Raymond Brown on the Trial of Jesus before Pilate
LOWERED EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE PASSION NARRATIVES
From the opening pages of his massive two-volume commentary on the Passion Narratives, The Death of the Messiah (hereafter: DOM), the eminent New Testament scholar Raymond Brown lowers expectations of historical reliability and historical accuracy from these important parts of the Gospels.
On the first page of the introduction, Brown makes this strong statement:
Yet Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account.[1]
In one sentence, Brown rejects both the idea that any of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to the events they write about in the Passion Narratives and also the idea that any of the Gospel authors made use of a written account by an eyewitness to those events.
Brown also notes that we have no direct access to the early Christian traditions made use of by the authors of the Gospels in writing their Passion Narratives:
That intervening preGospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content.[2]
Brown draws the appropriate skeptical conclusions from these points:
When we seek to reconstruct it [an early Christian tradition behind a passage in a Gospel Passion Narrative] or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating.[3]
If NT scholars are typically “speculating” when they infer “the actual situation of Jesus himself” based on careful scholarly interpretation and analysis of passages from Passion Narratives in the Gospels, then we clearly should not expect much in terms of historical reliability and historical accuracy from those Passion Narratives.
LOWERED EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE
One of the important stories included in the Passion Narratives of all four Gospels is the story of an alleged trial of Jesus before the Roman governor Pilate. Brown’s skeptical view of the Passion Narratives fully applies to this particular portion of the Passion Narratives.
Brown again makes comments lowering expectations of historical reliability and historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of this alleged event:
Both John and Luke are stylized in having Pilate three times declare Jesus innocent. With those exceptions, however, the NT descriptions of Pilate with their variations are not patently implausible. …That does not mean any one of them is historical…[4]
Brown implies above that Pilate declaring Jesus innocent three times in the accounts of Jesus’ trial before Pilate in the Gospel of John and in the Gospel of Luke is: “patently implausible”.
Brown also lowers expectations about the historical reliability and historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the alleged trial before Pilate by pointing to a major contradiction between those accounts:
From the outset, we must be cautious about the NT reports. What the Gospels narrate has the goal of dramatizing the religious meaning of the condemnation of Jesus. Differences among the Gospel accounts are often representative of diverse theological outlooks. For instance, while Jesus is virtually silent in the Synoptic accounts of the Roman trial, in John Jesus speaks at some length to Pilate. To explain this difference one cannot appeal simply to ampler Johannine historical detail.[5]
If the accounts of the trial before Pilate in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are historically accurate, then the account of this trial in the Gospel of John is fictional. On the other hand, if the account of this trial in the Gospel of John is historically accurate, then the accounts of it in the Synoptic Gospels are fictional. Jesus could NOT have been both “virtually silent” at this trial and also have spoken “at some length to Pilate” at the trial. At least one of the Gospels, and possibly all four of them, provides us with a fictional account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate.
Brown also comments on the sources of information used by the authors of the Gospels for their accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate:
Nothing remotely resembling a court record of Jesus’ trial has survived or can be reconstructed from the Gospel narratives. Indeed we have no reason to think the evangelists [the authors of the Gospels] drew on such a record….Nor do the evangelists claim that anyone sympathetic to Jesus was present at the Roman trial to supply an eyewitness account.[6]
Brown draws the appropriate skeptical conclusion from these points:
Whatever historical information they had about the trial would have ultimately been derived from hearsay, from explanations offered post factum by the Roman and Jewish authorities, and from shrewd guesses as to likelihood.[7]
Guesses by the authors of the Gospels (or by early Christian storytellers upon whom they relied) about what happened during Jesus’ trial before Pilate might well have NOT been “shrewd”, and it is dubious how much historical accuracy and historical reliability one can expect from a guess about historical events and details made by some early Christian believer, even if the guess was a shrewd one.
