PAUL WINTER

THE TRIAL OF JESUS

HERE MAY still be people who think, or of the Jewish high-priest, and from there, ac-
pretend to think, that no such person cording to the Gospel of Luke, to the meeting-
as Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. One hears them place of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council, before
saying that the story of Jesus was invented to being handed over for trial to Pilate. We do not
account for the emergence of a strange salvation know where the high-priest's house stood. The
myth, intended by those who invented it to bring locality shown by Jerusalem cicerones as "The
hope to the oppressed masses living under the House of Caiaphas" is certainly not the spot; it
sway of imperial Rome. No doubt, there are in is the ruin of a large building from Byzantine
the New Testament mythical features, but the times. As for the location of the Sanhedrin's meet-
persons who figure in the story, Jesus and his ing-place, we have conflicting reports; it seems,
disciples, are not mythical characters; they are however, to have been situated on the Temple
historical persons. Jesus of Nazareth lived, and Mount, in the area known today as the Haram-
he died. He died on the cross. esh-Sherif. And the residence of Pilate, when the
This much, at least, is confirmed by two an- governor stayed in Jerusalem for official or for
cient historians, Josephus and Tacitus, both of private reasons, was the Herodian Palace which
whom record that Pontius Pilate, the Roman was located in the southwestern sector of the
governor of Judaea, condemned Jesus. Josephus present-day walled city, near the Jaffa Gate.
explicitly mentions the mode of execution-cru- We do not know the exact year of Jesus's
cifixion; Tacitus does not say in what manner death; nor do we know the day. All that is cer-
the execution was carried out. However, neither tain is that he was crucified while Pontius
the reason for the execution of Jesus nor the Pilate held office as Prefect of Judaea-that is,
character of the penal proceedings which preced-
ed it, is disclosed by either of the two historians, I Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18:63,64. Scholars are
who, moreover, show a marked difference in their divided in their opinions on the authenticity of this pas-
manner of referring to Jesus. Josephus, the Jew, sage. The text in our editions of the Antiquities certainly
contains insertions which do not come from Josephus's own
speaks rather respectfully of him, calling him "a hand. The passage appears to have been tampered with by
wise man," "a teacher of people."' By contrast, a Christian copyist, probably in the 3rd century. Neverthe-
Tacitus, the aristocratic Roman, is full of scorn less, there are good reasons for assuming that Josephus did
for one whom he considers to have been "the relate the death of Jesus. When writing about James the
Just (Jewish Antiquities 20:199, 200), Josephus casually
originator of a pernicious superstition," an agi- mentions that James was the brother of "Jesus who is called
tator among barbarian orientals, and an enemy Christ." It thus seems that Josephus, before he referred to
of the law and order introduced and upheld by James, had already informed his readers about Jesus. Fur-
Rome in a distant province. (He seems to con- thermore, the testimonium displays features which can
nect the teachings of Jesus and the activities of scarcely be attributed to a Christian interpolator. Jesus is
here called "a wise man," a designation not in keeping with
Jesus's disciples after their master's death with the 3rd-century Christian notions about who and what Jesus
outbreak of the great Jewish revolt in the year was. The immediately following words, "if it is permissible
66.) to call him a man," may have been added; they show that
What we also know for a fact is where Jesus the copyist felt uneasy about an expression Josephus had
used. The testitnonium distinguishes between the roles
was arrested. Visitors to the Arab part of Jeru- which the Jews and which the Romans played in Jesus's trial.
salem will be shown a grove on the Mount of It refers to an indictment that was drawn up by Jewish
Olives called "the Garden of the Agony." There, nobles, yet states that the death sentence was passed by the
or somewhere not far from that place, Jesus was Roman governor. It was not customary for Christians in the
apprehended. He was then taken to the house 3rd century to make such fine distinctions; they flatly
charged the Jews with responsibility for everything-arrest,
PAUL WINTER, who makes his home in London, is the author trial, sentencing, and crucifixion. Ultimately, the adherents
of the widely acclaimed book, On the Trial of Jesus (pub- of Jesus are in the testimonium called "the tribe of Chris-
lished in Berlin in 1961 in English, and available from tians," a phrase not used of Christians by people who were
A. R. Allenson, Inc., Naperville, Illinois); and of many Christians themselves, but credible in the mouth of a Ist-
articles in scholarly periodicals on various aspects of the century Jew who was steeped in the Old Testament and
same subject. This is his first appearance in COMMENTARY. would be accustomed to describing internal divisions within
the body politic of the Jewish nation by the word "tribe."
