JESUS and PILATE When and why did Pilate join the Gospel Narrative

JESUS and PILATE When and why did Pilate join the Gospel Narrative? Chris Albert Wells We intuitively read Jesus’ trial in the Gospels as occurring before Peter’s trial as presented in Luke-Acts that occurred some forty days later, however poorly both narratives connect. I will defend that originally, Peter’s trial was not linked to Jesus’ trial, and had its own very specific strategic meaning. Jesus’ trial facing Pilate was secondarily derived from Luke-Acts where Peter faces Gamaliel. As a first landmark, the Jesus Messiah party, initiated after the seventies, was the Nazarene’s avant-garde answer to God’s new demands. The absence of any non-biblical confirmation of the Jesus events means that the writers were not reactivating the memories of events a generation earlier. The destruction of the Temple was the detonator that started the ‘good news’ Chris A. Wells. Jesus: Good News, Fake News or Alternative Facts? Academia.edu. The writers were dedicated to their own Messiah’s primacy on earth and in heaven, contra Elijah and the Temple Chris A. Wells. Resurrection: Good News, Fake News or Alternative Facts? Academia.edu. It is therefore difficult to believe that a trial associating Jesus Messiah and Pilate in the thirties belonged to the Nazarene’s original agenda, writing soon after 70 CE. It was a fictional tale that did not serve any immediate strategic purpose. So, when did Pilate join the Gospels, and to what particular circumstances did the story obey? A spectrum of reasons supports that Peter’s trial had an important impact on the Jerusalem trial under Pilate. First of all, there are too many discrepancies when read the other way around. The writer on Peter in Luke-Acts is amazingly vague on Jesus’ Jerusalem trial, and he describes it using contradictory statements. The Jewish Christians at Rome writing the Peter stories were aware that Jerusalem had always been accused of killing its prophets; the death of the righteous one was no exception. It was not offensive to their culture to write a general condemnation against Jerusalem: “This man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified.” Surprising is the juxtaposition of “you crucified” and “killed.” Both words imply the same result. The denunciation “ . . . and killed by the hands of those outside the law” could have been a second thought. It does seem odd that the writer targeting those outside the law didn’t immediately name Pilate. The Roman procurator is, however, mentioned later in 3:13 and 4:27, Peter speaking. But addressing his audience, Peter was at times silent on Pilate and says, “Fellow Israelites, this Jesus whom you crucified” (2:36 and 4:10). Answering the high priest, Peter says (5:30), “The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.” The differences in the accusations suggest that the story could have developed in successive waves. Adding to the oddities, Peter’s trial in Acts does not seem to be well connected with the earlier Jesus trial. The new events in Jerusalem so soon after the local mock trial should have aroused Pilate’s curiosity, especially since he had considered Jesus innocent but had ordered him crucified anyway, and the crucified and buried dead man had left his grave three days later. And surprise, as though braving all censors, Jesus’ followers were now performing miracles in his name and in Jerusalem. Pilate within this new fiction composed in Rome has no role in pronouncing judgment against Peter as though he had not yet been given a biblical function. And no Romans are spotted out in the streets of Jerusalem where Peter performs his miracles. The issue remained within Temple grounds, where Gamaliel the Pharisee calmed the Jewish opposition. When the two stories are set in continuity, the high priest and his entourage ask Pilate to confirm their condemnation, resulting in Jesus’ hanging on a tree. Some forty days later, a Jewish Council without Pilate accepted a clement judgment on Jesus’ very active followers in Jerusalem. Gamaliel’s prominent role enforces the impression that the writers were not aware of the trial mentioned in the Gospels. Furthermore, Gamaliel, the so famous Pharisee teacher, is not even mentioned in the Gospel record. All the inconsistencies make it difficult to believe that the second-century writers of the Peter events in Jerusalem had any knowledge of a Jesus trial under Pilate. But who did in those days? Looking for Jerusalem and Jesus’ trial in other biblical texts should help us determine when the story of Pilate was written and explain the above discrepancies. Instructed by the Gospel community, Paul knew about the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the imminence of the second coming expected to accelerate all the apocalyptic events that Jewish eschatology previously announced. But Paul showed no familiarity with details of the Jerusalem week, suggesting that the