Alan Watson. The Trial of Jesus. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995. 219 pages.

The life, trial, and death of Jesus has arguably affected world history more dramatically than any other event in the past 2000 years. In The Trial of Jesus, legal scholar Alan Watson uses both historical and biblical evidence to piece together the most plausible tradition of the trial of Jesus of Nazareth. Watson argues that historical plausibility is unattainable, that is, you cannot prove in absolution that the events composing Jesus' trial actually happened one way or another. However, you can search for a plausible tradition by showing that it was possible for certain events to occur. In other words, if accounts in the Gospels agree with confirmed historical data, then they are plausible. To clarify with an example, if an account described a group of Jews crucifying Jesus, this would not be plausible; historical information tells us that Jews executed by stoning, not crucifixion. On the other hand, an account that describes Jesus being crucified by the Romans would be plausible, because Romans commonly crucified people. Watson uses this concept to analyze the events leading up to and during the trial of Jesus stepby-step. Watson begins his book with a chapter of important background information; he discusses commonly held Jewish beliefs of the Messiah, history of interactions between Israel and Rome, magic in the ancient world, and descriptions of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He then spends a significant portion of the book, chapters two through seven, analyzing his main sources: the four canonical Gospels. He evaluates the Gospels separately before comparing them in various combinations. Infrequently he uses the Hebrew Bible, works by other scholars, and nonGospel books from the New Testament. Watson accepts the commonly held view that Mark came before Luke and Matthew and was the most important source used in their composition, while much of the unique material in John was composed from an anti-Christian Pharisaic

source. Ultimately he decides that the narrative in Mark is closer to the original tradition than Matthew and Luke (Watson 72), while the account in John was not part of the early tradition (Watson 82). From this point on, Mark receives more attention than the other Gospels. For the remaining six chapters of the book, Watson discusses a more diverse selection of topics. He discusses the Sanhedrin, a Jewish council comprised of aristocrats that handled crimes committed by members of the Jewish community. Next is a passage about Pontius Pilate, the prefect of Judea during Jesus' trial. The following chapters cover a Slavonic Josephus passage, the "S" (Pharisaic) source used in John, and the Davidic Messiah. These chapters were short and played a smaller role in the conclusion of the book. In the final chapter, Watson determined that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin during a trial at night, but not at the second trial the following morning. The Sanhedrin then took him to Pontius Pilate for trial. Pilate feared the wrath of the crowds, so he first tested the people by offering to release Jesus. When they repeatedly ask to free the criminal Barabass, Pilate finds Jesus guilty of sedition and orders his crucifixion. Watson concludes that Jesus died a meaningless death at the hands of the Romans, whom he had no care for, and therefore lost everything at his death while realizing that he was not the Messiah. With a general summary of the book complete, it is now possible to critique and review the work. Reading the text was thoroughly enjoyable; it was well written and was filled with strong, logical arguments. The wording was very clear and was easier to follow than the majority of academic works. The most obvious and repetitive flaw in the book is repetition itself. Particularly, the Gospel material was too repetitive. With seven chapters focused solely on the Gospels and many other chapters including Gospel material, repetition is unavoidable; however, the repetition was extremely excessive. Summaries of the same material were

presented multiple times, and it led to dj vu feelings during the reading. A table or chart to organize material would have been useful to keep track of the myriad similarities and differences in the Gospels, as well as eliminating a vast amount of repetition. By using historical evidence to analyze material in the Gospels, Watson presents arguments that are generally very sound and well supported. In fact, I found the use of historical information to be the best part of the book in multiple ways; chapters such as the ones about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin were not only especially interesting, but also gave vital insight necessary to understand the context of some of the most debated events of Jesus' trial. Scholars have had to grapple with actions that appear to be out of character for both the Sanhedrin and Pilate in their respective trials of Jesus in the Gospels. Watson examines the plausibility of each and gives valuable insight into the accounts. The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin is glaring with inconsistencies and problems from the very beginning. The first trial is held in a private home and at night, both of which were illegal. Many false testimonies against Jesus are given, and the council refuses to convict him. When the high priest commits a major breach of scripture by tearing his robes, the judges are bullied into convicting Jesus of blasphemy. This confusing mixture of the Sanhedrin trying to properly uphold the Law part of the time (by rejecting false testimony), while breaching it in other instances (an improper trial and the high priest rending his robes) needs explanation. Watson suggests that the Pharisees and chief priests were desperate to arrest Jesus after the incident where he caused trouble in the Temple. The question that must be asked, then, is whether or not Jesus made them angry and desperate enough to push them to the point where they breach multiple laws to convict him. It does seem likely that by preventing people from

