What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth
Radin, Max. The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931. ix, 266 pp. Reprint available September 2006 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN-13: 978-1-58477-662-8. ISBN-10: 1-58477-662-5. Cloth. $75.
* Renowned for its impeccable legal reasoning and lucid prose, this compelling study is based on a close reading of the four gospels. It reconstructs the accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and examines their discrepancies. The final two chapters put these accounts into the context of Jerusalem's legal and political environment. Radin's goal is not to pass judgment, but to reconstruct one of the most significant events in history, which he does with remarkable skill. Radin [1880-1950], the son of a rabbi, had a thorough education in Hebrew, Greek and Latin in addition to his legal training. A professor of law at Boalt Hall, Berkeley, he was a versatile scholar of jurisprudence and international, comparative and Roman law.
- GenresReligion
280 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1968
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
Read
May 11, 2025How much credibility should a HISTORIAN assign to each of the gospels? The author, with excellent style, presents evidence and scholarly consensus on that question, giving the lowest historical weight to John, and the greatest to Mark and Luke.
All four gospel stories of the titular event are then compared and contrasted through the same historical lens.
Originally published in 1931.
All four gospel stories of the titular event are then compared and contrasted through the same historical lens.
Originally published in 1931.
Read
December 10, 2025one of my best subway reads yet
September 8, 2015
Great read form an 'insider' ie. Mr Brandon is a Professor of Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester. great and informative with thousands of references if you want to dig deeper into subject
August 27, 2024
THE FOLLOW-UP TO "JESUS AND THE ZEALOTS”
Samuel George Frederick Brandon (1907-1971) was a British scholar and professor of comparative religion in the University of Manchester; this 1968 book is a sequel of sorts to his 1967 book, 'Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity.'
He wrote in the Preface, "The trial of Jesus was an historical event, having occurred at a particular place and time, and involving other historical persons besides the chief character. But it is invested also with religious significance, since the chief character has been regarded as a divine being, in fact as the Son of God. The records of the trial form part of a sacred literature... In this study, although the approach is strictly historical, a sincere effort has been made to assess the theological issue with sympathetic insight." (Pg. 5)
Of Mark 13:14, he comments, "The word 'abomination' [in Greek] is a neuter noun... But Mark has made the participle masculine, so that it reads, 'standing where HE ought not...' In other words, Mark has identified the Abomination of Desolation... with a man. But who was this man? The words that follow in parenthesis are of the greatest significance: (let him that readeth understand).' Quite clearly Mark thought it indiscreet to make an exact identification in his Gospel; but he had given a sufficient hint for his readers to enable them to make the identification for themselves... we know of only one desecration of the Temple to which the alleged prophesy of Jesus could apply. It occurred in AD 70, when the Romans captured the Temple... the Temple was not only desecrated by [Titus'] act of sacrifice made to the military standards, but by the presence of a man... who 'stood where he ought not.'" (Pg. 72)
He argues, "the Barabbas episode not only interrupts the logical sequence of events from Pilate's interrogation of Jesus to his ordering of his execution, it also presents an incredible situation... We are asked to believe that a tough-minded Roman governor bargained with a Jewish mob for the release of a prisoner in his custody, whom he knew to be innocent. This governor, moreover, possessed a strong military force, capable of backing his decision to release the prisoner, if he so chose... we are told, without explanation, of the chief priests' ability to persuade a crowd, whose support of Jesus a few days before they had so greatly feared, to demand his crucifixion." (Pg. 99)
Of the account in the fourth gospel, he says, "Pilate is also described as having to haggle with the Jewish leaders and people, as though the power of release lay with them, and not with himself... Pilate would have been in far greater danger when the Emperor learned that he had released Barabbas, a rebel leader recently involved in a serious insurrection---that is, if such an incident did in fact ever occur." (Pg. 137)
He asserts, "Mark's account of the trial of Jesus is thus essentially apologetic, not history. But it was successful; for, despite its discrepancies so obvious to the modern historian, it gave Christians of the time what they wanted. The scandal of the Roman cross was explained. The Jews were shown to be criminally responsible for its infliction on Jesus---those Jews, whom the Roman world hated for their fanaticism and rebellion, and on whom condign punishment had fallen in AD 70." (Pg. 141)
He argues, "Jesus first proclaimed his message in Galilee, the home of Judas, the founder of Zealotism, where there was a strong tradition of religious patriotism... It was from among such men that Jesus drew his apostles. One, Simon, was actually a professed Zealot [Mt 10:4, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15]; Peter, an impetuous character, bore the suspicious sobriquet of Barjona ('Terrorist'), while James and John were called ... 'Sons of Thunder.' The fact that one of Jesus' apostles was known specifically as 'the Zealot' has an ambivalent significance. On the one hand, it implies that the rest of the apostles were not professed Zealots... On the other hand, the fact that Jesus chose a Zealot for an apostle means that he saw nothing incompatible between the profession of Zealotism and his own movement." (Pg. 144)
This book will be of considerable interest to those studying the historical Jesus.
Samuel George Frederick Brandon (1907-1971) was a British scholar and professor of comparative religion in the University of Manchester; this 1968 book is a sequel of sorts to his 1967 book, 'Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity.'
He wrote in the Preface, "The trial of Jesus was an historical event, having occurred at a particular place and time, and involving other historical persons besides the chief character. But it is invested also with religious significance, since the chief character has been regarded as a divine being, in fact as the Son of God. The records of the trial form part of a sacred literature... In this study, although the approach is strictly historical, a sincere effort has been made to assess the theological issue with sympathetic insight." (Pg. 5)
Of Mark 13:14, he comments, "The word 'abomination' [in Greek] is a neuter noun... But Mark has made the participle masculine, so that it reads, 'standing where HE ought not...' In other words, Mark has identified the Abomination of Desolation... with a man. But who was this man? The words that follow in parenthesis are of the greatest significance: (let him that readeth understand).' Quite clearly Mark thought it indiscreet to make an exact identification in his Gospel; but he had given a sufficient hint for his readers to enable them to make the identification for themselves... we know of only one desecration of the Temple to which the alleged prophesy of Jesus could apply. It occurred in AD 70, when the Romans captured the Temple... the Temple was not only desecrated by [Titus'] act of sacrifice made to the military standards, but by the presence of a man... who 'stood where he ought not.'" (Pg. 72)
He argues, "the Barabbas episode not only interrupts the logical sequence of events from Pilate's interrogation of Jesus to his ordering of his execution, it also presents an incredible situation... We are asked to believe that a tough-minded Roman governor bargained with a Jewish mob for the release of a prisoner in his custody, whom he knew to be innocent. This governor, moreover, possessed a strong military force, capable of backing his decision to release the prisoner, if he so chose... we are told, without explanation, of the chief priests' ability to persuade a crowd, whose support of Jesus a few days before they had so greatly feared, to demand his crucifixion." (Pg. 99)
Of the account in the fourth gospel, he says, "Pilate is also described as having to haggle with the Jewish leaders and people, as though the power of release lay with them, and not with himself... Pilate would have been in far greater danger when the Emperor learned that he had released Barabbas, a rebel leader recently involved in a serious insurrection---that is, if such an incident did in fact ever occur." (Pg. 137)
He asserts, "Mark's account of the trial of Jesus is thus essentially apologetic, not history. But it was successful; for, despite its discrepancies so obvious to the modern historian, it gave Christians of the time what they wanted. The scandal of the Roman cross was explained. The Jews were shown to be criminally responsible for its infliction on Jesus---those Jews, whom the Roman world hated for their fanaticism and rebellion, and on whom condign punishment had fallen in AD 70." (Pg. 141)
He argues, "Jesus first proclaimed his message in Galilee, the home of Judas, the founder of Zealotism, where there was a strong tradition of religious patriotism... It was from among such men that Jesus drew his apostles. One, Simon, was actually a professed Zealot [Mt 10:4, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15]; Peter, an impetuous character, bore the suspicious sobriquet of Barjona ('Terrorist'), while James and John were called ... 'Sons of Thunder.' The fact that one of Jesus' apostles was known specifically as 'the Zealot' has an ambivalent significance. On the one hand, it implies that the rest of the apostles were not professed Zealots... On the other hand, the fact that Jesus chose a Zealot for an apostle means that he saw nothing incompatible between the profession of Zealotism and his own movement." (Pg. 144)
This book will be of considerable interest to those studying the historical Jesus.
January 11, 2021
A decent, if somewhat dated, read. Not much groundbreaking information here, but the final two chapters do offer an interesting examination of the social, political, and religious atmosphere around the topic.
April 5, 2017
According to Wikipedia, "James Albert Pike (1913–1969) was an American Episcopal bishop, prolific writer, and one of the first mainline religious figures to appear regularly on television.His outspoken, and to some, heretical views on many theological and social issues made him one of the most controversial public figures of his time. He was an early proponent of ordination of women, racial desegregation, and the acceptance of LGBT people within mainline churches." For bishop Pike, this book was the most exciting text which he read since he had decided to study theology. Cardinal Jean Daniélou also had a high opinion about this book, in which professor Brandon skillfully unfolds the historical facts out of the early Christian propaganda and Pauline theology.
Only one trial has captured the imagination of the Western mind in the same way: the trial of Socrates, but that's a subject for another review.
Only one trial has captured the imagination of the Western mind in the same way: the trial of Socrates, but that's a subject for another review.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews