1983 - Bart D. Ehrman - Jesus’ Trial Before Pilate. John 18.28-19.16

8/13/2019 1983 - Bart D. Ehrman - Jesus Trial Before Pilate. John 18.28-19.16

1/9

http://btb.sagepub.com/Journal of Bible and Theology

Biblical Theology Bulletin: A

http://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/014610798301300406

1983 13: 124Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and TheologyBart D. Ehrman

19:16Jesus' Trial Before Pilate: John 18:28

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

can be found at:Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and TheologyAdditional services and information for

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

http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

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

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

http://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 1, 1983Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124http://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://academic.she.edu/btbhttp://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124.refs.htmlhttp://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124.full.pdfhttp://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124.full.pdfhttp://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://academic.she.edu/btbhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124http://btb.sagepub.com/


2/9

124

JESUS TRIAL BEFORE PILATE: John 18:2819:16

Bart D. Ehrman,Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ 08540

Redactional analyses of Johns Gospel have alwaysbeen plagued with certain methodological difficulties. Onthe one hand, it seems likely that John used writtensources to which we no longer have independent access.This makes consideration of Johns unique contributionsmore tentative than, say, in the case ofMatthew or Luke.

Hypothesis must be built on hypothesis, theories ofredaction on theories of sources.As a result, research

often reaches an impasse, even in such critical areas asthe scope of theological character of the signs sourceand Johns utilization of it (Fortna, Meyer).A further

complication derives from modern theories of the

tradition-history of the Gospel. If John underwent a long,multi-staged, pre-history (Brown, I, xxi-xl), then quite pos-sibly many &dquo;unique&dquo; features of the Gospel were merelytaken over by the final redactor and do not represent hisown overriding concerns.

In spite of these difficulties, a consideration of uniqueJohannine emphases can prove fruitful for the exegesisof certain passages - viz., those which contain traditions

preserved in other forms in the Synoptics. Isolated instan-ces would include the cleansing of the Temple (2:13-22),the healing of the officials son (4:46b-54), the feeding ofthe five thousand and the walking on water (6:1-21 ), andthe anointing at Bethany ( 12:1-8) - all of which haveclose

Synoptic parallels.While

studyingwhat is

peculiarlyJohannine in these passages will never exhaust their full

meaning or allow for final conclusions as to Johns ulti-

mate concerns (for example, his ultimate concern withthe significance of Jesus is not unique), such an endeav-or does at least produce a chink in the Johannine armor,an opening into the world of Johns thought which allowsthe reader who enters to begin to explore that world fromthe inside.

A broader-based comparison ofJohn with the Synop-tics can achieve much the same results, as D. MoodySmith has convincingly shown in his discussion of Johns

Christology. Such comparisons do not hinge on Johns

use of the Synoptics, or even his knowledge of them.Rather, the methodological principle involved assertsthat a comparison of variantcontemporarytraditions canlead to an understanding of their unique concerns pre-cisely at the point of their divergences. Strictly speaking,the application of this principle is not redaction but tradi-tion criticism. Given the complicated nature of the pre-history of Johns Gospel, such approximations of the

Synoptic redaction criticism may provide the surest criti-cal ground for scholars to stand upon today.

The Trial Before Pilate in

John and the Synoptics

It has long been noted that the Passion narrative repre-sents the longest track of literature in whichJohn roughlyparallels the Synoptics. From Jesus arrest to his resur-

rection, all four Gospels retain parallel traditions in essen-

tially the same sequence. The purpose of this article is toexamine one pericope of Johns Passion narrative - thetrial of Jesus before Pilate - by using Johns differencesfrom the Synoptics as a springboard into his uniqueportrayal of the event.The basic Synoptic framework for the trial scene is

provided by Mark. Here Jesus is led from the Sanhedrinto Pilate, who asks him if he is the king of the Jews

(15:1-2). Jesus ambiguous reply &dquo;You have said so,&dquo;(15:2) is his only defense in the entire proceeding. ToPilates amazement, Jesus remains silent when the Jew-

ish leaders level accusations against him (15:3-5). Pilatewants to releaseJesus according to his custom of settingfree one prisoner during Passover, but the crowddemands Barabbas instead, insisting on Jesus crucifix-

ion (15:6-14). Pilate acquieses to their demand, handing

Jesus over to be scourged and crucified ( 15:15). Theentire proceeding transpires in one place, apparently anoutdoor setting. To Marks simple narrative, Matthewmakes several additions - a notation of Pilates wifes

premonition concerning Jesus (27:19) and the scene ofPilates handwashing of the affair (27:24-25) - as well assome minor changes. Lukes alterations are somewhatmore substantive. In his account the charges leveled

againstJesus are listed (23:2), Jesus is sent to Herod for atrial and returned (23:6-12), and Pilates reluctance to

execute Jesus is highlighted - he offers to punish himand then release him, three times protesting that he can

find no case against him (23:4, 13-16, 22).

While the precise relationship of Johns traditions withthe Synoptics cannot be determined, there can be nodoubt thatsome relationship exists (Dauer). John placesthe account in the same sequence ofevents as the Synop-tics : it comes after Peters denial and Jesus appearancebefore the high priest. The same characters appear in

John: Jesus, Pilate, the Jewish prosecutors, Barabbas,and the Roman soldiers. The plot line of Johns storyremains essentially that of the earlier Gospels: Jesus is

brought to Pilate, questioned, and accused. Pilate tries to

http://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/http://btb.sagepub.com/


3/9

125

release Jesus, but is frustrated by intensified Jewish pres-sure to execute him and to release Barabbas instead.

