The turning point in the Synoptic Gospel narratives and in the prophetic ministry of the historical Jesus was his journey to Jerusalem, where he caused a disturbance in the temple that eventually led to his trial and execution. Most scholars acknowledge the historicity of the temple incident and the subsequent trial and execution, but the interpretation of these incidents has been heavily shaped by later reflection on them from the perspective of Jesus’ postresurrection appearances and in the light of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. Therefore, the task is to distinguish a historically plausible account of what happened when Jesus went to Jerusalem from later interpretations of these events. This is a challenge because event and interpretation are inextricably woven together from very early in the history of the tradition. They key, however, is establishing the continuity of Jesus’ prophetic ministry in Galilee with what he said and did in Jerusalem, and explaining the reaction of the authorities that resulted in his crucifixion. Then it will be possible to elucidate the development of the Gospel traditions about Jesus’ passion and resurrection into their current canonical form.
From a historical point of view, Jesus went to Jerusalem as a prophet leading a renewal movement. In a passage from the tradition common to Luke and Matthew, Jesus laments over Jerusalem. The narrative context in which the saying occurs is different in the two Gospels. In Luke’s version, some Pharisees warn Jesus that Herod wants to kill him.
He said to them, “Go and tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work. Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.’ Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Luke 13:32–34)
This passage is significant both because it contains a saying of Jesus that links the portrayal of his prophetic ministry in Galilee with his presence in Jerusalem, and because it shows how the tradition has been appropriated in the narrative strategies of the Gospel writers. For the purpose of our historical reconstruction, it is noteworthy that Jesus depicts himself as a prophet who is attempting to gather the covenant community. In Luke’s account, Jesus is still en route to Jerusalem, so this is not the proper setting for his lament. It is also questionable that Herod is seeking to kill Jesus before he even arrives. The point where history and interpretation converge in this passage is Jesus’ reference to himself as a prophet, belonging to a long-standing tradition of Israelite prophets who confronted the authorities and suffered a similar fate in Jerusalem as well as outside Jerusalem. Joseph Fitzmyer observes that behind this statement lies a traditional belief about the fate of various prophetic figures in the city of Jerusalem. He suggests that the killing of the prophet Uriah in Jerusalem by King Jehoiakim might be envisaged (Jer. 26:20–23), or the attempt on Jeremiah’s life in Jerusalem (Jer. 38:4–6). However, there are many other examples of prophets who meet a similar fate (Fitzmyer, 1032).
In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus enters Jerusalem as he approaches the city from the Mount of Olives. Although this event, like many of the incidents in the passion narratives, is recollected as a performance of Israel’s Scriptures, especially the prophets and psalms, Mark’s account preserves the historical kernel of a symbolic action typical of prophets. The crowd construes his arrival as the coming kingdom of David and shouts,
Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!
Hosanna in the highest heaven! (Mark 11:9–10)
However, in this passage as well as the story of blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46–52), the view of Jesus as Davidic Messiah is rejected. Rather, Jesus’ action in Mark and in its original historical context is best understood as a parody of royal processions common in antiquity. In contrast to political or military rulers who entered a conquered city in a war chariot or on a ceremonial steed, the symbols of violent power, Jesus entered on a donkey (Crossan and Reed, 220). The fact that this satirical public action was performed during Passover, when Israel celebrated liberation from its oppressors, made it even more provocative, and in itself could have been enough to result in crucifixion (Crossan and Reed, 220).
Upon his arrival in Jerusalem, this symbolic act was followed by another disruptive action in the temple itself. According to Mark, Jesus “entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple” (Mark 11:15). In the Synoptic Gospels, this is the incident that leads to Jesus’ arrest, trial, and execution. Although Jesus’ action in the temple is recognized by most scholars as having some basis in history, the significance of this event is a matter of some debate. The episode is often referred to as the “cleansing of the temple,” but that is a misnomer because it does not accurately indicate the focus of Jesus’ critique. Jesus is portrayed here as teaching, and the words he uses to convey the reason for his indignation are from Isa. 56:7 and Jer. 7:11: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17). Although it is improbable that Jesus quoted Scripture verbatim on this occasion, the Jeremiah text in particular associates Jesus’ outburst with Jeremiah’s temple sermon and is used to interpret the underlying issue in a manner consistent with the focal point of his prophetic praxis in Galilee, namely economic hardship.
