Mark and the others report next that the chief priests and the elders laid a plot to arrest Jesus, but that they feared an uprising by the people. Then they report that Judas Iscariot, for no reason, comes to the chief priests and offers to betray Jesus to them. This offer has caused some readers to speculate that the arrest was actually planned by Jesus and Judas. It's not impossible, and it would explain Judas' later remorse.

Mark and Matthew report another incident when an unnamed woman came into the house where Jesus and the disciples were staying, and anointed Jesus on the head with oil. The disciples were indignant, and grumbled about it:

Luke does not report this story, probably because he has already included the report from document G about the adulterous woman who bathed his feet and anointed them with ointment (Luke 7:36-50). The story here in Mark and Matthew does not identify her as a prostitute, however.

This evening was the passover meal, and the scene is depicted quite vividly. Jesus sends two of the disciples into Jerusalem with instructions to follow a man with a pitcher of water and ask him for a room where Jesus and they can have the meal together. Once they are sitting down to dinner, Jesus speaks to them:

Luke includes at this point the teachings on being a servant which the others report that he said on the occasion of the request by James and John to sit on his right hand and his left hand in Chapter XIV. Luke also includes at this point the verse promising them all thrones in his kingdom; but this verse is doubtful: firstly, because he has never given any indication that he will be a ruler, and secondly, because the verse is not found in Mark, which Luke appears to be copying, and thirdly, although it is also found in Matthew at the point where Jesus is discussing riches and wealth, it is an illogical statement because it includes the TWELVE disciples judging the twelve tribes of Israel, which no longer existed. (Matt.19:28;Luke 22:28-30)

Following this, Mark tells us that they went onto the Mount of Olives to the east of Jerusalem, where he predicts that they will all desert him, and they all promise that they will not:

The next incident is one which shows, if it shows nothing else, that Jesus was a human being, feeling fear of death in the highest degree, and needing to calm and compose himself by prayer before he gets arrested. All of the gospels report that he took Peter, James, and John off to one side, and said to them:

(Mark 14:53-59;Matt.26:57-61;Luke 22:63-68)         Jesus was taken away to the home of the chief priest, whose name, we are told, was Caiaphas. Despite being at night, and the night of the Passover meal, when it was forbidden to hold a trial, all of the Sanhedrin was at the chief priest's house. Peter, we are told, followed them, and sat in the chief priest's courtyard, warming himself by the fire. Witnesses were brought; and testified, but none of their testimony agreed with each other. Some of them reported that he said, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build another made without hands. But Mark says that it was false testimony, and did not agree with the testimony of any other witness. And we must agree that it was false testimony, for we have never heard him say this, even though we have thrice heard him say that the temple would be knocked down, and not one stone left upon another. John's gospel does report him as saying this on the occasion of driving the moneychangers from the temple. So whom should we believe? Mark, who says it was false testimony, or John, who says that he actually said it? Then Caiaphas turned to Jesus to interrogate him:

Meanwhile, in the courtyard, a little dialogue ensued between Peter and one of the maids of the high priest:

Luke now reports the details of the trial, but in a form slightly different from Mark's, and following the denials by Peter instead of preceding them. This is usually interpreted by scholars as a second trial, before the entire Sanhedrin, and in the proper courtyard of the temple. There is no report of the witnesses and their lack of agreement, nor of Jesus being silent, but only the following dialogue:

Now the chief priests and scribes hustle Jesus off to appear before Pilate. Why? The reason is often given that they had no authority under Roman rule to inflict death, however much they may have had the authority to hear cases and inflict other punishments according to the Torah. Matthew inserts a report from somewhere about how Judas tried to return the money and get Jesus released, and when they would not accept it nor release Jesus, he went and hanged himself. Matthew further reports that the chief priests would not use the returned money for temple operations, but bought a field which became known as the field of blood, and cites from the Old Testament to explain all this (Deut.23:18;Zech.11:12-13; Jer.32:6-15)

Once they had Jesus before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, Luke reports that they accused Jesus of perverting their nation:
This is false accusation, since Jesus actually said, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; and he has never said ANYTHING about being a king, or that he plans to lead the Jews against the Romans. But Mark and Matthew do not report this false accusation. Then Pilate asked Jesus if he is a king, and again Jesus gave his evasive answer:

We may have noticed that Luke has a great deal of material during the visit in Jerusalem which is not in any other gospel. This has led some scholars to posit yet another document which only Luke possessed, which is called Document J or the Jerusalem document. I have shown another table at the end of this chapter listing the passages which may have constituted this document.

Mark and Matthew then tell us that as they led Jesus to be crucified, they dressed him in royal garments (again!), and put a crown of thorns upon his head, and made fun of him, saying, Hail, thou king of the Jews! and then spit on him. Then they took off the royal garments, and put his own clothes upon him. But this is unlikely; the Roman soldiers would have been matter-of-fact about it, and would not have sneered at Jesus nor called him something they would not have believed that he could have been, even in scorn.

But many scholars believe that this entire scene was made up by the later Christians, with the intent of exonerating the Romans from the charge of deicide and of putting all the blame on the Jews. The Zealotists believe that the Romans arrested Jesus because he had a large popular following and they thought he was planning an insurrection against Roman rule, and therefore they executed him. But that too is improbable; it is unlikely that Jesus could have been organizing a rebellion and executed for it and that all the teachings in the gospels against violence were invented by the later Christians.

And finally, Jesus has said nothing in the gospels up to this point against the Romans or about throwing them out of Palestine. Nor has he even mentioned Rome or the Romans.