Interpretation http://int.sagepub.

com/

The Trial of Jesus : Problems and Proposals

Frank J. Matera Interpretation 1991 45: 5 DOI: 10.1177/002096430004500102 The online version of this article can be found at: http://int.sagepub.com/content/45/1/5

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Union Presbyterian Seminary

Additional services and information for Interpretation can be found at: Email Alerts: http://int.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://int.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1991 What is This?

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

The Tnal of Jesus

Problems and Proposals

FRANK J .

MATERA

Associate Professor of New

Testament

The Catholic University of America

Historically, Jesus stood trial only o n c e , before Pilate. P e r s u a d e d by the chief priests that Jesus was a political threat, Pilate s e n t e n c e d h i m to d e a t h for insurgency.

HE TRIAL O F JESUS of Nazareth has been and remains o n e of the most difficult areas of New Testament research. 1 Not only must investigators be familiar with the text of the New Testament, but they must also acquaint themselves with a host of historical a n d juridical questions, for example, the rules a n d procedures of Jewish a n d Roman trials and the authority of the Jews at the time of Jesus' trial to inflict the death penalty. Moreover, the historical investigation about the trial of Jesus of Nazareth has i m p o r t a n t theological a n d ecumenical ramifications since it involves the questions why Jesus was p u t to death and who was responsible for his death. This essay will summarize the different ways in w7hich the New Testament presents the trial of Jesus a n d define the problems raised by the Gospel accounts of the trial. T h e n , after a discussion of why Jesus was sentenced to
1. A m o n g the m o r e i m p o r t a n t works on the trial of Jesus are The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honor of C.F.D. Moule, ed. E. B a m m e l (Naperville, IL: Alec. R. Allenson, 1970); Josef Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, 4th ed. (Regesburg: Pustet, 1969); S.G.F. B r a n d o n , The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Stein a n d Day, 1968); David R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1971); Der Prozess gegen Jesu: Historische Rckfrage und theologische Deutung, ed. Karl Kertelge (Freiburg: H e r d e r , 1989); William R. Wilson, The Execution of Jesus: A Juridical and Historical Interpretation (New York: Scribners, 1970); Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 2 n d ed., rev. a n d ed. T. . Burkill a n d Geza Vermes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974).

5
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

death, it will offer a n u m b e r of proposals for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the events s u r r o u n d i n g the historical trial of Jesus of Nazareth.
T H E TRIALS O F J E S I S

T h e very phrase "the trial of Jesus" is misleading. Does it refer to the trial of Jesus before the Sanhdrin or to the trial of Jesus before Pilate? Strangeh e n o u g h , even the New Testament is ambiguous at this point. While Matthew a n d Mark speak of two trials, one before the Sanhdrin a n d a n o t h e r before Pilate, Luke a n d J o h n report a single trial before Pilate. A brief survey of the New Testament evidence will make this clear. In this review 1 will follow the c o m m o n j u d g m e n t that Mark was the first of our canonical Gospels to be written a n d that Matthew and Luke are d e p e n d e n t u p o n it. Mark 14:5315:15. According to Mark, Jesus is arrested in the garden of G e t h s e m a n e on the eve of Passover. Immediately after his arrest, Jesus is b r o u g h t to the high priest (unidentified) and the entire Sanhdrin, and a formal trial takes place. T h e trial begins with witnesses claiming that Jesus said, "I will destroy this temple that is m a d e with hands, and in three da\s I will build a n o t h e r , n o t m a d e with h a n d s " (14:58). Mark insists that the testimony of the false witnesses did not agree but does not describe the conflicting testimony. Eventually the high priest asks Jesus, "Have \ o u no answer to make? What is it that these m e n testify against vou?" (14:60). Jesus, however, does not respond to the question. Consequently, the high priest asks him a second question, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (14:61).Jesus responds affirmatively, predicting that he will return triumphantly amid the clouds of heaven as the Son of Man. Hearing Jesus 1 answer, the high priest proclaims that there is n o further need for witnesses since Jesus has b l a s p h e m e d in the hearing of all. T h u s the high priest asks for a decision from the Sanhdrin, ' A n d thev all c o n d e m n e d him as deserving d e a t h " (14:64). In the m o r n i n g , the Sanhdrin holds a consultation a n d then hands Jesus over to Pilate (15:1). T h e trial before Pilate begins abruptly with the question, 'Are you the King of the Jews?" (15:2). In Mark's version of this trial, the chief priests play a p r o m i n e n t role: the\ accuse Jesus of main things (15:3) a n d stir u p the crowd to ask for Barabbas instead of Jesus (15:11) and to d e m a n d Jesus' crucifixion (15:13). To satisfy the crowd, Pilate accedes to their wishes (15:15). Matthew 26:5727:26. T h e Gospel of Matthew remains rather faithful to the Markan source. Like Mark, Matthew narrates two trials: one before the Sanhdrin a n d a n o t h e r before Pilate. In his account of these trials, however, Matthew introduces some important changes. For example, in the trial before the Sanhdrin, (1) the high priest is identified as Caiaphas (26:57); (2) the witnesses are explicitly called false witnesses (26:60); (3) the charge

