The use of the term trial does not imply that a proper trial has taken place. It would be more appropriate to refer to the hearing of witnesses or prosecution. This section is intended to provide a status report on legal studies. This is a complex undertaking given the gap between the biblical view of the law and modern jurisprudence. For example, the Israelite law is considered to have been revealed by God as well as the list of punishments. It is the community that has the right and duty to judge cases of homicide and the judges act only as representatives of the community (hence the role of the crowd in the account of Jesus' trial). Witnesses play a role not only in the trial, but also in the execution of the sentence (hence the action of the judges of the Sanhedrin who, having been called as witnesses, participate in its punishment).

As early as the 19th century, jurists and biblical scholars debated the question of the legality of Jesus' trial and the level of responsibility. The conclusions differed greatly according to his Jewish or Christian affiliation.

1. Roman Governance in Judea ca. 30 AD
   1. Developments in Governance at the Beginning of the Empire

      The notion of imperium is defined as follows: The supreme administrative power, including the conduct of war and interpretation as the execution of the law (including the death penalty) which, in Rome, was the responsibility of consuls, military tribunals with consular powers, praetors, dictators and cavalry masters. By extension, Imperium was granted to substitutes for a period of time or until the end of a term of office. Thus, a province was defined as a place where imperium was exercised. Gradually, however, the province came to refer to Roman possessions outside Italy where the inhabitants had to pay a tax to Rome. When a territory was annexed, an edict specified the judicial and financial principles. Before Octavian Augustus, it was the Senate that granted the provinces. But with Octavian, there was a series of changes where Rome went from being a republic to an empire.

      • In 27 BC, Octavian received the title of Augustus and authority over a dozen provinces for ten years, imperial provinces he administered in the name of Rome as proconsul, with the help of selected legates of the equestrian order.
      • In 23 BC, Octavian resigned as proconsul when Rome extended his power to the other provinces; he received the imperial tribune for life, including the right of veto, which meant control of the senate and the end of the republic.
      • In 19 BC, he became a permanent consul, with a territory that had no boundaries
      • In 13 BC, the proconsular imperium over the provinces was extended to Tiberius, who succeeded Augustus.

   2. Governance in Palestine

      In 63 BC, Pompey arrives with his troops in Jerusalem, ending Palestinian independence and the struggles of the Hasmonaean princes to become high priest and king. Palestine became part of the Roman province of Syria and in 47 BC Julius Caesar appointed the high priest Hyrcan II as ethnarch of much of Palestine in recognition of his help during the civil war. In 31 BC, Octavian confirmed the status of Herod the Great, son of Antipater II, the Idumean, whom he considered an allied king. This is the time of splendid constructions, such as the restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem, begun in 20 BC, and the foundation of Maritime Caesarea. The reign ends in brutal repression and the extermination of the Hasmonean family by Herod, who was greatly hated.

      On the death of Herod the Great, despite Jewish opposition, Octavian Augustus appoints Herod Archaelaus as ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, Herod Antipas as ruler of Galilee and Perea, and Herod Philip as ruler of the territories beyond the Lake of Galilee. But in 6 AD, Octavian Augustus gave in to a Jewish petition and exiled Archelaus to Gaul. All the territory for which he was responsible is transferred to Quirinium, a legate of Syria which receives the authority to carry out a census. He is assisted by Copinius, a man of the equestrian order.

      Thus, at the time of Jesus, Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee and Transjordan. The Decapolis was under the legate of Syria. The cities of the northeast, such as Bethsaida and Chorozain, were under the authority of Tetrarch Philip. Finally, Samaria and Judea depended on the authority of the Roman governor who resided in Maritime Caesarea.

   3. Special Issues Pertinent to the Governance of Judea
      1. Relationship between the legate of Syria and the governor of Judea

         Let us first recognize that the province of Syria benefited from its seniority and its legate had four legions of soldiers, while the governor of Judea had only five cohorts. Nevertheless, there was no dependence of Judea on Syria, and when Coponius became the first governor of Judea, he received the full powers of the imperium.

      2. Title of the governor

         Two titles are possible, that of prefect who possessed civil and criminal jurisdiction, and that of procurator who protected the emperor's rights to levy taxes. In the smaller imperial provinces, the same person could play both roles. Tacitus (Annals, 15.44), Josephus (The Jewish War, 2.9.2; #169) and Philo (Ad Gaium, 38; #299) give the name of procurator to Pilate. But they reflect later terminology in force at the time of writing. Technically, the governor of Judea from A.D. 6 to 66 was appointed prefect, with the secondary title of procurator in his task of collecting taxes. We have confirmation of this in an inscription discovered in 1961 where Pilate designates himself praefectus Iudaeae, prefect of Judea.

