Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was

Apparently the disciples are surprised by Jesus’ sudden arrest. They abandon him and flee. Peter makes an attempt to stay close to the events: he lingers for a while in the court of Annas’s house,⁶ where he denies Jesus and then vanishes from the scene—at any rate, from the scene Mark describes.

Before Annas

Jesus is led across the Kidron valley into the city. According to the report in Mark’s gospel he was taken immediately to the house of the reigning high priest (that is, Caiaphas), where the Sanhedrin assembled for a night session to examine Jesus (Mark 14:53). The description in John’s gospel differs. According to the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus was first presented to the former high priest, Annas, subjected to a kind of “hearing” before him, and only then taken to the reigning high priest, Caiaphas (John 18:12-24). The Fourth Gospel then has no further description of a session of the Council; it is, however, indirectly indicated by the fact that Jesus is sent to Caiaphas (John 18:24).

In fact, it is highly improbable that Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin without first having been interviewed and at least an attempt having been made to obtain statements from him before the Council session. The experienced former high priest, Annas, would have played an important role in this. In all probability this pre-hearing also occupied the time that was necessary for the members of the Sanhedrin to be called together.⁷ But apparently that was not a problem. It may be that they had already been informed ahead of time. In any case, the Council assembled during the night between Thursday and Friday.

Before the Sanhedrin

In itself a night session is unusual. Therefore it has often been argued that, in accordance with the Mishnah (cf. m. Sanh. IV.1), in cases involving the death penalty the Sanhedrin was not permitted to hold a night session. Against this we may say that the Mishnah was only edited around 200 CE under Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and in many respects was more of an abstract theory of law. Its directions regarding penal law probably played scarcely any role in the trial of Jesus. He was brought to trial in accordance with Old Testament and Sadducean penal law, and we do not know that law, with the exception of Old Testament regulations for the penal process. But the Old Testament does not forbid night courts.⁸

Besides, the Sanhedrin was under severe time constraint because of the Passover feast. If we follow the Synoptics’ chronology, Jesus died on 15 Nisan, that is, the Passover feast itself. A court session after daybreak of the feast day had to be avoided at all costs. The Sanhedrin had brought itself into this time constraint because of the late hour at which Jesus was arrested. There was probably no question, from the point of view of the Jewish officials, of waiting until after the feast day and the following Sabbath. Jesus’ arrest could not remain secret for long, and it was to be feared that Jesus’ sympathizers among the people would assemble. So the Council acted quickly and decisively, convening a night court. Mark 14:53 reads, “They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled.”

Mark here names the three groups that made up the Council or Sanhedrin. The first group included the reigning high priest and the occupants of a number of important temple offices as well as former high priests no longer in office. The second group was made up of the elders, who came from the most influential lay families in the country. Both the first and the second group were primarily Sadducaic in their orientation. The third group within the Sanhedrin contained only scribes, and it was here, in this group, that the primary speakers for the Pharisees were to be found. What Mark calls the Sanhedrin, however, was not precisely the highest court for all Israel that the Mishnah would later describe, more in terms of legal theory than of practice; rather, it was a group the high priest gathered around himself for making important decisions. It was, so to speak, the Annas-clan’s instrument for wielding power.

The only participant whose name we know with certainty was Caiaphas. He must have been a skillful diplomat and a highly pragmatic politician, because he managed to remain in power for nearly twenty years, from 18 to 37 CE. No other high priest in the first century achieved such a long term of office. Caiaphas would not have survived so long if he had not had a powerful clan behind him and had he not adopted a flexible position toward the Roman prefects. So Caiaphas presided at this night session of the Council.