After researching the arrest and death of Jesus, I have found an interpretation given by Tim O’Neill that is compelling. Tim admits that he is not a professional scholar himself, but he does claim he has been following the “scholarship on the historical Jesus, his Jewish socio-religious context and the origins of Christianity for over 25 years.” For what it’s worth, none of his writings that I’ve read go against the (admittedly little) scholarship that I’ve read. In any case, here is a summary of his interpretation of the arrest and execution of Jesus:
- The Romans are in Jerusalem overseeing the Passover festival.
- Jesus causes a disturbance in the Temple, one which gives cause for concern to the Roman authorities.
- Fearful of a general reprisal against the Passover crowds from Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin finds and arrests Jesus.
- The Sanhedrin then hands over Jesus to Pilate in attempt to placate him.
- Pilate orders Jesus’ crucifixion.
Now, on to John and the point of this post. If this summary of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion is more or less historical, what do we make of John 18:14?
“14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.”
Obviously this passage fits in perfectly with John’s theology (Jesus is the lamb of God whose blood washes away the sins of the world and saves us from death, ect.), but could it be historical as well? If the high priest was explaining why he needed to capture and hand Jesus over to the Romans, this would be his first and biggest justification for doing so. I can even see how Caiaphas’ justification could ironically play a part in the fertilization of a new theology in John’s community!
Taken as a whole I’m of the opinion that whoever wrote John did so in an area where the Jewish Christian members of his community were having a difficult “separation” from the traditional Jewish community. As such the author projects the experiences of his fellow Christians onto the past. QED, his gospel is the most polemical regarding the Jewish people, or at least it sounds that way to us today. From that I have to question any interaction found in his gospel regarding the Jews including this bit you mention about Caiaphas in John 18:14.
For the bullet points #2 and #3 of Tim O’Neill I have the biggest issue. John 18:14 speaks in the past tense “Caiaphas…had advised”. This verse is referencing John 11:50 where Caiaphas said the exact same thing! The earlier verse though takes place after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. After the miracle, according to John 11:45-53, the high priests and Pharisees fretted over the Romans hearing about Jesus’ miracles (or signs) and that the Romans would come and destroy Jerusalem and the entire nation. By verse 53 John says that from that day on (the raising of Lazarus) Caiaphas and his high priests plotted to have Jesus killed. In John the money-changer event in the Temple happens very early (chapter 2!!) and is not mentioned after the Lazarus resurrection. Why is that? I can only gather that the event in the Temple wasn’t important to John’s narrative on the arrest of Jesus, ergo did John see it as having anything to do with the arrest of Jesus or as he says, was the Lazarus resurrection the tipping point?
gmatthews said
Taken as a whole I’m of the opinion that whoever wrote John did so in an area where the Jewish Christian members of his community were having a difficult “separation” from the traditional Jewish community. As such the author projects the experiences of his fellow Christians onto the past. QED, his gospel is the most polemical regarding the Jewish people, or at least it sounds that way to us today. From that I have to question any interaction found in his gospel regarding the Jews including this bit you mention about Caiaphas in John 18:14.For the bullet points #2 and #3 of Tim O’Neill I have the biggest issue. John 18:14 speaks in the past tense “Caiaphas…had advised”. This verse is referencing John 11:50 where Caiaphas said the exact same thing! The earlier verse though takes place after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. After the miracle, according to John 11:45-53, the high priests and Pharisees fretted over the Romans hearing about Jesus’ miracles (or signs) and that the Romans would come and destroy Jerusalem and the entire nation. By verse 53 John says that from that day on (the raising of Lazarus) Caiaphas and his high priests plotted to have Jesus killed. In John the money-changer event in the Temple happens very early (chapter 2!!) and is not mentioned after the Lazarus resurrection. Why is that? I can only gather that the event in the Temple wasn’t important to John’s narrative on the arrest of Jesus, ergo did John see it as having anything to do with the arrest of Jesus or as he says, was the Lazarus resurrection the tipping point?
