Trial and Death of Jesus in Luke

7/31/2019 Trial and Death of Jesus in Luke

1/14

THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF JESUSIN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

PAUL W. WALASKAY

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, ROCHESTER, NY 14627

NEAR the close of his gospel, Luke presents the moving scene of two

disciples conversing with their risen, but veiled and apparently uninformed, master. The disciples say to their fellow-traveler on the road toEmmaus: "Jesus was a prophet mighty in work and word . . . but our chief priests and rulers handed him over to a judgment of death and they crucifiedhim." This is the earliest explicit statement which puts the blame for the deathof Jesus squarely on the Jewish leaders. 1 As a result of almost two millennia of such assertions, Jews continue to be defensive before Christians and Christianscontemptuous of Jews. But when we examine the Lucan presentation of Jesus'passion, defensiveness and contempt become emotions rooted more in the mind

of the evangelist than in the events of history.The search for greater understanding of the events attendant on Jesus' trialhas been thoroughly made by such scholars as Oscar Cullmann, Paul Winter,Joseph Blinzler, Haim Cohn, and S. G. F. Brandon to name only the more widelyread. 2 All of these men, with the possible exception of Brandon, deal with thetrial in such a harmonious manner that many important gospel differences arelost. That, of course, is the problem which arises when one attempts to presenteither "a complete picture" or the "bare historical facts" of Jesus' last days. Itis the redaction critic who raises a red flag which cautions us about the indis

criminate snipping of details from Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke, and John and re-pasting the snippets into some reconstructed whole. Each gospel writer has hisown story to tell; the message he speaks to his church is his own message.Though the material the evangelist uses may be from written or oral sources,the very way in which he uses it, the words and phrases he includes or omits, theorder in which he puts the pieces of tradition, his turning from the source to setdown his own thoughts, point to the peculiar perspective of the evangelist.

The trial scene in Luke's gospel brings to clear light the third evangelist'spro-Roman, anti-Sanhedrin, bias. According to Luke the Jewish "trial" was

1Paul also puts the blame for Jesus' death on "the Jews" (1 Thes 2:14-15) but fails


2/14

82 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

not a trial at all, but the chaotic prelude to a lynching which even Roman jurisprudence could not overcome. The will of God, the dei of the gospel, wasto be accomplished in spite of the finest and the worst of human judicial institutions. We shall investigate four sections of the trial narrative which vividlybring out the Lucan perspective: the Sanhdrin hearing, the Roman trial, Jesusbefore Herod, and finally the mocking, crucifixion, and ultimate verdict.

/. The Sanhdrin Hearing

In keeping with his conclusion that Jesus did not receive a proper trial before the Sanhdrin, Luke has omitted the search for witnesses against Jesus,which Mark portrays as taking up much of the time during the night (14:55-6la) . Luke goes straight to the point of the council meeting: to establish acharge against Jesus. The council met at daybreak, put two questions to theaccused, and led him off to Pilate. The whole affair, as Luke presents it, neednot have taken long.

We ought to consider closely the two questions which the council puts toJesus. There are in these questions some intriguing differences between Lukeand his Marcan source. First, Luke divides the single Marcan question into two.Thus, the Marcan "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed?" (14:61) becomes "If you are the Christ, tell us... ; then, are you the Son of God?" (22:67,70). Luke has clarified the political and religious dimension of the chargeswhich were brought against Jesus. "Messiah" must be distinguished from "Sonof God." Luke has made clear to his readers that the Sanhdrin knew the

politico-religious distinction but chose, in its accusation to Pilate, to place theemphasis solely on the political side.

Jesus' response to the council reveals that for Luke Jesus' only claim toleadership was a religious one. To the question about messiahship, Jesus givesa most obscure answer, certainly nothing like a confession. "If I tell you, you

will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer" (Luke 22:68). But tothe question about divine sonship, Jesus' response is most pointed. If the Sanhdrin wants to present that charge in a Roman court, viz., that Jesus is the Sonof God, then "you say that I am" (Luke 22:71).

Some commentators 3 see this response of Jesus as simply affirmative andrhetorical, a response which is seized by the Sanhdrin as a proof of guilt. Luke'spurpose was more qualified than this. 4 The phrase in 22:70 {hymeis legetehoti eg eimi) must be distinguished from the statement of Jesus in 23:3 (sylegeis). . . Streeter thinks that "the sy eipas of Matthew [26:64] and the

hymeis legete of Luke [22:70] are independent adaptations of the sy legeis of Mk. xv. 2, intended to assimilate our Lord's reply to the High Priest to His


3/14

WALASKAY: TRIAL AND DEATH OF JESUS IN LUKE 83

reply to Pilate." 5 In the latter passage Luke is following his source strictly,and he probably understood Jesus' reply as Mark intended it evasively andrhetorically.

The former passage, however, is not a Lucan adaptation, but a Lucan emphasis of the culpability of the Jews. 6 The third evangelist wants his readersto be certain that the charge, if any, to be brought before Pilate should have onlya religious content, which he would have out of ignorance more than anything else summarily dismissed. 7

Compared with the Marcan account, Luke presents an unstructured, unordered scene. There is no initial charge in which Jesus is accused of intending to destroy the temple, no accusing witnesses, no testimony, and not even aformal verdict. While Mark attempts to reconstruct a legitimate Sanhdrin trial,Luke sets out to destroy any semblance of legitimacy. By comparison with theRoman trial which follows, the hearing before the Sanhdrin is a mockery; it isnot a trial by any standards. Though Luke has followed his source's outline of the trial scene, his additions and omissions bring into sharp relief the differencebetween Jewish and Roman justice. 8

That the charges which the Sanhdrin brought against Jesus in a civil courtwere serious is an obvious understatement. Luke has made clear what his source

5

B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (rev. ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1930) 322; cf.E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, 588.eOn the discussion of the two questions put to Jesus by the Sanhdrin, see F. L.

Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (Edinburgh: Clark, 1870), 2. 318. O.Cullmann sees Jesus (not Luke!) deliberately correcting the high priest's question bysubstituting "Son of Man" for "Messiah" (The Christology of the New Testament [London: SCM, 1959] 120). H. Flender (St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967] 44, n. 5) attempts to correct Cullmann: "Even those who,unlike Cullmann, do not presume a historical scene, will be able to accept his argumenton this passage, but as Lucan theology. Cullmann works out the Lucan theology andthen presents it as an account of history." Flender (p. 45) also states that the ounof 22:70 refers to vs. 69- More likely it refers not to Jesus' explanation of the Son of Man, but to vs. 67, thus bringing back the second half of the Marcan question (I4:6lb).

7 G. B. Caird (The Gospel of St Luke [Pelican Gospel Commentaries; Baltimore:Penguin, 1963] 246) says Pilate had "enough sagacity to see through their [the Sanhe-drin's] duplicity . . . ." That Pilate would have been sage about the growing varieties,including Jesus' own interpretation of the term "Messiah," is hardly possible.

8 A posthumous publication of V. Taylor has recently reactivated his thesis that Lukeis not dependent on Mark for an outline of the passion narrative; he rather has a specialwritten continuous account into which he splices details from the Marcan tradition (The

Passion Narrative of St. Luke [ed. O. E. Evans; SNTSMS 19; London/New York: Cambridge University, 1972]). Evans has done an outstanding job of preparing this bookfor publication by including the latest arguments on both sides of the proto-Luke hy

th i di t I i i f di th t i l h i t h


4/14


preferred to leave vague: "We found this man guilty of perverting our nation,forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming that he himself is ananointed one [which means in your language, Pilate], a king!" 9 Pilate's query "Are you the king of the Jews?" also receives clarification on the lips of the chief priests. Not three verses after Luke revealed the Sanhedrin's onlypossible charge against Jesus, i.e., the claim of divine sonship, does the councilpresent precisely the other, political, side of the issue: the man was a Zealotking, inciting the people, teaching them throughout all Judea, from Galilee,the land of the rebels, even to this place (Luke 23 :5). 10

