Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology

http://btb.sagepub.com/
Bart D. Ehrman Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1983 13: 124 DOI: 10.1177/014610798301300406 The online version of this article can be found at: http://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124

Jesus' Trial Before Pilate: John 18:2819:16

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://btb.sagepub.com/content/13/4/124.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 1983 What is This?

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

JESUS TRIAL BEFORE PILATE: John 18:28—19:16

Bart D. Ehrman,Princeton

Theological Seminary, Princeton,

NJ 08540

Redactional analyses of Johns Gospel have always been plagued with certain methodological difficulties. On the one hand, it seems likely that John used written sources to which we no longer have independent access. This makes consideration of Johns unique contributions more tentative than, say, in the case of Matthew or Luke. Hypothesis must be built on hypothesis, theories of redaction on theories of sources. As a result, research often reaches an impasse, even in such critical areas as the scope of theological character of the signs source and Johns utilization of it (Fortna, Meyer). A further complication derives from modern theories of the tradition-history of the Gospel. If John underwent a long, multi-staged, pre-history (Brown, I, xxi-xl), then quite possibly many &dquo;unique&dquo; features of the Gospel were merely taken over by the final redactor and do not represent his
own

The Trial Before Pilate in John and the Synoptics

It has

long been noted that the Passion narrative repre-

sents the longest track of literature in which John roughly parallels the Synoptics. From Jesus arrest to his resur-

rection, all four Gospels retain parallel traditions in essensame sequence. The purpose of this article is to examine one pericope of Johns Passion narrative the trial of Jesus before Pilate by using Johns differences from the Synoptics as a springboard into his unique portrayal of the event. The basic Synoptic framework for the trial scene is provided by Mark. Here Jesus is led from the Sanhedrin to Pilate, who asks him if he is the king of the Jews (15:1-2). Jesus ambiguous reply &dquo;You have said so,&dquo; (15:2) is his only defense in the entire proceeding. To Pilates amazement, Jesus remains silent when the Jewish leaders level accusations against him (15:3-5). Pilate wants to release Jesus according to his custom of setting free one prisoner during Passover, but the crowd demands Barabbas instead, insisting on Jesus crucifixion (15:6-14). Pilate acquieses to their demand, handing Jesus over to be scourged and crucified ( 15:15). The entire proceeding transpires in one place, apparently an outdoor setting. To Marks simple narrative, Matthew a notation of Pilates wifes makes several additions

tially the

overriding

concerns.

In spite of these difficulties, a consideration of unique Johannine emphases can prove fruitful for the exegesis of certain passages - viz., those which contain traditions preserved in other forms in the Synoptics. Isolated instances would include the cleansing of the Temple (2:13-22), the healing of the officials son (4:46b-54), the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on water (6:1-21 ), and all of which have the anointing at Bethany ( 12:1-8) While close Synoptic parallels. studying what is peculiarly Johannine in these passages will never exhaust their full meaning or allow for final conclusions as to Johns ultimate concerns (for example, his ultimate concern with the significance of Jesus is not unique), such an endeavor does at least produce a chink in the Johannine armor, an opening into the world of Johns thought which allows the reader who enters to begin to explore that world from the inside. A broader-based comparison of John with the Synoptics can achieve much the same results, as D. Moody Smith has convincingly shown in his discussion of Johns Christology. Such comparisons do not hinge on Johns use of the Synoptics, or even his knowledge of them. Rather, the methodological principle involved asserts that a comparison of variant contemporary traditions can lead to an understanding of their unique concerns precisely at the point of their divergences. Strictly speaking, the application of this principle is not redaction but tradition criticism. Given the complicated nature of the prehistory of Johns Gospel, such approximations of the Synoptic redaction criticism may provide the surest critical ground for scholars to stand upon today.
-

premonition concerning Jesus (27:19) and the scene of Pilates handwashing of the affair (27:24-25) - as well as

changes. Lukes alterations are somewhat substantive. In his account the charges leveled against Jesus are listed (23:2), Jesus is sent to Herod for a trial and returned (23:6-12), and Pilates reluctance to execute Jesus is highlighted - he offers to punish him and then release him, three times protesting that he can find no case against him (23:4, 13-16, 22). While the precise relationship of Johns traditions with the Synoptics cannot be determined, there can be no doubt that some relationship exists (Dauer). John places the account in the same sequence of events as the Synoptics : it comes after Peters denial and Jesus appearance before the high priest. The same characters appear in John: Jesus, Pilate, the Jewish prosecutors, Barabbas, and the Roman soldiers. The plot line of Johns story remains essentially that of the earlier Gospels: Jesus is brought to Pilate, questioned, and accused. Pilate tries to
some more