35
36 COMMENTARY/SEPT. 64

some time between 26 and 36 of the current era- tween them from the historian's point of view.
and that his crucifixion took place shortly before All we can say for sure is that the trial and
or on the feast of Passover. Since Jesus is pop- subsequent crucifixion fell on a (lay close to the
ularly supposed to have been born in the year 1, Passover.
since the Gospel of Luke reports that he was
approximately 30 years old when he began to A Lt. FOURGospels report that Jesus was arrested
preach, and since the Gospel of John seems to Aat night. According to Mark, Matthew, and
lend some support to the assumption that his Luke, his arrest was carried out by a team, some
preaching activities lasted three years, the year men being armed with swords, others with staves
of his death has widely been thought to be 33. or cudgels. According to John, the arrest was car-
But all the premises on which this calculation is ried out by a detachment of soldiers under the
based are wrong. In recent times, the year 30 has command of a Roman officer, and accompanied
been suggested by an increasing number of schol- by Jewish policemen. At first sight, these reports
ars, notably continental Roman Catholic scholars, conflict with each other, but the conflict is re-
but I believe that we have to go still further back, solved if we remember that Roman soldiers car-
to 29 or even 28. ried swords, while the Jewish police carried ba-
tons. Thus the men who are mentioned in Mark
Three arguments favor this earlier dating. First
as having been armed with staves are Jewish po-
of all, a 2nd-century tradition, preserved by Clem-
ent of Alexandria, states that Jesus died forty-two licemen, while those members of the crowd whom
years before the destruction of Jerusalem under Mark describes as carrying swords are identical
with the detachment that is specified as a cohort
Titus-that is, in 28. Secondly, Josephus places
the crucifixion among those events which occurred of soldiers by John.
Mark, we must remember, was written in Rome,
close to the beginning of Pilate's governorship.
at a time when Christians were exposed to attack
The third reason, and in my opinion the decisive
by the Roman mob, and were subject to suspicion
one, for dating the crucifixion before the year 30,
on the part of Roman officials. Therefore, the
lies in the chronology of the Apostle Paul's mis-
evangelist may well have had cogent reasons for
sionary travels. Fourteen years after his conversion,
not wishing to draw attention to the fact that
Paul attended what is traditionally called the
Jesus had been arrested by Roman soldiers or
"Council of Jerusalem," a meeting of the elders
of the Church which is believed to have taken mercenaries in the service of Rome; and this may
place during the reign of Agrippa I. If this Coun- well have made him substitute the vague and
colorless expression "a crowd with swords" for
cil met as late as the year of Agrippa's death, 44,
the more definite designation of his source-a
Paul's conversion would fall somewhere around
source which still comes to the fore in the
the year 30. Paul was not one of the original dis-
Johannine account. Jesus was arrested by Roman
ciples of Jesus, but on the contrary an opponent
of the messianist sect whose members he is said soldiers who were accompanied, probably as
guides, by some Jewish policemen.
to have persecuted in the beginning. Hence, we
None of the evangelists tells us in plain lan-
must assume that some time elapsed between the
guage the reason for the arrest. But Mark, Mat-
death of Jesus and Paul's conversion. How long
thew, and Luke reproduce the gist of a conversa-
this time was, we do not know. But it pushes the
tion which Jesus is reported to have held with
year of Jesus's crucifixion back before 30.
