Study Limitations

We will focus here only on what is directly relevant to the arrest and trial of Jesus, beginning with (marginally) the intentions of the Jewish leaders and ending with the leading away to the Crucifixion. We will exclude, except where tangently related:

• The Last Supper;
• The motivations of Judas;
• The fate of Judas after the arrest;
• Events in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to the arrest of Jesus; and,
• Peter's denial of Christ.

The Gospels, of course, are our primary sources for the trials of Jesus. An immediate objection raised by Skeptics is a simple one - where did the evangelists get their information from?

The Apostles were an obvious source: John is noted to have accompanied Peter. But even so, that still leaves the question of sources open. Let's run down the possible answers and objections to them:

a) Jesus Himself filled the disciples in after the Resurrection.

We consider this to be the most likely answer. Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days after the Resurrection - plenty of time to relate the sundry details of what happened once the more theological stuff was out of the way. And certainly, Peter would want to know what his Lord had been put through as he was waiting anxiously in the courtyard.

More specifically, there is good reason to say that the events of the trial probably were told to the disciples by Jesus -- it would serve perfectly as a vehicle for His teaching. He was always describing what would happen to Him, and He could very easily have used the historical details as the "I told you so...", in a way analogous to the discussion with Cleopas et al on the Road to Emmaus.

Jesus was big on the fulfillment of prophecy -- cf. John 18.15 -- AS IT HAPPENED, before it happened, and after it happened. In point of fact, the accounts of the Passion, the earliest materials of the gospels probably recorded, contain much of this material. This pattern of narrative-interspersed-with-theological-explication was adopted by the evangelists as a METHOD, and hence could easily be seen as deriving from Jesus as paradigm-teacher.

If Jesus related His Passion in this way, it would certainly explain how the disciples picked up that practice. And the Passion story, as the earliest, is the closest to the mouth of Jesus, and thus the least susceptible to embellishment.

Also, remember that Jesus was consistently explaining His words and actions to the disciples in private afterwards -- so why would He not do it in this case? To simply dismiss the possibility of Jesus filling in His disciples on the trial afterwards as "fruits that naive faith can yield" [Fric.CMJ, 196] is presumptuous at best and circular reasoning at the worst. Certainly within the Christian paradigm, this cannot be dismissed as a possibility, if indeed as a likelihood.

However, even allowing that Jesus might not have given such an account to his disciples - which we would note as the best, and most parsimonious, explanation - other witnesses were possible, who might also have added to the mix:

b) An account of events could also have come from Sanhedrin delegates friendly to Jesus - at a minimum, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus.

There may also have been other members of the Sanhedrin who became well-disposed towards Christianity, but these two were really all that were needed. And for the trial before Pilate - well, if Joseph had the will to ask for Jesus' body, why not also the will to ask what happened from Pilate himself?

Skeptics say little against this possibility. Carmichael [Carm.DJ, 34; see also Carm.UCO, 87] can only offer in reply that:

...only a pious apologist could resort to this; it was never thought of by the Gospel writers themselves.

Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 106], only slightly more realistic in his viewpoint, admits to the "possibility" of using Joseph as a source, but objects that Joseph is:

...mentioned only in connection with Jesus' burial. He is never cited as a reporter on the trial (which would have been a key role) and has no significant part in the Gospels.

Carmichael's commentary against the "pious" aside, I hardly see any reason here to deny that Joseph or Nicodemus could have been sources of information. Ancient writers saw no obligation to reveal their sources; hence we would hardly expect Matthew or Luke to say, "I got this information from Joseph of Arimathea."

It would be a mistake to do as Carmichael and Fricke have done, and presume 20th-century standards of source citation upon first-century writers. I would maintain that Nicodemus provided a great deal of information for the Gospel of John.

Some may suggest that it is an argument from silence either way as to whether Joe and Nick were at the trial; but actually, since it is indicated by Luke that Joseph did not agree with the course of action taken by the Sanhedrin, it is likely either that he WAS present, or else had someone reporting things to him.

And finally:

c) Minor sources.

We may suggest any number of people as sources for tidbits of information. Jeremias [Jerem.NTT, 267] suggests gossip from observers of the trials as a source. Brooks [Broo.Mk, 241] suggests servants or assistants of the Sanhedrin. Luke 8:3 notes that Joanna, wife of the manager of Herod's household, was in Jesus' group; she may well have had access to certain information. Other possibilities include guards and other prisoners (perhaps Barabbas himself?), attendants of Pilate, and priests who converted after the resurrection (Acts 6:7, 15:5).

Wherever the data came from, however, what is more important is: Do the trial scenes reflect reality adequately, which would support the idea that eyewitnesses are in some measure responsible for the Gospel accounts? Here we get into even meatier issues, and we will enter upon the particulars shortly.

Gospel Perspectives

It is a habit of some critics to treat the Gospel accounts with an overly critical eye, and make an much over the fact that they do not reveal the information that they desire. Carmichael [Carm.DJ, 40; Carm.UCO, 92] objects to "the extreme barrenness of the information given" and the "lack of precision" in the trial accounts. It is not so barren, however, that he is unwilling to postulate a "Jesus as revolutionist" scenario based on some rather wild speculations.

Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 178] meanwhile, goes to the opposite extreme, saying of the many "errors" he finds in the trial accounts:

(The evangelists) expected their public to be unfamiliar with the Jewish law and thus be prepared to accept the misrepresentation unreservedly.

I find this highly ironic. Fricke is either saying here that a) the evangelists WERE familiar with Jewish law, but filed false reports of it nonetheless because they knew their audience was too stupid to know better; or, b) they were NOT familiar with Jewish law, and neither were their readers; and in either case, no one caught them at it.

For a), one wonders, if they were indeed familiar with Jewish law, why they did not give us reports that were "correct". As for b), Fricke is obviously unaware of the fact that Jerusalem/Judean and Diaspora Jews were among those whom the NT was addressed to - and at least some of those were certainly familiar with the subtler precepts of Jewish law, especially considering the emphasis placed in Judaism upon learning specifics of interpretation. They would be suspicious at once if they could not make sense out of even the bare-bones account of the Sanhedrin action.

But the question remains: Is it truly realistic and reasonable to expect the kind of certitude that Carmichael implicitly demands from the Gospel writers? Quite frankly, no. As part of our answer, it will be necessary to briefly recap some of the material we have used in this article relative to Gospel authorship - for understanding WHO wrote the trial accounts is a key to understanding WHY they were written as they were.

We presume, based on data presented in the just-linked article, that the following represents the authorship and purpose of each Gospel, other than as ancient biographies (bioi):

Matthew - by the Apostle and tax collector; formulated as a teaching gospel

Mark - by the secretary of Peter; based on Peter's preaching

Luke - by the companion of Paul; intended as a historical document

John - by the Apostle; a kerygmatic and missionary presentation

Now with these things in mind, it should be asked: Which of these accounts would be expect to be done best, according to the standards of historical reportage? Obviously, the answer is Luke: As he has been reckoned worthy as a historian, we expect the most accurate representation of chronology from him.

On the other hand, Matthew and Mark - one being a teaching aid, the other being a reporting of the teaching and preaching of Peter - we may well expect to take illustrative liberties with their information.

And this, note well, is not counter to the notion of inerrancy; for understanding the purposes of these writers is essential to understanding why what they report is NOT in error, where Skeptics presume them to be. Relative to the trial accounts, let's look at an example.

Many critics assume that Matthew and Mark report a nighttime meeting of the Sanhedrin and from there make certain deductions about the historicity of the report itself (see below). Let's look at an extended sample from Matthew to understand why:

Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome. The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'" Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. "You also were with Jesus of Galilee," she said. But he denied it before them all. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said. Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, "This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth." He denied it again, with an oath: "I don't know the man!" After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away." Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death.

