It has been called "the most important trial in history" - well, that's highly original; shall we start this a different way?

The purpose of this essay is to provide an overview of the many issues and questions surrounding the historicity of the trial(s) of Jesus Christ as presented in the Gospels. To begin with the groundwork:

We will focus here only on what is directly relevant to the arrest and trial of Jesus, beginning with (marginally) the intentions of the Jewish leaders and ending with the leading away to the Crucifixion. We will exclude, except where tangently related:

The Gospels, of course, are our primary sources for the trials of Jesus. An immediate objection raised by skeptics is a simple one - where did the evangelists get their information from? The Apostles were an obvious source: John is noted to have accompanied Peter. But even so, that still leaves the question of sources open. Let's run down the possible answers and objections to them:

a) Jesus Himself filled the disciples in after the Resurrection. We consider this to be the most likely answer. Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days after the Resurrection - plenty of time to relate the sundry details of what happened once the more theological stuff was out of the way. (Perhaps the account of the trial made for a good campfire story after a long day of serious teaching about the Kingdom of God! And certainly, Peter would want to know what his Lord had been put through as he was waiting anxiously in the courtyard.)

More specifically, there is good reason to say that the events of the trial probably were told to the disciples by Jesus -- it would serve perfectly as a vehicle for His teaching! He was always describing what would happen to Him, and He could very easily have used the historical details as the "I told you so...", in a way analogous to the discussion with Cleopas et al on the Road to Emmaus. Jesus was big on the fulfillment of prophecy -- cf. John 18.15 -- AS IT HAPPENED, before it happened, and after it happened. In point of fact, the accounts of the Passion, the earliest materials of the gospels probably recorded, contain much of this material. This pattern of narrative-interspersed-with-theological-explication was adopted by the evangelists as a METHOD, and hence could easily be seen as deriving from Jesus as paradigm-teacher. If Jesus related His Passion in this way, it would certainly explain how the disciples picked up that practice! And the Passion story, as the earliest, is the closest to the mouth of Jesus, and thus the least susceptible to embellishment! (Also, remember that Jesus was consistently explaining His words and actions to the disciples in private afterwards -- so why would He not do it in this case?) To simply dismiss the possibility of Jesus filling in His disciples on the trial afterwards as "fruits that naive faith can yield" [Fric.CMJ, 196] is presumptuous at best and circular reasoning at the worst. Certainly within the Christian paradigm, this cannot be dismissed as a possibility, if indeed as a likelihood.

However, even allowing that Jesus might not have given such an account to his disciples - which we would note as the best, and most parsimonious, explanation - other witnesses were possible, who might also have added to the mix:

b) An account of events could also have come from Sanhedrin delegates friendly to Jesus - at a minimum, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. There may also have been other members of the Sanhedrin who became well-disposed towards Christianity, but these two were really all that were needed. And for the trial before Pilate - well, if Joseph had the verve to ask for Jesus' body, why not also the verve to ask what happened from Pilate himself?

Skeptics say little against this possibility. Carmichael [Carm.DJ, 34; see also Carm.UCO, 87] can only offer in reply that:

...only a pious apologist could resort to this; it was never thought of by the Gospel writers themselves.

Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 106], only slightly more realistic in his viewpoint, admits to the "possibility" of using Joseph as a source, but gripes that Joseph is:

...mentioned only in connection with Jesus' burial. He is never cited as a reporter on the trial (which would have been a key role) and has no significant part in the Gospels.

Carmichael's subtle slur against the "pious" aside, I hardly see any reason here to deny that Joseph or Nicodemus could have been sources of information. Ancient writers saw no obligation to reveal their sources; hence we would hardly expect Matthew or Luke to say, "I got this information from Joseph of Arimathea." It would be a mistake to do as Carmichael and Fricke have done a la Earl Doherty, and presume 20th-century standards of source citation upon first-century writers. (As an added note - I would maintain that Nicodemus provided a great deal of information for the Gospel of John.) Some may suggest that it is an argument from silence either way as to whether Joe and Nick were at the trial; but actually, since it is indicated by Luke that Joe did not agree with the course of action taken by the Sanhedrin, it is likely either that he WAS present, or else had someone reporting things to him.

And finally:

c) Minor sources. We may suggest any number of people as sources for tidbits of information. Jeremias [Jerem.NTT, 267] suggests gossip from observers of the trials as a source. Brooks [Broo.Mk, 241] suggests servants or assistants of the Sanhedrin. Luke 8:3 notes that Joanna, wife of the manager of Herod's household, was in Jesus' group; she may well have had access to certain information. Other possibilities include guards and other prisoners (perhaps Barabbas himself?), attendants of Pilate, and priests who converted after the resurrection (Acts 6:7, 15:5).

Wherever the data came from, however, what is more important is: Do the trial scenes reflect reality adequately, which would support the idea that eyewitnesses are in some measure responsible for the Gospel accounts? Here we get into even meatier issues, and we will enter upon the particulars shortly.

It is a habit of some critics to treat the Gospel accounts with an overly critical eye, and make an extraordinary fuss over the fact that they do not reveal the information that they desire. Carmichael [Carm.DJ, 40; Carm.UCO, 92] complains of "the extreme barrenness of the information given" and the "lack of precision" in the trial accounts. (It is not so barren, however, that he is unwilling to postulate a "Jesus as revolutionist" scenario based on some rather wild speculations!) Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 178] , meanwhile, goes to the opposite extreme, saying of the many "errors" he finds in the trial accounts:

(The evangelists) expected their public to be unfamiliar with the Jewish law and thus be prepared to accept the misrepresentation unreservedly.

I find this highly amusing! Fricke is either saying here that a) the evangelists WERE familiar with Jewish law, but filed false reports of it nonetheless because they knew their audience was too stupid to know better; or, b) they were NOT familiar with Jewish law, and neither were their readers; and in either case, no one caught them at it and blew them out of the water! For a), one wonders, if they were indeed familiar with Jewish law, why they did not give us reports that were "correct"! As for b), Fricke is obviously unaware of the fact that Jerusalem/Judean and Diaspora Jews were among those whom the NT was addressed to - and at least some of those were certainly familiar with the subtler precepts of Jewish law, especially considering the emphasis placed in Judaism upon learning specifics of interpretation! They would smell something fishy if they could not make sense out of even the bare-bones account of the Sanhedrin action!

But the question remains: Is it truly realistic and reasonable to expect the kind of certitude that Carmichael implicitly demands from the Gospel writers? Quite frankly, no. As part of our answer, it will be necessary to briefly recap some of the material we have used in this article relative to Gospel authorship - for understanding WHO wrote the trial accounts is a key to understanding WHY they were written as they were.

We presume, based on data presented in the just-linked article, that the following represents the authorship and purpose of each Gospel, other than as ancient biographies (bioi):

Matthew - by the Apostle and tax collector; formulated as a teaching gospel

Mark - by the secretary of Peter; based on Peter's preaching

Luke - by the companion of Paul; intended as a historical document

John - by the Apostle; a kerygmatic and missionary presentation

Now with these things in mind, it should be asked: Which of these accounts would be expect to be done best, according to the standards of historical reportage? Obviously, the answer is Luke: As he has been reckoned worthy as a historian, we expect the most accurate representation of chronology from him.

On the other hand, Matthew and Mark - one being a teaching aid, the other being a reporting of the teaching and preaching of Peter - we may well expect to take illustrative liberties with their information. And this, note well, is not counter to the notion of inerrancy; for understanding the purposes of these writers is essential to understanding why what they report is NOT in error, where skeptics presume them to be. Relative to the trial accounts, let's look at an example.

Many critics assume that Matthew and Mark report a nighttime meeting of the Sanhedrin and from there make certain deductions about the historicity of the report itself (see below). Let's look at an extended sample from Matthew to understand why:

Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome. The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'" Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. "You also were with Jesus of Galilee," she said. But he denied it before them all. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said. Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, "This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth." He denied it again, with an oath: "I don't know the man!" After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away." Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death.

The presumption is that Matthew (and Mark) reads events as follows:

One of the most difficult issues to approach in this area is the historic anti-Semitism that has been unjustly derived from the Gospel accounts. Needless to say, the Christian church has a great deal historically to answer for in this regard. Crossan [Cross.WKJ, ix] , for example, makes note of a Passiontide ceremony of the 9th through 11th century, "in which a Jew was brought into the cathedral of Toulouse to be given a symbolic blow by the count - an honor!" (On the other hand, Crossan, rather strangely, observes: "No Roman, one notices, was accorded a like honor." (!) May we ask where 9th-11th century Europeans would find an ancient Roman?) And Fricke [Fric.CMJ, viii] bewails:

Whenever 'Christians' gave vent to their hatred of Jews, they cited the Gospels - those of Matthew and John in particular - in support of their actions.

Fricke has rightly put the word "Christians" in quotes - for no true believer could derive anti-Semitism from what are, after all, the most Jewish of the Gospels!

So we come down to this: Is the anti-Semitic view grounded in a correct reading of the NT, or is it merely the invention of those who wish to justify their own previously-held anti-Semitism? Evidence indicates strongly that it is the latter. Glenn Miller has performed an analysis of this question which we will draw upon, though we shall not delve too deeply into the issue - which would require writing another essay entirely! The net of the data is: 1) Both the content of Scripture, and its cultural context, demonstrate that justification for anti-Semitism is no more found in the NT generally or the trial accounts specifically, than is justification for racism or any other sin of your choice; 2) Responsibility for the death of Jesus is placed upon, in order - a) the Jewish leadership; b) Jerusalemite Jews, in particular, the crowd before Pilate; c) Pilate and Herod.

Let's go straight to the horse's mouth. Who does the NT say killed Jesus? Miller cites the following verses as evidence:

•Matt 27.1 - "all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death". (Matthew)

•Lk 23.13-20 - "the chief priests, the rulers and the people," (Luke)--obviously not ALL the people; just the 'crowd'

•Acts 2.36(w 14) - "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem," (the apostle Peter)

•Acts 10.39 - "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree (Peter)

•I Thess 2.14 - You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. (Paul)

•Acts 13.27 - The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. 28 Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. (Paul) Notice 'people' is restricted to those in Jerusalem who asked for the execution--the 'crowd' again.

•Mt 26.3 - Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. (Matthew)

•Mt 27.1,20 - But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. (Matthew)

•Acts 5.27 - Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead -- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. (Peter, accusing the Sanhedrin--a mixed priestly and lay aristocratic ruling body)

To these we may also add:

Luke 13:33-4 In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day--for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Weatherly [Weath.JwLKA, 55] observes here that Jerusalem "is named not only as the site of the deaths of the prophets but is personified as the agent of those deaths." In line with a standard practice of depiction of opponents, a city is named in its entirety as the foe - even though not every person, indeed not necessarily a majority, was the actor in the case. (An example of this is found in a source we have seen elsewhere: the Mara Bar-Serapion letter [see here]. Note that Mara pins the consequences of Socrates' death on ALL of Athens, without qualification; the consequences of Pythagoras' death on ALL of Samos, again without qualification; and the death of Jesus on ALL Jews - again without qualification, and going much farther than the NT writers did in that regard!)

Now although some of these verses are very precise in where the blame is to be fixed, time and again, here and elsewhere, we see this phrase "the Jews" pop up - this is a key to our understanding, so it should be looked at further, for it has the appearance, to our eyes, of a blanket condemnation of all Jews.

From the data, Miller concludes that responsibility for the death of Jesus is pinned upon the leadership--both civil and religious-- of Jerusalem. But wait! some may cry. What about those many reference to "the Jews" in the Gospel of John and elsewhere, saying, the Jews did this or that, and were eventually responsible for what happened to Jesus? Does that not indicate a broad brush of the entire Jewish people? Or as Fricke [Fric.CMJ, 124] cries, citing John 8:44 -

To John not only is Judas a devil, but all Jews are the devil's offspring.

Actually, Fricke is badly misreading the text here; Jesus is clearly speaking to rather a small group of people! They are indeed referred to as "the Jews" - but what does this phrase mean? The evidence indicates that "the Jews" does mean all of the Jewish people - and does not, depending on the context! Again, we start with Miller's data:

The term "Jews" can refer to either the leadership (strictly) OR to the people (more generally)

1.The data indicates that 'Jews' referred to something broader than the simple 'corrupt temple hierarchy':

•in John 1.19,24 - the Jews 'sent' the religious leaders to discover what was going on

•a comparison of John 18.14 with 11.49 indicates that Jews referred to the Sanhedrin (generally considered to be a group composed of the priestly aristocracy and lay nobility)--see ZPEB, "Sanhedrin".

