Peter’s three denials of Jesus

An examination of the apparent contradictions in the four versions of Peter’s denials of Jesus during his trials before the Sanhedrin.

The Denial of Saint Peter by Nikolaus Knupfer, 1640

Introduction

As I have discussed in other blog posts, historians often use criteria of authenticity to determine whether or not the events described in the Gospels are likely to have happened. One of these is the criterion of embarrassment, which means the Gospel writers were unlikely to make something up if it was embarrassing to the early church.

The Gospel accounts that Peter, the leader of the early church, denied ever knowing Jesus would have been embarrassing, especially when Jesus warned that if anyone denied Him, He would deny knowing them (Matthew 10:33, Luke 12:9), so the Gospel writers were unlikely to have made it up.

Furthermoe, the earliest account of the origin of Mark’s Gospel says that Peter was the source. In Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339 AD) said that Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD) wrote in The Sayings of the Lord that Mark was Peter’s interpreter and he wrote down what Peter had said in his Gospel (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:39 (The History of the Church, translated by G. A. Williamson, Penguin Classics, London, 1989, pp. 103-104). This means Peter told Mark he had denied Jesus, which is not the sort of thing he would have made up.

Another criterion is the criterion of multiple attestations which means the more historical sources mention an event, the more likely it is to have happened. All four Gospels agree that during Jesus’ trial at Caiaphas’ house at night and Peter denied knowing Jesus three times. However, they disagree about who confronted Paul, what they asked Him and how many times the rooster crowed.

On the one hand, we could argue that these differences are a good thing, because they show the Gospel writers were not copying each other. They are independent accounts of the same events, which further suggests Peter’s denials were historical.

Historians are not generally bothered by minor contradictions. They just assume someone made a mistake in the details, but the event which they described still happened. However, contradictions pose a problem for Christians who consider the Bible to be inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), so they should not expect mistakes.

I am going to argue that these differences are not as big a deal as some critics suggest. Two or more people can describe the same event differently, but they can all be true.

Matthew and Mark place Peter’s denials after Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57-75, Mark 14:53). Luke places Peters denials before the Sanhedrin trial (Luke 22:54-71). John places Peter’s first denial before the Sanhedrin trial and the other two denials after it (John18:15-27). One would have to be really pedantic to think this is a contradiction. Clearly, both events were happening at the same time.

Peter’s first denial

Because Mark was probably written first, and Matthew and Luke were familiar with it when they wrote their Gospels, Mark will come first.

“And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You were with the Nazarene, Jesus,” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know or understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed.”” (Mark 14:66-68, ESV)

“Now Peter was sitting outside on the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all saying, “I do not know what you mean.”” (Matthew 26:69-70, ESV)

“Then they seized him and led him away to the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. Then a servant girl seeing him as they sat in the light and looking closely at him said, ‘This man was also with him.” But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”” (Luke 22:54-57, ESV)

“Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus to the court of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in. The servant girl at the door said to Peter, “You also are not one of the man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.”” (John 18:15-17, ESV)

Peter’s denials were somewhat absurd. It was the middle of the night in someone’s house. If Peter was not connected to Jesus, what was he doing there?

All four Gospels agree that a servant girl was the first to accuse Peter. She was probably not part of the nighttime raid to arrest Jesus. Eckhard Schnabel suggests she may have seen Peter with Jesus in the Temple during the previous week. (Eckhard Schnabel, Jesus in Jerusalem, The Last Days, Eerdmans, Michigan, 2018, p. 241)

However, the Gospels disagree on what exactly she said and whether it was a question or a statement;

“You were also with the Nazarene, Jesus” (Mark 14:67, ESV)

“You were also with Jesus the Galilean.” (Matthew 26:69, ESV)

“This man was also with him.” (Luke 22:56, ESV)

“You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” (John 18:17, ESV)

All the accusations basically say the same thing, but the words are different. There are no quotation marks in the Koine Greek in which the New Testament was written. What we read in quotation marks in our modern English translations (including Red Letter Bibles “with the words of Jesus in red”) is not necessarily exactly what was said. In New Testament studies, there is a debate over ipissima verba (the very words) versus ipissima vox (the very voice). When someone in the New Testament, usually Jesus, speaks, does the text contain their very words (ipissima verba) or their very voice (ipissima vox), the meaning or a paraphrase of what they said, but not necessarily the exact words? When a conversation in Aramaic is translated into Greek by four different people, and then into English by modern translators, we should not be bothered if it does not come out exactly the same, as long as it means the same thing.

John goes into more detail about Peter’s first denial. He says “another disciple”, who is assumed to have been John himself, was able to get them inside because he was known to the high priest (John 18:16). (One theory is that because John’s family were fishermen, they sold fish to the high priest’s family.) Once inside, John could have been an eyewitness to Jesus’ trials. John says there were two trials at Caiaphas’ house. One was before Annas, Caiaphas’ father-in-law (John 18:19-23) and the other main trial was before Caiaphas (John 18:24).

John apparently places Peter’s denial during Jesus’ trial before Annas, rather than before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. This is not a contradiction. John just went into more detail, presumably because he was there. Just because one writer went into more details or another omits some details does not mean they are contradicting each other. An omission is not a contradiction.

The Synoptic Gospels say that Peter was sitting by the fire in the courtyard (Mark 14:54, Matthew 26:69, Luke 22:36). John says Peter was standing (John 18:18). This is not necessarily a contradiction since the word for “standing” or “having stood” (hestos) can also mean to remain in the same place, rather than literally “stand”. (Michael Licona, Why are There Differences in the Gospels?, Oxford University Press, New York, 2017, p. 157)

Peter’s second denial

“And the servant girl saw him began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” But again he denied it.” (Mark 14:69-70a, ESV)

“And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man.”” (Matthew 26:71-72, ESV)

“And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.”  But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” (Luke 22:58, ESV)

“Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.”” (John 18:25, ESV)

The big problem about Peter’s second denial is who made the accusation. Mark says it was the same servant girl. Matthew says it was another servant girl. Luke says it was “someone” (masculine in Greek). John says it was “they,” sounding like more than one person accused him.

John arguably gives the clearest picture of what happened. Several people were accusing Peter. The first servant girl started it off and told the others he had been with Jesus. The other servant girl also told them. Their accusations were directed towards the others present, not at Peter. Then, the others, including “someone”, asked Peter directly and he denied it again.

Matthew and Mark said that Peter went to the entrance, while John said he was standing by the fire when the second denial occurred. In 1973-74 archaeologists excavated the remains of a house on the eastern slope of the Upper City of Jerusalem. Some believe this was Caiaphas’ house where Jesus’ trials and Peter’s denials took place. The courtyard where Paul would have denied Jesus was 8 by 8 metres. (Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, Thomas Neville, Nashville, 1980, p. 98) If the fire was in the middle of the courtyard, the entrance to the courtyard where Peter was standing would have been about four metres away.  He could have been still warming himself from the fire at the entrance.

Plan of the building which is believed to have been Caiaphas’ house, showing the courtyard where Peter’s denials would have occurred. (Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1980. p. 99)

Peter’s third denial

  “After a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “certainly, you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times. And he broke down and wept.” (Mark 14: 70b-72, ESV)

“After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began a curse on himself and to sear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.” (Matthew 26:73-75, ESV)

“And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man was also with him, for he too is a Galilean.” But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.”  (Luke 22:59-62, ESV)

“One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” Peter again denied it and at once a rooster crowed.” (John 18:26-27, ESV)

All four Gospels agree that the third denial took place later than the others. Luke records that after the third denial, Jesus turned and looked at Peter (Luke 22:61), which suggests that Jesus was being taken away after the trial had ended.

Mark, Matthew and Luke say that Peter’s accusers recognized he was from Galilee by his accent. Apparently, there was a distinctive Galilean accent.

Mark and Matthew say the ‘bystanders” (plural) confronted Peter. Luke says it was one man who also mentioned his accent, like the other bystanders. John says it was a relative of the servant whose ear Peter had cut off and was presumably with them in the Garden of Gethsemane. Again, it probably means that more than one person accused Peter. At least one man recognized Peter’s Galilean accent and accused him. The others joined in. another accused him of attacking his relative.

In Mark, Jesus predicted that Peter would deny Him before the rooster crowed twice (Mark 14:30) and the rooster did crow twice (Mark 15: 68, 72). In the other Gospels, the rooster crows before Peter denied Jesus the third time, but no other crowing is mentioned (Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:34, John 13:38).

As already mentioned, Mark was written first and was probably Peter’s own account, so it would be the most accurate and the rooster did crow twice. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, so they presumably had a copy mentioning the rooster crowing twice right in front of them, but they chose to omit it. Michael Licona suggests, “It could just be that “twice” is original and both Matthew and Luke have simplified with a single cock’s crow.” (Why are There Differences in the Gospels, p. 159)

Conclusion

The differences in the Gospels’ accounts of Peter’s denials show that they are independent accounts of the same event. They are not copying each other. Peter’s denials are historically credible. People can describe the same event differently, but their accounts can still be true. The differences in the Gospels are not significant enough to be irreconcilable contradictions.

The Seven Trials of Jesus Part Two

Part Two of a study of the trials of Jesus, which looks at Jesus’ appearances before Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas

Fourth Trial – The first appearance before Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate, the prefect or governor of Judea, was usually based in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. He was in Jerusalem with his soldiers to keep order during the Passover. This must have been convenient for the Sanhedrim who wanted Jesus executed quickly rather than keeping him in prison until Pilate showed up sometime later.

In every movie about Jesus, from Ben Hur to Passion of the Christ to Life of Brian, the Roamn soldiers are portrayed as Latin-speaking Roman Legionaries. They weren’t. Pilate was an equestrian governor. (An equestrian was the equivalent of a knight.) He was not important to be assigned Legions. His soldiers were auxiliary troops which most likely came from Syria (Christopher Zeichmann, The Roman Army in the New Testament, Lexington Books, Lanham, 2018, pp. 1-4).

Ecce Homo (Behold the Man) by Antonio Ciseri (1871)

The traditional site of Jesus’ trial before Pilate was believed to have in the Antonia Fortress at the north east corner of the Temple. The modern consensus is that the trial was held in Herod’s Palace, next to the western wall of Jerusalem (Paul Barnett, The Trials of Jesus, Eerdmans, Michigan, 2024, p.148).

In his book Zealot, Reza Aslan doubts there ever was a trial before Pilate as described in the Gospels,

“In his [Pilate’s] ten years as governor of Jerusalem, he had sent thousands upon thousands to the cross with a simple scratch of his reed pen on a slip of papyrus. The notion that he would even be in the same room as Jesus, let alone deign to grant him a “trial”, beggars the imagination. Either the threat posed by Jesus to Jerusalem is so great that he is only one of a handful of Jews to have the opportunity to stand before Pilate and answer for his alleged crimes, or else the so-called trial before Pilate is a fabrication.” (Reza Aslan, Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 2013, p. 148)

The Romans ruled Judea, not the Sanhedrin. Pilate was not going to execute someone just because the Sanhedrin demanded that he do it. The Sanhedrin accused Jesus of saying He was the Messiah who would overthrow Roman rule. Pilate would have wanted to know how serious a threat Jesus was. Was Judea on the verge of a revolt?

Matthew and Mark briefly describe Jesus’ first appearance before Pilate. He sked Jesus if He was “the king of the Jews”, trying to work out if He was a political threat and guilty of sedition. Jesus replied, “You have said so.” (Matthew 27:11-14, Mark 15:2-5)

Luke goes into more detail about the charges which the Sanhedrin brought against Jesus to Pilate, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2, ESV) and “He stirs up the people , teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place” (Luke 23:5, ESV). They appear to be saying that Jesus is guilty of being a “seducer of the people” and His teachings have been found to be false (Eckhard Schnabel, Jesus in Jerusalem, The Last Days, Eerdmans, Michigan, 2018, p. 247)

Pilate probably did not care if Jesus said He was the Son of God. The pagan Greeks and Romans had lots of gods and sons of gods. One more would not have made much difference. However, the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of saying He was the Messiah, the king of the Jews who would overthrow the Romans, and He was misleading and stirring up the people, saying they should not pay taxes to Rome. That would have gotten Pilate’s attention.