The presumption is that Matthew (and Mark) reads events as follows:

1. Jesus was taken to Caiaphas.
2. The whole Sanhedrin was assembled, and tried Jesus, finding him guilty.
3. Peter, standing outside, denied Jesus three times.
4. In the morning, the Sanhedrin met again, deciding on a sentence.

From this many deductions are made - but I daresay that they are the result of misunderstanding the purposes of Matthew and Mark. We will explain that in a moment; first, let's look at the relevant selection from Luke:

Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, "This man was with him." But he denied it. "Woman, I don't know him," he said. A little later someone else saw him and said, "You also are one of them." "Man, I am not!" Peter replied. About an hour later another asserted, "Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean." Peter replied, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about!" Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly...

The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?" And they said many other insulting things...

This looks to be a different order of events from Matthew and Mark - is there a contradiction here? No, not really: We must realize that Matthew and Mark, because their purpose is to TEACH converts to the Gospel, have purposely juxtaposed the events of Peter's denial in order to act as a comparison to the "good confession" made by Christ.

Historical order, then, was of secondary importance to theology [Bamm.TJ, 55-6] - which, we stress, is NOT to say that history was invented for the purpose, which is another assertion entirely. Mark in particular uses what is called a "sandwich" technique in which pericopes are arranged with the purpose of filling spaces of time - and this is exactly what was done with Peter's denial in the trial narrative. He may also have arranged the material in that manner for a doubly ironic effect: In Mark 14:65, Jesus is mocked as a prophet because of a prediction He made [re the Son of Man coming on the clouds] in 14:62; but then, 14:66-72 demonstrates the fulfillment of His prediction of Peter's denial in 14:30. This establishes an irony: At the same time that Jesus is being mocked as a prophet, one of His prophecies is coming to pass - see Sloy.JT, 47; Juel.MTm, 71.)

Finally, let us understand a further limitation: Despite Fricke's implications, we may not assume that the Gospel writers in question - not even Luke - was by any means intimately familiar with the detailed procedures of Jewish or Roman justice, or if they were, that they had a need or an interest in making sure that their accounts were technically correct. Just as today, the average person would hardly know the technical difference between an evidentiary hearing and a full-fledged trial, so it is that the Gospel writers could hardly be expected to have and/or report an intimate familiarity with the legal technicalities of the prosecution of Jesus. They reported what they saw and heard, or perhaps what they thought their readers would understand.

Hence, it is no surprise that we, also lacking understanding and knowledge, may receive incorrect impressions from their reports - as for example Winter does [Wint.TJ, 26] , when he says of the writer of Mark's Gospel:

...it was the purpose of the writer of Mark 14:64b to assert that a formal sentence of death had been passed by the entire Jewish Senate.

However, we will find that it is the reliable historian Luke, along with John, who present us with the most accurate technical picture, as we shall see below - and this is recognized by Catchpole: "...it is in the Luke-John tradition of the trial of Jesus that material of high historical value may be found..." [Bamm.TJ, 65; see also Sloy.JT, 73] . This is not to say that Mark and Matt are ahistorical; they should simply be understood in purpose/context and within the limitations of the writers, and it should not be assumed that they are asserting something which they do not state directly and precisely. Mark and Matt may well have perceived of some formal action taking place; but barring a technical legal description, we have no right to interpret the proceedings under the standard of being technically, "correctly" reported in a way that would satisfy a legal expert.

The admonition of Wilson [Wils.ExJ, 114] is quite relevant here:

We attempt the impossible when we try to transform these first Christians into modern-day court reporters who can satisfy our curiosity on every legal point.

Similarly, speaking only of Mark's Gospel - though we would say this of ALL the Gospels to varying degrees - Sanders[Sand.HistF, 265] warns that it cannot be read "in a very precise way, as if it were a court-recorders' transcript."

Bottom line: The Gospel writers may well not have understood the significance of every word and every action in the proceedings as they received them, just as we may not understand the importance of every word or deed in a courtroom today. (Witness the extensive coverage of the cataloging of evidence in the first O. J. Simpson trial. Obviously some television and radio producers thought it would be exciting.) So, we should not place any unreasonable demands upon the Gospel accounts by any means, and then draw outrageous conclusions from our own faulty presuppositions.

Anti-Semitism?

One of the most difficult issues to approach in this area is the historic anti-Semitism that has been unjustly derived from the Gospel accounts. Needless to say, the Christian church has a great deal historically to answer for in this regard. Crossan [Cross.WKJ, ix] , for example, makes note of a Passiontide ceremony of the 9th through 11th century, "in which a Jew was brought into the cathedral of Toulouse to be given a symbolic blow by the count - an honor!" (On the other hand, Crossan, rather strangely, observes: "No Roman, one notices, was accorded a like honor." May we ask where 9th-11th century Europeans would find an ancient Roman?) And Fricke [Fric.CMJ, viii]:

Whenever 'Christians' gave vent to their hatred of Jews, they cited the Gospels - those of Matthew and John in particular - in support of their actions.

Fricke has rightly put the word "Christians" in quotes - for no true believer could derive anti-Semitism from what are, after all, the most Jewish of the Gospels.

So we come down to this: Is the anti-Semitic view grounded in a correct reading of the NT, or is it merely the invention of those who wish to justify their own previously-held anti-Semitism?

Evidence indicates strongly that it is the latter. Glenn Miller has performed an analysis of this question which we will draw upon, though we shall not delve too deeply into the issue - which would require writing another essay entirely. The net of the data is: 1) Both the content of Scripture, and its cultural context, demonstrate that justification for anti-Semitism is no more found in the NT generally or the trial accounts specifically, than is justification for racism or any other sin of your choice; 2) Responsibility for the death of Jesus is placed upon, in order - a) the Jewish leadership; b) Jerusalemite Jews, in particular, the crowd before Pilate; c) Pilate and Herod.

Who Killed Jesus?

Let's go straight to the horse's mouth. Who does the NT say killed Jesus? Miller cites the following verses as evidence:

•Matt 27.1 - "all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death". (Matthew)

•Lk 23.13-20 - "the chief priests, the rulers and the people," (Luke)--obviously not ALL the people; just the 'crowd'

•Acts 2.36(w 14) - "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem," (the apostle Peter)

•Acts 10.39 - "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree (Peter)

•I Thess 2.14 - You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. (Paul)

•Acts 13.27 - The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. 28 Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. (Paul) Notice 'people' is restricted to those in Jerusalem who asked for the execution--the 'crowd' again.

•Mt 26.3 - Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. (Matthew)

•Mt 27.1,20 - But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. (Matthew)

•Acts 5.27 - Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead -- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. (Peter, accusing the Sanhedrin--a mixed priestly and lay aristocratic ruling body)

To these we may also add:

Luke 13:33-4 In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day--for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Weatherly [Weath.JwLKA, 55] observes here that Jerusalem "is named not only as the site of the deaths of the prophets but is personified as the agent of those deaths." In line with a standard practice of depiction of opponents, a city is named in its entirety as the foe - even though not every person, indeed not necessarily a majority, was the actor in the case.

An example of this is found in a source we have seen elsewhere: the Mara Bar-Serapion letter [see here]. Note that Mara pins the consequences of Socrates' death on ALL of Athens, without qualification; the consequences of Pythagoras' death on ALL of Samos, again without qualification; and the death of Jesus on ALL Jews - again without qualification, and going much farther than the NT writers did in that regard.

Now although some of these verses are very precise in where the blame is to be fixed, time and again, here and elsewhere, we see this phrase "the Jews" pop up - this is a key to our understanding, so it should be looked at further, for it has the appearance, to our eyes, of a blanket condemnation of all Jews.

Who Are "The Jews"?

