Chapter 278 of 404

Speculation or Source?

While one cannot prove the veracity of the contents of the trial narrative at this remove, skepticism that the first followers of Jesus would have had access to such information¹⁶⁹ also assumes too much. Sources for the substance of the trial narrative may derive from Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:43), from connections within the high priest’s household (Jn 18:15-16), others who later became disciples or sympathizers (Jn 19:39; cf. perhaps Acts 6:7), or, if one accepts the resurrection narratives, Jesus himself (cf. Acts 1:3).

It seems unthinkable at least that the early Palestinian tradition would have neglected the witness of anyone like Joseph who could have had contacts present at the trial. Matthew and John apparently independently preserve the report that Joseph was a disciple (Matt 27:57; Jn 19:38). Because tradition preserves his name, Brown thinks that Joseph was a disciple, though only later;¹⁷⁰ even if Joseph became a disciple only later, he would still provide a source for the Jerusalem church long before the writing of the Gospels. That leaks from within the Jerusalem council occurred on other occasions in the first century¹⁷¹ does not prove that such a leak occurred in Jesus’ case, but it does challenge the claims of those who suppose such a leak implausible.¹⁷²

Even though Mark may have crafted the material in his own words and for his own purposes,¹⁷³ some argue that substantial evidence remains that he accurately preserves “the decisive elements of Jesus’ examination before the Sanhedrin in their correct order.”¹⁷⁴

↑ Back to top