1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
-
Upload
buster301168 -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 1/13
http://int.sagepub.com/ Interpretation
http://int.sagepub.com/content/45/1/5The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/002096430004500102
1991 45: 5Interpretation Frank J. Matera
The Trial of Jesus : Problems and Proposals
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Union Presbyterian Seminary
can be found at:Interpretation Additional services and information for
http://int.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://int.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Jan 1, 1991Version of Record>>
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 2/13
The Tnal of Jesus
Problems and Proposals
FRANK J. MATE RA
Associate Professor of New Testament
The Catholic University of America
Historically, Jesus stood trial only once,
befor e Pilate. Per sua ded by the chief priests
tha t Jes us was a political t hrea t, Pilate
se nte nce d him to dea th for insurge ncy.
THE TRIAL OF JESUS of Nazareth has been and remains one of the most
difficult areas of New Testament research. 1 Not only must investigators
be familiar with the text of the New Testament, but they must also acquaint
themselves with a host of historical and juridical questions, for example, the
rules and pr oc ed ur es of Jewish and Ro man trials an d the autho rity of the
Jews at the time of Jesus' trial to inflict the death penalty. Moreover, the
historical investigation abo ut the trial of Jesus of Naz are th has im po rt an ttheological and ecumenical ramifications since it involves the questions whyJesus was put to death and who was responsible for his death.
This essay will summarize the different ways in w7hich the New Testament
pre sen ts the trial of Jesu s an d define the probl em s raised by the Gospel
accounts of the trial. Then, after a discussion of why Jesus was sentenced to
1. Am on g t he mor e i mpo rt an t works on the trial of Jesu s are The Trial of Jesus: CambridgeStudies in Honor of C.F.D. Moule, ed. E. Ba mme l (Nap ervil le, IL: Alec. R. All ens on, 1970); Josef
Blinzler,Der Prozess Jesu,
4th ed. (Regesburg: Pustet, 1969); S.G.F. Brandon,The Trial of Jesus
of Nazareth (New York: Stein and Day, 1968); David R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study inthe Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971); Der Prozess gegen Jesu: Historische Rückfrage und theologische Deutung, ed. Karl Kertelge (Frei burg:
He rd er , 1989); William R. Wilson, The Execution of Jesus: A Juridical and Historical Interpretation(New York: Scribners, 1970); Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 2nd ed., rev. and ed. T. Α.
Burkill and Geza Verm es (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974).
5
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 3/13
dea th, it will offer a nu mb er of propo sals for und er st an di ng t he events
surrounding the historical trial of Jesus of Nazareth.
T H E TRIAL S OF JES I S
The very phrase "the trial of Jesus" is misleading. Does it refer to the trial
of Jesus before the Sanhédrin or to the trial of Jesus before Pilate? Strangeh
enough, even the New Testament is ambiguous at this point. While Matthew
an d Mark speak of two trials, on e before the Sanh éd rin an d ano th er before
Pilate, Luke and John report a single trial before Pilate. A brief survey of the
New Testament evidence will make this clear. In this review 1 will follow the
common judgment that Mark was the first of our canonical Gospels to be
written and that Matthew and Luke are dependent upon it.
Mark 14:53—15:15. Accord ing to Mark, Jes us is ar res ted in the garde n of
Ge th se ma ne on the eve of Passover. Imm ediate ly after his arrest , Jes us is
brought to the high priest (unidentified) and the entire Sanhédrin, and a
formal trial takes place. The trial begins with witnesses claiming that Jesus
said, "I will dest roy this temple that is ma de with han ds , and in t hree da\ s I
will build another, not made with hands" (14:58). Mark insists that the
testimony of the false witnesses did not agree but does not describe the
conflicting testimony. Eventually the high priest asks Jesus, "Have \ou noanswer to make? What is it that these men testify against vou?" (14:60).