      3. Power to execute criminals

         If the Prefect of Judea possessed the full imperium, independent of the Syrian legate, did he have the power to impose the death penalty, the so-called Ius gladii (the power of the sword)? The answer is yes. This power was inherent in the office of governor. Paul, in his letter to the Romans (13:3-4), refers to it when he reminds us that the magistrate, an instrument of God, carries the sword to punish those who do evil. According to Josephus (The Jewish War, 2.8.1; #117), Copinius, the first legate of Judea (6-9), was sent with full executive power. And there is no reason to think that his successors did not have the power of coercion to protect Roman interests. The question remains: was the legate the only one with such power? We shall see this later.

2. Jewish Self-governing Bodies, Including the Sanhedrin

   According to the Gospels, the Sanhedrin played a role in the death of Jesus (Mk 15:1; Mt 26:59; Lk 22:66; Jn 11:47). This statement is in harmony with Josephus' statement that Jewish law forbids putting anyone to death, even someone who commits evil, unless the Sanhedrin condemns and decides to do so (Jewish Antiquities 14.9.3; #167). But the Greek word synedrion (Sanhedrin) is a general word which defines both a meeting place and the group which meets, and even its functioning as a council or organ of power, even though in first century Judaism it also designates in a technical sense a specific Jewish assembly.

   1. Before the Creation of the Roman Province of Judea in 6 AD

      During the post-exilic period under foreign control (Persian and Hellenic), leadership was exercised by priests, elders and nobles, including the large families, who had judicial power. Someone like Antiochus III (223-187 BC) recognized the right of nations to govern themselves according to their laws. Even in the troubled period of the second century when the Seleucids tightened their control over Judea by frequently deposing the high priests, the gerousia or assembly of elders continued to play an important role. Under Queen Alexandra (76-67 BC), it was mainly occupied by the Pharisees. In 63 BC, Pompey ends the monarchical succession of the role of high priest, but nevertheless accepts his leadership, which foreshadows the role of the Sadducees in the time of Jesus and its basis among the priests and elders.

      Aulus Gabinus (57-55 BC), governor of Syria, divided Palestine into five synods or synedria. A decade later, Julius Caesar appoints the priest Hyrcan II as ethnarch of the Jews, and the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem seems to assume legal responsibility for all of Palestine, with the power to put Herod to death (Jewish Antiquities, 14.9.4-5; #168-180). In Herod's time, a redacted Sanhedrin becomes the instrument of his will and retains its executive power, even though it seems to be primarily concerned with religious matters.

   2. The Jewish Ruling Body under the Roman Prefecture

      At the beginning of Jesus' period, the gerousia or Sanhedrin in Jerusalem has a religious and somewhat secular responsibility, and seems to be dominated by the high priests, other priests, wealthy nobles and elders, as well as the Pharisees.

      1. The New Testament

         This portrait is confirmed by the texts of the New Testament.

         1. John 11: 47-53: The chief priests and the Pharisees gather the Sanhedrin, to which Caiaphas, the high priest, gave a speech to put Jesus to death.
         2. Acts 4: 5 - 6: 7: Peter appears before the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem composed of the leaders of the Jews, the elders and the scribes under the accusation of preaching the risen Jesus. He is released, but the apostles are later thrown into prison by the high priest and the Sadducee party for healing the sick.
         3. Acts 6: 8 - 8: 2: Stephen appears before the Sanhedrin, where the elders and scribes are mentioned and people are called to testify against him for wanting to destroy the temple and change Jewish customs, which will result in his being sentenced to death by stoning.
         4. Acts 22: 30 - 24: 23: A Roman centurion called a meeting of the chief priests and the whole council to organize a hearing of Paul, and there were Pharisees and Sadducees, and they all discussed matters of the law, and would have judged him if Paul had not been transferred to Caesarea.

      2. Josephus
         He gives us a similar picture when, after the death of Herod the Great, he considers that the government had become an aristocracy and the chief priests exercised their leadership over the nation. He refers to the assembly of chiefs as the Sanhedrin or Boulē (council).
         1. Around the year 62 (Jewish Antiquities, 20.9.1; #200-203). The Sadducean high priest Annanus II summoned the Sanhedrin to judge James, the brother of Jesus and some others, on the charge of having transgressed the Law. He will condemn him to death by stoning. However, some will complain that he had summoned the Sanhedrin without the permission of the Roman procurator, and he will be removed from office.

         2. Around 64 AD (Jewish Antiquities, 20.9.6; #216-217). Agrippa II summoned the Sanhedrin to allow the Levite singers to wear a robe.

         3. Towards the end of the 60's (Life, 12; #62). Josephus asks the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem for instructions when he arrives in Galilee.

         4. Around 44-45 (Jewish Antiquities, 20.1.2; #11). Emperor Claudius sends a letter to the rulers of Jerusalem.

         5. In the mid 60s (The Jewish War, 5.15.6; #331). The procurator Florus informs the assembly of the chief priests and the Boulē of his intention to leave the city of Jerusalem.