// . The Roman Trial

Jesus, after being charged by the Jewish leaders with treason, is asked byPontius Pilate if he is indeed the "king of the Jews." Luke, following his

9Luke 23 :2. Luke has already dismissed all three charges against Jesus: (1 ) Jesushas not perverted the nation; it already was perverse (9 :41) ; (2) Jesus has alreadyspecifically charged those sent as spies by the scribes and chief priests to "render toCaesar his tribute" (20:22, phoros: note that Luke removes the Latinism of his source Mark 12:14 reads knsos as he frequently does: Luke 8:16; 12:59; 23 :47 ) ; (3 ) Jesusdid not, as we have already noted, accept the messianic title as the Sanhdrin intendedit, i.e., politically. We must note, however, that Luke has laid the groundwork for such

a possible accusation by having the people acclaim Jesus not only as him "who comes inthe name of the Lord" (Mark 11:10), but as "the king who comes in the name of theLord" (19:38) . The cry of the people, "peace in heaven and glory in the highest," issimilar to that given by the shepherds at Jesus' birth, "peace on earth, good will towardmen" (2 : 14) . B. S. Easton (The Gospel According to St. Luke, 28 7) points out thatthe parallel runs from the preceding verse of each acclamation ( 2: 13-1 4 / / 19 :3 7- 38 ).Thus Luke echoes the cry of those under the pax romana; cf. Virgil, Eclogue IV; Aeneid 1, 278-96; Tacitus, Ann. 1, 2; Hist. 1, 1; Appian, BC 5, 130; Res Gestae 13, 26. Lukehas emphasized to his readers that Jesus was indeed a king, though not in the earthlypolitical sense (cf. H. Flender, 5"/. Luke, 61) . As he was hailed by the angels fromheaven at his birth, so now at his fateful entry into Jerusalem he is hailed by the peopleon earth.

Three similar charges were also laid against Paul and Silas by the Jews of Thessalonica :(1 ) "These men have turned the world upside down (tn oikoumenn anastatsants). . . ; (2) they are acting against the decrees of Caesar (tn dogmatn Kaisaros); (3)they say that there is another king (basilea heteron), Jesus" (Acts 17:6b-7).

10 There is no doubt that such accusations as were laid against Jesus were becomingincreasingly common in the civil court of Jerusalem before the fall of that city; cf.Josephus, JW 1.1, 2 5; 2.4, 1-3 55-65; 2.13, 4-6 258-265; 2.16, 5-17, 1 403 -407; 2.17, 8 433-434. Tacitus, Hist. 5, 9: "After Herod's death, a certain Simonassumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar's decision. He, however, was putto death by Quinctilius Varus, governor of Syria."

One notes in Josephus a lack of references to court dealings with messianic pretenders,


5/14


source, makes Jesus reply, sy legeis. Then, most remarkably, Pilate pronouncesJesus' innocence: ouden heuriskd aition (2 3:4). It is incredible that Pilateshould have no reservations about a charge of sedition, first, because of Pilate'swell-known attitude toward rebel suspects, and second, because the chargebrought against Jesus was presented by the pro-Roman party. Furthermore,Pilate, if he was at all sensible and ambitious, would have wanted to call attention to his prestige, which the Romans called auctoritas, by sending a brief of the case of a rebel king on to Rome before making a judgment. 11 There is alsogood reason to believe that Pilate would have been able to remit such a case tothe court at Rome if he did not feel competent to dispose of it in Jerusalem. 12

But Pilate, Luke would like to show, could not discover enough evidence either

in the Jewish charges or in Jesus' reply to proceed with a criminal trial.It would have been difficult for a Roman citizen familiar with Roman judi

cial practicenot to mention the twentieth-century historian to understandPilate's quick judgment. With such a case of treason, Pilate should have proceeded further with this case extra ordinem. 1B A Roman court would not havebeen content with any other than its own investigation. Pilate's handling of the case, as Luke presents it, renders very suspect the theory that Luke is writingan apology to the officials of the empire on behalf of the Christian church. Touse this trial as a basis for the claim that since Pilate's treatment of Jesus wasgentle, therefore the Roman government ought to take an equally favorablestance toward Luke's church would have been sheer foolishness. Reading thisaccount, a Roman magistrate would have to conclude that Roman justice ascarried out by the Judean prefect had failed. The trial scene reconstructed byLuke cannot have been presented by that evangelist for the use of Roman magistrates, but was instead given to the church to help it better appreciate the person of the prefect and the "fairness" even though Luke presents a rather distorted view of Roman fairness of the imperial judicial system.

