Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §15.3
whether Mark 14.55-64 is the account of a proper trial before a properly convened
body properly described as 'the Sanhedrin' . 80 All that the account itself indicates
is a hearing before an ad hoc council convened by Caiaphas to advise
him. 81 To pursue questions of legality (in reference to the subsequent constitution
and procedure of the Sanhedrin) 82 is therefore largely a waste of time, with
so many probable anachronisms in play as to render the question itself almost
meaningless. This is not to deny that some sort of legal process took place. The
fact that Jesus was 'handed over' is well rooted in the tradition. It is true that the
term has been characteristically elaborated in terms of Judas as the 'betrayer', 83
and theologized in terms of Jesus being 'handed over' for our sins/us. 84 But the
more basic technical sense of 'handed over into the custody of is still evident, 85
including the Semitic construction 'delivered into the hand(s) of'. 86 So there is a
strong likelihood that behind Mark 14.55-64 lies the historical fact that Jesus was
'handed over' to the Roman authorities as the outcome of a hearing before an ad
hoc council convened by the High Priest Caiaphas. 87
As to the account of the hearing before Caiaphas itself, there can be little
doubt that Mark 14.55-59 is at best a partisan account of what happened (the testimony
against Jesus is regarded as 'false'). But the account could well have been
based on nonpartisan reports. We can be sure that the first followers of Jesus
would have been curious about what had transpired before Caiaphas's council.
And at least some information may well have been gleaned from one or two of
those present — whether from attendants, or guards, or even a member of the
80. Here again, to analyse the full account synoptically would be too space-consuming;
we will focus on key elements (below and §16.4c[2]).
81. See particularly Sanders, Jesus 296-301; also Judaism 475-90: 'The trial of Jesus
agrees very well with his [Josephus's] stories of how things happened' (487).
82. Cf. especially P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961). On the legal
issues see particularly J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (Regensburg: Pustet, 4 1969); Brown,
Death 357-72. Theissen and Merz summarize the contrasts between the Markan/Matthean
'trial' and the rules relating to trials in the Mishnah {Historical Jesus 460-62). See further
P. Egger, "Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato". Das "Crimen" Jesu von Nazareth im Spannungsfeld
römischer und jüdischer Verwaltungs- und Rechtsstrukturen (Münster: Aschendorff, 1997).
83. Mark 3.19/Matt. 10.4/Luke 6.16; Mark 14.10-11, 18, 21, 42, 44/Matt. 26.15-16, 21,
23, 24-25, 46, 48/Luke 22.4, 6, 21-22; Matt. 27.3-4; Luke 22.48; 24.20.
84. Rom. 4.25; 8.32; Gal. 2.20; Eph. 5.2, 25.
85. Mark 10.33/Matt. 20.19/Luke 18.32; Mark 15.1, 10/Matt. 27.2, 18; Mark 15.15/
Matt. 27.26/Luke 23.25; Matt. 26.2; Luke 20.20; John 18.30, 35; Acts 3.13; cf. 1 Cor. 11.23.
86. Mark 9.31/Matt. 17.22/Luke 9.44; Mark 14.41/Matt. 26.45; Luke 24.7; further details
in BDAG, paradidömi lb; Davies and Allison, Matthew 2.734 and n. 16.
87. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.64: 'when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading
men among us (tön proton andrön par' hemin), condemned him to the cross . . .'. Of contemporary
discussions see particularly Harvey, Jesus 23-31.
630