         6. In the mid 60s (The Jewish War, 2.16.2; #336). The chief priests and the Boulē go to Jamnia to welcome King Agrippa II and complain about the procurator Florus.

         7. Towards the end of the year 60 (The Jewish War, 5.13.1; #532). Aristaeus, one of the scribes of the Boulē, resides in Emmaus, indicating that the composition of the council was larger than the residents of Jerusalem.

         8. (The Jewish War, 5.4.2; #142-144). Josephus mentions that the northern wall passed through the chamber of Boulē before reaching the western portico of the temple.

         In short, Josephus' description of the Sanhedrin / Boulē is similar to that of the New Testament. It was the supreme authority that negotiated with the Roman authorities and dealt with breaches of the law.

      3. The Mishna

         The Mishna (around 200 AD) introduced some confusion into its Sanhedrin treatise, referring to the assembly as the Grand Sanhedrin or Beth-Din (house of judgment or court), and including experts in the written law and in the tradition of its oral interpretation. Thus, the assembly had become a legal or judicial body, rather than a political one, and dealt primarily with matters of a religious nature. And adding that this had always been the case, it was enough for biblical scholars to imagine that there were two Sanhedrins, one religious, the other political.

         This is not the first time that the Mishna has committed anachronisms. At the time of its final drafting around the year 200, the temple no longer exists and its entire organizational structure had become obsolete. It is therefore normal that the Sanhedrin has become a rather academic institution. Its mistake is to project such a situation into the period before the destruction of the temple, for example, at the time of Jesus. Moreover, speaking of the Sanhedrin and Beth-Din refers to the same institution, as was the case for Josephus, who speaks sometimes of the Sanhedrin and sometimes of the Boulē.

3. The General Functioning of a Sanhedrin
   1. Membership and Meeting Place

      Even though the Mishna (Sanhedrin 1:6) speaks of 71 persons (the 70 elders mentioned by Moses in Numbers 11:16, to which is added the high priest), it is not certain that the total is a definite number, as evidenced by the language of Josephus, who uses the expression "summon a Sanhedrin", as one would say: to gather a group of people.

      There was, of course, the high priest appointed by the Roman prefect. Then there were the heads of the priests, probably former high priests and members of large families from which high priests were chosen and assigned special tasks. Then came the elders from the rich and renowned families. Finally, there were the scribes who were distinguished by their intelligence and knowledge.

      Where did they meet? Not in the temple, but rather in an adjacent square on the side of the western wall.

   2. Dominant Influence on a Sanhedrin: Pharisee or Sadducee?

      It is customary to regard the Sanhedrin as a court with judge and jury. Did he not debate the question whether Herod the Great should not die (Jewish Antiquities, 14.9.4-5; #168-180)? This may be a simplistic view of things, for there is little data on procedures where the accused would be protected. Certainly, it was a body with administrative and executive activities, driven by politico-religious interests, whose mandate was to proceed cautiously and expeditiously.

      On the issue of dominant parties, let us start with the Sadducees. They are generally presented as a priestly caste, strongly Hellenized and pro-Roman, more interested in worldly than religious matters. It is likely that they were an elite coming from the priestly nobility or the secular aristocracy. They were content with the written Law, rejecting the oral tradition that the Pharisees had brought up to the Fathers.

      For their part, the Pharisees had a much more liberal interpretation of the Law. This was certainly true among the scribes, but the Gospels do not insist on it. They are not mentioned in Jesus' trial, except in John (11: 46-47.57; 18: 3). Anyway, the reasons for Jesus' death have nothing to do with the disputes Jesus had with them. The influence of the Pharisees was mainly exercised during the time of Salome Alexandra (141-67 B.C.), but faded with the arrival of the Romans in 63 BC who did not tolerate the intervention of religious figures without public office position. In Jesus' time, they did not control the synagogues, and there were three times as many priests and Levites as Pharisees. They had some influence, but among the well-educated, especially the merchants, traders, and landowners, but not among the masses and ordinary workers. Even later, at the time of the Jewish revolt of the year 60, it is not clear that their voice was predominant, even though great figures like the Pharisee Simon, son of Gamaliel I, negotiated with the Romans the changes of power.

   3. The Trial of Jesus in the Gospels and Its Relation to Mishnaic Law

      Some biblical scholars have attempted to demonstrate that Jesus would have been judged according to the precepts of the Mishna, which, although written in the second century AD, contains practices that date back to the time of Jesus. Such a claim is fraught with enormous difficulties.

      1. Conflicts between the Gospel accounts and later rabbinic procedure
         1. According to the Mishna (Sanhedrin 4:1), it is forbidden to hold a trial with the death penalty on the eve of the Sabbath or on a feast day. However, all four Gospels place legal proceedings against Jesus on the eve of the Sabbath.