Jesus, however, does not respond to the question. Consequently, the high
priest asks him a second question, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed?" (14:61).Jesus responds affirmatively, predicting that he will return
triumphantly amid the clouds of heaven as the Son of Man. Hearing Jesus1
answer, the high priest proclai ms that the re is no further ne ed for witnesses
since Jesu s has bl as ph em ed in the hea ring of all. Th us th e high priest asks
for a decision from the Sanhédrin, 'And thev all condemned him as
deserving death" (14:64).In the morning, the Sanhédrin holds a consultation and then hands Jesus
over to Pilate (15:1). The trial before Pilate begins abruptly with the
quest ion , 'Are you the King of the Jews?" (15:2). In Mark's version of this
trial, the chief priests play a pr om ine nt rol e: the \ accuse Jes us of main
things (15:3) and stir up th e crowd to ask for Barabbas inst ead of Jes us
(15:11) an d to demand Je sus' crucifixion (15:13) . To satisfy the crowd,
Pilate accedes to their wishes (15:15).
Matthew 26:57 —27:26. Th e Gospel of Matthew rem ain s ra th er faithful to
th e Markan source. Like Mark, Mat thew narrates two trials: on e befo re the
Sanhédrin and another before Pilate. In his account of these trials, however,
Matthew introduces some important changes. For example, in the trial
before th e Sa nhé dr in , (1) the high priest is identified as Caiaphas (26:57);
(2) the witnesses are explicitly called false witnesses (26:60); (3) the charge
6
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 4/13
The Trial of Jesus
Inuiprttation
against Jesus is reworded to lead "This fellow said, Ί am able to destroy
the temple of God, and to build it in three day s'" (26 :61); an d (4) the con-
demnat ion of Jesus becomes, "He deserves death" (26:66) rather than the
mo r e explicit Markan statement that "they all condemned him as deserving
death" (14:64).
In th e trial befo re Pilate, Matt hew' s edito rial work is mo re not ice abl e still.
T h e Evangelist introduces the account of Ju da s' suicide (27:3-1 0); th e
dream of Pilate's wife (27:19); Pilate's declaration, "I am innocent of this
ma n' s blood; see to it yourself" (27:24); and the people's cry, "His blood be
on us and on our children" (25:25). It is evident that these changes are
intended to place the burden of guilt for Jesus' death upon Israel.
Luke 22:66 —23:25. The changes, omissions, and new elements found in
Luke's account are even mo re p r o no unce d . Unlike Matthew an d Mark, Luke
does not narrate a formal trial of Jesus , du ri ng th e midd le of the night ,
before the Sanhé dr in . Instead, after his arre st Jesus is br ou gh t to the hou se
of the high pries t who, as in Mark, re ma in s uniden ti fi ed (22:54) .2
During the
course of the night, Peter denies Jesus (22:54-62), and Jesus' captors revile
him as a false pr op he t (22:63-65 ).
In the mo rn in g, Jesus is br ou gh t to the hall of the Sanhédr in^ whe re the
entire council of elders is present.4
Al tho ugh the setting is formal, t he re isno des crip tion of a formal trial. Th er e are no witnesses, the re is no cha rge
that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple,5
the high priest does not ques
tion Jesus, the re is no accusa tion of blasph emy, no r does the counc il
formally co nd em n Jesus to dea th. Instead, the entire council co mm an ds
Jesus in on e voice, "If you are t he Chri st, tell us" (22 :67). Jes us refuses to
answer the question directly, but he does prophesy that he will return as the
Son of Man. The council, as a body, then asks if this means that he is the Son
of God , an d Jesus res po nd s, "You say tha t I am " (22:70) .
Following this session before the counci l, Jesus is br ou gh t to Pilate . T heme mb er s of the high council make an explicit charge against Jesus: "We found
this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar,
and saying that he himself is Christ a king. . . . He stirs up the people,
tea ching thr ou gh ou t all Ju de a, from Galilee even to this plac e" (23:2, 5).