Sorry, I don’t think I was too clear. The bullet points are a summary of Tim’s interpretation of the historical events from all sources, not just how the events occurred in John. My point is if this is how the events occurred, then there may be something historical about Caiaphas’ advice as found in John. John says he feared a general reprisal from Rome, and John records Caiaphas saying that it would be for the benefit of the many if only Jesus were killed. I think both are historically plausible in the context of Tim O’Neill’s interpretation. If my theory is correct, then over time this kernel of historical truth would have been cut and pasted into different contexts as the Jesus narrative in John’s community evolved.
There was another recent thread where I said that the Jews possibly wanted to keep quiet anything Jesus did in the Temple so they could handle him on their own after Passover and the Romans left Jerusalem. In that context I sort of agree with what he says. On the second point though, the bit about what Caiaphas says in John I think we should think about that. If he said it I don’t think this is the kind of thing that gets out publically. In my opinion it’s the kind of thing said in private. At the same time it’s something that could be interpreted by someone (the author of John) as a possible conclusion of events. That is to say, because of the events John puts those words in Caiaphas’ mouth as what he believes might have really happened. Plus if you think about it, this comment attributed to Caiaphas is once again polemic: it’s all the Jews in Jerusalem weighed against Jesus. It’s putting words in Caiaphas’ mouth to pit the Jews against Jesus.
I just don’t think there’s any way we can gauge much of the historicity of any of the gospels. They all had a vested interest in telling the narrative of Jesus for a certain group of people from a certain perspective. As such they’re going to naturally need to embellish certain events, create others out of whole cloth and gloss over others. Like I said before though, I think there is truth to be found in the gospels, but reading them is not like reading parts of the OT that we know to be historical or (for the most part) the letters of Paul.
People can talk about how certain events are multiply attested, but when two gospels (Matthew and Luke) derive in large part from another (Mark) I think you really have to question a lot of the historical value. None of those authors were writing a biography or a history book.
Aleph82, that is interesting.
Jesus makes a scene on Sunday with his entrance.
My pastor always reminds us that Jesus would have cleansed the Temple on Sunday but he ran out of time and so he did it on Monday.
The way the cleansing story goes, Jesus was the only one disturbing the peace. The disciples didn’t join in. The crowds didn’t join in.
The story does not make sense, however. For Yom Kippur, one would expect house of prayer without money changers, not for Passover. One cannot get angry at Passover money changers. It is probably not even historical. The devout who didn’t have their own animals to sacrifice (not only animals but animals without blemish) would have to buy animals to sacrifice.
Because Jesus’ anger makes absolutely no sense (what is wrong with this Galilean?), no one joined in. The emperor had no clothes there.
SO, I must disagree with your assumption of a general reprisal. If there were one or a few people who joined in turning over tables, then you’d have a clearer shot at making this case. Here, Jesus is the only one who needs to be arrested.
Second, and this is secondary. Maybe there were some looking to make trouble because Pontius Pilate went after the Samaritans. I don’t know if he did that before or after Passover, however.
Jesus introduced volatility into that Passover week, no one else.
But he came with a team of 12. Who knew what other trouble the Galilean was going whip up in his purist stance against what a 1,300 year old religious tradition? Next time, would there be 13 people causing trouble? He had a cheering crowd on Passover, so the situation could easily get out of hand.
Yes, put him in custody until Passover is over and people from out of town went home.
So, the Sanhedrin arrests Jesus only BECAUSE his disciples did not join in turning over tables and whipping money changers.
I don’t see sacrificing one for the many. It hadn’t gotten to that point for Caiphas to say what he said.
gmatthews said
Taken as a whole I’m of the opinion that whoever wrote John did so in an area where the Jewish Christian members of his community were having a difficult “separation” from the traditional Jewish community. As such the author projects the experiences of his fellow Christians onto the past. QED, his gospel is the most polemical regarding the Jewish people, or at least it sounds that way to us today. From that I have to question any interaction found in his gospel regarding the Jews including this bit you mention about Caiaphas in John 18:14.For the bullet points #2 and #3 of Tim O’Neill I have the biggest issue. John 18:14 speaks in the past tense “Caiaphas…had advised”. This verse is referencing John 11:50 where Caiaphas said the exact same thing! The earlier verse though takes place after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. After the miracle, according to John 11:45-53, the high priests and Pharisees fretted over the Romans hearing about Jesus’ miracles (or signs) and that the Romans would come and destroy Jerusalem and the entire nation. By verse 53 John says that from that day on (the raising of Lazarus) Caiaphas and his high priests plotted to have Jesus killed. In John the money-changer event in the Temple happens very early (chapter 2!!) and is not mentioned after the Lazarus resurrection. Why is that? I can only gather that the event in the Temple wasn’t important to John’s narrative on the arrest of Jesus, ergo did John see it as having anything to do with the arrest of Jesus or as he says, was the Lazarus resurrection the tipping point?