         2. According to the Mishna ('Abot 4, 8), a person should not be alone in passing judgment. In John only the High Priest Annas questions Jesus, the other judges seem to be absent.

         3. According to the Mishna (Sanhedrin 4:1), a trial with the death penalty must be held in daylight and the judgment given while it is still daylight. However, the interrogation of Jesus at John's house and the trial before Caiaphas by the Sanhedrin in Mark and Matthew take place at night.

         4. According to the Mishna (Sanhedrin 4, 1.5), a trial with capital punishment must begin with grounds for acquittal and a warning to the witnesses about the need to tell the truth, assuming that witnesses have come to defend the accused. But Mark and Matthew begin the trial with testimony against Jesus, looking for reasons to put him to death. There is no call to tell the truth and no defense witnesses.

         5. The Mishna (Sanhedrin 5:2; 11:6) insists that if witnesses contradict each other, their testimony must be nullified, and a false witness must suffer the fate of the accused if he is found guilty. Now, in Mark and Matthew, the false testimony of people who contradict each other knows no consequences.

         6. According to the Mishna (Sanhedrin 7:5), one can only condemn someone for blasphemy if he pronounced the divine name, and if this happened during the trial, the Sanhedrin would become a witness, and therefore could no longer be a judge. Now, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus' words about himself were considered blasphemy, and therefore the Sanhedrin becoming a witness, could no longer be judge and condemn.

         7. According to the Mishna (Sanhedrin 4:1-2), the undue influence of certain judges must be avoided, and therefore the judgment must begin with the youngest, and a unanimous judgment overturns the sentence in a case of capital punishment. Now, according to Mark and Matthew, the high priest speaks first in pronouncing a judgment of guilt, with the consequence that all the judges found him guilty of the death penalty.

      2. These conflicts and Gospel accuracy

         If the Pharisaic rules of the Mishna, which would have compiled the oral tradition, applied in Jesus' time, it must be concluded that either the Gospel accounts are fictitious, or if they are true, then the Sanhedrin acted illegally. But the reality could also be that the Sanhedrin was not really bound by such rules, and that its procedures were entirely legal. For, even assuming that the Pharisees dominated the Sanhedrin, which is doubtful, one cannot be absolutely sure that the Mishnaic law was in force at that time; on the contrary, the Mishna may have wanted to correct and improve the imprecise jurisprudence of the first century and avoid the repetition of injustice. This might explain, for example, why different sessions for trial and verdict were eventually called for. In this case, the haste to obtain a verdict about Jesus before an approaching feast is quite plausible in the 1st century. With regard to the night trial which is quite abnormal in Judaism (see Acts 4:3-5; 22:30 where Peter, James or Paul are to be judged the next day), one may wonder whether the jurisprudence of the first century was developed to the point of forbidding a trial even when it was necessary to hurry before the approaching feast?

         The question becomes different if the Sadducees dominated the Sanhedrin and followed their written laws. Many biblical scholars argue that there is no written law that would have been broken. Of course, Acts 12:1-4 mentions that Agrippa I had Peter arrested on the day of unleavened bread and put him in prison, but waited until after Easter to bring him before the people. And Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 16:6.2; #163) informs us that Augustus allowed the Jews to follow their customs, and allowed them to avoid going to court to give bail on the Sabbath or the day before from 3:00 p.m. on. This brings us back to the question about the beginning of the Passover feast: was it the beginning of the Passover meal (according to the chronology of the synoptics), or the day on which the lamb was sacrificed to prepare the meal (according to the Johannine chronology)? If we take the synoptic chronology, then John presents us with the Jewish participation in the Roman trials ending at noon on the day of preparation, that is, before the beginning of Passover. Finally, let us note that the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) places the execution of Jesus on the eve of the Passover, i.e. on the very day of preparation, without this seeming inappropriate in the circumstances. In short, it is not clear that the Jewish written law would have been violated in its details.

         Finally, all these questions become irrelevant in the face of a nuanced theory about the sequence of events, i.e. a theory which takes seriously the information provided by John and the schematic character of Jesus' mission in Mark. All the Gospels agree on two events: first, a session of the Sanhedrin to discuss Jesus' activities and decide on his execution, and then an interrogation by the high priest or priests a few hours before the Romans put him to death. But John would be more accurate by keeping these two events separate, the session of the Sanhedrin took place several days before Jesus' arrest. Mark would have merged these two events for pedagogical reasons, easier to remember. From then on, there would be no conflict with Jewish customs, since the only procedure on the day or the eve of the feast would be a few questions to the accused, not a full trial.

