|
The
Historical Jesus
The Trial and Death of Jesus
Traditional accounts of the trial and death of Jesus are so well known
that the paucity of historical details about "what really
happened" can come as a surprise. The bare bones of history presented
here are just that - a maximum about which we can be
reasonably certain is history to the satisfaction of the general body of
historians. This can be contrasted with the criteria of biblical critics
which are often less demanding.
The bare bones history we are left with in Mark is much
the same in Matthew and Luke. It's surrounding details pose a
problem because disagreement between the three sources is substantial.
John's account differs from the others to a considerable degree. The
account in the Gospel of Peter is also very different.
"Good" history is that account of what really
happened about which we can be reasonably certain. This requires more than
one account of an event. A stand-alone account may be accurate, but unless
there is some corroboration, we can never be certain. Conversely, if the
very broad outline is the same in more than one
source, but the smaller details disagree, then we have to eliminate those
elements which are contradictory.
An important element in establishing what really
happened is often a good knowledge of motive. Just as a crime is difficult
to prove without demonstrating motive, so the motives of the Gospel
authors are crucial to good history. If it can be shown - as I think has
been shown - that their primary motive was very frequently to make
theological rather than historical points, anything which looks like
theology or may have a theological point has to be in doubt.
If the doubt is reasonable, then it must prevail. A good
example of the process of establishing reasonable doubt is well portrayed
in the film Twelve Angry Men. The case against a teenager who
killed his father seems cast-iron.
But questions arise. How could a
witness have seen what she said she'd seen if she didn't have her glasses
on? How could the act have been seen from a passing elevated train if the
observer's coach was
not opposite the right window at the right moment? Why did the psychological
profile of the youth not match the violent act? The accused had to be
found not guilty.
To get to the point of reasonable certainty (that is,
high probability) on so important a narrative, I have been ruthless in
eliminating everything that indicates that it probably was (or even might
have been) invented by the author of Mark. The accounts of Matthew and
Luke seem to have originated with Mark's version, though each has made his
own distinctive changes.
When I say "invented"
I mean primarily the following:
Even though I suspect that good evidence might lie
behind an account, if it is clearly presented as fulfilling Old
Testament prophecy I usually have to put it aside. When the author of Mark is clearly mistaken about
something for which we have evidence external to his Gospel I
have to take the outside authority as more certain if it is itself good
evidence. This is mainly because Mark's author is more likely, because
he writes as a Christian, to be biased. If scholars agree that the structure of the
text indicates that it has been cobbled together from bits and pieces
into what seems at first sight a continuous account, I have to
exercise caution about the text as an historical record. Good accounts
of "what really happened" are usually constructed as a
whole. They don't demonstrate obvious breaks in continuity.
In this case, we should remember that most scholars
think that Mark's Gospel is almost certainly the earliest of the four (in
my opinion, most likely no earlier than 70ce
and not much later).
This doesn't necessarily guarantee that it's the most accurate, however.
This account of what's usually known as the "Passion" or
"suffering" of Jesus is very similar to all the other Gospels.
Many scholars think the exceptions to that similarity are relatively
insignificant. If they are all crafted from an original tradition, and
Mark's account is poor history, then the chances are they are all
similarly blighted as accounts of "what really happened".
One conclusion, then, is that a traditional (perhaps
verbal) version of the Passion narrative began with the arrest of Jesus -
so the chapter break in our Bibles is not quite the best in terms of
narrative continuity.
There are a
few broad conclusions about the narrative which many scholars support:
The arrest and crucifixion of Jesus almost certainly
took place during the Passover and Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
Jerusalem would in all probability have been a busy, crowded and
somewhat chaotic place at this time. We have considerable evidence
that Jewish and Roman authorities would have been nervous about the
possibility of riot and disorder.
So even if Judas wasn't the one who
identified Jesus, then it was probably someone who knew him or the
area well. It would
have been important to accomplish a quick, quiet arrest among the
festival crowds. The authorities would not have wanted an uncertain,
disturbing search through thousands of excited pilgrims. We can trust the information about the followers of
Jesus running for it. Original verbal information such as this is
often massaged to present important people (like Peter) in a good
light. We can be certain that Mark's author did just this in the case
of Jesus himself, identifying him with the Jewish Messiah, for
example.
So a bit of information like this, which is negative about
important Christians, can probably be
trusted as good history - even though it's here sandwiched between
elements designed to convey theological meaning rather than plain
history "as it really happened". The gripping account of Peter's denial of Jesus has
all the elements of a good story, but few indicating good history.
There's nothing wrong in reading the tale for what it is.
But what
must alert us about the historical veracity of it is (a) it's obvious
construction as a story, including predictions and (b) the likelihood,
driven home by many scholars, that it is included as a cautionary tale
to early Christians about the horrible sin of apostasy. This would
have been an important lesson to be taught to early Christians. They
were under considerable pressure to the point of persecution by Jewish
and Roman authorities.