Wh en Pilate learns that Jesus is from Galilee, he sends him to He ro d, who
2 This is an interesting omission since Luke otherwise speaks of the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke 3 2) and in Acts 4 6 identifies Annas as the high pnest
3 This seems to be the best interpretation of the expression eis to synednon auton in L uke22 664 Luke speaks of to près by tenon tou laou ("the council of elders of the people," 22 66), by
which he probably means the Sanhednn5 Luke does know of the accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple (see Acts
6 14), but in his view the charge against Jesus has to do with Jesus' teaching activity in thetemple rather than any threat against the temple
7
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 5/13
reviles him (23:6-12). After Herod returns Jesus, Pilate assembles the chief
priests, the rulers and the people (ton laon, 23:13) to explain that neither he
nor Herod has found Jesus guilty of the charges they have brought against
him (23:14-15 ). Th e religious leaders and the people, however, insist that Jesus
mus t be c rucified. As a result, Pilate delivers Jesus to their will (23:25). Luke
begins the next verse, "And as they led him away . . .," giving the distinct
impression that "they," that is, the religious leaders and people, crucified
Jesus. This be co mes more expl icit in several texts of Acts tha t pro cla im tha t
the Jews killed Jesus (2:23; 3:15) by hanging him on a tree (5:30: 10:39), that
is, crucifying him (2:36; 4:10).()
John 18:12—19:16. The Gospel of John presents yet another account of
the trial, different from the three examined thus far. As in the case of Luke,the Fo ur th Evangelist does no t re po rt a formal trial, at night, before the
Sa nhé dr in . Instead, after his arrest, du ri ng the nigh t, Jesu s is br ou ght to
Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the reigning high priest. Annas, also
identified as high priest (cf. 18:19, 24), questions Jesus about his disciples
an d his tea chin g, but the re is no accusation tha t Jesus th re at en ed to destroy
the temp le , no r is Jes us asked if he is the Messiah. After this info rmal
investigation, Annas sends Jesus to Caiaphas (18:24), but the Evangelist does
no t relate what ha pp en ed . Eventually Jesus is led from the hou se of Caiaphas
to the residence of the governor.
J oh n' s acco unt of the trial before Pilate is mo re ela bora te tha n those
found in the Synoptics. As several scholars have noted, the trial is developed
in a series of seven scenes outside and inside the Roma n pr ae to ri um (18 :28 -
32; 18:33-38«; 18:38^-40; 19:1-3; 19:4-8; 19:9-11; 19:12-16a).7Outside the
pr ae to ri um th er e is frenzy an d emo ti on as Pilate struggles with the Jews over
the fate of Jesus.8
Within th e prae to ri um the re is a mo od of awe and fear
as Pilate speaks with Jesus. At the beginning of the trial Pilate is self-
confident and in control of the situation, but by the trial's conclusion he
is a broken man outmaneuvered by the chief priests who proclaim, "We
have no king but Caesar" (19:15).
To sum mari ze , Matthew and Mark speak of two trials. Th e first, before the
entire Sanhédrin, occurs at night. The second, before Pilate, occurs in the
morning. In Mark, the chief priests are the primary antagonists: in Matthew
the role of the people becomes more prominent. In Luke and John, there
is only one trial, the trial before Pilate. Luke also speaks of a morning session
6. For the ant ije wis h th em e in Luke , see Jac k T. San der s, The Jews i)¡ ÍAikc-Ads (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
7. Ra\mond E. Brown, The Gospel cu cording to John xiii-xxi (Garden Git\, XV: Doubleda\ ScCo., Inc., 1970), pp. 857-59.
8. Wh en the Fo urt h Evangelist speaks of the Jews, he seem s to have the Jewish lea der shi p
in min d. Th us t he Jews me nt io ne d in 19:14 are identifie d as the chief priests in 19:15.
8
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 6/13
The Trial of Jesus
Interpretation
before the high council but portrays it as a prelude to the trial before Pilate
ra th er tha n a formal legal process. J o h n describes an inform al hea rin g, at
night, before Annas and says that Jesus was then sent to Caiaphas, but he
does not describe a trial before the Sanhédrin.
PROBLEMS RAISED BY TH E GOS PEL ACC OUN TS
The Gospel accounts of the trials of Jesus raise a number of questions.
How many trials took place? Why was Jesus br ou gh t to trial? Wh o was
resp onsible for the con de mn at io n of Jesus? As im po rt an t as these q uest ions
are, they cannot be resolved until a more fundamental issue is discussed: the
relationship of the different Gospel accounts among one another.Since Matthew is dependent upon Mark as his primary source for the trial
of Jesus, his Gospel does not pre sen t an in de pe nd en t source of informa tion.
Where Matthew does differ from Mark, it appears that he is editorially active.