John goes into greater detail about Jesus’ first appearance before Pilate. First, Pilate questioned the Jews about the charges against Jesus outside. Pilate told them to judge Him by their own law, but they said, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death” (John 18:31, ESV).

This was not actually true. In The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus, David Chapman and Eckhard Schnabel write,

“It appears that the Roman administration in Judea allowed jurisdiction in cases in which the sanctity of the Jerusalem Temple had been violated, evidently permitting executions in such cases. The conclusion of R. E. Brown summarizes the view of most New Testament scholars. The Romans permitted the Jews to execute for certain clear religious offenses, e.g. fr violating the prohibitions against circulating in certain quarters of the Temple, and perhaps for adultery.” (David Chapman and Eckhard Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus, Mohr Siebeck, Germany, 2015, p. 16)

The Sanhedrin could have executed Jesus, but as I said in Part One, they did not want to, because they were afraid of a backlash from the people.

Pilate and Jesus then went back inside where Pilate continued to question Jesus. He explained that He was a king, but Hs kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36-37). Pilate apparently understood that Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms and did not constitute a political threat.

In the Gospels, Pilate is reluctant to execute Jesus. Perhaps, like the Sanhedrin, he did not want to kill a popular religious figure during the Passover. Both parties wanted the other one to do it. Matthew and Mark say that Pilate was “amazed” at Jesus (Matthew 27:14, Mark 14:5), suggesting that Jesus made an impression on him. Matthew records that Pilate’s wife had a bad dream about Jesus and warned Pilate to “have nothing to do with that righteous man” (Matthew 27:19, ESV). Or maybe Pilate did not like the Jews telling him what to do, and making him have to deal with a trial first thing in the morning.

Fifth Trial – Jesus before Herod Antipas

Only Luke records that when Pilate learned that Jesus was from Galilee and belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod Antipas who was also in Jerusalem at the time (Luke 23:6-8). Pilate did not have to do this. He could have still tried Jesus. It looks like he was trying to fob responsibility for Jesus off to somebody else.

Lucs De Dominicis as Herod in The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Luke says that “the chief priests and the scribes” were also there, accusing Jesus, but Jesus said nothing. Herod and his soldiers dressed Jesus up, mocked Him and sent Him back to Pilate (Luke 23:9-11).

Luke adds, “And Herod and Pilate became friends with each that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.” (Luke 23:12, ESV)

Sixth Trial – The second appearance before Pilate and the release of Barabbas

Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate who addressed the crowd, “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him” (Luke 23:1, ESV).

Pilate did not think Jesus was a threat to Roman rule. He said he would punish Jesus and then release Him (Luke 23:16). If Jesus was innocent, there was no need to punish Him at all. Pilate was apparently trying to placate the crowd. As mentioned in Part One, Pilate “perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up” (Mark 15:10, ESV). The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead, regardless of whether or not He was legally guilty of anything.

All four Gospels say there was a custom to release a prisoner during the Passover (Matthew 27:15, Mark 15:6, Luke 23:18, John 18:39). Some critics argue this custom was not historical because the Jewish historian Josephus and other ancient Jewish sources do not mention it. They seem to forget that our knowledge of Second Temple Judaism is incomplete and we cannot say with certainty that there was no such custom.

This custom should be regarded as historical because it meets the criterion of multiple attestation. It is mentioned in all four Gospels. There are more references to it than to a lot of events in the ancient world. Setting a prisoner free during the Passover makes sense and is consistent with the message of the Passover of Israel being redeemed and liberated from bondage in the original Passover. There is no reason why the Gospel writers would make up this story about a non-existent Passover custom. It contributes nothing to the overall Passion Narrative which would be the same if it were not there.

Mark records that “the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas” (Mark 15:11, ESV).