Pilate succumbs to these demands, delivering Jesus overto be crucified. In addition to these general similaritiesareverbal correspondences which conclusively show a tradi-tional relationship. Thus Pilates initial question to Jesusis verbally identical in all four Gospels: &dquo;Are you the Kingofthe Jews?&dquo; (John 18:33). And Jesus (eventual) reply in

John, &dquo;You say that I am a king,&dquo; (18:37- appearsdependent on the Synoptic traditions &dquo;You have said so,&dquo;(Mark 15:2, pars.). Verbal correspondences with one orthe other Synoptic account can also be isolated. ThusPilates request concerning Jesus release in John 18:39,&dquo;Will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?&dquo;,is very close to Mark 15:9 &dquo;Do you want me to release to

you the King of the Jews?&dquo;; the account of the soldiers

weaving a crown ofthorns in John 19:2 &dquo;weaving a crownof thorns they placed it upon his head&dquo; is virtually identi-cal with the Matthean version, &dquo;weaving a crown ofthornsthey placed it upon his head,&dquo; (27:29); and Pilates thrice

repeatedprotest that he could not find a case

againstJesus (John 18:38; 19:4, 6) corresponds to the thrice-

repeated protest in Luke that no case could be found

against him (23:4, 14, 22).These correspondences do not demonstrate Johns

dependence on the Synoptic Gospels at this point, noreven that he knew the Synoptics as we have them. But

they do show that John had access to traditions which in

many respects paralleled those preserved in the earlier

Gospels. To some extent, then, there is a traditio-historical relationship between the Johannine version ofthe story and the Synoptic. Yet the similarities of the twobasic versions can only be considered in light of the

major differences.An immediately striking difference is found in Johns

designation of Jesus opponents. Here they are not calledthe &dquo;chief priests&dquo; as in Mark (15:3), nor the &dquo;chief priestsand elders&dquo; as in Matthew (27:12) nor the &dquo;the chief

priests and the rulers&dquo; as in Luke (23:13). Rather, they aresimply designated as &dquo;the Jews&dquo; (18:31,38; 19:7,12,14).The significance of this label far exceeds the bounds ofthis single pericope - throughout Johns Gospel Jesusadversaries are called &dquo;the Jews&dquo; with no further differen-

tiations ever made. This does not mean that the fourth

Gospel is anti-Semitic in any modern sense of the term;the community in which the Gospel arose was itself Jew-

ish ! The label undoubtedly derives from the concretehistorical situation of the Johannine community, a situa-tion characterized by bitter and violent conflict with thelocal synagogue (Martyn). In the eyes of this persecutedChristian community, all that was evil in human religionwas typified by its non-Christian opponents, the Jews ofthe synagogue. Thus Johns designation of Jesus oppo-nents as &dquo;the Jews&dquo; derives from a highly polemicalcontext. Despite the far-reaching implications of this labelforJohn as a whole, its use here has little direct impact on

the issue under consideration, namely the significance ofthe material divergences of the Johannine account of

Jesus trial from that of the Synoptics.John supplements and alters the Synoptic version of

the story in a number of ways. The following five can beset forth as particularly significant:

(1) In John 18:28 the Jews refuse to enter the praeto-rium in order to keep from becoming defiled, since theywant to partake of the Passover meal that evening. Hence,in contrast to the Synoptics, the participants in the trialare not gathered in one place: Jesus is inside the praeto-rium, the Jews are outside, and the trial progresses as

Pilate goes back and forth between plaintiffs and defen-dant. John never explains why entering the praetoriumwould effect a ceremonial defilement (Brown, pp. 845-

46).(2) While Jesus only speaks two words in the Synoptic

account of the trial, in John he gives two rather fullstatements to Pilate, one concerning the nature of his

kingship (18:36-37), the other concerning the heavenly

provenanceof Pilates

authority(19:11).

(3) In Johns account, Pilate not only seeks to release

Jesus, twice he actually urges the Jews to take him them-

selves, first to try him according to their own law ( 18:31 )then later to crucify him (19:7). The Jews never replydirectly to the latter request, but to the former they insistthat it lies beyond their jurisdiction to execute a criminal.John never explains this curious remark - that is, why, ifit were true, Pilate as procurator did not know about it,and why, if it were false, he did not contradict itand forcethe Jews to take the matter into their own hands. The fact

that Jews did execute criminals, sometimes by crucifix-ion, makes the matter even more perplexing (Barrett, pp.

445-446; Juster, pp. 127-49).(4) John locates the condemnation of Jesus at &dquo;the

place called Lithostrotos, which in Hebrew is called &dquo;Gab-batha&dquo; ( 19:13). John does not more closely identify thelocation nor explain its significance. Contemporary sour-ces are of no help, since whoever &dquo;called it&dquo; Lithostrotosnever did so in any writings that have survived. TheAra-maic name Gabbatha is not a translational equivalentand so does not explain the signficance of the Greek

designation. Just the contrary, the uncertain meaning oftheAramaic word itself makes Johns intention all the

more confusing.(5) John sets the time of Jesus condemnation pre-

cisely : it occurred on the day ofPreparation for Passoverat noon (19:14). This dating of Johns trial scene directlyconflicts with the Synoptics account in which Jesus eatsthe Passover meal with his disciples and thus is con-demned and crucified on the day of Passover itself; thetime of day when Jesus is condemned in John conflictswith Marks story in which Jesus is crucified at 9:00 a.m.