Much has already been written in summary form about the mean, cruel, andcapricious rule and person of Pilate. 14 Yet there is nothing in our primary

n Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963)65.

12 The locus classicus is Pliny's handling of Romans suspected of participating inChristian practices in Pontus (Epistle 10, 96). One may also cite the edict of Tiberiuson appeals of criminal cases (S. Riccobono, Pontes iuris romani antejustiniani [Florence:Barbera, 1940] 452-54) in which a capital case, if too difficult to handle at the locallevel, can be either appealed by the litigant (the Sanhdrin) or remitted by the trial

judge to the emperor. We only note these examples with caution, however, because theydeal primarily with accused Roman citizens, which Jesus was not. Though it was notmandatory to do so in Jesus' case, Pilate, if he desired, could have consulted Rome about


6/14


sources to indicate that he grossly undermined Roman justice. That Tiberiusleft him in office for the extraordinarily long term of ten years attests to thefact that he probably represented Roman justice well. Josephus, of course, giveshis own biased account of Pilate's dealings with the Jews, yet even the Jewishhistorian has some difficulty in carrying through a totally bleak picture of theprefect. Pilate does remove the standards from Jerusalem after the Jews bringsuit; later, when his soldiers attack to disperse a complaining mob, they do sowith far greater vigor than Pilate had commanded the Jews were not to bekilled, only dispersed. But if Josephus were writing his accounts of Pilate inthe Jewish War at approximately the same time as Luke was compiling hisgospel, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that Luke and his readers

were familiar with the stories that eventually make up Josephus' picture of Pilate, a picture of special interest to Christians. In the face of the popularJewish portrait of Pilate, Luke has done his best to show the innocence of bothPilate and the one standing before him.

Luke stands at the beginning of a long line of Christian writers who consciously praise the Romans at the expense of the Jews. Paul Winter states:

There is a definite connection between two facts: the more Christians are persecutedby the Roman state, the more generous becomes the depiction of Pontius Pilate asa witness to Jesus' innocence The strategem of depicting Pilate as being unwilling to sentence Jesus to death is in line with the general pattern of Jewish, andsubsequent Christian, apologetics addressed to the Roman authorities. 1*

This may be true for writers of the second and third centuries, but it is anunlikely motivation for the evangelists (and especially for Luke), who were

tory of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: Clark, 1890), 1/2.82-87; P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Studia judaica, 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961)51-61. Blinzler lays out the situation between the Jews and Pilate in the trial of Jesusrather nicely when he states: "Because he despised the Jews and eagerly availed himself

of every opportunity of letting them see it, he inevitably adopted an attitude of oppositionwhen he received the strange and unreasonable request to condemn and execute withoutmore ado the prisoner they brought before him. His resistance and mistrust inevitablyincreased when he ascertained that the accused was to be sent to His death on accountof a political offense, of all things! So the representatives of this obstreperous andrebellious race were trying to persuade him that they were acting purely out of loyaltyto Rome! It did not require any particular sagacity on Pilate's part to realize that somequite different motives must lie behind the Sanhedrin's demand: They wanted to getrid of someone who had become obnoxious to them, and he, the Roman official, wasto serve as their tool in this. Seen in this light, the resistance of Pilate to the Jews'demand is completely understandable" (p . 183). One aspect, however, that Blinzler andothers disregard in dealing with the trial of Jesus is the connection between Rome andthe high priest. The high priest was an appointee of Rome and his loyalty was expected


7/14


8/14


nothing about the circumstances attending the blood of the Galileans which"Pilate mingled with their sacrifices" (Luke 13:1). Nor does Pilate, in otherinstances where Jews, including Galileans, are slaughtered in Jerusalem, showfear of reprisal from or need of reconciliation with the tetrarch of Galilee.

