1991 - frank m. matera - the trial of jesus. problems and proposals

7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 1/13

http://int.sagepub.com/ Interpretation

http://int.sagepub.com/content/45/1/5The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/002096430004500102

1991 45: 5Interpretation Frank J. Matera

The Trial of Jesus : Problems and Proposals

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Union Presbyterian Seminary

can be found at:Interpretation Additional services and information for

http://int.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://int.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1991Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://int.sagepub.com/



http://int.sagepub.com/content/45/1/5



http://www.sagepublications.com/


http://www.upsem.edu/

http://int.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://int.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://int.sagepub.com/content/45/1/5.full.pdf









http://int.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.upsem.edu/






The Tnal of Jesus

Problems and Proposals

FRANK J. MATE RA

Associate Professor of New Testament

The Catholic University of America

Historically, Jesus stood trial only once,

befor e Pilate. Per sua ded by the chief priests

tha t Jes us was a political t hrea t, Pilate

se nte nce d him to dea th for insurge ncy.

THE TRIAL OF JESUS of Nazareth has been and remains one 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 and juridical questions, for example, the

rules and pr oc ed ur es of Jewish and Ro man trials an d the autho rity of the

Jews at the time of Jesus' trial to inflict the death penalty. Moreover, the

historical investigation abo ut the trial of Jesus of Naz are th has im po rt an ttheological and ecumenical ramifications since it involves the questions whyJesus was put to death and who was responsible for his death.

This essay will summarize the different ways in w7hich the New Testament

pre sen ts the trial of Jesu s an d define the probl em s raised by the Gospel

accounts of the trial. Then, after a discussion of why Jesus was sentenced to

1. Am on g t he mor e i mpo rt an t works on the trial of Jesu s are The Trial of Jesus: CambridgeStudies in Honor of C.F.D. Moule, ed. E. Ba mme l (Nap ervil le, IL: Alec. R. All ens on, 1970); Josef

Blinzler,Der Prozess Jesu,

4th ed. (Regesburg: Pustet, 1969); S.G.F. Brandon,The Trial of Jesus

of Nazareth (New York: Stein and Day, 1968); David R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study inthe Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971); Der Prozess gegen Jesu: Historische Rückfrage und theologische Deutung, ed. Karl Kertelge (Frei burg:

He rd er , 1989); William R. Wilson, The Execution of Jesus: A Juridical and Historical Interpretation(New York: Scribners, 1970); Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 2nd ed., rev. and ed. T. Α.

Burkill and Geza Verm es (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974).

5







dea th, it will offer a nu mb er of propo sals for und er st an di ng t he events

surrounding the historical trial of Jesus of Nazareth.

T H E TRIAL S OF JES I S

The very phrase "the trial of Jesus" is misleading. Does it refer to the trial

of Jesus before the Sanhédrin or to the trial of Jesus before Pilate? Strangeh

enough, even the New Testament is ambiguous at this point. While Matthew

an d Mark speak of two trials, on e before the Sanh éd rin an d ano th er before

Pilate, Luke and John 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

common judgment that Mark was the first of our canonical Gospels to be

written and that Matthew and Luke are dependent upon it.

Mark 14:53—15:15. Accord ing to Mark, Jes us is ar res ted in the garde n of

Ge th se ma ne on the eve of Passover. Imm ediate ly after his arrest , Jes us is

brought to the high priest (unidentified) and the entire Sanhédrin, and a

formal trial takes place. The trial begins with witnesses claiming that Jesus

said, "I will dest roy this temple that is ma de with han ds , and in t hree da\ s I

will build another, not made with hands" (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 \ou noanswer to make? What is it that these men 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 Jesus1

answer, the high priest proclai ms that the re is no further ne ed for witnesses

since Jesu s has bl as ph em ed in the hea ring of all. Th us th e high priest asks

for a decision from the Sanhédrin, 'And thev all condemned him as

deserving death" (14:64).In the morning, the Sanhédrin holds a consultation and then hands Jesus

over to Pilate (15:1). The trial before Pilate begins abruptly with the

quest ion , 'Are you the King of the Jews?" (15:2). In Mark's version of this

trial, the chief priests play a pr om ine nt rol e: the \ accuse Jes us of main

things (15:3) and stir up th e crowd to ask for Barabbas inst ead of Jes us

(15:11) an d to demand Je sus' crucifixion (15:13) . To satisfy the crowd,

Pilate accedes to their wishes (15:15).