(15:25).Even this brief enumeration of some peculiarties in

Johns account shows the enigmatic situation confront-



4/9

126

ing the exegete who attempts to understand the utiliza-tion of tradition in the fourth Gospel. These peculiaritiesare either at odds with details found in the Synoptics (#1,2,4) or are themselves historically problematic ( #1, 3, 5).Ultimately the issue must resolve itselfon the grounds ofthe function of tradition in Jonns Gospel. For over twodecades - since, that is, the publication of two ground-

breakingarticles on this

passage byJosef Blank and

Ernest Haenchen - many scholars have recognized thatJohn is not concerned here to preserve a historicallyaccurate accounting of proceedings, but rather seeks to

heighten the theological significance of the story. It is

largely to this end that the Evangelist has reworked histraditions. Notably the historically problematic data are

precisely those which provide the most important theo-

logical insights into the signficance of Jesus trial. This isnot to say that the story lacks theological significance inits Synoptic forms. Quite to the contrary, all the accountsof the trial depict the Jewish responsibility for Jesus

death, Pilates reticence to execute him, and the ultimate

irony of the Jewish preference of the criminal Barabbasto the Christ Jesus. John does not minimize these

emphases in the least, but rather intensifies them bychanging and adding &dquo;historical&dquo; detail. Thus the fea-tures of Johns account that stand over-againt the Synop-tic versions are, somewhat paradoxically, both

historically difficult and theologically significant.Hence the following thesis can be set forth, a thesis to

be demonstrated by a more detailed examination of the

passage: John has reworked his traditions of Jesus trial

before Pilate so as to heighten the theological and ironicelements already found in them. This he does by makingthe

storya

full-lengthdrama in which all the characters

are portrayed in purely ironic terms. The theologicalmolding of the structure and conceptualizations of thedrama are clearlyJohannine: the chief ironic point of thefinished product is that in rejecting Jesus, the Jews haveabandoned what they hold most dear, having rejectedtheir Heavenly King, their Good Shepherd, and theirPaschal Lamb.

The Dramatic Structure of the Scene

The dramatic features unique to Johns story have

already been mentioned. The opening verse (18:28)serves as an &dquo;exposition&dquo; to the drama, setting up the

staging for the subsequent action and establishing the

highly charged irony of the entire proceeding. The Jewsrefuse to enter the praetorium for fear of defilement,

wanting to eat the Passover meal that evening. This sta-

tioning of the characters provides structure for thedrama: Jesus is inside, the Jews outside, and Pilate goesback and forth between them. Seven major scenes ofaction follow, broken into two acts of three scenes each

by the fourth scene, the &dquo;interlude&dquo; of 19:1-3. The

sequence of action through the scenes of both acts cor-

responds : first Pilate talks to the Jews, then to Jesus, thento the Jews again. The progression from scene to sceneis accomplished by verbs of motion, Pilate going in andout of the praetorium at each stage of the action; &dquo;Hewent out,&dquo; (8:29); &dquo;He went in,&dquo; (8:33); &dquo;He went out,&dquo;(8:38); &dquo;He went out,&dquo; (9:4); &dquo;He went in,&dquo; (9:9). The only

exception is found in the final scene in which the move-ment must be assumed, the pattern being altered by thestatement that Pilate &dquo;led Jesus out&dquo; of the praetorium(19:13). The &dquo;interlude&dquo; of 19:1-3 presumably occurswithin the praetorium since Pilate is with Jesus andcomes out again in 19:4. The resultant structuring of thedrama can be set forth in the following graphic (using theRSV):

Exposition

28Then they led Jesus fromthe house of Caiaphas to the

praetorium. It was early.Theythemselves did not enter the

praetorium, so that they mightnot be defiled, but might eatthe passover.

Act One

Scene One

29So Pilate went out to them

and said, &dquo;Whataccusation do

you bring against this man?&dquo;

3OThey answered him, &dquo;if thisman were not an evildoer, we

would not have handed himover.&dquo; 3Pilate said to them,&dquo;Take him yourselves and

judge him by your own law.&dquo;The Jews said to him, &dquo;It is not

lawful for us to put anyman to

death.&dquo; 32This was to fulfil the

word which Jesus had spokento show by what death he wasto die.

Scene Two

33Pilate entered the praetor-ium again and called Jesus,and said to him, &dquo;Are you kingof the Jews?&dquo; 34Jesus an-

swered, &dquo;Do you say this of

yourown accord, or did others

say it to you about me?&dquo; 35Pilate

answered, &dquo;Am I a Jew? Yourown nation and the chief

priests have handed you over

to me; what have you done?&dquo;

~Jesus answered, &dquo;My king-ship is not of this world; if mykingship were of this world,

Act Two

Scene One

4pilate went out again, andsaid to them, &dquo;Behold, I am

bringing him out to you, that

you may know that I find no

crime in him.&dquo; 5SO Jesus

came

out, wearing thecrown

of thorns and the purple robe.Pilate said to them, &dquo;Here is

the man!&dquo; 6When the chief

priests and the officers saw

him, they cried out, &dquo;Crucifyhim, crucify him!&dquo; Pilate saidto them, &dquo;Take him your-selves and crucify him, for I

find no crime in him.&dquo; 7The

Jews answered him, &dquo;We

have a law and by that law he

ought to die, because he hasmade himself the Son of

God.&dquo; when Pilate heardthese words, he was the more

afraid;

Scene Two

9he entered the praetorium

again and said to Jesus,&dquo;Where are you from?&dquo; But

Jesus gave no answer. I OPilate

therefore said to him, &dquo;You

will not speak to me? Do younot know that I have power to



5/9

127

my servants would fight, that I

might not be handed over tothe Jews; but my kingship isnot from the world .&dquo; 3Pilate

said to him, &dquo;So you are a

king?&dquo; Jesus answered, &dquo;You

say that I am a king. For this Iwas born, and for this I have

come into the world, to bear

witness to the truth. Everyonewho is of the truth hears myvoice.&dquo; 38Pilate said to him,&dquo;What is truth?&dquo;

Scene Three

After he had said this, he

went out to the Jews again,and told them, &dquo;1 find no crime

in him. 39But you have a cus-

tom that I should release one

man for you at the Passover;will you have me release for

you the King of the Jews?&dquo;40They cried out again, &dquo;Notthis man, but Barabbas!&dquo; Now

Barabbas was a robber.

Interlude

19 Then Pilate took Jesus

and scourged him. 2And thesoldiers plaited a crown of

thorns, and put it on his head,and arrayed him in a purplerobe; 3they came up to him,

saying, &dquo;Hail, King of the

Jews!&dquo; and struck him withtheir hands.

release you, and power to

crucify you?&dquo; &dquo;Jesus an-swered him, &dquo;You would haveno power over me unless it

had been given you from

above; therefore he who deliv-ered me to you has the greatersin.&dquo;

Scene Three

2Upon this Pilate sought torelease him, but the Jewscried out, &dquo;If you release this

man, you are not Caesars

friend; every one who makes

himself a king sets himself

against Caesar.&dquo; 13WhenPilate heard these words, he

brought Jesus out and satdown on the judgment seat ata place called The Pavement,and in Hebrew, Gabbatha.

41low it was the day of Prepa-ration of the Passover; it was

about the sixth hour. He said

to the Jews, &dquo;Here is your

King!&dquo; 15They cried out,&dquo;Away with him, away withhim, crucify him!&dquo; Pilate saidto them, &dquo;Shall I crucify your

King?&dquo; The chief priests an-

swered, &dquo;We have no king butCaesar.&dquo;

Catastrophe

16Then he handed him overto them to be crucified.

The artistry of the dramatic structuring of the account

is seen in its nearly perfect symmetry. Each act has three

scenes, the first and third of which are discussions of

Pilate with the Jews, the second of which is discussion of

Pilate with Jesus.At the &dquo;interlude&dquo; afterAct one, Pilate

hands Jesus over to be scourged and crowned with

thorns, at the &dquo;catastrophe&dquo; afterAct two Pilate handsJesus over to be crucified. Furthermore, there are note-

worthy material correspondencesbetween the respectivescenes of the two acts. Thus, for example, in the firstscene of each act, Pilate

urgesthe Jews to take Jesus

themselves, in the first instance to judge him ( 18:31 ), inthe second to crucifiy him (19:6). Both times the Jews

reply by referring to their law, first saying that they are notallowed to execute Jesus, then saying that he ought tobeexecuted (18:31; 19:7). Each of the second scenes be-

gins with a question from Pilate (&dquo;Are you the King oftheJews?&dquo; 18:33; &dquo;Where are you from?&dquo; 19:9), both of

which Jesus refuses to answer, the first time by asking a

question in turn (&dquo;Do you say this of your own accord, ordid others say it to you about me?&dquo; 18:34), the second by

remaining silent (19:9). In both cases Pilate pressesJesus by asking two other questions, one rhetorical, onesubstantive (&dquo;Am I a Jew?&dquo; &dquo;What have you done?&dquo;

18:35; &dquo;You will not speak to me? Do you not know that Ihave power to release you and power to crucify you?&dquo;19:10). To each of these final questions Jesus respondsat length, first by referring to his kingdom which is not ofthis world (18:36), then by referring to Pilates authoritywhich is not of this world ( 19:11 ). The third scenes of

each act comprise Pilates attempts to release Jesus

(18:39; 19:12), and the Jews crying out their preferencesto Jesus, first for Barabbas (18:40), then for Caesar

(19:15).These correspondences do not exhaust the artistry of

the passage, but they do show Johns skillful handling ofhis traditions. In place of the one-act play of the Synoptics,John has fashioned a full-fledged dramatic production.That the fashioning is Johannine and not traditional isevinced by the following considerations: (1) the frame-work of the story appears to be redactional (that is, 18:28and the alteration of

&dquo;Hewent

out&dquo;/&dquo;He went

in&dquo;); (2)the

staging has symbolic overtones, allowing for uniquelyJohannine theological inferences to be drawn (for exam-

ple, the Jews who have rejected the Revealer are no

longer able to hear the revelation since they remain out-

side, cf. 12:36); (3) similar dramatic modes of presenta-tion are found elsewhere in the fourth Gospel, as, for

example, in the story of the man born blind (19:1-41)(Martyn). In view of these considerations there can belittle doubt that the dramatic structure of 18:28-19:16 is

&dquo;Johannine&dquo; or, speaking loosely, that it derives from theredaction rather than the source. Such a conclusion natu-

rally leads to the functional question: why hasJohn made

this trial scene into an extended drama? In conformitywith the thesis already stated it can be asserted that thedramatic mode of presentation allows John (1) to inten-

sify the action of the plot by allowing it to progress to atense climax, and (2) to heighten the gripping ironies ofthe proceeding by means of more elaborate character

development.