Third, it has been speculated that Luke may have had contacts with the houseof Herod from which he drew this special information. 20 This possibility failsfor one major reason: If Luke was so well informed about the affairs of Herod,then why did he neglect the most well-attested story about the tetrarch, thebeheading of John the Baptist?

The fourth possibility is very intriguing but also doubtful. Perhaps Pilatewas legally bound to send Jesus to Herod under some law of forum domicilii. 21

In Acts 23:34-35 Felix inquires about Paul's natal home, but he does not sendhim back to Tarsus for trial though there is every indication that the procurator could have done just that. According to a decree of Octavian, a Romancitizen could choose to be tried in the court of his native land or free city. Thatthis privilege would have been a privilege extended to Jesus, a peasant fromGalilee, is hardly likely. Further, Pilate would have waited until Herod returnedto his place of rule before transferring Jesus' case to him. A. N. Sherwin-Whitehas suggested that Herod Antipas may have enjoyed his father's extraordinaryprivilege of extraditing offenders. 22 But it is doubtful that the younger Herod,

with his greatly reduced power and only marginal prestige, would have beenable to retain this right.

The above four hypotheses assume that Luke is reporting what he considers to be an historical event, but finally M. Dibelius and H. J. Cadbury suggest that Luke himself worked up the story from Ps 2:1-2. 23 Thus Luke depictsHerod and Pilate as representatives of the "kings and rulers" who "rise up againstthe Lord and his anointed." In Acts 4:25-26 Luke has quoted this psalm andstated exegetically that all the powers of the world were arrayed against Jesus,"both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel"(vs. 27). Even though Herod was no king, this is a most convincing theoryabout the genesis of the tradition. But I believe there is more to the inclusionof the Herod episode than the fulfillment of Psalm 2.

Many scholars have maintained that Luke has structured the picture of Paulduring his trial after the passion of Jesus. 24 Thus, as the gospel ends with

20 G. B. Caird, The Gospel of St Luke, 247; J. A. Findlay, "Luke," Abingdon BibleCommentary (New York: Abingdon, 1929) 1056; cf. Luke 8:3 ; Acts 13:1 .

21T. Mommsen, Rmisches Strafrecht (Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1899) 356-57. 22

Roman Society, 31; cf. Josephus, JW 1.24, 2 474.23 M. Dibelius, Prom Tradition to Gospel (London: Scribner, 1935) 199; "Herodesund Pilatus " ZNW 16 (19 15 ) 113 26; H J Cadbury The Making of Luke Acts (New


9/14

WALASKAY: TRIAL AND DEATH OF JESUS IN LUKE 8 9

Jesus' trial, so Aas ends with the trial of Paul; just as Jesus' suffering is foretold by the prophets, so Paul's is predicted by the prophet Agabus (Acts 21:10-14), and the charges against Paul are in many respects similar to those againstJesus (Acts 17:66-67; 21:28; 24:5-6). But with regard to the episode of theaccused before the house of Herod, it may well be that the reverse process took place, so that Luke has styled the account in the gospel after the lavish and fullaccount that he has included in Acts 26, where Paul gives his last, grand apologybefore Herod Agrippa, Festus, Bernice, and all the great men of Caesarea. Lukewould not allow Jesus to be treated less fairly than his apostle; so he is alsomade to appear before a Herodian. Furthermore, it is in the context of Jesusbefore Herod that Luke presents the mocking of Jesus, thus lifting it away from

the pretorium-scene which Mark portrays. As J. M. Creed remarks, Luke wasperhaps "glad to transfer the outrage from the soldiery of Rome to the soldieryof the local tetrarch." 25 The half-Jew Herod and his Jewish guard serve Luke'spurpose well. In Luke's schema, Pilate and Rome are ultimately innocent of Jesus' blood, Herod must bear responsibility for the Lord's shame, and the leadersof the Jews are his murderers. Herod, the half-Jewish vassal of Rome, providesthe link between the empire and the Sanhdrin. 26

But what may we make of the statement that the two rulers "became friends"(Luke 23:12), after Jesus appeared before the tetrarch? Again, most scholars

point to Luke 13:1 and speculate that in sending Jesus to Herod, Pilate atonedfor his murder of Galileans. Though it may be true that Luke would have hisreaders see the reconciling ministry of their Lord at work even in his trial, Iwould suggest, as long as we are speculating, another striking coincidence thatmay have been the basis for Luke's understanding of this new "friendship."

In A.D. 36, Pilate was finally ordered to Rome by Vitellius, legate of Syria,to answer for his conduct in the imprisonment and slaughter of suspectedSamaritan rebels. Of his ultimate fate, we know nothing other than that Pilatearrived too late to stand before Tiberius: the emperor had died. 27

Now one of the first aas of Tiberius' successor, Gaius, was to name Aristo-bulus' prodigal son, Herod Agrippa, as king over the tetrarchy of Philip. HerodAgrippa then journeyed to Palestine to solicit the aid of his brother-in-law HerodAntipas (the Herod of Jesus' trial). 28 The very fact that her good-for-nothing,

26 The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1930) 280. We also notethat the temple guard who arrested Jesus also mocked and beat Jesus (Luke 22:52 , 63-65).

28 H. Conzelmann, Theology, 86-88, esp. p. 88, n. 1.27 Christian legend puts the finishing touch to the story by having Pilate ( 1 ) end his

life by suicide (Eusebius, HE 2, 7) or ( 2) suffer death at the hands of the emperor(Nero in most references; Tiberius [!] in Paradsis Pilatou) for his part in the trial of Jesus In some writings (cf C von Tischendorf Evangelia apocrypha [Leipzig: H


10/14


spendthrift brother Agrippa was made nothing less than king, sent Herodias intoa jealous rage and, not unlike the driving force behind many great men, shehounded her husband Antipas to go to Rome and also seek the title of royalty.Agrippa, alert to a ripe situation both at home and in Rome, quickly sentFortunatus, his freedman advocate, to charge Antipas with having made a compact with Sejanus and with the Parthian king Artabanus. Fortunatus supportedthe charge that Antipas was on the brink of treason by accusing Herod Antipasof accumulating a huge hoard of arms. Antipas, unable to deny the last chargeand at a loss for an adequate explanation, was forthwith deposed and banishedto Gaul by the emperor. To Agrippa went the victor's spoils of Herod's moneyand his tetrarchy. 29

Luke probably knew that both rulers were deposed within a two- or three-year period and that the trial of Jesus occurred only a few years prior to theirdownfall. It may also be that Luke shared the view of the Fourth Gospel thatPilate was on his way toward being "no friend of Caesar's." 30 Luke would addthat Herod Antipas was also jogging down the same path. By A.D. 38 both ex-rulers may have been "friends" of each other, but they were no longer "friendsof Caesar."

IV. The Capital Punishment and Ultimate Verdict

A third time Pilate pronounced that no specific criminal charge could besustained against Jesus. Luke adds, "Therefore after chastising (paideusas)him, I will release him." Thus in 23:22, as in vs. 16, Luke distinguishes thetype of beating which Pilate has in mind for Jesus; he tempers the phragellosassuggested by his source (Mark 15:15b) with paideusas? 1 Both Mark and Lukeare accurate, at least in their own perspective, about the type of beating orderedby Pilate. While Luke suggests the lightest form of Roman beating (fustigatio) ,given as a warning to a potential trouble-maker, Mark's Latinism (from flagello)

represents the most severe of Roman whippings, which always accompanied acapital sentence. Luke has consciously omitted the Roman pre-crucifixionscourging, for there can be no question that he was informed about the pre-cedure, at least by his source Mark (10:34 / / Luke 18:32; cf. Mark 15:15b).