Remember, the author of Mark did not view
"truth" and "lies" as we do. He had relatively
little concern for the scientific discovery and presentation of
history as events which really happened.
As you can read elsewhere on this site, I apply the
principle of "analogy" to history. That is, things which can't
happen today probably never could. Put another way, I'm not willing to
accept (as I do, by and large) the huge body of modern thought and
knowledge in my ordinary daily life, and also accept an entirely
contradictory body of thought and knowledge such as prevailed in the times
the Gospels were assembled and written.
So, for example, that
"darkness covered the entire land" miraculously because
the Son of God was being killed is not "what really happened",
except perhaps by coincidence.
The following details are useful:
The details of the trial are suspect because they
don't fit what we know of normal trial procedures from the Rabbinic Mishnah,
a document of the late 2nd century which codified much earlier
information. We know that the Rabbis of the time were
extremely careful to preserve such traditional material accurately. That the trial was held in the middle of the night is
inferred, although nothing says so directly. A trial at
night is most unlikely, if only because it was against due process,
framed to prevent a stitch-up. Such a trial had by law to be held in broad
daylight. It certainly would not have been held in the
High Priest's house, as implied by Mark 14.54. The accusation of blasphemy was a capital offence,
punished by stoning to death. If blasphemy was the proven charge,
there would have been no
reason to hand Jesus over to the Romans. Death by crucifixion was a
Roman not a Jewish penalty. Scholars think that Jesus probably said something
about the Temple ceasing to be important in God's new empire. But
everything we know about Judaism indicates that whatever Jesus said
about the Temple did not constitute blasphemy. It might not
have been liked, but it was no reason to kill him. Blasphemy would was almost certainly one of the
early accusations made by Jews against early Christians. This was
because no Jew could countenance the possibility that the Messiah
could die on a cross (or post) of wood (see Deuteronomy 21.23). Mark
could easily have made this mistake, assuming that the same applied to
Jesus. In verse 14.61 the phrase "Messiah, son of the
Blessed One" is not a Hebrew expression but a later Greek
addition. The reply of Jesus in verse 62 is from Daniel 7.13 and Psalm
110 and therefore most likely an interpolation by the author in line
with early Christian usage. If Jesus was finally condemned for something like
being a "king" (the same thing as "leader" in
modern terms) of a potential Jewish rebellion, this was something the
Romans would have expected the Jewish authorities to nip in the bud.
There is every reason to think that the Roman authorities would not
have worried about a trial for a lowly Palestinian peasant. Even for
highly-placed Roman citizens, so-called justice could be rough and
ready. The Roman Empire was what we would today call a fascist police
state. We should note that two accounts have been
fitted together - one of immediate proceedings (at night) and another
in the early morning. Whenever collation happens, the historicity is
suspect. If witnesses were suborned, why did they fail to
agree in what they said? This doesn't make good historical sense. Scholars tell us that there is a very rough
transition linguistically between Jesus' answer in verse 61 and the
High Priest's question - yet another sign of editorial clumsiness.
These and many other objections make the Passion of
Jesus as recounted by Mark unlikely as good history which would be
acceptable to a
majority of critical historians today.
This is not to say that we shouldn't accept more than
this "bare bones history" as possible. But it does mean that we
have to be cautious about many of the details of the Passion in terms of
"what really happened".
My personal guess is that events went something like
this:
Jesus was somewhere in Jerusalem during the Feast of
the Passover and Unleavened Bread (between the years 30 and 35, but more
likely the latter). Jewish and Roman authorities alike
were hypersensitive to any possibility of serious unrest - if only
because such events were difficult to put down, cost much in loss of
life and property, and needed extra troops to be brought in.
We know of
other cases where the Romans took decisive, brutal action against
disturbers of the peace around this time. Add to this
the notorious bloody-mindedness of the Jews for which we have abundant
evidence, and we can understand that the Roman garrison would have been
on the alert for the slightest signs of trouble.
Jesus had been earmarked as a trouble maker. Although
we're not sure exactly when the events took place, it seems likely that
his actions in the Temple and a noisy entry into the city had raised his
profile as a danger to security.
A decision was made by the Jewish High Priest - one of
whose responsibilities it was to watch over the security of Jerusalem on behalf of the
Romans - to get rid of Jesus. With the help of someone who knew him, he
was identified and quietly arrested.
After an informal examination he was passed
on to the Roman military. Without further ado they whipped him as an
example to others, and then crucified him outside the walls of the city.
The site of the execution came to be known as the "Place of the Skull" and was
near a road so that passersby could see an example being made.
[Home] [Back] |