minor

124
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

release Jesus, but is frustrated by intensified Jewish pressure to execute him and to release Barabbas instead. Pilate succumbs to these demands, delivering Jesus over to be crucified. In addition to these general similarities are verbal correspondences which conclusively show a traditional relationship. Thus Pilates initial question to Jesus is verbally identical in all four Gospels: &dquo;Are you the King of the Jews?&dquo; (John 18:33). And Jesus (eventual) reply in John, &dquo;You say that I am a king,&dquo; (18:37- appears dependent on the Synoptic traditions &dquo;You have said so,&dquo; (Mark 15:2, pars.). Verbal correspondences with one or the other Synoptic account can also be isolated. Thus Pilates request concerning Jesus release in John 18:39, &dquo;Will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?&dquo;, is very close to Mark 15:9 &dquo;Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?&dquo;; the account of the soldiers weaving a crown of thorns in John 19:2 &dquo;weaving a crown of thorns they placed it upon his head&dquo; is virtually identical with the Matthean version, &dquo;weaving a crown of thorns they placed it upon his head,&dquo; (27:29); and Pilates thrice repeated protest that he could not find a case against Jesus (John 18:38; 19:4, 6) corresponds to the thricerepeated protest in Luke that no case could be found against him (23:4, 14, 22). These correspondences do not demonstrate Johns dependence on the Synoptic Gospels at this point, nor even that he knew the Synoptics as we have them. But they do show that John had access to traditions which in many respects paralleled those preserved in the earlier Gospels. To some extent, then, there is a traditiohistorical relationship between the Johannine version of the story and the Synoptic. Yet the similarities of the two basic versions can only be considered in light of the major differences. An immediately striking difference is found in Johns designation of Jesus opponents. Here they are not called the &dquo;chief priests&dquo; as in Mark (15:3), nor the &dquo;chief priests and elders&dquo; as in Matthew (27:12) nor the &dquo;the chief priests and the rulers&dquo; as in Luke (23:13). Rather, they are simply designated as &dquo;the Jews&dquo; (18:31,38; 19:7,12,14). The significance of this label far exceeds the bounds of this single pericope - throughout Johns Gospel Jesus adversaries are called &dquo;the Jews&dquo; with no further differentiations ever made. This does not mean that the fourth Gospel is anti-Semitic in any modern sense of the term; the community in which the Gospel arose was itself Jewish ! The label undoubtedly derives from the concrete historical situation of the Johannine community, a situation characterized by bitter and violent conflict with the local synagogue (Martyn). In the eyes of this persecuted Christian community, all that was evil in human religion was typified by its non-Christian opponents, the Jews of the synagogue. Thus Johns designation of Jesus opponents as &dquo;the Jews&dquo; derives from a highly polemical context. Despite the far-reaching implications of this label for John as a whole, its use here has little direct impact on

the issue under consideration, namely the significance of the material divergences of the Johannine account of Jesus trial from that of the Synoptics. John supplements and alters the Synoptic version of the story in a number of ways. The following five can be set forth as particularly significant: (1) In John 18:28 the Jews refuse to enter the praetorium in order to keep from becoming defiled, since they want to partake of the Passover meal that evening. Hence, in contrast to the Synoptics, the participants in the trial are not gathered in one place: Jesus is inside the praetorium, the Jews are outside, and the trial progresses as Pilate goes back and forth between plaintiffs and defendant. John never explains why entering the praetorium would effect a ceremonial defilement (Brown, pp. 845-

46). (2) While Jesus only speaks two words in the Synoptic account of the trial, in John he gives two rather full statements to Pilate, one concerning the nature of his kingship (18:36-37), the other concerning the heavenly provenance of Pilates authority (19:11). (3) In Johns account, Pilate not only seeks to release
Jesus, twice he actually urges the Jews to take him themselves, first to try him according to their own law ( 18:31 )
then later to crucify him (19:7). The Jews never reply directly to the latter request, but to the former they insist that it lies beyond their jurisdiction to execute a criminal. John never explains this curious remark - that is, why, if it were true, Pilate as procurator did not know about it, and why, if it were false, he did not contradict it and force the Jews to take the matter into their own hands. The fact that Jews did execute criminals, sometimes by crucifixion, makes the matter even more perplexing (Barrett, pp.

445-446; Juster, pp. 127-49). (4) John locates the condemnation of Jesus at &dquo;the place called Lithostrotos, which in Hebrew is called &dquo;Gabbatha&dquo; ( 19:13). John does not more closely identify the
location nor explain its significance. Contemporary sources are of no help, since whoever &dquo;called it&dquo; Lithostrotos never did so in any writings that have survived. The Aramaic name Gabbatha is not a translational equivalent and so does not explain the signficance of the Greek designation. Just the contrary, the uncertain meaning of the Aramaic word itself makes Johns intention all the

confusing. (5) John sets the time of Jesus condemnation precisely : it occurred on the day of Preparation for Passover at noon (19:14). This dating of Johns trial scene directly conflicts with the Synoptics account in which Jesus eats the Passover meal with his disciples and thus is condemned and crucified on the day of Passover itself; the time of day when Jesus is condemned in John conflicts
more

with Marks story in which Jesus is crucified at 9:00

a.m.

