After the betrayal took place, the disciples fled, and the servants of the high priest led Jesus away to the house of the high priest, where there were a number of councilors waiting. Thus, we are able to understand that this was a conspiracy, and it was conducted under the cover of darkness, while most of the people in Jerusalem slept. The Synoptics sorta-kinda agree that Jesus was taken immediately to high priest. Matthew claims he was taken to Caiaphas (Matthew 26:57). Nevertheless, Mark says only that he was taken to the high priest (Mark 14:53), which can be an important distinction, since the word for high priest (G749) is the same for all who ever officiated that office (like former Presidents of the USA are all called President so and so). All these men were assembled and waiting for Jesus. Luke merely claims Jesus was taken to the high priest’s house (Luke 22:54). However, John tells us that Jesus was taken to Annas, Caiaphas’ father-in-law (John 18:13), who sent him to Caiaphas only after he had first interrogated him (John 18:24).
So, there appears to be a contradiction between Matthew and John, Matthew saying Jesus was led to Caiaphas (Matthew 26:57), while John says he was led first to Annas, Caiaphas’ father-in-law (John 18:13). However, the point becomes moot, if Matthew really means he was led to the house of Caiaphas, as Luke clearly tells us (Luke 22:54). At least six translations add to Matthew’s account the phrase “the house of Caiaphas” for clarity.[1] The NET adds “in whose house” after the words “the high priest.” Clearly, “the house of Caiaphas” is implied, because Matthew goes on to say “where” not “with whom” the other high priests were assembled (Matthew 26:57). Therefore, Matthew must be referring to Caiaphas’ house, and this allows John to say, without contradiction, that Jesus was led to Annas first (John 18:13), who then sent him to Caiaphas after his preliminary interrogation (John 18:24).
Furthermore, we need to put this entire matter in the context of the times, because, not only do the Gospel narrators unveil a conspiracy by the Jewish authorities, but they show us that the whole matter of Jesus’ trial was illegal. In other words, the Jewish authorities, whose very office was empowered for the purpose of upholding the law, used that power for their own ends against the law. Notice what the Jews record in their Talmud:
“Civil suits are tried by day, and concluded at night. But Capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day. Civil suits can be concluded on the same day, whether for acquittal or condemnation; capital charges may be concluded on the same day with a favorable verdict, but only on the morrow with an unfavorable verdict. Therefore, trials are not held on the eve of a Sabbath or Festival.”[2]
The fact is Jesus’ trial, perhaps a preliminary trial, was held under the cover of darkness, so it was illegal according to Jewish law. Moreover, both it and the official trial held in the morning of the same day were held on the eve of the Holy Day Sabbath (the Feast of Unleavened Bread). Therefore, both the preliminary trial and the official trial were illegal. Finally, it was concluded unfavorably on the same day, so it was illegal to execute Jesus on that day, according to their very own records. These are some of the reasons why Jesus remained silent, when he was accused, and also when he was interrogated by the council (Matthew 26:61-63a; Mark 14:60-61a). The trial was illegal, and false witnesses were sought as part of the conspiracy to accuse Jesus in order have him executed. Nevertheless, even they didn’t even agree with one another, showing the authorities lacked proof to both accuse Jesus of wrongdoing and to judge him. Jesus didn’t have to reply to such illegal fiasco. His integrity wouldn’t permit it.
________________________________________________________
[1] The six translations I have that do so are: BBE, CEV, ERV, GNB, Moffatt and the RV.
[2] See the Babylonian Talmud; Sanhedrin 32a.
Smoodock's Blog 