John Kilgallen, «Jesus’ First Trial: Messiah and Son of God (Luke 22,66-71)», Vol. 80 (1999) 401-414

Luke, according to the Two-Source Theory, read Mark. At the first trial of Jesus, that before the Sanhedrin, Mark has together, "Messiah, Son of God". Luke has intentionally separated the two titles. The present essay finds the explanation for separating Son of God from Messiah in the Annunciation scene of the Gospel. It is Luke’s intention that the reader understand Son of God in a way that admittedly the Sanhedrin did not. The laws of narratology indicate that Luke 1,35, a part of the Lucan introduction, be used by the reader to interpret Son of God at Luke 22,70.

identification serves as an introduction, with all that "introduction" means, as the rules of narratology would indicate.

        In a similar, though not identical way, the repetition of the Annunciation structure in the trial structure suggests the following. First, since we are at the beginning of the legal process which will bring Jesus to death, this structure is meant to prepare the reader for the fuller appreciation of the identity of the one to be condemned. Second, the identifications of this person as Messiah and Son of Man should be clearly maintained; they are not synonyms, and are not to be exchanged one for the other without clear understanding of their irreducible differences. Third, while Luke suggests that the titles are not synonymous by his very separating them (contrary to Mark’s style), the three-step procedure of the trial, in that it is a conscious imitation and repetition of the Annunciation structure, indicates that the reason the titles are not synonymous is to be found in the introduction to the entire Gospel identification of Jesus: the Annunciation. Because of the repetition of the structure regarding Messiah-Son of God, we are forced to look back to the first example of the structure in order to bring forward the teaching of its story to the story in which we find the structure repeated.

        The Beginning is the Trial

        I have assumed that the two examples of parallel structure described above are both "beginnings". It is easy to see that the Annunciation can be called a "beginning", for it is the first scene to define the person Jesus. Can the trial before the Sanhedrin be rightly called a "beginning"? There are a number of points in the Gospel at which one learns that Jesus is to die. Perhaps the clearest beginning point is Luke’s rephrasing of Mark: "They were filled with rage (= foolishness) and began to discuss among themselves what they might do to Jesus" (Luke 6,11). Other moments which alert the reader to Jesus’ death are certainly Jesus’ own prophecies (Luke 9,22.44; 18,32-33) and his ominous words to open his Last Supper, "I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" (Luke 22,15). And one usually includes in the story of Jesus’ suffering such stories as Jesus’ agony in the Garden and the denials of Peter. But, if one really wishes to point up the formal, legal beginning of Jesus’ journey to death, one must go to his trials, and specifically to the first, that before the Sanhedrin. From this point of view, the trial before the Sanhedrin is a true beginning, and can be looked upon as analogous to the Annunciation scene, which