4. A Sanhedrin's Competence to Condemn to Death and Execute

   All the canonical Gospels state that it was the Roman prefect of Judea who tried and executed Jesus, while he was temporarily under his jurisdiction. And there is no conflict with the fact that a Jewish Sanhedrin had previously issued a death sentence. But John 18: 31 offers an explanation: It was not permitted for the Jews to put someone to death. In 1914 a Jewish writer, J. Juster, rejected John's statement as false, arguing that the Jews of Jesus' time had the authority to carry out a death sentence. What is the truth of the matter?

   1. General Picture of Roman Control of the Death Penalty

      In general, historical studies conclude that the Romans respected the jurisdiction of local courts in criminal matters, but imposed certain restrictions. Let us take a closer look. In Egypt, according to Philo (De specialibus legibus), Jews had their own courts and could try their fellow citizens in civil and criminal matters according to their own laws, but had to use Roman standards when it came to crimes against the wider society. Moreover, if the Jewish courts could pronounce a death sentence, it had to be ratified by the Roman authority. Similarly, in the senatorial province of Cyrenaica in North Africa, where there was a mixed population of Greeks and Romans, the local courts could try several cases under Greek law. But some death penalty cases involving Greeks required a jury composed equally of Greeks and Romans, and other cases were reserved for the governor. Thus, this setting helps us to understand that Jesus could first be tried by a Jewish Sanhedrin, with the final decision resting with Pilate.

      Let us now consider Palestine. In an oral tradition recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 18a and 24b), it is claimed that the right to pronounce a sentence of life or death was taken away from Israel forty years before the destruction of the temple (i.e. around 30 AD, the probable date of Jesus' death). Even if the number forty should not be taken literally, it must at least be admitted that the memory of the loss of the power to carry out a death sentence by a Jewish court is not unprecedented. Let us first consider what the Jewish historian Josephus says. It was forbidden for non-Jews to enter the inner courtyard of the temple in Jerusalem on pain of death (according to The Jewish War, 6, 2.4; #124-126, Titus allowed Jews to kill anyone who broke this rule, even if the culprit was Roman). On the other hand, when Ananus II summoned a Sanhedrin to judge James, the brother of Jesus, and other Christians, and subsequently have them stoned to death on the grounds that they had broken the Law, he was denounced by some fussy citizens of Jerusalem on points of law, for he had not obtained the consent of the procurator in summoning the Sanhedrin, and therefore lost his position (see Jewish Antiquities, 20, 9.1; #200-203). Finally, the Acts of the Apostles tells the story of Paul, whom the Jews arrest in the temple and want to kill, before a Roman commanding officer snatched him from their hands and sent him to Caesarea to the procurator Felix to preside over a tribunal that reached no conclusion; here we have a case where Roman authority overrides the Sanhedrin (see Acts 21-25).

   2. Proposed Examples of Executions by Jewish Authorities

      The first example is that of the adulterous woman (Jn 7:53 - 8:11). Jesus is asked what to do, since Moses asks to stone such a woman. Indirectly, the account suggests that Jewish authorities can condemn and execute a person caught in the act of adultery, although care must be taken with this account centered on Jesus' clemency.

      According to the Mishna (Sanhedrin 7:2), Rabbi Eleazar ben Sadoq reports that the daughter of a priest who committed adultery was burned alive. The Sages replied that at that time there was no well-trained court to hold a trial. There has been much discussion among biblical scholars as to what period this might have been, some placing it around 41-44, others around 62-26, both periods corresponding to the absence of a Roman procurator, and thus justifying the idea that a Jewish court acted alone. If one does not accept these two dates, one could have here the indication that the Roman authorities allowed the Jewish courts to carry out certain executions for moral matters, such as adultery.

      The killing of Stephen (Acts 6:11ff) offers us a final example. An angry mob brought Stephen before the Sanhedrin on the pretext that he had blasphemed against Moses and God. His stoning to death by stoning is probably a case where the Jews are convinced that such a violation of the Law requires the death penalty, but that the Romans normally do not allow it to go to execution. Why the Romans didn't intervene here? Perhaps they have never heard of it. Or maybe they heard about it but did not intervene to avoid an outcry from the crowd.

   3. Conclusions

      Let us return to the question at the beginning, when we asked whether John was correct in having the Jewish authorities say: "We are not allowed to put anyone to death" (Jn 18:31). We can answer that the Jewish authorities were allowed to put someone to death when it was a matter of prohibition of circulation in the temple or in cases of adultery. Otherwise they had to refer the matter to the Roman authorities. It is easy to imagine that there must have been tension between Jews and Romans over crimes that carried the death penalty under Jewish law, but not under Roman law. Sometimes the Jewish authorities would override the Roman authority and carry out an execution. In such cases, the procurator had to decide whether or not to prosecute, depending on the notoriety of the crime or criminal. From this perspective, one might ask why the Jewish authorities did not execute Jesus themselves, hoping for silence from the Romans. An answer is pure conjecture. But we must not forget the following facts: since Caiaphas remained a high priest throughout Pilate's reign, one can imagine a modus vivendi between the two where the Jews could act as they wished as long as it did not embarrass the prefect; moreover, the feast of the Passover brought a horde of pilgrims to Jerusalem, as well as Pilate himself who was on the lookout for past conflicts with the Jews during the feast. Since the Jewish authorities feared the reaction of the crowds if Jesus was caught, it is easy to understand why they would defer to Roman authority.

5. Evidence of Actions against Jesus by Jewish Authorities

   It is therefore possible that the Sanhedrin put Jesus on trial, condemning him to death, before handing him over to Pilate to be crucified. But moving from a mere possibility to historical plausibility is a challenge: for there is no written record of this trial, and the Gospels were written thirty to seventy years after the events, with a tendency to dramatize and simplify things. Let us examine the data available to us.

   1. Jewish Evidence
      1. Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum

         Written around the year 90, this text by the Jewish historian Josephus refers to an event that took place under the prefect Pilate (from the years 26 to 36). The passages in bold type probably represent later additions by someone else.

         Now about this time there was (appeared) a wise man named Jesus - if indeed one ought to speak of him as a man, for he was a doer of astonishing deeds, a teacher of people who gladly receive what is true. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah (Christos). When/Although Pilate had condemned him to the cross upon indictment (endeixis) of the first-ranking men (prōtoi andres) among us, those who had loved him from the first did not cease [to do so], for he appeared to them once more alive on the third day. The divine prophets has spoken these and other marvelous things about him. The clan of the Christians (Christianoi), named after him, has still not disappeared even up to now.

         As early as the 16th century, the authenticity of this text began to be questioned. Today we recognize that the core of the text comes from Josephus, while some Christians have made additions to the basic text. To a large extent, the vocabulary and style reflect the hand of Josephus, the text itself is well suited to the context in which it speaks of the tense relations between the Jews and Pilate, and what follows gives an example of arbitrary action on his part, which is indicative of Pilate's attitude towards Jesus. The so-called Christian additions appear in full for the first time in the fourth century in Eusebius of Caesarea. But even if we eliminate the passages in bold type, we find a presentation which is substantially in keeping with the portrait painted by the Gospels: Jesus, a religious teacher and miracle-worker, was crucified by the Roman prefect, after the intervention of the Jewish authorities.

      2. The Babylonian Talmud

         A passage from Sanhedrin 43a of the Babylonian Talmud (5th or 6th century) is an oral tradition that probably refers to Jesus :

         On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf". But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover.

         The Talmud continues with a comment: "With Jesus, however, it was different (i.e. he did not seek to deceive), for he was connected with the government". This sentence reflects the Jewish perception that Jesus' death was due to both Jews and Romans. It is referred to here as hanging rather than crucifixion, but the same language can be found in some passages of the New Testament (see Galatians 3:13; Acts 5:30; 10:39). Finally, the accusation of practicing magic is consistent with the echo we have of the Jewish world in the second century, as Origen testifies (see Against Celsus, 1.28,71). Thus, some biblical scholars date this oral tradition in the Talmud before the year 220.

         If we try to go back in time, we find a number of testimonies where the Jews seem to recognize their role in the death of Jesus.

         1. The Roman philosopher Celsus (2nd century) speaks of a Jew who said to other Jews who had become Christians: "Only three days ago we punished the impostor who abused us: and it was only then that you abandoned the law of your fathers.... Jesus was punished by the Jews, as his crimes had deserved" (Origen, Against Celsus, 2, 4).

         2. In his Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon (c. 150) Justin makes the following statement: "In insulting the Christ and us who came out of him, no nation has made a guilty friend but yours; you are the authors of the prejudices and slanders that pursue us everywhere. You have crucified the only righteous man, the only innocent man...", an assertion that Tryphon does not seem to refute, but to which he would rather add: "If God has willed that he should suffer, to heal us all by his wounds, we are without crime" (17:1; 95:3).

   2. Christian Evidence Independent of the Gospels

      The writing of the Gospels is situated between the years 70 and 100, which largely involved the Jews in the death of Jesus. It is therefore necessary to look for texts that precede this period. Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, written around the year 50, is very important in this respect.

      14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last. (1 Thess 2, 14-16)

      Paul clearly states that the Jews "killed the Lord Jesus", an idea that would not be new to him, since shortly after Jesus' death he was in Jerusalem and hostile to Christians (see Galatians 1:13,18). Several biblical scholars have questioned the authenticity of this text:

      1. Isn't the expression "the Jews", where Paul seems to disassociate himself from his fellow countrymen, an expression that is found only much later?
      2. Why does Paul not mention the role of the Romans?
      3. Isn't the reference to the killing of the prophets a post-70s language?
      4. Doesn't the apocalyptic context presuppose the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70?
      5. Doesn't this judgment on the Jews contradict Paul's passages where he speaks of the ultimate conversion of Israel?
      6. Can we not consider this passage as an insertion, since it can be removed without destroying the meaning of the paragraph?