Consequently, except for details such as the name of the high priest,
"Caiaphas," Matthew does not add to our knowledge of the historical trial of
Jesus. Instead, in Matthew there is a tendency to place greater responsibility
for the dea th of Jesu s up on the pe opl e of Israel. Th us Pilate washes his ha nd s
as a sign that he is in no ce nt of the affair (27:24), while the peo pl e of Israel
willingly accept responsibility for Jesus' death (27:25).The case of Luke is mo re difficult to assess. Since Luke differs significantly
from Mark, there are a number of exegetes who contend that he had access
to another account of the passion in addition to Mark's narrative.9
If this is
so, depending upon the reliability of Luke's other source, one might argue
that Luke brings forth new historical information, for example, a gathering
of the Jewish council in the morning but not a formal trial at night, and the
role that Herod Antipas played at Jesus' trial.
While the re is mu ch to com me nd this positio n, othe r exegetes have
argued that the Evangelist did not employ another passion account inaddition to Mark. Rather, they maintain that the differences between the
accounts of Luke and Mark can be explained in light of Luke's theological
concerns and should be attributed to Lukan redaction.10
I find myself in
ag re em en t with these scholars; Luke is primarily de pe nd en t up on Mar k a nd
does not bring forth new, historical information.11
9. An im por tan t ex po ne nt of this position was Vince nt Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke: A Critical and Historical Investigation, ed. O. E. Evans, SNTSMS 19 (Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press, 1972).
10. See Marion L. Soards, The Passion according to Luke: The Special Material of Luke 22, JSNTSup14 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).
11. I have argued this position in two articles, "Luke 22:66-71: Jesus before the
PRESBYTERION," pp. 517 -33 [ = ETL 65 (198 9), 43- 59] a nd "Luke 23:1- 25: Jes us befo re
Pilate, Herod, and Israel," pp. 535-51 in L'Évangile de Luc/The Gospel of Luke, rev. and enl arg ed
ed. of L'Evangile de Luc: Problèmes littéraires et théologiques, éd. F. Neirync k, BETL 32 (Leu ven:
Peeters Press, 1989).
9
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 7/13
The Luka n trial accoun t is the beg in ni ng of a te nd en c\ tha t finds its
culmination in the Gospel of John; it presents one great trial in which the
people of Israel and their leaders, despite the protestations of Pilate,
cons pir e to have Jesu s pu t to dea th. Thu s in bot h Luke and Jo hn , Pilate
procla ims th re e times tha t Jesus is in no ce nt (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; J ohn 18:38;
19:4, 6) . Moreove r, even He ro d, th e king who once sou ght to kill Jes us (Luke
13:31), finds him inno ce nt (23:15). By th e end of the trial, however, Pilate
must submit to the will of the people and their rulers who, it is implied,
crucify Jesus (Luke 23:25-26).
Overall, one should speak of a single trial in Luke that consists of four
scenes : (1) Jesus before the counc il (22 :66- 71) ; (2) Jesus before Pilate
(23:1-7); (3) Jes us before H er od (23 :8-12) ; an d (4) Jes us befo re all Israel
(23:13-25). In accordance with his stated goal, Luke presents a more orderh
narrative (1:3), but not necessarily a more historical account.
The case of the Fourth Gospel is even more difficult to decide. While there
is ag re em en t th at Luke knew an d used Mark, the precise relatio nship of
Joh n to the Synoptics is probl ema tica l. Did the Four th Evangelist know o ne
or more of the Synoptics? Was he familiar with the Synoptic tradition? The
majority opinion is that while the Fourth Evangelist ma\ have been
acquainted with the Synoptic tradition, or sources akin to it, he was not
dependent upon it.12 Thus many scholars maintain that the Johannine
passion narrative represents an independent tradition which contains
valuable, historical information.
An example of such information would be the account of the interroga
tion of Jesus before Annas. In itself, the re is no th in g implausibl e about such
a hea ri ng . High p riest from A.D. 6-15 , Annas was a powerful figure. Five of
his sons were appo int ed to the office of high pr ies t after h im, as well as his
son-in4aw, Joseph Caiaphas, who held the office from A.D. 18-36.
Nevertheless, there are some reasons for questioning the historical
reliability of the Annas acco un t as it is na rr at ed by the Four th Evangelist .H
First, the narrative says little about what transpired. What it does sav (Annas
questioned Jesus about his teaching and his disciples) reflects John's
theological concerns in other parts of the Gospel. Second, although the
Fourth Evangelist does not speak of a trial before the Sanhédrin during the
course of Jesus' passion, he describes a scene in 10:22-39 that has many of
the elements found in Mark's account of the trial before the Sanhédrin.
During the Feast of Dedication, while Jesus is in the temple, the Jews gather
round him and demand, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainlv" (10:24). After
12. See D. MoocK Smith, Johannine Christianity: Essays on its Setting, Soiuies, and Theolog)(Columbia: Uni\cisit\ of South Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 95-172.
13. I ha \e deve loped this point in Je su s before Annas: John 18, 13-14, 19 -2 4/ 77 7. 66 (1990),
38-55.
10
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 8/13
The Trial of Jesus
Interpretation
Jesus' res pon se, the Jews pr ep ar e to stone him to dea th. Wh en Jesus asks
why, they answer, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for
blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (10:33). Jesus
retorts, "Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the
world, 'You are blaspheming^ because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'" (10:36).
Here we find three of the elements of the Sanhédrin trial as reported by
Mark: the quest ion of Jes us' Messiahship Jes us' ackno wled gme nt th at he is
the Son of God, an d the cha rge of blasph emy. Later, in J o h n 11:45-53, after
Jesu s raises Lazarus, the ent ire Sanh éd ri n assembles to plot Jes us' de at h
(11 :45-53). Th es e trial motifs in the course of Je sus ' public ministry14
suggest that the Fourth Evangelist understood Jesus' public ministry as the
m o me n t wh en he was on trial before the Jews. Havin g por tra yed Je sus '
ministry as a kind of trial, the Evangelist did not find it necessary to recount
the "Jewish trial" during the passion.
Annas may have played a rol e in the events of Je sus' passion, bu t t he
hearing before Annas, as narrated by the Fourth Evangelist, does not have
a strong claim to historical reliability. It is more likely that the Evangelist
dev elo ped th e Ann as narrative in or de r to provide a new transi tion from the
arrest of Jesus to the trial before Pilate, since he had already described the
"Jewish trial" during the course of Jesus' public ministry.
What then of the Gospel of Mark? Does this narrative represent a histor
ical acco unt of what transp ired ? A nu mb er of scholars argue tha t be hi nd the
Markan passion narrative stands a primitive passion account which dates
from the earliest days of the Je ru sal em communi ty.15
In their view, this ac
count is reliable and historically accurate. In more recent years, however, a
number of exegetes have insisted that Mark the Evangelist had a more active
role in shaping the passion account.16
While these approaches contrast with
one another, they are not irreconcilable. The Markan passion contains
im por ta nt, historical trad ition s abo ut the trial of Jesus , bu t it is the Evangelist
who shaped and formed these traditions in accordance with his theological
purpose.
JESU S AND THE TEMP LE
The four Evangelists testify that Jesus was cruc ified as th e "King of the
Jews ." In ea ch Gospel , Pila te asks Je sus if he is th e "King of the Jews," a nd
14. Two works whic h show the forensic c har act er of J oh n' s Gospe l are A. E. Harvey, Jesus
on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: S.P.C.K., 1976) and Je ro me Neyrey, An Ideologyof Revolt: John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
15. See Joel B. Gre en, The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative,W U N T 2 / 3 3 (Tübing en: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988), and Rudolf Pesch, Das Evangeliumder Urgemeinde: Wiederhergestellt und erläutert, Her der büc her ei 748 (Freiburg: Her der, 1979).
16. An example of this approach is The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14—16, ed. Werner
H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).
11
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 9/13
th e charge on the cross identifies Jesus as the "King of the Jews." While
Christian faith interprets this title as a proclamation of Jesus' Messiahship,
that is no t the way it was un de rs to od by those who crucified him. Th e Roman
charge that Jesus cla imed to be th e "King of the Jews" was equi\ aien t to
saying that he was a polit ical in surgent. Moreover, the fact that Jesus was
crucified between two political rebels (lestes, Mark 15:27) is a further ind i
cation that the Romans viewed Jesus as a revolutionary. Rightlv or wrongh,
then, the Romans crucified Jesus because the\ perceived that he was a rovai
pretender.
But why was Jesus crucified as a political insurgent , and what rel ationship
does this cha rge have with the Markan acc oun t of the trial before the
Sanhédrin? There are, of course, some obvious reasons why others might
have viewed Jesus as a political rebel.17 The coming Kingdom of God was a
central theme of his preaching, and he did, after all, attract large crowds.
The comment of the Fourth Evangelist, after the feeding of the five
thousand, probably reflects how many people viewed Jesus and his ministry.
"Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him b\ force to make
him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself" (John 6:15).
These facts, however, do not sufficiently explain why Jesus was crucified as
the "King of the Jews." The event which forced the issue was more imm edia te
and close at hand: the cleansing of the temple.
In the Synoptic Gospels, the cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark
11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46) occurs after Jesus1
messianic entry into Jerusalem.
Jesus drives out the money changers and proclaims that the temple was
intended as a house of prayer (Isa. 56:7) but has been turned into a den of
thieves (Jer. 7:11). In the Fourth Gospel this incident comes at the beginning
of Jesus' public ministry (John 2:13-22); nonetheless the Fourth Evangelist,
by quoting Psalm 69:9 ("Zeal for thy house will consume me") suggests that
this event will eventually lead to Jesus' death. Moreover, when the Jews ask
Jesus for a sign, he responds, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up" (John 2:19). This statement, of course, is remarkably similar to
the cha rge ma de against Jesus at the trial before the Sanhédrin: "We hea rd
him say, Τ will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days
I will build another, not made with hands1" (Mark 14:58).
There is no agreement about the precise meaning of Jesus' activity within
the temple. Recently, E. P. Sanders has argue d that Jesus did not intend to
purify the temple of trading since such trading was essential to the daily cui tic
functioning of the temple. Sanders writes, "He intended, rather, to indicate
that the end was at hand and that the temple would be destroyed, so that the
new and perfect temple might arise." I s More recently, C. A. Evans has
1 7. O n this qu es tio n see Jesus and the Politics of His Da), ed. E rns t Bam me l a nd ( l.l· .1). Moule
(Cambridge: lTni\ersit\ Press, 1984).
18. E. P. San de rs, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Forti ess Piess, 1985), p. 75.
12
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 10/13
The Trial of JesusIntel pretation
criticized Sand ers 's rec onst ruc tio n. Accord ing to Evans, Jes us' tem ple
behavior was directed against the abuses of the temple, which probablystemmed from greed and corruption among the ruling priests, especially the
family of Annas.19 In either case, it is clear that Jesus' behavior in the temple
presented a challenge to the temple leadership, especially the chief priests.
The te mple , after all, was the seat of political an d relig ious author ity . T o
cha lle nge it was to challenge the political and religious auth orit y of t he
nation.
A story from th e Jewish hi stor ian Jo se ph us is helpful a t this point. In The Jewish War, Jo se ph us relates how a certa in Jesus, son of Anania s, a ru de
peasant, threatened the temple four years before the outbreak of the Jewishwar with Rome. About A.D. 62 this Jesus stood in the temple and cried out,
"A voice from the east, a voice from th e west, a voice from the four winds;
a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary; a voice against the bridegroom
and the br ide, a voice against the pe op le " (VI, 301 ). Eventually some lead ing
citizens arrested this Jesus and chastised him, but when he persisted in his
threats against the city and temple, the rulers brought him to the Roman
prefect, Albinus, who had him scourged.
This incident from Josephus is instructive in two ways. First, it demon
strates that one could not consistently challenge the temple, even verbally,with impunity. Second, it points to the political ties between the ruling
authorities and the Roman prefect. Although the religious leaders may have
resented the presence of the Romans, they maintained a necessary working
relationship with them.20
At the time of Jesus' ministry, the high priest was appointed by the Roman
prefect and, at times, by the legate of Syria. Annas, for example, was installed
as high priest by the Syrian legate Quirinius and deposed by the Roman
prefect Valerius Gratus. It is clear then that a good working relationship was
to the mutual benefit of both high priest and prefect. That Caiaphas held theoffice of hig h prie st for near ly ei gh te en years, an d tha t the Ro ma n prefects
ap po in te d several hig h priest s from t he family of Ann as, suggest tha t t he re
was a workable relationship between the family of Annas and the various
Ro ma n prefect s. As the tragic events of the Jewish War (A.D. 66-70) attest,
such a relationship was essential for the political stability without which the
high priest and chief priests could hardly hope to maintain their authority.
