Yes pilate gave the order to have Jesus executed by crucifixion but the gospel accounts are that he was reluctant to do so and only relented to avoid a riot.
We can examine how likely this gospel claim is to be true by comparing to josephus’ account of his brothers death. In this account ananus did not want to wait for the arrival of albinus to ask for James’ execution with the implication being that albinus would not have allowed it. It was the chief priest not the romans that wanted him dead.
If two brothers belonging to the same religion are executed in the same city the natural assumption should always be that the same people wanted to kill each brother.
This is what makes the gospel accounts historically plausible. One should not simply assume that early christian writers wanted to make the romans look good – the writer of revelation certainly didnt.
Robert said
You are still ignoring some extremely important differences. Perhaps you’re forgetting that these two brothers were killed more than 30 years apart from each other, thus not at all by the same people. One brother was Jewish and thought by some to be a very popular royal pretender, ie, a capital crime against Rome, and he was crucified by the Roman prefect and his soldiers by means of a Roman form of execution. The other brother was part of a new sect persecuted by traditional Jews because of its continued belief in a thoroughly humiliated failed messiah; this brother committed no crime against Rome, let alone a capital crime and he was executed by a high priest with a traditional Jewish form of execution. The manifold and profound differences negate your assumptions.
Are you suggesting that one of the manifold and profound differences was that Jesus was Jewish and James was part of a new sect? Was James not Jewish? Did he have a profoundly different religious outlook than his brother?
The only profound difference is that Jesus was executed by Roman command. The gospels provide an explanation for this difference. You haven’t given a reason to doubt this explanation. Why is it unreasonable for pilate to agree to execute Jesus solely to avoid a riot? Josephus is full of accounts where the Romans gave in to Jewish religious sensitivities, even Pilate himself.
A couple of comparisons that might have influenced the gospel description of the means of Jesus’ death or might be coincidental:
The wood of the cross parallels the wood upon which Isaac would have been sacraficed. Isaac carried his wood, Jesus carried his own cross.
John amends his gospel to portray Jesus as the sacrificial lamb hung up the day before passover: in John 3 the fate of the Son of Man is compared to Moses raising the serpent (nachash) on a pole to save the people from the bites of the seraphim (“burning ones”, another Hebrew term for serpents). In exodus Moses’ staff/crook (presumably wooden) is turned into nachash – same term as used for serpent in Eden.
brenmcg said
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.
Can anyone invoke Ananus without snickering? Even a little?
Brenmcg:
I am amazed that you consider the gospels to be, well, the gospel truth. If the gospels say that Pilate was forced into crucifying Jesus by the crowds, how can we dispute that?
The fact is that Pilate was a pretty tough cookie, one who could slay his subjects with some abandon. And you seemingly gloss over one compelling piece of evidence: that “King of the Jews” was posted above Jesus’ cross.
Me? I think Jesus was planning on the Kingdom of God arriving imminently and most likely intended to foster that with a little armed insurrection. You can see traces of that when some disciple struck off the ear of one of the entourage coming to arrest Jesus. And when Luke reports that Jesus wants each disciple to buy a sword.
I would suggest that the contemporary historical situation also needs to be considered. The Roman military presence in Judaea was not overly large at this period with its force required to garrison the entire province. It also consisted only of auxiliary troops. The governor went to Jerusalem from Caesarea during Jewish festivals bringing extra troops to supplement the Antonia garrison should trouble break out as Jewish feelings were prone to run high at festivals when the city would have had a influx of pilgrims from surrounding regions. As one of the most important festivals, Passover with all its connotations of deliverance from oppression and with the city doubling [if not more] its population, made for a particularly potentially volatile situation.
The gospel of Mark also tells us there had been an uprising. For Pilate the situation could quickly deteriorate into a full scale rebellion if things were not checked and he knew that to get additional support from the legions would need a message to be sent to Antioch where the Legate of Syria resided. The Legate would then have to send a message to Raphanea, the closest legionary garrison to Judaea, for those troops to mobilise and then march. All of that took time. Meanwhile in Jerusalem the situation could have deteriorated to the point it did some 30 years later when the entire Roman garrison was wiped out.