SPECIFIC DOUBTS ABOUT THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE
I have already mentioned two specific doubts that Brown has about the Gospel accounts of the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate. The first doubt concerns this historical question:
HQ1: Did Pilate declare Jesus to be innocent three times? (as indicated in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John)
The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John claim this happened (Luke 23:4, 14, & 22 and John 18:38, & 19:4-6). Brown implies that this aspect of the accounts of the trial before Pilate in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John is “patently implausible”.[8]
The second doubt concerns this historical question:
HQ2: Was Jesus virtually silent in the trial before Pilate or did Jesus speak at some length to Pilate? (the Synoptic Gospels vs. the Gospel of John)
According to the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was “virtually silent” before Pilate (Mark 15:1-5, Matthew 27:11-14, Luke 23:1-10). According to the Gospel of John, however, Jesus “spoke at some length to Pilate.” (John 18:33-38 & 19:7-11). The alleged silence of Jesus was first put forward by the Gospel of Mark and then was repeated in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, whose authors used the Gospel of Mark as a primary source of information for their Passion Narratives.
Because the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the four Gospels, and because the Gospel of John is the last and most historically unreliable of the four Gospels, it is tempting to just cast aside the account of the trial before Pilate in the Gospel of John as fictional, and to accept the claim in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus remained silent as being probably historical.
However, as Brown points out, this aspect of the account of the trial before Pilate might well have been based upon an Old Testament passage. In the Gospel of Mark, Pilate is said to have been amazed at Jesus’ silence (Mark 15:3-5):
The portrayal of Pilate’s amazement may strengthen the case for seeing in Jesus’ refusal to answer an echo of the Suffering Servant in Isa 53:7 who did not open his mouth. Eight verses before that Isaiah passage (52:14) many nations are amazed at the servant.[9]
Many events and details in the Passion Narratives appear to have been based on Old Testament passages, which early Christians believed contained divine predictions about details in the life of Jesus. Thus, the Old Testament passage in Isaiah about a suffering servant who remains silent might well have been the basis for this aspect of the account of the trial before Pilate in the Gospel of Mark, as opposed to some historically reliable evidence or source of information about this alleged trial. Therefore, the alleged silence of Jesus, an important aspect of the Synoptic accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, might well have no basis in historical evidence or historical reality.
There are a number of other historical questions where Brown doubts the claims asserted in various Gospel accounts of the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate:
HQ3: Did Pilate send Jesus to be interrogated by King Herod? (as indicated by the Gospel of Luke)
Only in the Gospel of Luke do we read that Pilate sent Jesus to be interrogated by King Herod (see: Luke 23:5-11). Brown doubts that this alleged event actually happened.[10]
HQ4: Was Jesus mocked by King Herod and his soldiers? (as indicated by the Gospel of Luke)
Only in the Gospel of Luke do we read that Jesus was mocked by King Herod and his soldiers (see: Luke 23:5-11). Brown doubts that Pilate sent Jesus to be interrogated by Herod (see DOM references above about HQ3), which implies that there was also no mocking of Jesus by Herod. Brown thinks the mocking of Jesus by Herod and his soldiers was borrowed from the account of Pilate’s soldiers mocking Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.[11]
HQ5: Was there a set custom of the Roman governor releasing a prisoner during Passover? (as indicated by the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of John)
Three of the four Gospels indicate there was a custom of the Roman governor releasing a prisoner during Passover (see Mark 15:6-15, Matthew 27:15-23 & 26, and John 18:38-40). But Brown doubts that there was such a custom.[12]
HQ6: Did Pilate offer the crowd a choice between the release of Barabbas and the release of Jesus? (as indicated in the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of John)
In three Gospels, a Jewish crowd is offered the choice to have Pilate release Barabbas or release Jesus (see: Mark 15:6-15, Matthew 27:15-23 & 26, and John 18:38-40). Although Brown believes that there was a Barabbas who was released by Pilate, Brown doubts that the choice to release either Barabbas or Jesus was given to a Jewish crowd. The release of Barabbas by Pilate was a separate event, unconnected with the condemnation of Jesus by Pilate.[13]
HQ7: Did Pilate’s wife send a warning to Pilate about Jesus based on a dream she had about Jesus? (as indicated by the Gospel of Matthew)
The Gospel of Matthew adds some dramatic events to Mark’s account of the trial before Pilate. One of those dramatic events is when Pilate allegedly receives a warning about Jesus from his wife who had a dream about Jesus (see Matthew 27:19). Brown doubts that this actually happened.[14]
HQ8: Did Pilate publicly wash his hands and proclaim he was not responsible for the death of Jesus at the end of Jesus’ trial (as indicated by the Gospel of Matthew)?
A second dramatic event that the Gospel of Matthew adds to Mark’s account of the trial before Pilate is that Pilate washes his hands and proclaims to the crowd that he is not responsible for the death of Jesus (see Matthew 27:22-26). Brown doubts that this actually happened.[15]
HQ9: Did the crowd of Jews proclaim to Pilate that they took the responsibility for the death of Jesus? (as indicated by the Gospel of Matthew)
A third dramatic event that the Gospel of Matthew adds to Mark’s account of the trial before Pilate is that the crowd of Jews proclaims to Pilate that they accept the responsibility for the death of Jesus (see Matthew 27:22-26). Brown doubts that this actually happened.[16]
HQ10: Was Jesus’ trial before Pilate completed before 9 am or was it completed about noon? (the Gospel of Mark vs. the Gospel of John)
The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John contradict each other regarding the time the trial of Jesus before Pilate concluded (see Mark 15:15-25 and John 19:12-16). Brown acknowledges that Mark and John contradict each other on this point.[17]
If the Gospel of Mark is correct that Jesus was crucified at about 9 am, then the Gospel of John is clearly mistaken in claiming that Jesus’ trial before Pilate was completed about noon. On the other hand, if the Gospel of John is correct that Jesus’ trial was completed about noon, then the Gospel of Mark is clearly mistaken in claiming that Jesus was crucified about 9 am. At least one of these Gospels, and possibly both of them, provides false information about when Jesus’ trial before Pilate was completed.
HQ11: Was Jesus interrogated by Pilate outside or inside of the praetorium? (the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew vs. the Gospel of John)
The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew both indicate that Jesus was interrogated by Pilate outside of the praetorium, but the Gospel of John states that Jesus was interrogated by Pilate inside the praetorium (see Mark 15:15-20 & Matthew 27:26-31, and John 19:1-5). Brown acknowledges this contradiction between these Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate.[18]
If the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew are historically accurate on this point, then the Gospel of John is incorrect. If the Gospel of John is historically accurate on this point, then the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew are incorrect.
HQ12: Was Jesus flogged after being condemned to death by Pilate or before being condemned to death? (the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew vs. the Gospel of John)
According to the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was flogged after being condemned to death by Pilate, but according to the Gospel of John, Jesus was flogged in the middle of this trial, before being condemned to death by Pilate (see Mark 15:15-20 & Matthew 27:26-31, and John 19:1-16). Brown acknowledges that these Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate contradict each other on this point.[19]
At least one of these Gospel accounts is mistaken on this point, and given that the Gospel of Luke does not mention that Jesus was flogged, it is possible that the other three Gospels are wrong in claiming that Jesus was flogged sometime before being crucified.
NOTE: Brown rejects the attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the Gospels about when Jesus was flogged by the implausible claim that Jesus was flogged twice, once before being condemned to death, and once after being condemned to death.[20]
CONCLUSION
In his lengthy two-volume scholarly commentary on the Passion Narratives (The Death of the Messiah), the eminent NT scholar Raymond Brown has expressed doubts not only about the historical reliability and historical accuracy of the Passion Narratives in the Gospels, but he has expressed at least one dozen specific doubts about the historical reliability and historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate, which constitute an important portion of the Passion Narratives in the Gospels.
Thus, we have good reasons to doubt the historical reliability and historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the alleged trial of Jesus before Pilate.
END NOTES
1. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One (New York, NY: Doubleday,1994), p.4.
2. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 4-5.
3. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, p.5.
4. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, p.704.
5. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, p.711.
6. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 711-712.
7. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, p.712.
8. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 704 & 859.
9. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, Footnote #13, p.734.
10. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 756 & 759, 778-779, 782-783, & 860.
11. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One Vol. 1, p.782.
12. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 818-820.
13. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 818-820 & 859-860.
14. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 754-756 & 759 & 860.
15. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 754-756 & 759 & 860.
16. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 754-756 & 759.
17. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 628-629 & 846-847.
18. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, p.635.
19. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 758 & 852-853.
20. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume One, pp. 852-853.