We do not know the exact day. The fact that the people who came to arrest him: "You have
all four Gospels place the trial either on the eve come," Jesus complains, "with swords and batons
to arrest me as a rebel. I stayed with you in the
of Passover or on the day of the actual festival,
makes it virtually a certainty that Jesus was ar- daytime [or daily] on the Temple Hill and I
rested and tried around that time, but it might taught. You did not arrest me then."2 The Greek
well have been a few days earlier or later. It word which the synoptic evangelists use
(leeistees) can be and usually is translated "rob-
would appear that one group of his followers
ber" as well as "rebel." In the Ist century, how-
drew a comparison between the death of Jesus
and he slaying of the paschal lamb, and there- ever, this term was not exclusively used of ban-
fore ad the moment of the crucifixion coincide dits, but was applied to persons who in any of
the Roman provinces resorted to armed resistance
with that event. This tradition, mentioned al-
against Roman rule. In Roman eyes such people
ready by the Apostle Paul, was preserved by John,
who dates the crucifixion on the fourteenth of were bandits, robbers; in the people's estimate of
Nisan. Another early group of Christians con- themselves, they were patriots, perhaps guerrillas,
partisans, freedom fighters. When Jesus, on the
nected the festive Passover meal, the seder, with
the establishment of the New Covenant, the in- Mount of Olives, said to those who were taking
him into custody, "You come with swords and
stitution of the Eucharist, and to allow Jesus to
batons to arrest me as a rebel. Was I not with
partake of the seder, his crucifixion had to be
dated after it. This tradition influenced the Mar- you, teaching openly in the light of day?"-he
was defending himself by asserting his peaceful
can dating. Since both datings are inspired by
religious motivation, there is little to choose be- 2 Mark 14:48, 49; Matthew 26:55; Luke 22:52, 53.
 THE TRIAL OF JESUS 37

aims as a teacher. In Pilate's court, the charge other than the place where Jesus had been de-
was the same as that for which he had been ar- tained during the night. At their morning ses-
rested: he was accused of being "King of the sion the Jewish councilors decide to conduct
Jews." And the cause for which he was sentenced Jesus to Pilate, to be tried by the Roman author-
to crucifixion was again the same, as the inscrip- ity.
tion on the cross confirms. Jesus was arrested by
Roman troops as a Jewish rebel.
After his arrest, Jesus was brought to the house
HERE
HMark
WEare faced with a problem. If Jesus, as
and Matthew have it, was sentenced
of the Jewish high-priest. All four Gospels agree during an earlier session by the Sanhedrin, we
on this. But why was he not immediately taken would expect to find a reference to the verdict in
to the Jewish law court? Because it was night, the report of the Sanhedrin's second meeting. No
and the court was closed. Then why was he not word of it. As if they have forgotten that they
immediately taken to the Roman prison? Because themselves had sentenced Jesus for the crime of
a preliminary investigation was required for which blasphemy, the Jewish magistrates hand Jesus
the Romans used local officials, Jews, who, by over to Pilate for trial, on another charge-the
reason of their knowledge of the local conditions charge, it turns out, on which he had been ar-
and language, were better equipped to carry out rested in the first place! Pilate is not asked to con-
any necessary inquiries. Up to the moment firm a sentence for blasphemy; he is not even
when Jesus arrived in the house of the high-priest, told that Jesus has been tried and found guilty of
the four reports of the Gospels are more or less such an offense; and he acts throughout as
in agreement; from that moment on, they differ a magistrate who is presiding over the first stage
profoundly in their accounts of the proceedings. of judicial proceedings, not as one who has been
According to John, Jesus was led to Annas, who called to confirm a sentence passed by some other
interrogated him privately. There is no accusa- court of law. He demands to know whether Jesus
tion, no witnesses are heard, no court assembles. has claimed to be the king of the Jews. The re-
It is a privatesconversation, or at the most a pre- ply of Jesus, "You have said it," may be taken
liminary hearing. In the morning Jesus is sent, as an affirmation, though there are scholars who
via Caiaphas, to the procurator Pontius Pilate. dispute this. In any case, it is not a direct reply.
Thus, in John's account, no Jewish law court All four Gospels agree that Jesus appeared be-
deals with the case. Yet at the very time at which fore Pilate in the early morning. It must have
John presents Jesus as conversing with Annas, been at a very early hour indeed, if the Marcan
Mark and Matthew arrange for him to be tried statement that Jesus was crucified at 9 A.M. 3 is
in a plenary session by the whole Sanhedrin. Mark correct. For even if we leave out the amplifica-
does not mention the name of the presiding high- tion of the trial scenes in Luke and John, Mark
priest; Matthew gives his name as Caiaphas. The himself places quite a few events between the
Sanhedrin meets at night in the high-priest's examination of Jesus by Pilate and the execution:
house-surprisingly, for this body, as the Parlia- a protracted parley with the accusers, Pilate's in-
ment cum High Court of the Jewish nation, had decision, the Barabbas episode, the clamor of the
a meeting-place of its own, its proper Council mob, the death sentence, the scourging and the
Hall, and there exists no record besides the ac- mockery of Jesus, the journey to the place of
counts of Mark and Matthew from which it might execution outside Jerusalem. Such early prepared-
be guessed that it ever met in a high-priest's resi- ness on the governor's part to sit in judgment
dence to hold its consultations; especially not at would have been impossible unless Pilate had
night, and not on a feast day. Nevertheless, ac- been given prior knowledge that his presence
cording to Mark and Matthew, Jesus is tried be- would be required in the court. The early hour
fore an official session of the Council held in the thus tends to confirm the reliability of the Johan-
high-priest's residence; witnesses are examined, nine report concerning the arrest of Jesus by
their testimony is dismissed; Jesus is then closely military personnel under the command of a Ro-
interrogated by the presiding high-priest, convict- man officer.
ed on his self-incriminatory reply-without cor- The evangelists-all four of them-describe
roboration-by all the assembled councilors, and Pilate as convinced of Jesus's innocence and anx-
sentenced to death for the crime of blasphemy. ious to acquit him. But instead of using his su-
Luke has nothing of that. No session of the preme authority as the highest judge and gov-
Sanhedrin takes place at night. Jesus spends the ernor of the province, and simply passing a ver-
rest of the night in the custody of the guards dict of acquittal, Pilate offers to let Jesus go as
who had arrested him. an act of grace. The Gospels refer to a habit of
Early in the morning the Sanhedrin convenes- Pilate, or a Jewish custom, of releasing a prisoner
for the second time, according to Mark and Mat- on the Passover; in accordance with this, Pilate
thew; for the first time according to Luke; John asks the Jews whether he should release Jesus or
reports nothing of a session. From the Lucan another prisoner called Barabbas. Here the evan-
wording it can be concluded that the morning
session of the Sanhedrin was held in a locality a Mark 15:25.
38 COMMENTA R Y/SEPT. 64

gelists actually contradict themselves. On the one were as yet unable to distinguish between messi.
hand, they say that the Jewish citizens of Jeru- anist Jews-that is, Christians-and other Jews),
salem were free to demand the release of any one and in Nero's reign the persecution of the Chris-
prisoner; on the other hand, they report that tians took an even grimmer form. Since Mark was
Pilate limited the people's choice by offering them composed either at the end of Nero's reign or
only the alternative of freeing Jesus or Barabbas. shortly afterward, the evangelist had every rea-
We read later on in the Gospels that Jesus was son to try to ingratiate himself and his co-reli-
not crucified alone, but together with two other gionists with the Romans. The fact that Jesus
men. Hence when Jesus stood before Pilate there had been sentenced to the cross by Pilate-a death
must have been at least two more accused or con- penalty which carried opprobrium in Roman
demned men in the governor's custody. If the eyes, as being reserved for the most heinous
Jews of Jerusalem were free to demand the re- crimes, and for slaves and despised foreigners-
lease of any prisoner, why should Pilate have could not be concealed. But the evangelist could
limited them to Jesus or Barabbas? In actual portray Pilate as having been unwilling to pass
fact, no custom of releasing a prisoner at the a death sentence and as having recognized the in-
Passover season ever existed, either in Jewish or nocence of the man whom Christians now wor-
in Roman law. Barabbas, however, seems to have shipped. For this purpose Pilate had to be pre-
been a historical person, though "Barabbas" is sented as acting under Jewish pressure against his
only part of his name. There exist Gospel codices own better conviction. The evangelist's tendency
which give the name in full as Jesus bar Abba. was not "anti-Semitic," as some might say; it was
If two persons, both called Jesus, had been ar- defensive and apologetic. He was concerned with
rested instead of one, the Roman magistrate promoting the fortunes of his little group, and
might have asked which of the two was to be was anxious to avoid suspicion and counter hostil-
tried. In that case, endeavoring to present Pilate ity on the part of the authorities. Accordingly, he
as being favorably disposed toward Jesus, the presented the Roman authority of Jesus's own
writer of the Second Gospel might have constru- day, Pontius Pilate, as professing that he had
ed the Barabbas episode as we have it in his found "no fault in this man." The writer of the
book, making it appear that the governor was Second Gospel and those who came after him
not asking about the identity of the accused, but never realized what results this shift in the re-
rather offering one of the two for pardon: sponsibility for Jesus's crucifixion would have in
"Which one of the two shall I release, Jesus who future generations.