documents were still not firmly established. Even readers who still believe that Paul lived in the thirties and the Jesus events were historical should be surprised by Paul’s silence. He never even accuses the Romans in his letters for having killed his Messiah and never mentions Pilate. He doesn’t accuse the Temple authorities either. More surprisingly, he never associates his Messiah’s death with Jerusalem. Paul was aware that the new party that publicized God’s revised revelation for mankind had started after Jerusalem’s destruction, and the information Paul deals with corresponded to the party propaganda he accepted. Did Paul mention Jerusalem in his letters? Jerusalem is totally missing in Thessalonians, Philippians, and 2 Corinthians. Jerusalem is mentioned only once in 1 Corinthians concerning the collection for the saints (16:1-3) that many consider as an interpolation intending to encourage donations to the church. The few mentions of Jerusalem in Galatians are all interpolations, as will be shown in a future paper. Paul was not the only one who didn’t mention Jerusalem in connection with God’s new plans. The writer of Revelation refers only to the New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven (3:12, 21:2, 21:10). Jerusalem appears only once in Clement’s letter concerning temple sacrifices, and he shows no knowledge of a trial under Pilate. Ignatius seems the first to break the silence on Jerusalem, naming Pontus Pilate (Trallians 9:1, Smyrn. 1:2, Magn. 11). Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians is again silent on Jerusalem and a trial. In the letter to the Romans, which was supposedly written by Paul, Jerusalem appears as a second thought and is mentioned four times in chapter 15, a latecomer to the letter. (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian were unaware of the final chapters.) Jerusalem is mentioned an amazing sixty-two times in Luke- Acts! So, Jerusalem only really comes into focus once the Jewish members and their allies in Rome had composed Peter-Acts, reacting against the local Hellenistic challenges. They made Peter open Jesus’ testament in Jerusalem. They acclaimed Peter in Jerusalem as the foremost apostle. Everything happens in Jerusalem advertising the Judean legacy against the Hellenistic assaults. An emblematic and ancient Jerusalem stood against Rome of the writer’s modern days. A Jerusalem still standing, far away cradle of an ancient faith, protecting and faulty toward the Temple, reminiscent of bygone days. Peter becomes for the first time Jesus’ lighthouse, whereas Peter’s Galilean life shows him as someone who always poorly adheres, poorly understands, and who doesn’t really belong to the Jesus coterie. Scholars, reading Luke-Acts as a historical account, will thereafter believe that Peter was a resolute Jesus enthusiast. Peter’s new role defending Jesus’ testament will change the way we value him. Jerusalem and Peter are co-starring in Acts. Peter’s primacy comes to the fore here. It will later on find its way into the Gospels: Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah (Mark 8:27- 33, Matt. 16:16) and Peter is entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18). And Marcion, whose school Peter-Acts was challenging, what did he know about the Jerusalem week? Missing from Marcion’s Luke is Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem (predicted by Scripture), the rolled- away stone at the empty tomb (that comes from Daniel), the names of the women who discovered the empty tomb, and Peter meeting the posthumous Jesus. But did Marcion’s version of Luke really contain the highlights of the Jerusalem trial as we necessarily suppose from Tertullian’s comparison? It seems impossible to answer because we don’t know if Tertullian worked on Marcion’s early text or the Luke text that Marcion’s school eventually completed, accepting selected material from canonical Luke. We can however strongly argue that if Marcion’s early version of Luke had contained a trial under Pilate, the writers of Peter-Acts would have been informed and more precise. It is therefore unlikely that Tertullian had Marcion’s pre-canonical version while establishing comparisons. Can Justin contribute more efficiently to the debate? We find mention of Jesus’ trial under Pilate in chapters 30, 102, and 103 of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. It is nevertheless disturbing that Justin’s dialogue, centered entirely on scriptural arguments, should suddenly be so talkative about the Gospels in chapters 78, 102, and 103, focusing on the initial infancy and childhood chapters comprising Luke’s census and Matthew’s Herod. These canonical additions were completed in reaction to the Marcionite challenges and were only fully known at Rome in Tatian’s days. Furthermore, Justin is not even arguing here against his fictive opponent Trypho, as was the case in other chapters, but simply storytelling as a troubadour. Later