In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

97 Throughout Jesus’ trial before the Jewish high priest and Pontius Pilate in Mark 14:53—15:20, two accusations are presented: that he is guilty of committing a sacrilege against the temple, and that he is a false messiah regarding the charge that led to Jesus’ arrest and execution.1 In this article I would like to (briefly) question the former accusation and argue for the latter one. I will present several reservations concerning the historical credibility of the false messiah charge. My main concern, however, is twofold: to stress the historical credibility of the temple charge based on the evidence found in the gospels and to point to its possible effect on both the high priests (that is, the temple authorities) and the Roman authorities.This requires a further look at the religious worldview of the Sadducean high priests and the political -cultural aspect of the cult and cultic resistance in the Roman Empire. My argument is that Jesus’ so-called cleansing of the temple and the saying attributed to him about destroying the temple were sufficient grounds for his arrest by the high priests and crucifixion by the Pilate, his actual intentions and other sayings and deeds notwithstanding. Questioning the Historical Credibility of the False-Messianic Charge According to the Gospels, the final charge against Jesus that led to his execution by Pilate was his self-claim as a messiah, which was also regarded CHAPTER sIX The Trial of Jesus and the Temple: sadducean and Roman Perspectives Eyal Regev sOuNDINGs IN THE RELIGION OF JEsus 98 as blasphemy (Mark 14:61—15:2 and par.; John 10:24-38; 18:33—19:16). Most modern commentators have not followed the gospels in viewing the historical Jesus as an actual messiah and have not thought that he presented himself as such to his followers and outsiders.2 Nonetheless,numerous modern scholars accepted the historicity of the evangelists’ claim that he was executed as a false messiah. They argued that since Jesus was an eschatological prophet, the Jewish (and consequently Roman) authorities understood his eschatological mission as threatening and outrageous. That is, his apocalyptic-eschatological message made him a would-be messiah in the eyes of both his followers and opponents.3 While this partly reflects the belief of all four evangelists as well as Paul (1 Cor. 15:3), it cannot be accepted at face value by the historian. This is because the mere historical source upon which the false messiah charge is based—the Passion Narrative—is historically dubious. The Passion Narrative was composed some time after the crucifixion and probably incorporated into Mark somewhat later,4 in order to demonstrate the belief in Jesus’ being Christ and his resurrection from the dead (for example, Mark 15:29; 16:19).It is a theological and apologetic composition lacking many historical characteristics.5 The questionable historical value of the Passion Narrative is demonstrated by the following arguments. (1) The high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” and Jesus’ announcement “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62) coheres perfectly with Markan (and partly also Pauline) Christology, containing the markers of Jesus being Christ, Son of Man and Son of God, following Ps. 2:2, 7. It therefore probably resulted from a later reworking.6 (2) The scenes of Jesus’ “trial” by the high priest and Pilate bear literary reworking apparent in a structure of two questions in each, in which one is answered by Jesus while in response to the other he remained silent. In each scene Jesus is verbally and physically humiliated after the “trial.”7 (3) The conversations between Jesus and the high priest and Pilate were not witnessed by Jesus’followers.Their contents remained a mystery that the Passion Narrative aimed to uncover, although in quite an imaginative and dramatic fashion.8 (4) The actual juristic act of Jesus’“trial” is clouded in mist, in a manner that does not allow a proper comparison to Roman legal procedures.9 As already mentioned, many have regarded the messianic charge as a result of Jesus’ eschatological message of the coming of the Kingdom of God and his call for repentance. Indeed, it has become common to perceive the historical Jesus as an eschatological prophet.However,the common [18.221.222.47] Project MUSE (2024-04-25 21:58 GMT...

Share