From the data, Miller concludes that responsibility for the death of Jesus is pinned upon the leadership--both civil and religious-- of Jerusalem. But wait! some may cry. What about those many reference to "the Jews" in the Gospel of John and elsewhere, saying, the Jews did this or that, and were eventually responsible for what happened to Jesus? Does that not indicate a broad brush of the entire Jewish people? Or as Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 124] cries, citing John 8:44 -

To John not only is Judas a devil, but all Jews are the devil's offspring.

Actually, Fricke is badly misreading the text here; Jesus is clearly speaking to rather a small group of people! They are indeed referred to as "the Jews" - but what does this phrase mean? The evidence indicates that "the Jews" does mean all of the Jewish people - and does not, depending on the context! Again, we start with Miller's data:

The term "Jews" can refer to either the leadership (strictly) OR to the people (more generally)

1.The data indicates that 'Jews' referred to something broader than the simple 'corrupt temple hierarchy':

•in John 1.19,24 - the Jews 'sent' the religious leaders to discover what was going on

•a comparison of John 18.14 with 11.49 indicates that Jews referred to the Sanhedrin (generally considered to be a group composed of the priestly aristocracy and lay nobility)--see ZPEB, "Sanhedrin".

•Luke 23.13 ("Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people") and Mt 26.47 ("sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people")show that the 'rulers' involved with distinct from the 'priests'.

•Conclusion: "Jews" in a leadership sense, was broad enough to include the lay aristocracy.

2.Many of the "Jews" became believers--Jn 11:45 and 12.11 3.There are numerous passages that indicate that the "Jews" were DISTINCT FROM the common people (many of whom accepted Christ as their messiah):

•John 7. 13 (But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.)--the common folk were afraid of the "Jews" (=> NOT THE SAME)

•John 9.22 (His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.)

•John 12.12 -- the Triumphal Entry -- the crowd accepted him!

•Mt 23.37 ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.) - the difference between the leadership ("you") and the people ("your children").

•John 2.23 - (Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.)

•John 7.25 - (At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, "Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?)--Note the difference between the 'people of Jerusalem' and the 'authorities'.

3.The data is VERY strong that when the term "Jews" is used of the PEOPLE, it is a good (or at least, neutral) term--indicating that it is not a 'racial/ethnic' slur, but a term used for specific identification (in context) of that ruling community that violently rejected their King.

•John 4.22 - Jesus affirms: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

•John 12.9-11 - ( Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.)

•Mt 27.11 - ( Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.)

•Acts 2.5, 14 - (Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.) and (Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem,)

•Acts 14.1 - (At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. 2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.) - NOTE: BOTH usages (hostile leadership, believing people) present in the SAME passage.

•Acts 21.20 - (Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.) .So, how did the term 'JEWS' get expanded from solely a reference to the people (a la Ezra, Neh) to pick up a SECOND meaning of 'hostile leadership'?

•The NT shows the development of the term to parallel Paul's experiences with hostile Jewish leadership OUTSIDE Jerusalem! (And these experiences were such that the hostile leadership had much more 'control' over the general Jewish populations--due to the smaller numbers). The "Jews" (hostile leadership) swayed the "Jews" (the people at large)--as well as the Gentiles (see Acts 14 above!)-- against Paul's message. But the culpable ones were the former.

•There is absolutely NO evidence within the NT to suggest that the term was IN ANY WAY related to a general anti-Semitism of the Roman empire! (It is serious conjecture to 'read in' some Roman anti-Semitism in NT passages).

>•And, even as Paul experienced the hostility of the dispersed leadership, even then many 'Jews' believed (Act 17:12 - Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.)

•This general motif of the "Jews" (hostile aristocratic leadership) constraining the "Jews" (the general Jewish populace) from their experience of God's goodness is a surprisingly dominant theme in the teachings of Jesus:

•Mt 23: 37 - ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.")

•Mt 23: 15 - ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.)

•Mt 23: 13 - ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.) is worth noting that John's gospel is deliberately evangelistic, and the general trend of scholarship today is to view his intended audience as not just Jews, but SPECIFICALLY the Jews of the Diaspora--the ones Paul used the terms "JEWS" on so strongly!

As Carson notes in his Intro to the New Testament, p 171.:

The constant allusions to the Old Testament show that John's intended readership is biblically literate; his translation of Semitic expressions (e.g., 1:38, 42; 4:25; 19:13, 17) shows he is writing to those whose linguistic competence is in Greek. His strong denunciation of the "the Jews" cannot be taken as a mark against this thesis: John may well have an interest in driving a wedge between ordinary Jews and (at least) some of their leaders. The fourth gospel is not as anti-Jewish as some people thin anyway: salvation is still said to be "from the Jews" (4.22), and often the referent of "the Jews" is "the Jews in Judea" or "the Jewish leaders" or the like. "Anti-Semitic" is simply the wrong category to apply to the fourth gospel: whatever hostilities are present turn on theological issues related to the acceptance or rejection of revelation, not on race. How could it be otherwise, when all of the first Christians were Jews and when, on this reading, both the fourth evangelist and his primary readers were Jews and Jewish proselytes?

Conclusions:

1.When "Jews" is used of the hostile aristocratic leadership, it is appropriate and truthful to ascribe the primary responsibility (see John 19:11 for the relative roles of Pilate and the High Priest - "Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.") for His execution to them.

2.When "Jews" is used of the general populace, it is used in a VERY POSITIVE sense (and in some passages, in a neutral sense), but is NEVER used in an 'anti-Semitic' slur.

3.THEREFORE--to assert that John (and the wider Christian community) attributed the death of Jesus to the GENERAL POPULACE known as "Jews" is FUNDAMENTALLY MISTAKEN; and that to accuse certain first-century Jews of being 'anti-Semitic' because of some general Roman cultural trend is entirely without foundation.

To this we may add the following observation:

4. This usage is NOT limited to the writers of the NT. Josephus regularly uses the phrase, "the Jews" - and he uses it in much the same way: "absolutely or with modifiers which suggest a general reference in context, where the reference is clearly to specific groups of Jews." [Weath.JwLKA, 110 - see pages following for a catalogue of examples.]

In addition, Malcolm Lowe, in his article "Who Were the Juduaio?" (NovT XVIII, 101ff) shows that the term "the Jews" was used primarily to refer to persons who were inhabitants of the region of Judaea, so that "the Jews" is no more of a slur than "the Bostonians" or "the Creatans". The phrase was only used secondarily as a religious reference, but then only in opposition to Gentiles.

Lowe finds only a small number of places in the NT where "the Jews" is such a religious reference; one, Luke 7:3, is so because Luke has elsewhere used "elders of Israel" to refer to the Sanhedrin.

The Scriptures, then, place no blame on Jews as a people for the execution of Jesus. And even then, history shows that the actions of the Jewish leadership can be blamed indirectly on the Romans. Rivkin [Rivk.WCJ, 118] points out that the high priest was appointed not as a descendant of Aaron, as the law required, but by the Romans. The institutions of government at the time of Jesus, in that place, were in direct opposition to the requirements of the Law.

Thus, Rivkin: The political climate created revolutionaries; and "...it emerges with great clarity, both from Josephus and the Gospels, that the culprit is not the Jews, but the Roman imperial system." [ibid., 117] Concerns in this area should focus not on the Gospel writings, but on their misinterpretations which continue to this day - with some racist and anti-Semitic groups going as far as turning Jesus into an Irish monk or into the perfect Aryan.

Judea vs. Rome

Two related questions that come up are: Aren't the Gospels, and particularly the trial accounts, a polemic against Judaism, and therefore anti-Semitic? And why is there not a polemic against Rome, since it was the Romans who crucified Jesus; indeed, why is Rome cast in such a positive light, since Rome too persecuted Christians?

