To understand the crime which likely led to the arrest of Jesus, it is first necessary to understand the role of the Temple in first-century Jewish life. The Temple in Jerusalem served dual purposes. It was both the revered center of religious life--a place for prayers and sacrifices--and a central bank, a place for taxes and tithes.

Nothing provoked greater anger among observant Jews than acts perceived to be defilements of the Temple, as other dramatic incidents in the two decades following the death of Jesus make clear. In 41 C.E. for example, Emperor Caligula ordered Petronius, the new Syrian governor, to install statues in the Temple depicting himself as Zeus incarnate. Thousands of unarmed Jews responded by lying prostrate and offering themselves to Roman soldiers for a mass slaughter. Other Jews threatened an agricultural strike. Petronius backed down and Caligula's timely assassination ended the matter. Less than ten years later, a soldier watching over Jews celebrating the Passover at the Temple (according to historian Josephus, writing in about 90 C.E.) "raised his robe, stooped in an indecent attitude, so as to turn his backside to the Jews, and made a noise in keeping with his posture." This disrespectful gesture led to a riot and stampede that killed vast numbers of people: "Troops pouring into the porticoes, the Jews were seized with irresistible panic and turned to fly from the Temple and make their escape into town. But such violence as was used as they pressed around the exits that they were trodden under foot and crushed to death by one another; upwards of 30,000 perished, and the feast was turned into mourning for the whole nation and for every household into lamentation" (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities).

Roman leaders paid close attention to Temple activity. Any threat to Roman power over the Temple--even a symbolic threat--was dealt with harshly, as seen by the response to an incident around 5 B.C.E. When a group of about forty young men climbed to the roof of the Temple and began chopping down a golden eagle, seen by them as a symbol of Roman control, the men were (according, again, to Josephus) arrested "with considerable force." Those observed on the Temple roof were burnt alive and the others merely executed.

It seems clear that the primary cause of the trial and execution of Jesus was his role in an incident at the Temple in Jerusalem. The incident occurred in April, 30 C.E. (or possibly in 33 C.E.) during Festival time, the period including the Day of Passover leading into the week of the Unleavened Bread. The Festival brought huge numbers of Jews into the city to celebrate the Exodus, the leaving of Egyptian oppression and the arrival in the Promised Land. Romans had to understand the special risks presented by such a commemoration: large concentrations of Jews celebrating their former freedom in a time of new oppression--this time by Rome, not Egypt.

Jesus probably came to Jerusalem about a week before the Passover, most likely for the purpose of carrying his message of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God into the heart of Israel--though possibly, like so many thousands of other Jews, simply to celebrate the highest of religious days.

Gospel accounts describe the participation of Jesus in a protest directed at some of the commercial practices associated with the Temple. The practices offended many Jews. According to Matthew, Jesus had complained, "My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of robbers" (Matthew 21:13). Mark and John tell of Jesus overturning the tables of money-changers, those persons who converted coins bearing images of the emperor into Tyrian silver coins, the only form of coin acceptable for donations. The Gospels also describe Jesus driving the pigeon-sellers (the birds were used as sacrifices by worshipers) from the Temple. It is hard to imagine that such a dramatic action would not have brought an immediate response from armed Temple guards, so it is likely that the gospels exaggerated Jesus' actions. Whatever the precise nature of his actions, they were almost certainly accompanied by words--perhaps including a prediction that the Temple would fall unless reforms were instituted to bring the Temple back to its central religious mission.

At a time of high tension such as the Passover festival, it is likely that any subversive action in the Temple--even action of a symbolic nature--would provoke a strong response from high priests and Roman officials. It did.

The four gospels place the time and scene of the arrest of Jesus as night in the garden of Gethsemane, an olive grove just west of Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives. The arresting party most likely consisted of Temple police dispatched by Caiaphas, the high priest. The party may also have included, as John reports, a Roman cohort under its commanding officer--but it is hard to believe that deployment of so large a force (a cohort consisted of about 600 men) would be seen as desirable to effectuate the arrest of a single individual.

The role in the arrest of Jesus of Judas, a follower of Jesus, is a matter of historical debate. Jesus Scholar Bart Ehrman, author of Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, notes that prior to the disturbance at the Temple, nothing Jesus had said suggested he thought himself the Messiah or "King of the Jews." Asking the question, "So where did the authorities get the idea that he did?," Erhman suggests an answer: Judas. As a motive for his betrayal, Erhman identifies two theories. The first theory holds that Judas became disillusioned when he realized that Jesus "had no intention of assuming the role of a political-military messiah." The second theory holds that Judas "wanted to force Jesus' hand" and believed that his arrest would lead to a call for an uprising against Roman rule. Other scholars such as John Crossan, author of Who Killed Jesus?, have a somewhat simpler explanation. Crossan speculates that Judas may have been captured in the incident at the Temple--and that he might have been pressured to tell authorities who had caused the Temple trouble, not just where the guilty party might be found.

The gospels provide three very different accounts of the trial of Jesus. Peter, possibly writing as early as the 40s C.E., describes a single trial scene involving Jewish, Roman, and Herodian officials. Mark, writing in the 60s C.E., describes two separate proceedings, one involving Jewish leaders and one in which the Roman prefect for Judea, Pontius Pilate, plays the key role. Matthew and John's account generally support Mark's two-trial version. Finally, Luke--alone among the gospels--adds a third proceeding, having Pilate pass the buck (for jurisdictional reasons) and sending Jesus to Herod Antipas.

Figuring out what really happened in the trial of Jesus is enormously difficult. Two surviving non-Christian accounts, one by Roman historian and another by a Jewish historian, confirm that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus--but beyond that, offer few details. Writing in the late first-century, Tacitus offered this comment:

Christus [Jesus], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, and the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, writing in the 80s or early 90s C.E., indicated that both Jewish leaders and the Roman prefect played roles in the crucifixion of Jesus:
About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He attracted many Jews and many Greeks. He was called the Christ. Pilate sentenced him to die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day.
Josephus would have no reason to attribute a non-existent role to "the noblest of our citizens," so it is probably safe to assume that Jewish leaders did encourage Pilate to crucify Jesus. Questions remain, however, as to what form that encouragement took--and how willingly or unwillingly Pilate responded to their encouragement.
The gospels report that Jesus was brought before high priest Joseph Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme governing council and court. Mark and Matthew report a trial at night in the house of Caiaphas, whereas Luke explicitly states that Jesus was tried in the morning before the Sanhedrin. Some scholars doubt the accuracy of of the gospel accounts. They note that Jewish law prohibits both capital trials on the eves of a festival and trials by night. (Other scholars answer that Jewish law might have been different then.)

The gospels point to different sources of initial concern among the Jewish authorities. Mark suggests that the Jewish authorities were concerned primarily with the confrontation Jesus had with traders in the Temple, while Luke's account identifies their primary concern as his teachings in the Temple. John, meanwhile, points to a fear among Jewish authorities that Jesus' rising popularity could lead to an uprising that would provoke a violent response from Rome.

All four Biblical accounts agree, however, that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin ultimately condemned Jesus for blasphemy. The gospels record that when Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he claimed to be the Messiah, he replied, "I am" (Mark 14:62) (or "You have said so" (Matthew 26:64) or "If I tell you, you will not believe" (Luke 22:67-8) or "You say that I am" (John 19:7)). Although the Mishnah, the Jewish lawcode assembled around 200 C.E., defined blasphemy more narrowly as speaking the sacred name of God (YHWH), the gospel writers suggest a looser first-century construction of the term, one that includes a variety of serious theological offenses.

After his condemnation by Jewish authorities, Jesus was brought--under all but Peter's account--to the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The reason, according to John, was that the death penalty was not an available option for the Sanhedrin under Roman law. (It should be noted, however, that the Sanhedrin operated during these times with less than complete independence to implement Jewish law, having a dual political and religious status.) There is, however, strong reason to believe that Jewish authorities could, had they so desired, executed Jesus. The well-substantiated executions--by stoning--of two first-century Christians, Jesus's brother James in 62 C.E. and Stephen, show that capital punishment was--at least within a few decades of Jesus' trial--practiced by Jewish authorities. Moreover, Temple inscriptions from the period warn of death to Gentiles that pass into certain restricted areas.

Biblical accounts of the trial before Pilate are largely fictional, according to most scholars. It is unlikely that any supporter of Christ would have been in a position to record any questioning of Jesus by Pilate that might have taken place.

Whatever their basis, the gospels portray a Pilate initially unpersuaded of Jesus' guilt. For example, in Mark, after Pilate asks Jesus about "the many charges [the chief priests] bring against you," Jesus makes "no further answer" and "Pilate wondered." Later, Mark reinforces his suggestion of a reluctant executioner when he writes, "For [Pilate] perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." Finally, Mark makes Pilate's doubts explicit by having him almost beg the crowd to release Jesus over the (almost certainly invented) prisoner Barabbas. Pilate asks the crowd there thirst for the blood of Jesus:"Why, what evil has he done?" Pilate allows the crucifixion of Jesus, in the gospel accounts, not out of a conviction that Jesus did anything wrong, but only to "satisfy the crowd." If there were still any doubt about Pilate's doubt, the gospels report that after authorizing his execution, he "washes his hands."

The gospel accounts so transparently attempt to present the chief priests--and not Pilate--as the more blameworthy party that scholars have raised numerous questions about their accuracy. Scholars have paid special attention to the incentives of Mark because he wrote the earliest of the four gospel accounts in the Bible, and Matthew, Luke, and (to a lesser extent) John based their accounts on his. The scholars point out that Mark--writing at a time of Roman prosecution of Christians and for a largely non-Jewish audience--had incentives to present a story that would minimize the risk of condemnation by Roman authorities and maximize his prospects for winning converts to Christianity from among the Romans in his audience. How could Mark, these scholars ask, possibly have known what Pilate "wondered" about Jesus' guilt or what he "perceived" about the purposes of high priests?

Pilate was a powerful figure. If he had reservations about killing Jesus, he certainly could have taken him back to Caesaria for trial or referred his case back to the Sanhedrin for possible punishment under Jewish, not Roman, law. The fact that he did not suggests that Pilate was pleased to accede to the urgings of Jewish leaders and crucify Jesus. Anyone calling himself "King of the Jews" would been seen as trouble by Roman officials. Further evidence that Pilate bore primary responsibility for the execution of Jesus comes from Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, written in the early 50s C.E., where he says that Jesus had been crucified by "the princes of the world"(I Cor. 2:8).

It is altogether possible that there not only was no trial before the Sanhedrin, but none before Pilate either. Pilate and Caiaphus worked long--and probably therefore--and well together. They very likely might have had standing arrangements for dealing with subversive action during festival time. These arrangements could have included, according to Biblical scholar John Crossan, "instant punishment with immediate crucifixion as public warning and deterrent." Crossan argues, "There would be no need to go very high up the chain of command for a nuisance nobody like Jesus, no need even for a formal interrogation before Caiaphas, let alone a detailed trial before Pilate." Ehrman agrees, writing, "If someone was perceived to be a troublemaker, there was no need to follow anything that would strike us as due process, at leat for the non-Roman citizens of the provinces." Ehrman adds, "There would have been no reason to conduct a criminal investigation out in the open and ask for the crowds' opinions."

Pilate had little concern for Jewish sensibilities. During his ten-year tenure (from 26 C.E. to 36 C.E.) as prefect, Pilate had numerous confrontations with his Jewish subjects. According to Jewish historian Josephus, Pilate's decision to bring into the holy city of Jerusalem "by night and under cover effigies of Caesar" outraged Jews who considered the images idolatrous. Pilate provoked another outcry from his Jewish subjects when he used Temple funds to build an aqueduct. His lack of feeling was accompanied, according to Jewish philosopher Philo writing in 41 C.E, by corruption and brutality. Philo wrote that Pilate's tenure was associated with "briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty." Philo may have overstated the case, but there is little to suggest that Pilate would have any serious reservations about executing a Jewish rabble-rouser such as Jesus.