Notes to Chapter 21
Notes to Chapter 21
1 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 294.
2 Sanders, Figure, 269.
3 Jos. Ant. 18.64; see Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 94; Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 466.
4 Most of this material also appears in Keener, Matthew, 607-11; idem, John, 1067-76.
5 I have argued elsewhere that John’s passion account deliberately plays on the more traditional passion story, for theological reasons; see Keener, John, 875, 901, 918-19, 1048, 1100-3, 1133-34 (cf. 820, 1053); idem, “Genre,” 323.
6 Cf. Sisti, “Figura”; Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs in CPJ 2:55-107, §§154-59.
7 E.g., Dibelius, Tradition, 201; Donahue, “Temple,” 65-66; Weeden, Mark, 66; Nickelsburg, “Genre”; Aune, Environment, 52-53; Robbins, Teacher, 173, 188; Doran, “Narratives.” The tradition places Jesus especially within the rejected prophet tradition (cf. Robbins, Teacher, 186).
8 Epameinondas 2 in Plut. S.K., Mor. 192C; cf. accounts of Socrates’ brave end (Xen. Apol. 1).
9 Cf. e.g., the mother in Maccabean accounts with the Spartan mother Argileonis in Plut. S.S.W., Mor. 240C. Cf. Robbins, Teacher, 185, following Nickelsburg, “Genre,” 156 on the tradition of a righteous sufferer vindicated by God.
10 Boring, et al., Commentary, 156 lists contrasts with the Maccabean martyr accounts: the Gospels avoid sensationalistic details, interpretive speeches by Jesus, a Stoic lesson contrasting reason with emotions (Plut. W.V.S.C.U. 2; 4 Macc. 8:15; though this feature says more about the social context of the Maccabean audience than about any larger genre per se), and “vengeful threats.” On the diversity of Jewish martyr stories, see Henten, “Martyrologie.”
11 Some features characteristic of martyr stories (in e.g., Boring, et al., Commentary, 152) simply reflect the common pattern of ancient law and Jewish resilience, more than a specific borrowing of literary motifs. (This is not to deny that the recording of such details augments the hortatory value of the narratives.) To a lesser degree the ancient Mediterranean champion tradition might also provide a context for the concept (e.g., Hom. Il. 3.69-70, 86-94, 253-55; 7.66-91, 244-73; Ap. Rhod. 2.20-21; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.12.3-4; Virg. Aen. 10.439-509; 11.115-18, 217-21; 12.723-952; Livy 1.24.1-1.25.14; 7.9.8- 7.10.14; Aul. Gel. 9.13.10; in the Hebrew Bible, 1 Sam 17; 2 Sam 2:14-16; cf. Gordon, Civilizations, 262).
12 Cf. e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 292-93; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:95-97; other references in Keener, Matthew, 487.
13 E.g., with Cleanthes in 7.5.176.
14 A legendary figure might even receive a legendary martyrdom (cf. Life of Aesop, end, in Drury, Design, 29).
15 Jewish accounts stress martyrdom as an example of commitment, but despite the use of Jesus’ death as a model, summaries of the earliest gospel (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-4) suggest their very early kerygmatic function as well.
16
Gospels in Context, 123.
17 Burridge, Gospels, 146-47, 179-80. While the rest of the Gospels foreshadow this climax, that is also the case in some contemporary biographies (Burridge, Gospels, 199).
18 Burridge, Gospels, 198, has 26% for Philostratus; Mons Graupius consumes 26% of Tac. Agricola, and the Persian campaign 37% of Plut. Agesilaus (p. 199).
19 Boring, et al., Commentary, 151, contrasting the Markan passion with Philost. V.A. 7.14.
20 Mack, Myth, 249; for his arguments, see pp. 249-68. For a critique of Crossan’s approach to the passion narrative (depending on the late Gospel of Peter), see Evans, “Passion,” especially analogies with Justin 1 Apol. 16.9-13 and Mk 16:9-20 in pp. 163-65. Crossan’s idea that the biographic passion and resurrection narratives developed from exegesis and (most astonishingly) lament (Crossan, Birth) substitutes speculation for the way we would read any other biographic death report stemming from within living memory of eyewitnesses.
21 Mack cites Jeremias (whom he designates a “conservative” scholar, Myth, 254) only three times, and never Blinzler, Hengel or other more conservative continental scholars (much less conservative North American scholars). For one survey of scholarly research regarding Jesus’ death, see Horsley, “Death.”