The Gospels are, indeed, in some ways a polemic against the claims of Judaism against Christianity; but this does not equate with anti-Semitism. But let's answer the second question first, drawing again upon groundwork laid by Miller.

1. For the earliest Christians, Rome was NOT a specific antagonist. Rome was the antagonist of ALL the Jews--Christians included, esp. in Palestine. The Christian 'sect' in Judaism wasn't isolated from Judaism until the temple prayers were changed at the end of the 1st century (the 12th of the 18 benedictions, cursing "Nazarenes").

2. Christians were not singled out for persecution in Rome until the Neronian times (64 ad.), LONG AFTER the oral traditions of the Synoptics would have included the Pilate-passages.

Let me add here: The lack of polemic against Rome can be taken as evidence that the Gospels were composed relatively early. (See link above.)

3. The accounts of Pilate's wavering, capitulating to the crowd, and ultimately releasing a known insurgent (i.e. Barabbas) could hardly be construed as a favorable account for Rome!

We hold a slightly different view of what Pilate did here (see below). Even so, it is not much more complimentary to Rome.

4. The next generation of early Christians, who experienced many of the persecutions, had NO QUALMS about pointing the finger at Rome. For example, Clement of Rome and Ignatius were VERY EXPLICIT in the details of the Roman persecution of believers.. All the later data we have about Roman officials and actions in the Book of Acts certainly doesn't support this whitewashing argument. Felix and Festus are certainly not presented in the best of light, and the treatment of Paul at the hands of Roman officials (Act 16:22,37) is hardly complimentary!

I'll add here that the story of the conversion of the centurion Cornelius would probably serve to make the Romans angry also, even if it is regarded as fictional. How presumptuous that would seem!

And, in all candor, the average 'pagan neighbor' of the day did NOT identify that much with Roman authorities ANYWAY. They generally could have cared less about 'who killed Jesus'...the issue for all of them was their personal situation and need.

But then, what of the Gospels as an "anti-Jewish" polemic? The reason for this is actually quite simple: It is because one of the major stumbling blocks for early Christianity was the problem of a Jewish Messiah that very few Jews believed in. Christianity in its early days HAD to focus on those who provided the main objections to the faith, both implicitly AND explicitly.

The implicit rejection of the supposed Jewish Messiah, and the explicit arguments made by Jewish citizens and leaders against Christianity, must surely have been cause for consideration among potential Gentile converts. The evangelists were doing nothing more than addressing the arguments that would inevitably be addressed to them.

Revisionism

We have thus shown that there is no cause for anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. However, our age of political correctness has brought about some peculiar permutations, thanks to the idea that the Gospel accounts generally, and the trial accounts particularly, are anti-Semitic. Cohn [Cohn.TDJ, 89, 114, 134], for example, adopts the outlandish premise that the Jewish leadership LOVED Jesus (!) and was trying to save Him from the Roman death penalty. To that end, the Jewish police asked for and received permission to accompany the Roman arresting party (which would run counter to everything we know about the Roman praxis) and took Jesus into custody in order to see if He could be saved.

But their efforts failed when Jesus would not shut up about His messianic claims, and so Caiaphas rent his garments in despiar over not being able to save Jesus from His execution. Such historical revisionism is as outrageous as that used by anti-Semites to justify their own perversions.

On the other hand, it also seems that anti-Semitism is not a necessary base for entering into historical revisionism. Crossan [Cross.WKJ, 84] rejects nearly all semblance of historicity in the trial accounts, and asserts that "the trial of Jesus was first created by historicization of Psalm 2." In other words, the Christians simply searched the Scriptures for relevant stuff and tailor-made history to what they read. We are obliged to wonder, given Crossan's questionable methodologies and assumptions and the fact that he rarely deigns to address matters of historical realism, whether it is not HE who is "creating history" by inventing, without a shred of evidence, Scripture-searching Christians who engaged in historical revisionism of their own.

James Still does not cite anti-Semitism, but he does engage in some radical revisions and interpretations to maintain that Jesus was the Hebrew equivalent of Timothy McVeigh. He concludes in his essay on this topic:

We can safely conclude at this point that Jesus was indeed supportive of the Zealot movement if not in deed, then certainly in principle. If Jesus were seeking the throne as the evidence suggests, he would have enlisted the aid of the militant Zealots. Also his actions as a claimant to the throne of Israel--which surely would have involved a rEBellion of some sort for the Romans were not likely to cede authority quietly--made him guilty of sedition against Rome. Jesus was a patriot for the restoration of Israel. His motives were political and the context of his actions as we find in the more credible portions of the Gospels supports this conclusion.

Here, what "the more credible portions of the Gospels" are is not delineated, but seems to indicate, "those that agree with the point of view of James Still" - and indeed, those who hold to this absurdly outdated theory of Jesus-as-Zealot must inevitably resort to parsing the NT at will in order to maintain their viewpoint. It will not be our purpose here to take a complete look at these theories; rather, we recommend that the reader consult Hengel's magisterial work on the subject [Heng.Z], and an earlier, much smaller work [Heng.JRev], which will make it quite clear that there could have been no significant correspondence between Jesus and the Zealot movement. (See especially pp. 297-8 of the former, where Hengel notes seven major divergences between Jesus and the Zealot movement.)

For now, let's look at a few of these interpretations, from a variety of sources, with Still as the primary voice:

1.Several of Jesus' disciples were known Zealots, e.g., Simon the Zealot (Lk. 6:15); Simon Peter who was known as "Bar-jona" (Mt. 16:17) a derivation of "baryona" Aramaic for "outlaw" which was a common name applied to Zealots; James and John shared the nickname "Boanerges" or in Hebrew "benei ra'ash" which is to say "sons of thunder" another common Zealot reference; and the most famous Zealot was Judas Iscariot, "Iscariot" a corruption of the Latin "sicarius" or "knife-man" which was a common Roman reference to Zealots.

Some comments here:

a) Re Simon - as is well known, the "bar-" prefix means "son of" in a Judean context. We must suppose, then, that anyone who had a father named Jonah/Jonas had to withstand this sort of punning indignity - rather than attempt to bolster our theory by supposing that it was a deliberate fabrication of the name of Peter's father, simply to establish some sort of Zealot connection.

At any rate, there is no guarantee that "barjona" means exclusively "outlaw" -- in some Talmudic contexts, it "means simply bad, undisciplined people" [Heng.Z, 54n], and Peter as "Simon son of John" is a far better attested reading (cf. John 1:42, 21:15) than "son of Jonah," meaning that the latter is probably the result of a scribal miscue. Hengel [ibid., 56] adds that it is:

...very uncertain as to whether the Jewish rebels of the period preceding 70 AD were ever called (barjone) in the sense of 'outlaws' by their compatriots. With few exceptions, the term was used at a relatively late period and it is too slight a point of departure on which to base wider conclusions, particularly where the Gospels are concerned.

And later Hengel adds [ibid., 74] that the term "may perhaps point to (the barjone) outward way of life in the mountains and the desert" - not necessarily to their profession.

b) Re "sons of thunder" - most commentators take this to refer to their temperament - not some sort of military/political themed connection. And if it does refer to hot-headedness, is it any surprise that it was applied widely among the hot-headed Zealots? It is far more likely that the general appellation PRECEDED the Zealot appellation.

c) Re "sicarius" - Well, this does not help much, since Judas was the bad guy. If he betrayed Jesus, then that would suggest (if Judas truly WAS a "knife-man") that Jesus was not living up to his expectations - which leads to the idea that Jesus Himself was NOT a Zealot.

Even so, it has never been satisfactorily resolved whether "Iscariot" derives from "sicarius" or from "man of Kerioth" - the debate remains alive to this day, and the former suggestion suffers in that [Heng.Z, 46-8]:

1) The term itself is found only in Josephus, who "reports the appearance of a 'new kind of robber in Jerusalem' " during the reign of Felix - quite some time AFTER Judas killed himself.

2) There is no evidence for any earlier occurrence of the term;

3) The term itself, as Still admits, has Latin origins, which suggests that it originated with the Romans - not with the Jews. Thus it is not something that Judas, his family. or his Jewish social circle would have been likely to apply to him as a name.

d) re Simon the Zealot: This is the one place where Still might have a point, but Hengel asserts that it "must be left open" whether the appellation means "of the Zealot party" or "a zealous guy all around" - and even with the former, the textual evidence has only the same weight as that which could be used to say that Jesus' association with Matthew and other tax collectors makes Him a friend of the Romans. Incidentally, to true Zealots, ANY association with tax collectors "had to appear absolutely a betrayal." [Heng.JRev, 24] That was the last thing Jesus should have done if He wanted to be in with the Zealots.

But as it happens, Bruce Winter in After Paul Left Corinth [38] notes that the word "zealot" was applied to a disciple of a teacher, and had been used for a long time in the academy to describe the exclusive loyalty that was expected of a student. It may be no surprise that Luke alone, a Gentile writer, uses the term for Simon.

The implication of the Gospels, at any rate, is that anyone who became a disciple of Jesus, became an "ex-" whatever they were before - Matthew became an ex-tax collector; Peter, an ex-fisherman; thus Simon, an ex-Zealot [ibid, 10n].

2.The Zealot movement was a breakaway from the Pharisees who themselves sympathized with the nationalistic causes espoused by the Zealots and were awaiting a Messiah to seize the throne of Israel. Jesus himself is attributed with many sayings that are Pharisaic in, e.g., Mt. 7:12, Mk 2:27, Jn 7:22, B. Yoma 85b (Talmud), Mt. 7:15; and Jesus' own affinity for the poor demonstrate Pharisaic philosophy. Jesus' actions that are not depoliticized in the gospels (partially referenced here) indicate that Jesus sympathized with the Zealot cause.

Here is a common "all-or-nothing" error. No doubt some of what Jesus said and did was agreeable to the Pharisees; he would hardly be a Jew otherwise. Even the Sadducees and Pharisees had SOME common ground.

But there is much in Jesus' teaching that is plainly counter-Pharisaic [Bamm.TJ, 48-50] , including the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount, which set Jesus "well outside the frontiers of Pharisaism." (For a brief, but relevant, analysis of the Pharisaic movement, and of the relationship to Jesus, see Bwk.JPh.)

3.The Zealot Judas, refers to Jesus as "Rabbi" a Pharisaic-title. (Mk 14:45) Many scholars subscribe to the "walks like a duck, must be a duck" philosophy and go as far as to say that Jesus himself was a Pharisee rabbi. The evidence does seem to support this conclusion, although Jesus seems to favor a more apocalyptic flavor of fringe Pharisaic thought. The "Jesus as Essene" theory still captivates many scholars as well--a theory that would also support his role of political Messiah as argued here.

We've handled "Jesus as Pharisee" above - the evidence does NOT support this conclusion, except when we parse the NT at will.

As for "Jesus as Essene" - that captivates no scholars that I know of today, other than Barbara Thiering; and the disagreements between Jesus and the Essenes are far greater. (One writer has half-jokingly suggested that if Jesus visited Qumran, the Essenes would probably have spit on Him - assuming they weren't too frightened of his accompanying burly Galileean fishermen.)

4.Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble. (Lk 22:36-38) and at least one of Jesus' supporters scuffled with the Temple police to aid in resisting Jesus' arrest. (Mk 14:47)

The passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords - and during the so-called "scuffle," there was nothing but Peter slicing off a servant's ear, followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away.

Carmichael [Carm.DJ, 119] , to support his own Jesus = revolutionist view, has a ready explanation: The command to put the sword away was a later interpolation. When it gets down to explanations like THAT, with NO textual evidence, the thesis is managing the facts. I think Brown [Brow.DMh, 689] has rightly admonished those who read such things into this passage:

...such an isolated instance of spontaneous defense that could have occurred in a melee of any period is scarcely indicative of belonging to a resistance movement.

The swords in question, at any rate, were not the longswords of our medieval television programs. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that even the "peace-loving Essenes" carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one's adornment. [Heng.JRev, 21] Needless to say, this weapon would not be much use against the Temple police - much less against any number of armed Roman soldiers.

5.The manner in which Jesus entered Jerusalem was that of a Jewish king who claimed the throne. Convinced that he was King of the Jews and in deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on an ass's colt. The people greet Jesus with strewn palms and cries of "Hosanna!" the ancient cry of Jewish independence. For Jesus to not have known the seditious actions that this implied, and the political impact that his act caused, would be incredulous to say the least. (This is in direct contrast with the Gospels which attempt to contradict Jesus' action and claim that he was not seeking an earthly kingdom--clearly absurd given the circumstances.)

Here is the one place where Still is partially correct. Jesus was indeed asserting His right as King/Messiah in this action. But as Sanders [Sand.JesJud, 294] notes, "everything we know about Jesus indicates that he sought no secular kingship." Jesus' kingdom, as He said, was "not of this world," and every thread of His teachings supports that connotation - and where Still gets this idea of "Hosanna" as "an ancient cry of Jewish independence," I cannot say, although some in the crowd may well have anticipated some sort of political/military action by Jesus anyway. The cry may well have had multiple functions, but Still offers no footnote for the reader to check out.

But then again, even in that case, the crowd members would have been engaging in some wishful thinking. The prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 states that the king comes to Jerusalem "GENTLE and riding on a donkey" - not to make war, but to "proclaim peace to the nations" (Zech. 9:10b). Seditious in Roman eyes, true enough; but no indicator of Zealot-like military aspirations. Who would lead a military charge on a baby donkey?

Beyond all of the above, however, a simple fact is this: There is no need for Jesus to have been leader of a para-military group for the Romans to have taken action and seen a case for sedition. This was not the case for John the Baptist, whom Josephus tells us Herod executed as a precaution against uprising because he "feared that such eloquence could stir the people to some form of sedition," [Rivk.WCJ, 30] - and our only records show that this was also the case for Jesus. If Jesus had indeed been the founder of an insurgent political group, then His followers would have been rounded up and arrested - but this did not happen; instead, Christianity was tolerated, perhaps even protected, by the Romans up until the time of Nero.

It is not sufficient to hazard, as Carmichael does[Carm.UCO, 143-4] , that Jesus' followers "managed to survive Roman justice by disavowing complicity and fleeing." Rome was not known for that type of tolerance towards insurrectionists, even former ones, especially in Judea. In every other recorded case - Judas, Theudas, the unnamed Egyptian - followers were arrested and executed - Yama.TCJ, 7 - and they would not hear any excuses about how, "This time it's different".

Clearly, the Romans "regarded (Jesus) as dangerous at one level but not at another: dangerous as one who excited the hopes and dreams of the Jews, but not as an actual leader of an insurgent group" [Sand.JesJud, 295]. Or, as Sanders says elsewhere [Sand.HistF, 265]: "The high priest wanted (Jesus) dead for the same reason Antipas wanted John dead: he might cause trouble." Historical revisionism is uncalled for.

Secular Sources

Before delving into the Gospel accounts for specifics, we will see if there is any evidence that is relevant in secular works of the period. Two items in particular are from strongly reliable sources.

We have elsewhere studied the testimony of Tacitus. Let's take a look at the most relevant portion here:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius...

This confirms that Jesus was executed under Roman supervision - which is generally agreed to by all reasonable parties.

Now let us examine a passage that gives some of the historical revisionists heartburn - the so-called Testimonium Flavium:

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Here we have removed all of the phrases regarded as interpolations - and note well what is NOT among them: A phrase which, in agreement with the Gospels, clearly indicates that the Jewish leadership had a role in having Jesus executed.

Attempts to explain away this passage by those who wish to eliminate all Jewish involvement - whether out of concern over anti-Semitism, or in order to view Jesus as a Zealot executed directly by Rome - are quite frankly not able to be taken seriously. Fricke, in an effort to avoid the necessary conclusion of Jewish involvement, takes the expedient of declaring the entire passage a forgery, and says[Fric.CMJ, 48-9] :

That these sentences constitute a forgery, and a rather crude one at that, is no longer doubted by any serious researcher as far as I know.

Needless to say, Fricke's bibliography contains no references to serious and recognized Josephan scholars such as Thackery and Feldman - but does contain such names as Drews and Maccoby. So, it is not surprising that the "forgery" view is his resort, and that he considers the stand of authenticity a "minority view". As we have shown in this article, this is FAR FROM a minority view - and again, the phrase we are concerned with here is not one of those that is in doubt.

Ironically, Fricke later [ibid., 152] says that if the Gospel record were true, then it is "inconceivable" that something did not find its way into secular histories.

Cohn [Cohn.TDJ, 310], a little less brazenly, merely hints at the total-interpolation theory, but prefers mild skepticism, saying: "...once it is established that at least some of the phrases in (the Testimonium Flavium) were interpolated by a Christian editor, no part of it can confidently be regarded as the composition of Josephus, and the whole is suspect...with no objective and reliable criterion to determine which (the sentence in question) is, it can prove nothing."

Cohn is wrong: Josephan scholars have objective and reliable criterion to work with, and have determined that the sentence implicating the leading men of the Jewish nation is NOT one of the interpolations. This is contrivance on Cohn's part; but he has another suggestion (ibid., 312):

...Josephus himself would then be suspect of a tendentious purpose of his own: no less than the interpolators were at pains to put blame on the Jews and whitewash Pilate, Josephus was at pains to assign the credit for the crucifixion of Jesus to the Jews and Romans in equal shares.

So, Josephus apparently would lie about Jewish involvement just to curry favor with Rome. This seems to be an overstatement of what is said by Brandon [Brand.TJ, 39], who is trying to show why Josephus would make mention of such a thing in the first place:

On a priori grounds...it is likely that Josephus, in the interest of his apologetical theme, would have shown that the Jewish leaders took prompt action to suppress (Christianity)...

Since Christianity was regarded as being of revolutionary origin, Brandon argues, Josephus would gladly demonstrate that the Jews wanted no part of it. But I find it a little too convenient that anywhere Cohn finds a problem that works against his theory, he suspects revisionism or tendentiousness. There is no reason for Josephus to have LIED about Jewish participation; in fact, we may just as easily argue that a) taking credit from Rome would have gotten him in trouble; and, b) all he had to do was say that the Jewish leaders merely DENOUNCED Jesus - but there is more to it than even that.

Accepting, then, the passage in question as authentic, critical study reveals that what Josephus records is quite in light with what the Gospels portray. The word we read "suggestion" is endeixei - which is "a straightforward legal term denoting the laying of information against a person, or a writ of indictment." [Brand.TJ, 152] This, as we shall see, matches at least one (if not more) suggestion for viewing the Jewish trial in the Gospels.

The matter is secure, and attested to both inside and outside the Gospels: The Jewish leadership of the time assuredly had some involvement in the demise of Jesus. The questions remains: How far did this involvement go? And that's the subject of several of our next sections.

I would like to mention here that a small paragraph in the Talmudic sources refers to "Jesus of Nazareth" as being indicted by the Jewish leadership on several charges and "hanged on the eve of Passover." We ascribe little value to this reference, other than it indicates that there was no denial of Jewish involvement in Jesus' demise.

Cohn [Cohn.TDJ, 307] , however, knows that this refutes his theory that the Jewish leadership was trying to save Jesus. He admits that his theory would almost require that there be some mention in the Talmud that Jesus was a favored person and that the "trial" was performed as a saving measure. Thus, he hypothesizes:

* That the "Jesus" in question above was not the Christian Jesus - the words "of Nazareth" having been interpolated at a much later date.

* That the "favorable review" of Jesus was expunged by later editors and censors.

Needless to say, at such points we are obliged to wonder if facts are not being invented in order to save a theory.

Who Arrested Jesus?

Matthew: While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people...

Mark: Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

Luke: While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them....Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders...

John: So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons...Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus.

The Gospels are unanimous: The Jewish leadership was involved with the arrest of Jesus. But several other questions arise in this matter.

That the Jewish authorities had a hand in the arrest of Jesus is seldom doubted by anyone who accepts that Jewish officials had some part in the trial of Jesus. Sanders resolves that "(t)he Romans did not act entirely on their own initiative. We could know this to be the case without accepting as authentic a single one of the conflict stories in the Gospels." [Sand.JesJud, 295]

On the other hand, Fricke, who wishes to deny all Jewish involvement, suggests that the only Jews in the arresting party were interpreters[Fric.CMJ, 130].

However, this would run against not only the testimony of the Gospels and the implications of Jospehus, but also against the normal Roman procedure - for evidence from throughout the Roman Empire indicates that local police forces were generally the ones responsible for making arrests.

In Judea, that meant the Jewish religious authorities, and in Jerusalem particularly, the high priest and the Temple police. Rivkin [Rivk.WCJ, 31] notes that a function of the high priest:

>...was to serve as the eyes and ears of the puppet king or procurator, so as to head off demonstrative challenges to Roman rule.

Similarly, Brandon [Brand.TJ, 88] reports that it was the duty of the high priest - especially in light of the threat Jesus presented to orderly government - to discover the nature of Jesus' intentions. Sanders [Sand.HistF, 266, 269] adds that the high priests and his counselors "often had the task of preventing trouble and stopping trouble-makers," and also states:

When Caiaphas ordered Jesus to be arrested, he was carrying out his duties, one of the chief of which was to prevent uprising.

This is right in line with the admonition of Caiaphas recorded in the Gospel of John, concerning Jesus:

Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

And Winter [Wint.TJ, 28-9] goes further than Rivkin, agreeing that the high priest had...

...(a) duty to render assistance in the apprehension of political suspects and in the preparation of proceedings against political offenders....

This applied, Winter notes, even when the suspect in question was wanted by the Romans. Harvey [Harv.JTr, 2] adds that it was "more normal procedure" for the arrest to be initiated by the Jews than for there to be direct Roman intervention.

Why? Because throughout the Empire, the Romans would not dismantle the local institutions of justice; rather, they would use them to their own ends [Wint.TJ, 29] . And this was rather necessary for the Romans to do, throughout the Empire, for these reasons:

1) The Romans could hardly afford to spread themselves too thin - especially in Judea. The popular idea of a Roman soldier on every corner is patently erroneous - the Romans held Judea with only about three thousand troops [Wils.ExJ, 6] ; they could hardly spare the men to arrest every single criminal.

2) The wheels of justice turned much faster. Fricke only wants translators at the arrest; but "translation" would be wanted at other times as well - for questioning and interrogation, for preparation of the charge-sheet (cf. Luke 23:2) - every step of the process was made easier by the Roman authorities having the preliminaries handled by the local justice machinery.

And again, every bit as much as their military presence, their administrative presence was spread fairly thin. Thus it is as Overstreet [Overs.RLTC, 325] remarks: "Generally speaking, Roman law allowed the local law of each province to be exercised without much interference." - the only exception being (as we shall see) capital cases.

A practical example of this system in action is found about 30 years later than Jesus in the case of Jesus ben Ananias. Josephus records that this man was found prophesying against the Temple, and was taken in by the Jewish authorities, who flogged and interrogated him. When he would respond with nothing but further lamentations, he was turned over to the Romans. The governor examined him, determined that he was insane, and released him.

Simply put: The Jews arrested and examined on behalf of the governor; the governor also made an examination, and then made his decision.

To his credit, Fricke does at least allow that the ruling powers and the Saducees MAY have arrested Jesus and handed him over to the Romans [ibid., 135] - but he does so only grudgingly.

And so, what was the impetus for bringing Jesus in? The question is beyond our scope, but we may take brief note of a common suggestion. Some recognize the action in the Temple as the decisive moment [Sand.JesJud, 61] , and this is backed up by the Gospel records which show that the interrogation before the Sanhedrin was concerned to find testimony concerning what Jesus said about the Temple. Sanders [ibid., 71] submits that even if the whole trial account before the Sanhedrin is false, even then "it would seem likely that this specific accusation is based on an accurate memory of the principal point on which Jesus offended many of his contemporaries."

On the other hand, it is possible to go TOO far with this - as has Joel Carmichael, who suggests that Jesus OCCUPIED the Temple with His own sort of paramilitary force, large enough to withstand both the Temple police AND the Roman garrison. [Carm.DJ, 116-7] Needless to say, this is a highly questionable reconstruction, one that is held by no responsible historian, and is not borne out by secular reactions to Jesus, such as that of Jospehus, Lucian, and Mara Bar-Serapion.

For his own part, Carmichael relies upon: 1) the reference by Tacitus, which tells us nothing of the sort about Jesus; 2) a Roman governor who was a contemporary of the Emperor Diocletian (late 200s/early 300s AD) who says that Jesus led a band of 900 highway robbers; 3) a "medieval Hebrew copy of a lost version of a work of Josephus" that credits Jesus with having "two thousand armed followers" on the Mount of Olives; and, 4) Luke 23:39-42, where the thief observes that Jesus is under the same sentence as they are - which, like Tacitus, tells us nothing of the sort about Jesus.

Upon such gossamer threads are the greatest of speculations made. One is obliged to ask how Carmichael can prefer 2) and especially 3) to the wealth of evidence that is much closer to the source and has been proven quite reliable.

One other relevant question asks whether the chief priests, elders etc. THEMSELVES came out to participate in the arrest (as seems to be said in Luke). This is often objected to [Cohn.TDJ.73] ; it is said that such people would not be present at this sort of action. I do not think that this is necessarily so, but it does not matter: Luke has simply engaged the common device of representation equalling identification. This was a party sent by the chief priests, so in that sense, the chief priests were "there" - or as Sloyan remarks, it is probably a case of metonymy [Sloy.JT, 101] .

The biggest technical issue of all concerning the arrest is an interesting one - were there indeed Roman soldiers involved with the arrest of Jesus?

The question revolves around the use of two rather precise words in the Gospel of John - speira (meaning "cohort") and chiliarchos ("captain"). The speira would refer to an a force of 600 men - which, we may suggest, is not to be read overliterally; it is doubtful that John counted out the 600 men, and "cohort" may simply be his "man on the street" way of saying, "there were a lot of soldiers." Or, as Winter puts it, John "may have specific in exact military language what his source might have conveyed terminologically in a less precise fashion." [Wint.TJ, 46] (To which I would only add that John himself WAS the source - nevertheless, the point remains the same.)

On the other hand, Pesch[Pesc.TJC, 18] notes that these particular Greek terms are found in Greek translations of the OT - so that their presence "does not necessarily point to the Roman army." Sloyan [Sloy.JT, 115n] points out that the same words were used of Jewish soldiery in other places (Judith 14:11, 2 Macc. 8:23, 12:20, 22; Jos. Ant. 17.215, War 2.578). Wilson [Wils.ExJ, 108-9] believes, a bit imaginatively, that the Roman soldiers were not really there, but were added as a demonstration of Jesus' power (i.e., if He can put the Romans into submission, imagine what He can do for you). Finally, Blinzler [JBz.TJ, 65] finds Luke's omission of Roman designations rather telling, since the evangelist elsewhere was precise in using Roman military terminology where appropriate.

The balance of the evidence seems to favor, very slightly, the position that there were no Roman soldiers. Allow me to diverge a moment, however, for a bit of informed speculation upon a few verses that have been the subject of much Skeptical malice. To wit:

Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?" "Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." "I told you that I am he," Jesus answered.

What is happening here? Why is the arresting party here drawing back and falling down like the Keystone Kops? Most commentators suggest that somehow Jesus' own power and holiness forced the men backwards; and this may well be what happened. But I'd like to offer a slightly different interpretation, by way of suggestion.

Let us keep in mind the setting: The Garden of Gethsemane upon the Mount of Olives, which itself was very likely an olive grove, privately owned - and perhaps, enclosed by a high wall with a single gate. Now enter the mind of the arresting party and see things through their eyes. You are being led to this place by one reputed as a traitor and scoundrel; it is the darkest part of night, and you are told that your subject is inside a walled garden with only one entrance, wide enough for only one or two people abreast.

If you are an experienced officer of the Temple police or the Roman army, what might you be thinking? One word surely would have been on their minds: AMBUSH. The garden may have been a perfect place for an small armed force to make a stand; and of course, whoever enters first is the most likely to be killed.

Now enter unto the next step, when your "informer" (?) steps forward to make his identification. He greets the suspect cordially; they exchange a few quiet words that you can't quite overhear -- you see a few others nearby, bearing weapons -- then all at once, the suspect asks who you seek, and in answer to your reply, steps forward, saying in a loud, clear voice, "I am he!"

If you are in the lead ranks, nervous enough already, that MIGHT be seen as a signal to the suspect's followers to emerge from their hiding places and start laying some heavy hurt on you and your party.

And thus, I tender as a suggestion: What John reported here, unwittingly, was a sudden, clumsily executed, and quite untactical expression of the better part of valor on the part of the front ranks of the arresting force. This is not at all implausible, especially if we are dealing with mixed Temple and Roman troops, who would be decidedly unfamiliar with each others' tactics and movements.

But back to the primary topic at hand. If John gives us Roman soldiers (which is an open question), why are they not mentioned in the other Gospels? Schonfield [Schoe.PP, 144] believes that non-Jews are referenced as part of the arresting party - and he cites this as proof:

Matt. 26:45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." (parallel found also in Mark)

"Sinners," Schonfield maintains, refers to Gentiles, and therefore, the non-Jewish servants of the high priests. Given that this is so, why could it not also refer to Roman soldiers?

However, I believe that Schonfield is wrong here; throughout the Gospels, "sinners" is used to refer simply to those who sin - it has no exclusive reference to Gentiles.

Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 128] suggests that Matthew and Mark do reveal the presence of Romans; they mention the crowd as carrying swords, and only Romans were permitted to carry swords. However, as we have noted, the word in question is far from conclusive, as it may well refer to the smaller daggers used by the Jews - and that is the sort of weapon that would be most likely to have been used for Peter's "precision cut" on the servant's ear.

Winter, I would say, probably has the correct answer in context: The other Gospel writers did not mention the Roman soldiers because they wished to convince their readers of the "unpolitical character of the message of salvation through Jesus." But that assumes, again, that they were there in the first place, which is by no means certain.

But now back in the other directional extreme: The assumed presence of Roman forces is widely taken by the Jesus-as-Zealot crowd to mean that Jesus must have been arrested as a seditionist, and that He was indeed one of those sorts, perhaps even a Zealot. Brandon [Brand.TJ, 130] , for example, who held to a weaker version of this position, surmises that the presence of Roman troops:

...would mean that Jesus was so strongly supported that the Jewish leaders felt incapable of undertaking his arrest, even though clandestinely, with their own forces.

And this, indeed, may be so: Perhaps the Jewish leaders DID expect some major resistance from Jesus and His followers. But I say that beyond this, there was a further role for those soldiers to play, IF they were there - and we will get to that, later on.