Matthew 26:57 —27:26. Th e Gospel of Matthew rem ain s ra th er faithful to

th e Markan source. Like Mark, Mat thew narrates two trials: on e befo re the

Sanhédrin and another before Pilate. In his account of these trials, however,

Matthew introduces some important changes. For example, in the trial

before th e Sa nhé dr in , (1) the high priest is identified as Caiaphas (26:57);

(2) the witnesses are explicitly called false witnesses (26:60); (3) the charge

6







The Trial of Jesus

Inuiprttation

against Jesus is reworded to lead "This fellow said, Ί am able to destroy

the temple of God, and to build it in three day s'" (26 :61); an d (4) the con-

demnat ion of Jesus becomes, "He deserves death" (26:66) rather than the

mo r e explicit Markan statement that "they all condemned him as deserving

death" (14:64).

In th e trial befo re Pilate, Matt hew' s edito rial work is mo re not ice abl e still.

T h e Evangelist introduces the account of Ju da s' suicide (27:3-1 0); th e

dream of Pilate's wife (27:19); Pilate's declaration, "I am innocent of this

ma n' s blood; see to it yourself" (27:24); and the people's cry, "His blood be

on us and on our children" (25:25). It is evident that these changes are

intended to place the burden of guilt for Jesus' death upon Israel.

Luke 22:66 —23:25. The changes, omissions, and new elements found in

Luke's account are even mo re p r o no unce d . Unlike Matthew an d Mark, Luke

does not narrate a formal trial of Jesus , du ri ng th e midd le of the night ,

before the Sanhé dr in . Instead, after his arre st Jesus is br ou gh t to the hou se

of the high pries t who, as in Mark, re ma in s uniden ti fi ed (22:54) .2

During the

course of the night, Peter denies Jesus (22:54-62), and Jesus' captors revile

him as a false pr op he t (22:63-65 ).

In the mo rn in g, Jesus is br ou gh t to the hall of the Sanhédr in^ whe re the

entire council of elders is present.4

Al tho ugh the setting is formal, t he re isno des crip tion of a formal trial. Th er e are no witnesses, the re is no cha rge

that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple,5

the high priest does not ques

tion Jesus, the re is no accusa tion of blasph emy, no r does the counc il

formally co nd em n Jesus to dea th. Instead, the entire council co mm an ds

Jesus in on e voice, "If you are t he Chri st, tell us" (22 :67). Jes us refuses to

answer the question directly, but he does prophesy that he will return as the

Son of Man. The council, as a body, then asks if this means that he is the Son

of God , an d Jesus res po nd s, "You say tha t I am " (22:70) .

Following this session before the counci l, Jesus is br ou gh t to Pilate . T heme mb er s of the high council make an explicit charge against Jesus: "We found

this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar,

and saying that he himself is Christ a king. . . . He stirs up the people,

tea ching thr ou gh ou t all Ju de a, from Galilee even to this plac e" (23:2, 5).

Wh en Pilate learns that Jesus is from Galilee, he sends him to He ro 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 uke22 664 Luke speaks of to près by tenon tou laou ("the council of elders of the people," 22 66), by

which he probably means the Sanhednn5 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 thetemple rather than any threat against the temple

7







reviles him (23:6-12). After Herod returns Jesus, Pilate assembles the chief

priests, the rulers and the people (ton laon, 23:13) to explain that neither he

nor Herod has found Jesus guilty of the charges they have brought against

him (23:14-15 ). Th e religious leaders and the people, however, insist that Jesus

mus t be c rucified. 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 and people, crucified

Jesus. This be co mes more expl icit in several texts of Acts tha t pro cla im tha t

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 18:12—19:16. The Gospel of John presents yet another account of

the trial, different from the three examined thus far. As in the case of Luke,the Fo ur th Evangelist does no t re po rt a formal trial, at night, before the

Sa nhé dr in . Instead, after his arrest, du ri ng the nigh t, Jesu s is br ou ght 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

an d his tea chin g, but the re is no accusation tha t Jesus th re at en ed to destroy

the temp le , no r is Jes us asked if he is the Messiah. After this info rmal

investigation, Annas sends Jesus to Caiaphas (18:24), but the Evangelist does

no t relate what ha pp en ed . Eventually Jesus is led from the hou se of Caiaphas

to the residence of the governor.

J oh n' s acco unt of the trial before Pilate is mo re ela bora te tha n those

found in the Synoptics. As several scholars have noted, the trial is developed

in a series of seven scenes outside and inside the Roma n pr ae to ri um (18 :28 -

32; 18:33-38«; 18:38^-40; 19:1-3; 19:4-8; 19:9-11; 19:12-16a).7Outside the

pr ae to ri um th er e is frenzy an d emo ti on as Pilate struggles with the Jews over

the fate of Jesus.8

Within th e prae to ri um the re is a mo od of awe and fear

as Pilate speaks with Jesus. At the beginning of the trial Pilate is self-

confident and in control of the situation, but by the trial's conclusion he

is a broken man outmaneuvered by the chief priests who proclaim, "We

have no king but Caesar" (19:15).

To sum mari ze , Matthew and Mark speak of two trials. Th e first, before the

entire Sanhédrin, occurs at night. The second, before Pilate, occurs in the

morning. In Mark, the chief priests are the primary antagonists: in Matthew

the role of the people becomes more prominent. In Luke and John, there

is only one trial, the trial before Pilate. Luke also speaks of a morning session

6. For the ant ije wis h th em e in Luke , see Jac k T. San der s, The Jews i)¡ ÍAikc-Ads (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).

7. Ra\mond E. Brown, The Gospel cu cording to John xiii-xxi (Garden Git\, XV: Doubleda\ ScCo., Inc., 1970), pp. 857-59.

8. Wh en the Fo urt h Evangelist speaks of the Jews, he seem s to have the Jewish lea der shi p

in min d. Th us t he Jews me nt io ne d in 19:14 are identifie d as the chief priests in 19:15.

8







The Trial of Jesus

Interpretation

before the high council but portrays it as a prelude to the trial before Pilate

ra th er tha n a formal legal process. J o h n describes an inform al hea rin g, at

night, before Annas and says that Jesus was then sent to Caiaphas, but he

does not describe a trial before the Sanhédrin.

PROBLEMS RAISED BY TH E GOS PEL ACC OUN TS

The Gospel accounts of the trials of Jesus raise a number of questions.

How many trials took place? Why was Jesus br ou gh t to trial? Wh o was

resp onsible for the con de mn at io n of Jesus? As im po rt an t as these q uest ions

are, they cannot be resolved until a more fundamental issue is discussed: the

relationship of the different Gospel accounts among one another.Since Matthew is dependent upon Mark as his primary source for the trial

of Jesus, his Gospel does not pre sen t an in de pe nd en t source of informa tion.

Where Matthew does differ from Mark, it appears that he is editorially active.

Consequently, except for details such as the name of the high priest,

"Caiaphas," Matthew does not add to our knowledge of the historical trial of

Jesus. Instead, in Matthew there is a tendency to place greater responsibility

for the dea th of Jesu s up on the pe opl e of Israel. Th us Pilate washes his ha nd s

as a sign that he is in no ce nt of the affair (27:24), while the peo pl e of Israel

willingly accept responsibility for Jesus' death (27:25).The case of Luke is mo re difficult to assess. Since Luke differs significantly

from Mark, there are a number of exegetes who contend that he had access

to another account of the passion in addition to Mark's narrative.9

If this is

so, depending upon 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 morning but not a formal trial at night, and the

role that Herod Antipas played at Jesus' trial.

While the re is mu ch to com me nd this positio n, othe r exegetes have

argued that the Evangelist did not employ another passion account inaddition to Mark. Rather, they maintain that the differences between the

accounts of Luke and Mark can be explained in light of Luke's theological

concerns and should be attributed to Lukan redaction.10

I find myself in

ag re em en t with these scholars; Luke is primarily de pe nd en t up on Mar k a nd

does not bring forth new, historical information.11

9. An im por tan t ex po ne nt of this position was Vince nt Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation, ed. O. E. Evans, SNTSMS 19 (Cambridge: Cam

bridge University Press, 1972).

10. See Marion L. Soards, The Passion according to Luke: The Special Material of Luke 22, JSNTSup14 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).

11. I have argued this position in two articles, "Luke 22:66-71: Jesus before the

PRESBYTERION," pp. 517 -33 [ = ETL 65 (198 9), 43- 59] a nd "Luke 23:1- 25: Jes us befo re

Pilate, Herod, and Israel," pp. 535-51 in L'Évangile de Luc/The Gospel of Luke, rev. and enl arg ed

ed. of L'Evangile de Luc: Problèmes littéraires et théologiques, éd. F. Neirync k, BETL 32 (Leu ven:

Peeters Press, 1989).

9







The Luka n trial accoun t is the beg in ni ng of a te nd en c\ tha t finds its

culmination in the Gospel of John; it presents one great trial in which the

people of Israel and their leaders, despite the protestations of Pilate,

cons pir e to have Jesu s pu t to dea th. Thu s in bot h Luke and Jo hn , Pilate

procla ims th re e times tha t Jesus is in no ce nt (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; J ohn 18:38;

19:4, 6) . Moreove r, even He ro d, th e king who once sou ght to kill Jes us (Luke

13:31), finds him inno ce nt (23:15). By th e end of the trial, however, Pilate

must submit to the will of the people and their rulers who, it is implied,

crucify Jesus (Luke 23:25-26).

Overall, one should speak of a single trial in Luke that consists of four

scenes : (1) Jesus before the counc il (22 :66- 71) ; (2) Jesus before Pilate

(23:1-7); (3) Jes us before H er od (23 :8-12) ; an d (4) Jes us befo re all Israel

(23:13-25). In accordance with his stated goal, Luke presents a more orderh

narrative (1:3), but not necessarily a more historical account.

The case of the Fourth Gospel is even more difficult to decide. While there

is ag re em en t th at Luke knew an d used Mark, the precise relatio nship of

Joh n to the Synoptics is probl ema tica l. Did the Four th Evangelist know o ne

or more of the Synoptics? Was he familiar with the Synoptic tradition? The

majority opinion is that while the Fourth Evangelist ma\ have been

acquainted with the Synoptic tradition, or sources akin to it, he was not

dependent upon it.12 Thus many scholars maintain that the Johannine

passion narrative represents an independent tradition which contains

valuable, historical information.

An example of such information would be the account of the interroga

tion of Jesus before Annas. In itself, the re is no th in g implausibl e about such

a hea ri ng . High p riest from A.D. 6-15 , Annas was a powerful figure. Five of

his sons were appo int ed to the office of high pr ies t after h im, as well as his

son-in4aw, Joseph Caiaphas, who held the office from A.D. 18-36.

Nevertheless, there are some reasons for questioning the historical

reliability of the Annas acco un t as it is na rr at ed by the Four th Evangelist .H

First, the narrative says little about what transpired. What it does sav (Annas

questioned Jesus about his teaching and his disciples) reflects John's

theological concerns in other parts of the Gospel. Second, although the

Fourth Evangelist does not speak of a trial before the Sanhédrin 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 Sanhédrin.

During the Feast of Dedication, while Jesus is in the temple, the Jews gather

round him and demand, "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), pp. 95-172.

13. I ha \e deve loped this point in Je su s before Annas: John 18, 13-14, 19 -2 4/ 77 7. 66 (1990),

38-55.

10







The Trial of Jesus

Interpretation

Jesus' res pon se, the Jews pr ep ar e to stone him to dea th. Wh en Jesus asks

why, they answer, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for

blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (10:33). Jesus

retorts, "Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the

world, 'You are blaspheming^ because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'" (10:36).

Here we find three of the elements of the Sanhédrin trial as reported by

Mark: the quest ion of Jes us' Messiahship Jes us' ackno wled gme nt th at he is

the Son of God, an d the cha rge of blasph emy. Later, in J o h n 11:45-53, after

Jesu s raises Lazarus, the ent ire Sanh éd ri n assembles to plot Jes us' de at h

(11 :45-53). Th es e trial motifs in the course of Je sus ' public ministry14

suggest that the Fourth Evangelist understood Jesus' public ministry as the

m o me n t wh en he was on trial before the Jews. Havin g por tra yed Je sus '

ministry as a kind of trial, the Evangelist did not find it necessary to recount

the "Jewish trial" during the passion.

Annas may have played a rol e in the events of Je sus' passion, bu t t he

hearing before Annas, as narrated by the Fourth Evangelist, does not have

a strong claim to historical reliability. It is more likely that the Evangelist

dev elo ped th e Ann as narrative in or de r to provide a new transi tion from the

arrest of Jesus to the trial before Pilate, since he had already described the

"Jewish trial" during the course of Jesus' public ministry.

What then of the Gospel of Mark? Does this narrative represent a histor

ical acco unt of what transp ired ? A nu mb er of scholars argue tha t be hi nd the

Markan passion narrative stands a primitive passion account which dates

from the earliest days of the Je ru sal em communi ty.15

In their view, this ac

count is reliable and historically accurate. In more recent years, however, a

number of exegetes have insisted that Mark the Evangelist had a more active

role in shaping the passion account.16

While these approaches contrast with

one another, they are not irreconcilable. The Markan passion contains

im por ta nt, historical trad ition s abo ut the trial of Jesus , bu t it is the Evangelist

who shaped and formed these traditions in accordance with his theological

purpose.

JESU S AND THE TEMP LE

The four Evangelists testify that Jesus was cruc ified as th e "King of the

Jews ." In ea ch Gospel , Pila te asks Je sus if he is th e "King of the Jews," a nd

14. Two works whic h show the forensic c har act er of J oh n' s Gospe l are A. E. Harvey, Jesus

on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: S.P.C.K., 1976) and Je ro me Neyrey, An Ideologyof Revolt: John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).

15. See Joel B. Gre en, The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative,W U N T 2 / 3 3 (Tübing en: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988), and Rudolf Pesch, Das Evangeliumder Urgemeinde: Wiederhergestellt und erläutert, Her der büc her ei 748 (Freiburg: Her der, 1979).

16. An example of this approach is The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14—16, ed. Werner

H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).

11







th e 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 no t the way it was un de rs to od by those who crucified him. Th e Roman

charge that Jesus cla imed to be th e "King of the Jews" was equi\ aien t to

saying that he was a polit ical in surgent. Moreover, the fact that Jesus was

crucified between two political rebels (lestes, Mark 15:27) is a further ind i

cation that the Romans viewed Jesus as a revolutionary. Rightlv or wrongh,

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 rel ationship

does this cha rge have with the Markan acc oun t of the trial before the

Sanhédrin? There are, of course, some obvious reasons why others might

have viewed Jesus as a political rebel.17 The coming Kingdom of God was a

central theme of his preaching, and he did, after all, attract large crowds.

The comment 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 mountain by himself" (John 6:15).

These facts, however, do not sufficiently explain why Jesus was crucified as

the "King of the Jews." The event which forced the issue was more imm edia te

and close at hand: 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 Jesus1

messianic entry into Jerusalem.

Jesus drives out the money changers and proclaims that the temple was

intended as a house of prayer (Isa. 56:7) but has been turned into a den 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 up" (John 2:19). This statement, of course, is remarkably similar to

the cha rge ma de against Jesus at the trial before the Sanhédrin: "We hea rd

him say, Τ will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days

I will build another, not made with hands1" (Mark 14:58).

There is no agreement about the precise meaning of Jesus' activity within

the temple. Recently, E. P. Sanders has argue d 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, "He intended, rather, to indicate

that the end was at hand and that the temple would be destroyed, so that the

new and perfect temple might arise." I s More recently, C. A. Evans has

1 7. O n this qu es tio n see Jesus and the Politics of His Da), ed. E rns t Bam me l a nd ( l.l· .1). Moule

(Cambridge: lTni\ersit\ Press, 1984).

18. E. P. San de rs, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Forti ess Piess, 1985), p. 75.

12







The Trial of JesusIntel pretation

criticized Sand ers 's rec onst ruc tio n. Accord ing to Evans, Jes us' tem ple

behavior was directed against the abuses of the temple, which probablystemmed from greed and corruption among the ruling priests, especially the

family of Annas.19 In either case, it is clear that Jesus' behavior in the temple

presented a challenge to the temple leadership, especially the chief priests.

The te mple , after all, was the seat of political an d relig ious author ity . T o

cha lle nge it was to challenge the political and religious auth orit y of t he

nation.

A story from th e Jewish hi stor ian Jo se ph us is helpful a t this point. In The Jewish War, Jo se ph us relates how a certa in Jesus, son of Anania s, a ru de

peasant, threatened the temple four years before the outbreak of the Jewishwar with Rome. About A.D. 62 this Jesus stood in the temple and cried out,

"A voice from the east, a voice from th e west, a voice from the four winds;

a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary; a voice against the bridegroom

and the br ide, a voice against the pe op le " (VI, 301 ). Eventually some lead ing

citizens arrested this Jesus and chastised him, but when he persisted in his

threats against the city and temple, the rulers brought him to the Roman

prefect, Albinus, who had him scourged.

This incident from Josephus is instructive in two ways. First, it demon

strates that one could not consistently challenge the temple, even verbally,with impunity. Second, it points to the political ties between the ruling

authorities and the Roman prefect. Although the religious leaders may have

resented the presence of the Romans, they maintained a necessary working

relationship with them.20

At the time of Jesus' ministry, the high priest was appointed by the Roman

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 Roman

prefect Valerius Gratus. It is clear then that a good working relationship was

to the mutual benefit of both high priest and prefect. That Caiaphas held theoffice of hig h prie st for near ly ei gh te en years, an d tha t the Ro ma n prefects

ap po in te d several hig h priest s from t he family of Ann as, suggest tha t t he re

was a workable relationship between the family of Annas and the various

Ro ma n prefect s. 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 and chief priests could hardly hope to maintain their authority.

The appearance of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem and his behavior in the

temple must have posed a crisis for the religious leaders. They were surely

aware, in some gen eral way, of Jes us' Galilean ministry: his pr ea ch in g ab ou t

19. Craig A. Evans, "Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?"CBQÒI (1989), 237-70.

20. On this point see E. Mary Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine," JThSt 13 (1962), 14-34.

13







the kingdom, the crowds he attracted, his interpretation of the Law, his

beh av ior o n th e Sab bat h, an d his association with sinner s. As lon g as Jesus

remained in Galilee, he did not pose an immediate threat to their authority.

Jesu s' dr amat ic entry into Jerusalem,21 however, and his behavior in the

temple was another 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 lead ers perceive d tha t Jesus claimed such authori ty,

it was their obligation, as well as to their benefit, to report him to Pilate. The

re ma rk of Gaiapha s in J o h n 11:49-50 is ap ro pos, "You know not hi ng at all;

you do not un de rs ta nd that it is exp ed ie nt for you that one man sho uld die

for the peop le , an d that the whole natio n should not perish." While t he

Fourth Evangelist clearly understands this remark in an ironic fashion—

Jesus will die for the sake (hyper) of the people—it also expresses the political

reality: Rome would not tolerate a political claimant. From the point of view

of the religious leaders, claimants of royal authority were a danger to the

nat ion ; their activity coul d only bri ng Ro man ret rib ution.

T H E TRIAL OF JES US OF NAZARE TH: PROPOS ALS

On t he basis of what we have said thus far, I make the following propo sals

for understanding the trial of Jesus. First, from the point of view of the chief

priests, Jesus of Nazareth posed an unacceptable threat to the temple andso to the ir author ity . Gonsequen tly , with the assistance of Ju da s, they

arrested him.

Second, the Gospel of Mark is probably correct when it reports that the

prin cipa l accusa tion against Jesus was that he thr ea te ne d to destroy th e

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 des tro yed (Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luk e 21:6), they do not ac cep t the

cha rge t hat Jes us threa te ne d to destroy the tem ple . Again, the Cospel of

J o h n is helpful. W he n Jes us says, "Destroy this templ e, and in three days Iwill raise it up" (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 understood 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 probabh

led to the ques tion of his Mess iahsh ip, even if ther e was no exp ec tat ion that

the Messiah would cleanse or destroy the te mple . By cleans ing the tem ple

and teaching within its precincts, Jesus implicitly claimed authority. That the

central theme of his teaching was the Kingdom of God might easily have ledothers to interpret that authority as a messianic claim. The phrasing of the

21. I am n ot ex cl udi ng th e possibilitv that Jes us ma de several visits to Je rus al em as re po rt ed

b\ the Fourth Gospel.

14







The Trial of JesusInterpretation

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: Jesusis the Son of God. Nevertheless, the essential content is probably correct.

The high priest asked if Jesus, by his temple activity, was making a messianic

claim.

Fourth, Jes us' "trial" befor e th e Sa nh éd ri n was proba bly mor e of an

informal hearing before the high priest and some of the chief priests rather

than a formal trial before the entire Sanhédrin as reported by Matthew and

Mark. The primary purpose of this interrogation would have been to

ascertain the nature of Jesus' temple activity in order to determine if he

should be brought to Pilate. It seems unlikely and unnecessary that the chief priests would bring Jesus before the entire Sanhédrin for such a purpose.

Consequently, it is more accurate to speak of a single trial: the trial of Jesus

before Pilate.

Fifth, the Markan and Matthean descriptions of this hearing as a formal

trial before the Sanh éd ri n at which J esus was co nd em ne d to dea th because

of blasphemy owes more to the theological purpose of the Evangelists than

to historical fact. The Evangelists knew that Jesus had been crucified as the

"King of the Jews" and that his prophetic behavior in the temple played a

prominent role in this. The description of a formal trial with the charge of blasphemy and the condemnation of Jesus enabled the Evangelists to blame

the Jewish Sanhédrin of maliciously rejecting God's messianic Son. In the

Gospels of Matthew and Luke this blame is extended further so that it falls

upon the whole people (laos) of Israel.

Sixth, after an informa l h ea ring which deal t with Jes us' behavior in th e

temple, the chief priests delivered him to Pilate because they viewed him as

a messianic pre te nd er : t he "King of the Jews." Alt hou gh it is tempt in g to

speculate about the motives of the religious leaders, it is probably best not

to do so. Motives are rarely pure, and they are usually mixed. If some of thereligious leaders thought they were doing what was best for the nation,

oth ers un do ubt ed ly saw this occasion as a con ven ien t way to eliminate the

troublesome prophet from Galilee.

Seventh, the Gospels portray Pilate as so meon e con vinced of Jes us'

innocence. Given the gospel apologetic against the Jews, it is more likely that

the Roman prefect played a more aggressive role in the trial of Jesus and was

eventually convinced that Jesus posed a political threat. Consequently, Pilate

co nd em ne d Jesus to deat h as a messianic prete nde r, a political insurge nt,

th e "King of th e Jews."

RESPONSIBILITY FOR TH E DE AT H OF JE SUS

Who was responsible for Jesus' death? The Romans? The Jews? The chief

priests? Pontius Pilate? From this investigation it should be clear that

15







responsibility for the dea th of Jesu s ca nn ot be attri but ed to the historic peo

ple of Israel any more than it can be attributed to the historic people of

Rome. Those primarily responsible for the death of Jesus are Pontius Pilate

an d th e chief priests, which is mo re or less wha t Jo se ph us savs in the famouspassage on Je sus in Book 18 of The Jervis h Antiquities.-1

As the Roman prefect, Pilate, and only Pilate, had the legal authority to

inflict the Ro ma n penalty of crucifixion. Jes us was crucified u nd er Ro man

lawr

by a distinctly Roman form of punishment. Therefore, it is inaccurate to

say tha t th e Jews crucified Jesus. The chief priests, neve rtheless, played an

essential role . It was they who first per ceived Jesus, bec ause of his t emple

behavior, to be a messianic claimant. After an informal interrogation, thev

brought him to Pilate as a royal claimant.

Th os e who believed in Jesus , however, un de rs to od the mea ni ng of his

ministry. Th e politica l cha rge "King of the Jews" was soon und er st oo d in its

deepest, religious sense: "King oflsrael," "Messiah," "Son of God." In one of

the great ironies of history, the false charges leveled against Jesus took on

an unexpected meaning. For those who believed, the death of Jesus marked

the end of the old temple cult. Those who believed in Jesus understood that

with his death God raised up a new temple, a temple not made by hands: the

co mm un it y of those who believe in Jes us. It was for this new templ e, the

ch ur ch , that Jesu s died (Eph . 5:25).

22 . "And when Pilate, on the indict men t of the principal me n am on g us. had co nd em ne d

him to the cross. . ." (AJ 18, 64). On this text see, John P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest

Proposal ," CBQ 52 (1990), 76-103.

16





1991 - frank m. matera - the trial of jesus. problems and proposals

Documents