making their tithes and sacrifices in the Temple, Jesus pushed the Sadducees and Pharisees to take extreme measures; therefore, Watson's explanation is a reasonable one. Another central issue in the trial is the charge of blasphemy. Watson writes that "Jesus' statement (claiming that he was the Messiah) probably was technically blasphemy at that time" and uses an account from Acts to support his claim (Watson 38, 108-9). There seems to be disagreement amongst scholars, as Bart D. Ehrman writes "it was not blasphemous to claim to be the Messiah" (Ehrman 87). Ehrman provides clear examples of other Jewish historical figures, such as rabbis and generals, who claimed to be the Messiah but were not charged with blasphemy. Ehrman theorizes that while Jesus did not commit blasphemy, perhaps he did from Mark's viewpoint, and that thought was projected onto the high priest in Mark's Gospel. Ehrman seems to present not only a much more plausible explanation, but he also provides better evidence (historical sources) than Watson (another book from the Bible). No matter the case, the Sanhedrin did not execute Jesus, but rather handed him off to Pontius Pilate. Watson tells us that Pilate was "arrogant, stubborn, cruel, wrong-headed, and contemptuous of Jewish religious sensibilities"; in Mark we read that Pilate thinks Jesus is innocent and wishes to release him as part of his custom for Passover, but Pilate is at the mercy of the Jewish crowd (Watson 119). Why would a powerful Roman prefect known for executing citizens without reason wish to release Jesus, and furthermore bend to the will of a group of Jews? Watson suggests a plausible argument: Pilate was simply testing the crowds to make sure that they would not riot if he executed Jesus. Certainly he could deal with an uprising, but would like to avoid it for obvious reasons. When it is obvious that the crowd of Jews will not cause him any trouble, he wastes no time flogging Jesus and handing him over for crucifixion.

Another potentially troubling detail is the account of Pilate releasing a prisoner every year at Passover for the Jews. Watson decides that this is improbable. He suggests that Pilate offered to release Jesus because of the festival of Passover, a one-time deal that once again allowed Pilate to test the crowds. The author of Mark simply mistook this as something that was an annual event. Watson's explanation seems to be a more likely case than the annual tradition mentioned in Mark. Certainly the account in Mark of Jesus' trial is not a perfect one by any means, but I believe that it is plausible. While the drama does not always follow the most likely or expected route, neither does life. The characters in the narrative are moved by emotion just as people are 2000 years later, and it is certainly possible that Jesus pushed the Sanhedrin to take extreme measures. The figure of Pilate may seem out of character on the surface, but in reality it is very easy to see how he is simply being false to test the Jews. In some cases, such as with Pilate's custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover, misunderstandings on the part of the author are visible. Therefore, in the trial narrative in Mark we have an account that is not perfect, that is painted with assumptions and beliefs of the author, but is still plausible and reliable. Although Watson is generally very methodological and rational with his progression throughout the book, his theme of Messianism is misleading and confusing. In the introduction, he clearly outlines his goal and lists a series of more than ten main questions that need to be answered. The word Messiah is nowhere to be found, yet skip to the beginning of chapter one to find "Messianism is a major theme of this book" (Watson 5). For such a concrete statement, the word "Messiah" is scarcely found in the rest of the book. It is certainly not absent, but as a reader I was left with the sense that it was emphasized early in the book, generally neglected in the middle of the book, and then reemerged at the end of the text with its own chapter, "The

Messiah, the Son of David". The book ends in the next chapter with a rather sudden and random statement, "he was not the Messiah" (Watson 175). For a book focused on discovering the most plausible tradition of the trial of Jesus, it is peculiar to end with a statement about the validity of Jesus' role as the Messiah. The final few pages and message does not seem to be consistent with the overall message and goal. The emphasis of the book was to analyze a certain part of the Gospels, yet Watson ends with a message that received little attention prior to this point. Without this inconsistency, the concluding chapter is very solid. It properly summarizes the material in a thorough manner. Overall The Trial of Jesus is a well written work that is enjoyable to read. It has some weaknesses, such as repetitive material, but all of the flaws do not outweigh the great aspects of the book. Watson's analysis is easy to follow and uses strong logic; he does a spectacular job combining Biblical literature with historical information. He provides well developed explanations for troublesome accounts, such as the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate. While Watson does not claim that his book makes a major contribution to the field of biblical studies, it is certainly a worthy addition.

Works Cited Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2008. Print. Watson, Alan. The Trial of Jesus. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995. Print.