22 Perry, Sources, published as early as 1920; cf. Lietzmann’s skepticism on some points in 1931 (“Prozess”).
23 Mack strangely connects imperialism with the early Christian focus “on crucifixion as the guarantee for apocalyptic salvation” (Lost Gospel, p. 255). This unusual proposal confuses suffering on behalf of justice (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr.) with inflicting suffering unjustly (e.g., the Klan). It also confuses how the central gospel message has been exploited or (most often) ignored in history with what it actually teaches; this interpretation actually supports (by assuming the interpretive validity of) the misinterpretation of those who exploited the Gospels rather than clarifying their error. Without supporting evidence, he provides this climactic conclusion as fact, though the assertions in the rest of his book offer little support for (or even discussion of) this conclusion! For a nuanced survey of varied postcolonial approaches in biblical studies, and a very different reading of Mark, see Samuel, Reading (for approaches, 14-34).
24 Dibelius, Tradition, 178-217, thinks that “the passion story is the only piece of Gospel tradition which in early times gave events in their larger connection.”
25 Thus Jewish scholars with no faith commitment to the narratives may also suggest that other Gospels draw on pre-Markan passion material (e.g., Flusser, Judaism, 575-87, though he may presuppose Lukan priority here, an approach currently rarely accepted outside Israel).
26 E.g., Kollmann, Kreuzigung, sees Jn’s passion narrative as independent from the Synoptics, though using a tradition. I believe that it is an independence that betrays knowledge, however; for deliberate playing off the standard Synoptic (or pre-Synoptic) version of the passion, see Keener, John, 875, 901, 918-19, 1048, 1100-3, 1133-34 (cf. 820, 1053).
27 Brown, Death, 53-55, 77-80.
28 Brown, Death, 54.
29 Ehrman, Prophet, 82.
30 Cf. Mk 1:12-13 with Matt 4:1-11//Lk 4:1-12; Mk 3:26-27 with Matt 12:27-29//Lk 11:19-22.
31 See e.g., Keck, “Ethos,” 448; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 173-74.
32 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 166-99; cf. Pesch, “Jerusalem,” who argues that the passion narrative was the oldest tradition in the Jerusalem church. (Hengel seems right, however, that Pesch is too optimistic in his ability to reconstruct sources; “Problems,” 209-10.)
33 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 176-77.
34 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 179. We might add here that the Galilean names may have meant little to most of the Jerusalem church as well, who may have preserved them for the same reasons that Mark did.
35
B. Nid. 33a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; Gen. Rab. 5:9; 13:15; 94:4 MSS; Num. Rab. 12:4; cf. the association with promiscuity in the late Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4. For excavations at Magdala, see Reich, “H’rh”; Aviam, “Magdala”; Shanks, “Hometown”; for its devastation in 67 CE, see Pahlitzsch, “Magdala.” For harbor remains of this and other Galilean towns, see Nun, “Ports.”
36 Magdala’s common Greek name appears to have been Tarichaeae (Avi-Yonah, “Geography,” 96; regularly in Josephus, e.g., Life 96, 127, 132, 143, 151, 156-57, 159, 162-63, 168, and perhaps 30 more times), known as a Galilean city with a fishing industry, elements of Greek culture, but also fierce Jewish patriotism (see Freyne, Galilee, 172-73).
37 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 180. When a narrative introduces someone foreign, it often gives the place of birth (e.g., App. C.W. 1.14.116); lists of names from disparate places typically list the places (e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.40, 49, 57, 77, 95, 105-6, 115, 118, 139-40, 146-47, 151-52, 161, 177, 207).
38 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 171, 182-83. Livy occasionally cites a name as if familiar despite lack of previous mention (e.g., 40.55.2), perhaps incompletely following a source. Dodd, Tradition, 120, thinks the question of treason relevant in Palestine only before 70 CE; but this argument is questionable: to be sure, the issue fits Tiberius’s time very well, but it would remain relevant after 70.
39 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 186-88. Some view the fleeing young man of Mk 14:51-52 only in terms of his symbolic significance in the narrative (Crossan, “Tomb,” 147-48; Fleddermann, “Flight”; Kelber, Story, 77), but Theissen is probably right to find genuine tradition from the early Palestinian church here (Gospels in Context, 186; cf. Dibelius, Tradition, 182-83; Stauffer, Jesus, 121).