6
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

The Trial of Jesus

Inuiprttation

against Jesus is reworded to l e a d "This fellow said, am able to destroy the t e m p l e of God, a n d to build it in t h r e e days'" (26:61); a n d (4) t h e con d e m n a t i o n of Jesus becomes, " H e deserves d e a t h " (26:66) r a t h e r t h a n the m o r e explicit Markan statement that "they all condemned h i m as deserving d e a t h " (14:64). In the trial before Pilate, Matthew's editorial work is m o r e noticeable still. T h e Evangelist i n t r o d u c e s the a c c o u n t of J u d a s ' suicide (27:3-10); the d r e a m of Pilate's wife (27:19); Pilate's declaration, "I am i n n o c e n t of this m a n ' s blood; see to it yourself" (27:24); a n d t h e p e o p l e ' s cry, "His b l o o d be o n us a n d o n o u r c h i l d r e n " (25:25). It is evident that these changes are i n t e n d e d to place the b u r d e n of guilt for Jesus' death u p o n Israel. Luke 22:6623:25. T h e changes, omissions, a n d new elements found in Luke's account are even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d . Unlike Matthew a n d Mark, Luke does n o t narrate a formal trial of Jesus, d u r i n g the middle of the night, before the S a n h d r i n . Instead, after his arrest Jesus is b r o u g h t to the house of the high priest who, as in Mark, remains unidentified (22:54) .2 During the course of the night, Peter denies Jesus (22:54-62), a n d Jesus' captors revile him as a false p r o p h e t (22:63-65). In the m o r n i n g , Jesus is b r o u g h t to the hall of the Sanhdrin^ where the entire council of elders is present. 4 Although the setting is formal, t h e r e is n o description of a formal trial. T h e r e are n o witnesses, there is n o charge that Jesus t h r e a t e n e d to destroy the temple, 5 the high priest does n o t question Jesus, there is n o accusation of blasphemy, n o r does the council formally c o n d e m n Jesus to death. Instead, the entire council c o m m a n d s Jesus in o n e voice, "If you are the Christ, tell us" (22:67). Jesus refuses to answer the question directly, b u t h e does prophesy that h e will r e t u r n as the Son of Man. T h e council, as a body, t h e n asks if this m e a n s that h e is the Son of God, a n d Jesus responds, "You say that I a m " (22:70). Following this session before the council, Jesus is b r o u g h t to Pilate. T h e m e m b e r s of the high council make an explicit charge against Jesus: "We found this m a n perverting o u r nation, a n d forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, a n d saying that h e himself is Christ a king. . . . H e stirs u p the p e o p l e , teaching t h r o u g h o u t all J u d e a , from Galilee even to this place" (23:2, 5). W h e n Pilate learns that Jesus is from Galilee, h e sends him to H e r o d , who 2 This is an interesting omission since Luke otherwise speaks of the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke 3 2) and in Acts 4 6 identifies Annas as the high pnest 3 This seems to be the best interpretation of the expression eis to synednon auton in L uke 22 66 4 Luke speaks of to prs by tenon tou laou ("the council of elders of the people," 22 66), by which he probably means the Sanhednn 5 Luke does know of the accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple (see Acts 6 14), but in his view the charge against Jesus has to do with Jesus' teaching activity in the temple rather than any threat against the temple

