Timfromnewyork said
What crimes did Jesus actually commit against Rome that was enough to get him crucified? Crucifixion was usually for treason. But there’s no real historical evidence that Jesus commited treason our lead any kind of rebellion against Rome.
I suspect Jesus was arrested and condemned because of the incident at the Temple. Any disturbance or protest at the Temple would have been considered a tacit attack on the collaborative Temple system itself and would have been quite enough for the Romans any time but especially at Passover. The Temple Guard arrested Jesus and turned him over to the Romans. That’s what I think likely happened historically.
Stephen, do you think that Jesus considered himself to be some kind of royal Davidic figure, a Messiah of some sort?
The association seems foundational enough to the tradition to make it seem likely. But of course that raises the question of what he might have meant by “Messiah”? Given one of the more popular definitions it wouldn’t have been surprising that the Romans translated the idea into the King of the Jews. (It might also explain why James is suddenly at the head of the Jerusalem community if Jesus’ family were already honored in some way.)
Timfromnewyork said
What crimes did Jesus actually commit against Rome that was enough to get him crucified? Crucifixion was usually for treason. But there’s no real historical evidence that Jesus commited treason our lead any kind of rebellion against Rome.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy (well received by professional editorial reviewers–4 stars, with one reviewer I lost the 5-star rating because as a self-publisher, I did not put a 5-star effort into my book cover)
Tim,
Consider this historical context. Here is a quote from my book where I quote how Pilate gave another, the Samaritan Restorer/Redeemer, capital punishment.
The nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence and who contrived everything so that the multitude might be pleased; so, he bade them get together upon Mount Gerizim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains and assured them that when they arrived, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place because Moses put them there.
[Since Moses himself never came beyond Jordan, nor particularly to Mount Gerizim, and since these Samaritans have a tradition among them … that in the days of Uzzi or Ozis the high priest (1 Chr. 6:6), the ark and other sacred vessels were, by God’s command, laid up or hidden in Mount Gerizim, it is highly probable that this was the foolish foundation the present Samaritans went upon in the sedition here described…]
So they arrived armed and thought the discourse of the man probable. As they abode at a certain village called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together. But Pilate prevented their going up by seizing upon the roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village. When they came to an action, some of them they slew, others they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of whom and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.
When the tumult was over, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed. Vitellius ordered Pilate to Rome to answer before the emperor to the accusation of the Jews. Before Pilate made it to Rome, [Emperor] Tiberius died.
Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews Chapter 4, Sections 1 and 2, 85-89, p. 482.
= = =
Apparently, this was no ordinary religious field trip because those who met with the Samaritan Restorer/Redeemer to see the sacred vessels of Moses arrived armed.
Jesus staged a reconstruction of a new king entering Jerusalem.
32Then King David said, “Call in for me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada.” So they came before the king. 33“Take my servants with you,” said the king. “Set my son Solomon on my own mule and take him down to Gihon. 34There Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet are to anoint him king over Israel. You are to blow the ram’s horn and declare, ‘Long live King Solomon!
Jesus staged a commotion at the Temple.
Jesus’ Conclusion: I’m the new king and there are going to be some changes here. Bring those who do not want me king and kill them before me. (See Luke 19:27 for the exact quote.)
Furthermore, King Herod the Great set an example of how a governor in Galilee and Judea is supposed to behave under the Roman Empire. Yes, Rome did not give him permission to kill his son Antipater who was to be his successor; but, in many other respects, he was a good king by the checklist Emperor Augustus Caesar.
Jesus no where near had the approval of Rome, the background, and worthy experience that Herod the Great had.
Robert said
Not likely. The stoning of James and his companions is presented by Josephus as a very unusual and illegal event, frowned upon by other Jews. Jesus’ crucifixion and the titulus on the cross indicate a Roman punishment since “King of the Jews” is not a Christian title or confession of Jesus. The involvement of the Sanhedrin in Jesus’ death is debated by historians. I personally think it was involved but note that the Sanhedrin was actually a Roman aristocratic institution imposed on the Jews by Rome as a means of replacing or at least limiting local dynastic power. If the Sanhedrin was involved it was most likely performing its assigned duty of opposing a usurper to the throne contrary to Roman law.
Extremely likely. James was the leader of a religious movement founded by his brother. Both were executed. The stoning of the brother was at the behest of the chief priest for breaking the mosaic law (against Roman wishes).
The gospels tell us Jesus was crucified at the behest of the chief priest for breaking the mosaic law. And that the Roman authority initially refused but backed down to avoid a riot.
The difference in Roman response between the request to execute Jesus and the desire to execute the brother is that Judea was now thirty years closer to insurrection. Rome now less inclined to give in to avoid a riot.
The gospel accounts fit in excellently with Josephus’ narratives and also Paul’s own admission of persecuting the early church.
There’s no reason to doubt them.
Is it not possible that lots of established people of the time, particularly those who had managed to make a relatively comfortable niche for themselves, found the emerging “cult of Christianity” to be rather annoying and distracting, and had a variety of reasons for doing what they could to dispense with it?
Robert said
You’re forgetting that in Josephus’ account of the stoning of James, Roman authority was not even consulted.
Josephus says the chief priest took advantage of a break in roman rule to have James executed. The implication is that they wouldnt have hiven permission.
Paul does not say that he crucified Christians for breaking Mosaic law. What narratives of Josephus are you referring to here? Do you imagine that an original core of the Testamonium Flavianum supports your view that Pilate had Jesus crucified for breaking the Mosaic law?
Paul persecuted early christians for the faith he was now promoting. He was doing that as someone who had veen “zealous for law”.
Im referring to Josephus’ account of the execution of James and his comrades. It wasnt Rome that wanted James dead.
You’ve yet to recognize the importance of the fact that, unlike James, Jesus was condemned by Pilate and crucified with a claim that he was King of the Jews.
He was condemned by Pilate only at the behest of the chief priests. Pilate had no reason to kill Jesus himself. “King of the Jews” just means king if israel. Which is what a claim to be the messiah is. This is just the charge the chief priests asked Pilate to condemn him for.
The gospels account of jesus execution and josephus’ account of his brothers execution both agree that the desire to execute them came from the chief priests – not the romans.
The point is that the gospels potray pilate as bejng reluctant to kill jesus and that it was only at the instigation of the chief priests, and pilate giving in to avoid a riot.
The question is then how well does josephus’ account of james’ death back up that version? In James’ execution again we have the romans not wanting to execute him and the instigation ckming from the chief priest.
Why is rome less reluctant to give in and avoid a riot? Because relations are breaking down and theyre heading for an uprising anyway.
Robert said
It’s a false comparison. Albinus was not yet even in the region yet, let alone in Jerusalem. He is not reluctant; he isn’t even there.
Josephus describes Ananus as being a zealot for the law who found he now had a proper opportunity. This opportunity being a hiatus in Roman rule. Festus being dead and Albinus being upon the road. This was Ananus’ opportunity to have James sentenced to death and executed. The implication being that the Romans wouldn’t have allowed it.
And upon finding out, Albinus did not congratulate Albinus on a job well done in executing an enemy of Rome. He threathened Albinus and king agrippa thereupon removed him from power.
This fits in well with the gospel accounts of the execution james’ brother, where it is not the Romans that want him killed but the sanhedrin.
And fits in with Pauls self description of being a zealot for the law and persecuting early christians.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)