After Barabas was released, Pilate handed Jesus over to the Roman soldiers who mocked and beat Him (Matthew 27:27-31, Mark 15:16-21, John 10:1-3). Matthew, Mark and Luke mention an earlier beating after Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, presumably by the Temple guards (Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:63-65). John skipped this trial so he did not mention this incident. Luke does not mention the second beating by the Roman soldiers. Matthew and Mark describe both.

Jesus was dressed up as a king with a robe, a crown of thorns and a red as a staff, and the soldiers mocked and beat Him. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC – 50 AD) described a similar incident. Around 38 AD, when Herod Agrippa (not to be confused with Herod Antipas) visited Alexandria, some anti-Jewish Greeks grabbed a local mentally ill person called Carabbas or Karabbas. The also dressed him up as a king with a fake crown, robe and staff, and mocked him (Philo, Flaccus, 36-38).

Seventh Trial – Jesus’ third appearance before Pilate

Most Bible scholars believe that Jesus experienced six trials, three before the Jews and three before the Gentiles. However, after the Roman soldiers had mocked and beaten Jesus (Matthew :27-31, Mark 15:16-20, John 19:1-3), John clearly records a seventh trial, another appearance before Pilate (John 19:4-11), which is not recorded in the other Gospels. Pilate was still reluctant to execute Jesus. He gave the Sanhedrin permission to do it themselves (John 19:6), but neither wanted the responsibility for killing Jesus. Pilate gives in and sends Jesus to be crucified after the crowd says, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar” (John 19:12, ESV).

Some historians have a problem with the way Pilate is portrayed in the Gospels. According to ancient Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo, Philo was a cruel and repressive ruler. In Embassy to Gaius, Philo described Pilate as “a cruel man of very inflexible disposition, and very merciless, as well as well as very obstinate” (Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 301), and “his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murder of people untried and uncondemned, and his neverending, and most gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity” (Embassy to Gaius, 302) and “being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions” (Embassy to Gaius, 303).

In contrast, Pilate in the Gospels comes across as a bit of a wimp who caves in to the Jews’ demands and has Jesus crucified even though he thought He was innocent. In Zealot, Rez Aslan describes this as “pure fiction” (Zealot, p. 47).

In fact, Pilate’s apparent weakness can be explained. Lucius Aelius Sejanus (b. 20 BC) was the prefect (commander) of the Praetorian Guard, the Emperor Tiberius’ bodyguard. After Tiberius withdrew from Rome to the island of Capri in 27 AD, Sejanus controlled the flow of information to Tiberius, began to eliminate his rivals and was on his way to controlling the Empire. In 31 AD, Tiberius realized what was going on and had Sejanus arrested and executed. He began a purge and had Sejanus’ supporters and family executed.

A young Patrick Stewart as Sejanus in the 1976 BBC series I, Claudius

Sejanus may have appointed Pilate to his position in Judea in 26 AD (Paul Barnett, The Trials of Jesus, Eerdmans. Michigan, 2024, p.4). Sejanus and Pilate may have had a patron/client relationship. Sejanus (the patron) promoted and appointed Pilate (the client). In return, Pilate would be expected to be loyal to and support Sejanus. After Sejanus was executed and the purging of his supporters, Pilate would have been in a very vulnerable position, under suspicion of disloyalty. He may have been able to survive on the edge of the Empire, but not in Rome.

Even if Pilate had not been Sejanus’ client, with all the purges, it was not a good time to be accused of being loyal to Tiberius. When the crowd said that if Pilate released Jesus who claimed to be a king against Tiberius (John 19:12), they were threatening Pilate, saying they would report him to Rome for being disloyalty and he probably would have been executed. So Pilate had Jesus crucified, even though he doubted He was guilty, to save his own skin, and a Roman official who died two years earlier was a factor in Jesus’ crucifixion.

Conclusion

The Jews have been blamed for killing Jesus for nearly 2000 years. The Romans killed Jesus but the Sanhedrin and the Jewish mob pressured him into doing it. As I mentioned in an earlier blog When was Jesus crucified?, there were about 400,000 Jews (both locals and pilgrims) in Jerusalem for the Passover. It has been estimated that about 1000 people could have fitted into the courtyard at Herod’s Palace and called for Jesus to be crucified (Eckhard Schnabel, Jesus in Jerusalem, The Last Days, Eerdmans, Michigan, 2018, p. 270). This would mean that 99.75% of the Jews in Jerusalem at the time had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

Historians talk about the quest or search for the historical Jesus, which is the debate about how accurate the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels really is. Many historians say that Jesus did not say He was the Messiah. He was only an itinerant rabbi or a prophet who got rewritten by the Gospel writers.

However, the Romans did not crucify people for being rabbis or prophets or saying, “Blessed are the meek.” They crucified people for sedition, rebelling against Rome (as well as for being escaped slaves, criminals and deserters).

By claiming to be the Messiah, the king of the Jews, Jesus was technically guilt of sedition and even if Pilate did not really believe He was a threat, he could legally crucify Jesus. On the other hand, if Jesus really was a rebel and the leader of a considerable band of rebels, as some historians have claimed, Pilate would not only crucified Jesus. He would have crucified His disciples and other followers as well. He would not have killed the leader of the rebels and left the rest of them. They would have found a new leader and continued to be a threat.

The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is logical and fits the evidence. The Romans crucified Jesus because He said He was the Messiah, but He was a different kind of Messiah who was not really a rebel or a political threat to Rome

The Seven Trials of Jesus Part One

Why the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus, and the seven trials which Jesus was subjected to before His crucifixion. “Trials” might be too strong a word. Some of them were  hearings or interrogations.

Jesus among the Pharisees by Jacob Jordaaens (1593-1678)

Why they wanted to kill Jesus

During Jesus’ ministry the main group, which He came into conflict with, were the Pharisees or “teachers of the law”. The main points of contention appear to have been  that Jesus said He could forgive sins, which they thought was blasphemy because only God could do that (Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:1-13, Luke 5:17-26), That Jesus was using the power of the prince of demons to cast out demons (Matthew 9:24, 12:24, and Jesus healed on the Sabbath (Luke 14:1-7, John 5:1-18, John 9:13-17). After Jesus healed a man’s hand on the Sabbath, the Pharisees conspired with the Herodians to kill Jesus (Matthew 12:14, Mark 3:6, Luke 6:11).

Historians do not know who the Herodians were. They were presumably supporters of Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, or supporters of the Herodian dynasty in general.

Luke writes that the Pharisees and lawyers ”had rejected the purpose of God for themselves” because they had not been baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:30, ESV).

 During His visits to Jerusalem, the Jews (wnen John says “the Jews”, he often only means the Jewish leaders) wanted to kill Jesus for supposedly breaking the Sabbath and claiming to be equal with God (John 5:18), and on another occasion, the Pharisees and Sadducees wanted to arrest Jesus because they thought He was leading the people astray (John 7:11-52).

On the other hand, some Pharisees were more sympathetic towards Jesus. Nicodemus, a Pharisee, told Jesus, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs you do unless Gods with him” (John 3:2, ESV). Some Pharisees invited Jesus to eat with them, even though they ended up being shocked by his behaviour, such as healing and forgiving people (Luke 7:36-50, 11:42-52, 14:1-6). On one occasion some Pharisees warned Jesus that He needed to leave because Herod wanted to kill Him (Luke 13:31). Perhaps, they were aware of the plot between other Pharisees and the Herodians to kill Jesus.

After Jesus raised Lazurus from the dead, the chief priests (Sadducees) and the Pharisees gathered the Sanhedrin. They were concerned that Jesus’ miracles would cause the population to follow Him. The Pharisees would later complain, “Look how the whole world has gone after him” (John 12:19, NIV). They were worried that the people would have believed Jesus was the Messiah and would follow Him in a revolt against Roman rule. The Romans would retaliate and “take away both our place and our nation” (John 22:48, ESV).

None of them were recorded as asking. “But what if Jesus really is the Messiah?”  They were more concerned with preserving “their place” at the top of Judean society with the backing of the Romans, rather than seeing God’s promises for the deliverance and restoration of Israel fulfilled.

Finally, Matthew says that Pilate “knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up (Matthew 27:18, ESV). They did not simply want to kill Jesus because He was a blasphemer, which would have been a legitimate reason under Jewish Law if they really believed it, but because they were jealous of Him. Jesus was more popular than them and the people followed Him.