However, for the first years of Pilate’s governorship Vitellius was not in post as Legate of Syria until 35 CE [it seems Tiberius had some notions of centralised government]. Hence prior to that date had any serious trouble broken out in Judaea it would either have required a senior Roman officer in Antioch to [effectively] act ultra vires or a message would have had to be sent to Rome to get the Legate’s authorisation.
Whatever we think of Pilate he was clearly capable in Rome’s eyes as he stayed in post for some ten years. As for Jesus of Nazareth, claiming or being acclaimed as the Jewish Messiah was a capital crime and so Pilate made the decision to execute the ringleader [with possibly two of his band] and effectively nip in the bud any possible further trouble.
Flosshilda said
I would suggest that the contemporary historical situation also needs to be considered. The Roman military presence in Judaea was not overly large at this period with its force required to garrison the entire province. It also consisted only of auxiliary troops. The governor went to Jerusalem from Caesarea during Jewish festivals bringing extra troops to supplement the Antonia garrison should trouble break out as Jewish feelings were prone to run high at festivals when the city would have had a influx of pilgrims from surrounding regions. As one of the most important festivals, Passover with all its connotations of deliverance from oppression and with the city doubling [if not more] its population, made for a particularly potentially volatile situation.The gospel of Mark also tells us there had been an uprising. For Pilate the situation could quickly deteriorate into a full scale rebellion if things were not checked and he knew that to get additional support from the legions would need a message to be sent to Antioch where the Legate of Syria resided. The Legate would then have to send a message to Raphanea, the closest legionary garrison to Judaea, for those troops to mobilise and then march. All of that took time. Meanwhile in Jerusalem the situation could have deteriorated to the point it did some 30 years later when the entire Roman garrison was wiped out.
However, for the first years of Pilate’s governorship Vitellius was not in post as Legate of Syria until 35 CE [it seems Tiberius had some notions of centralised government]. Hence prior to that date had any serious trouble broken out in Judaea it would either have required a senior Roman officer in Antioch to [effectively] act ultra vires or a message would have had to be sent to Rome to get the Legate’s authorisation.
Whatever we think of Pilate he was clearly capable in Rome’s eyes as he stayed in post for some ten years. As for Jesus of Nazareth, claiming or being acclaimed as the Jewish Messiah was a capital crime and so Pilate made the decision to execute the ringleader [with possibly two of his band] and effectively nip in the bud any possible further trouble.
Good stuff.
I like the Gospel version – Jesus was condemned and crucified for nothing. He came to Jerusalem, there was some banal incident. As usual, instead of keeping things tidy, the guards were keeping an eye on the shadows. They did not see the altercation and did not intervene. The merchant got pissed off and complained in the temple. He exaggerated the allegations that no one could check. The commander of the guard was scolded and took the matter personally. He grabbed Jesus and handed him over to the Romans, exaggerating once again his guilt. The Romans translated the charges into Roman law and crucified him, unaware of what was actually going on. The heartbreaking story seems plausible to me and extremely popular among people. Of course, the evangelists were skeptical and added swords, prophecies about which they read in the writings of FJ. Probably some of them suspected that Jesus did commit the crime of the state. Chinese whispers…
Jarek said
I like the Gospel version – Jesus was condemned and crucified for nothing. He came to Jerusalem, there was some banal incident. As usual, instead of keeping things tidy, the guards were keeping an eye on the shadows. They did not see the altercation and did not intervene. The merchant got pissed off and complained in the temple. He exaggerated the allegations that no one could check. The commander of the guard was scolded and took the matter personally. He grabbed Jesus and handed him over to the Romans, exaggerating once again his guilt. The Romans translated the charges into Roman law and crucified him, unaware of what was actually going on. The heartbreaking story seems plausible to me and extremely popular among people. Of course, the evangelists were skeptical and added swords, prophecies about which they read in the writings of FJ. Probably some of them suspected that Jesus did commit the crime of the state. Chinese whispers…
I would suggest that [again if we accept the gospel accounts] a charismatic figure arriving from Galilee [with all its historical implications] with a band of followers would have alerted the Roman authorities. We also need to bear in mind that like all Imperial powers Rome had an intelligence service. It would therefore be quite surprising if Pilate did not have on his staff persons comparable to the later agentes, not to mention paid informers.