I gave this reply a 5.
Aleph82 said
gmatthews said
Taken as a whole I’m of the opinion that whoever wrote John did so in an area where the Jewish Christian members of his community were having a difficult “separation” from the traditional Jewish community. As such the author projects the experiences of his fellow Christians onto the past. QED, his gospel is the most polemical regarding the Jewish people, or at least it sounds that way to us today. From that I have to question any interaction found in his gospel regarding the Jews including this bit you mention about Caiaphas in John 18:14.For the bullet points #2 and #3 of Tim O’Neill I have the biggest issue. John 18:14 speaks in the past tense “Caiaphas…had advised”. This verse is referencing John 11:50 where Caiaphas said the exact same thing! The earlier verse though takes place after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. After the miracle, according to John 11:45-53, the high priests and Pharisees fretted over the Romans hearing about Jesus’ miracles (or signs) and that the Romans would come and destroy Jerusalem and the entire nation. By verse 53 John says that from that day on (the raising of Lazarus) Caiaphas and his high priests plotted to have Jesus killed. In John the money-changer event in the Temple happens very early (chapter 2!!) and is not mentioned after the Lazarus resurrection. Why is that? I can only gather that the event in the Temple wasn’t important to John’s narrative on the arrest of Jesus, ergo did John see it as having anything to do with the arrest of Jesus or as he says, was the Lazarus resurrection the tipping point?
Sorry, I don’t think I was too clear. The bullet points are a summary of Tim’s interpretation of the historical events from all sources, not just how the events occurred in John. My point is if this is how the events occurred, then there may be something historical about Caiaphas’ advice as found in John. John says he feared a general reprisal from Rome, and John records Caiaphas saying that it would be for the benefit of the many if only Jesus were killed. I think both are historically plausible in the context of Tim O’Neill’s interpretation. If my theory is correct, then over time this kernel of historical truth would have been cut and pasted into different contexts as the Jesus narrative in John’s community evolved.
Well, displays of power are looked down upon in the Babylonian Talmud. I think there was a rabbi who could make a roof fall in on people if he wanted to; but, he was told not to do it. When the name of Jesus could heal people, there were some who didn’t want God’s power displayed for their benefit.
Yes, there were Jewish authorities who didn’t like mystical powers and signs/acts of God even if it were for a good cause.
So, if Jesus raised the dead, those authorities wouldn’t want Rome to see Jesus and/or other mystics as potential weapons against Rome. These men with powerful spiritual technology could be deemed a threat as Moses was a thread to Egypt.
Sacrifice the pure Jews who have become so pure that they can perform acts of God.
BUT WHEN YOU NEED AN ACT OF GOD, Son of Man or victory in the Jewish Revolt, God cannot help you then.
Aleph82 said
gmatthews said
Taken as a whole I’m of the opinion that whoever wrote John did so in an area where the Jewish Christian members of his community were having a difficult “separation” from the traditional Jewish community. As such the author projects the experiences of his fellow Christians onto the past. QED, his gospel is the most polemical regarding the Jewish people, or at least it sounds that way to us today. From that I have to question any interaction found in his gospel regarding the Jews including this bit you mention about Caiaphas in John 18:14.For the bullet points #2 and #3 of Tim O’Neill I have the biggest issue. John 18:14 speaks in the past tense “Caiaphas…had advised”. This verse is referencing John 11:50 where Caiaphas said the exact same thing! The earlier verse though takes place after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. After the miracle, according to John 11:45-53, the high priests and Pharisees fretted over the Romans hearing about Jesus’ miracles (or signs) and that the Romans would come and destroy Jerusalem and the entire nation. By verse 53 John says that from that day on (the raising of Lazarus) Caiaphas and his high priests plotted to have Jesus killed. In John the money-changer event in the Temple happens very early (chapter 2!!) and is not mentioned after the Lazarus resurrection. Why is that? I can only gather that the event in the Temple wasn’t important to John’s narrative on the arrest of Jesus, ergo did John see it as having anything to do with the arrest of Jesus or as he says, was the Lazarus resurrection the tipping point?
Sorry, I don’t think I was too clear. The bullet points are a summary of Tim’s interpretation of the historical events from all sources, not just how the events occurred in John. My point is if this is how the events occurred, then there may be something historical about Caiaphas’ advice as found in John. John says he feared a general reprisal from Rome, and John records Caiaphas saying that it would be for the benefit of the many if only Jesus were killed. I think both are historically plausible in the context of Tim O’Neill’s interpretation. If my theory is correct, then over time this kernel of historical truth would have been cut and pasted into different contexts as the Jesus narrative in John’s community evolved.
I don’t know about that. Other mystics who could perform acts of God weren’t killed. Besides, with Caiphas saying what he said not for the turning over of moneychanger tables but because of the resurrection of Eleazar (Hebrew for the Greek, Lazarus?), is the resurrection of Eleazar itself actually historical? Wouldn’t that be the prerequisite?
Steefen said
Aleph82 said
gmatthews said
Taken as a whole I’m of the opinion that whoever wrote John did so in an area where the Jewish Christian members of his community were having a difficult “separation” from the traditional Jewish community. As such the author projects the experiences of his fellow Christians onto the past. QED, his gospel is the most polemical regarding the Jewish people, or at least it sounds that way to us today. From that I have to question any interaction found in his gospel regarding the Jews including this bit you mention about Caiaphas in John 18:14.For the bullet points #2 and #3 of Tim O’Neill I have the biggest issue. John 18:14 speaks in the past tense “Caiaphas…had advised”. This verse is referencing John 11:50 where Caiaphas said the exact same thing! The earlier verse though takes place after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. After the miracle, according to John 11:45-53, the high priests and Pharisees fretted over the Romans hearing about Jesus’ miracles (or signs) and that the Romans would come and destroy Jerusalem and the entire nation. By verse 53 John says that from that day on (the raising of Lazarus) Caiaphas and his high priests plotted to have Jesus killed. In John the money-changer event in the Temple happens very early (chapter 2!!) and is not mentioned after the Lazarus resurrection. Why is that? I can only gather that the event in the Temple wasn’t important to John’s narrative on the arrest of Jesus, ergo did John see it as having anything to do with the arrest of Jesus or as he says, was the Lazarus resurrection the tipping point?
Sorry, I don’t think I was too clear. The bullet points are a summary of Tim’s interpretation of the historical events from all sources, not just how the events occurred in John. My point is if this is how the events occurred, then there may be something historical about Caiaphas’ advice as found in John. John says he feared a general reprisal from Rome, and John records Caiaphas saying that it would be for the benefit of the many if only Jesus were killed. I think both are historically plausible in the context of Tim O’Neill’s interpretation. If my theory is correct, then over time this kernel of historical truth would have been cut and pasted into different contexts as the Jesus narrative in John’s community evolved.
I don’t know about that. Other mystics who could perform acts of God weren’t killed. Besides, with Caiphas saying what he said not for the turning over of moneychanger tables but because of the resurrection of Eleazar (Hebrew for the Greek, Lazarus?), is the resurrection of Eleazar itself actually historical? Wouldn’t that be the prerequisite?
I don’t think so. Jesus in John was supposedly crucified because of the resurrection of Lazurus, that doesn’t mean that a historical resurrection of Lazurus would be a prerequisite to Jesus’s historical crucifixion.
You guys should read The Testament of Mary, a fictionalized novelette account of Mary’s anguish over her son being crucified. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** The story focuses on Mary, but it does talk about the Lazarus resurrection which this convo made me think about (when reading that part of the story you can almost smell his body decomposing in his tomb— which is to emphasize that he is truly dead and not just “sleeping” as some atheists would put it). This story does not buy into the divinity of Jesus, or at least if you choose to believe it doesn’t discount it the story at the very least marginalizes the possibility. I read it a couple of years ago, but this is one of those stories that has lingered with me ever since I read it, which for me, a voracious reader, is a sign of something special.
Aleph82
Jesus in John was supposedly crucified because for the resurrection of Lazurus. That doesn’t mean that a historical resurrection of Lazurus would be a prerequisite to Jesus’s historical crucifixion.
Steefen
If it didn’t happen, then, in John, Jesus was crucified for calling Lazarus’ name? What would they have on Jesus if they claimed they had him for displaying mystical power and he actually didn’t display that?
The problem with all this is when Jesus was supposedly arrested in the garden of Gethsemane, and indeed cut off the ear of a temple guard, only Jesus was arrested and no others? I would guess at that time the leader and his gang would have been all taken together as someone else could take over etc. The Romans would certainly have rounded them all up.
The second is that Jesus dying for the sins of the world was not what Jesus preached for three years. It was the same as John the Baptist. Repent and get baptised for the Kingdom of God was close. IE in that generation as Jesus said. The atonement was then added later by Paul and Gentile Greek Christians who wrote John’s Gospel. But then Jesus would not have agreed with that doctrine as it places God as someone who holds a grudge against all humanity because one or two persons sinned. ie Adam and Eve. That is ONE reason that I have abandoned Jewish and Christian teachings as not Godly nor any prospect of being valid. By all means let us love one another IF we can and do unto others as we wish done to us etc.
That means that I can still believe in God as I do but revealed religions have made him in their image. Eg God did not order the killing of all the men, women and children and livestock as stated in Samuel. He Samuel as usual used God for his own ends.
The money changing in the Temple area had been going on for centuries and Jesus and his family would have been part of that ritual before and so why get miffed on that occasion? The Jesus Seminar suggests that Jesus never spoke three quarters of the stuff attributed to him in the Gospels.
It makes no sense that Jesus was crucified when he did to avoid the passover as the Romans would have kept him in Prison over that period no doubt with hundreds of other Jews arrested. That is IF they went along with Jewish customs and Pilate gave us no indication that he would have complied. Bart makes the same point I think and why Jesus was ‘probably’ thrown into a common grave afterwards.
The point really is that Jesus was nobody special to the Romans and was condemned for sedition and preaching against Rome and possibly drawing a crowd that could be dangerous to their security. I’m not sure if the Sanhedrin were involved with any trial at all and anyway they had the authority to stone blasphemers to death and could have used that with Jesus as they did with Stephen and James. Did they ask the Roman Authorities for permission to do that?
Completely agree, Mikey!
Steefen
If it didn’t happen, then, in John, Jesus was crucified for calling Lazarus’ name? What would they have on Jesus if they claimed they had him for displaying mystical power and he actually didn’t display that?
Come on, be serious. The Romans didn’t crucify anyone, their punishment for the most heinous of crimes (in their eyes), for “displaying mystical power”. That sounds like something Christians would have done. I’m not trying to be divisive with that last sentence, but Christians have burnt, crucified, impaled, hanged, drowned, shot, gutted, drawn and quartered, etc for far less. Not being able to do a magic show on demand was not a capital offense.
gmatthews said
Completely agree, Mikey!Steefen
If it didn’t happen, then, in John, Jesus was crucified for calling Lazarus’ name? What would they have on Jesus if they claimed they had him for displaying mystical power and he actually didn’t display that?
Come on, be serious. The Romans didn’t crucify anyone, their punishment for the most heinous of crimes (in their eyes), for “displaying mystical power”. That sounds like something Christians would have done. I’m not trying to be divisive with that last sentence, but Christians have burnt, crucified, impaled, hanged, drowned, shot, gutted, drawn and quartered, etc for far less. Not being able to do a magic show on demand was not a capital offense.
It was claimed that in the Gospel of John because of the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus’ fate was sealed. That display of power put more people in Jesus’ camp. More people creates a political movement; hence, a threat.
Even without the resurrection of Lazarus, the Son of Man Movement was a display of Godly power enough. The Bible says so on two occasions: when Jesus talked about the Son of Man at the right hand of the Power and when Stephen talked about the Son of Man at the right hand of the Power. In both instances, Jesus and Stephen were not talking about the right hand of Caesar. Therefore their mystical visions were a threat worthy of execution.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert