APPENDIX 6 - Roman Participation in Jesus’ Arrest?
APPENDIX 6
Roman Participation in Jesus’ Arrest?
Some have argued that the Fourth Gospel, unlike the Synoptics, includes Romans in the force that arrested Jesus.1 Many further find genuine historical tradition in this claim.2 While Romans were clearly behind the crucifixion, however, it is not likely that they were involved in the initial arrest.
Local aristocracies used local watchmen to constitute their police force, and all that we know about Jerusalem’s temple guard (cf. Lk 22:52; Acts 4:1) fits this pattern.3
Moreover, although some military terms in John 18:3 can reflect Roman usage, Greek and Roman military terms had long before been transferred to Jewish soldiers.4 Both speira (Jn 18:3, 12)5 and chiliarchos (18:12)6 appear frequently enough in ancient sources for Jewish soldiers. The Jewish uses of the terms would be too familiar from widely read Jewish sources like Judith and Maccabees for John’s audience to be sure of Roman involvement without further qualification.7
Some are skeptical that Jewish officials like the high priests or their agents would have participated, but as we have argued, these were the very leaders responsible to the Romans for keeping peace; they were the ones most directly scandalized by Jesus’ act in the temple; and a diversity of ancient sources testify to their abuse of power against competitors among their own people. The silence of the Synoptics about Roman involvement in the arrest also seems striking, especially given Luke’s knowledge of the Roman military and widespread knowledge of a garrison in Jerusalem.8
One could argue that the Romans lent the chief priests some troops as they might to the temple police in quelling public disorders,9 but this suggestion does not square with the evidence. The Roman garrison in the Antonia would have sided with the Levite police in the case of a riot, but they were not simply at the municipal aristocracy’s disposal.10 Further, even if the municipal aristocracy could have commandeered Roman troops at other times, it is unlikely that they would do so during the festival. Pilate, ready to greet petitioners early in the morning, was undoubtedly already in town (albeit asleep),11 and it is unlikely that the high priests would have secured troops for such a mission without informing him; yet even John (see especially Jn 18:29) reads as if Pilate has insufficient acquaintance with the case to have already dispatched the troops. Indeed, Pilate explicitly assigns responsibility for the arrest to Jesus’ own nation and its chief priests (18:35); Jesus likewise speaks of the lack of resistance his followers have offered to “the Jews” (18:36). Catchpole rightly doubts that Judas would have been cooperating with the Romans and that the Romans would have taken Jesus to Annas (whom the Romans had deposed); moreover, retreat before the divine name (18:4-11) may suggest a Jewish reaction.12 The Roman involvement proposal interprets selectively even the Gospel to which its appeal is made.
John might use ambiguous language, without explicitly claiming Roman troops, to make a theological statement: both Romans and Jews bore responsibility for Jesus’ arrest.13 Again, however, even within the story world of John, it remains unclear that Pilate was involved at this point,14 hence Roman participation seems unlikely even on the level of Johannine theology.15