40 Some of Theissen’s other arguments (Gospels in Context, 189-97) are weaker.
41 For Markan structuring, see e.g., Beavis, “Trial.”
42 Brown suspects that Mark may have acquired some of his style from frequent recitation of the passion narrative (Death, 56, comparing the way some modern evangelists acquire their style from Bible translations); further, Mark may have rephrased the narrative in his own words, especially where his sources were oral. One should see most fully the 1994 essay by Marion Soards (Soards, “Passion Narrative”), who makes a strong case both that Mark uses a source and that we probably cannot separate the tradition from the redaction. Brown, Death, 554 also emphatically challenges some earlier redaction-critical studies on the trial narrative in Mk 14:55-64 (cf. perhaps Donahue, “Temple”), complaining that though “Mark used earlier material . . . our best methods do not give us the ability to isolate confidently that material in its exact wording, assigning pre-Markan verses and half-verses from the existing, thoroughly Markan account” (emphasis his).
43 Dewey, “Curse,” 102-3. Also Jn 13:38.
44 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 172-74; cf. Philo Embassy 299-304.
45 Smith, “Issues and Problem,” 263-65.
46 Jos. War 6.300-1; Evans, “What,” 108; idem, “Jesus ben Ananias”; see also Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, ix; Sanders, Figure, 267.
47 Jer 7:34 in War 6.301 (cf. Jer 7:11 in Mk 11:17). On the opposition Jeremiah faced for his “unpatriotic” prophecies, cf. e.g., Jer 26:6-24; Jos. Ant. 10.89-90. A man inside Tyre likewise reportedly prophesied its judgment and faced the charge of being a traitor (Diod. Sic. 17.41.7-8, which may be legendary or repeat Alexander’s propaganda).
48
War 6.302.
49
War 6.303.
50
War 6.305.
51
War 6.305. Such refusal to answer may be perceived as heroic, evoking the Jewish martyr tradition (although it was not exclusively Jewish; cf. e.g., Boring et al., Commentary, 304; Xenophon Mem. 4.8.4; Tacitus Ann. 15.60; Zeller, “Philosophen”).
52
War 6.304.
53
War 6.305.
54 Cf. Sanders, Figure, 267. A number of followers would be deemed necessary to provide a substantial threat (Xen. Mem. 1.2.10).
55 Malina, Windows, 18. Thus Josephus praises himself by emphasizing the loyalty of the Galileans to him (Jos. Life 84), though as an aristocrat he would have disdained “populist” support had he lacked it. Betrayal by one’s own troops, whom one ought to have been able to trust, was tragic (Corn. Nep. 18 [Eumenes], 10.2). Abandonment by one close to a person (such as a relative) would create scandal and generate mass abandonment (Corn. Nep. 14 [Datames], 6.3) and in time of great danger such traitors merited death (Corn. Nep. 14 [Datames], 6.8; 9.5).
56 Cohn, Trial, 83 (though citing a rabbinic tradition that “high priests were wont to engage in undercover activity”); Lüdemann, “Betrayal.”
57 Pliny Ep. 10.96-97; Hdn 7.3.2; Judge, Pattern, 71.
58 E.g., Moffatt, 1 Corinthians, 168; Fee, Corinthians, 549. This view seems likely because the association of the betrayal with that night and the last supper fits too closely our extant passion tradition to likely be coincidental. Paul uses the verb differently in Rom 4:25 and 8:32, but then uses it differently from either of these uses in the same verse (1 Cor 11:23).
59 “Handing over to the Romans” was also dramatic enough that it could figure in the tradition (e.g., Mk 10:33-34). It could also mean “handed over by God,” as in Rom 4:25; 8:32 (Smith, Symposium, 188; Hays, 1 Corinthians, 198). Some argue that “handing over” in Rom 4:25 reflects Is 53:12 LXX (Hays, 1 Corinthians, 198), which the Gospels may have used if they had no information to contradict it (Harvey, History, 24-25); in context Is 53 reads more naturally as if God handed the servant over.
60 E.g., Jos. Life 84.
61 Betrayed trust reflected badly only on the betrayer, however, if the betrayed had taken appropriate precautions (Polyb. 8.36.4).
62 Matt 26:21; Mk 14:17-21; Lk 22:21; Jn 6:70-71; 13:11. Some doubt this tradition, however (e.g., Maldamé, “Trahison”).
63 Brown, Death, 255.
64 On moonlight’s adequacy, cf. e.g., Virg. Aen. 7.9; Polyb. 7.16.3.
65 Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 537.
66 In cases of lesser danger, Romans often settled for executing ringleaders of a revolt rather than a whole populace (e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.40.3; 5.43.2); the Jewish officials would probably be still more inclined toward mercy to fellow-Jews.