The verse from Jeremiah is taken from the prophet’s oracle against the temple and its priests. Jeremiah indicts them for presuming that sacrificial worship in the temple could be the basis of the covenantal relationship with God without upholding its standards of justice and moral obligations to the most vulnerable.
For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, “Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk only in the way that I command you, so that it may be well with you.” (Jer. 7:22–23)
As in Jeremiah, in condemning the temple Jesus was denouncing a priestly aristocracy who presided over it by accusing them of acting like “thieves” who have turned the temple into a “den” where they hide out. Their administration of the temple system disclosed their own elite interests at the expense of the people. As Herzog puts it, the wealth of the temple, which was also a treasury, was an inevitable corollary of the poverty of the peasantry (167). The temple extracted tribute from people through the temple tax, tithes, and sacrifices. It was an economic institution with the priestly aristocracy bearing responsibility for collecting tribute to Rome, so in opposing the ruling class of Jerusalem Jesus was by implication opposing Roman rule (Horsley 2012, 144).
The Gospel of Mark, followed by Luke, suggests that Jesus’ prophetic action in the temple was the cause of his subsequent arrest and execution. Within the narrative, after Jesus expresses his dissatisfaction with the temple using the words of Isa. 56:7 and Jer. 7:11, the narrator observes: “And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching” (Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47). While this is the narrator’s interpretive perspective, it is also the most plausible historical explanation. Not only did Jesus’ pronouncement against the temple challenge the authority of the priestly aristocracy, but it also roused the multitude of pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover. In Luke, the narrator’s report of the chief priests’ and the crowd’s response to Pilate’s acclamation of Jesus’ innocence echoes a similar sentiment: “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place” (Luke 23:5). Therefore, even though passages are constructions of the Gospel writers, they underline the fact that Jesus was leading a movement that may have gained momentum in Jerusalem as the Jewish people were celebrating liberation from slavery in Egypt. If so, then Roman authorities would likely have regarded his behavior as seditious and therefore as deserving of execution.
The Gospel accounts of the arrest and trial of Jesus, and of the role of the different Jewish groups in these events, are at variance with one another. This indicates that details of what happened to Jesus in Jerusalem are highly interpreted and cannot be taken at face value historically. The traditions about Jesus’ trial and crucifixion have been comprehended through the lens of Israel’s Scriptures and shaped both by the experiences of his followers and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. The development of the passion narratives in the Gospels will be discussed in the next section. What can be established beyond reasonable doubt is that Jesus was arrested and taken before Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, who authorized his crucifixion. Temple authorities may have played a role in handing him over, but the trial before the Sanhedrin is historically questionable. There is no historical precedent for such a trial, and the high priest’s question, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61), reflects later christological reflection and debate. Moreover, the charge of blasphemy brought against Jesus by the high priest was not an offense punishable by death (Mark 14:64).
One aspect of the trial before the Jerusalem council that may be historically accurate is the false accusation that Jesus said he would destroy the temple (Mark 14:58). Jesus is also reported to have spoken against the temple earlier in the long discourse set on the Mount of Olives, in Mark 13. He tells his disciples who marvel at the grandeur of the temple, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down” (Mark 13:2). Jesus then goes on to predict the tribulation that will occur before the son of man returns. Mark 13 is a dense and complicated passage that has been heavily redacted by Matthew and Luke (Matt. 24:1–44; Luke 21:5–38), and it is difficult to disentangle what might be authentic in these sayings of Jesus from material that was retrojected into the story after the destruction of the temple and in anticipation of Jesus’ return. There are, however, two elements in the passage that are important to our historical reconstruction and can serve as points of transition to a discussion of the development of the Gospel tradition. On the Temple Mount, Jesus tells his disciples that “not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down” (Mark 13:1). Although Jesus does not say that he would destroy it, when he is taken before the chief priests and the council some falsely testify that they heard him say, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands” (Mark 14:57–58). Jesus’ prediction that the temple would be destroyed may have been ascribed to him after the fact. However, given that the ruling class of Judea presided over a long-standing situation of economic distress that eventually resulted in the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem, it is conceivable that a prophet like Jesus could have foreseen the eventual downfall of the city (Goodman).
Jesus’ prophetic warning about the impending destruction of the temple in Mark 13 is associated in this section with his sayings about the return of the son of man. This raises what is probably the most disputed aspect of historical Jesus studies, the eschatological or apocalyptic dimension of Jesus’ proclamation and enactment of the kingdom of God. There are essentially two basic views. One view regards Jesus as more of a sage or teacher who propounded a subversive practical wisdom, and attributes the eschatological material to a later layer of the tradition that has its origins in the early church. On this view, what Jesus says about judgment, tribulation, and the imminence of God’s kingdom is best explained as the result of Jesus’ earliest followers interpreting his memory and tradition in the light of the resurrection, which was itself viewed as an apocalyptic event. This perspective is shaped more by social analysis of the Gospel tradition, which understands Jesus’ sayings to be responding to the concrete realities of the local Galilean milieu, and therefore regards sayings more oriented to the future as inauthentic.
Concentrating on the Galilean context tends to highlight the social and pragmatic force of Jesus’ words and deeds, but this perspective also tends to downplay Judaism as the framework of his teaching and activity. On the other hand, those who emphasize the apocalyptic or eschatological aspects of the Jesus tradition tend to regard Jesus primarily as a religious figure and make sense of his sayings and activity in relation to other voices and groups in Judaism. Both perspectives have merit and use different approaches to call attention to important but divergent facets of the Jesus tradition that should be held together, even if there is an ostensible tension. As noted in the outset of this essay, the distinction between social, religious, political, and economic dimensions of life is anachronistic and artificial when projected onto the Jesus tradition, because they were correlative facets of Jewish life. The portrait of Jesus as leading a renewal movement in Galilee needs to be combined with the view that regards him as an eschatological prophet within Judaism. As Dale Allison (1998, 100) points out, if Jesus did prophesy the temple’s demise and replacement, then he was operating within the framework of restoration eschatology.
The role of prophet in Judaism encompasses the message and praxis of Jesus’ Galilean ministry as well as his prophetic pronouncements and actions in Jerusalem. It is impossible to do justice to the complexity of the issues surrounding the debate about whether Jesus had an apocalyptic outlook, but much of what has been construed as apocalyptic in the tradition can also be explained as part of Israel’s prophetic tradition. The term “apocalyptic” comes from the Greek word apokalypsis, which means “revelation”; and “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, which means “last” or “coming at the end or after all others.” Both words denote an orientation to the future. Crossan represents the common understanding of “apocalyptic eschatology” when he says that it refers to “the darkening scenario of the end of the world” with an expectation of divine intervention (1991, 238). Along with a majority of scholars, he sees John the Baptist as a harbinger of an imminent apocalyptic intervention by God, who will enact eschatological judgment on those who don’t repent. Those who downplay the eschatological aspects of Jesus’ message want to dissociate Jesus from John’s apocalypticism. But as Horsley contends (2012, 18), the message that on “the day of the Lord” God would come in judgment to either deliver or punish was typical of the prophets.
Both John and Jesus were prophets who called people to repent as part of a summons to covenant renewal, and this involved holding people accountable, especially those in power, through pronouncements of judgment. Themes of reversal, final judgment, resurrection of the dead, restoration of Israel, and the great tribulation are stock prophetic themes that run throughout the sayings of Jesus (e.g., Mark 10:31; Luke 14:11; 17:33). A good example of a saying that includes themes of tribulation, covenant, eschatological banquet, judgment, and the restoration of Israel is a passage in Luke.
You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28–30; see Matt. 19:28)
The Greek verb translated as “conferred” means “to make a covenant with.” Jesus speaks as an eschatological prophet mostly in the context of Jerusalem, where he must face his own imminent end, but this was consonant with his prophetic activity in Galilee. As Allison suggests (1998, 110), eschatology is, among other things, an expression of dissatisfaction with the present. Jesus went to Jerusalem as prophet, addressing issues of poverty and exploitation in Galilee, and there his focus shifted from a strategy of renewal in the present to future judgment. What is not a part of his prophetic warnings, however, was an emphasis on the end of the world. This is a misunderstanding of the message of Jesus and of Jewish apocalyptic.
Mark 13 is sometimes referred to as the “little apocalypse” because it is regarded as the most explicitly apocalyptic passage in the Gospels, with parallels in Matthew and Luke. Jesus speaks to his disciples about tribulations that include wars, earthquakes, famines, trials, betrayal, and false prophets and messiahs, and then exhorts them to stay vigilant. Since many of the particulars in this passage could allude to the Jewish wars that began in 66 CE, ascertaining which parts of the discourse can be traced back to Jesus is difficult. Although many interpreters read the passage with an accent on the end-time scenario, Jesus emphasizes that “the end is not yet.… This is but the beginning of the birth pangs” (Mark 13:7–8). After he warns his disciples of these impending disasters, he then assures them that after the ordeal “they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven” (Mark 13:26–27). These words in quotation marks are from Dan. 7:13. Daniel is an apocalyptic book in the sense that it contains “revelation.” That revelation assured Jewish people during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes that “one like a son of man” would mediate divine sovereignty by judging the empires of the world and gathering the elect. However, Daniel 7 is not about a judgment that signals the end of the world, but rather, as Horsley puts it, a judgment that “leads to the renewal of the world as the place where the restored people can finally live in justice” (2012, 49).
The Synoptic Gospels tell the story of Jesus in two parts. In the first part, Jesus is a popular prophet leading a renewal movement in the exploited environs of Galilee, and in the second part, he goes as a prophet to the capital city of Jerusalem to confront those in charge of the temple. Jesus’ engagement with the authorities in Jerusalem continued to be on behalf of the Jewish populace. By invoking the apocalyptic vision of Daniel 7, he reiterated and reinforced the connection between the reign of God and the people of God that characterized his Galilean ministry. In that vision, a heavenly court is assembled to judge all the world empires, especially the beasts. The symbols of lion, bear, leopard, beast, and finally “son of man” represent successive societies. Lohfink’s comments about the political force of this vision are worth quoting at length.
The fifth society is, of course, very carefully dissociated from those that precede it. It is no longer brutal, no longer bestial but finally a human society. Therefore it is symbolized not by beasts but by a human being.… The fifth society does not arise out of the sea of chaos but comes from heaven. It comes “with the clouds of heaven” (Dan 7:13). Thus the new, eschatological society comes from above. It cannot be made by human beings. It is God’s gift to the world. It is the end of violent rule. (43)
Along with a number of scholars, Lohfink understands “son of man” as a symbol for the ultimate and final royal rule of God, but at the same time a figure for the true Israel or eschatological Israel that serves God alone. Jewish and Roman authorities recognized that Jesus’ pronouncements against and demonstration in the temple were, like his proclamation of God’s kingdom, patently political. The Gospel accounts of the trial(s) that led to his execution may vary, but what is beyond dispute is that the historical reason for the Roman prefect Pilate sentencing him to death by crucifixion was the charge of sedition.
Crucifixion was a form of execution reserved primarily for slaves and criminals; it was meant to make an example of those who would dare to subvert the imperial order, the Pax Romana. This is precisely what was indicated by the inscription on the cross, “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26). Although obviously intended to mock Jesus as falsely claiming to be ruler of the Jewish people even while they lived under Roman rule, it nonetheless betrayed Pilate’s grasp of the seditious potential of Jesus and the community forming around him. The portrayal of Pilate as a principled official, reluctant to allow the crucifixion but ultimately succumbing to the pressure of the crowd, is in tension with what is known about him from other sources. Philo and Josephus, ancient Jewish writers from the first century, describe incidents that took place during Pilate’s tenure that caused near insurrections among the Jews because of his insensitivity to Jewish customs. Philo describes him as “a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate” (Philo, Embassy 38.299–305). He was removed from office two to three years after the death of Jesus, accused of murdering innocent Samaritans (Josephus, Ant. 18.4.1–2). Despite the fact that Pilate authorized Jesus’ execution, all of the Gospels shift responsibility for the death of Jesus to the Jewish authorities and, to some extent, the Jewish crowd assembled at his trial. Therefore, it is with the stark and bleak reality of the crucifixion ordered by Pilate that this historical account of Jesus comes to a close and we begin to focus on the interpretive process.
Throughout this account of Jesus in his historical context, it has been evident that the details of events are so tightly interwoven with their interpretation that it is difficult to disentangle them. The most effective approach to ascertaining the historical contours of Jesus’ public ministry is setting out a plausible account of the Synoptic Gospels’ narrative of Jesus in the cultural-historical milieu of Galilee and Jerusalem. The next step is to show how the memory of what Jesus said and did was preserved and shaped by the first followers of Jesus. After the death of Jesus, his followers continued the movement he initiated and developed the tradition into what became the four literary productions known as the Gospels.