TRANSLATION MATTHEW 26:57

Those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the legal experts and the elders had assembled.

Peter was following him at a distance as far as the high priest’s courtyard, where he went in and sat with the staff, to see the outcome.

The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus, so that they could put him to death, but they found none, although many lying witnesses gave evidence. Finally two came forward, who stated, “This man said, ‘ I can destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it within three days.”

The chief priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to what these men bring in evidence against you?”

But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the son of God!”

Jesus spoke to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of The Power, coming upon the clouds of heaven.”

The high priest ripped his robes, saying, “He has defiled God! What more need have we of witnesses? You yourselves have heard him defiling God. What is your verdict?”

They said in answer, “He deserves to die.”

Then they spat in his face and punched him, while others slapped him, saying “Prophesy to us, Messiah, tell us who smacked you?”

.

There is some incoherence in both Matthew and Mark his source. The latter has unnamed people covering Jesus face with a cloth, hitting him and shouting, Prophesy! While Matthew leaves out the cloth, but has words appropriate to it, “Who smacked you?” Certainly it is not proof but it suggests the existence of another source used by both gospel writers.

Matthew follows Mark in describing what would have been an illegal meeting of the Sanhedrin, which was not authorised to meet at night. Also it appears to have excluded the Pharisees, who were a legal part of the Council. There has been much scholarly debate on this problem but no convincing solution. We should remember that any account sympathetic to Jesus probably came from hearsay.

Matthew also softens Jesus’ reply to the high priest. Mark has him say “I am.” which is both more definite and more blasphemous than Matthew’s version, as “l AM” is one of the names of God, whereas Matthew’s version only commits Jesus at most to claiming to be the Messiah. It is unlikely that this claim would automatically been considered a blasphemy. Matthew may have considered his wording more in line with Jesus’ way of speaking about himself.

Matthew presents an account which shows a level of hysteria among Jesus’ opponents, who begin trying to obtain evidence, and when that fails become a kangaroo court, expressing prejudice, hate. and illegal procedure.

Did Jesus say the reported words about the Temple? Matthew reports him prophesying the destruction of the Temple, but not these words. John reports him using the words as an oblique reference to the destruction and resurrection of his own body. Matthew is clear that it is false witness , but somehow more dangerous than other lies.

Jesus is depicted as remaining calm in the face of the lies, while openly admitting his claim to be the Messiah. Although in Matthew’s story Jesus has accepted the title, he has been notably cautious about making his claim public. Matthew and the whole Christian tradition see Jesus as the true Messiah, although no orthodox Jews accept the claim. Clearly in the history of the Jewish people under Rome there were others who made the claim, some of whom led the people into catastrophic war against the Empire. We should ask what it adds to our faith in Jesus to see him as Messiah.

Matthew appears to prefer the title “Son of God”, which again is Jewish and used unproblematically of its kings. The title most commonly used by Jesus according to Matthew, Son of Man, is used in this narrative, much as it is used by the author of Daniel, to refer to the one who stands for God’s humane rule in the world. This is the One, according to Jesus who will judge the high priest. This at least reminds whoever reads about this humiliation of Jesus, of his real (magical) identity.

The humiliation is deliberate and distressing. No sooner has a legal decision been obtained than savage bullying and degradation of a helpless prisoner breaks out and is permitted.

Matthew’s is a convincing narrative of what an illegal religio- political court would be like. Christian courts under the Inquisition, and modern Islamic courts in Iran are other examples of this misuse of religious power.