67 E.g., Lane, Mark, 525; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 126; Anderson, Mark, 323; Keener, “Kiss,” 629. Cf. kissing of respected teachers or others (even pupils) who brought one great joy (1 Esd 4:47; tos. Hag. 2:1; ARN 6A; 13, §32B; b. Hag. 14b; p. Hag. 2:1, §4; Hor. 3:5, §3; R.H. 2:9, §2; Sot. 13a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3; Eccl. Rab. 6:2, §1; 9:5, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 23/24:2; Ap. Rhod. 1.313; Arrian Alex. 4.11.3; Epict. Disc. 1.19.24; Char. Chaer. 2.7.7).
68 Cf. 2 Sam 20:9; Prov 27:6. Robbins, Teacher, 189 cites Dio Chrys. Or. 3.86, 114: the king depends on his friends’ loyalty and learning them to be his enemies is his greatest pain. Greek and Roman texts often enough regard the treachery of deceitful betrayal as deplorable (e.g., Polyb. 1.7; 3.52; Jos. War 2.450-454).
69 The Gospels explain that Jesus foreknew Judas’ betrayal when he chose him; it may be questioned, however, whether even this foreknowledge would have done more than cushion the pain. Against our expectations of what Jesus’ followers would have invented about him, the gospel tradition portrays Jesus in genuine anguish before facing the cross (Mk 14:32-41, esp. 14:34-36; cf. Lk 12:49-50).
70 E.g., Lysias Or. 6.23, §105; 8.5-6, §112; Char. Chaer. 5.6.2 (philos); Corn. Nep. 14 (Datames), 6.3; 11.5; Sir 22:21-22; Test. Jud. 23:3; cf. Derrett, Audience, 69. This remained true even if one’s life were at stake (Babr. 138.7-8); refusing to betray a friend or spouse was honorable (Athen. Deipn. 15.965F, item 25; Sen. Controv. 2.5.intro.). Treachery and betrayal warranted death (Valerius Maximus 9.6).
71 Cic. Pro Amer. 40.116.
72 E.g., App. R.H. 6.8.43; 6.9.52; 6.10.60.
73 Cf. e.g., disgust for traitors against their peoples in Xen. Hell. 1.7.22; Cic. Fin. 3.9.32; Virg. Aen. 6.621; Livy 1.11.6-7; 5.27.6-10 (though cf. Livy 4.61.8-10); Val. Max. 1.1.13; Sen. Controv. 7.7.intro.; such behavior invited the hatred of even one’s family (Livy 2.5.7-8; Corn. Nep. 4 [Pausanias], 5.3). Loyalty to country might take precedence even over hospitality-friendship (Xen. Hell. 4.1.34; Corn. Nep. 13 [Timotheus], 4.4), but disloyalty to friends remained despicable (e.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442.13-14).
74 Xen. Cyrop. 8.2.2-3.
75 Xen. Cyrop. 8.7.14.
76 Eurip. Cycl. 125. For hospitality, see e.g., Hom. Il. 9.199-220; Od. 1.118-20, 123-24; 3.345-58; 4.26-36; 9.176; Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cic. Offic. 2.18.64; Part. Orat. 23.80; Epict. Disc. 1.28.23; Tob 5:10-15; 7:8- 9; 10:6-10; Ps.-Phoc. 24; m. Ab. 1:5, 15; 3:12; tos. Demai 3:9; see further Koenig, Hospitality, 16.
77 E.g., Lysias Or. 12.14, §121; 18.10, §150; Plut. Coriol. 10.3; Cic. Fam. 13.19.1; 13.25.1; 13.36.1; Corn. Nep. Gen. 5 (Cimon), 3.3; Ex. Rab. 28:1. This was true even over several generations (Hom. Il. 6.212-31; Cic. Fam. 13.34.1), and could require the guest-friend to avenge his host (Philostratus Hrk. 46.2-3). Still, though it could be inherited, it could shift along with political interests (Marshall, Enmity, 18-21, 39-42).
78 E.g., Plut. Cicero 26.1.
79 E.g., Hom. Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534-35; 11.414-20; 14.404-5; Hes. W.D. 327; Eurip. Cycl. 126-28; Hec. 25-26, 710-20, 850-56; Ap. Rhod. 3.377-80; Ovid Metam. 1.144; 10.225-28; Livy 25.16.6. This principle included providing protection from other enemies (Ovid Metam. 5.44-45; Corn. Nep. Gen. 2 [Themistocles], 8.3).