The appearance of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem and his behavior in the
temple must have posed a crisis for the religious leaders. They were surely
aware, in some gen eral way, of Jes us' Galilean ministry: his pr ea ch in g ab ou t
19. Craig A. Evans, "Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?"CBQÒI (1989), 237-70.
20. On this point see E. Mary Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine," JThSt 13 (1962), 14-34.
13
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 11/13
the kingdom, the crowds he attracted, his interpretation of the Law, his
beh av ior o n th e Sab bat h, an d his association with sinner s. As lon g as Jesus
remained in Galilee, he did not pose an immediate threat to their authority.
Jesu s' dr amat ic entry into Jerusalem,21 however, and his behavior in the
temple was another matter. Such behavior, given Jesus' proclamation of the
kingdom, could easily be construed as an implicit claim to be a messianic
figure. If the religious lead ers perceive d tha t Jesus claimed such authori ty,
it was their obligation, as well as to their benefit, to report him to Pilate. The
re ma rk of Gaiapha s in J o h n 11:49-50 is ap ro pos, "You know not hi ng at all;
you do not un de rs ta nd that it is exp ed ie nt for you that one man sho uld die
for the peop le , an d that the whole natio n should not perish." While t he
Fourth Evangelist clearly understands this remark in an ironic fashion—
Jesus will die for the sake (hyper) of the people—it also expresses the political
reality: Rome would not tolerate a political claimant. From the point of view
of the religious leaders, claimants of royal authority were a danger to the
nat ion ; their activity coul d only bri ng Ro man ret rib ution.
T H E TRIAL OF JES US OF NAZARE TH: PROPOS ALS
On t he basis of what we have said thus far, I make the following propo sals
for understanding the trial of Jesus. First, from the point of view of the chief
priests, Jesus of Nazareth posed an unacceptable threat to the temple andso to the ir author ity . Gonsequen tly , with the assistance of Ju da s, they
arrested him.
Second, the Gospel of Mark is probably correct when it reports that the
prin cipa l accusa tion against Jesus was that he thr ea te ne d to destroy th e
temple. Obviously Mark the Evangelist viewed this as false. Although he and
the other Synoptic writers report that Jesus predicted that the temple would
be des tro yed (Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luk e 21:6), they do not ac cep t the
cha rge t hat Jes us threa te ne d to destroy the tem ple . Again, the Cospel of
J o h n is helpful. W he n Jes us says, "Destroy this templ e, and in three days Iwill raise it up" (2:19), the Evangelist comments, "But he spoke of the temple
of his body" (John 2:21). This interpretation of Jesus' statement may suggest
that some understood this and similar remarks of Jesus as a threat that he
would destroy the temple.
Third, the accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple probabh
led to the ques tion of his Mess iahsh ip, even if ther e was no exp ec tat ion that
the Messiah would cleanse or destroy the te mple . By cleans ing the tem ple
and teaching within its precincts, Jesus implicitly claimed authority. That the
central theme of his teaching was the Kingdom of God might easily have ledothers to interpret that authority as a messianic claim. The phrasing of the
21. I am n ot ex cl udi ng th e possibilitv that Jes us ma de several visits to Je rus al em as re po rt ed
b\ the Fourth Gospel.
14
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 12/13
The Trial of JesusInterpretation
high priest's question in the Gospel of Mark, "Are you the Christ, the Son
of the Blessed?" (14:61) clearly reflects Markan theological concerns: Jesusis the Son of God. Nevertheless, the essential content is probably correct.
The high priest asked if Jesus, by his temple activity, was making a messianic
claim.