7
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

reviles him (23:6-12). After H e r o d returns Jesus, Pilate assembles the chief priests, the rulers a n d the people (ton laon, 23:13) to explain that neither he n o r H e r o d has found Jesus guilty of the charges they have b r o u g h t against him (23:14-15). T h e religious leaders and the people, however, insist that Jesus must be crucified. As a result, Pilate delivers Jesus to their will (23:25). Luke begins the next verse, "And as they led him away . . .," giving the distinct impression that "they," that is, the religious leaders a n d people, crucified Jesus. This becomes m o r e explicit in several texts of Acts that proclaim that the Jews killed Jesus (2:23; 3:15) by hanging him on a tree (5:30: 10:39), that is, crucifying him (2:36; 4:10). () John 18:1219:16. T h e Gospel of J o h n presents yet a n o t h e r account of the trial, different from the three examined thus far. As in the case of Luke, the Fourth Evangelist does not report a formal trial, at night, before the Sanhdrin. Instead, after his arrest, during the night, Jesus is brought to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the reigning high priest. Annas, also identified as high priest (cf. 18:19, 24), questions Jesus about his disciples a n d his teaching, but there is n o accusation that Jesus t h r e a t e n e d to destroy the temple, n o r is Jesus asked if he is the Messiah. After this informal investigation, Annas sends Jesus to Caiaphas (18:24), but the Evangelist does not relate what h a p p e n e d . Eventually Jesus is led from the house of Caiaphas to the residence of the governor. J o h n ' s account of the trial before Pilate is m o r e elaborate than those found in the Synoptics. As several scholars have noted, the trial is developed in a series of seven scenes outside and inside the Roman praetorium (18:2832; 18:33-38; 18:38^-40; 19:1-3; 19:4-8; 19:9-11; 19:12-1 6a). 7 Outside the praetorium there is frenzy and emotion as Pilate struggles with the Jews over the fate of Jesus. 8 Within the praetorium there is a m o o d of awe and fear as Pilate speaks with Jesus. At the beginning of the trial Pilate is selfconfident and in control of the situation, but by the trial's conclusion he is a broken m a n o u t m a n e u v e r e d by the chief priests who proclaim, "We have n o king but Caesar" (19:15). To summarize, Matthew and Mark speak of two trials. T h e first, before the entire Sanhdrin, occurs at night. T h e second, before Pilate, occurs in the m o r n i n g . In Mark, the chief priests are the primary antagonists: in Matthew the role of the people becomes m o r e p r o m i n e n t . In Luke and J o h n , there is only o n e trial, the trial before Pilate. Luke also speaks of a m o r n i n g session
6. For the antijewish t h e m e in Luke, see Jack T. Sanders, The Jews i) Aikc-Ads (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). 7. R a \ m o n d E. Brown, The Gospel cu cording to John xiii-xxi (Garden Git\, XV: Doubleda\ Sc Co., Inc., 1970), p p . 857-59. 8. W h e n the Fourth Evangelist speaks of the Jews, he seems to have the Jewish leadership in m i n d . T h u s the Jews m e n t i o n e d in 19:14 are identified as the chief priests in 19:15.

8
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

The Trial of Jesus

Interpretation

before the high council but portrays it as a p r e l u d e to the trial before Pilate rather than a formal legal process. J o h n describes an informal hearing, at night, before Annas a n d says that Jesus was then sent to Caiaphas, b u t he does n o t describe a trial before the Sanhdrin.
P R O B L E M S RAISED BY T H E G O S P E L A C C O U N T S

