SECTION II Chapter 7 - Events leading up to the Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Passover in Jerusalem Jesus came to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, the most important Jewish festival. It was the duty of every pious Jew, beginning at age twelve, to observe Passover "in the place where the Lord shall choose" (Deuteronomy 16:2). The historian Josephus wrote that millions (he estimated three million people one year--obviously an exaggeration) of observant Jews thronged into Jerusalem during the week of Passover. The Romans typically reinforced their stationed troops during this time, to handle any riots that might take place. The Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem All four gospels write of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem as the prophesized Messiah. Per Mark and Luke's account, Jesus arrives on one colt (Mark 11:1-10, Luke 19:28-40); According to Matthew, Jesus rides in on both a colt AND a donkey (Matthew 21:1-11); Per John, Jesus rides in on a donkey (ie, an "ass's colt" John 12:15) Jesus is popularly proclaimed by the people to be the Messiah who would restore Israel to its former glory during the time of King David: 'Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna in the highest! (Mark 11:10;Luke 2:13-14) Here is one of the rare times that the Jews are depicted in a favorable light. (This report is quite likely from an earlier tradition of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem.) The Purging at the Temple All three of the synoptic gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) depict Jesus' arrest as occurring only a matter of days after his purging of the Temple. Jesus is said to have been angry at arriving at the Temple only to find that the money exchangers and traders had corrupted it. According to Mark, Jesus says: "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations?" (Mark 11:17, see also John 2:15-7). The Sadducees did use the Temple for both business and spiritual matters-- At least some of the business activities were performed as a normal source of the Temple's operations.-- Money exchanging was a necessary service for religious pilgrims who would want to purchase animals for the offering of sacrifices in the Temple. Because pilgrims came from many areas to worship, exchanging services were also necessary to convert their local currency into those of the Temple's standard coinage-- thus insuring that no coinage bearing offensive pagan inscriptions would be brought into the Temple itself. For Jesus to have become angry at money-exchanging activities, they would have had to have engaged in activities BEYOND the normal operations of the Temple. Some scholars have questioned Jesus' real purpose in upsetting the money changers and vendors. After all, Jesus' actions were only a SYMBOLIC gesture--as business quickly resumed to normal. Jesus was arrested shortly thereafter. If Jesus had TRULY found the Temple to be an evil institution, then we would not have expected his apostles to have continued worshipping in the Temple and offering sacrifices after Jesus' crucifixion.(see Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:12,42;21:23-7) Jesus' Arrest: The Charge-- "Threatening to Destroy the Temple" The implication in the gospels is that it was a RELIGIOUS crime for the Jews to speak of the destruction of the Temple. Jesus was arrested after witnesses falsified that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple and to rebuild it in three days. (Mark adds "not with hands") (Mark 14:57-60, Matthew 26:60-2). Yet Jewish writings are replete with examples of prophets who spoke of the destruction of the Temple, but who were NOT arrested by the authorities. Thus to prophecise the destruction of the Temple does not appear to have been purely a religious crime. Some scholars have suggested another possible motive by Jesus and one that would explain why Jesus purged the Temple. To quote Paula Fredriksen, " Overturned tables symbolize not purification but destruction. Through this disruptive gesture, Jesus symbolically enacted the impending APOCALYPTIC destruction of the Temple." (from JESUS TO CHRIST P 112-3) That is, the new Age would be inaugurated only upon the destruction of the Temple. The purging of the Temple went a step beyond mere prophesizing Temple's destruction. For it was likely perceived by the Sadduccean/Roman authorities as stirring up the people into possible revolutionary activity against Rome. The gospels tell how when "the chief priests and the scribes heard [of the cleansing of the Temple] they sought a way to destroy [Jesus]; for they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching." (Mark 11:18). This is consistent with what we have already seen--That is, Jesus would have been very popular with the majority of the people, who were generally suspicious of their Sadduccean leaders. For the Sadduccean leaders were commonly seen as compromising with the hated Romans in the collection of taxes and maintenance of law and order. This event would help explain why Jesus had incurred the mortal hatred of the Sadduccean leaders. He was directly attacking their authority in the Temple (and a profitable source of income as well). They would react strongly to a figure that was rousing the "rabble" against the legitimacy of their rule. This political angle is completely missing from the SYNOPTIC gospels. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus' purging of the Temple is presented chronologically just before Jesus' arrest--ie at the close of Jesus' ministry on earth. In the gospel of John, however, the purging occurs at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. (Per John only, Jesus visits Jerusalem several times.) Interestingly, in the gospel of John, there is one allusion to Jewish revolutionary unrest-- In the following passage in John, the Jewish high priest Caiaphas worries that if Jesus' miraculous activities are allowed to go unchecked, then the Romans will come in and destroy them: "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."(John 11:47-48) John's reference is to Jewish reaction to Jesus' MIRACLES-- NOT to the charge at his trial. However, because the gospel of John has also placed the chronology of the Temple purging at the BEGINNING of Jesus' ministry (as opposed to the synoptic gospels which place this at the END) the Temple cleansing as presented by John is now clearly disassociated with the reasons for his arrest. Was Jesus Arrested for Revolutionary Activity? In the general background of seething unrest and hatred of the Romans, it would be natural for the Jewish authorities to have interrogated Jesus for his purging of the Temple. Some scholars have taken this a step further -- arguing that possibly Jesus and his disciples were involved in ACTUAL revolutionary activity. For example, the following biblical verses (possibly taken from earlier Jewish Christian texts used by the gospel writers) appear to have some allusions to revolutionary activity: *"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35) *"If any one would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34, see Luke 9:23) *"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23) *"Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head". (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58) *"Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:60) *"No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:62) *"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." (Mark 13:30) According to Luke, the disciples of Jesus carried swords (see Luke 22:35-38) (although Jesus admonished Peter to place the sword back. In line with this reasoning, some scholars have theorized that the 'Cleansing of the Temple' affair could have been part of some political action by Jesus and a band of his followers against the Jewish authorities. This is further collaborated by the fact that Barrabas, the criminal exchanged for Jesus, was described as recently creating a revolt within Jerusalem: (Brandon, TRIAL OF JESUS, p 89) According to Mark 15:2, "And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder IN THE INSURRECTION, there was a man named Barabbas". (emphasis mine). There is a serious problem with this theory though. For as we have seen from certain sources (from Josephus to Acts for example) the majority of Jesus' disciples and followers of Jesus worshiped openly in the Temple within Jerusalem, without any apparent concerns of being arrested. This would hardly seem possible, if Jesus had been the leader of an actual revolt against the Romans. (Of course, Jesus could still have been arrested for conducting activities that would give the APPEARANCE of encouraging the people towards a revolt. A close reading of the Josephus' accounts "could" be interpreted along the lines of this later view.) The Trial of Jesus According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus was first brought in front of the high priest who remains "silent" until asked if it were true that he is the "King of the Jews." Jesus then answered : "I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62, see also Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:69) The high priest found this blasphemous, and sent Jesus to have a hearing before Pilate. Pilate also asked Jesus if he is "the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered: "You have said so" (Matthew 23:3). Pilate found that Jesus was guilty of no crime. He then called "together the chief priest and the rulers and the people" stating he has found Jesus innocent and intended to release him. According to Mark 15:6, it was the custom to release one prisoner at the Passover feast, whom the crowds asked for. We are told that Pilate was secretly hoping to use this ploy in order to obtain Jesus' release, "for he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up."(15:10) (Some scholars such as Brandon have remarked that Mark would have had to have been privy to Pilate's thinking, to have made such a comment.) According to John, the Jewish people taunted Pilate with the following threat if he did not release Jesus, "'If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; for every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar.'" (John 19:12). The Jews were so wicked however, that instead, they chose to release the criminal Barabbus, and execute Jesus: "And they cried out again, 'Crucify him'. And Pilate said to them, 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify him.' (Mark 15:13-15) Critical Analysis of the Trial Scene There are several reasons why serious historians question the accuracy of the scene of Pilate trying to obtain the release of Jesus. First, outside historical accounts depict Pilate as a strong governor, willing to quash a rebellion quickly to maintain order. Philo wrote that Pilate was a man of "inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition", whose administration was characterized by his "venality, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, and his frequent murders of untried prisoners." (Philo AD GAIUM 38.302. see discussion in Mary Smallwood's JEWS UNDER ROMAN RULE pp 144-80) It was thus out of character for Pilate to have been "forced" by the crowd to crucify a man whom he believed to have truly been innocent. Professor Brandon wrote regarding the episode of Jesus' trial: "Instead of being the judge with full executive power, Pilate become a powerless magistrate trying to bargain with a subject people for the life of an innocent prisoner in his custody. Instead of releasing the prisoner, whose innocence he has publicly recognized, and implementing that decision with the military power at his disposal, he is depicted as actually asking the Jewish mob what he should do with the prisoner". (Brandon, TRIAL OF JESUS. Note this analysis on Jesus' trial comes from Brandon) Secondly, the Jewish crowds are shown to have immediately switched from ADORING Jesus as he entered Jerusalem, to now desiring his execution-- Not only that, they desire the ROMAN style --crucifixion--as opposed to their traditional execution of stoning. Jewish crowds are portrayed as taunting Pilate that would be disloyal to Caesar, if he supported a man who claimed to be King of the Jews--Somehow no one seems to notice that the release of Barabbas, a known rebel and murderer, should also be considered a threat to Caesar (using the same logic)! Third, there is no record of the Romans EVER having a custom of letting the crowds choose which criminals they wanted released on special holidays. It is strange that if this unusual custom existed, that Josephus does not mention it in ANYWHERE in his voluminous Jewish histories. The custom would also have been out of character for the Romans: Typically the Romans were cruel and ruthless in putting down revolts--with a reputation for setting entire towns on fire, and crucifying large number of participates or forcing them into slavery. Roman soldiers were stationed within Jerusalem itself, and according to Josephus, Pilate did not hesitate to use them against the Jews to keep them down. Who Was Responsible for the Execution of Jesus--The Romans or the Jews? It would seem more likely that if the Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to Pilate for sedition, Pilate would NOT question their motives IF they claimed it was for revolutionary activity. The fact that Jesus suffered crucifixion (and the tougher sentence with the nails hammered in) means that he was executed under the Romans' TOUGHEST laws that were generally only meted out for revolutionaries against the Roman Empire. If Pilate truly believed Jesus was innocent, he could have transferred his trial outside of Jerusalem, or simply freed him. It would seem impossible, against this background, to believe that a tough-minded Roman governor would have allowed riotous crowds to decide to release any prisoner from jail. Because of this, scholars such as Professor Brandon have argued that it appears highly probable that the assignment of guilt to the Jews for killing Jesus, was an "invention" by Mark who was trying to explain away Jesus' crucifixion. (As mentioned in Section I, Chapter 9, Mark needed to explain the explosive charge that Jesus had been executed for revolutionary activities against the state of Rome.) During the time when Mark wrote his gospel, hostile feelings had developed between Jews and Christians. Therefore Mark, in drawing from his feelings, came up with a solution that seemed to make sense to him--You see, Pilate didn't WANT to execute Jesus, but the Jews MADE him do it! Now, this does NOT mean that Mark was going out of his way to simply "invent fictions"--Possibly, for example, Mark was probably tapping into his "feelings" as to what the truth was--in the belief that the Holy Ghost would direct his writings to reflect the truth. In comparing the gospel writers with the letters of Paul, one can see a VERY different attitude towards the Jews! That is, Paul's writings generally do NOT take the position that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. (See Section VI, Chapter 6). Instead Paul's writing usually perceived Jesus' execution along hellenistic terms--that demonic forces were responsible for Jesus' death, but God in His "hidden wisdom" allowed this to happen so that this act could redeem mankind. The "demonic forces" of Paul were substituted by Mark to be "the Jews", and later gospel writers took Mark's lead. Later Christian Traditions of the Trial Centuries later, as Christian writers read the gospels and PROJECTED their own faith on the scene of the trial, they believed the Romans MUST have believed that Jesus was innocent (like themselves!) For example, the Christian writer Tertullian, who lived in the second century A.D., wrote that he had heard that there was evidence in the public archives of Rome which "proved" that the emperor Tiberius (who was the Roman emperor during the time of Jesus' crucifixion) was actually CONVINCED of Jesus' divinity. (Ibid p 100) Virtually all historians today agree that Tertullian was mistaken--ie that Tiberias was NOT convinced of Jesus' divinity! It is known that by the second century AD, a number of religious forgeries began circulating, which purported to be documentary evidence on the trial of Jesus. These included obvious forgeries of letters purported to have been written between Pilate and Herod. (Some of these forgeries are presented in Section V, Chapter 3).