The Bible: An Attempt to Save Jesus?

Who was responsible for Jesus’ death? Although the Gospels tend to blame the Jews of Jerusalem, Christian Biblical scholars generally agree that the Evangelists underplayed Roman responsibility. Now, Israel Supreme Court Justice Haim Cohn, an expert in the history of Jewish legal traditions, argues that not only did the Jews have no part in the trial of Christ, but also that the Sanhedrin, Judaism’s high court, actually tried to save him from death.

Judge Cohn’s thesis, which has intrigued Christian Scriptural experts in Jerusalem, is contained in an article in the current issue of the Israel Law Review. Analyzing the Gospel accounts of the Passion in the light of known facts about legal customs and traditions of Jesus’ time, Cohn insists that Jesus was tried and condemned for the political crime of insurrection—a charge that could be handled only by the Roman Procurator and not by a Jewish court. The Justice supports this suggestion by reference to the Gospel texts: when Jesus was asked by Pilate if he was King of the Jews, he answered “You have said so”—in effect, says Cohn, a nolo contendere admission of guilt.

Recouping Prestige. On legal grounds, Cohn insists that there is neither reason nor precedent behind the Gospel statements that the Sanhedrin examined Jesus on the night before his Crucifixion, condemned him, and turned him over to the Romans for a speedy trial and death. For one thing, it is most unlikely that the Sanhedrin would have undertaken any kind of fact-finding investigation on behalf of the hated bloody-handed Pontius Pilate. Just as improbable would have been a trial after sundown—especially on the eve of Passover, when most members of the Sanhedrin would have been busy with ritual preparations for the feast. Still, if they had met, under Jewish law any condemnation would have required the sworn testimony of at least two trustworthy witnesses. Even according to the Gospels, none could be found. Why, then, did the Jewish authorities summon Jesus? Their motive, Cohn believes, may well have been a desire to recoup their waning popular prestige by saving a prophetic teacher beloved by the masses of Jerusalem. In Cohn’s reconstruction of the events, the Sanhedrin first examined witnesses not to condemn Christ but to find men who would convincingly testify in his favor before the Romans. When it could find none, the high court attempted to persuade Jesus to plead not guilty before the Romans; he refused. The buffeting that Matthew says Jesus received from Sanhedrin members was thus not punishment for blasphemy but simply the product of bitter frustration. “Jesus had refused to cooperate and to bow to their authority,” says Cohn, “and there was nothing that could be done to prevent the trial from taking its course.”