John 18:12-27

I. The Trial before the Sanhedrim: 18:12-27.

The following section contains the account of an appearance of Jesus in the house of Annas, the ex-high-priest, an account with which that of the denial of St. Peter is, as it were, interlaced. But this appearance is not mentioned in the Synoptics. On the other hand, they relate how Jesus was led from Gethsemane to the house of Caiaphas, where He appeared before the Sanhedrim and was condemned to death; and this solemn and decisive meeting is not mentioned by John.

Some think that there was in reality but one meeting, that of which the Synoptics give an account and which they place in the house of Caiaphas; whether, as Baur, Scholten, Keim, etc., they declare that the meeting in the house of Annas, related in our Gospel, is only an invention of its author, or, as some ancient writers, Calvin, Lucke, de Wette, Tholuck, Langen, Lutteroth, they think that there was only a momentary stay in the house of Annas, after which they went immediately (in John 18:15) to the house of Caiaphas, in which the appearance took place which is related by John John 18:19-23, an appearance which, in any case, must be regarded as identical with the scene of Jesus' condemnation in the Synoptics. Neither the one nor the other of these opinions is admissible. In what interest would the author of the Fourth Gospel have invented this appearance in the house of Annas? It is answered: In order to present the Jews in a more odious light by making Jesus to be condemned by two of their high-priests in succession. But by relating the story in this way, the pseudo-John would not even make Jesus to be condemned by one high- priest, since the session in the house of Annas is a simple inquiry without a judgment, and the session of the Synoptics, where the judgment was really pronounced, is omitted! The second opinion comes into collision with John 18:24, which proves that it was only after the inquiry in the house of Annas that Jesus was sent to the house of Caiaphas (see on that verse). If the locality of the two scenes is different, their contents are none the less so; the first is a mere preliminary investigation, the second a judicial act in all due forms, the official pronouncing of the judgment. Besides, what purpose would this stay at the house of Annas have served, and why should John have mentioned it so expressly if nothing occurred there? Lutteroth supposes that it was regarded as suitable to inform Annas, in passing, of the success of the arrest. But would it have been worth while to mention such a detail?

As it was not possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, either by denying the examination in the house of Annas or by confounding it with the session in the house of Caiaphas, Beyschlag has tried the opposite method; he thinks that the meeting in the house of Annas took place as John relates it, but that after this there was no other during the night, like that which is related by Matthew and Mark; that the latter is nothing else than that which, according to Luke, took place on the following morning (Luke 22:66-71); the first two Synoptics placed it in the course of the night, because they confounded it with the examination in the house of Annas, of which they do not speak. The reason alleged for this hypothesis is that, if the judgment had been given during the night, there would have been no need of a session on the following morning, such as that of which Luke gives an account. We shall discover the error of Beyschlag as to this last point. But what renders this view more suspicious is the gross error which is thus imputed to Mark and Matthew.

It does not seem to us that any question is to be raised as to the fact of two perfectly distinct night sessions, one of which took place in the house of Annas (John) and the other in that of Caiaphas (Matthew and Mark); this is acknowledged by most at the present day Neander, Meyer, Weiss, Luthardt, Keil, Reuss, etc. The Synoptics omitted the first, either because they were ignorant of it, or because it did not occasion any important result. John, on his part, was not ignorant of the second, for he clearly alludes to it in the first of John 18:13, which implies as secondly the appearance before Caiaphas (see on this word); then, in John 18:24, which expressly mentions as a subsequent fact the sending of Jesus to Caiaphas by Annas himself; finally, in John 18:28, where Jesus is led to Pilate, not from Annas' house, but from that of Caiaphas. Thus John, if he does not give an account of the session in the house of Caiaphas, very exactly indicates its place, as he had done in John 18:1 with reference to the scene of Gethsemane. Moreover, what completes the proof that John cannot either have been ignorant of or have denied the judgment-scene in the house of Caiaphas, is the whole of the sequel in his own narrative. He represents to us the Sanhedrim as going to ask of Pilate the confirmation and execution of the death-sentence which they had pronounced (John 18:31; John 19:7; John 19:11; John 19:16). Now in the session in Annas' house, of which John has given the description, no condemnation was pronounced. John's narrative itself therefore implies a meeting of the Sanhedrim in the proper sense of the word, exercising its functions as a high-court of justice for the judgment of the accused, and consequently the entire meeting in the house of Caiaphas as Matthew and Mark describe it.

It will be asked what, in this case, was the purpose of the appearance in the house of Annas. It was, above all, to serve the purpose of drawing from the mouth of Jesus some compromising expression suited to furnish a reason for His condemnation; for there was embarrassment on this subject, as the summoning of the false witnesses in the Synoptics proves. Besides, the judicial customs required this formality. A capital sentence could be pronounced by the Sanhedrim only on the day which followed that on which the accused had appeared in court. In this case it was impossible to observe this rule fully, since the decision had been made to hasten the time; comp. Mark 14:2. But they must at least try to save appearances as far as possible, and to offer the semblance of a first preliminary meeting, before that at which the sentence should be pronounced. The Synoptics, as was in harmony with the nature of the oral tradition, preserved only the remembrance of that which was historically conspicuous; John, in comformity with his ordinary course of action, omits the solemn session which was sufficiently well known through the Synoptic narrative, and restored the part of the facts which was omitted by them no doubt, not for the purpose of materially completing them, but that he might not suffer the radiance of the glory of Jesus to be lost, which had shone forth in the meeting held in the house of Annas. Luthardt and Weiss think that, if John has related the scene in the house of Annas, it is only with a view to Peter's denial, which is connected with it, and which he wished to relate in order to show the fulfilment of the words of Jesus in John 13:38. But if the story of this appearance had had this purpose only, it would have been sufficient to indicate it, without describing the scene in all its details.

Hilgenfeld explains the omission in John of the scene of the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrim, by reason of the fact that the Jewish Messiahship of Jesus had been very strongly emphasized there, a thing which was displeasing to the pseudo-John. But with the freedom which the author used in respect to the history (according to this school), there was nothing easier for him than to modify the account of this scene, for example, by making the sentence of Jesus bear only upon the affirmation of His dignity as Son of God, which was perfectly in accordance with the spirit of his work. Besides, if the idea of the Messianic office was so repugnant to him, why should he have called it to mind from the first and even in the last words of his Gospel (John 1:42-46 and John 20:31)? Keim, however, gets excited, and says: “Who is so blind...as to seek for truth in a narrative which after having introduced the examination in the house of Annas as a fact of a decisive character sets aside (ignorirt) in the most unpardonable way that which took place in the house of Caiaphas” (pp. 322, 323)! But what decisive result, then, did the meeting in Annas' house have? The result, according to John himself, was nothing, to the great annoyance of the enemies who counted on discovering some complaint against Him for the great judicial session which was about to follow. As to the session in the house of Caiaphas, it is by no means set aside (ignorirt), as we have just seen, since John very correctly and repeatedly assigns to it its place (John 18:24). Reuss, in his Histoire evangelique (p. 663), expresses himself thus: “John says nothing, and we will add, without falling into an error, knows nothing of the official examination and of the trial before the court, because all this takes place with closed doors.” We have proved, on the contrary, that John knows perfectly well the facts which he omits. How should he not have been aware of the judgment of Jesus by the Sanhedrim, if it were only through the oral tradition which passed into the Synoptics and through the Synoptics themselves, with which John was acquainted, as even Reuss himself now confesses. If, then, he did not relate this scene, it is because he did not wish to do so, and we know the reason why he did not. Though this fact may be contrary to the system of Reuss respecting the Fourth Gospel, it is nevertheless indisputable. As to Renan, with much more impartiality than the theologians, he is unsparing in his admiration of John's narrative. “Our author alone,” he says, “represents Jesus as brought to the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Josephus confirms the correctness of this account....This circumstance, of which the first two

Gospels give no hint, is a beam of light. How should a sectary, writing in Egypt or in Asia Minor, have known this?...It is a strong proof of the historical value of our Gospel” (pp. 522 and 407). In fact, the relationship of Annas and Caiaphas, which, as we shall see, is an important element in the explanation of the narrative, is a matter of information which John must have received at first hand, for Josephus himself does not mention this fact, although it is perfectly in accordance with his narrative.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 12-27. There are in this passage two great questions, one having reference to the examination of Jesus, and the other bearing upon Peter's denials. On these two questions the following brief suggestions may be offered:

I. The examination of Jesus. That this was not the one an account of which is given by the Synoptic Gospels is rendered probable by the following considerations:

(a) The fact that it was in the house of Annas. John 18:24 cannot be satisfactorily explained except as indicating that Jesus was not sent to Caiaphas until after the examination here recorded.

(b) The character of the examination itself. It was not of a judicial character. Jesus was simply inquired of as to His disciples and His teaching, as if in a conversation or an informal inquiry. In the Synoptic account, on the other hand, witnesses are called, and the whole proceeding is like that of a court, with the high-priest presiding as a judge.

(c) If the two accounts are carefully compared, we find, in connection with what has been said under (b), that all the details are different in the two: the questions addressed to Jesus; His answers; the minor circumstances, and the persons participating in the scene. This is certainly the fact, with the possible exception that the high-priest who takes part in the two scenes was the same person, and that the blows inflicted upon Jesus by bystanders were given by the same persons. The latter supposition is neither necessary nor probable, for the language used by those who smote Him is not the same, nor to the same effect. As to the former supposition, see below.

(d) It is altogether improbable that if John was present at the judicial trial recorded in the Synoptics, he would have given an account of only a part of it, and would have omitted the most important part namely, that which contained the final result and decision. On the other hand, if what John relates was a more informal and private inquiry in the house of Annas, which preceded the judicial examination, it is very easy to believe that John was not admitted to the latter, and that he gives the account of what he heard, and passes over what he did not hear.

The question as to whether the high-priest mentioned in John 18:15-23 is Annas or Caiaphas is one of some difficulty. It is evident that Caiaphas is spoken of in this chapter, and elsewhere in this Gospel, as the high-priest, and that Annas is not thus spoken of, unless in these verses. It is also evident that Caiaphas was the actual high-priest at the time, and that Annas was not. Moreover, the allusion to the high-priest in John 18:15, following immediately as it does upon John 18:13, where Caiaphas is declared to be the high-priest, is such that, in the case of ordinary words, there would be no doubt that the reference in the two verses was the same. It is to be observed, however, on the other hand, that John 18:24, when compared with John 18:13, seems to separate Annas and Caiaphas altogether, and to limit what is said between John 18:15 and John 18:24 to the house and presence of Annas. Godet, as also Riggenbach, Ebrard, Hofmann, and others, suppose that the two lived in the same palace. The only improbability in such a supposition is, that they were dignitaries of such high position; but this is removed, provided we regard them as occupying two palatial residences which were on opposite sides of a common interior court, and were thus, in reality, one great building surrounding the court. There would seem to be an improbability, however, that the actual high-priest himself, who was to preside at the trial, would have entered into such a conversation and inquiry just before the trial began. His judicial position and dignity might seem inconsistent with it. But that Annas should do so might well have been in the plan of the leaders. It might well be a part of the attempt to prepare for the trial by involving Jesus, if possible, in some difficulty or self- accusation. As Annas, therefore, is called high-priest by Luke, both in his Gospel and in the Acts, and as he had held the office and was unquestionably in a very exalted position in the public opinion, it is more probable that the title is given to him in the verses under consideration, and that he was the person who conducted this inquiry.

II. The denials of Peter. John 18:15-27. In respect to these there are two points of inquiry:

1. As to the place where they occurred. That the first denial occurred in the court of the house of Annas is certain, if Jesus was not sent to the house of Caiaphas until John 18:24. But, if this was the fact respecting the first denial, the connection of John 18:25 with John 18:18 furnishes the strongest proof that the second and third denials also occurred in the same court. The opening words of John 18:25 evidently resume the closing ones of John 18:18, and the absence of any expressed subject for the verb εἶπον of John 18:25 can only be explained in a natural way by supposing that the subject is intended by the author to be the same persons as those who are mentioned in the 18th verse. We may believe, therefore, that all the denials took place in one and the same court; that this was the court of the house of Annas; and that the last of the three denials coincided in point of time with the moment when Jesus went forth from the house of Annas on His way to that of Caiaphas. If we now suppose that the house of Caiaphas stood on the opposite side of the same court, so that the latter belonged equally to the two houses, the accounts of all the Gospels, so far forth as the place of Peter's denials is concerned, can be easily brought into harmony.

2. As to what was said by Peter, and as to those who addressed him. That there were three denials, and three only, must be admitted as proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the fact that Jesus predicted only three, and that each of the Gospels speaks of three only as having occurred. The attempt to escape the difficulties of the case by the supposition of two or three sets of denials, each consisting of two or more, is one which is contradictory to the impression produced by every one of the evangelists.

The most serious difficulties in the reconciling of the different narratives are, first: with respect to the persons, the fact that in the case of the second denial Mark represents the same person as speaking to Peter who had spoken to him in the first case, while the other Gospels represent that it was another person another maid (Matthew), ἕτερος (Luke), the servants and officers (John). If the maid was actually another (and not, as Mark intimates, the same), and if she moved the servants, etc., to unite with her, the other three writers may be harmonized; secondly: with respect to what was said to Peter, the fact that John states that the kinsman of Malchus, in the case of the third denial, said, Did I not see thee in the garden with him, while the other evangelists represent that the words (spoken, according to Matthew and Mark, by those who stood by, and, according to Luke, by another) were, Surely thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto, or words substantially like these. This may be easily explained, if we suppose that immediately upon the latter words, which came from several of the bystanders, this kinsman of Malchus pressed the matter home upon Peter by saying, Did I not see thee, etc.; thirdly: with respect to the interval between the denials, the fact that Luke represents that there was about an hour between the second and third, while, if we are to suppose any interval of this sort as indicated by John, it is apparently between the first and second. The differences in regard to what Peter said are scarcely worthy of notice. There would seem to be no need, therefore, of supposing any such multiplying of the number of denials as has been imagined by some writers. With regard to the time previous to which the three denials were, according to the prediction of Christ, to take place, it is the same undoubtedly in all the Gospels, for Mark means by the words before the cock crows twice precisely what the other writers mean by before the cock crows namely, the end of the watch called ἀλεκτοροφωνία.