T h e Gospel accounts of the trials of Jesus raise a n u m b e r of questions. How many trials took place? Why was Jesus b r o u g h t to trial? W h o was responsible for the c o n d e m n a t i o n of Jesus? As i m p o r t a n t as these questions are, they c a n n o t be resolved until a m o r e fundamental issue is discussed: the relationship of the different Gospel accounts a m o n g o n e another. Since Matthew is d e p e n d e n t u p o n Mark as his primary source for the trial of Jesus, his Gospel does n o t present an i n d e p e n d e n t source of information. W h e r e Matthew does differ from Mark, it appears that he is editorially active. Consequently, except for details such as the n a m e of the high priest, "Caiaphas," Matthew does n o t add to our knowledge of the historical trial of Jesus. Instead, in Matthew there is a tendency to place greater responsibility for the death of Jesus u p o n the people of Israel. T h u s Pilate washes his h a n d s as a sign that he is i n n o c e n t of the affair (27:24), while the people of Israel willingly accept responsibility for Jesus' death (27:25). T h e case of Luke is m o r e difficult to assess. Since Luke differs significantly from Mark, there are a n u m b e r of exegetes who c o n t e n d that he had access to a n o t h e r account of the passion in addition to Mark's narrative. 9 If this is so, d e p e n d i n g u p o n the reliability of Luke's other source, one might argue that Luke brings forth new historical information, for example, a gathering of the Jewish council in the m o r n i n g but n o t a formal trial at night, a n d the role that H e r o d Antipas played at Jesus' trial. While there is m u c h to c o m m e n d this position, other exegetes have argued that the Evangelist did n o t employ a n o t h e r passion account in addition to Mark. Rather, they maintain that the differences between the accounts of Luke a n d Mark can be explained in light of Luke's theological concerns a n d should be attributed to Lukan redaction. 1 0 I find myself in a g r e e m e n t with these scholars; Luke is primarily d e p e n d e n t u p o n Mark a n d does n o t bring forth new, historical information. 1 1
9. An i m p o r t a n t e x p o n e n t of this position was Vincent Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation, ed. O. E. Evans, SNTSMS 19 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). 10. See Marion L. Soards, The Passion according to Luke: The Special Material of Luke 22, JSNTSup 14 (Sheffield: J S O T Press, 1987). 11. I have a r g u e d this position in two articles, "Luke 22:66-71: Jesus before the PRESBYTERION," p p . 5 1 7 - 3 3 [ = ETL 65 (1989), 43-59] a n d "Luke 23:1-25: Jesus before Pilate, H e r o d , a n d Israel," p p . 535-51 in L'vangile de Luc/The Gospel of Luke, rev. a n d e n l a r g e d ed. of L'Evangile de Luc: Problmes littraires et thologiques, d. F. Neirynck, BETL 32 (Leuven: Peeters Press, 1989).

9
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

T h e Lukan trial account is the beginning of a tendenc\ that finds its culmination in the Gospel of J o h n ; it presents o n e great trial in which the people of Israel a n d their leaders, despite the protestations of Pilate, conspire to have Jesus p u t to death. T h u s in both Luke a n d J o h n , Pilate proclaims three times that Jesus is i n n o c e n t (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; J o h n 18:38; 19:4, 6). Moreover, even H e r o d , the king who once sought to kill Jesus (Luke 13:31), finds him i n n o c e n t (23:15). By the e n d of the trial, however, Pilate must submit to the will of the people a n d their rulers who, it is implied, crucify Jesus (Luke 23:25-26). Overall, o n e should speak of a single trial in Luke that consists of four scenes: (1) Jesus before the council (22:66-71); (2) Jesus before Pilate (23:1-7); (3) Jesus before H e r o d (23:8-12); and (4) Jesus before all Israel (23:13-25). In accordance with his stated goal, Luke presents a m o r e o r d e r h narrative (1:3), but n o t necessarily a m o r e historical account. T h e case of the Fourth Gospel is even m o r e difficult to decide. While there is a g r e e m e n t that Luke knew a n d used Mark, the precise relationship of J o h n to the Synoptics is problematical. Did the Fourth Evangelist know one or m o r e of the Synoptics? Was he familiar with the Synoptic tradition? T h e majority opinion is that while the Fourth Evangelist ma\ have been acquainted with the Synoptic tradition, or sources akin to it, he was not d e p e n d e n t u p o n it.12 T h u s many scholars maintain that the J o h a n n i n e passion narrative represents an i n d e p e n d e n t tradition which contains valuable, historical information. An example of such information would be the account of the interrogation of Jesus before Annas. In itself, there is n o t h i n g implausible about such a hearing. High priest from A.D. 6-15, Annas was a powerful figure. Five of his sons were a p p o i n t e d to the office of high priest after him, as well as his son-in4aw, J o s e p h Caiaphas, who held the office from A.D. 18-36. Nevertheless, there are some reasons for questioning the historical reliability of the Annas account as it is narrated by the Fourth Evangelist. H First, the narrative says little about what transpired. What it does sav (Annas questioned Jesus about his teaching and his disciples) reflects J o h n ' s theological concerns in o t h e r parts of the Gospel. Second, although the Fourth Evangelist does n o t speak of a trial before the Sanhdrin during the course of Jesus' passion, he describes a scene in 10:22-39 that has many of the elements found in Mark's account of the trial before the Sanhdrin. During the Feast of Dedication, while Jesus is in the temple, the Jews gather r o u n d him a n d d e m a n d , "If you are the Christ, tell us plainlv" (10:24). After
12. See D. MoocK Smith, Johannine Christianity: Essays on its Setting, Soiuies, and Theolog) (Columbia: Uni\cisit\ of South Carolina Press, 1984), p p . 95-172. 13. I h a \ e developed this point in J e s u s before Annas: John 18, 13-14, 1 9 - 2 4 / 7 7 7 . 6 6 (1990), 38-55.