If the Pharisees and Sadducees just wanted Jesus, they could have killed Him and His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane at night and gotten rid of the bodies. Most of Jerusalem would not know what had happened. Jesus was there one day and gone the next. Instead, they wanted Jesus to be tried, convicted and publicly discredited in the eyes of the people (Eckhard Schaabel, Jesus in Jerusalem, The Last Days, Eerdmans, Michigan, 2018, p. 235)

First Trial – Jesus before Annas

After Jesus was arrested, He was taken to the house of Caiaphas the high priest. John’s Gospel says that He was first questioned by Annas (also called Ananus or Ananias) (John 18:19-24).

Annas was a former high priest and he was still referred to as the high priest (John 18:19, 22), much in the same way that former America presidents are still referred to as the president.  Annas had been deposed by the earlier governor Valerius Gratus. Some Jews probably thought his removal by a pagan ruler was illegitimate and still regarded Annas as the real high priest (Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs (editors), The Context and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, Eerdmans, Michigan, 2010, p. 442.)  John explains that Annas was the father-in-law of the current high priest Joseph ben Caiaphas or Caiaphas (John 18:13).  As well as his son-in-law, Annas had five sons who also served as the high priest. The fact that Jesus was taken to Annas first suggests that he still had considerable influence and was the power behind the throne, so to speak.

This was clearly not an official trial. There were no witnesses, no jury and no verdict (Jesus in Jerusalem, The Last Days, p. 235). Annas was probably interrogating Jesus while Caiaphas was assembling the Sanhedrin for the main trial (Paul Barnett, The Trials of Jesus, Eerdmans, Michigan, 2024, pp. 101, 134).

Annas asked Jesus about His disciples and His teachings (John 18:19). He was presumably hoping Jesus would say something to incriminate Himself, such as blasphemy or challenging Roman rule. He probably asked about Jesus’ disciples because he was trying to work out if they could be construed as a threat to Roman rule. Jesus said the He nothing to hide and Annas could ask those who had heard Him speak in the Temple about His teaching (John 18:20-21).

John says that Jesus was then taken to the current high priest Caiaphas (John 18:24), but he does not describe Jesus’ appearance before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Only John mentions the appearance before Annas. The other Gospels say Jesus was taken to Caiaphas, but they do not say He was taken “first” to Caiaphas. John mentioning an event which is not in the Synoptic Gospels is not a contradiction. There is no apparent reason why John would make this up. John says that the “other disciple”, who accompanied Peer to the high priest’s house, who was presumably the author John, “was known to the high priest” (John 18:15). John could have been allowed inside and was present at this interrogation or had access to information from his connection to the high priest, which the other Gospel authors did not have. Or maybe the other Gospel writers did not include this incident because it did not contribute much to our understanding of the reasons for Jesus’ crucifixion.

Second Trial – Jesus’ first appearance before the Sanhedrin

Jesus before Caiaphas by Johann Georg Trautman (1713-1769)

After Jesus’ interrogation by Annas He was taken somewhere else in the same building to the current high priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Some translations call it the “Council”. In Jesus in Jerusalem, Eckhard Schnabel described the composition and judicial operatios of the Sanhedrin,

“In Jesus’ Sanhedrin trial the judges were members of the Sanhedrin. The plaintiffs were the chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin – experts of the law and lay aristocrats. The witnesses were members of the Sanhedrin who were no sitting as judges and who were not speaking as plaintiffs, perhaps retainers of the chief priests and lay aristocrats, and perhaps officers of the temple who had seen and heard Jesus in Galilea and in Jerusalem during the previous days. If the Sanhedrin had seventy-one members including the presiding high priest, it would not have been difficult to arrange for the presence of twenty-three members sitting as judges and other members testifying as witnesses. It is plausible that the witnesses who appeared in the night session of the Sanhedrin, which had been arranged on very short notice, were invited by the high priest seeking a conviction? (Jesus in Jerusalem,  The Last Days, p. 250)

As we have seen, during Jesus’ ministry His controversy was largely with the Pharisees. However, the chief priests who were largely Sadducees were the prime movers behind Jesus’ trial and the push for His execution, The Pharisees took more of a back seat role.

According to Jewish law (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1), a trial for a capital crime could not be held at night. This does not mean the Sanhedrin trial was not historical, rather Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin were acting illegally and breaking their own laws to have Jesus killed.

At first, they tried to convict Jesus of blasphemy by accusing Him of intending to destroy the Temple. Matthew and Mark recorded that many false witnesses came forward, but they contradicted each other (Matthew 26:60, Mark 14:56).

There is no indication that these false witnesses were ever punished. According to Deuteronomy, false witnesses should the same punishment which the person which they lied about was accused of (Deuteronomy 19:15-21). They should have been executed, but they were apparently free to go, further evidence of the corrupt and illegal nature of Jesus’ trial. (David Chapman and Eckhard Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus, Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany, 2015, pp. 40, 55, 91)

Eventually, they found two witnesses who said that Jesus said this appears to be a reference to Jesus’ prediction that He would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, which He made at the Passover three years earlier (John 2 :18-22), that He would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days (Matthew 26:60-61, Mark 14:57-60). These words were only recorded in John’s Gospel which was written after Matthew and Mark.

Jesus did not respond. Caiaphas could not get Jesus to incriminate Himself so he dropped this approach and went with Plan B. he asked Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61, ESV).

Jesus replied, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, coming with the clouds.” (Mak 14:62, ESV)

The Sanhedrin must have been aware that Jesus had been calling Himself the Son of Man and condemned Him to death for blasphemy (Matthew 14:63-64).

In 1990 twelve ossuaries (bone boxes) were discovered in a burial cave in southern Jerusalem. One of these was inscribed, ”Jospeh, son of Caiaphas” and contained several skeletons, including the bones of a man about 60 years old. They are believed to be the remains of the high priest Caiaphas.

Caiaphas’ Ossuary (Biblical Archaeology Society)

Third Trial – Jesus’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin and the formal charge against Jesus

After Jesus’ night trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was mocked and beaten by the guards (Luke 22:63-65).

Luke records that after Peter denied Jesus three times and the rooster crowed, Jesus, who had been inside, looked at Peter (Luke 22:61). This suggests that the trial before the Sanhedrin had finished and Jesus was being taken out past Peter in the courtyard. The rooster probably crowed around 4 AM, meaning that Jesus left Caiaphas’ house at that time (Jesus in Jerusalem, The Last Days, p. 264).

The Synoptic Gospels record a second trial before the Sanhedrin as soon as it was daylight (Matthew 27:1-2, Mark15:1, Luke 22:66-71). (I have to confess that after over 40 years of reading the New Testament, I only recently noticed this.) After the somewhat dodgy nighttime trial, a more legitimate trial was held during the day to formally ratify the verdict of the earlier trial and to prepare the charges to present to Pilate. This trial probably took place on the Temple Mount (The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, p. 443).

Luke records that the high priest asked Jesus if He was the Christ. Jesus replied that they would not believe Him if He told them and added, “But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God’ (Luke 22:63, ESV).Matthew and Mark appear to place this question and answer earlier during the night trial (Matthew 26:63-64, Mark 14:61-61). Caiaphas presumably asked the question again during the second trial to make it official.

Luke records a second question by the Sanhedrin, “So they all said to him, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.” (Luke 22:70, ESV) This is not in Matthew or Mark, further suggesting that Caiaphas asked the question twice, rather than Luke got things mixed up and moved the question to later.

The Sanhedrin officially wanted Jesus dead for blasphemy. However, they did not want to kill Jesus themselves because He was popular with the people. They had seen how Herod Antipas’ reputation had suffered because he killed another popular prophet John the Baptist. They did not want to experience a similar backlash. (The Trials of Jesus, p. 140)

The Jews believed the Messiah would overthrow the Romans and restore Israel. The Messiah was supposed to deliver the Jews from the Gentiles. Instead, the Jews delivered the Messiah over to the Gentiles,

To be continued in Part Two