harmonizing, so common for the purpose of confirming official data, could account for the impression one gets that the church in Justin’s days had loose, fragmentary information and not yet an authoritative ensemble that could be called a New Testament. Enforcing the impression that Justin’s works were corrupted, we find the two very disputable mentions of the Acts of Pontius Pilate (earliest known as a seventh-century manuscript) in his first Apology, so conveniently placed at the very end of their respective paragraphs. Justin’s beliefs appear in his Dialogues: “You have slain the Just One, and His prophets before him.” (Chapter 16) “After you had crucified him, the only man without sins and just” (Chapter 17) “The Jews deliberated on the Messiah, to crucify him” (Chapter 72) The death to which the synagogue of the evil condemned him (Chapter 104) You seized him and during Easter you crucified him” (Chapter 111) Justin, contemporary to Peter-Acts, gives the same interpretation as Peter: ‘this man that you (the Jews) killed. A timeless event, without any date. Did Ignatius really know about Pilate (according to Trallians 9, Magn. 11, and Smyrn. 1:2)? Some forty years separate Justin’s supposed awareness of Pilate according to his Dialogue and the quotes found in Ignatius. The long silence in between makes the so ardent Ignatius—“he was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, he was truly crucified and truly died”—appear as also truly catching up with later information, giving for the very first time a location and a date to supposed events. Ignatius’ letters also refer to infancy stories and post-resurrection events written later than his days. This early cluster of quotes on the Jerusalem trial may therefore also have been added later for harmonizing purposes. The first century was silent on Jerusalem and Jesus’ trial. And up to the middle of the second century, the silence is not convincingly corrected by the few allusions to Pontius Pilate. It seems that around the mid-second century, the Roman Jesus Messiah assembly had only very basic information concerning the Jerusalem week: Jesus died crucified, was raised from the dead, and the end of days were coming very soon. Writers of Peter-Acts knew no more than “this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified,” later completed by “ . . . and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” Due to the absence of any reliable quotes, Jesus’ trial as read in the Gospels could well have been completed after the fictitious mid-second-century Jerusalem accounts in Acts. Melito of Sardis (< 180 CE) breaks the silence. He notes a concordance between the expansion of the Augustine Empire and nascent Christianity. He evokes the birth, the shepherds, the angels, the manger. And Pilate who washes his hands. (Melito of Sardis. On Pascha and Fragments) He knew the texts even if he does not quote the presumed author. The Jesus party only existed after the seventies, and accordingly, there was no historical Jesus trial in the thirties. There were no reasons, in the earliest days of party polarization, for Pilate to belong to their propaganda. The Gospel writers had not yet set up an early-first-century time frame for Jesus. Claiming such recent events would have been contested by memory. To them, Jesus’ crucifixion belonged to some remote past. It belonged to ancient community history, the Nazarene lawgiver having been condemned to hang on wood following the Sanhedrin verdict around 65 BCE. Let’s give a closer look to the trial as narrated in Mark. The anonymous Council has decided the death sentence beforehand and is asking for false witnesses. Condemned, the crucified man complains, “God, why have you abandoned me?” The complaint is consistent with an attempt to represent the trial of a charismatic Master, his lifetime mission pitifully ending at his enemy’s hands. It was the complaint of a real man who had not yet been given a messianic status. We find the same despair in Qumran hymns echoing Psalm 22:1: “When the wicked rose against Thy Covenant, and the damned against Thy word, I said in my sinfulness, I am forsaken by Thy Covenant.” The Gospel writer handled community memory to revive past wounds, attributing them to Jesus, who personified the latest version of the Teacher’s commitment to contemporary community affairs. Jesus in Mark was initially reminiscent of an ancient trial, immemorial, in keeping with community antecedents, not yet the trial of a Messiah. The very last false witness “Are you the Messiah? I am” suggests a correction brought to the trial dossier of the ancient prophet. We can also find arguments that support an initially very ancient trial from the propaganda depreciating the Christian messiah found in the Torah of Jerusalem and Babylon. (Peter Schäfer. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton University Press 2007) They use sources that go back to the second century CE. The comments place Jesus in the days of the Hasmonean king Jannaeus (103-76 BCE) and confound all the merits claimed in the name of the messiah. Thus, according to these documents, Jesus lived within the same time-frame as the Master of Qumran; the proximity of dates is certainly not fortuitous. The Pharisees, for whom the Nazarenes were heretics certainly knew very well their secular enemies and the history of their community. Depreciation was reciprocal. In their documents, the sectarians insulted the Pharisees with endlessly renewed rage. For the evangelists, they were a brood of vipers! The mutual animosity is well established. The Pharisees were aware of the meaning of ‘messiah’ and which real prophet (Elijah) or false prophet (a dissident) the title honored. The Pharisees had retained memories of the past, putting Jesus where he belonged: a prophet of old as transpires with Mark’s earliest version. The messiah taking over from the original prophet, the link to the historical model was lost, revived by the Dead Sea Scrolls’ messiah code. The Torah’s polemical biographies have led to publications such as Did Jesus live 100 BC? by a perplex G.R.S. Mead in 1903, and provocative books speculating on the Teacher of Righteousness with Alvar Ellegaard’s Jesus one hundred years before Christ in 1999. *** Before going further, we have to question the original meaning of Peter’s trial. Keeping to the conflicting context of Acts, we must remember that political pamphlets convey campaigning programs and argue against in-house and out-house opposition. Gamaliel’s role must be understood as an answer to an offensive polemical accusation. He was the most famous Pharisee teacher of the first-century Temple days. He died twenty years before the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed. “Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and piety died out at the same time.” He was the last of the venerated rabbis and grandson of the highly esteemed Hillel. Gamaliel was the last of the Temple superstars. In the years following the Temple’s destruction, the recomposed Pharisaic Sanhedrin at Jamnia set its goal to reestablish faith and regulations without the Temple sacrifices and to rid Judaism of outside influences. Part of that housecleaning was to condemn the Greek version of the Bible, the Septuagint. They also had to get rid of bad influences within Judaism: a special benediction, which was really a curse, was added to the eighteen blessings that were recited as part of the daily service of worship. The curse, originally directed essentially toward the Sadducees, saw the term heretic replaced by Nazarenes, a direct reference to Jesus and the Messianic Jews who followed the revised eschatology. Anathema was obvious because the so-called nineteenth benediction was the only one that had to be recited aloud. The curse added insult to injury during the second Jewish revolt against Rome (132–135 CE). The first years of the revolt having been successful, the Jamnia Council declared that the leader of the revolution was the Messiah in title and gave him the name of Bar Kokhba, meaning “Son of the Star,” an obvious Davidic reference. The accusation of heresy applied to all people who did not acknowledge the fighting Messiah. Followers of Jesus Messiah could not recite the text and were excluded from the synagogue. (The theme is exploited in Justin’s Dialogues, chapters 16, 47, 72, 96 and 137) The Roman Jewish Jesus Messiah followers, heirs of the Nazarene dissidence, chose Gamaliel to show that the most celebrated Pharisee leader was not declaring them heretical, no matter how much the others within his Council wanted to have them all killed. Gamaliel was their answer to the Jamnia verdict. Choosing Gamaliel to judge Peter, the writers intended to deal with the ill-famed accusation and thereby bail out of the Jamnia curse. In Acts, it was not Peter who was being judged but the Nazarene movement. The writer was defending that they were not outcasts from Judaism. In Acts, answering back to the Jamnia Council had nothing to do with Jesus’ trial under Pilate, the story of which was still not written. The writer was addressing a different issue, explaining that the stories, from wherever viewed, should be so dissimilar. *** I believe we can go a step further and consider that the ancient trial described in Mark, the one of an ancient prophet, was remodeled with the anti-heretical front around the mid-second century: after the birth and childhood narratives in Luke, we have precisions on the adult in Jerusalem. Revising the trial focused on the argument that Jesus was crucified as a Messiah. Jesus’ trial allowed here to enforce the human status of the Messiah, once again conflicting with the Hellenic allegations. Jesus’ trial contributes establishing the Judean thesis against the contesting Hellenic doctrines for whom the Messiah was a pure spirit of divine nature who could neither be judged, condemned and crucified. It is tempting to think that Polycarp, the presumed author of the birth and childhood stories that completed the pre-canonical version of Luke—they systematically enhanced the Judean legacies against the Hellenic interpretation that Jesus—inspired the story of the Holy Week with the entry to Jerusalem (Absent in Marcion’s version of Luke) where every day Jesus teaches within the Temple. The information, several times repeated, confirms the Messiah’s cultural milieu. The narratives are followed by the Messiah’s trial at the Council’s hands. Choosing Jerusalem as a background for the trial opposing pro and anti-Jesus factions is coherent with the focus on Jerusalem of the infancy and childhood stories. Pilate does not enter this Messiah promoting strategy. The trial facing the Council is remarkably simple in Luke. Jesus faces a panel comprising delegates of the people, the high priest and the scribes (Luke 22:66-71). The questioning comes in two parts: The first question is now: “Are you the Messiah?” The answer: “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” A disconcerting question: “Are you the Son of God?” The answer: “You say so.” The designation ‘Son of God’ belongs to Judean theology. (Luke 1:32 ‘He shall be great and called the Son of the Most-High.’ It can also evoke Hellenic theology and Christ’s divinity. ‘You say so’ is used in other places to oppose a false witnessing. The Council’s conclusion: What other witnessing do we need? No name is given. The scene is anonymous, timeless, at Jerusalem. Completing the anti-heretical front with an adult Jesus, the redactor is just as vague as with the stories of Jesus adolescent within the Temple. The trial reproduces the general accusations found in Luke-Acts 2:36: “Let all Israel know with certitude that God has made Lord and Messiah this Jesus whom you crucified”. Matthew’s Gospel has also a scene with the Council that judges and condemns. But why is Caiaphas only identified in Matthew? Here the Council loses its anonymity. The readers can be reminded that the redactor of the anti-heretical front in Matthew created infancy and childhood stories very different to those in Luke. When read at face value, Peter’s trial facing Gamaliel brews down to demonstrate that the survival and future of the Jesus party is indebted to the Temple. This was a bit too much for the Nazarene writers that had a different perspective. Their renewed speculations ignited by the Jerusalem disaster were precisely directed against the Temple actors. They were more concerned about condemning the Temple—a brood of vipers for whom God no longer wanted in His House. Jesus’ trial and condemnation had to be distinct from Peter’s trial under wise and clement Gamaliel. Both the trial and crucifixion had to occur before Gamaliel was in office in 34 CE. Caiaphas, high priest from 18-36 CE, could articulate Jesus’ trial followed by Peter’s trial under a different Sanhedrin authority. The trial becomes anchored at Jerusalem during Caiaphas’ days. Pilate is still not around, Rome plays no role. To such an extent that one can wonder if the accusation ‘killed by hands outside the law’ initially reflected an internal Jewish problem. Jesus who incarnates a new Jewish law for eternal life was judged and condemned by Jewish opponents—the Council and the people—who were all against this new law. Our reading changes when Pilate intervenes, and ‘hands outside the law’ thereafter designates the Greco-Roman pagans. After the timeless trial of a prophet, (Mark) changing to the trial of a Messiah at Jerusalem (Luke) in the days of Caiaphas (Matthew) how to explain Pilate? A late story implies a particular community and political situation, a different intention. Therefor an important message to discover. The choice of Pilate, Judean procurator between 26-36 CE is probably accountable to Caiaphas in Matthew. The Gospels dialogued between themselves and were not written in total independence and according to an immutable order. The redactor of Jesus’ trial facing Pilate also borrowed details from Peter’s trial in Luke-Acts. Pilate copies Gamaliel’s conciliatory role; he is the sage who sees no fault. Despite of clemency the Romans flogged Jesus just as the Council flogged Peter. But why is Pilate there and what is his true role? Judging Jesus before Pilate intervenes, the Temple leaders claimed death for blasphemy. Facing Pilate, the Jew’s recriminations (Luke 23) begin with ‘He perverts the nation’ and ‘claims to be the Messiah.’ The accusations are in keeping with the previous blasphemy facing the Council. The false witnessing claims next that Jesus forbade them paying taxes due to the Emperor and that he is King! These two last reproaches create a transition between without and with Pilate. One must essentially be aware that the allegations intend to provoke Rome. Pilate asks: “Are you the King of the Jews?” The answer: “You say so.” Why this unique and inquisitorial question that seems so out of place? It seems that the author’s intention, using the obligation to have a high Roman official attend the deliberations on death sentences, was to create a link between Rome and the new religion. And to deal with diplomatic tensions. Because Christianity tried to attract the Roman Emperors, as the Apologies addressed to them bear witness. (Aristide of Athens and Quadratus to Hadrian (117-138 CE) Justin, the converted Hellenic philosopher addressed his first Apology the Antonin the Pious (138-161 CE) and to the Senate, his second Apology to the Roman Senate where Mark Aurelius, Antonin’s adopted son was in office, a stoic philosopher on the Imperial throne from 161 to 180 CE. Apollinaire of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis addressed Marc Aurelius). The author of the Pilate fiction had to lend support to the new religion. The suspicious question “Are you king of the Jews?” meant: Are you a menace to Cesar? The main concern of a Roman official was to prevent disorders, the Empire being afraid of any menace that could trouble the social order. Remember that the second Jewish revolt 132-135 CE had obliged Hadrian to send eight legions and an outstanding military command to defeat the rebellion. The leader of the revolt, Bar Kokhba, meaning the ‘Son of the Star’ held a Davidic Messiah title. King David had since long the aura of a battling regal messiah. The fear of a Messiah and King on behalf of Pilate is probably related to these significant events. Antonin’s edit, as Eusebius reported, attenuating the status of outlaws his predecessor Hadrian had defined, also stipulated that Christians should not be mishandled as long as they are not found guilty of conspiracy against the Empire. A warning. In his first Apology, Justin already assured that Christians were not a risk to the state. Pilate, Imperial judge defending the Empire’s interests, created the link between Rome and Jesus. That he should capitulate exasperated by the Jews was perfectly in his role because the redactor could not remove Jesus from his well-known fate. Repeated in all four canonical Gospels, Pilate’s declaration that he sees no fault in this man and that the Sanhedrin should decide was a tactical necessity to encourage Rome’s interest. Until then, Rome had no declared complicity with the Jesus affairs. The choice of allegiance was clear: The Empire as not threatened by a new Messiah King, the Jews guilty of false witnessing, and Pilate who in all logic could not change the course of Jesus’ fate, washes his hands. Crucified and mocked by the Jews, their false witnessing is inscribed on the cross: INRI. Jesus dies, and even the centurion at the foot of the cross declares that he was innocent. Thus, the historical tradition of the years 30 CE became an incontrovertible Christian truth. Pilate’s wise judgement ‘I see no fault’ is later doubled by a Salomon inspired sketch: which of the two prisoners set free, which condemn? Barabbas the guilty bandit or Jesus declared innocent? Pilate gives an extra chance to let Jesus avoid hid fate, but the Jews, as necessary culprits rise against Rome, intervening to ruin any clemency. With Pilate’s fable, Rome is twice innocent and the Jews twice guilty. Pilate’s wisdom allowed the young Greco-Roman church to continue its difficult policy aiming for official recognition, the victory of which is inscribed in Romans 13:1-7: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.  For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.  This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” The submission declarations bear witness to appeased tensions between Church and State, probably at the time of the Nicea Council in 325 CE where Constantin convokes the 220 bishops of the Roman Empire. The famous Gospel declaration “Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar and to God what is God’s.” (Mark 12 :13-17. Mathieu 22 :21 et Luke 20 :25) resumes this late normalization. Angry against the Temple, Jesus outsmarts the Pharisaic trap by commenting a Roman coin. His enigmatic answer predicts the future concord: the new religion announces, through the Messiah’s mouth, that it is not hostile to the Roman Empire and expects mutual recognition. The policy, thus antedated by transferring late politics to the earliest writings, possibly relies on Romans 13:1-7 supposedly anterior to the Gospels according to official chronology. Pilate’s intervention was a late comer to the Gospel’s narratives with a powerful political message. And was probably written at Rome. Conclusion. Gamaliel was the first historical landmark associating Jesus and Peter. Thereafter, all the events became anchored around Gamaliel’s Sanhedrin office ranging from 34 to 50 CE. After the timeless trial of a prophet, (Mark) changing to the trial of a Messiah at Jerusalem (Luke) in the days of Caiaphas (Matthew), Pilate completes the trial by creating a favorable link between Rome and the new religion. PAGE 1