The Intensification of the Plot

To an extent far beyond what is found in the otherversions of this

story,Johns

depictsa crescendo in the

actions of both Pilate and the Jews. At the outset of the

drama, Pilate is reluctant even to consider Jesus case

(Act one, Scene one, &dquo;Take him yourselves,&dquo; 18:31). Buthe succumbs to the Jewish pressure, questioning Jesusbefore pronouncing him innocent (Act one, Scenes twoand three, 18:33-38). Then, despite his judgment, Pilate

proceeds to treat the innocent Jesus as though guilty,first by offering to release him as the pardoned Passovercriminal (Act one, Scene three, 18:39-40),then by havinghim scourged (&dquo;interlude,&dquo; 19:1-3). Pilate vigorously re-



6/9

128

news his efforts to release Jesus (Act two, Scene one,

19:4-6), but when he himself is confronted by an ultima-

tum, he abandons the case and delivers up an innocent

man to be crucified (Act two, Scene three, &dquo;catastrophe,&dquo;19:12-16).

Corresponding to the progression of Pilates actionstoward the innocentJesus are the intensified accusations

leveled

againsthim

bythe Jews. First

theyaccuse him of

being an &dquo;evildoer&dquo; (Act one, Scene one, 18:30). This, the

only accusation made inAct one, has little effect on Pilatewho keeps the trial going only because of their persist-ence. The Jews change their charge to the religiousrealm: Jesus deserves death because he has violated the

Jewish law in making himself the Son of God (Act two,Scene one, 19:7). This accusation frightens Pilate, mak-

ing him all the more determined to release Jesus. ButtheJews play their trump card: not only is Jesus an evildoerand religious blasphemer, he is also seditious, a politicalcriminal (Act two, Scene three, 19:12). Stressing Jesusclaims to kingship, the Jews spell out the implications for

Pilate: if Jesus is not crucified as a political insurgent, theprocurators own loyalty to the Emperor will be com-

promised. Pilates choice is no choice at all; he con-demns Jesus to save his own skin (&dquo;catastrophe,&dquo; 19:16).

The Intensification of the Ironies

in JohnsAccount

THE IRONIES OF JES(IS FATE

Even more than this dramatic effect of action

movingtoward climax, does the element of intensely ironic char-acterization play a central role in Johns account. On one

level the portrayal of Jesus is explicitly ironic, since heaffirms that his appearance does not cohere with reality:he is a king whose kingdom is not of this world (18 :36-37). That he has no political aspirations is shown by thefailure of his followers to take up arms in his defense

(18:36). His mission does not entail establishing an

earthly kingdom, but rather witnessing to the truth. Thosewho accept his witness belong to his kingdom, and,

conversely, those who belong to the truth hear his voice

(18:37). On the one hand, Pilate shows that he himself

does not belong to Jesus kingdom, for he does notaccept Jesus witness to truth as seen in the question of

18:38 (&dquo;What is truth?&dquo;). This is confirmed when he

demonstrates that his ultimate allegiance is to Caesar

( 19:12b, 16). On the other hand, Pilate realizes that sucha kingdom poses no serious threat to Rome and thus heseeks to release Jesus. His designation ofJesus as &dquo;Kingof the Jews&dquo; must be tongue-in-cheek since, as shown, he

obviously does not believe it.This circumstance, Pilates ironic affirmation of Jesus

kingship (ironic in that he affirms what he does not

believe), leads to consideration of other ironies implicit inthe portrayal of Jesus in the passage. That the portrayal ofJesus throughout Johns Gospel is ironic can hardly bedoubted. This can be seen with particular clarity in Johnsironic usage of hupsoo (&dquo;to lift up&dquo;) to designate bothJesus crucifixion and his exalation (3:14; 8:28; 12:32,34). For John, Jesus death was his glorification andvice-versa. With

respectto Johns account of the trial

itself, scholars have long noted the implicit irony in the

progressive depiction of Jesus as King of the Jews(Meeks, pp. 62-81).After Jesus announces himself as

king in 18:36-37, he is crowned, garbed, and hailed as

king by the Roman soldiers in 19:1-3. The irony of thescene is patient: Jesus crown is of thorns and he isbeaten while being hailed. Yet it is noteworthy that thesoldiers are not said to mock Jesus, as is the case in the

Synoptics. For John, the soldiers really do crown and hailthe King of the Jews, whose exaltation comes precisely atthe point of his humiliation.Afterwards Jesus is pre-sented as King of theJews by Pilate ( 19:14). Here Judeas

procurator unwittingly confesses Israels King. The Jewsrespond with cries of acclamation, not accepting this

king but rejecting him for their only true Sovereign, Cae-sar (19:15). Still dressed in royal garb, Jesus is led off tobe crucified ( 19:16b). Soon he will be lifted up onto thethrone of his cross over which the placard will silentlyproclaim the ironic truth: &dquo;Jesus the Nazarene, the Kingof the Jews&dquo; (19:19).

THE IRONIES SCIRRO(INDIIIG PILATE

As has already been seen, Johns account paints anironic portrait of Pilate as well. In one sense it is ironic that

Pilateappears

to be the ruler of the Jews

yet unwittinglyaffirms that Jesus is king.An even more pointed ironypertains to the trial scene itself: Pilate appears to be

Jesus judge and condemner, but Jesus declares that the

authority ofjudgment does not reside in Pilate. It comesfrom above. Thus, in Johns understanding, it is Pilatewho is on trial, who indeed passes judgment on andcondemns himself precisely in his reception and treat-

ment of Jesus. The evangelist makes graphic this theo-

logical assessment of the significance of the trial in his

structuring of the course of the dialogues between Pilate

and Jesus. Here the defendent Jesus exercises control of

the interrogation. It is Jesus who confronts Pilate with the

truth and compels him to decision. When Pilate refusesto receive the witness (18:38), Jesus refrains from speak-

ing of the truth, remaining silent concerning his own

identity (19:9). Jesus concludes the discussion with a

stern declaration that Pilates authority is derived ( 19:11 ).