80 Hom. Od. 21.26-28; Livy 39.51.12. Nevertheless, some warned that too much trust even of friends could prove dangerous (Hes. W.D. 370-72).
81 Aeschines Embassy 22, 55. For a guest to act unkindly was deceptive treachery (Catullus 64.176).
82 Eurip. Ch. Her. 1034-36 (even in subsequent generations!); Cic. Ag. Piso 34.83; by seeking the host’s wife, Ovid Her. 17.3-4. On kindness due a host, see Cic. Ag. Verr. 2.2.47.117.
83 Dewey, “Curse,” 106.
84 See Brown, Death, 611-13.
85 See Brown, Death, 615.
86 See more fully Brown, Death, 614-21.
87 E.g., Jos. Life 84, again.
88 See the discussion in Brown, Death, 11-12; he also acknowledges that basic historical fact could be retold in an imaginative manner (Death, 620-21).
89 See the discussion in Brown, Death, 613-14.
90 I have taken these comments largely from Keener, Matthew, 613-16; cf. also comments in Basser, “Priests”; Reid, “Sacrifice,” 1048-49; Keener, “Mistrial.”
91 Cf. Lewis, Life, 47; Reicke, Era, 147.
92 E.g., 1QM 2:1; Jos. War 2.243, 316, 320, 342; 410-11; 4.151, 315; Life 197; Mk 2:26; Acts 4:6; Stern, “Aspects,” 601, 603; Sanders, Figure, 327-32; Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 51.
93 E.g., m. Hor. 3:1; p. Sanh. 2:1, §2; Acts 23:5-6.
94 On the Sadducees, see Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:389-411 (most relevantly here, 393-99). Some, however, believe Sadducean dominance of the priestly aristocracy is generally overstated (e.g., Porton, “Sadducees,” 1052). Though some aristocrats were not Sadducees (some, like Gamaliel, were Pharisees), nearly all the Sadducees belonged to the aristocracy (see Sanders, Judaism, 318, 332). Probably a priestly sect, they may have been the well-to-do priests who had remained loyal to the Zadokite line during the Maccabean era (while other Zadokites fled to Qumran and elsewhere — cf. 1QS 5.2; 6.3-4; CD 5.5), returning to positions of power under the Romans (e.g., Baumbach, “Sadduzäerverständnis”; Lohse, Environment, 74). Later rabbinic tradition links them with “Boethusians” under the special charge that they denied the resurrection from the dead (ARN 5 A; 10 B; cf. m. Ber. 9:5; Bowker, Pharisees, 53-76). Other grounds also separated these aristocrats from the dominant views that were followed in rabbinic practice (m. Nid. 4:2; Yad. 4:7; tos. Nid. 5:2; Suk. 3:1). Probably claiming to take Scripture as their only authority, Sadducees felt no obligation to embrace Pharisaic traditions (Jos. Ant. 18.16; cf. Neusner, Beginning, 27-28; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 107). Nevertheless, powerful Pharisees and others had to work alongside them before 70.
95 See Smallwood, “Priests.” Even some Gentiles recognized this status (Diod. Sic. 40.3.5-6).
96 Thus Quirinius installed Annas (Jos. Ant. 18.26); Vitellius retired Caiaphas after Pilate’s recall to Rome (Jos. Ant. 18.95).
97 For one defense of the motives of the elite priests regarding Jesus’ execution, focused on their perspectives from “the pinnacle of their social world,” see Borg, Vision, 180-82 (quote from 181).
98 Jos. Life 216. He especially regards the chief priests as corrupt during the period of Agrippa II (59-65 CE; Sanders, Figure, 324; see e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.206-7), but this specification may reflect his own uncomfortable experiences, and may suggest a broader corruption within the aristocratic ranks from which such priests were drawn. For Josephus’ negative view of the Sadducees, see Baumbach, “Sadducees”; of some high priests (but not their office), Thoma, “Priesthood” (attributing it to Josephus’ pro-Hasmonean tendencies).