As an added note: Some critics have doubted that the attack by Peter on Malchus, the servant of the high priest, was historical; for they say, if this were true, why was not Peter arrested along with Jesus? [Crav.LJ, 393] Even Pesch [Pesc.TJC, 31] , in order to avoid the problem, suggests that it was actually one of the other members of the arresting party who took the ear off!

It may be that Peter was lost in the crowd, and then fled into the darkness before being recognized. [Broo.Mk, 241] But there is a much neater solution to this problem. Skeptics would probably not accept the answer, but it is found in Luke:

And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

Now imagine, if you will, bringing a charge against Peter on this count, and needing proof - the man's ear was restored; so, where's the evidence? It was probably that simple

On a related note - only John mentions Peter by name for this event; why is this so? Possibly because it would have been dangerous when the other Gospels were written to name the disciple who struck the blow - it would have been tantamount to admitting the crime or giving evidence to the prosecution. John, the latest to issue his Gospel, or perhaps sufficiently geographically removed, would not have had this problem.

Sanhedrin Issues

Skeptics and scholars alike have a host of objections against the historicity of the Sanhedrin trial(s) of Jesus, focussing in particular on the perceived "illegality" of the events. But it is far more reasonable, I daresay, to give the Gospel writers the benefit of the doubt - and to keep in mind their limitations as described above. Let's explore a few options in this area.

A word is in order, first. Although sometimes not noted by skeptics, the fact is that the rules that they refer to as being violated do NOT come from the time of Jesus - they come from a time no earlier than 70 AD! [Harv.JTr, 61] The rules are found in what is called the Mishna Sanhedrin - a source which itself dates to over a century after the destruction of Jerusalem (c. 220 AD), and was codified no earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem. This material is often used uncritically by critics of the trial accounts; Haim Cohn [Cohn.TDJ] , for example, quotes this and other sources freely, including some that date even later than 220, never telling his readers just how late this material is.

Winter admits that the laws "belong to a time posterior to that of Jesus" - although he does say, without specification, that "some of the ordinances enumerated...were already valid in the time of Jesus." [Wint.TJ, 9] Brandon [Brand.TJ, 87] concedes of the Mishnah: "How far this tractate accurately reports Sanhedrin procedure in the first century AD, or represents a later idealised rabbinic 'blue-print,' is uncertain." Stein [Stein.Lk, 569] brings secular history to bear in arguing that "...some of the rules found in (the Mishna) conflict with Josephus' description of how things were in the first century," and, he adds, may be as much apologetic in purpose as the Gospels are.

Yamauchi [Yama.TCJ, 10] , perhaps exaggeratedly, says that the Mishna portrays the Sanhedrin as "all-powerful," and does not mention the Romans or the Saducees, as would be expected if it derived from an earlier time. Wilson [Wils.ExJ, 9] echoes: "It is now certain that many of these rules were only idealistic and theoretical and do not reflect actual practice in any period." Sanders [Sand.JesJud, 407] goes as far as saying that "The court of the Mishnah is a fantasy one" which is quite lacking in aspects of reality. Schonfield [Schoe.PP, 147] says that the Sanhedrin rules are "as they were ideally represented long after this body had ceased to function." Kilpatrick [Kilp.TJ, 11] calls the Mishnah "an indiscriminate mixture of tradition and academic fiction" - but allows that some of the rules may be recognized as having been in existence, based on how closely they were related to OT law, which would have (of course) been in effect. Harvey [AH.TJ, 61] acknowledges the rules, but says "...it is far from certain that they were in force before the fall of Jerusalem, or, even if they were, that they would have been observed in an emergency." And finally, Pesch [Pesc.TJC] says that Skeptical arguments using the Mishnah rules:

...insinuate, of course, that nothing would ever happen which is forbidden by law. The world, our history, is full of transgressions against laws! If one wanted to make valid laws the measuring rod for the reconstruction of actual history, then one would, at every turn, be led astray.

In summary, I would make these observations:

• Pesch is quite correct. If "there was a law against it" is equated with "it didn't happen" were applied universally, then it is time to empty out our prisons.
• One thing that is NOT being stated, but is being implicitly assumed as stated by critics, is that the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was unusual, and that the Sanhedrin gave everyone else the red carpet treatment and followed the rules to a "T". We need not doubt, based on evidence from Josephus and other sources (not to mention the history of politics in general) that there were other corrupt trials, other times when the rules were not followed, when a bribe or a wink of an eye satisfied the scales of justice.

  After all, who was going to put a stop to it? The Romans were just as corrupt as anyone else. Caiaphas himself was deposed sometime later by the legate of Syria, WITH popular support - which indicates that some rather serious claims had been made against him. - Schoe.PP, 150. And, the house of Annas the high priest, of which Caiaphas was a member by marriage, is not noted for its popularity and fairness in later rabbinic sources.

Skeptical strike-backs in this regard have been notable for their lack of specificity. Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 255n] , citing Blinzler's argument that the Sanhedrin rules were not in force in Jesus' time, merely replies that "others, including Strobel, have refuted this hypothesis convincingly." How convincingly? I cannot say, since Fricke does not deign to tell us HOW Strobel accomplished this refutation, and Strobel's work is only available in German! Not that I expected Fricke, a West German himself, to cite only English sources; but he could at least do us the courtesy of outlining, however briefly, the tenets of this "convincing" refutation.

Wilson [Wils.ExJ, 168], a bit more critically, objects that even if the rules were not in effect, "no law code of any kind could have countenanced the judicial methods described by Mark." And we may agree: But again, we are not saying that ANY laws were followed here. One way or another, we have corrupt politics in action.

Finally, Cohn objects that this view makes the priests and elders "not much better than common criminals" [Cohn.TDJ, 34] - which is a caricature of the position being taken; unless Cohn himself regards, for example, a mayor who accepts a bribe as "not much better" than a common criminal. This, again, is the state of politics. In fact, Cohn (ibid., 36-7) notes the description of atrocities by the high priest recorded in Josephus, dated to 60 AD; to this, he merely replies, without proof, that the situation 30 years earlier may have been "entirely different" and says, "I think that even the high priests should be entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence."

If that is so, one wonders where Cohn gets off accusing the evangelists of fabricating stories! On the other hand, Cohn IS willing to grant the picture of Caiaphas as one politically inclined, prudent, and with an instinct for self-preservation - which, we may point out, is exactly how he appears in the Gospels.

The net of this is:

1) If those who are Skeptical are going to argue this way, then when they cite specifics, it is specifics we must address. Just saying, "Well, SOMETHING must have been in effect" is not sufficient. We need to know WHAT that "something" was.

2) Any argument based merely on the rules of the Mishnah Sanhedrin hangs by a gossamer thread. There is simply no reason to doubt the historicity of the trial on this account.

But for yet another twist, let's assume that most or all of the rules in question were indeed in effect at the time of Jesus, and that they were taken seriously as a rule - does that necessarily mean that the trial accounts are ahistorical?

Absolutely NOT! These sort of comments reflect a surprisingly two-dimensional view of the political situation and human nature in power structures. The accounts portray the entire subterfuge with Judas as opportunistic. For all we know, they would have done it on the Sabbath (and found some way to justify it, like they did murder in John 11.49ff). Sophistry is not just a Christian folly.

The trial had to take place quickly, since the Triumphal Entry had already occurred, and Jesus was escalating matters every day of Holy Week (cleansing of the temple, challenge of authority - even the anointing in Bethany). Time was running out for the Sanhedrin stooges; people were starting to pour into Jerusalem for the feast. They were simply pressured by the situation into "unlikely" actions. The Gospels' description makes PERFECT sense -- it is not implausible in the least, even as they are commonly interpreted.