Thus, while Pilates condemnation of Jesus does show

his rejection of truth, it does not show his power to take

Jesus life. Jesus alone can decide his own destiny: &dquo;no

one takes my life from me; I lay it down of my own

accord&dquo; (10:18).This portrayal of Pilate on trial conforms to the charac-



7/9

129

teristically Johannine view that the &dquo;witness&dquo; to the trutheffects a &dquo;judgment&dquo; for the one who hears (Meeks, p.65). Thus in John 3:31-36, the one who comes fromabove (i.e. Jesus, the Son) is a witness who speaks thewords of God.Anyone who believes in the Son has eter-nal life and anyone who does not believe encounters the

wrath of God (cf. also 5:24-30; 8:12-20). Pilate does not

accept the truth to which Jesus witnesses, showing thathe is one of those who stands condemned. He is not the

believer who &dquo;hears my words and believes in the one

who sent me&dquo; who &dquo;does not come into judgment&dquo;(5:24). Rather is he &dquo;the one who has not believed&dquo; who&dquo;has entered into judgment already&dquo; (3:18).

This understanding of Johns ironic portrayal of Pilate

helps explain one other feature of the passage. The refer-ence to the trial occurring in early morning (18:28) mayreflect a tradition (cf. Mark 15:1). But given Johns com-

plex system of symbolism, something else maybe in viewhere as well. Just as Judas betrayal was at &dquo;night,&dquo; show-

ing that he loved the darkness rather than the light(13:30), so too Jesus trial occurs at sunrise, when the

light comes into the world. Here the true Light (8:12), thewitness to the truth, comes forth, forcing people to deci-sion. Pilate shows that he also prefers darkness to light;consequently, he stands condemned (cf. 3:18).

THE IRONIES SURROUNDING THE JEWS

John portrays the ironies in the Jews rejection of Jesusin particularly striking terms. This ironic depiction is set

up by the &dquo;exposition&dquo; to the drama: the Jews do notenter the praetorium so as not to be defiled, wanting toeat the Passover meal that evening (18:28).As observed

already, John does not state why entering the praetoriumwould cause ceremonial defilement (Brown, II, 846). Thehistorical issue, however, must remain secondary to the

literary-functional: the Jews refusal to enter allows thedrama to progress in well-defined stages and allows the

Gospel to carry out one of its programmatic concerns

methodically. In 12:36, Jesus had hidden himself fromthe Jews who refused to believe. Jesus resolve is main-

tained in the rest of the Gospel; nomore does he speak asthe Revealer to the unbelieving Jews. Thus he refuses to

speak concerning himself beforeAnnas ( 18:19-24), andthe trial scene before Caiaphas is omitted from the Gos-

pel altogether. In his trial before Pilate, Jesus speaks of

himself and his mission only to the procurator. The Jewsdo not hear because they have remained without.

Since John does not state why the Jews would become

ceremonially defiled (and the explanation is far from

obvious) is it possible to understand this refusal to enter

the praetorium as a symbolic statement? The dominantlyironic tone of the passage lends credence to such an

understanding. In this case, John may be stating that the

Jews considered direct involvement with affairs of the

Roman state antithetical to their relationship to God, as

celebrated in the feast of the Paschal Lamb. By enteringthe praetorium they would be defiled and thus could not

partake of the feast. The powerful irony is that the Jews

actually do become involved with the Roman state, even-

tually swearing absolute allegiance to Caesar alone. In so

doing they reject their unique relationship with God andfail to recognize the true Paschal Lamb.The Jews desire to remain separate from the state and

thus to live under the kingship of God, is frustrated onseveral levels. On one level the Jews fail to enter the

kingdom that is not of their world because they refuse to

accept its king, Jesus, earlier confessed as king by Natha-niel ( 1:49), by the crowds entering Jerusalem (12:13), byhimself (18:36-37), and (ironically) by Pilate (19:14). Onanother level, the Jews are forced to bear false witness

against Jesus in order to move Pilate to pronounce thedeath sentence. Earlier in the Gospel Jesus openly chal-

lenges the Jews to show evidence of his wrong-doing(8:46), to which they make no reply. This shows that Johnunderstands the allegation that Jesus is an evildoer

(18:30)to be false. Furthermore, John

portraystheJews

second charge, that Jesus deserves death according totheir law, to be false as well (19:7). Earlier, when the Jewsaccuse Jesus of blasphemy for asserting his divine Son-

ship, he confutes them with Scriptural proof that hisstatements are not blasphemous (10:31-39). The Jewsare not able to respond to him. Finally, the Jews threats

against Pilate, founded on Jesus alleged danger to the

state, also represent a false witness against him. Jesus

kingship is &dquo;not of their world,&dquo; so that he poses no

political threat to Caesar. In short, to attain their politicalends, the Jews must compromise their religious commit-ments - three times they are forced to violate the ninth

commandment.The Jewish concession to the state reaches its ultimate

manifestation in 19:15. The Jews are desperate in their

attempt to force Pilates hand. Because he resists their

pressure they resort to a personal threat. Pilate realizesthe true nature of the situation: the Jews will stop at

nothing to have Jesus crucified. They have forced Pilateto express his absolute devotion to Caesar by condemn-

ing an innocent man. Now he, in turn. compels them to

express their ultimate allegiance. &dquo;Shall I crucify yourking?&dquo; he asks (19:15). In a state of fervor the chief priestrespond, &dquo;We have no king but Caesar&dquo; (19:15). NowCaesar is the king of the Jews. No longer does every knee

bow to Yahweh alone (Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; cf. lsa45:23). In order to kill Jesus, theJews have been forced to

acknowledge the Roman emperor as Sovereign.This final concession to Rome shows the full signifi-

cance of the temporal reference in 19:14.At this time,noon on the day of Preparation, the observance of thePassover regulations would have begun.As WayneMeeks has noted, the final cry of the chief priests in 19:15

belies the confession of the nismat to be sung that even-

ing at the close of the Greater Hallel:



8/9

130

From everlasting to everlasting thou art God;Beside thee we have no king, redeemer, or savior,No liberator, deliverer, provider;None who takes pity in every time of distress and trouble.