Fourth, Jes us' "trial" befor e th e Sa nh éd ri n was proba bly mor e of an
informal hearing before the high priest and some of the chief priests rather
than a formal trial before the entire Sanhédrin as reported by Matthew and
Mark. The primary purpose of this interrogation would have been to
ascertain the nature of Jesus' temple activity in order to determine if he
should be brought to Pilate. It seems unlikely and unnecessary that the chief priests would bring Jesus before the entire Sanhédrin for such a purpose.
Consequently, it is more accurate to speak of a single trial: the trial of Jesus
before Pilate.
Fifth, the Markan and Matthean descriptions of this hearing as a formal
trial before the Sanh éd ri n at which J esus was co nd em ne d to dea th because
of blasphemy owes more to the theological purpose of the Evangelists than
to historical fact. The Evangelists knew that Jesus had been crucified as the
"King of the Jews" and that his prophetic behavior in the temple played a
prominent role in this. The description of a formal trial with the charge of blasphemy and the condemnation of Jesus enabled the Evangelists to blame
the Jewish Sanhédrin of maliciously rejecting God's messianic Son. In the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke this blame is extended further so that it falls
upon the whole people (laos) of Israel.
Sixth, after an informa l h ea ring which deal t with Jes us' behavior in th e
temple, the chief priests delivered him to Pilate because they viewed him as
a messianic pre te nd er : t he "King of the Jews." Alt hou gh it is tempt in g to
speculate about the motives of the religious leaders, it is probably best not
to do so. Motives are rarely pure, and they are usually mixed. If some of thereligious leaders thought they were doing what was best for the nation,
oth ers un do ubt ed ly saw this occasion as a con ven ien t way to eliminate the
troublesome prophet from Galilee.
Seventh, the Gospels portray Pilate as so meon e con vinced of Jes us'
innocence. Given the gospel apologetic against the Jews, it is more likely that
the Roman prefect played a more aggressive role in the trial of Jesus and was
eventually convinced that Jesus posed a political threat. Consequently, Pilate
co nd em ne d Jesus to deat h as a messianic prete nde r, a political insurge nt,
th e "King of th e Jews."
RESPONSIBILITY FOR TH E DE AT H OF JE SUS
Who was responsible for Jesus' death? The Romans? The Jews? The chief
priests? Pontius Pilate? From this investigation it should be clear that
15
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/27/2019 1991 - Frank M. Matera - The Trial of Jesus. Problems and Proposals
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1991-frank-m-matera-the-trial-of-jesus-problems-and-proposals 13/13
responsibility for the dea th of Jesu s ca nn ot be attri but ed to the historic peo
ple of Israel any more than it can be attributed to the historic people of
Rome. Those primarily responsible for the death of Jesus are Pontius Pilate
an d th e chief priests, which is mo re or less wha t Jo se ph us savs in the famouspassage on Je sus in Book 18 of The Jervis h Antiquities.-1
As the Roman prefect, Pilate, and only Pilate, had the legal authority to
inflict the Ro ma n penalty of crucifixion. Jes us was crucified u nd er Ro man
lawr
by a distinctly Roman form of punishment. Therefore, it is inaccurate to
say tha t th e Jews crucified Jesus. The chief priests, neve rtheless, played an
essential role . It was they who first per ceived Jesus, bec ause of his t emple
behavior, to be a messianic claimant. After an informal interrogation, thev
brought him to Pilate as a royal claimant.
Th os e who believed in Jesus , however, un de rs to od the mea ni ng of his
ministry. Th e politica l cha rge "King of the Jews" was soon und er st oo d in its
deepest, religious sense: "King oflsrael," "Messiah," "Son of God." In one of
the great ironies of history, the false charges leveled against Jesus took on
an unexpected meaning. For those who believed, the death of Jesus marked
the end of the old temple cult. Those who believed in Jesus understood that
with his death God raised up a new temple, a temple not made by hands: the
co mm un it y of those who believe in Jes us. It was for this new templ e, the
ch ur ch , that Jesu s died (Eph . 5:25).
22 . "And when Pilate, on the indict men t of the principal me n am on g us. had co nd em ne d
him to the cross. . ." (AJ 18, 64). On this text see, John P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest
Proposal ," CBQ 52 (1990), 76-103.
16
by guest on January 28, 2013int.sagepub.comDownloaded from