is called Bar Abba or Jesus who is called Mes- In this connection, it is instructive to look at
how the various evangelists refer to the governor's
siah?" Yet Pilate had no need to resort to a pre-
sumed paschal custom of granting amnesty; nor final decision. Not one of them is prepared to
did he have any reason to leave the decision to state plainly that a sentence of death was passed
on Jesus by the Roman magistrate. In Mark and
the crowd. He was the judge. If he found Jesus
Matthew we read that "Pilate delivered Jesus
to be guiltless, and the stubborn Jews insisted that
to be crucified"-an oblique manner of reporting
Barabbas should be granted a pardon, all Pilate
a judicial verdict. Luke and John are even more
had to do was pronounce Jesus innocent and re-
reticent. The former states that Pilate gave in to
lease him along with Barabbas. Nobody in Jeru-
the demand of the Jews and allowed Jesus to be
salem-no high-priest nor any other Jew-could
crucified, while the latter goes so far as to say
have prevented the imperial governor from set-
that Pilate relinquished Jesus to the Jews who
ting Jesus free, if he had ever been inclined to
themselves took him away and crucified him. All
do so. the evangelists are at pains to avoid putting on
The evangelists, however, report that Pilate's record the passing of a death sentence by the
kindly gesture to set Jesus free by an act of Roman magistrate. But the fact remains that cru-
grace proved of no avail. The Jews prefer Bar- cifixion was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish
abbas. He is released and the proceedings of the one.
court come to an end. Jesus is crucified, according to Mark at nine
o'clock in the morning, according to John in the
F WE WISH to understand what lies behind this late afternoon. Together with him two other pris-
version of the story, we have to remind ourselves oners are executed by crucifixion, of whose trial
once again that Mark-the oldest Gospel, though and sentencing the New Testament gives no in-
the second in the Canon-was written in Rome formation. But there is one small, perhaps signif-
at a time (around the year 70 of the current icant, detail: the two men are designated as
era) when the small community of Christians liv- leeistai, rebels-the same appellation which is ap-
ing there was in constant danger of persecution. plied to Jesus in the synoptists' account of his ar-
Already in the 4 0's, Christian missionary preach- rest. On Pilate's order, an inscription is attached
ing had provoked the Emperor Claudius to ex- to the cross stating the reason, the cause, or aitia,
pel all Jews from the capital city, those who be- for pronouncing the death sentence. This inscrip-
lieved that the Messiah had appeared and those tion reads: "King of the Jews." In the tangled
who did not share such a belief (the Romans mass of evangelical accounts of Jesus's trial, one
 THE TRIAL OF JESUS 39

point stands out with clarity: he was arrested as with the case at all; and except for the addition-
"a rebel," accused before Pilate as "King of the al final words 7 is not even "Christian" in its
Jews," found guilty as such, and executed as content. It is a violent denunciation of the Tem-
such. None of the later accretions which in the ple ritual-and Jewish Christians took part in the
Gospels overlay the original primitive account, Temple cult until the Temple was destroyed in
and none of the editorial modifications from the the year 70-such as might possibly have originat-
hands of successive evangelists, can hide or dis- ed among members of the pre-Christian Dead Sea
guise the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was arrested, Covenanters or a kindred Jewish group. The
accused, tried, sentenced, and executed on a writer of the Acts could have found some tran-
charge of insurrection against Roman rule in script of a homily with an anti-cultic tenor, re-
Judlaea. styled and adapted it, and then used this ma-
terial to amplify and enliven his meagre account
HRISTIAN SCHOLARS, Catholic and Protestant, of the trial of Stephen. 8
generally do not dispute this. But many of Once we recognize that what the Acts pre-
them, the great majority perhaps, will say that sents as Stephen's speech is in no way a transcript
the political accusation was a "trumped-up of the actual words Stephen said to his judges, we
charge," invented by the Jewish authorities of shall not fall into the error of contending that
the day who had found Jesus "worthy of death" Stephen so enraged his audience by this speech
for religious reasons, but who could not act on that they seized him and carried him off to be
their own authority because while the Sanhedrin stoned without awaiting the court's proper ver-
had the right to pass sentences of death, it had dict. Stephen was not stoned by an excited mob.
