Trial History

While the evangelists disagree as to whether Jesus had a trial before the Sanhedrin or merely an interrogation before the high priest, at night or in the morning or both, they all agree that the Jewish authorities brought him before Pontius Pilate. Another point of agreement is that the charges against Jesus before the Jewish authorities were religious in nature: threats against the Temple, claims of messiahship, questions about his disciples and teachings. But Pilate is only concerned with the answer to a political question: “Are you the King of the Jews?”

Pilate’s question seems to come out of the blue in each of the gospels. Jesus never referred to himself that way. Yet “King of the Jews” is the charge all four evangelists tell us was written on the titulus that hung above Jesus’ head on the cross. Since it is highly unlikely there were any eyewitnesses at the trial before Pilate, the Passion tradition may have simply projected the charge on the cross back into the Roman trial as a question Pilate posed to Jesus.

How Involved Were the Jewish Authorities?

And thus we come to the delicate question of what role did the Jewish authorities of the time play in the crucifixion of Jesus. There are four basic views:

1. The Jewish authorities were the prime movers in Jesus’ arrest, trial and sentencing.
2. Although the Jewish authorities were involved, all main legal formalities were carried out by the Romans.
3. The Romans were the prime movers and were assisted by collaborators among the Jewish authorities.
4. The Jewish authorities were not involved in any way and references to such in the NT were due to anti-Jewish polemics.

There is certainly anti-Jewish polemic at work in the gospels (Matthew and John, especially), but in 1 Thess 2:14-15 Paul refers to “the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets.” Written about 20 years after Jesus’ death, it attests to an early belief in the complicity of the Jewish authorities. Involvement by the Jewish authorities cannot be a complete fabrication.

The opposite extreme that the Jewish authorities were solely to blame must also be excluded. While the evidence suggests that there was some Jewish involvement, Matthew intensified this by having Pilate theatrically wash his hands of the matter with the crowd shouting, “His blood be on us an on our children!” (Mt 27-24-25) That single line of Scripture has done more to embitter relations between Jews and Christians than any other.

This leaves us with the second and third views as historical possibilities. The difference between them comes down to the degree of Jewish involvement and motive. Were the Jewish authorities anxious to eliminate Jesus or were they tools of the Romans? Were the charges against Jesus religiously or politically motivated?

Historical Possibilities

There does seem to be evidence of collaboration between the high priests and the Romans. Joseph Caiaphas, for example, held the office of high priest for eighteen years, the longest term of office in the century between Herod the Great and the fall of Jerusalem. For ten of those years, he served under Pontius Pilate, so they were obviously able to work together for an extended period of time. And, when Pilate was finally removed from office, Caiaphas was deposed as well.

With respect to motive, there may not have been much difference between a religious charge that Jesus claimed to be the messiah and a political charge that he claimed to be the King of the Jews. Either Pilate or the chief priests could have seen Jesus as a disturbance to the peace during the important religious festival of Passover when Jerusalem was thronged with pilgrims. Actions such as a triumphal entry into Jerusalem or halting activities in the Temple could have been viewed as politically provocative.

My personal feeling is that Jesus’ appearance before the high priest was a preliminary interrogation (as in John) rather than a full-blown trial before the Sanhedrin (as in Mark/Matthew). It seems a foregone conclusion that he would be delivered to Pilate. Whether Pilate thought Jesus was a dangerous revolutionary who needed to be crucified or simply someone he wanted out of the way until after Passover, we can’t really say, but the most plausible explanation to me is that Pilate asked Caiaphas to see to it that Jesus was handed over to his custody. Caiaphas then leaned on Judas to arrange a time and place when Jesus could be arrested away from the crowds.

The Innocence Project

The four gospels tell us that Pilate found Jesus innocent and was pressured into the death sentence by the chief priests. Such a forthright and weak-kneed Pilate does not sound like the obstinate and harsh figure described by historians Josephus and Philo. The evangelists had more reason to portray Pilate in a favorable light than the historians had to blacken his reputation because the evangelists wanted Christians to know that even though Jesus was convicted of a Roman capital crime, he was blameless of such a charge. Having the Roman governor state that he though Jesus was innocent furthered that goal.

Ecce Homo (1871) by religious artist Antonio Ciseri portrays the moment in John's Gospel when Pilate presents Jesus to the crowd saying, "Behold the man!" Unlike the other gospels when Jesus is only scourged after his sentence to be crucified, John's Pilate orders him flogged first thinking that would be enough to satisfy the crowd and win him sympathy.

One aspect of the trial that all four evangelists agree upon is that Pilate recognized a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover. He offers to free either Jesus or Barabbas, a man who had – according to Mark – committed murder during an insurrection, and the crowd chose Barabbas. (The Gospel of John simply refers to him as a “bandit.”)

Many scholars have questioned the historicity of the account. Certainly, it is highly unlikely that Pilate would have released a known murderer or insurrectionist, but it is possible that he would be willing to release a simple robber before Passover if there was a custom of a paschal pardon. Had this occurred immediately prior to Jesus’ crucifixion, the two events could have been conflated at an early date in the Passion tradition into a dramatic scene where Pilate presents the guilty Barabbas and the innocent Jesus and the crowd chooses Barabbas.

Other scenes are pure creation of the evangelists to emphasize the innocence of Jesus. Through his passion narrative, Matthew has a running theme of “innocent blood.” In addition to the aforementioned episode of Pilate washing his hands, after betraying Jesus, Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver he was paid, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Mt 27:4). While Pilate deliberates on what to do with Jesus, his wife sends word, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man” (Mt 27:19).

Luke adds a scene (23:6-12) where, upon learning that Jesus is from Galilee, Pilate sends him to Herod Antipas only to have Herod send him back. But the net effect was that Herod and Pilate became friends from that day on; Jesus has a healing influence even over his enemies.

All sides agree that the cause of Jesus’ death was Roman crucifixion, which means that highest Roman authority in Judea found Jesus guilty of a capital crime and had him executed in the most brutal and shameful way possible, a form of death reserved for only the very worst criminals. The first Christians had to explain to their fellow Jews and Roman citizens that this disgraced figure was actually the messiah and the Son of God. It took decades before the first Christians were able to find meaning in death on a cross. It would have been counterproductive for the apostles to invent such a story if it didn’t really happen.