•Luke 23.13 ("Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people") and Mt 26.47 ("sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people")show that the 'rulers' involved with distinct from the 'priests'.

•Conclusion: "Jews" in a leadership sense, was broad enough to include the lay aristocracy.

2.Many of the "Jews" became believers--Jn 11:45 and 12.11 3.There are numerous passages that indicate that the "Jews" were DISTINCT FROM the common people (many of whom accepted Christ as their messiah):

•John 7. 13 (But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.)--the common folk were afraid of the "Jews" (=> NOT THE SAME)

•John 9.22 (His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.)

•John 12.12 -- the Triumphal Entry -- the crowd accepted him!

•Mt 23.37 ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.) - the difference between the leadership ("you") and the people ("your children").

•John 2.23 - (Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.)

•John 7.25 - (At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, "Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?)--Note the difference between the 'people of Jerusalem' and the 'authorities'.

3.The data is VERY strong that when the term "Jews" is used of the PEOPLE, it is a good (or at least, neutral) term--indicating that it is not a 'racial/ethnic' slur, but a term used for specific identification (in context) of that ruling community that violently rejected their King.

•John 4.22 - Jesus affirms: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

•John 12.9-11 - ( Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.)

•Mt 27.11 - ( Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.)

•Acts 2.5, 14 - (Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.) and (Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem,)

•Acts 14.1 - (At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. 2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.) - NOTE: BOTH usages (hostile leadership, believing people) present in the SAME passage.

•Acts 21.20 - (Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.) .So, how did the term 'JEWS' get expanded from solely a reference to the people (a la Ezra, Neh) to pick up a SECOND meaning of 'hostile leadership'?

•The NT shows the development of the term to parallel Paul's experiences with hostile Jewish leadership OUTSIDE Jerusalem! (And these experiences were such that the hostile leadership had much more 'control' over the general Jewish populations--due to the smaller numbers). The "Jews" (hostile leadership) swayed the "Jews" (the people at large)--as well as the Gentiles (see Acts 14 above!)-- against Paul's message. But the culpable ones were the former.

•There is absolutely NO evidence within the NT to suggest that the term was IN ANY WAY related to a general anti-Semitism of the Roman empire! (It is serious conjecture to 'read in' some Roman anti-Semitism in NT passages).

•And, even as Paul experienced the hostility of the dispersed leadership, even then many 'Jews' believed (Act 17:12 - Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.)

•This general motif of the "Jews" (hostile aristocratic leadership) constraining the "Jews" (the general Jewish populace) from their experience of God's goodness is a surprisingly dominant theme in the teachings of Jesus:

•Mt 23: 37 - ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.")

•Mt 23: 15 - ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.)

•Mt 23: 13 - ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.) is worth noting that John's gospel is deliberately evangelistic, and the general trend of scholarship today is to view his intended audience as not just Jews, but SPECIFICALLY the Jews of the Diaspora--the ones Paul used the terms "JEWS" on so strongly!

As Carson notes in his Intro to the New Testament, p 171.:

The constant allusions to the Old Testament show that John's intended readership is biblically literate; his translation of Semitic expressions (e.g., 1:38, 42; 4:25; 19:13, 17) shows he is writing to those whose linguistic competence is in Greek. His strong denunciation of the "the Jews" cannot be taken as a mark against this thesis: John may well have an interest in driving a wedge between ordinary Jews and (at least) some of their leaders. The fourth gospel is not as anti-Jewish as some people thin anyway: salvation is still said to be "from the Jews" (4.22), and often the referent of "the Jews" is "the Jews in Judea" or "the Jewish leaders" or the like. "Anti-Semitic" is simply the wrong category to apply to the fourth gospel: whatever hostilities are present turn on theological issues related to the acceptance or rejection of revelation, not on race. How could it be otherwise, when all of the first Christians were Jews and when, on this reading, both the fourth evangelist and his primary readers were Jews and Jewish proselytes?

Conclusions:

1.When "Jews" is used of the hostile aristocratic leadership, it is appropriate and truthful to ascribe the primary responsibility (see John 19:11 for the relative roles of Pilate and the High Priest - "Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.") for His execution to them.

2.When "Jews" is used of the general populace, it is used in a VERY POSITIVE sense (and in some passages, in a neutral sense), but is NEVER used in an 'anti-Semitic' slur.

3.THEREFORE--to assert that John (and the wider Christian community) attributed the death of Jesus to the GENERAL POPULACE known as "Jews" is FUNDAMENTALLY MISTAKEN; and that to accuse certain first-century Jews of being 'anti-Semitic' because of some general Roman cultural trend is entirely without foundation.

To this we may add the following observation:

4. This usage is NOT limited to the writers of the NT! Josephus regularly uses the phrase, "the Jews" - and he uses it in much the same way: "absolutely or with modifiers which suggest a general reference in context, where the reference is clearly to specific groups of Jews." [Weath.JwLKA, 110 - see pages following for a catalogue of examples.] In addition, Malcolm Lowe, in his article "Who Were the Juduaio?" (NovT XVIII, 101ff) shows that the term "the Jews" was used primarily to refer to persons who were inhabitants of the region of Judaea, so that "the Jews" is no more of a slur than "the Bostonians" or "the Creatans". The phrase was only used secondarily as a religious reference, but then only in opposition to Gentiles. Lowe finds only a small number of places in the NT where "the Jews" is such a religious reference; one, Luke 7:3, is so because Luke has elsewhere used "elders of Israel" to refer to the Sanhedrin.

The Scriptures, then, place no blame on Jews as a people for the execution of Jesus. And even then, history shows that the actions of the Jewish leadership can be blamed indirectly on the Romans. Rivkin [Rivk.WCJ, 118] points out that the high priest was appointed not as a descendant of Aaron, as the law required, but by the Romans. The institutions of government at the time of Jesus, in that place, were in direct opposition to the requirements of the Law. Thus, Rivkin: The political climate created revolutionaries; and "...it emerges with great clarity, both from Josephus and the Gospels, that the culprit is not the Jews, but the Roman imperial system." [ibid., 117] Concerns in this area should focus not on the Gospel writings, but on their misinterpretations which continue to this day - with some racist and anti-Semitic groups going as far as turning Jesus into an Irish monk or into the perfect Aryan!

Two related questions that come up are: Aren't the Gospels, and particularly the trial accounts, a polemic against Judaism, and therefore anti-Semitic? And why is there not a polemic against Rome, since it was the Romans who crucified Jesus; indeed, why is Rome cast in such a positive light, since Rome too persecuted Christians?

The Gospels are, indeed, in some ways a polemic against the claims of Judaism against Christianity; but this does not equate with anti-Semitism. But let's answer the second question first, drawing again upon groundwork laid by Miller.

1. For the earliest Christians, Rome was NOT a specific antagonist. Rome was the antagonist of ALL the Jews--Christians included, esp. in Palestine. The Christian 'sect' in Judaism wasn't isolated from Judaism until the temple prayers were changed at the end of the 1st century (the 12th of the 18 benedictions, cursing "Nazarenes").

2. Christians were not singled out for persecution in Rome until the Neronian times (64 ad.), LONG AFTER the oral traditions of the Synoptics would have included the Pilate-passages.

Let me add here: The lack of polemic against Rome can be taken as evidence that the Gospels were composed relatively early! (See link above.)

3. The accounts of Pilate's wavering, capitulating to the crowd, and ultimately releasing a known insurgent (i.e. Barabbas) could hardly be construed as a favorable account for Rome!

We hold a slightly different view of what Pilate did here (see below). Even so, it is not much more complimentary to Rome!

4. The next generation of early Christians, who experienced many of the persecutions, had NO QUALMS about pointing the finger at Rome. For example, Clement of Rome and Ignatius were VERY EXPLICIT in the details of the Roman persecution of believers.. All the later data we have about Roman officials and actions in the Book of Acts certainly doesn't support this whitewashing argument. Felix and Festus are certainly not presented in the best of light, and the treatment of Paul at the hands of Roman officials (Act 16:22,37) is hardly complimentary!

I'll add here that the story of the conversion of the centurion Cornelius would probably serve to make the Romans angry also, even if it is regarded as fictional! How presumptuous that would seem!

And, in all candor, the average 'pagan neighbor' of the day did NOT identify that much with Roman authorities ANYWAY. They generally could have cared less about 'who killed Jesus'...the issue for all of them was their personal situation and need.

But then, what of the Gospels as an "anti-Jewish" polemic? The reason for this is actually quite simple: It is because one of the major stumbling blocks for early Christianity was the problem of a Jewish Messiah that very few Jews believed in! Christianity in its early days HAD to focus on those who provided the main objections to the faith, both implicitly AND explicitly. The implicit rejection of the supposed Jewish Messiah, and the explicit arguments made by Jewish citizens and leaders against Christianity, must surely have been cause for consideration among potential Gentile converts! The evangelists were doing nothing more than addressing the arguments that would inevitably be addressed to THEM!

We have thus shown that there is no cause for anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. However, our age of political correctness has brought about some peculiar permutations, thanks to the twisted idea that the Gospel accounts generally, and the trial accounts particularly, are anti-Semitic. Cohn [Cohn.TDJ, 89, 114, 134], for example, adopts the outlandish premise that the Jewish leadership LOVED Jesus (!) and was trying to save Him from the Roman death penalty! To that end, the Jewish police asked for and received permission to accompany the Roman arresting party (which would run counter to everything we know about the Roman praxis!) and took Jesus into custody in order to see if He could be saved. But their efforts failed when Jesus would not shut up about His messianic claims, and so Caiaphas rent his garments in DESPAIR (!!) over not being able to save Jesus from His execution! Such wild historical revisionism is as outrageous as that used by anti-Semites to justify their own perversions!

On the other hand, it also seems that anti-Semitism is not a necessary base for entering into historical revisionism. Crossan [Cross.WKJ, 84], engaging the usual "Jesus Seminar" line, rejects nearly all semblance of historicity in the trial accounts, and asserts that "the trial of Jesus was first created by historicization of Psalm 2." In other words, the Christians simply searched the Scriptures for relevant stuff and tailor-made history to what they read! We are obliged to wonder, given Crossan's questionable methodologies and assumptions and the fact that he rarely deigns to address matters of historical realism, whether it is not HE who is "creating history" by inventing, without a shred of evidence, Scripture-searching Christians who engaged in historical revisionism of their own!

Before delving into the Gospel accounts for specifics, we will see if there is any evidence that is relevant in secular works of the period. Two items in particular are from strongly reliable sources.

We have elsewhere studied the testimony of Tacitus. Let's take a look at the most relevant portion here:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius...

This confirms that Jesus was executed under Roman supervision - which is generally agreed to by all reasonable parties. (Christ-mythers are therefore excluded, of course.)

Now let us examine a passage that gives some of the historical revisionists heartburn - the so-called Testimonium Flavium:

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Here we have removed all of the phrases regarded as interpolations - and note well what is NOT among them: A phrase which, in agreement with the Gospels, clearly indicates that the Jewish leadership had a role in having Jesus executed!

Attempts to explain away this passage by those who wish to eliminate all Jewish involvement - whether out of concern over anti-Semitism, or in order to view Jesus as a Zealot executed directly by Rome - are quite frankly laughable. Fricke, in an effort to avoid the necessary conclusion of Jewish involvement, takes the desperate expedient of declaring the entire passage a forgery, and says [Fric.CMJ, 48-9] :

That these sentences constitute a forgery, and a rather crude one at that, is no longer doubted by any serious researcher as far as I know.

Needless to say, Fricke's bibliography contains no references to serious and recognized Josephan scholars such as Thackery and Feldman - but does contain such stellar names as Drews and Maccoby! So, it is not surprising that the "forgery" view is as far as his knowledge extends , and that he considers the stand of authenticity a "minority view"! As we have shown in this article, this is FAR FROM a minority view - and again, the phrase we are concerned with here is not one of those that is in doubt! (And rather ironically, Fricke later has the nerve [ibid., 152] to complain that if the Gospel record were true, then it is "inconceivable" that something did not find its way into secular histories! Some people you just can't please no matter how hard you try!)

Cohn [Cohn.TDJ, 310], a little less brazenly, merely hints at the total-interpolation theory, but prefers mild skepticism, saying: "...once it is established that at least some of the phrases in (the Testimonium Flavium) were interpolated by a Christian editor, no part of it can confidently be regarded as the composition of Josephus, and the whole is suspect...with no objective and reliable criterion to determine which (the sentence in question) is, it can prove nothing." Cohn is merely blowing bubbles here: Josephan scholars have objective and reliable criterion to work with, and have determined that the sentence implicating the leading men of the Jewish nation is NOT one of the interpolations. This is sheer fancy on Cohn's part; but just in case, he has another suggestion! (ibid., 312) To wit:

...Josephus himself would then be suspect of a tendentious purpose of his own: no less than the interpolators were at pains to put blame on the Jews and whitewash Pilate, Josephus was at pains to assign the credit for the crucifixion of Jesus to the Jews and Romans in equal shares.

So, Josephus apparently would lie about Jewish involvement just to curry favor with Rome! This seems to be an overstatement of what is said by Brandon [Brand.TJ, 39], who is trying to show why Josephus would make mention of such a thing in the first place:

On a priori grounds...it is likely that Josephus, in the interest of his apologetical theme, would have shown that the Jewish leaders took prompt action to suppress (Christianity)...

Since Christianity was regarded as being of revolutionary origin, Brandon argues, Josephus would gladly demonstrate that the Jews wanted no part of it. But I find it a little too convenient that anywhere Cohn finds a problem that works against his theory, he suspects revisionism or tendentiousness. There is no reason for Josephus to have LIED about Jewish participation; in fact, we may just as easily argue that a) taking credit from Rome would have gotten him in trouble; and, b) all he had to do was say that the Jewish leaders merely DENOUNCED Jesus - but there is more to it than even that!

Accepting, then, the passage in question as authentic, critical study reveals that what Josephus records is quite in light with what the Gospels portray. The word we read "suggestion" is endeixei - which is "a straightforward legal term denoting the laying of information against a person, or a writ of indictment." [Brand.TJ, 152] This, as we shall see, matches at least one (if not more) suggestion for viewing the Jewish trial in the Gospels.

The matter is secure, and attested to both inside and outside the Gospels: The Jewish leadership of the time assuredly had some involvement in the demise of Jesus. The questions remains: How far did this involvement go? And that's the subject of several of our next sections.

(As an aside, and as a tribute to how desperate historical revisionism can get, I would merely like to mention here that a small paragraph in the Talmudic sources refers to "Jesus of Nazareth" as being indicted by the Jewish leadership on several charges and "hanged on the eve of Passover." We ascribe little value to this reference, other than it indicates that there was no denial of Jewish involvement in Jesus' demise.

Cohn [Cohn.TDJ, 307] , however, knows that this plays havoc with his theory that the Jewish leadership was trying to save Jesus. He admits that his theory would almost require that there be some mention in the Talmud that Jesus was a favored person and that the "trial" was performed as a saving measure. Thus, he hypothesizes:

* That the "Jesus" in question above was not the Christian Jesus - the words "of Nazareth" having been interpolated at a much later date!

* That the "favorable review" of Jesus was expunged by later editors and censors!

Needless to say, at such points we are knee-deep in sardine territory, and are obliged to wonder if facts are not being invented in order to save what is already a rather overstretched theory!)

Matthew: While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people...

Mark: Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

Luke: While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them....Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders...

John: So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons...Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus.

The Gospels are unanimous: The Jewish leadership was involved with the arrest of Jesus. But several other questions arise in this matter.

That the Jewish authorities had a hand in the arrest of Jesus is seldom doubted by anyone who accepts that Jewish officials had some part in the trial of Jesus. Sanders resolves that "(t)he Romans did not act entirely on their own initiative. We could know this to be the case without accepting as authentic a single one of the conflict stories in the Gospels." [Sand.JesJud, 295] On the other hand, Fricke, who wishes to deny all Jewish involvement, suggests that the only Jews in the arresting party were interpreters[Fric.CMJ, 130].