10

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

The Trial of Jesus

Interpretation

Jesus' response, the Jews p r e p a r e to stone him to death. W h e n Jesus asks why, they answer, "It is n o t for a good work that we stone you b u t for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (10:33). Jesus retorts, "Do you say of him w h o m the Father consecrated a n d sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming^ because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'" (10:36). H e r e we find three of the elements of the Sanhdrin trial as r e p o r t e d by Mark: the question of Jesus' Messiahship Jesus' acknowledgment that h e is the Son of God, a n d the charge of blasphemy. Later, in J o h n 11:45-53, after Jesus raises Lazarus, the entire Sanhdrin assembles to plot Jesus' death (11:45-53). These trial motifs in the course of Jesus' public ministry 14 suggest that the Fourth Evangelist u n d e r s t o o d Jesus' public ministry as the m o m e n t when he was on trial before the Jews. Having portrayed Jesus' ministry as a kind of trial, the Evangelist did n o t find it necessary to r e c o u n t the "Jewish trial" during the passion. Annas may have played a role in the events of Jesus' passion, but the hearing before Annas, as narrated by the Fourth Evangelist, does n o t have a strong claim to historical reliability. It is m o r e likely that the Evangelist developed the Annas narrative in order to provide a new transition from the arrest of Jesus to the trial before Pilate, since he h a d already described the "Jewish trial" during the course of Jesus' public ministry. What t h e n of the Gospel of Mark? Does this narrative represent a historical account of what transpired? A n u m b e r of scholars argue that b e h i n d the Markan passion narrative stands a primitive passion account which dates from the earliest days of the Jerusalem community. 1 5 In their view, this acc o u n t is reliable a n d historically accurate. In m o r e recent years, however, a n u m b e r of exegetes have insisted that Mark the Evangelist h a d a m o r e active role in shaping the passion account. 1 6 While these approaches contrast with o n e another, they are n o t irreconcilable. T h e Markan passion contains important, historical traditions about the trial of Jesus, b u t it is the Evangelist who shaped a n d formed these traditions in accordance with his theological purpose.
J E S U S AND T H E T E M P L E

T h e four Evangelists testify that Jesus was crucified as the "King of the Jews." In each Gospel, Pilate asks Jesus if he is the "King of the Jews," a n d
14. Two works which show the forensic character of J o h n ' s Gospel are A. E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel ( L o n d o n : S.P.C.K., 1976) a n d J e r o m e Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt: John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). 15. See Joel B. G r e e n , The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative, W U N T 2 / 3 3 ( T b i n g e n : J.C.B. M o h r [Paul Siebeck], 1988), a n d Rudolf Pesch, Das Evangelium der Urgemeinde: Wiederhergestellt und erlutert, H e r d e r b c h e r e i 748 (Freiburg: H e r d e r , 1979). 16. An e x a m p l e of this a p p r o a c h is The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 1416, ed. W e r n e r H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).

11
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

the charge on the cross identifies Jesus as the "King of the Jews." While Christian faith interprets this title as a proclamation of Jesus' Messiahship, that is not the way it was u n d e r s t o o d by those who crucified him. T h e Roman charge that Jesus claimed to be the "King of the Jews" was equi\ aient to saying that he was a political insurgent. Moreover, the fact that Jesus was crucified between two political rebels (lestes, Mark 15:27) is a further indication that the Romans viewed Jesus as a revolutionary. Rightlv or w r o n g h , then, the Romans crucified Jesus because the\ perceived that he was a rovai pretender. But why was Jesus crucified as a political insurgent, and what relationship does this charge have with the Markan account of the trial before the Sanhdrin? T h e r e are, of course, some obvious reasons why others might have viewed Jesus as a political rebel. 17 T h e coming Kingdom of God was a central t h e m e of his preaching, and he did, after all, attract large crowds. T h e c o m m e n t of the Fourth Evangelist, after the feeding of the five thousand, probably reflects how many people viewed Jesus and his ministry. "Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him b\ force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the m o u n t a i n by himself" (John 6:15). These facts, however, do not sufficiently explain why Jesus was crucified as the "King of the Jews." T h e event which forced the issue was m o r e immediate a n d close at h a n d : the cleansing of the temple. In the Synoptic Gospels, the cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46) occurs after Jesus 1 messianic entry into Jerusalem. Jesus drives out the money changers and proclaims that the temple was i n t e n d e d as a house of prayer (Isa. 56:7) but has been t u r n e d into a d e n of thieves (Jer. 7:11). In the Fourth Gospel this incident comes at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry (John 2:13-22); nonetheless the Fourth Evangelist, by quoting Psalm 69:9 ("Zeal for thy house will consume me") suggests that this event will eventually lead to Jesus' death. Moreover, when the Jews ask Jesus for a sign, he responds, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it u p " (John 2:19). This statement, of course, is remarkably similar to the charge m a d e against Jesus at the trial before the Sanhdrin: "We heard him say, will destroy this temple that is m a d e with hands, a n d in three days I will build a n o t h e r , n o t m a d e with h a n d s 1 " (Mark 14:58). T h e r e is n o a g r e e m e n t about the precise m e a n i n g of Jesus' activity within the temple. Recently, E. P. Sanders has argued that Jesus did not intend to purify the temple of trading since such trading was essential to the daily cui tic functioning of the temple. Sanders writes, " H e intended, rather, to indicate that the e n d was at h a n d a n d that the temple would be destroyed, so that the new a n d perfect temple might arise." I s More recently, C. A. Evans has
1 7. O n this question see Jesus and the Politics of His Da), ed. Ernst B a m m e l a n d ( l.l .1). Moule ( C a m b r i d g e : l T ni\ersit\ Press, 1984). 18. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Forti ess Piess, 1985), p. 75.

12

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

The Trial of Jesus

Intel pretation

criticized Sanders's reconstruction. According to Evans, Jesus' temple behavior was directed against the abuses of the temple, which probably s t e m m e d from greed a n d corruption a m o n g the ruling priests, especially the family of Annas. 1 9 In either case, it is clear that Jesus' behavior in the temple presented a challenge to the temple leadership, especially the chief priests. T h e temple, after all, was the seat of political a n d religious authority. T o challenge it was to challenge the political a n d religious authority of the nation. A story from the Jewish historian J o s e p h u s is helpful at this point. In The Jewish War, J o s e p h u s relates how a certain Jesus, son of Ananias, a r u d e peasant, t h r e a t e n e d the temple four years before the outbreak of the Jewish war with Rome. About A.D. 62 this Jesus stood in the temple a n d cried out, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem a n d the sanctuary; a voice against the b r i d e g r o o m a n d the bride, a voice against the people" (VI, 301 ). Eventually some leading citizens arrested this Jesus a n d chastised him, b u t when he persisted in his threats against the city a n d temple, the rulers b r o u g h t him to the R o m a n prefect, Albinus, who had him scourged. This incident from J o s e p h u s is instructive in two ways. First, it d e m o n strates that o n e could not consistently challenge the temple, even verbally, with impunity. Second, it points to the political ties between the ruling authorities a n d the Roman prefect. Although the religious leaders may have resented the presence of the Romans, they maintained a necessary working relationship with them. 2 0 At the time of Jesus' ministry, the high priest was a p p o i n t e d by the R o m a n prefect and, at times, by the legate of Syria. Annas, for example, was installed as high priest by the Syrian legate Quirinius and deposed by the R o m a n prefect Valerius Gratus. It is clear then that a good working relationship was to the mutual benefit of both high priest a n d prefect. T h a t Caiaphas held the office of high priest for nearly eighteen years, a n d that the Roman prefects a p p o i n t e d several high priests from the family of Annas, suggest that there was a workable relationship between the family of Annas a n d the various R o m a n prefects. As the tragic events of the Jewish War (A.D. 66-70) attest, such a relationship was essential for the political stability without which the high priest a n d chief priests could hardly h o p e to maintain their authority. T h e a p p e a r a n c e of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem a n d his behavior in the temple must have posed a crisis for the religious leaders. They were surely aware, in some general way, of Jesus' Galilean ministry: his preaching about
19. Craig A. Evans, "Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?" CBQI (1989), 237-70. 20. On this point see E. Mary Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine," JThSt 13 (1962), 14-34.

13
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

the kingdom, the crowds he attracted, his interpretation of the Law, his behavior on the Sabbath, and his association with sinners. As long as Jesus r e m a i n e d in Galilee, he did not pose an immediate threat to their authority. Jesus' dramatic entry into Jerusalem, 2 1 however, a n d his behavior in the temple was a n o t h e r matter. Such behavior, given Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom, could easily be construed as an implicit claim to be a messianic figure. If the religious leaders perceived that Jesus claimed such authority, it was their obligation, as well as to their benefit, to report him to Pilate. T h e remark of Gaiaphas in J o h n 11:49-50 is apropos, "You know n o t h i n g at all; you do not u n d e r s t a n d that it is expedient for you that o n e man should die for the people, a n d that the whole nation should not perish." While the Fourth Evangelist clearly understands this remark in an ironic fashion Jesus will die for the sake (hyper) of the peopleit also expresses the political reality: Rome would n o t tolerate a political claimant. From the point of view of the religious leaders, claimants of royal authority were a danger to the nation; their activity could only bring Roman retribution.
T H E TRIAL OF JESUS OF NAZARETH: PROPOSALS

O n the basis of what we have said thus far, I make the following proposals for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the trial of Jesus. First, from the point of view of the chief priests, Jesus of Nazareth posed an unacceptable threat to the temple and so to their authority. Gonsequently, with the assistance of Judas, they arrested him. Second, the Gospel of Mark is probably correct when it reports that the principal accusation against Jesus was that he threatened to destroy the temple. Obviously Mark the Evangelist viewed this as false. Although he and the other Synoptic writers report that Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed (Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6), they do not accept the charge that Jesus t h r e a t e n e d to destroy the temple. Again, the Cospel of J o h n is helpful. W h e n Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it u p " (2:19), the Evangelist comments, "But he spoke of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). This interpretation of Jesus' statement may suggest that some u n d e r s t o o d this and similar remarks of Jesus as a threat that he would destroy the temple. Third, the accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple p r o b a b h led to the question of his Messiahship, even if there was n o expectation that the Messiah would cleanse or destroy the temple. By cleansing the temple a n d teaching within its precincts, Jesus implicitly claimed authority. That the central t h e m e of his teaching was the Kingdom of God might easily have led others to interpret that authority as a messianic claim. T h e phrasing of the
21. I am n o t excluding the possibilitv that Jesus m a d e several visits to J e r u s a l e m as r e p o r t e d b\ the Fourth Gospel.

