In 63 BCE the Roman general Pompey entered Jerusalem making Judea part of the Roman Empire. The Romans allowed the high priest to remain in office, using him as an administrative liaison with the local Jewish leadership, but there was no doubt who controlled the land. They appointed Herod the Great king in 40 BCE to rule the Jews of Palestine. He ruled from then until his death in 4 BCE. Upon his death, his kingdom was split up among his sons, but Judea was eventually placed under direct Roman rule under procurators (governors) who were appointed by the Roman senate or the emperor himself. Pontius Pilate was one such procurator. During Pilate's time as Procurator, a son of Herod the Great, Herod Antipas ruled Galilee. The Romans were in charge of Judea and the procurators were the rulers. When Pilate was procurator he was the most powerful man in Judea.
After Jesus' arrest, all the synoptic gospels tell a very similar story to begin with. Jesus is taken to Caiaphas the high priest. Some of the chief priests, scribes and elders are there. In Mark and Matthew some unidentified people testify against Jesus and then Caiaphas questions him. They accuse him of blasphemy and find him deserving of death. In Luke, no one testifies against him and Caiaphas doesn't question him directly. He, along with the chief priests, scribes and elders question Jesus. The questioners aren't identified as individuals only as "they". No accusation of blasphemy is made, nor is Jesus said to be deserving of death. In Luke this questioning takes place the same day that Jesus is taken before Pilate. In Mark and Matthew it takes place the day before Jesus is taken before Pilate. In his replies to the questioning, Jesus speaks 24 words in Mark, 30 words in Matthew and 42 words in Luke.
The next day (same day in Luke) Jesus is taken before Pilate, the procurator of Judea, to be tried. In Mark, Pilate is immediately suspicious of the accusations that are being brought against Jesus. When Jesus makes no reply to the accusations Pilate "wondered". Also, "He perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." And he asks them, "What evil has he done?" In Matthew, Pilate "wondered greatly" at Jesus' silence in response to the accusations. Also, "For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up." And he asks, "Why, what evil has he done?" Mark and Matthew are very similar up to this point. The similarity continues as they both have Pilate relenting and delivering Jesus up to be crucified However, Luke is quite different. Pilate's initial response to Jesus is, "I find no crime in this man." When he learns that Jesus is from Galilee he sends him to see Herod Antipas, who is then in Jerusalem. Galilee is his jurisdiction. At first, Herod is pleased to see Jesus, as he has heard about him, and is hoping to see some sign done by him. Jesus refuses to answer any of his questions and Herod becomes frustrated with Jesus and he and his soldiers treat him with contempt and mock him. Herod sends him back to Pilate. This scene with Herod is unique to Luke. It doesn't appear in any of the other gospels.
Pilate again states his position on Jesus. "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him; neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold nothing deserving death has been done by him; I will therefore chastise him and release him." The crowd voices their disapproval and Pilate again states his position, but they don't listen to him so he addresses them a third time, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him." The crowd continues to shout for Jesus' crucifixion and Pilate relents and delivers Jesus up to their will.
The author of the gospel of John adds a little twist to his version of this story and gets himself into a bit of trouble for doing so. The arresting party takes Jesus not to Caiaphas the high priest, but to his father-in-law Annas. This doesn't make much sense. Annas was a former high priest, but he isn't now. His son-in-law occupies that position. Annas has no authority now. The high priest, Caiaphas (not Annas), questions Jesus, who is anything but silent in this gospel. He speaks eloquently to Caiaphas speaking 69 words in doing so. Then Annas sends Jesus to the high priest. WHO JUST FINISHED QUESTIONING HIM! This is a glaring chronological error. The conversation between Jesus and Caiaphas takes place before Annas sends Jesus to see him.
Jesus is brought before Pilate, who suggests to them that they take him and judge him by their own law. They tell him it is unlawful for them to carry out a death sentence. Pilate has a private conversation with Jesus in the praetorium, the procurator's residence. The others have stayed outside as they don't wish to be defiled, otherwise they won't be able to eat the passover meal. Again, Jesus waxes eloquent with Pilate, after which Pilate goes outside to address the crowd. He tells them, "I find no crime in him...." The crowd isn't satisfied so Pilate brings out Jesus and says, "Behold, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him." The crowd shouts that they want Jesus crucified so Pilate tells them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him." They tell Pilate that Jesus ought to die for he has made himself the Son of God. Pilate speaks to Jesus; Jesus doesn't answer. Pilate says to him, "Will you not speak to me? Do you know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus finds his tongue again and answers him. Pilate seeks to release Jesus, but the Jews object and say things that make Jesus appear to be against Caesar. Pilate relents and turns him over the be crucified.
All four gospels make it abundantly clear that Pilate's verdict was NOT GUILTY. Where did this trial take place? JUDEA. Who was in charge there? THE ROMANS. Judea was part of their empire. Who was the Roman's most powerful man there at this time? Pontius Pilate, the procurator, the governor. He was in charge. How do the gospels explain Pilate's supposed lack of power? According to Mark, Pilate wished to satisfy the crowd. According to Matthew, Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing , but rather that a riot was beginning. According to Luke, the voices of the chief priests etc. prevailed. According to John, Pilate becomes more afraid when he hears,"We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." But in the end, he just hands Jesus over to be crucified, no reason given.
This is hard to comprehend. Why do the Jewish subjects in the Roman Empire appear to be running the show. The Romans are in charge here. What Pilate says, goes. He found Jesus innocent and intends to release him. That should be the end of it. Pilate said himself he had power to release him and power to crucify him. There were surely guards and soldiers in and around the praetorium and both Mark and Matthew say that the soldiers called for the whole battalion when the verdict to crucify Jesus came down. Why didn't Pilate call for them when his verdict was being resisted? If he could do it later, he could have done it then. I'm sure the chief priests, scribes and elders would have been no match for a battalion of trained and armed soldiers reinforced with the soldiers and guards of the court. I doubt the modus operandi of the Roman forces was to back down whenever anyone put up a bit of resistance to their ambitions. They would never have created one of the great empires of all time if they had.
But Pilate had another option. He could simply have waited them out. He could have just kept talking and refusing to change his verdict. The Jews had already told Pilate that it was unlawful for them to carry out an execution, and Pilate had told them in John, to go ahead and crucify him themselves. They declined his offer. Apparently, they weren't up to doing their own dirty work. They wanted the Romans to do it for them. This would give Pilate the upper hand. They're not up for killing Jesus themselves, and Pilate doesn't want to, since he considers Jesus to be innocent. Looks like a stand off. So, just wait them out and eventually they'd get tired and/or hungry and go home. Pilate would have been home free and so would Jesus.
Interesting notes:
1. In Matthew as the Jews are crying out for Jesus to be crucified they call out, "His blood be upon us and on our children." Have so few words ever caused so much persecution and grief as these nine have? It's hard to believe anyone would say something like this. I suppose it could be argued that they were trying to make it easier for Pilate to condemn Jesus, as his blood would be on their hands, not Pilate's, but that's not how it works. Just saying someone's blood is on your hands doesn't make it so. And even if it did, putting it on your children as well? Who would do such a thing if they did think it worked that way?
2. According to Mark, Matthew and Luke Jesus says exactly 4 words to Pilate; that being, "You have said so." According to John, Jesus says a whopping 116 words to Pilate.
3. The man that Pilate releases from prison for the Jews (a passover feast tradition apparently) is named Barabbas, who is a rebel who committed murder during an insurrection according to Mark; a notorious prisoner according to Matthew; a man imprisoned for murder and for participating in an insurrection in Jerusalem according to Luke and a robber according to John. The Romans took insurrection seriously. It doesn't seem likely that this murderer and rebel would be the kind of prisoner that they would release. They usually crucified those found guilty of insurrection. One of the robbers that was crucified with Jesus would have made a more likely candidate for release. The chief priests etc. didn't care who was released as long as it wasn't Jesus.
4. In Mark, the high Priest, Caiaphas, asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the son of the blessed. Jesus replies, "I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." In Matthew, the high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God; to which he replies, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven." In Luke, in response to "If you are the Christ, tell us." Jesus replies,"If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." In John, Jesus says nothing remotely like this. Notice that in Luke, Jesus' reply no longer contains the words, "...you will see..." Most christian scholars believe that Luke was the third gospel written (approximately 80-85 CE), so a considerable amount of time had past since Jesus's death, making it likely that Caiaphas had already died when Luke's gospel was penned. This would make Jesus' prediction that Caiaphas would see Jesus return on the clouds of heaven rather unlikely. And when John's author penned his gospel a decade or two later still, the clock had certainly run out on Jesus' prediction, hence no similar quote in John. The author would have looked foolish if he had included a prediction from Jesus that all his readers would have known hadn't come true. It still hasn't, some two thousand years later.
5. Matthew 26:59-61, "Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, they found none, though many false witnesses came forward." False witnesses provide false testimony, right? So, many false witnesses came forward with their false testimony, but they couldn't find any. Does this make any sense?