no right to carry out such sentences. This argu- He was executed in pursuance of a legal sen-
ment is faulty. At the time when Judaea was un- tence, legally passed by a court competent to try
der procuratorial rule, from the year 6 to the him.
year 66 C.E., Jewish law courts did pass death Another reference to the Sanhedrin's power to
sentences upon Jewish inhabitants of Israel, and pass and carry out sentences of death is in Acts
did carry out such sentences on their own auth- 5:27,33, where it is reported that the Sanhedrin,
ority, without referring the cases to the Roman when investigating the activities of some of Jesus's
political administrator of the country. disciples, intended to sentence them to death and
There is evidence for this in the New Testa- execute them. According to the Acts, the Jewish
ment itself. The Acts of the Apostles (a book councilors were persuaded to abstain from carry-
which has as its subject the growth of Christian- ing out this intention by Gamaliel's counsel of
ity in the first three decades or so after Jesus's moderation.9
death) mentions several cases in which the San- In chapters 13-26 of the Acts, we also have
hedrin either intended to exercise its power to an account of a conflict of competence between
pass and carry out capital sentences, or actually the Jewish and the Roman authorities concerning
did so. For example, there is the description 4 the question as to whether the Apostle Paul-a
of how Stephen, denounced for his preaching, Roman citizen!-ought to be tried by a Jewish or
was brought before the Jewish magistrates, led a Roman court. Acts 26:10 puts the following
into the courthouse for his trial and, after being declaration on the lips of Paul: "On the authori-
taken out again, was immediately carried off to ty of the senior priests, I sent many of the saints
his execution. He was executed in the Jewish [Christians] to prison. When they were put to
manner, by stoning, in strict accordance with death, I cast my vote against them." The relevant
Jewish law as laid down in Deuteronomy. 5 point, when appraising the significance of this
Certain exegetes explain away the execution declaration, is not whether Paul actually uttered
of Stephen on the Sanhedrin's orders as an ir- these words or not. Nor does it matter much
regularity, an illegal act of lynching carried out whether the statement here ascribed to him is his-
by an excited mob. But these exegetes commit the torically correct. Of significance is the fact that
error of concentrating primarily on the contents of the author of the Acts, writing in the latter part
the so-called "Speech of Stephen" to his judgess6 of the Ist century, had Paul make this statement.
instead of on the factual account of how Stephen If jurisdiction in capital cases was in Judaea re-
was taken into the Sanhedrin's council-hall and served to the Roman governor, it would have
executed after he re-emerged. The author of the been common knowledge among the readers of
Acts of the Apostles was in a position to obtain the Acts of the Apostles that Jewish criminal
factual information only concerning what happen- courts had no right to carry out capital sentences
ed before Stephen was taken to the courthouse and that Paul the Apostle could not have taken
and what happened after he left it. He had no 'Acts 6:12-7:59.
minutes of the court proceedings, no information Acts 7:58b; compare Deuteronomy 17:5-27.
about what went on inside the council-hall, and Acts 7:2-53, 56.
knew nothing of what Stephen might have said Acts 7:56.
Compare my remarks in the Deutsche Literaturzeitung,
to his judges. The diatribe he attributes to Ste- Vol. 82, 1961, columns 790-792.
phen is not a defense plea; it bears no connection 9Acts 5:34-40.
40 COMMENTARY/SEPT. 64

part in proceedings of this sort. Would the au- do, that Pontius Pilate would have taken no cog-
thor of the Acts have deliberately invited con- nizance of an accusation on religious grounds,
tradiction by attributing a statement to Paul that he might have "shrugged his shoulders" if
that his readers must have known to be incor- the representatives of the Sanhedrin had asked
rect? him to confirm a sentence passed for blasphemy.
