Jesus on Trial: A Study of the Gospels.

Jesus on Trial: A Study of the Gospels. By Gerard S. Sloyan. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2006. Pp. vii + 159. Paper, $18.00.

This second edition of Gerard Sloyan's original work, previously entitled Jesus on Trial: The Development of the Passion Narratives and Their Historical and Ecumenical Implications, is offered after an interim of thirty-three years. The primary question that must be asked by any reader is, why a second edition after so many years? In brief, the second edition does not contain the original editorial introduction by John Reumann which this reviewer found very effective for framing the original book. Also, the new edition has minimal textual additions and limited addendums to both bibliography and notes. That being stated, one way to approach this second edition is not for its updated contributions, but rather to assess the perduring questions it asks about biblical interpretation and the history of Jewish-Christian relations.

The problem, as Sloyan describes it, is that Christians have held to a dogmatic dependence and overt historicizing of canonical Scripture. As a result, Sloyan argues, "The literal interpretation of symbolic material--in other words taking metaphor for fact--has probably caused more harm than any other practice in religious life. This seems to be the case in the trial narratives" (p. 12). In place of these uncritical readings, Sloyan proposes that a close form-critical analysis of the Gospels' trial narratives can best approximate the sources used by the Gospel writers, thereby bypassing the theological, apologetic, and polemical considerations of the Gospels. However, Sloyan cautions that getting behind the Gospels to their original sources does not necessarily bring the exegete to the historical reality of the trial but rather, he concludes, "whatever is found in some form in various sources of the Gospels has historical likelihood on its side" (p. 99). This is Sloyan's primary methodological disposition.

The book begins with an introductory chapter surveying scholarly reconstructions and biases of the trial narrative, but as noted above the material is both limited and dated. The second chapter, entitled "What Roman Law Allowed," positions the reader to engage the canonical trial narratives against their political and cultural backgrounds. This strategy facilitates Sloyan's contention that the trial narratives must be read as a later stage in Christian apologetic and theological myth-making, especially in light of his reconstruction of the Pilate of Jewish history (as recounted in Philo and Josephus) and the Pilate of the Gospels.

Sloyan constructs his form-critical analysis of the Gospels in chapters three through six as he examines the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John respectively. In this section he notes three trajectories behind the Gospels: (1) a pre-Markan source; (2) a Lukan source that predates Mark's source and appears to have contained "soberer and less dramatized accounts of the same events" (p. 54); and (3) a Johannine Semeia-Quelle as argued for by Robert Fortna (1970). No source considerations are made for Matthew based on Sloyan's assessment of Matthew's sole reliance on Mark as regards the trial narrative.

In the final chapter Sloyan draws the following conclusion from his form-critical analyses of Mark, Luke, and John: "There were very clear reminiscences among Jesus' disciples of both sexes that two power blocs, Temple and empire, conspired to eliminate Jesus, each from a slightly different motive" (p. 107). Interestingly, Sloyan acknowledges that, as relates to Jewish-Christian relations, the laying of blame on a very small faction of the Jewish Temple leadership (in conjunction with Roman authorities) "would provide modern Jews no relief whatever. Critical scholarship seems to be of no use in reducing Christian-Jewish tensions" (p. 108). What Sloyan suggests as a first step towards a more reflective and compassionate relationship is a Christian focus on Jesus' "acceptance of death, the universal lot, and his resurrection from the dead by the power of God" rather than focusing on the mode of his death and those who may have participated in carrying it out.

The question of how to improve Jewish-Christian relations remains as timely today as ever. For this, Sloyan is to be congratulated for asking the question, again. However, the work could have benefited much from a comprehensive updating of the decades of research and methodological advancements since its first offering. Nevertheless, this work presents a timely and acute challenge to those who would frame inter-religious relations through the lens of Christian Scripture.

David A. Sanchez

Loyola Marymount University 

Los Angeles, CA 90045