Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus

7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus

1/11

THE LUKAN VERSION OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS

BY

JOSEPH B. TYSON

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas U.S.A.

In an examination of the synoptic account of Jesus' trial, it is

immediately obvious that there was no Q source for this narrative.

That is to say that there is no significant point at which Matthew

and Luke agree against Mark. Matthew includes three passagespeculiar to that Gospel: the story of the death of Judas in xxvii

3-10; the warning of Pilate's wife in xxvii 19; and the detail about

Pilate's washing his hands in xxvii 24-25. In Luke there are two

important variations : the hearing before the Sanhdrin takes place

in the morning, not at night ; and a hearing before Herod, xxiii 6-16,

is added.

Secondly, it is notable that Matthew is far more dependent on

Mark than is Luke. This can most clearly be seen by placing the

various sections of th trial narrative in parallel columns.

Matthew Mark Luke

Betrayal of JudasInjury of the highpriest's servant

Are you come asagainst a robber?This is to fulfill theScriptures

To Caiaphas the highpriestPeter followsSanhdrin seeks falsewitnessesTestimony by two witnesses that Jesus saidhe would destroy andrebuild the templeJesus does not defendhimself

High priest calls forJesus' confession

Betrayal of JudasInjury of the highpriest's servant

Are you come asagainst a robber?liis is to fulfill the

ScripturesTo the high priest

Peter followsSanhdrin seekswitnessesTestimony that Jesussaid he would destroyand rebuild the temple

Jesus does not defendhimself

High priest calls forJesus' confession

Betrayal of JudasInjury of the highpriest's servantHealing of the highpriest's servantAre you come asagainst a robber?

To the high priest

Peter follows

Novum Testamentum III i7


2/11

250 josKPii n. TYSON

Matthew

Jesus' answerCondemnation ofblasphemyAbuse ofJesusPeter's denial

Sanhdrin reconvenes

in the morningJesus sent to PilateThe death ofJudas

Pilate : Are you King ofthe Jews ?Jesus: Thou sayestPilato calls for Jesus'defense

The custom ofPassover amnestyPilate's wifeCrowd calls for releaseof Barabbas

Crowd demands crucifixion for JesusPilate washes his handsRelease of BarabbasPilate orders crucifixion ofJesus

Mark

Jesus' answerCondemnation ofblasphemyAbuse ofJesusPeter's denial

Sanhdrin reconvenes

in the morningJesus sent to Pilate

Pilate : Are you King ofthe Jews?Jesus: Thou sayestPilato calls for Josus'defenseJesus is silent

The custom ofPassover amnesty

Crowd calls for releaseof Barabbas

Crowd demands crucifixion for Jesus

Release ofBarabbasPilate orders crucifixion ofJesus

Luke

Peter's denialAbuse ofJesusSanhdrin meets in themorningSanhdrin asks for aconfessionJesus' answer, morevague than in Mark andMatthewDecision

Jesus sent to Pilate

Accusation ofJesusPilate : Are you King ofthe Jews ?Jesus: Thou sayest

Pilate finds no faultPilate sends Jesus to

HerodHerod questions JesusHerod returns Jesus toPilatePilate re-affirms Jesus'innocence

Crowd calls for releaseof Barabbas

Crowd demands crucifixion for Jesus

Releaise ofBarabbasPilate orders crucifixion ofJesus

This chart shows that Matthew and Luke do not agree against

Mark on a single incident in the whole procedure. It also makes it

evident that Matthew is following Mark in almost minute detail.

Matthew only inserts three incidents: the death of Judas, Pilate's

wife, and Pilate's washing his hands. He does this without trans-


3/11

TU IC LUKAN VERSION OK T1IIC TRIAL Ulf JKSUS 251

posing anything in Mark's order. Matthew leaves out nothing he

found in Mark, and his three insertions breathe so definitely of

the legendary that we can quickly dismiss the possibility that

Matthew is using a written source independent of Mark.Luke, however, uses Mark with a great deal less care. He treats

the Markan source with great freedom. In actual fact there is as much

divergency from Mark as there is agreement with Mark. This leads

one to believe that Luke had a separate account of the trial, an

account which he considered at many points superior to that of

Mark. Luke certainly used Mark, for the verbal agreement is

exact in one or two verses. Luke xxiii 3, for example, is identical

to Mark xv 2.