(15:25).
Even this brief enumeration of some peculiarties in Johns account shows the enigmatic situation confront-

125
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

ing the exegete who attempts to understand the utilization of tradition in the fourth Gospel. These peculiarities are either at odds with details found in the Synoptics (#1,
2,4) or are themselves historically problematic ( #1, 3, 5).

Ultimately the issue must resolve itself on the grounds of the function of tradition in Jonns Gospel. For over two decades - since, that is, the publication of two groundbreaking articles on this passage by Josef Blank and Ernest Haenchen - many scholars have recognized that John is not concerned here to preserve a historically accurate accounting of proceedings, but rather seeks to heighten the theological significance of the story. It is largely to this end that the Evangelist has reworked his traditions. Notably the historically problematic data are precisely those which provide the most important theological insights into the signficance of Jesus trial. This is not to say that the story lacks theological significance in its Synoptic forms. Quite to the contrary, all the accounts of the trial depict the Jewish responsibility for Jesus death, Pilates reticence to execute him, and the ultimate irony of the Jewish preference of the criminal Barabbas to the Christ Jesus. John does not minimize these emphases in the least, but rather intensifies them by changing and adding &dquo;historical&dquo; detail. Thus the features of Johns account that stand over-againt the Synoptic versions are, somewhat paradoxically, both historically difficult and theologically significant. Hence the following thesis can be set forth, a thesis to be demonstrated by a more detailed examination of the passage: John has reworked his traditions of Jesus trial before Pilate so as to heighten the theological and ironic elements already found in them. This he does by making the story a full-length drama in which all the characters are portrayed in purely ironic terms. The theological molding of the structure and conceptualizations of the drama are clearlyJohannine: the chief ironic point of the finished product is that in rejecting Jesus, the Jews have abandoned what they hold most dear, having rejected their Heavenly King, their Good Shepherd, and their Paschal Lamb.

sequence of action through the scenes of both acts corresponds : first Pilate talks to the Jews, then to Jesus, then to the Jews again. The progression from scene to scene is accomplished by verbs of motion, Pilate going in and out of the praetorium at each stage of the action; &dquo;He

out,&dquo; (8:29); &dquo;He went in,&dquo; (8:33); &dquo;He went out,&dquo; (8:38); &dquo;He went out,&dquo; (9:4); &dquo;He went in,&dquo; (9:9). The only exception is found in the final scene in which the movewent ment must be assumed, the pattern being altered by the statement that Pilate &dquo;led Jesus out&dquo; of the praetorium

(19:13). The &dquo;interlude&dquo; of 19:1-3 presumably occurs within the praetorium since Pilate is with Jesus and comes out again in 19:4. The resultant structuring of the drama can be set forth in the following graphic (using the
RSV):
Exposition
28Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.
Act One

Act Two

Scene One 29So Pilate went out to them and said, &dquo;What accusation do you bring against this man?&dquo; 3OThey answered him, &dquo;if this
man were

Scene One
4pilate went out again, and said to them, &dquo;Behold, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him.&dquo; 5SO Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, &dquo;Here is the man!&dquo; 6When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, &dquo;Crucify him, crucify him!&dquo; Pilate said to them, &dquo;Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him.&dquo; 7The Jews answered him, &dquo;We have a law and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God.&dquo; when Pilate heard these words, he was the more

not

an

evildoer,

we

would not have handed him over.&dquo; 3Pilate said to them, &dquo;Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.&dquo; The Jews said to him, &dquo;It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.&dquo; 32This was to fulfil the word which Jesus had spoken to show by what death he was to die.

The Dramatic Structure of the Scene

The dramatic features unique to Johns story have

Scene Two 33Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, &dquo;Are you king of the Jews?&dquo; 34Jesus answered, &dquo;Do you say this of
your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?&dquo; 35Pilate answered, &dquo;Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief

already

been mentioned. The

opening

verse

(18:28)

serves as an

staging for highly charged irony of the entire proceeding. refuse to enter the praetorium for fear of defilement, wanting to eat the Passover meal that evening. This stationing of the characters provides structure for the

&dquo;exposition&dquo; to the drama, setting up the subsequent action and establishing

the the The Jews

afraid;
Scene Two
9he entered the

praetorium
to

again and said

&dquo;Where
are

Jesus,

drama: Jesus is inside, the Jews outside, and Pilate goes back and forth between them. Seven major scenes of action follow, broken into two acts of three scenes each by the fourth scene, the &dquo;interlude&dquo; of 19:1-3. The

priests have handed you

to me; what have you

over

done?&dquo; ~Jesus answered, &dquo;My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world,

you from?&dquo; But Jesus gave no answer. I OPilate therefore said to him, &dquo;You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to

126
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world .&dquo; 3Pilate said to him, &dquo;So you are a king?&dquo; Jesus answered, &dquo;You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.&dquo; 38Pilate said to him, &dquo;What is truth?&dquo;

release you, and power to &dquo;Jesus answered him, &dquo;You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.&dquo;

crucify you?&dquo;

Scene Three

Scene Three After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, &dquo;1 find no crime in him. 39But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?&dquo; 40They cried out again, &dquo;Not this man, but Barabbas!&dquo; Now Barabbas was a robber.
Interlude 19 Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. 2And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple up to him, the Jews!&dquo; and struck him with their hands.

2Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, &dquo;If you release this man, you are not Caesars friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar.&dquo; 13When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, and in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 41low it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, &dquo;Here is your King!&dquo; 15They cried out, &dquo;Away with him, away with him, crucify him!&dquo; Pilate said
to

remaining silent (19:9). In both cases Pilate presses Jesus by asking two other questions, one rhetorical, one substantive (&dquo;Am I a Jew?&dquo; &dquo;What have you done?&dquo; 18:35; &dquo;You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and power to crucify you?&dquo; 19:10). To each of these final questions Jesus responds at length, first by referring to his kingdom which is not of this world (18:36), then by referring to Pilates authority which is not of this world ( 19:11 ). The third scenes of each act comprise Pilates attempts to release Jesus (18:39; 19:12), and the Jews crying out their preferences to Jesus, first for Barabbas (18:40), then for Caesar (19:15).
These correspondences do not exhaust the artistry of the passage, but they do show Johns skillful handling of his traditions. In place of the one-act play of the Synoptics, John has fashioned a full-fledged dramatic production. That the fashioning is Johannine and not traditional is evinced by the following considerations: (1) the framework of the story appears to be redactional (that is, 18:28 and the alteration of &dquo;He went out&dquo;/&dquo; He went in&dquo;); (2) the staging has symbolic overtones, allowing for uniquely Johannine theological inferences to be drawn (for example, the Jews who have rejected the Revealer are no longer able to hear the revelation since they remain outside, cf. 12:36); (3) similar dramatic modes of presentation are found elsewhere in the fourth Gospel, as, for example, in the story of the man born blind (19:1-41) (Martyn). In view of these considerations there can be little doubt that the dramatic structure of 18:28-19:16 is &dquo;Johannine&dquo; or, speaking loosely, that it derives from the redaction rather than the source. Such a conclusion naturally leads to the functional question: why has John made this trial scene into an extended drama? In conformity with the thesis already stated it can be asserted that the dramatic mode of presentation allows John (1) to intensify the action of the plot by allowing it to progress to a tense climax, and (2) to heighten the gripping ironies of the proceeding by means of more elaborate character

them, &dquo;Shall I crucify your

The chief

King?&dquo;

priests

an-

swered, &dquo;We have no king but

Caesar.&dquo;

robe; 3they

came

saying, &dquo;Hail, King of

Catastrophe
16Then he handed him to them to be crucified.
over

The
is

seen

artistry of the dramatic structuring of the account in its nearly perfect symmetry. Each act has three

first and third of which are discussions of Pilate with the Jews, the second of which is discussion of Pilate with Jesus. At the &dquo;interlude&dquo; after Act one, Pilate hands Jesus over to be scourged and crowned with thorns, at the &dquo;catastrophe&dquo; after Act two Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified. Furthermore, there are noteworthy material correspondences between the respective scenes of the two acts. Thus, for example, in the first scene of each act, Pilate urges the Jews to take Jesus themselves, in the first instance to judge him ( 18:31 ), in the second to crucifiy him (19:6). Both times the Jews reply by referring to their law, first saying that they are not allowed to execute Jesus, then saying that he ought to be executed (18:31; 19:7). Each of the second scenes begins with a question from Pilate (&dquo;Are you the King of the Jews?&dquo; 18:33; &dquo;Where are you from?&dquo; 19:9), both of which Jesus refuses to answer, the first time by asking a question in turn (&dquo;Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?&dquo; 18:34), the second by
scenes, the

development.

The Intensification of the Plot

To an extent far beyond what is found in the other versions of this story, Johns depicts a crescendo in the actions of both Pilate and the Jews. At the outset of the drama, Pilate is reluctant even to consider Jesus case (Act one, Scene one, &dquo;Take him yourselves,&dquo; 18:31). But he succumbs to the Jewish pressure, questioning Jesus before pronouncing him innocent (Act one, Scenes two and three, 18:33-38). Then, despite his judgment, Pilate proceeds to treat the innocent Jesus as though guilty, first by offering to release him as the pardoned Passover criminal (Act one, Scene three, 18:39-40), then by having him

scourged (&dquo;interlude,&dquo; 19:1-3). Pilate vigorously

re-

127
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

his efforts to release Jesus (Act two, Scene one, 19:4-6), but when he himself is confronted by an ultimatum, he abandons the case and delivers up an innocent man to be crucified (Act two, Scene three, &dquo;catastrophe,&dquo;
news

19:12-16).