A. N. Sherwin-White, on the basis of Dig. 28.19,7, suggests that there werethree grades of beatings in the empire: fustes, flagella, verbera? 2 However,neither the NT nor the Roman legal sources are clear in distinguishing thefunction or severity of the last two cases. The first was obviously the lightest,

29 Josephus, Ant. 18.7, 1 240-256; JW 2.9, 5 178-183. The latter passage has afew discrepancies: Agrippa himself confronts Antipas in Rome, and Antipas is banished

S i


11/14


but the last two were both severe whippings. We should also note that beatingwas meted out for three reasons (which do not always correspond with the threetypes of beating): (1) as a warning to a potential troublemaker, which wasdone with rods and is probably what Luke has in mind in 23:16, 22; 33 (2) asa means of obtaining a confession; 34 (3) as a prelude to crucifixion, an intrinsicpart of the capital sentence. 85

J. Blinzler also has a fine discussion of Roman scourging. 36 From theevidence of the sources, however, Blinzler appears mistaken on several points:( 1 ) That scourging was in itself a death sentence. Not only was this not thecase, but Blinzler even says that the "death sentence" was carried out by

fustuarium, which, as we noted, was the lightest of the beatings. (2) That

Pilate ordered the scourging as an "independent punishment." This is Blinzler'sinterpretation of both Luke and John (19:4). But the Lucan passage givesthe impression that the beating is meant to be a warning, while the Johanninesetting seems to indicate that Pilate's motive for scourging is the extraction of aconfession. Neither is a punishment resulting from a sentence. (3) That thescourging was not "a subsidiary punishment preceding execution." At thispoint Blinzler confuses the synoptic accounts, which are quite different, as theirvocabulary and sequence indicate. Mark and Matthew bring out quite clearlywhat has been noted in other sources, that scourging preceded crucifixion aspart and parcel of the punishment.

With the term paideusas, Luke is doing more than using "a light word toexpress the terrible fUgellatio? as A. Plummer suggests. 37 Luke is concernedto show an entirely different perspective than his source. For Luke, there neverreally was a criminal trial. Pilate was prepared to let Jesus go with only awarning, though it be a firm one, which often came in the form of a lesson bythe rod ordered by the governor when he judged that formal cognitio was notrequired.

Further evidence that Luke did not consider this to have been a completedtrial is the curious way he presents the sentencing. Unlike Mark, Luke uses thetechnical phrase for the passing of a sentence: kai Pilatos epekrinen (23:24).Yet the specification of punishment is totally unexpected. Luke has omitted theobvious result and most important aspect of a capital trial that Jesus wassentenced to scourging and crucifixion, pareddken ton lesoun phragellosas hina

88 Cf. Acts 16:22; Strabo, Geog. 5.2,2; Epictetus, Diss. 4.1,57; 4.1, 20-21; PaulusSent. 5.21,1; Dig. 48:2,6; 48.19.28:3; Josephus, JW 2.13, 7 269.

84 Acts 22:24-25 (against C. Schneider, [TDNT 6 (1968) 970, n. 1, following F. J.Dlger] who says mastiz, mastigo is used only for the synagogue punishment in theNT); Josephus, JW 6.5, 3 304; Dig. 48.6, 7; 49.5, 2; Paulus, Sent. 5.26, 1; 5.28, 2.

85


12/14


staurthe (Mark 15:15) and replaced it with the very obscure ton de lsomi paredken to thelmati autn (23:25). Luke cannot mention the pre-crucifixionscourging because he does not consider this case to have been a completedRoman trial. Because Luke has omitted Mark's reference to the Roman mocking and scourging, it does not mean that he was unaware of that incident. Inthe third prediction of the passion, Luke closely follows his source (Mark 10:33-34 / / Luke 18:32-33). There are two issues which must be raised when comparing these two passages: (1) Why does Luke omit "the Son of Man will bedelivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death(katakrinousin auton thanat), and deliver him to the Gentiles"? I believe hemakes this omission because he does not consider that the Sanhdrin can con

stitute any legitimate authority, especially over capital offenses against thestate. They cannot condemn, but only bring charges. ( 2 ) By changing Mark'sfuture active verbs to future passive verbs, Luke has made doubtful in the mindsof his readers the complicity of the Gentiles in the shameful treatment of Jesus(empaixousin becomes empaichthsetai; emptysousin becomes emptysthsetai) .Luke cannot sustain this fiction, however, for the scourging and crucifixion arepresented substantially the same as in his source: mastigsantes apoktenousinauton. Luke does know these important details of Jesus' trial and yet he suppresses them in the actual trial narrative.