We have no king but thee (Meeks, p. 77).

In addition to the day and hour of Jesus condemna-tion, John also makes known the name of the place

( 19:13). Scholars have long debated the meaning of thephrase &dquo;Lithostrotos (RSV, &dquo;The Pavement&dquo;), in Hebrew,Gabbatha&dquo; (Brown, pp. 881-82). To be sure, John maysimply be passing on a traditional datum: but there are noother indications from antiquity that the courtyard of theJerusalem praetorium was so designated. Given the theo-

logical slant of the other details of the account, is it not

appropriate to ask if the placename is intended ironically?Very likely Gabbatha is derived from either theAramaic

gbh or gb, thus signifying a high place. This fits not onlywith the archaeological determination that the praetorium(whether the fortressAntonia or Herods palace) was in anelevated part of Jerusalem (Brown, p. 882), it also con-

forms with the Johannine conception of Jesus Passion ashis exaltation. His condemnation occurred in the highplace, his glorification was to take place when hewas lifted

up on the cross. In the case of &dquo;Lithostrotos,&dquo; the theologi-cal significance is hardly transparent. Possibly Johnintends a contrast between the Jewish rejection of their

king, the Christ sent from God, on this Lithostrotos andanother reaction to the Lord and his christ on another

Lithostrotos, as recorded in 2 Chr 7:3. There, after Solo-mons petition forYahweh not to turn awaythe face of his

christ, the children of Israel see the power and glory of theLord and fall down and worship on the &dquo;Lithostrotos.&dquo; Ifthe fourth

Gospeldoes allude to this incident, a

greatercontrast can scarcely be imagined. No longerdo theJewsbeseech the Lord for the favor of his christ, the king; rather

they reject the christ and condemn him to an accurseddeath by crucifixion. No longer are the Jews the childrenof Israel who praise Yahweh as they lay prostrate on theLithostrotos of the Temple before the altar of God; now

they are the unbelieving Jews who have turned from theirGod to make the Roman emperor their king, sealing theirfate on the Lithostrotos of the Roman praetorium beforethe bema of Pilate.

Just as the Jews have made concessions to the state

and thus rejected the kingship of Yahweh and his mes-

siah, so too have they ironically insisted on partaking ofthe ritual of the Passover while failing to recognize the realPassover Lamb. John the Baptist had identified Jesus asthe &dquo;Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world&dquo;

(129). That Jesus was condemned and crucified at thetime of the slaughter of the Paschal lambs in thetemple bythe chief priests is no coincidence for the author of the

fourth Gospel. This is made absolutely certain by theallusion of 19:36 to the Passover lamb of Exod 12:20

(LXX, &dquo;Not a bone of him shall be broken&dquo;). For John,Jesus is the Passover Lamb who is slain for the sins of the

world. The Jews who avoid ceremonial defilement so asto partake of the lamb become thoroughly defiled byrejecting the divine king.And they do not receive pardonbecause they fail to partake of the real Lamb of God.

Notably, the chief priests who adhere to their religiousceremonies in slaughtering the lambs in the temple arethe same ones responsible for the slaughter of the trueLamb of God on the cross.

In Johns eyes, the Jews aretotally at fault for Jesus execution. This emphasis on theJewish culpability for Jesus death is brought out subtlyatthe very outset of the trial in the enigmatic statement of18:31: &dquo;It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.&dquo; Thehistorical difficulty of the saying has already been men-tioned. In its Johannine context it seems to have a polyva-lent significance. Most immediately it affirms Jesus

predictions that he would die by being lifted up from theearth, that is, crucified (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34), as 18:32makes clear. Even beyond this, the saying effectively rec-onciles the historical datum - Jesus was crucified byRomans - with the theological understanding of the early

church - he was executed because of Jewish rejection.The Jews were responsible, butthe Romans actually did it.How can this be explained? Johns answer is unequivocal:the Jews were not able to execute Jesus and thus forced

Pilate to do it. Ultimately, then, the Jews must bear the guiltfor the deed. This shows the irony of theJewish statement:

they were not permitted to kill anyone, but they did! Johndrives home this point with striking pungency in 19:16a:

Pilate hands Jesus over &dquo;to them,&dquo; to the Jews, to be

crucified.

A final irony pertains to the brief mention of Barabbas

in 18:40. Here Barabbas is not called a murderer asso-

ciated with the insurrection, as in Mark and Luke (Mark15:7; Luke 23:19), nor a notorious prisoner as in Matthew

(27:16). Rather, he is called a lestes. The precise denota-

tion is uncertain since the word can signify anything froma highway robber to a Zealot guerrilla.Apart from theissue of what John meant to say about the &dquo;historical

Barabbas,&dquo; the description is significant for what it

implies concerning the Jews choice of Barabbas over

Jesus.Already in the Synoptic tradition the choice isconsidered ironic. Pilate releases a dangerous criminalrather than the innocent Jesus and the Jews prefer a

murderer to the Son of God. It is precisely this irony that

John heightens by calling Barabbas a lestes (&dquo;a robber&dquo;).

Only two other times hasJohnused the

term,both in the

Good Shepherd discourse ( 10:1, 8). Here the Good Shep-herd who loves the sheep and lays down his life for them

is contrasted with thieves and robbers who do not enter

into the fold by the door but rather climb the fence in

order to pillage and kill. The sheep hear the voice of the

Good Shepherd and follow him only. The significance of

Barabbas designation should now be plain. The Jews

insistence on Barabbas rather than Jesus shows they

prefer the pillaging robber to the Good Shepherd who

lays down his life. Consequently they do not enter



9/9

131

through the door, which is Jesus (10:9), and thus they donot find life. To the contrary, they have cut themselves offfrom the true sheepfold and are now subject to the

dangers of the wild without protection. In short, by mak-

ing their choice, the Jews have sealed their fate.

Conclusions

Conclusions as to the character of Johns account of

Jesus trial before Pilate can now be drawn. John utilized

the traditions at his disposal to underscore the theologi-cal significance of the event. This is not to say his accounthas no linkage with actual history, nor that his accountcan make no contribution in the investigation of what

really happened at Jesus trial. It is to say that when John

composed this story, historical considerations played a

secondary role at best. The staging of the trial, the roles ofthe main characters, the discussions of the judge with

plaintiffs and defendant, the temporal and spatial setting- all are set forth not for the sake of

establishingwhat

happened at the trial but for elucidating what the trialmeant.

In his traditions, John had discovered a number of

ironies surrounding this trial, ironies that inhered in theChristian conviction that the innocent Jesus was exe-

cuted as a criminal and that his own people were ulti-

mately responsible.The traditions had borne this irony instories such as the Barabbas episode, where the Jews

plead for the release of a dangerous murderer rather thantheir own messiah. John took over these ironic traditions

and remolded them so as to heighten their inherenttensions. Jesus and Pilate are now portrayed in purely

ironic terms. The king ofthe Jews is crowned with thornsby Roman soldiers and proclaimed king by the Judean

procurator. The judge is placed on trial by the defendantand condemned by his own judgment. But the ultimateironies are reserved for the Jews - theJews who professunwillingness to defile themselves with the affairs of

Rome, who eventually throw in their lot with the Empireby confessing the sovereignty ofCaesar. In condemningJesus, the Jews have fled from their Good Shepherd andthus have assured their destruction; they have spurned

their Passover Lamb and thus destroyed all hope of for-

giveness ; they have denied their Heavenly King and thus

relinquished their unique relationship to God. In Johns

view, the Jews who have rejected Jesus have therebyceased to be the true Israel of God.

SOURCE MATERIAL

Barrett, C. K. 1978. The GospelAccording toJohn, 2nd ed. (Philadel-phia: Westminster Press).

Blank, Josef. 1959. "Die Verhandlung vor Pilatus: Joh 18,28-19,16 imLichte johanneischer Theologie," Biblische Zeitschrift 3, pp.60-81.

Bonsirven, Joseph. 1952. "Hora Talmudica: La notion chronologiquede Jean 19,14, aurait-elle un sens symbolique?" Biblica 33, pp.511-15.

Brown, Raymond. 1966. The GospelAccording to John, 2 vols. (NewYork: Doubleday).

Bultmann, Rudolf. 1971. The Gospel of John, trans. G. T. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, J. K. Riches. (Philadelphia: Westminster

Press).von Campenhausen, Hans. 1948. "Zum Verstandnis von Jn 19:11,"

Theologische Literaturzeitung 73, pp. 389-91.Dauer, Anton. 1972. Die Passionsgeschichte im Johanneseuan-

gelium. (Kosel, Munchen).Fortna, RobertA. 1970. The Gospel of Signs. (Cambridge: University

Press).

Haenchen, Ernst. 1960. "Jesus vor Pilatus (Joh 18,28-19,15)," The-

ologische Literaturzeitung 85, pp. 93-102.

Jaubert, Annie. 1974. "Le comparution devant Pilate selonJean," Foi et

Vie 73, pp. 3-12.

Juster, Jean. 1914. Les juifs dans lEmpire romain. 2 vols. (Paris:Librarie Paul Geuthner).

Martyn, James Louis. 1974. History and Theology in the Fourth Gos-

pel, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper and Row).Meeks,

Wayne.1967. The

Prophet-King:Moses Traditions and the

Johannine Christology. (Leiden: Brill).

Meyer, Paul W. 1968. "Seeing, Signs, and Sources in the Fourth Gos-

pel," unpublished paper read at a meeting of theAAR (Oct.1968).Mollat, Donatien, SJ. 1961. "Jesus devant Pilate," Bible et Vie Chre-

tienne 39, pp. 23-31.

de la Potterie, I., S.J. 1960. "Jesus roi et juge dapresJn 19:13,"Biblica41, pp. 217-47.

Schlier, Heinrich. 1958. "Jesus und Pilatus," Die Zeit der Kirche, 2nd

ed. (Freiburg: Herder).Smith, Dwight Moody. 1977. "The Presentation of Jesus in the Fourth

Gospel," Interpretation 31, pp. 367-78.


1983 - Bart D. Ehrman - Jesus’ Trial Before Pilate. John 18.28-19.16

Documents

Transcript of 1983 - Bart D. Ehrman - Jesus’ Trial Before Pilate. John 18.28-19.16