Jesus of Nazareth - the Most Infamous Trial
Jesus of Nazareth - the Most Infamous Trial
Author(s): Jiří BílýSubject(s): Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence
Published by: STS Science Centre Ltd
Keywords: Trial; high priests; Sanhedrin; crucifixion; gospels; Passions; Judaism; Christians.
Summary/Abstract: The authorities charged Jesus with being a false prophet who had uttered blasphemy by claiming to be Messiah and Son of God. The Sanhedrin could no doubt have organized a stoning as they did in the case of Stephen a few years later. The Romans neither intervened to save Stephen nor, so far as is known, took action against the perpetrators. But evidently the Jewish leaders wanted to go futher and have the hated Galilean executed with as much publicity as possible. To be hanged from a tree (Deut. 21:22-23) was a death reserved for the accursed of God, but the Roman governor was the only authority that could order crucifixion, a death that could be interpreted, as it later was, as fulfilling the terms of the Deuteronomic curse. Even so they took a risk, for in the eyes of many to die at the hand of the Romans on a poiitical charge was an honorable end. Barabbas would have become a local hero. The risk, however, was taken. The Jewish leaders were incensed by Jesus‘ calm avowal of his messianic character to Caiaphas. So Jesus was taken before Pilate. Pilate made a futile effort to transfer Jesus to the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas who happened to be in the city for the feast. It was a good diplomatic move, but the case came back to Pilate. There the high priests gave their version of Jesus‘ answer concerning the tribute penny, suggesting to the reader of the Gospels perhaps that this question had been put as a means of collecting evidence against him. Pilate was not convinced. He turned to Jesus with the direct question, „Are you guilty or not?“ just as Pliny the Younger would question the Christians taken before him in Bythinia eighty years later – „Are you the King of the Jews?“ Jesus‘ reply gave him no help. Pilate procrastinated. Only when he was cornered and threatened with denunciation, that if he acquitted Jesus he would be „no friend of Caesar“, and confronted with growing disorder, did he give way. He also feared seditious outbreaks and had to play safe; but his contempt for the high priests was unbounded.
Journal: Journal on European History of Law
- Issue Year: 4/2013
- Issue No: 1
- Page Range: 92-95
- Page Count: 1
- Language: English
- Content File-PDF