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
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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-
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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.
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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.
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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.
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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,
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
8/11
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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.
7/31/2019 Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus
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.