Corresponding to the progression of Pilates actions toward the innocent Jesus are the intensified accusations leveled against him by the Jews. First they accuse him of being an &dquo;evildoer&dquo; (Act one, Scene one, 18:30). This, the only accusation made in Act one, has little effect on Pilate who keeps the trial going only because of their persistence. The Jews change their charge to the religious realm: Jesus deserves death because he has violated the Jewish law in making himself the Son of God (Act two, Scene one, 19:7). This accusation frightens Pilate, making him all the more determined to release Jesus. But the Jews play their trump card: not only is Jesus an evildoer and religious blasphemer, he is also seditious, a political criminal (Act two, Scene three, 19:12). Stressing Jesus claims to kingship, the Jews spell out the implications for Pilate: if Jesus is not crucified as a political insurgent, the procurators own loyalty to the Emperor will be compromised. Pilates choice is no choice at all; he condemns Jesus to save his own skin (&dquo;catastrophe,&dquo; 19:16).

The Intensification of the Ironies in Johns Account

THE IRONIES OF JES(IS FATE Even more than this dramatic effect of action moving toward climax, does the element of intensely ironic characterization play a central role in Johns account. On one level the portrayal of Jesus is explicitly ironic, since he affirms that his appearance does not cohere with reality: he is a king whose kingdom is not of this world (18 :3637). That he has no political aspirations is shown by the failure of his followers to take up arms in his defense (18:36). His mission does not entail establishing an earthly kingdom, but rather witnessing to the truth. Those who accept his witness belong to his kingdom, and, conversely, those who belong to the truth hear his voice (18:37). On the one hand, Pilate shows that he himself does not belong to Jesus kingdom, for he does not accept Jesus witness to truth as seen in the question of 18:38 (&dquo;What is truth?&dquo;). This is confirmed when he demonstrates that his ultimate allegiance is to Caesar ( 19:12b, 16). On the other hand, Pilate realizes that such a kingdom poses no serious threat to Rome and thus he seeks to release Jesus. His designation of Jesus as &dquo;King of the Jews&dquo; must be tongue-in-cheek since, as shown, he obviously does not believe it. This circumstance, Pilates ironic affirmation of Jesus kingship (ironic in that he affirms what he does not

believe), leads to consideration of other ironies implicit in the portrayal of Jesus in the passage. That the portrayal of Jesus throughout Johns Gospel is ironic can hardly be doubted. This can be seen with particular clarity in Johns ironic usage of hupsoo (&dquo;to lift up&dquo;) to designate both Jesus crucifixion and his exalation (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). For John, Jesus death was his glorification and vice-versa. With respect to Johns account of the trial itself, scholars have long noted the implicit irony in the progressive depiction of Jesus as King of the Jews (Meeks, pp. 62-81). After Jesus announces himself as king in 18:36-37, he is crowned, garbed, and hailed as king by the Roman soldiers in 19:1-3. The irony of the scene is patient: Jesus crown is of thorns and he is beaten while being hailed. Yet it is noteworthy that the soldiers are not said to mock Jesus, as is the case in the Synoptics. For John, the soldiers really do crown and hail the King of the Jews, whose exaltation comes precisely at the point of his humiliation. Afterwards Jesus is presented as King of the Jews by Pilate ( 19:14). Here Judeas procurator unwittingly confesses Israels King. The Jews respond with cries of acclamation, not accepting this king but rejecting him for their only true Sovereign, Caesar (19:15). Still dressed in royal garb, Jesus is led off to be crucified ( 19:16b). Soon he will be lifted up onto the throne of his cross over which the placard will silently proclaim the ironic truth: &dquo;Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews&dquo; (19:19).
THE IRONIES SCIRRO(INDIIIG PILATE

already been seen, Johns account paints an portrait of Pilate as well. In one sense it is ironic that Pilate appears to be the ruler of the Jews yet unwittingly affirms that Jesus is king. An even more pointed irony pertains to the trial scene itself: Pilate appears to be
As has
ironic

Jesus judge and condemner, but Jesus declares that the authority of judgment does not reside in Pilate. It comes from above. Thus, in Johns understanding, it is Pilate who is on trial, who indeed passes judgment on and condemns himself precisely in his reception and treatment of Jesus. The evangelist makes graphic this theological assessment of the significance of the trial in his structuring of the course of the dialogues between Pilate
and Jesus. Here the defendent Jesus exercises control of the interrogation. It is Jesus who confronts Pilate with the truth and compels him to decision. When Pilate refuses to receive the witness (18:38), Jesus refrains from speaking of the truth, remaining silent concerning his own identity (19:9). Jesus concludes the discussion with a stern declaration that Pilates authority is derived ( 19:11 ). Thus, while Pilates condemnation of Jesus does show his rejection of truth, it does not show his power to take Jesus life. Jesus alone can decide his own destiny: &dquo;no one takes my life from me; I lay it down of my own accord&dquo; (10:18). This portrayal of Pilate on trial conforms to the charac-