      To these objections, the answer must be:

      1. In his second letter to the Corinthians (11:24,26), Paul mentions the lashes received "from the Jews" without disassociating himself from his fellow countrymen.
      2. Paul is comparing the way the Jews of Thessalonica behaved with the way they behaved towards Jesus, so there is no reason to refer to the Romans.
      3. On the contrary, already in his letter to the Romans (11:3), Paul speaks of the murder of the prophets.
      4. Apocalyptic language is flexible to cover many situations, and it should be noted that just before this letter the Jews were excluded from Rome in 49 AD.
      5. If Paul hopes for the ultimate conversion of Israel in his letter to the Romans, this does not prevent him from speaking of the wrath of God which is now manifesting itself (see Romans 2:5).
      6. Almost all the verses of the Bibles can be removed without destroying the general meaning, to which one can add that to return to the theme of affliction after an interruption is quite Pauline.

      It must therefore be concluded that this passage, authentically Pauline, testifies to the fact that Christians involved the Jews very early on in the death of Jesus. And this is in agreement with the letter to the Galatians (3:13) which refers to Deuteronomy 21:23 which declares cursed the one who is hanged from a tree, and therefore affirms that by his death even at the hands of the Sanhedrin who evoked the Law, Jesus invalidated this Mosaic Law. What is at stake is therefore totally Jewish, and to evoke the role of the Romans in the death of Jesus would be a distraction.

   3. Pagan Evidence

      Data collection is very meagre. For example, Tacitus (Annals, 15, 44) only mentions the execution of Jesus under Tiberius, and his writings are late (about 120). There is indeed the Syrian Mara bar Serapion of Samosate who mentions the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews in a letter addressed to his son:

      For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into Every land. Nay, Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

      This text does not seem to have been influenced by Christianity, since Jesus is called the "wise king". However, it is written between the 3rd and 6th centuries.

      Finally, we can use two texts by the Jew Josephus recounting two Roman actions, the first concerning two sons of Judas the Galilean, the leader of a Jewish revolt, whom Tiberius had crucified (Jewish Antiquities, 20.2.2; #102-103), and the second concerning Jesus son of Ananias who spoke against the temple of Jerusalem and its sanctuary, which the Jewish leaders arrested and handed over to the procurator Albinus (Jewish War, 6.5.3; #300-304). The latter case is similar to Jesus' case, where it is first a matter of religious disturbances that are first managed by the religious authorities, before the Roman authorities get involved.

      In short, all the testimonies support the role of the Jews in the death of Jesus.

6. Responsibility and/or Guilt for the Death of Jesus

   The reading of the Gospels will have convinced most people that Jesus was a religious leader who taught the truth and rescued many people, so the act of crucifying him was an unjust action. This sense of injustice is heightened for one who believes in his divinity, to the point that we will sometimes speak of deicide, the murder of a God. The Romans, of course, have their share of responsibility, but since their empire has collapsed, only the Jewish nation has survived the passage of time and must therefore face the opprobrium of some. And this opprobrium is justified by the fact that, according to Matthew 27:25, ("His blood be on us and on our children") the Jewish people have accepted responsibility for it forever. Thus, in the course of history, a number of authors (Augustine, Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, etc.) have justified the right and duty of Christians to hate and punish the Jews, until the Second Vatican Council in 1965 (Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) made it clear that the events of Christ's passion cannot be used indiscriminately to blame all the Jews of that time and those of today. It is important, therefore, to review the role the Gospels make the Jews play in the death of Jesus and to make observations for a constructive interpretation of this role.

   1. AntiJudaism in the Passion Narratives of the Four Gospels
      1. Mark

         For Mark, the chief priests and scribes have already decided that Jesus must die and are ready to give money to Judas to find the time to act without the knowledge of the people. They seek testimonies against Jesus, and when they prove to be false and contradictory, they condemn him for blasphemy based on his own words and deliver him to Pilate. This portrait reflects above all a fanatical intolerance towards Jesus, but not hypocrisy or a consciousness of rejecting God. There is nothing totally anti-Jewish about it. Mark puts the Jewish and Gentile authorities in the same basket.

