]

Copyright © 1999-2007 Laurence E. Dalton and Shirley Strutton Dalton.  Data content copyright © 1999-2007 Laurence E. Dalton and Shirley Strutton Dalton.
Last modified: April 13, 2007
Web Site designed and administered by Strutton WebDesign.
If you have problems or questions about this web site contact Webmaster.