Was Jesus the Victim of Roman Politics?

Last week PBS premiered “The Last Days of Jesus”, a 2-hour documentary examining how Roman power politics may have resulted in Jesus’ crucifixion. According to the credits, the program was based in part on The Lost Gospel by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson. Jacobovici contributed to many programs on The History Channel related to archaeology and the Bible either as host, director, or producer. Perhaps he is best-known for “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”, a 2007 Discovery Channel documentary in which he claims that a tomb found in 1980 was Jesus’ family tomb.

Having previously watched a couple of television programs Jacobovici has been associated with, let’s just say that I approached this latest one with a wary eye.

Plot Holes in the Passion Narrative

The program does raise some valid questions about the coherence and plausibility of the gospels’ recounting of the last days of Jesus in Jerusalem, from Palm Sunday to Good Friday. According to the gospels, Jesus entered Jerusalem amid people waving palm fronds and shouts of “hosanna.” He proceeded to the Temple where he overthrew the tables of the moneychangers. A few days later, he gathered with his disciples for the Last Supper, after which Judas betrayed him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He was brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin and then delivered to Pontius Pilate. Pilate was reluctant to order his execution and offered to release either Jesus or Barabbas. The crowd chose Barabbas and Jesus was condemned to death.

But anyone familiar with the historical background will notice holes in the plot. Pilate’s job was to maintain order in Judea. Any threat to Roman rule or the status quo would be met with a swift and brutal response. Interrupting operations in the Temple was a challenge to the status quo and Pilate would have no choice but to respond. Once Jesus was brought before him, condemning him to death would have been automatic.

Therefore, why wasn’t Jesus arrested on the spot for causing a disturbance in the Temple? Why would one of his most-trusted disciples betray him days later? Why was Pilate vacillating over ordering Jesus’ execution? And why, when Pilate offered to free Jesus, did the crowds that welcomed Jesus as king only a few days earlier turn against him and ask for Barabbas?

Herod’s Plan

According to “The Last Day of Jesus”, the answer to those questions can be found by looking at the political players involved, namely Herod Antipas and Lucius Aelius Sejanus. What follows is the argument from the program, not my own.

Antipas was tetrarch (“ruler of a quarter”) of Galilee and Perea, two small territories that fell within the larger kingdom of Judea that had been ruled by his father, Herod the Great. Antipas resented his diminished power and tried unsuccessfully to reclaim his father’s kingdom. He thought he had a supporter in Sejanus, ambitious prefect of the Praetorian Guard who had become the most powerful man in Rome, serving as administrator to the emperor Tiberius. Antipas had worked out an agreement with Sejanus – if he could pacify Judea, Sejanus would reward him by making him king.

Antipas saw Jesus as the means to accomplish the pacification of Judea. Jesus wanted to overthrow the unpopular priestly ruling class – the Sadducees – and replace them with his own disciples. Being closer to the people than the aristocratic Sadducees, Jesus and his disciples would encourage the Jews to follow Roman law and pay their taxes. His insistence on non-violence would dampen plans for insurrections.

To support and guide the Jesus movement, Herod Antipas covertly financed it and embedded his confidants within the organization. Joanna (Lk 8:3), the wife of Herod’s steward (the program refers to the steward as Herod’s “chief of staff”), was one of Jesus’ financial backers. Manaen (Acts 13:1), who had been brought up with Herod, was one of the leaders of the church in Antioch.

According to the theory proposed by the documentary, Jesus was not immediately arrested in the Temple court because the Roman troops present to prevent such a disturbance were told to stand down. As prefect of the Roman province of Judea, Pilate was in charge of the Roman troops and Pilate had been appointed to his position by Sejanus. The conspiracy between Sejanus and Antipas required that Jesus be allowed to challenge the priestly aristocracy, so Pilate was given orders not to interfere when Jesus halted commercial transactions in the Temple precincts.

What Went Wrong with the Plan?

On 18 October 31 CE, Sejanus was denounced for treason by Tiberius and executed. Disturbed by Sejanus’ anti-semitic policies, Tiberius released an edict the following year charging Roman procurators with not disturbing Jewish customs and reserving punishments for those guilty of breaking Roman laws.

Anyone associated with Sejanus – such as Antipas or Pilate – would have their loyalties questioned. They needed to put distance between themselves and Sejanus. In light of Tiberius’ edict Pilate, in particular, would need to suspend the brutal tactics he had previously used to control the Jewish populace.

With the downfall of Sejanus, any previous protection given to Jesus and his disciples evaporated and they were forced into hiding. This gave the High Priest Caiaphas and the Sadducees their opportunity to arrest Jesus for sedition and compel Pilate to either order his execution or be denounced as an enemy of Caesar.

Holy Week Lasts a Lot Longer

But these rapid changes in fortune could not have happened within the span of a few days. Mention of the crowds welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem while waving palm fronds suggest this occurred in the fall, around the time of the festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles), because palm leaves are a symbol of Sukkot as much as pumpkins are associated with Halloween. Palm leaves simply wouldn’t be readily available for the crowds’ use in the spring, around the time of Passover.

If Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his cleansing of the Temple took place at Sukkot in October 31, he was then under Sejanus’ protection and would not be arrested. But after news reached Jerusalem of Sejanus’ downfall, he would have been forced into hiding. For months Jesus waited for the situation to settle down, keeping a low profile and trying to decide what to do next.

Jesus and the money changers. A scene from “The Last Days of Jesus” (produced by Blink Films, Associated Producers Ltd., PBS, Channel Five Televison, LTD., SBS Television Australia and ZoomerMedia Limited.)

The program speculates that the Last Supper was a strategy session among Jesus and his disciples to determine the best course of action. Judas – described as a Zealot, a violent revolutionary – disagreed with Jesus’ collaboration with the hated Roman rulers and Herod Antipas, their puppet. As long as they could achieve their aims of revolution Judas was willing to go along with the plan, but after six month in hiding with nothing to show for it, he was disgusted with Jesus’ inactivity and willing to betray him.

When Jesus was brought before him, Pilate was faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, Jesus had challenged Roman order and could be executed for sedition. On the other hand, Pilate did not want to cause a riot among Jesus’ supporters. If a riot broke out, his measures to restore order would risk violating Tiberius’ edict.

Pilate offered the crowd the choice between Jesus and Barabbas. The crowds chose Barabbas because, much like Judas, they had become disenchanted with Jesus during his months in hiding. With no riot to fear and wanting to demonstrate his loyalty to Tiberius, Pilate ordered Jesus’ crucifixion.

It’s All About Timing

The power play theory proposed by Jacobovici  and Wilson seems to explain a lot of the logical gaps in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ last days. But is their theory plausible?

Timing is the key. The theory requires a period of months between Jesus’ “cleansing” of the Temple and his arrest and crucifixion. It also requires that his arrest take place after the downfall of Sejanus in October 31 CE. If either of those two postulates don’t hold up, the entire edifice collapses.

All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. According to John’s gospel, both the Sabbath and Passover began at sundown on the day of his crucifixion. But the Synoptic Gospels claim that Jesus celebrated Passover at the Last Supper. That means that Passover began at sundown on Thursday. Biblical scholars think John’s chronology is right because it is implausible that the Sanhedrin would have a night trial of Jesus on the first day of Passover. The only years during Pilate’s administration when Passover began on a Friday were 30 and 33 CE. 31 CE might be possible if the Synoptic chronology is correct, but 32 CE is ruled out either way.

The power play theory requires that Jesus’ triumphal entry to Jerusalem occurred in the fall, at Sukkot, before the execution of Sejanus in October 31 CE became known. The theory also needs Jesus to be in hiding for a period of several months before being arrested and executed. Therefore, the Passover of 32 CE would be the logical time for his crucifixion according to the theory. But that is the one year when astronomy tells us that Jesus could not have been crucified because Passover did not fall on either a Thursday or Friday. A date of 33 CE would require that Jesus remained in hiding and eluded capture for 18 months and doesn’t seem plausible.

Palm Sunday in October?

While it is possible that Jesus’ Jerusalem entry took place at Sukkot, the only evidence supporting this hypothesis is the mention of the crowd waving palm branches (John 12:12-13).  But the specificity of palm branches only appears in John’s gospel. Mark and Matthew refer simply to generic branches cut from the trees and Luke doesn’t mention branches at all.

The symbolism of palm branches are not exclusive to Sukkot and the fall season. For proof, we need only look at 1 Macc 13:51. The Maccabees are described as entering Jerusalem amid shouts of praise and the waving of palm branches – just like Jesus – and we are told this happened on the 23rd day of the 2nd month (3 June 141 BCE), decidedly not around the festival of Sukkot.

If the detail of palm branches was added by John, maybe as an allusion to the event in Maccabees, then there is no necessity that Jesus’ triumphal entry occurred at Sukkot. Even if the detail is historical, that alone is not enough to prove it occurred at Sukkot, as the passage from Maccabees illustrates. Without the link to Sukkot, Jesus could have entered Jerusalem a few days before Passover just as the gospels recount.

Regime Change has Consequences

Timing is enough to sink the theory, but even if that issue could be tweaked, the central premise of the Roman conspiracy plot doesn’t make much sense. What would Sejanus stand to gain by supporting Herod’s efforts to have Jesus foment a popular uprising that threw out the Sadducees? A trusted man keeping order in Judea? Temple authorities who owe their power to Rome? He already had that with Pilate and Caiaphas!

Pilate was Sejanus’ choice to run Judea and Caiaphas served as high priest under the sufferance of Pilate. Caiaphas served from 18-36 CE, longer than any other high priest in that period, so he must have been able to work well with the Roman prefects. Pilate served as prefect of Judea for 10 years before he was deposed in 36 CE after complaints of his harsh handling of a Samaritan uprising. Either would have been replaced if they were unable to maintain order in the province. The program does not explain why the situation was so bad that Sejanus and Antipas would support Jesus’ efforts to overthrow the Sadducees, but not take the obvious step of replacing Pilate and/or Caiaphas.

In fact, the whole scheme sounds rather risky. Revolution and regime change have unintended consequences. Replacing the ruling aristocracy with Jesus and his crew could have caused more unrest in Jerusalem, the opposite of what Rome wanted. Certainly not all Jews would welcome a rabbi like Jesus with unorthodox ideas about the Mosaic Law. Herod should also have known from his experience with John the Baptist that holy men with large followings pose a risk of rebellion. Even if he made a deal with Jesus, how could he be sure that Jesus wouldn’t turn the people against him at some future date?

Alternate Explanations

Certainly, the disruption in the Temple precincts sounds like something that would have caused Jesus to be arrested on-the-spot by the Temple guards, if not the Roman guards. If Jesus were surrounded by large crowds of supporters, a public arrest could have triggered a riot and Caiaphas may have had a standing agreement with Pilate to make such arrests quietly and hand over the guilty party to the Romans for punishment. This would explain the gospel references to the “chief priests and scribes” seeking for a way to kill him (Mk 11:18) and Jesus asking at his arrest why he wasn’t seized while preaching in the Temple every day (Mk 14:49).

The indecisiveness on the part of Pilate could be a creation of the evangelists. Writing 40-60 years after the crucifixion to an audience who knew that Jesus was executed as a criminal, there would be an understandable desire on the part of the gospel writers to demonstrate that Pilate didn’t really want to condemn Jesus but was forced to do it by the Jewish authorities who were threatened by him. Jesus was an innocent man, convicted on false evidence.

I give the authors some credit for looking beyond the gospels to historical events known from ancient authors like Josephus and Philo. While ancient writers have their own motivations and are not always objective chroniclers of history, at least they give us more context than relying solely on what the evangelists tell us. Ultimately, however, I find their power play theory unconvincing.

If you have a question about the power play theory or events associated with the last days of Jesus, please leave a comment below.

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.

Incidents and Accidents, Hints and Allegations

With the Last Supper now over, the passion narrative in the Gospel of John begins to align with the Synoptic Gospels as Jesus takes his disciples to a spot on the Mount of Olives. Mark (14:32) identifies the location as Gethsemane (from the Hebrew name for “oil-press”) and John (18:1) calls it a garden, but Luke (22:39) identifies it as their customary place on the Mount of Olives. Most likely it was an olive garden. John (18:2) agrees that the spot was well-known to Judas as a place where Jesus often met with his disciples.

The Agony in the Garden

While the Fourth Gospel proceeds directly to the arrest, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus retreat a distance from his disciples to pray to his Father to “remove the cup” of suffering he is about to undergo. After this, according to Mark and Matthew, Jesus returns to the disciples three separate times only to find them sleeping. Luke puts the disciples in a better light by having Jesus return only once to find the disciples sleeping. Not only that, but he provides “sorrow” (22:45) as the reason for their slumber, although insomnia would seem to be a more common condition for someone in that state.

Christ in Gethsemane (1886) by Heinrich Hofmann. This painting has been reproduced countless times in kitschy religious art.

The familiar term “agony in the garden” comes from Luke 22:43-44 in which God answers Jesus’ prayer by sending an angel to strengthen him and “in his agony” his sweat fell to the ground like drops of blood. These verses are missing from several of the oldest manuscripts of Luke and are bracketed in many modern English translations. NT scholars are divided on whether these verse are original to Luke or were added later.

In this context, “agony” does not have the connotation of extreme pain. Instead it refers to the moment of tension of an athlete poised at the starting line, sweat beginning to break out. In this case, Jesus is tense as he is about to begin his trial. Although a common understanding is that Jesus’ sweated blood, the verse only says that his sweat dripped like blood.

The Arrest

At this point in Mark (14:43-52), Judas arrives with a crowd to arrest Jesus. Judas tells them that they are to arrest the man that he identifies with a kiss. Someone draws and sword and severs the ear of the high priest’s slave and all the disciples flee, including a lightly-clad young man who left his linen cloth behind to run away naked.

Matthew (26:47-56) is mostly faithful to Mark. He clarifies that the person who severed the ear of the slave was one of the disciples and Jesus urged him to sheathe his sword “for all who take up the sword will perish by it.” The call to sheathe the sword matches John (18:10-11) and John identifies the sword wielder as Peter and the servant as Malchus.

The Taking of Christ (c. 1602) by Caravaggio

Luke’s account of the arrest (22:47-53) abbreviates Mark so much that his narrative is close to being nonsensical. Judas approaches Jesus to kiss him without any explanation. The disciples ask if they are to use the swords in their possession and, before Jesus can answer, attack the high priest’s slave. Only in Luke, however, does Jesus heal the ear of the slave. Along with Matthew, Luke deletes the strange reference to the naked young man. Indeed, because of the high esteem in which he holds the disciples, Luke eliminates any reference to them fleeing.

In John’s brief account of the arrest (18:2-12), Jesus identifies himself (“I am”) rather than have Judas identify him and submits to arrest as long as the other disciples are free to go. The Johannine Jesus is in complete control of events.

Interrogation and Denials

After the arrest, the evangelists differ on the details of what happened next. According to Mark (14:53-65), Jesus was led to the high priest and assembled members of the Jewish council (Sanhedrin) for a night trial where witnesses were presented and Jesus was convicted of blasphemy and condemned to death. This is followed by abuse and mockery. While this is going on, Peter is in the courtyard denying and cursing Jesus (14:66-72). Matthew (26:57-75) agrees with Mark, but notes the name of the high priest was Caiaphas.

In John (18:13-27), Jesus is brought to a high priest, but in this case it is Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. John has Annas interrogate Jesus before sending him on to Caiaphas for transfer to Pilate. The abuse is limited to Jesus being struck by a guard for being less than deferential to the high priest. While Jesus is being passed back and forth, the Beloved Disciple was able to get Peter into the courtyard where he three times denied that he was either a disciple or present at Jesus’ arrest.

Christ before Caiaphas (c. 1630) by Matthias Stom. Great use of light in this one.

Luke (22:54-71) splits the difference. Just as in the other gospels, Peter follows Jesus to the courtyard of the high priest, but the Sanhedrin doesn’t gather until morning. Sitting around the fire with others, Peter denies he knows Jesus, denies he is one of the disciples, and even denies being a Galilean. As the cock crows, Jesus – who apparently was also in the courtyard all this time – turns to look at him and Peter remembers the prophecy. Jesus is also mocked and beaten before any sort of hearing. Luke’s account of the Sanhedrin hearing is different in that no witnesses are presented and there was no mention of the charge of blasphemy or passing of a death sentence. It is more like Annas' interrogation in John.

The differing details have caused NT scholars to debate which version of events are most likely to be historical. Was Jesus convicted by the Sanhedrin after a trial or did he only have a preliminary interrogation before being delivered to Pilate? In other words, how big a role did the Jewish authorities play in the execution of Jesus? We’ll discuss this more next week when we get to Jesus’ trial before Pilate.

These three scenes would have had special importance for the early Christians. Although Mark has Jesus prostrate on the ground praying that “the hour might pass” from him, he did accede to the Father’s will. Some of the disciples tried to resist his arrest with a sword, but Jesus accepted his fate “so that Scripture might be fulfilled.” Peter may have committed the worst sin in the early Church, that of renouncing Jesus, but he would regain his faith and become the head of the Church. The example of Jesus taught the early Christians the proper way to respond when faced with persecutions and death. Peter taught them that even if they failed, redemption was still possible.