      2. Matthew

         His portrait accentuates the malevolence of the Jews in the death of Jesus. The chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin deliberately seek false testimony against Jesus. The Jewish authorities appear cynical when they scrupulously respect the law by refusing to allow the money handed over by Judas to go to the temple treasury and instead buy the potter's field. By recounting that Pilate's wife considers Jesus to be a righteous man following a dream and that Pilate also considers him innocent in washing his hands, Matthew only accentuates the dishonesty of the Jews who persist in their blindness. He even extends the blame to all the people who take legal responsibility for Jesus' death (His blood be on us and on our children, 27:25); he does not claim that the people are dishonest like the authorities, but rather that they are willing to cooperate and be responsible. The malevolence of the Jews continued after Jesus' death when the chief priests and elders gave a large sum of money to the soldiers guarding the tomb to explain the empty tomb as a theft of Jesus' body by his disciples. On the whole, it seems that all the Jews are against Jesus, but that they have been deceived by malicious leaders.

      3. Luke

         Luke's portrait seems at first glance less accusing of the Jewish authorities, since a group of Jews appear at his side (the people accompanying him to the place of execution beat their chests) and, on the cross, Jesus claims that they acted out of ignorance. But, as far as Luke is concerned, even if the data is a little scattered, the Jewish authorities nonetheless condemned Jesus to death and a part of the population shares the responsibility for it: during the Roman trial, they falsely accuse Jesus of having prevented Caesar from paying the tax, and after Pilate and Herod had both considered him not guilty, they demand with the people his death sentence. This portrait of the Jews will be further blackened in the Acts of the Apostles through the judgment of Paul who quotes Isaiah: "For the spirit of this people is thickened, and they have closed their ears and closed their eyes, lest their eyes should see, their ears should hear, their minds should understand, and they should be converted" (28:27).

      4. John

         John's anti-Jewish portrayal had begun earlier with the constant struggle between Jesus and those he simply calls: the Jews, so that the passion narrative adds little new to it. He shows us that the chief priests and the Pharisees had already cynically decided to kill him to avoid Roman intervention that would have destroyed the temple and the nation (11:48), and his anti-Jewish picture culminates in the scene where the chief priests renounce their messianic hope and rely on Caesar: "We have no king except Caesar!" (19, 15). The malevolence of the Jews goes so far as to demand that the sign be changed into a cross (the King of the Jews) and that Jesus' legs be broken.

   2. Observations about Jewish Involvement in the Death of Jesus
      1. Religious people could have disliked Jesus

         Let us ask ourselves the question: if Jesus was the person as described in the Gospels, would he not have been perceived as so offensive that a Jewish religious body would have found him intolerable? Let us not forget, Jesus is presented as someone who regularly and gladly frequents sinners who willingly accept him. Moreover, he criticizes a religious attitude which appears praiseworthy, that of obeying the commandments, practicing certain religious rites such as fasting and prayer, and giving alms money (Luke 18:11-14). But perhaps what seemed most irritating was his claim to speak in the name of God. So it is easy to imagine that Jesus could have stirred up enmities. Basically, the Gospel portrayal of Jesus implies that any religious group would have found Jesus guilty, regardless of generation, including today's generation.

      2. Religious opposition often led to violence

         When we look at the data for the period from 130 BC to 70 AD, we can see that the Jews did not hesitate to kill each other for religious reasons:

         1. 2nd c. BC: a high priest seeks to kill the Essene master of justice on the day of the Great Pardon
         2. Around 100 BC: Alexander Jannaeus massacres 6,000 Jews during the Feast of Tabernacles on the pretext that they challenged his title of high priest, before crucifying 800 people after having slaughtered their wives and children in front of their eyes
         3. Around 62-63 AD: Ananias, in agreement with the Pharisees, executed James, the brother of Jesus, and other Christians on the pretext that they had broken the Law.

         We should not be surprised when we know that Christians themselves in two thousand years of history have not hesitated to hate and kill their Christian co-religionists.

      3. Responsibility, not guilt

         It is possible that some members of the Sanhedrin may have decided Jesus' guilt because of self-interest and without genuine religious concern. The term guilt certainly suits them. But for those who really thought they were serving God by bringing Jesus to justice, it is better to talk about responsibility for Jesus' death. For one can speak of guilt only if one knew that such punishment was undeserved and was careless in discerning his innocence.

      4. An innerJewish religious dispute with Jesus

         Let us not forget that in the context of the passion narratives we are in front of Jews who are intervening with a Jewish co-religionist. The story of the prophet Jeremiah offers us a good parallel when the latter invites his people to change their behavior or else see the temple of Jerusalem destroyed. The priests and (false) prophets of the time persuaded the people that they deserved death, even though Jeremiah warned that it would be innocent blood that they would put on them. Jeremiah's death was not successful, but the temple was destroyed nonetheless, and his destruction was seen as a punitive act of God. For Jews and Christians alike, the story of Jeremiah provides an opportunity to reflect on what people who claim to be God's people can do to their own prophet whom God raised up in their midst. But there will remain a difference between Christians and Jews: Christians speak of what "their" leaders did to "our" savior, while Jews speak of what "our" leaders did to "their" (false) prophet.