This is something I’ve been thinking about for some time now, but I’ve never heard anyone (any scholar, or anyone else, for that matter) really go into or point out as being very important.
I watched a video on YouTube of Dale Martin (Yale – friend of Bart Ehrman’s) giving a lecture on what we can know about the historical Jesus (video’s not hard to find if you just search “Dale Martin, historical Jesus”. Towards the end of the video, he says that most scholars widely agree that there really was a sign on Jesus’ cross that read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” (he gave some historical reasons on how we know that (multiple attestation, criteria of dissimilarity).
He moves on from that as if it’s not all that important. It may seem like not a big deal (a sign was on his cross, so what?), but the more I thought about it, the more I think this might really be important.
The only way (the *only* way) that this would be historical is if someone saw it and then passed it on. But not only that, we know that whomever they told, that person was *also* interested enough to continue to pass it on.
If Jesus really was just some small town preacher not known or important to very many people, there were only a few people (maybe a bit more than a dozen) who really were interested in him enough to tell stories about him after his death. The most likely people to share this story would have been his disciples sharing this detail to new converts (who were the ones who continued to pass it on).
I think if the sign on the cross really is historical (and it seems as though it is) then this would mean that, most probably, one or more of Jesus’ own followers were at the foot of the cross and saw the sign and passed on the detail to new converts.
And that’s where I think even more questions begin to be raised if that’s something that’s true. If Jesus’ followers (even just one) was literally at the foot of the cross at his death and passed on *this* detail (the sign), then what *else* might they have passed on? Maybe they could have passed on the detail of the burial (which is attested in three independent sources if you include the Gospel of Peter). Maybe they passed on the tradition of the women going to the tomb. If they stayed for the crucifixion (which it would seem they probably did) how much longer did they stay?
I’m not saying that the whole Gospel story is true just because there was a sign on the cross – all I’m saying is there are some very interesting questions that I think scholars should consider. I’ve read and heard scholars say that most of these stories weren’t reported by eye-witnesses but were stories that were changed and formed over decades. Well, if we have an eyewitness at the foot of the cross who at least passed on *one* detail, who’s to say he/she didn’t pass on other details, and these details would be details involving (what I think everyone would agree are) the most important and crucial events, his death, and *whatever* happened immediately after his death (maybe nothing, then again, maybe not).
What do you all think? Is this an important detail that does raise interesting questions? Or is this just what it seems to be, a wooden sign pointing nowhere important?
I certainly don’t have any expertise! But what I’ve been assuming is that there was always a placard on a cross, stating the offense for which the person was being crucified. If so, even if no one at all close to Jesus witnessed his crucifixion, his followers would have known what the placard had said. A claim (true or not) that he’d called himself the future King of the Jews was probably the only “capital” charge that could have been brought against him.
A further thought: The main issue here, of course, is whether crosses always bore those placards. But if they did, there’s a secondary issue – whether Jesus’s followers would have known the exact charge that had been made against him without seeing the placard.
On that secondary issue: Dr. Ehrman thinks that Jesus’s having – in private, among his own disciples – called himself the future King of the Jews was what Judas actually betrayed. If he’s correct, the disciples surely would have known that was the charge.
Hi,
Have you ever noticed that, without this placard story, it is not really clear exactly why Jesus was crucified?
Why? Why were the gospels written like this? Why was it necessary to clarify the reason for Jesus’s crucifixion in the placard story? Why wasn’t this point clarified elsewhere in the gospels?
While I don’t know the answer to these questions, it certainly gives me reason to question whether this placard story really was historical.
Perhaps, for example, this may have been how this placard story came about.
Early on, during the developing oral tradition, it occurred to some early proto-Christians who were telling others the story of Jesus that it was unclear as to exactly why Jesus was crucified. As a result of this, at some point, some early proto-Christian began telling this placard story to clarify this issue.
I have no idea how this placard story actually originated and I’m not saying that what I wrote above is what actually occurred, however, because of these issues, I do have some doubts about it being historical.
Personally I don’t think it matters what the placard might have said. What does it change one way or the other? The fact that placards were sometimes used is not in dispute. They’re known from antiquity and were called a titulus. In “Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World” John Grainger Cook says a magistrate would read the condemned’s sentence from the titulus and it may or may not have been place over the crucified (he references a number of sources on this).
** you do not have permission to see this link ** – One of the reasons historians think the sign is really historical is because the title “King of the Jews” was not a title that later Christians traditionally used to describe Jesus. They had some confessional titles that they did use to describe him (Lord, Christ, ect.), but “King of the Jews” was not one of these, so the thought among scholars is that it probably wasn’t any sort of Christian confessional statement that they used to refer to Jesus, but more likely it probably really was how the sign read (it helps that all four Gospels, including John, attest to the detail).
I actually have my own theory on this that I’ve just started thinking of (I was going to save it for a new topic, but here works as well). I wonder if maybe Jesus really did call himself the Messiah along with doing some things that angered the Jewish leadership.
But when the Jewish leaders told Pilate that Jesus was calling himself the Messiah, Pilate didn’t fully understand what a Messiah was, nor did he really care (this fits perfectly with what we know about Pilate’s personality in Philo and Josephus). So when Pilate was listening to them, a Messiah sounded sort of like a King to him and he didn’t really care what the difference was so he just put “King of the Jews” because it sounded to him like that’s what they meant (in this situation, Pilate’s statement in John 19: “What I have written I have written.” makes perfect sense, not that it’s necessarily historical – it just fits well).
The only problem with this view is that I don’t think simply claiming to be the Messiah was a capital offense. Jesus needed to have done something else. Historians seem to disagree on whether or not he caused on scene in the temple or if he entered Jerusalem on a donkey. It seems consistent though (from what I can tell) that he probably made a claim to be able to destroy the temple and then rebuild it. Perhaps he made this claim, along with claiming to be the Messiah, and this is what caused the Jews to want him executed.
The Sign on Jesus’ Cross was theologically important for two reasons.
One important reason was because it was in accordance with one of the major messianic prophecies – Isaiah 11.
Isaiah 11 opens like this: A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
Then in Isaiah 11:12, it says: He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
The other important theological reason for the sign was to symbolize that Pilate had finally changed his mind. To understand what this last means one must also understand what the source for the Passion story realy was. But, I do not think it’s time to reveal it right now.
Luke9733 said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** – “He will raise a signal for the nations” is a prophecy for someone else putting a sign on his cross stating what he was charged with? I think that’s a bit of a stretch. I think the sign is probably historical.
I was trying to refrain from jumping back in this 
but you are correct in my opinion. I was reading commentary on that chapter of Isaiah today and the feeling is that, if we are to go with the pat answer that “Jesus” is the fulfillment of virtually every bit of “prophecy” in the OT then Jesus himself is the signal to the nations, that he will be the beacon to which the lost tribes will return. As we know, that never happened.
Concerning the Pilate comment: that smacks of believing that Pilate was sympathetic to Jesus.
What I incine to believe about the placard itself – re some crosses having been in X shape – is that Roman crosses usually were a T shape, and usually did have a placard attached that spelled out the crime. While I think a few (female?) followers of Jesus might have witnessed the crucifixion, I also think tradition could have included that placard regardless of whether anyone actually saw one. Jesus’s supposedly having called himself the future “King of the Jews” – whether or not he actually did – may have been the only capital offense he could conceivably have been charged with.
I think he may “merely” have called himself the Messiah – which could be interpreted in a number of ways (though originally, it did indeed mean a king). I think the priests may have made an issue of someone’s calling himself the Messiah only when they really wanted the Romans to execute him for another reason. And I think that after the ruckus in the Temple, they (probably wrongly) believed Jesus guilty of blasphemy.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** – I agree, I think it Jesus actually really doesn’t fit the OT prophecies very well (no matter how much the NT writers wanted him to).
** you do not have permission to see this link ** – I’ve been re-reading the trial narratives (all of them), and I think I may have hit on something. First, before I get into this, I should say that I do not think any disciples were at the trials (either one, before the Sanhedrin or before Pilate) and I don’t think they had access to anyone who knew what happened at the trials (or any writings or court records from the trials). I think the disciples started the stories by just guessing about what was said at both trials.
With all that said, when you read the trial narratives, they have one striking consistency – the Sanhedrin did not charge Jesus with calling himself “King of the Jews”, but in all four Gospels, Pilate’s only question to Jesus was “Are you King of the Jews?” If the disciples weren’t at the trials and don’t actually know what happened, why would they have passed on the stories this way?
Actually, the explanation seems pretty simple. For the trial before the Sanhedrin, the disciples were not at the trial, but they *were* at the arrest. So they could have known the reason (or reasons) for Jesus’ initial arrest and could have known that the Jewish leaders weren’t arresting him for calling himself “King of the Jews”.
My explanation for them thinking Pilate asked Jesus “Are you the King of the Jews” is even more simple – some of them (at least one of them) saw the sign, and the sign read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”. So they knew that this is what Pilate ultimately charged him with, but at the same time, they knew that this was not the reasoning for him initially being arrested by the Jewish leaders.
I’ve actually revised my views of why I think Jesus was arrested. I think he said/did three things: 1. He claimed to be the Messiah. 2. He claimed to be able to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days (this is actually very well attested – it’s even in the Gospel of Thomas). And 3. I think he really did drive out merchants in the Temple.
I think these three things are why the Jewish leaders were alarmed and wanted to arrest him. Pilate didn’t understand what a Messiah was, didn’t really care and just put “King of the Jews” and sent him to the cross (I think, at least).
Luke9733 said
The only way (the *only* way) that this would be historical is if someone saw it and then passed it on. But not only that, we know that whomever they told, that person was *also* interested enough to continue to pass it on.
If Jesus really was just some small town preacher not known or important to very many people, there were only a few people (maybe a bit more than a dozen) who really were interested in him enough to tell stories about him after his death. The most likely people to share this story would have been his disciples sharing this detail to new converts (who were the ones who continued to pass it on).
How is it that Romans soldiers or the Prefect wouldn’t have passed along these details? After all, the charge was high treason and the Romans took it seriously enough to mete out a severe punishment. It’s not difficult to believe that Romans may have warned their slaves against practicing this treasonous religion and if it was common in crucifixions to post the charge overhead, I don’t see an issue with those thoughts comming together.
“Actually, the explanation seems pretty simple. For the trial before the Sanhedrin, the disciples were not at the trial, but they *were* at the arrest.”
Here, I think your assuming the modern custom of informing someone of the charge against them. This wasn’t always the
case and I doubt it was at the time of the arrest. Further, your confusing the idea that there’s no evidence for the disciples
at the execution with the idea that they were not actually there. The reality is we don’t know and that it is, based on what little we do know, likely that they were not.
“Here, I think your assuming the modern custom of informing someone of the charge against them. This wasn’t always the case and I doubt it was at the time of the arrest.”
It seems likely to me that charges against Jesus may well have been written and hung on a scrap above his head as a warning to anyone else who might dare declare himself king.
It seems likely to me, as well, that the disciples were not there, and not even the disciple whom Jesus loved though he may have been among the women who watched from afar. Common sense tells me they were hiding, fearing the same fate.
willow said
“Here, I think your assuming the modern custom of informing someone of the charge against them. This wasn’t always the case and I doubt it was at the time of the arrest.”
It seems likely to me that charges against Jesus may well have been written and hung on a scrap above his head as a warning to anyone else who might dare declare himself king.
It seems likely to me, as well, that the disciples were not there, and not even the disciple whom Jesus loved though he may have been among the women who watched from afar. Common sense tells me they were hiding, fearing the same fate.
In Hebrew Matthew, the sign says “Jesus, King of ISRAEL”. As it does several lines later in the Greek. Hebrew is the original, the Greek was the anti-Semitic altered report. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Why this is significant is that John the Baptist is a savior in the text of Matthew.
Luke9733 said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** – I agree, I think it Jesus actually really doesn’t fit the OT prophecies very well (no matter how much the NT writers wanted him to).** you do not have permission to see this link ** – I’ve been re-reading the trial narratives (all of them), and I think I may have hit on something. First, before I get into this, I should say that I do not think any disciples were at the trials (either one, before the Sanhedrin or before Pilate) and I don’t think they had access to anyone who knew what happened at the trials (or any writings or court records from the trials). I think the disciples started the stories by just guessing about what was said at both trials.
With all that said, when you read the trial narratives, they have one striking consistency – the Sanhedrin did not charge Jesus with calling himself “King of the Jews”, but in all four Gospels, Pilate’s only question to Jesus was “Are you King of the Jews?” If the disciples weren’t at the trials and don’t actually know what happened, why would they have passed on the stories this way?
Actually, the explanation seems pretty simple. For the trial before the Sanhedrin, the disciples were not at the trial, but they *were* at the arrest. So they could have known the reason (or reasons) for Jesus’ initial arrest and could have known that the Jewish leaders weren’t arresting him for calling himself “King of the Jews”.
My explanation for them thinking Pilate asked Jesus “Are you the King of the Jews” is even more simple – some of them (at least one of them) saw the sign, and the sign read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”. So they knew that this is what Pilate ultimately charged him with, but at the same time, they knew that this was not the reasoning for him initially being arrested by the Jewish leaders.
I’ve actually revised my views of why I think Jesus was arrested. I think he said/did three things: 1. He claimed to be the Messiah. 2. He claimed to be able to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days (this is actually very well attested – it’s even in the Gospel of Thomas). And 3. I think he really did drive out merchants in the Temple.
I think these three things are why the Jewish leaders were alarmed and wanted to arrest him. Pilate didn’t understand what a Messiah was, didn’t really care and just put “King of the Jews” and sent him to the cross (I think, at least).
The “Temple” is misunderstood. From Thomas it meant the body, and 3 days “after some time” not any number. The sign on the cross was altered in the Greek from the Hebrew Matthew original to malign the Jews: “Jesus, King of Israel” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
willow said
“Here, I think your assuming the modern custom of informing someone of the charge against them. This wasn’t always the case and I doubt it was at the time of the arrest.”
It seems likely to me that charges against Jesus may well have been written and hung on a scrap above his head as a warning to anyone else who might dare declare himself king.
It seems likely to me, as well, that the disciples were not there, and not even the disciple whom Jesus loved though he may have been among the women who watched from afar. Common sense tells me they were hiding, fearing the same fate.
Yea, I think I agree with that. What interests me even more is that Prof Ehrman not only thinks the Sanhedrin trial didn’t happen, but is willing to believe that Pilate may not have conducted his roman trial.
BTW a savior or Messiah?
I’ve not read the suggestion that Pilate might not have ruled over the trial of Jesus, but it makes sense when thinking about it. Surely every Roman province had authorities lower than the provincial prefect who could make decisions of life and death. The Romans ruled with an iron fist when provoked and I can’t see them putting off death sentences to the prefect, especially trials of lower class Jews (or Greeks or Thracians or Gauls or…..)
Yea this was in response to a question I posed to him about whether there was even a trial. I glided to this suspicion based on one of the charges the Jewish embassy was reporting to the Romans was Execution without trial. I doubt they considered a backwater preacher much of a threat despite his purported crime. I actually thought he would reply with something about its attestation and was surprised he doubted Pilate’s attendence.
Of course this is one of the more appealing things about prof Ehrman, he always has an interesting and and at times unusual opinion.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)