128
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

to the truth who hears &dquo;judgment&dquo; (Meeks, p. 65). Thus in John 3:31-36, the one who comes from above (i.e. Jesus, the Son) is a witness who speaks the words of God. Anyone who believes in the Son has eternal life and anyone who does not believe encounters the wrath of God (cf. also 5:24-30; 8:12-20). Pilate does not accept the truth to which Jesus witnesses, showing that he is one of those who stands condemned. He is not the believer who &dquo;hears my words and believes in the one who sent me&dquo; who &dquo;does not come into judgment&dquo; (5:24). Rather is he &dquo;the one who has not believed&dquo; who &dquo;has entered into judgment already&dquo; (3:18). This understanding of Johns ironic portrayal of Pilate helps explain one other feature of the passage. The reference to the trial occurring in early morning (18:28) may reflect a tradition (cf. Mark 15:1). But given Johns complex system of symbolism, something else may be in view here as well. Just as Judas betrayal was at &dquo;night,&dquo; showing that he loved the darkness rather than the light (13:30), so too Jesus trial occurs at sunrise, when the light comes into the world. Here the true Light (8:12), the witness to the truth, comes forth, forcing people to decision. Pilate shows that he also prefers darkness to light; consequently, he stands condemned (cf. 3:18).

teristically Johannine view that the &dquo;witness&dquo;

effects
a

for the

one

celebrated in the feast of the Paschal Lamb. By entering the praetorium they would be defiled and thus could not partake of the feast. The powerful irony is that the Jews actually do become involved with the Roman state, eventually swearing absolute allegiance to Caesar alone. In so

doing they reject their unique relationship with fail to recognize the true Paschal Lamb.

God and

THE IRONIES SURROUNDING THE JEWS

John portrays the ironies in the Jews rejection of Jesus particularly striking terms. This ironic depiction is set up by the &dquo;exposition&dquo; to the drama: the Jews do not enter the praetorium so as not to be defiled, wanting to eat the Passover meal that evening (18:28). As observed already, John does not state why entering the praetorium would cause ceremonial defilement (Brown, II, 846). The historical issue, however, must remain secondary to the literary-functional: the Jews refusal to enter allows the drama to progress in well-defined stages and allows the Gospel to carry out one of its programmatic concerns methodically. In 12:36, Jesus had hidden himself from the Jews who refused to believe. Jesus resolve is maintained in the rest of the Gospel; no more does he speak as the Revealer to the unbelieving Jews. Thus he refuses to speak concerning himself before Annas ( 18:19-24), and the trial scene before Caiaphas is omitted from the Gospel altogether. In his trial before Pilate, Jesus speaks of himself and his mission only to the procurator. The Jews do not hear because they have remained without. Since John does not state why the Jews would become ceremonially defiled (and the explanation is far from obvious) is it possible to understand this refusal to enter the praetorium as a symbolic statement? The dominantly ironic tone of the passage lends credence to such an understanding. In this case, John may be stating that the Jews considered direct involvement with affairs of the Roman state antithetical to their relationship to God, as
in

The Jews desire to remain separate from the state and thus to live under the kingship of God, is frustrated on several levels. On one level the Jews fail to enter the kingdom that is not of their world because they refuse to accept its king, Jesus, earlier confessed as king by Nathaniel ( 1:49), by the crowds entering Jerusalem (12:13), by himself (18:36-37), and (ironically) by Pilate (19:14). On another level, the Jews are forced to bear false witness against Jesus in order to move Pilate to pronounce the death sentence. Earlier in the Gospel Jesus openly challenges the Jews to show evidence of his wrong-doing (8:46), to which they make no reply. This shows that John understands the allegation that Jesus is an evildoer (18:30) to be false. Furthermore, John portrays the Jews second charge, that Jesus deserves death according to their law, to be false as well (19:7). Earlier, when the Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy for asserting his divine Sonship, he confutes them with Scriptural proof that his statements are not blasphemous (10:31-39). The Jews are not able to respond to him. Finally, the Jews threats against Pilate, founded on Jesus alleged danger to the state, also represent a false witness against him. Jesus kingship is &dquo;not of their world,&dquo; so that he poses no political threat to Caesar. In short, to attain their political ends, the Jews must compromise their religious commitments - three times they are forced to violate the ninth commandment. The Jewish concession to the state reaches its ultimate manifestation in 19:15. The Jews are desperate in their attempt to force Pilates hand. Because he resists their pressure they resort to a personal threat. Pilate realizes the true nature of the situation: the Jews will stop at nothing to have Jesus crucified. They have forced Pilate to express his absolute devotion to Caesar by condemning an innocent man. Now he, in turn. compels them to express their ultimate allegiance. &dquo;Shall I crucify your king?&dquo; he asks (19:15). In a state of fervor the chief priest respond, &dquo;We have no king but Caesar&dquo; (19:15). Now Caesar is the king of the Jews. No longer does every knee bow to Yahweh alone (Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; cf. lsa 45:23). In order to kill Jesus, the Jews have been forced to acknowledge the Roman emperor as Sovereign. This final concession to Rome shows the full significance of the temporal reference in 19:14. At this time, noon on the day of Preparation, the observance of the Passover regulations would have begun. As Wayne Meeks has noted, the final cry of the chief priests in 19:15 belies the confession of the nismat to be sung that evening at the close of the Greater Hallel:

129
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

From everlasting to everlasting thou art God; Beside thee we have no king, redeemer, or savior, No liberator, deliverer, provider; None who takes pity in every time of distress and trouble. We have no king but thee (Meeks, p. 77).

In addition to the

day and hour of Jesus

name

tion, John also makes known the

( 19:13). Scholars have long phrase &dquo;Lithostrotos (RSV, &dquo;The Pavement&dquo;), in Hebrew, Gabbatha&dquo; (Brown, pp. 881-82). To be sure, John may simply be passing on a traditional datum: but there are no other indications from antiquity that the courtyard of the Jerusalem praetorium was so designated. Given the theological slant of the other details of the account, is it not appropriate to ask if the placename is intended ironically? Very likely Gabbatha is derived from either the Aramaic gbh or gb, thus signifying a high place. This fits not only with the archaeological determination that the praetorium (whether the fortress Antonia or Herods palace) was in an elevated part of Jerusalem (Brown, p. 882), it also conforms with the Johannine conception of Jesus Passion as
his exaltation. His condemnation occurred in the high place, his glorification was to take place when he was lifted up on the cross. In the case of &dquo;Lithostrotos,&dquo; the theological significance is hardly transparent. Possibly John intends a contrast between the Jewish rejection of their king, the Christ sent from God, on this Lithostrotos and another reaction to the Lord and his christ on another Lithostrotos, as recorded in 2 Chr 7:3. There, after Solomons petition for Yahweh not to turn away the face of his christ, the children of Israel see the power and glory of the Lord and fall down and worship on the &dquo;Lithostrotos.&dquo; If the fourth Gospel does allude to this incident, a greater contrast can scarcely be imagined. No longer do the Jews beseech the Lord for the favor of his christ, the king; rather they reject the christ and condemn him to an accursed death by crucifixion. No longer are the Jews the children of Israel who praise Yahweh as they lay prostrate on the Lithostrotos of the Temple before the altar of God; now they are the unbelieving Jews who have turned from their God to make the Roman emperor their king, sealing their fate on the Lithostrotos of the Roman praetorium before the bema of Pilate. Just as the Jews have made concessions to the state and thus rejected the kingship of Yahweh and his messiah, so too have they ironically insisted on partaking of the ritual of the Passover while failing to recognize the real Passover Lamb. John the Baptist had identified Jesus as the &dquo;Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world&dquo; (129). That Jesus was condemned and crucified at the time of the slaughter of the Paschal lambs in the temple by the chief priests is no coincidence for the author of the fourth Gospel. This is made absolutely certain by the allusion of 19:36 to the Passover lamb of Exod 12:20 (LXX, &dquo;Not a bone of him shall be broken&dquo;). For John, Jesus is the Passover Lamb who is slain for the sins of the

condemnaof the place debated the meaning of the

world. The Jews who avoid ceremonial defilement so as to partake of the lamb become thoroughly defiled by rejecting the divine king. And they do not receive pardon because they fail to partake of the real Lamb of God. Notably, the chief priests who adhere to their religious ceremonies in slaughtering the lambs in the temple are the same ones responsible for the slaughter of the true Lamb of God on the cross. In Johns eyes, the Jews are totally at fault for Jesus execution. This emphasis on the Jewish culpability for Jesus death is brought out subtly at the very outset of the trial in the enigmatic statement of 18:31: &dquo;It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.&dquo; The historical difficulty of the saying has already been mentioned. In its Johannine context it seems to have a polyvalent significance. Most immediately it affirms Jesus predictions that he would die by being lifted up from the earth, that is, crucified (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34), as 18:32 makes clear. Even beyond this, the saying effectively reconciles the historical datum - Jesus was crucified by Romans - with the theological understanding of the early church - he was executed because of Jewish rejection. The Jews were responsible, but the Romans actually did it. How can this be explained? Johns answer is unequivocal: the Jews were not able to execute Jesus and thus forced Pilate to do it. Ultimately, then, the Jews must bear the guilt for the deed. This shows the irony of the Jewish statement: they were not permitted to kill anyone, but they did! John drives home this point with striking pungency in 19:16a: Pilate hands Jesus over &dquo;to them,&dquo; to the Jews, to be crucified. A final irony pertains to the brief mention of Barabbas in 18:40. Here Barabbas is not called a murderer associated with the insurrection, as in Mark and Luke (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19), nor a notorious prisoner as in Matthew (27:16). Rather, he is called a lestes. The precise denotation is uncertain since the word can signify anything from a highway robber to a Zealot guerrilla. Apart from the issue of what John meant to say about the &dquo;historical Barabbas,&dquo; the description is significant for what it implies concerning the Jews choice of Barabbas over Jesus. Already in the Synoptic tradition the choice is considered ironic. Pilate releases a dangerous criminal rather than the innocent Jesus and the Jews prefer a murderer to the Son of God. It is precisely this irony that John heightens by calling Barabbas a lestes (&dquo;a robber&dquo;). Only two other times has John used the term, both in the Good Shepherd discourse ( 10:1, 8). Here the Good Shepherd who loves the sheep and lays down his life for them is contrasted with thieves and robbers who do not enter into the fold by the door but rather climb the fence in order to pillage and kill. The sheep hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and follow him only. The significance of Barabbas designation should now be plain. The Jews insistence on Barabbas rather than Jesus shows they prefer the pillaging robber to the Good Shepherd who lays down his life. Consequently they do not enter