14
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

The Trial of Jesus

Interpretation

high priest's question in the Gospel of Mark, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (14:61) clearly reflects Markan theological concerns: Jesus is the Son of God. Nevertheless, the essential content is probably correct. T h e high priest asked if Jesus, by his temple activity, was making a messianic claim. Fourth, Jesus' "trial" before the Sanhdrin was probably m o r e of an informal hearing before the high priest a n d some of the chief priests rather than a formal trial before the entire Sanhdrin as r e p o r t e d by Matthew a n d Mark. T h e primary purpose of this interrogation would have b e e n to ascertain the n a t u r e of Jesus' temple activity in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e if h e should be b r o u g h t to Pilate. It seems unlikely a n d unnecessary that the chief priests would bring Jesus before the entire Sanhdrin for such a purpose. Consequently, it is m o r e accurate to speak of a single trial: the trial of Jesus before Pilate. Fifth, the Markan a n d Matthean descriptions of this hearing as a formal trial before the Sanhdrin at which Jesus was c o n d e m n e d to death because of blasphemy owes m o r e to the theological purpose of the Evangelists than to historical fact. T h e Evangelists knew that Jesus had b e e n crucified as the "King of the Jews" a n d that his prophetic behavior in the temple played a p r o m i n e n t role in this. T h e description of a formal trial with the charge of blasphemy a n d the c o n d e m n a t i o n of Jesus enabled the Evangelists to blame the Jewish Sanhdrin of maliciously rejecting God's messianic Son. In the Gospels of Matthew a n d Luke this blame is e x t e n d e d further so that it falls u p o n the whole people (laos) of Israel. Sixth, after an informal hearing which dealt with Jesus' behavior in the temple, the chief priests delivered him to Pilate because they viewed him as a messianic p r e t e n d e r : the "King of the Jews." Although it is tempting to speculate about the motives of the religious leaders, it is probably best n o t to do so. Motives are rarely p u r e , and they are usually mixed. If some of the religious leaders t h o u g h t they were doing what was best for the nation, others undoubtedly saw this occasion as a convenient way to eliminate the troublesome p r o p h e t from Galilee. Seventh, the Gospels portray Pilate as someone convinced of Jesus' i n n o c e n c e . Given the gospel apologetic against the Jews, it is m o r e likely that the Roman prefect played a m o r e aggressive role in the trial of Jesus a n d was eventually convinced that Jesus posed a political threat. Consequently, Pilate c o n d e m n e d Jesus to death as a messianic p r e t e n d e r , a political insurgent, the "King of the Jews."
RESPONSIBILITY F O R T H E D E A T H O F J E S U S

W h o was responsible for Jesus' death? T h e Romans? T h e Jews? T h e chief priests? Pontius Pilate? From this investigation it should be clear that 15
Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

responsibility for the death of Jesus cannot be attributed to the historic people of Israel any m o r e than it can be attributed to the historic people of Rome. Those primarily responsible for the death of Jesus are Pontius Pilate a n d the chief priests, which is m o r e or less what Josephus savs in the famous passage on Jesus in Book 18 of The Jervis h Antiquities.-1 As the Roman prefect, Pilate, a n d only Pilate, had the legal authority to inflict the Roman penalty of crucifixion. Jesus was crucified u n d e r Roman lawr by a distinctly Roman form of p u n i s h m e n t . Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the Jews crucified Jesus. T h e chief priests, nevertheless, played an essential role. It was they who first perceived Jesus, because of his temple behavior, to be a messianic claimant. After an informal interrogation, thev b r o u g h t him to Pilate as a royal claimant. Those who believed in Jesus, however, understood the m e a n i n g of his ministry. T h e political charge "King of the Jews" was soon u n d e r s t o o d in its deepest, religious sense: "King oflsrael," "Messiah," "Son of God." In o n e of the great ironies of history, the false charges leveled against Jesus took on an u n e x p e c t e d meaning. For those who believed, the death of Jesus marked the e n d of the old temple cult. Those who believed in Jesus understood that with his death God raised u p a new temple, a temple not m a d e by hands: the community of those who believe in Jesus. It was for this new temple, the church, that Jesus died (Eph. 5:25).

22. "And when Pilate, on the i n d i c t m e n t of the principal m e n a m o n g us. h a d c o n d e m n e d him to the cross. . ." (AJ 18, 64). O n this text see, John P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," CBQ 52 (1990), 7 6 - 1 0 3 .

16

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013