When Rome took over the political administra-
VEN IN LATER centuries, several Fathers of the tion of Judaea (at the wish of the Jews them-
EChurch preserved knowledge of the fact that selves, who hoped to enjoy a greater measure of
in the time of Jesus Jewish law courts in Judaea autonomy under Roman dominion than they had
exercised unlimited jurisdiction over Jews who done under the misgovernment of the Herodian
were being tried for capital offenses. Origen de- dynasty), the Emperor recognized Rome's obliga-
scribes the condition of the Jewish judiciary aft- tion to uphold the ancestral Jewish law and reli-
er the year 70, and explains that it lost its capi- gion in the country. And Roman law provided
tal jurisdiction as a result of the victory of Roman the death sentence for religious offenses. We
arms in that year.' 0 In another passage," Origen know from Josephus that a Roman procurator
mentions that Jewish law courts continued to ad- sentenced a Roman soldier to death because that
minister the death penalty even after the year soldier had shown disrespect for a scroll of the
70, but were now compelled to do so clandestine- Torah.16 In other words, the Jewish religion, to
ly in order not to risk a conflict with the Roman use a modern expression, was "the religion of
rulers whom they were defying. the State" in Judaea, even in procuratorial times.
Origen wrote in the early 3rd century. Still later, Hence, supposing that the Sanhedrin was not in
Augustine of Hippo, when commenting on the a position to put into effect its own judgment and
passage of the Fourth Gospel which denies the therefore referred Jesus's case to Pilate, the Jewish
Jewish leaders any right to carry out sentences of councilors could simply have accused Jews of a
death,12 offers the following explanation: "This religious offense.
is to be understood in the sense that the Jews
could not carry out an execution because they T MAY BE argued-and not without justification-
were celebrating a festival."13 Thus according to that the charge of sedition on which Jesus
Augustine, the Jews of Jesus's time were not de- was tried and executed was made by his enemies,
prived of the right to put sentences of death into Jewish or Roman, and that it says nothing about
effect; they voluntarily refrained from exercising his own aims or of the state of his own mind.
it on a holy day. John Chrysostom of Antioch Owing to their nature and their origin, the Gos-
has the same explanations 4 pels are unsuitable as documents that would allow
Those who contend that the Sanhedrin lacked access to the mind of Jesus. The Gospels do con-
the power to administer the death sentence it is tain, however, traditions of undeniably Christian
alleged to have passed on Jesus 15 are therefore origin which assert a claim to kingship on behalf
giving inadequate weight to the evidence which of Jesus. In two of the Gospels, for instance, we
the New Testament itself provides. What is more, find the genealogies of Jesus, intended to trace
they fail to draw the logical conclusion from their back his descent to David17 and thus establish the
argument when they maintain that the Sanhedrin legitimacy of his royal right as David's heir. In one
was authorized to pass a sentence of death, yet Gospel, we find the solemn announcement of
not authorized to carry out this sentence without Jesus's birth, made by an angel, who promises
endorsement from the Roman procurator. For if Mary that Jesus will inherit his royal ancestor's
it were indeed the procurator's duty to confirm or throne and reign over the house of Jacob. In two
set aside a death sentence passed by a Jewish of the Gospels, we find on Jesus's lips a declaration
court, he would have been required to review the to his twelve disciples that they will sit on thrones
case in terms of Jewish law-the law that had been
applied by the inferior court when passing sen- '0 Origen, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ro-
tence. Unless the procurator were an expert in mans 6:7 (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 14, columns 1072, 1075).
the procedures and substance of Jewish law, it " Origen, Letter to Africanus 14 (Patrologia Graeca, Vol.
would have been quite impossible for him to do 2, column 84).
12John 18:31.
this. The Romans, however, true to their maxim a Augustine, On John, Tractate CXIV 4 (Patrologia Lat-
not to become embroiled in the religious affairs ina, Vol. 35, column 1937).
of other nations, did permit the Sanhedrin juris- "4Chrysostom, Homilies on John, LXXXIII 4 (Patrologia
diction in all cases, including capital ones, where Graeca, Vol. 59, column 452).
"'Mark 14:64b; Matthew 26:66.
Jewish religious law came into question. "0Josephus, The Jewish War 2:231. For similar instances
But even supposing that the Jews were pre- of Roman deference to the susceptibilities of the Jewish pop-
vented by constitutional limitations from putting ulation, see The Jewish War 3:246 and Antiquities 20:136.
17 Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-31. The two "family trees"
into effect a death sentence which they had pass-
were manifestly revised before being incorporated into the
ed on religious grounds, they would still not have Gospels. In the evangelists' presentation, the line of Jesus's
needed to invent a political charge of sedition. descent from David is broken (in Matthew 1:16 and Luke
It is ridiculous to assert, as some quasi-scholars 3:23) as a result of rewording.
 THE TRIAL OF JESUS 41

and judge the tribes of Israel. In one of the Gos- pectation of the coming of the Son of Man, a
pels we also read that Jesus's followers, after the mythical figure who would restore man to the
shattering experience of their master's death, primordial glory that was his before Adam fell
voiced their despair in the words, "We had from the friendship of God. A certain group of
hoped that it would be he who comes to redeem Jews, who believed that Jesus of Nazareth would
Israel." take on a paramount role in the impending last
Now the Gospels (all written two and three act of human history, thought and spoke of him
generations after the death of Jesus) reflect a as the Messiah; another group of Jews, no less
great variety of traditions that developed in differ- convinced of Jesus's vocation, thought of him in
ent surroundings and at different times. These terms of the apocalyptic Son of Man. The two
traditions express divergent concepts of the char- groups mixed, their members coalesced, and the
acter and function which various groups of peo- combined group continued to use for their cult-
ple, all in some way attached to the memory of hero the designation "Christ" (a title borrowed
Jesus, assigned to him. The clearest indication from legal-political terminology) while now at-
of the differences in their outlook lies in the tributing to the Christ the characteristics and
titular designations they gave to him. Sometimes functions of the transcendent, supra-historical Son
he is called "teacher," sometimes "the Son of of Man. The spread of Christianity to parts be-
Man," sometimes "the Prophet," sometimes "the yond Galilee and Judaea and the influx of con-
Son of David," sometimes "the Messiah (Christ)," verts with pagan antecedents accelerated the pro-
sometimes "the Son of God"; he is also called cess of change, for to converts from the Gentile
by several other names. These titles are by no world the primary meaning of the word "Christ-
means synonymous. Each describes a distinct so- Messiah" was unknown. There is already in the
cial status or a specific theological concept, point- New Testament, the Gospels as well as the Epis-
ing to a different role in the eschatological drama tles, a difference between what Christians meant
of history which the followers of Jesus expected to when they used the expression "Christ," and what
unfold. "Messiah" meant in Jewish usage. Yet the fact
The title which in due course came to sup- that certain of his followers chose the title "Mes-
plant all the others is, of course, christos siah" for him, and that their choice prevailed
("Christ" in English) which is Greek for the over others, indicates that an influential section
Hebrew "Messiah," meaning "The Anointed among the early Christian fellowship connected
One." Anointing was in ancient Jewish custom with their belief in Jesus the expectation of po-
the formal act of investing the holder of the litical independence from foreign domination. In
highest office in the Jewish polity with authority no other way can their choice of the title "Mes-
over those under his command, the act by which siah" or "Christ" be explained.
his legitimate appointment to the leadership of But if the Gospels make it clear that it was
the nation was made known to one and all. What Christians who harbored hopes of Israel's eman-
coronation is in British constitutional law, anoint- cipation from political subjection, of re-estab-
ing was in Jewish law. The Anointed One, the lishment of the ancient Jewish dynasty, and who
Messiah, the Christ, was thus a title of honor, believed that the final triumph of Israel over Rome
due to the highest functionary of the Jewish would be the triumph of Good over Evil, the
state. By the time of the Apostle Paul, however, the victory of God over Satan-the Gospels do not
concept of messiahship, or rather christhood, had tell us whether the hope arose in the lifetime of
already advanced far beyond its primary connota- Jesus or only after the disciples' experience at
tion and toward the meaning which it now holds Easter. We can say without hestitation that Jesus's
for Christians, denoting to them a Being of supra- followers cherished aspirations of Jewish nation-
historical significance and of transcendent char- al independence. We cannot say whether they
acter. This change resulted-to simplify a com- were encouraged to such aspirations by Jesus him-
plex process-from the gradual amalgamation of self. Only what his followers hoped, what they
two distinct eschatological concepts which were thought and expected, finds expression in the
in vogue among Jews in the New Testament era: Gospels. What Jesus himself thought, what his
the expectation of a messiah who would re-estab- aims were, what he asserted or what he expect-
lish Israel's political independence; and the ex- ed, we simply do not know.