130
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

through the door, which is Jesus (10:9), and thus they do not find life. To the contrary, they have cut themselves off from the true sheepfold and are now subject to the dangers of the wild without protection. In short, by making their choice, the Jews have sealed their fate.

their Passover Lamb and thus destroyed all hope of forgiveness ; they have denied their Heavenly King and thus relinquished their unique relationship to God. In Johns view, the Jews who have rejected Jesus have thereby ceased to be the true Israel of God.

Conclusions

SOURCE MATERIAL
Conclusions
as

to the character of Johns account of

Jesus trial before Pilate can now be drawn. John utilized the traditions at his disposal to underscore the theological significance of the event. This is not to say his account has no linkage with actual history, nor that his account can make no contribution in the investigation of what really happened at Jesus trial. It is to say that when John composed this story, historical considerations played a secondary role at best. The staging of the trial, the roles of the main characters, the discussions of the judge with plaintiffs and defendant, the temporal and spatial setting all are set forth not for the sake of establishing what happened at the trial but for elucidating what the trial
-

Barrett, C. K. 1978. The Gospel According to John, 2nd ed. (Philadel-

phia: Westminster Press).

Blank, Josef. 1959. "Die Verhandlung
Lichte
vor

Pilatus: Joh 18,28-19,16 im

pp.

johanneischer Theologie," Biblische Zeitschrift 3,

60-81.

Bonsirven, Joseph. 1952. "Hora Talmudica: La notion chronologique de Jean 19,14, aurait-elle un sens symbolique?" Biblica 33, pp.
511-15.

Brown, Raymond. 1966. The Gospel According to John, 2 vols. (New

York:

Doubleday).

meant.

In his traditions, John had discovered a number of surrounding this trial, ironies that inhered in the Christian conviction that the innocent Jesus was executed as a criminal and that his own people were ultimately responsible. The traditions had borne this irony in stories such as the Barabbas episode, where the Jews plead for the release of a dangerous murderer rather than their own messiah. John took over these ironic traditions and remolded them so as to heighten their inherent tensions. Jesus and Pilate are now portrayed in purely ironic terms. The king of the Jews is crowned with thorns by Roman soldiers and proclaimed king by the Judean procurator. The judge is placed on trial by the defendant and condemned by his own judgment. But the ultimate ironies are reserved for the Jews - the Jews who profess unwillingness to defile themselves with the affairs of Rome, who eventually throw in their lot with the Empire by confessing the sovereignty of Caesar. In condemning Jesus, the Jews have fled from their Good Shepherd and thus have assured their destruction; they have spurned
ironies

Bultmann, Rudolf. 1971. The Gospel of John, trans. G. T. BeasleyMurray, R. W. N. Hoare, J. K. Riches. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press). von Campenhausen, Hans. 1948. "Zum Verstandnis von Jn 19:11," Theologische Literaturzeitung 73, pp. 389-91. Dauer, Anton. 1972. Die Passionsgeschichte im Johanneseuan-

gelium. (Kosel, Munchen).

Fortna, Robert A. 1970. The Gospel of Signs. (Cambridge: University Press). Haenchen, Ernst. 1960. "Jesus vor Pilatus (Joh 18,28-19,15)," Theologische Literaturzeitung 85, pp. 93-102. Jaubert, Annie. 1974. "Le comparution devant Pilate selon Jean," Foi et Vie 73, pp. 3-12. Juster, Jean. 1914. Les juifs dans lEmpire romain. 2 vols. (Paris: Librarie Paul Geuthner).

Martyn, James Louis. 1974. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper and Row). Meeks, Wayne. 1967. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. (Leiden: Brill). Meyer, Paul W. 1968. "Seeing, Signs, and Sources in the Fourth Gospel," unpublished paper read at a meeting of the AAR (Oct.1968).
Mollat, Donatien, SJ. 1961. "Jesus devant Pilate," Bible et Vie Chretienne 39, pp. 23-31. de la Potterie, I., S.J. 1960. "Jesus roi et juge dapres Jn 19:13," Biblica

41, pp. 217-47. Schlier, Heinrich. 1958. "Jesus und Pilatus," Die Zeit der Kirche, 2nd ed. (Freiburg: Herder). Smith, Dwight Moody. 1977. "The Presentation of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel," Interpretation 31, pp. 367-78.

131
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013