Flosshilda said
Jarek said
I like the Gospel version – Jesus was condemned and crucified for nothing. He came to Jerusalem, there was some banal incident. As usual, instead of keeping things tidy, the guards were keeping an eye on the shadows. They did not see the altercation and did not intervene. The merchant got pissed off and complained in the temple. He exaggerated the allegations that no one could check. The commander of the guard was scolded and took the matter personally. He grabbed Jesus and handed him over to the Romans, exaggerating once again his guilt. The Romans translated the charges into Roman law and crucified him, unaware of what was actually going on. The heartbreaking story seems plausible to me and extremely popular among people. Of course, the evangelists were skeptical and added swords, prophecies about which they read in the writings of FJ. Probably some of them suspected that Jesus did commit the crime of the state. Chinese whispers…
I would suggest that [again if we accept the gospel accounts] a charismatic figure arriving from Galilee [with all its historical implications] with a band of followers would have alerted the Roman authorities. We also need to bear in mind that like all Imperial powers Rome had an intelligence service. It would therefore be quite surprising if Pilate did not have on his staff persons comparable to the later agentes, not to mention paid informers.
[again if we accept the gospel accounts]…We have a big story and a real story. It is known which will win the competition among the audience. The Gospel story is brilliant – crucified for nothing.
I would suggest that [again if we accept the gospel accounts] a charismatic figure arriving from Galilee [with all its historical implications] with a band of followers would have alerted the Roman authorities. We also need to bear in mind that like all Imperial powers Rome had an intelligence service. It would therefore be quite surprising if Pilate did not have on his staff persons comparable to the later agentes, not to mention paid informers.
Because of the New Testament the tendency is assume the activities of Jesus and his disciples would have been the focus of attention. It’s extremely hard to make ancient population estimates but a conservative figure would be that Jerusalem would have normally sustained approximately 25,000 people. During Passover the population might have swelled to five times that? Say 125,000 maybe? This explains the Roman military presence but realistically how many people would have even been aware that Jesus and his followers were present? The gospels are almost certainly exaggerating. The irony is that these fateful events that shaped the history of the next 2000 years were probably noticed by very few people at the time.
Stephen said
I would suggest that [again if we accept the gospel accounts] a charismatic figure arriving from Galilee [with all its historical implications] with a band of followers would have alerted the Roman authorities. We also need to bear in mind that like all Imperial powers Rome had an intelligence service. It would therefore be quite surprising if Pilate did not have on his staff persons comparable to the later agentes, not to mention paid informers.Because of the New Testament the tendency is assume the activities of Jesus and his disciples would have been the focus of attention. It’s extremely hard to make ancient population estimates but a conservative figure would be that Jerusalem would have normally sustained approximately 25,000 people. During Passover the population might have swelled to five times that? Say 125,000 maybe? This explains the Roman military presence but realistically how many people would have even been aware that Jesus and his followers were present? The gospels are almost certainly exaggerating. The irony is that these fateful events that shaped the history of the next 2000 years were probably noticed by very few people at the time.
I do not think they would necessarily have been the “focus of attention”, but I suspect they were known to the Roman authorities even if the Triumphal Entry was in reality something far less dramatic.
We are also told in the four canonical gospels of a disturbance at the Temple. What that actually entailed remains unknown.
Flosshilda said
We are also told in the four canonical gospels of a disturbance at the Temple. What that actually entailed remains unknown.
In the Gospel of John the disturbance at the Temple occurs early in the narrative, in John 2:13-17 to be precise. Afterwards Jesus attends at least 2 other festivals at the Temple before the final Passover visit . For John, at least, the disturbance does not appear to be the proximate cause of the crucifixion.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert