‘The most interesting isolated problem which historical jurisprudence can present’ – such is a characterisation given to the trial of Jesus. The Roman part of it is no exception to this.

The nature of the trial before Pilate is indicated in the introductory terms used by Mark: δήσαντες … παϱέδωϰαν (15: 1). The binding of Jesus is not mentioned in the Second Evangelist's introduction to the Sanhedrin trial, as indeed the fettering of a person who is still only under accusation is unusual. The term implies that Jesus's judicial position was different from that after the arrest, in other words that the deliberation of 15: ia, which sums up the nocturnal events, did not refer to these as a preliminary interrogation but constituted an act that had its procedural consequences. The position is different in John, where Jesus is bound immediately after his arrest (18: 12) and kept fettered during the night (18: 24). The difference is conditioned by the fact that here Jesus is, when taken captive, a ζητoύµενoς, whose fate had already been decided upon – pending the emergence of mitigating circumstances. Mark and John agree in describing Jesus's situation at the beginning of the trial before Pilate as that of a culprit. Matthew follows Mark, whereas Luke omits this detail.

Παϱαδίδωμι is a word that is used in a more general and even half-metaphorical way quite often in Christian language. This secondary usage which is based on reflection on the passion story is, however, not likely at a place where both the traditor and those to whose keeping the culprit is handed over are juridical persons – whatever overtones may be present.