By quite a different process, Alfred M. PERRY X) came to thisconclusion as regards the entire passion narrative from Luke xix 1-

xxiv 53. In this narrative he delineates a source which formed the

groundwork for the whole narrative. This source, peculiar to

Luke, accounts for 165 1/2 out of 313 verses in the narrative. The

source (J) is, according to PERRY, a Jewish-Christian work, probably

coming out of the Jerusalem Church about 45 A.D. It is quite

independent of Luke, Matthew, Mark, and Q. It has its own type

of vocabulary, a characteristic literary style, thought, and view

point. PERRY ascribes to the source a very high historical value.

About the trial, PERRY says, "Divergencies are so great that it

is inconceivable that Luke did not have some other authority for

the correction of the Markan account, and at nearly every point

of the legal process" 2). In the trial narrative he finds that twenty-

eight out of the thirty-two verses are from Luke's special source, J.

PERRY'S argument is quite convincing, and we would go one

step further and maintain that there are only two sources for the

synoptic account of the trial: Mark and L (or J). There was no Q

source for the trial; Matthew followed Mark, inserting some

peculiar material; but'Luke followed a quite separate tradition,

using Mark only where necessary.

Assuming that Luke's account depends only in part on Mark,

would it be possible to delineate the other source behind Luke,

which we will call L for convenience ? The Lukan narrative after

the confession of Peter {i.e., xxii 66-xxiii 25) naturally divides

itself into five parts, discounting the editorial material in xxiii 1,3-5.

*) The Sources of Luke's Passion-Narrative, Chicago 1920.2) Ibid., p. 44.


4/11

252 JOSEPH . TYSON

A. xxii 66-71

. xxiii 2

C. xxiii 6-12

D. xxiii 13-16E. xxiii 18-25

Part E is taken over by Luke from Mark, although Luke, accord

ing to most manuscripts, omits the reference to the annual Passover

amnesty.

Part D is an editorial section, necessary for joining C and E.

The L source is discernible, then, in A, B, and C. Bracketing

those portions which may be Luke's theological contribution, the

source may have gone something like this :A. When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people

gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they ledhim away to their council, and they said, "If you are the Christ,tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe;and if I ask you, you will not answer. [But from now on th e Sonof man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."

And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, t hen ?" And he said tothem, "You say that I am."] And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."

B. And they began to accuse him saying, "We found this manperverting out nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar,and saying that he himself is Christ a king."

C. When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was aGalilean. And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalemat that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he hadlong desired to see him, and he was hoping to see some sign doneby him. So he questioned him at some length; and he made noanswer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently

accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then, arraying him in gorgeous apparel,he sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilat^ became friends

with each other that very day, for before this they had been atenmity with each other.

A. Luke xxii 66-71. The major difference between Mark and L

at this point is that Mark has the Sanhdrin examine Jesus at

length by night, whereas L presents a cursory examination of

Jesus by this body in the morning. There seems to be no apologetic

purpose in this. The only effect it would have would be to makethe meeting of the Sanhdrin more legal. If the Mishnaic tradit ion


5/11

TinC MJKAN V1CKS10N 0|f TIIK TRIAL Ol* JKSUS 253

held good at the time of Jesus, it was required that a capital case

begin in the day and tha t the verdict be given in the daytime *).

Even so, there is no good evidence that the Mishnaic regulations

did, in fact, hold good for the time of Jesus. Moreover, if it wasillegal to hold a trial or a hearing at night, it was likewise illegal to

begin a case involving capital punishment on the eve of a Sabbath

or festival, since a verdict of conviction cannot be given until the

day following the conclusion of the testimony2). If illegal on the

eve of a festival, then it certainly is illegal during a festival. Obvious

ly, Luke is making no attempt to remove this kind of barrier to

legality, for the Sanhdrin, according to this account, met on the

first day of the Passover festival. The whole tenor of Luke, as well

as of the other Gospels, is to place responsibility on the Jewishauthorities. Placing the Sanhdrin meeting during the daytime

would hardly support the apologetic purpose of Luke.

On the positive side, it is important ro recognize that even though

it does not agree with Luke's apologetic purpose, almost all the

objections to the legality of the Jewish trial actually do disappear

if we consider the source of Luke by itself. The so-called Jewish

trial of Jesus has always caused a great deal of concern on the

part of scholars. Herbert DAN BY has Usted sixteen objections to

this trial, drawing from the Mishnaic tradition and a composite

account of the trial in all four Gospels. Twelve of these objections

have no applicability to the Lukan account whatsoever. The

remaining objections listed by DANBY are:

i. The court could not seek to make Jesus incriminate himself.

2. A capital charge may not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath

or festival (Sanhdrin iv i).

3. A verdict of conviction must not be reached on the same day

or be given at night (Sanhdrin iv i).4. A unanimous verdict of guilty was null and void (Sanhdrin

iv 1)3).

DANBY himself has stated that objection number about self-

incrimination is not firmly established enough to be taken seriously.

The other three are valid only if the morning session of the San

hdrin was a legal trial.

x) Sanhdrin iv 1.

) Sanhdrin iv 1.

) Herbert DANBY, "The Bearing o the Rabbinical Criminal Code on theJewish Trial Narratives in the Gospels," Journal of Theological Studies,

XXI (1920), pp. 54-55.


6/11

254 JOSEPH . TYSON

The fact is that L does not present this as a formal trial, but as

a pre-trial hearing. The most natural reading of the L source

indicates that the Sanhdrin is preparing a case for presentation

to Pilate. The Sanhdrin is not judge, but prosecuting attorney.In L there are no witnesses ; there is no condemnation. The legality

and probability of this procedure is borne out by evidence found

in the Oxyrynchus Papyri. All indications in the papyri are that

the Roman government felt the strongest necessity for keeping

criminal jurisdiction in the hands of the Romans themselves.

Local officers of the subject states were entrusted only with the

settlement of the most trivial cases, such as cases involving loans,

contracts, and disturbance of the peace. All other matters in the

Egyptian province were tried either by an official appointed

directly by the Emperor or by this official's representative, the

prefect. There are among the papyri fragments of cases which

appear to be lawyers' briefs. These were filed with the native

official, the strategos. The cases were probably prepared in advance

by local officials for a hearing before the Governor on his next

visit to the locality as he made his usual circuit through the pro

vince. The strategos would probably examine the evidence to

determine whether a trial before the Governor was necessary or

not*). Now, although we have no precise information about legal

procedure in Judaea at this time, it is highly unlikely that the

procedure would be widely different from what is found in Egypt.

This means that the Sanhdrin, having a position roughly

equivalent to that of the Egyptian strategos and acting as prose

cutor, held what in modern jurisprudence would be called a pre

trial hearing or a Grand Jury investigation. The purpose of this

is to examine evidence against Jesus and to determine whether

the evidence would warrant a trial before Pilate. The body wouldthen draw up its case, its legal brief, against the accused. The case

would be presented before the Procurator on his next visit to

Jerusalem, which happened to be at Passover time.

Thus L seems to be presenting a pre-trial hearing in which the

Sanhdrin, as prosecuting attorney, seeks to draw out a confession

from Jesus by asking one or two questions: Are you the Christ?

Are you the Son of God? To both questions Jesus gives an am-

!) Cf. A. S. HUNT and C. C. EDGAR (eds.), Select Papyri, II. 172-225, TheLoeb Classical Library, Cambridge 1934; and L. METTEIS and U. WILCKEN,Grundzge undChrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 1, II, Leipzig 1912.


7/11

THIS LUKAN VKKSION OF TH1C TRIAL OF JRSUS 255

biguous answer. It is significant also that L portrays for us an

examination before the Sanhdrin itself with the emphasis on the

body and not on any individual, as the high priest in Mark, Caiaphas

in Matthew, and Annas in John.B. Luke xxiii 2. In addition to this, Luke alone records a formal

charge against Jesus. In Luke xxiii 2, a three-fold charge is present

ed from the Sanhdrin to Pilate. The charges are: (1) that Jesus has

been perverting the nation; (2) that Jesus forbade the Jews to

pay Roman taxes; (3) that Jesus claimed to be Christ a king. This

is the only place in the Gospels where the charge is presented

explicitly. In Mark and Matthew the Sanhdrin convicts Jesus of

speaking blasphemy, but this charge could not be maintained

before Pilate. When Jesus appears before Pilate, the latter questionsJesus: "Are you the king of the Jews ?" This implies that the charge

of blasphemy has been transformed into a charge of treason.

But in Luke the charge of treason and treasonous teaching is

clear from the beginning. The best argument for the authenticity

of this charge is the fact that the Church and Luke, in particular,

attempted to portray the ministry of Jesus and the Christian

movement as non-political.