A most interesting problem in the closing verses of the passion account isthe identity of the mysterious "they": they led him away; they seized one Simonof Cyrene; and when they came to the place called "The Skull," there they crucified him; they cast lots to divide his garments. Most naturally we concludethat "they" are Romans, especially after reading Mark. There are, in fact, twopassages in the Lucan crucifixion scene which seem to point to Roman involvement, but the evangelist has done his best to set that involvement in a lightfavorable to the empire.

First, in 23:36 Luke states that "the soldiers also mocked him." In question,of course, is the identity of the soldiers. That they were Roman is far fromcertain. More likely, Luke is suggesting that the soldiers were from the Jewishguard. Here we have two possibilities: the temple guard and Herod's palaceguard. Both groups of soldiers have already mocked Jesus. We might alsoadd that a study of Lucan military vocabulary reveals only that Luke does notclearly define which soldiers report to Jews and which are under the imperium.Our only real clue is in Acts 12:4, 6, 18 where the stratitai are the guard of Herod Agrippa. We should also note that the last-mentioned soldiers are

Herod's. Luke's ambiguous use of "they" has allowed the third evangelist yetanother opportunity to implicate the Jews, whose soldiers carried out thecr cifi ion


13/14


Roman soldier provides Luke with the finishing touch for his trial and crucifixion narrative. Instead of having the lone Roman centurion make a confession of faith before the cross as in Mark a confession better reserved forLuke's second volume (Acts 10-11)the centurion gives the final Romanverdict: onto s ho anthrpos houtos dikaios n\ "this man was truly innocent." 38

V. Conclusion

If Luke's apologetic was addressed to some Roman official on behalf of the church, then his presentation of the trial of Jesus would only raise morequestions than it answers with regard to the relationship of Roman justice andthe Christian church. Why was Pilate so superficial in his investigation of theserious charges against a suspected rebel? Jesus was not even "examined bytorture." If Jesus really was innocent, why did Pilate not insure his protection?Why would Pilate, charged with thoroughly and fairly administering Roman justice, allow this trial to be turned into a lynching?

On the other hand, there is much in the Lucan narrative which commendsthe Roman government to the Christian community. It could not be denied thatJesus' death was, in the final analysis, allowed by Pontius Pilate. Yet by comparison to what went on before the Sanhdrin and Herod, Jesus was dealt withgently and fairly by the Roman magistrate and the official position to the endmaintained Jesus' innocence. There is perhaps a lesson for Luke's church tolearn by these events, i.e., even the most sophisticated of human institutions,Roman law and justice, must on occasion succumb to the chaos of unlawful menin order to set in motion the plan of God. Without the trial in Jerusalem, Paulcould not have preached the gospel in Rome. There is nothing to fear fromthe empire; justice can only be perverted by sinful men who seek to thwartthe plan of God. But God will work through human chaos as well as humanorder to bring about new life, the resurrection, the new Israel.

88 Cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, "A Theme of the Lucan Passion Story and Luke xxiii, 47," JTS 43 (1942) 35-36. V. Taylor concludes that Luke's account of the centurion's confession is not based on Mark 15:39, nor is his use of dikaios as a modification of Mark's

huios theou very probable (Passion Narrative, 9 6) . Yet position, percentage of identicalwords, and a typical Lucan improvement of Mark's Latinism (kentyrin becomes hekatontarchs) make it very difficult to accept Taylor's conclusion with regard to thispassage.


14/14

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Trial and Death of Jesus in Luke