99 Overman, Crisis, 329; cf. also Perkins, “Resurrection,” 431.
100 Perhaps in part because I believe that religion often fails to transform human nature (the way it should at its best), I am less sympathetic to their piety than is Sanders, Figure, 336. They probably acted in their own self-interest, as well as for the peace, in relations with the Romans (Horsley, “High Priests”). The charges may be stylized, sectarian polemic, as Sanders suggests (and against the priesthood in general he may be right — Judaism, 182-89), but one should not dismiss too readily the reasons for the pervasive polemic (cf. 1QpHab. 9.4-5; Test. Levi 14:1; 2 Bar. 10:18; tos. Minhot 13.21 in Avigad, Jerusalem, 130; Avigad, “Burnt House,” 71; Hengel, Property, 23); corrupt priesthoods were common targets of polemic in the ancient Near East through the first century (Crocker, “Priests”; cf. Plut. Lysander 26.1-3; Libanius Declamation 44.43). I address below e.g., the servants of the later Ananias who beat poorer priests to seize their tithes (Jos. Ant. 20.181, 206).
101 Jos. Ant. 14.175; 15.2. It is thus not surprising that the interests of this class were allied with those of Herod (Horsley, Liberation, 51).
102 “Sanhedrin” is a broad rather than restrictive term, applicable also in Greek texts to an informal assembly of advisors (Diod. Sic. 13.111.1) or, frequently, to Rome’s “senate” (e.g., Diod. Sic. 40.1.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.70.5; 6.30.2; 6.81.1; 6.85.2; 8.69.2; 9.32.5; 10.2.6; 12.1.14; 12.6.2 [4]; in these texts it appears interchangeably with boul?, a more common term, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.71.1; 6.1.1; 6.21.1; 6.81.4). Usage was broad; a boul? traditionally could constitute a local council (Aristoph. Knights 475, 653) but also a leader’s war council (Hom. Il. 2.84).
103 Jos. Life 64, 69, 169, 313, 381; such assemblies were distinguishable from the larger citizen assembly (Jos. Life 300). Officials could also assemble their own administrative “councils” from among their friends (e.g., Jos. Life 368).
104 Jeffers, World, 186.
105 Overman, Crisis, 372-73, 385 regards the Sanhedrin as a Roman political institution, although conceding that “some of the local Jewish elite may have been involved.” Yet in cities like Jerusalem Rome ruled through municipal aristocracies — here, pro-Roman Jewish aristocrats.
106
M. Sanh. 1:6; cf. later Tg. Neof. 1 on Ex 15:27. Cf. also Josephus’ Galilean council of 70 in War 2.570; Life 79, and that of the Zealots in War 4.336, both undoubtedly following the standard contemporary model; the models probably ultimately derive from Mosaic tradition (Ex 24:9; Num 11:16, 24; cf. Ezek 8:11). Josephus also assumed a council of seven judges as a lower court in every city (War 2.571; Ant. 4.214). An odd number to break a tie made sense; as in Roman law (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.64.6), a tie vote would yield acquittal.
107 Brown, Death, 348-49 reasonably doubts that an exact list of 71 members existed in the first century, suggesting that it merely included elders from distinguished families alongside chief priests, representatives of whom were expected to appear. It is in any case doubtful that all members were expected to be present on all occasions (especially at an emergency meeting on the night when people had eaten or would the next evening eat the Passover).
108
M. Midd. 5:4; Sanh. 11:2; tos. Shek. 3:27; b. Yoma 25a; Gen. Rab. 70:8; Num. Rab. 19:26; Eccl. Rab. 1:1, §1. A location near the temple is not surprising; at times other peoples’ leaders could use temples (the senate in Cic. Fam. 8.4.4).
109 Cf. Jos. War 5.144; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 86-87; Brown, Death, 350. For bibliography on the Sanhedrin, see Safrai, “Government,” 418 (the section on the Sanhedrin is pp. 379-400). Josephus generally prefers the term “sanhedrin,” “assembly,” in the Antiquities, and boul?, “council,” in the War.
110 Cohen, Maccabees, 156. Later rabbinic portraits of the Sanhedrin include more striking anachronisms than this (e.g., depicting leaders of the Sanhedrin in biblical times, b. Ber. 3b; Gen. Rab. 74:15; Ex. Rab. 1:13; Pesiq. Rab. 11:3). Some of the “scribes” may have been Pharisees, but Pharisees were not dominant in the Sanhedrin (Brown, Death, 350-52), despite Josephus’ possible favoritism toward them (Jos. Ant. 18.15, 17; cf. Life 1, 12 and in Ant. passim; Brown, Death, 353-56). A few scholars have opted for two Sanhedrins — the religious Sanhedrin of the rabbis and the political Sanhedrin attested in first-century sources; one scholar defending the rabbinic picture has even argued that the Gospels and Acts are late sources on this matter, with changes into the fourth century (Mantel, Sanhedrin; for this proposal’s untenability, see Sutcliffe, “Review”). But it is anachronistic to reject all our first-century portraits on the basis of later, idealized rabbinic accounts, and few scholars have accepted the double Sanhedrin thesis (see Blinzler, Trial, 15, 140; Brown, Death, 343-48).
111 In contrast to rabbinic (and probably Pharisaic) ideals in which judges who proved themselves locally could be promoted to the Sanhedrin (tos. Shek. 3:27).
112 See Sanders, Figure, 482-83; cf. Ant. 15.173; 20.216-18.
113 Jos. Ant. 14.177.
114 Cf. Jos. War 2.331, 405; Ant. 20.11.
115 Jos. Ant. 20.200.
116 Cf. Sanders, Figure, 484-87; Jos. War 2.331, 336; Ant. 17.160, 164; 20.216-17; probably the municipal aristocracy in Ant. 14.91, 163, 167, 180; Life 62.
117 Cf. e.g., Kennard, “Assembly.”
118 Jos. Life 309.
119 Jos. War 2.331, 336; 5.142-44, 532; Ant. 20.11, 200-1, 216-17; Life 62.
120 Brown, Death, 342-43. Levine, Hellenism, 88-90, argues that the Jerusalem Sanhedrin was probably simply an ad hoc group in some texts.
121 Cf. e.g., Borg, Vision, 180. Winter, Trial, 39, doubts that Caiaphas was much involved with the trial. But while Luke also knows of Caiaphas (Lk 3:2; Acts 4:6), only Matthew and John (Matt 26:3, 57; Jn 18:13-14, 24, 28) connect him explicitly with Jesus’ trial, which strongly suggests independent traditions attesting Caiaphas’s role. On Annas and Caiaphas in John, see Brown, Death, 404-11.
122 Schnackenburg, John, 2:348; Sanders, Figure, 265.
123 So Vermes, Religion, ix-x, though he doubts that Jesus saw himself in messianic terms (p. 5).
124 Sanders, Figure, 265.
125 Sanders, Figure, 269. Rome held the high priests responsible for controlling the masses (Jos. War 2.232-44), and the high priests moved against potential threats to public order when they thought it best to do so (Jos. War 6.300-9; Ant. 20.199-203; Sanders, Figure, 266-67).
126 Stauffer, Jesus, 102. (Stauffer, Jesus, 54, thinks that Caiaphas “held his peace” when Pilate introduced standards into Jerusalem; but Jos. Ant. 18.57-59 is unclear.)
127 See the so-called Caiaphas family tomb, very debated (Riesner, “Familiengrab”; Reich, “Inscriptions”; Reich, “Name”; Evans, “Caiaphas Ossuary”). Even if it did not belong to Caiaphas himself, it probably belonged to aristocratic priests (see Horbury, “Ossuaries”) and so illustrates the point; for health advantages of Jerusalem’s upper class, cf. Zias, “Remains.”
128 On pagan features of the tomb (see note above), see Greenhut, “Tomb”; idem, “Cave.”
129 E.g., Case, Origins, 56; cf. Winter, Trial, 43. The aristocracy undoubtedly considered their method of silencing Jesus successful; Rome regarded Palestine as quiet during Tiberius’s reign (Judge, Pattern, 23, citing Tac. Hist. 5.9).
130 Quirinius installed Annas as high priest in 6 CE (Jos. Ant. 18.26), but Valerius Gratus deposed him in 15 CE (Jos. Ant. 18.34). Yet because Jewish law mandated the high priesthood for life, many Jews may have still considered Annas the appropriate official to decide important cases like this one (Ellis, Genius, 255).
131 Winter, Trial, 33.
132 After Vitellius, legate of Syria, deposed Caiaphas in 36 CE, he replaced him with Jonathan son of Annas (Jos. Ant. 18.95); in time all five sons of Annas followed in office, suggesting that Annas had in fact exercised considerable influence (Jos. Ant. 20.198; on his power, see further Reicke, Era, 142-43).
133 E.g., 1QM 2:1; Jos. War 2.243, 316, 320, 342, 410-11; 4.151, 315; Life 197; Mk 2:26; 11:27; 14:1; Jn 7:32; Acts 4:23; 5:24; 9:14, 21.
134 John’s independent report about Annas may well reflect historical tradition; it is not derived from John’s theology (see Blinzler, Trial, 88-89; Dodd, Tradition, 93-94). John has no specific reason to preserve the names of high priests (Matt 26:3, 57; Lk 3:2 mention Caiaphas; Lk 3:2 briefly mentions Annas; neither name appears in Mark), but if he would preserve any, Caiaphas, who actually was high priest at the time of the hearing, would make most sense; his audience already anticipates Jesus confronting Caiaphas (Jn 11:49).
135 E.g., Winter, Trial; idem, “Trial”; Cohn, Trial, 98; Zeitlin, “Trial.”
136 Goppelt, Judaism, 84ff; Sherwin-White, Society, 34ff; cf. idem, “Trial”; Catchpole, Trial, 271; Blinzler, Trial, 117-21; Corley, “Trial.”
137 Stauffer, Jesus, 225.
138 So Stauffer, Jesus, 225.
139 E.g., Grant, “Review”; Cohn, Trial, 98, 105.
140 For surveys of views concerning the legality of Jesus’ trial, see e.g., Brown, Death, 330-31.
141 Abrahams, Studies, 2:129.
142 Brown, Death, 357-63; Blinzler, Trial, 138-43.
143 Cf. Anderson, Mark, 326; pace Cohn, Trial, 105.
144 Cf. Klausner, Jesus, 337.
145 Those with power (Roman governors, Herod, Agrippa I) usually executed whom they chose (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 317); others with more limited power undoubtedly exercised what they could.
146 Sanders, Judaism, 487.
147 Noted also by Perkins, “Resurrection,” 431.
148 See e.g., Cullmann, State, 42, 46; Argyle, Matthew, 206; Reicke, Era, 146; Hagner, Matthew, 797.
149 Some find here that John’s account is easier to envision historically than Mark’s; see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 317-18; also, e.g., Meier, Matthew, 330; Catchpole, Trial, 271.
150 Romans regarded it a crime to try and condemn one in a private rather than public setting, especially the judge’s home rather than his tribunal (Cic. Ag. Verr. 2.3.23.56; Sen. Controv. 9.2.4; cf. Tac. Ann. 2.40).
151 Sanders, Figure, 67.
152 Cf. Hooker, Message, 86; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 120-21. Brown, Death, 433 observes that “ancient literary accounts of famous trials” usually include polemic or bias.
153
M. Sanh. 4:1. Cf. Pompey’s interpretation of Roman law in Aul. Gel. 14.7.8.
154 Cf. m. Sanh. 4:1; Yom Tob 5:2; tos. Yom Tob 4:4; Philo Migr. 91. Blinzler, Trial, 143-44, thinks rules against meeting on the eve of a holy day are later. Some Roman laws opposed certain kinds of trials on holidays (Lex Irnitana tablet 10 A, chap. 92; Metzger, Outline, 16-17) and may have required advance notice as well (10 A, chap. 90; though Metzger, Outline, 60, thinks this applies to postponements).
155 Some argue for sectarian calendars (Pixner, “Zion,” 318; cf. Jaubert, Date; idem, “Calendar”; critiquing Jaubert on Jubilees, Ravid, “Calendar”; for other objections, Benoit, Jesus, 1:87-93) and other means of reconciling the two chronologies (e.g., Shepherd, “Date”; ingeniously, Busada, “Calendar”); some prefer John’s chronology (Brown, Essays, 207-17). With many, I have argued that John’s chronology is at this point more symbolic than that of the Synoptics (Keener, John, 1100-3).
156 Commentators (e.g., Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 98; Lane, Mark, 529-30; Stauffer, Jesus, 209) cite m. Sanh. 11:4; tos. Sanh. 11:7. This differs from the Roman practice (Cic. Pro Caelio 1.1; Sen. Controv. 5.4; Suet. Tib. 61; cf. Acts 12:3-4). The offenders included those regarded as false prophets, among others (Hill, Prophecy, 52).
157 If the Mishnah provides any indication of their view, Pharisaic scruples also required a day to pass before issuing a verdict of condemnation (m. Sanh. 4:1). But the Sadducees may have generally preferred speedier executions than the Pharisees thought appropriate (cf. m. Mak. 1:6); certainly they favored stricter punishments (Jos. Ant. 20.199). Later rabbis preferred longer deliberation in capital cases (cf. e.g., Tg. Neof. 1 on Lev 24:12; Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Lev 24:12; Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5). Qumran scrolls differ from rabbinic practice on this issue (Rothstein, “Testimony”).
158 Cohn, Trial, 98 cites b. A.Z. 8b; Sanh. 41b; Shab. 15a.
159 Jos. Ant. 4.219; 11QTemple 61.7-11; m. Mak. 1:7; tos. Sanh. 6:6; Sipre Deut. 190.5.1.