Of the three charged recorded in Luke xxiii 2, the first is too

vague and general to be dealt with. The second and most specific

is that Jesus forbade the Jews to pay the Roman tax. Although

there does not seem to be much basis for this specific charge, there

is a pericope in the Synoptics which may represent something of

the kind. In Mark xii 13-17 and parallels, certain Pharisees and

Herodians question Jesus in this regard. Whoever the Herodians

were, it is worth noting that they are connected with this thorny

political question. All the Gospels, of course, report that Jesus'

answer is affirmative, that one should pay the Roman tax. Althoughthe Gospels are careful to avoid picturing Jesus in a bad light with

Rome, it is doubtful if Jesus' answer had a different character as

originally given. Even so, the presence of this narrative in the

Gospels, at the very least, indicates that Jesus was one who could

reasonably be asked such a question. This pericope is significant

although it is unique. It may, indeed, represent an attempt to

purge Jesus of any connection with a political movement. But why

would the attempt be necessary if it was not believed by some that

he was connected with a political movement. No one defendswhere no one accuses. Coupled with the charge in Luke xxiii 2,


8/11


9/11

TllK LUKAN VERSION OF TRIAL OF JKSUS 257

Pilate. Although there seems to be good reason for accepting the

Herod-incident as basically historical, the fact of duplicity is

important. Herod and his soldiers mock Jesus and dress him in

the garb of a king, says Luke. This is precisely what happened toJesus after his condemnation by Pilate, according to Mark and

Matthew. This detail is missing after Pilate's condemnation in

Luke. It has been transferred to follow the Herod-incident. Is

there not a purpose in this transfer? If it is a symbol of condem

nation, then it means that the L source implies that Herod Antipas

did condemn Jesus. Moreover, Antipas sent Jesus back to Pilate.

What would be the reason for this if Herod had found Jesus not

guilty? If not guilty, Jesus is a free man. At least, this is the way

the case is presented in Luke. Pilate examines Jesus in a preliminaryfashion and finds no fault in him. So he sends him to Herod. It

would seem that if Herod agreed, Jesus would be free. But not

so, Jesus is sent back to Pilate.

This leads to the hypothesis that the two sources used by Luke

carried two different viewpoints. The Markan viewpoint is that

Jesus is presented to Pilate after a night meeting of the Sanhdrin,

that Pilate can find no fault in Jesus but submits to the demands

of the crowd. The viewpoint of Luke's other source is that Jesus

was presented to Pilate after a brief morning meeting of the

Sanhdrin, that Pilate sent him to Herod who found him guilty.

Luke has combined these two, and the combination gives us a

most confused point of view.

The viewpoint of the L source gives us some ground for confidence.

This source points to Herod Antipas as the crucial figure in the

trial of Jesus. And this makes the best historical sense, when we

consider the whole sequence of events. Historically, it harmonizes

with the Markan tradition that Antipas was an enemy of Jesus.From all that we know of Antipas in his relations with both John

the Baptist and Jesus, we must assume that he could only have

thought of Jesus as guilty. This is apparently confirmed in the

special source of Luke, though Luke himself presents a confused

viewpoint.

In addition, the viewpoint of the special source of Luke implies

a rather significant relationship to a certain factor in the career of

Jesus. It is clear from the Markan narrative that there was a close

relationship between the work of John the Baptist and that ofJesus. Mark has also said that Antipas recognized Jesus as "John


10/11

258 TYSON, Tim LUKAN VERSION OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS

the Baptist risen from the dead", or better, "John the Baptist all

over again" x). The Synoptics conta in some references to Herod's

attempt to arrest Jesus2). The reason for this attempt must rest

on Herod's recognition of Jesus. The special source of Luke saysthat Herod had desired to see Jesus for some time. The most

obvious reason for this desire is that which is clearly written in the

synoptic account of Jesus' ministry. "He wanted to see Jesus"

means that he had been after Jesus in order to arrest him. In a

sense, Jesus is a fugitive from justice. The appearance of Herod

Antipas at the trial of Jesus reflects this background, and without

it there is no adequate reason for the arrest and trial and execution

of Jesus.

Our preference for L rests on the conviction that it, and it alone,

makes good historical and legal sense :

1. The source presents a pre-trial hearing for Jesus before the

Sanhdrin, removing virtually all legal objections to the so-called

Jewish trial of Jesus.

2. The L source has a unified viewpoint in regard to the charges

against Jesus.

3. The L source brings into the trial Herod Antipas, the one

person who was in a position to know about Jesus almost firsthandand the one ruler who is known to have attempted to arrest Jesus

on previous occasions.

*) Mark vi 142) E.g., Luke xiii 31-33.


11/11

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus