(31 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...
Why was Jesus Crucified? All the questions I get from members of the blog are good and interesting and deserve lengthy posts. Every now and then I get one that is absolutely fundamental to understanding Jesus, the New Testament, and the history of early Christianity. Here is one of them, from many years ago, with an issue that everyone interested in these topics really needs to have a reasoned view about. Here’s the question, and my view
Why Was Jesus Crucified?
QUESTION:
I don’t see the rationale for the Romans to crucify Jesus. It doesn’t appear that he verbalized any anti-Roman propaganda nor was anything anti-Roman alluded to in Josephus’s couple of lines on Jesus. Pilate probably didn’t even know who Jesus was (possibly the bouncing back and forth between Herod was legend).
RESPONSE:
Yes, it’s a great question and completely central to the story of Jesus: why was he crucified? First off, I agree the Herod story is almost certainly not historical. It’s found only in Luke and is part of Luke’s attempt to show that Pilate was innocent and wanted nothing to do with Jesus’ execution (he tried to fob him off on the ruler of Galilee). Herod too finds him innocent. So if the ruling authorities aren’t to blame, who is? It’s those blasted Jews!
Why Christ was crucified: Bart Ehrman Crucifixion Thoughts
It would take an entire book to answer your question adequately, but I do want to say a couple of things about it. The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.
Whenever anyone writes a book about the historical Jesus, it is really (really, really) important to see if what they say about his public ministry can make sense of his death. If not, then you have a problem. For example, if Jesus is best understood principally as a great rabbi who taught his followers they should love one another, and even love their enemies – why would the Romans execute him?
Oh no! We can’t have you *loving* us! To the cross with you! Or if Jesus were a Jewish cynic philosopher who taught his followers not to be invested in the material things of this world but to share what they have and be concerned only with spiritual things – what would make that a capital offense? How many cynics were crucified?
Or if Jesus were principally interested in equality for women, or in having his followers adopt proto-Marxist principles or .. whatever – why was he killed?
If a scholar tries to explain Jesus’ life in a way that really doesn’t make much sense of his death, then that should be the first clue that something is amiss.
What is clear is that Jesus was killed on political charges and nothing else.
Many people seem to think that Jesus ran afoul of the authorities because he committed blasphemy or offended the religious sensitivities of the Jewish leaders of his day (Pharisees, e.g.; the Sadducees of the Sanhedrin; etc.). But in fact, the Romans didn’t care a TWIT about Jewish blasphemy or about internal Jewish disputes about doctrine and/or practice.
Moreover, the record is crystal clear of what the charges against Jesus were. They were political in nature. He had been calling himself the King of the Jews.
Why Was Jesus Executed? Because He Called Himself the King of the Jews
He didn’t mean it in a spiritual sense and the Romans didn’t interpret it in a spiritual sense. Being King meant being the political leader of the people of Israel. And only the Roman governor or someone the Romans appointed (like Herod) could be king. Anyone else who *claimed* to be king was usurping Roman prerogatives and was seen as a threat, or if not a threat, at least a public nuisance. Romans had ways of dealing with lower-class peasants who were trouble makers and public nuisances.
They crucified them
There are lots of reasons for thinking that this really was the charge against Jesus. It is completely credible contextually since the Romans did not execute people for no reason at all or for offending the religious sensitivities of other Jews. Moreover and even more important, the charge is multiply attested in our various sources (Mark, John, at both trial and crucifixion scenes). More than that, it is not a charge Christians would have invented and inserted into these stories (i.e., it passes the criterion of dissimilarity).
The reason is clear. “King of the Jews” is not a term Jesus ever uses of himself in the Gospels and it is not a term ever used *of* him by any Christian author of the first century. So why is it the charge against him at the trial and the charge written on the placard at the crucifixion? Because it really was the charge.
But then there’s an even bigger question.
Dr Ehrman –
Curious as to your view around why the arrest and punishment was limited to Jesus himself, and not extended to the The Twelve future heads of tribes (esp. Peter and perhaps the ones with fiery nicknames)? Was it typical for Rome to take out just the head figure of a seditious movement? Thanks!
It certainly happened. Same thing with John the Baptist, for example.
You believe the historical Jesus told people they didn’t have to keep the sabbath, don’t know what you believe about whether its historical when he tells them not to both fasting but aren’t they reasons? religious unrest and political unrest tend to go hand in hand.
No, I do not think Jesus told his hearers not to keep the sabbath. He himself kept the sabbath. Just not in always in the ways *Pharisees* claimed it was to be kept. There were big debates about how to observe sabbath in Judaism at the time, but everyone in these debates definitely thought it should be observed.
Appreciate your Work!
If Jesus really did, then, believe such things, one can make a good case that he was delusional. C.S. Lewis presented some stark alternatives, one of which was insanity. But it IS possible to be charismatic, intelligent, articulate, and delusional. Of course, if his Kingdom had come, and everything had worked out the way Jesus seemed to imagine it, he would not have been misguided. But it did not work out that way, and Christians have to find some way to reconcile their hero’s delusional system with reality. Hence, the idea of a “second coming” and a resurrected Jesus, the coming of the Kingdom sometime in the future– always in the future. And that strikes me as yet another delusional system. As delusional systems go, this one is insidious because it can renew itself from generation to generation. Since the Kingdom is always in the future, the refutation is impossible. Every preacher sees the end time in the near future. A generation passes away, and a new generation of believers sees the end time in the near future. This could go on indefinitely. Sic transit gloria mundi. I guess the last believing man or woman standing will still be thinking :”Gee, it’s gotta happen soon!” To me, it looks like a brain disease– a kind of cognitive trap. And it might be fatal.
Thanks for sharing!
“It’s in Q” I don’t understand. Isn’t Q something that does not exist except in scholarly theory, or have I misread something somewhere?
When a scholars refers to Q, s/he is referring to a document that is assumed to have existed, not to the idea of document, if you see what I mean. In a way it is simply a short hand of saying that it is a passage found in Matthew and Luke but not in mark.
Do you think Judas was actually betraying Jesus or saying something more like “you guys just wait and see what happens when Jesus is king?”
Nope. I think he turned on him. I discuss this in my book on Judas Iscariot — and probably you can see a good bit of it by searching for judas here on the blog.
Is it a good comparison to say that Jesus was a delusional leader that just had a few followers such as a Jim Jones type leader?
Very different, I’d say. Jesus didn’t want anyone to drink the Kool-Aid.
But he did tell people the only way they could make it after the kingdom comes was to follow him and do what he says, right?
Well, kind of. He didn’t expect them to run off with him to a remote part of the world and live in a community together. He did think people needed to love God above all else and their neighbors as themselves and do their best to follow the Torah — which is what he taught. But hte parable of the sheep and the goats shows that this could be just *anyone* — not just one of his followrs.
I guess I was thinking more from the standpoint that you have mentioned that Jesus did not have a large following. Perhaps because not many people were where he was to hear him but maybe also because some (most) of the people who heard him did not agree with him. Maybe John the Baptist experienced the same reactions from listeners? People heard Jesus and John but did not see a need to follow them.
Maybe more like Bagwhan Rajneeshi (Osha). Watch Wild, Wild Country on netflix. Fascinating.
“Jesus did see himself as the future king of the Jews, who would rule God’s people when the Son of Man arrived in judgment…” Who is the Son of Man? I always thought it was Jesus himself, but your comment seems to indicate a different person? If Jesus is Messiah, who is the Son of Man?
In my view the Son of Man is the cosmic judge Jesus expected to arrive from heaven to destroy the forces of evil in the world and establish him, Jesus, as king over the new kingdom.
I thought Jesus referred to himself as the “son of man” in Mark 8:31 “He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.” Am I reading this wrong?
Yes he does. I’m differentiating between what Jesus really said and what the Gospels sometimes say he said. That’s the fundamental distinction critical scholars make when determining what Jesus really taught (otherwise there’d be no need for scholarship. We’d simply read the Gospels and say “That’s what he taught”)
Would it be accurate to say that the reason why the blame was deflected from pilate onto the jews in the gospels is because they would have had a hard time converting romans to christianity otherwise?
That’s one reason. Another is straight-up antagonism toward Jews for not accepting Jesus as their messiah.
It’s more than just antagonism. The Jews were Jesus’s own people, and if his own people didn’t accept him, why should the gentiles? (Celsus makes this very point.) So the Christians had to absolutely discredit the Jews in order to get around that problem.
While there is a logic to this, it’s a bit forced and fragile, and a lot of assumptions must be made, not least that the Romans well well-informed as to who Jesus was and what he was teaching, which I find dubious in the extreme. They had no blinkin’ idea. Even Jesus’ fellow Jews found him confusing.
I think he alarmed and irritated the temple authorities, which wasn’t hard during Passover. They passed sentence, Pilate saw no problem with carrying it out (When did he ever? Only good Jew…..). Pilate crucified many who clearly had no idea of becoming king. If somebody seems to be a problem, get rid of him.
The mere implication that Jesus might consider himself future King of the Jews was enough for everybody. I don’t, as I have said before (and will again) believe Jesus saw himself as an earthly king, then or ever. But it would have been easy for him to have been misunderstood as claiming this, even by his own followers, who we are told again and again had problems understanding him as well, and who wanted him to be the promised Messiah, even though he clearly didn’t hold to any conventional understanding of that idea, and angered them by predicting his own death (which didn’t require any supernatural powers of prophecy, given the temper of the time and the recent execution of John the Baptist, who never claimed to be an earthly king either).
Now you say no Cynic was ever crucified–I have no idea if this is true or not, and am reminded of Ambrose Bierce’s joking reference to a custom among the Scythians of plucking out a Cynic’s eyes to improve his vision–but who did most Cynics regard as a forerunner? Socrates. And what happened to him? Arguably an even more painful form of execution (only one way to find out). For what? Teaching in the marketplace–and inspiring some young men who briefly overthrew Democracy in Athens. He also said there was a new order coming. He also had ideas that threatened the existing order. But he was hardly setting himself up as a king. And Athens, for all its flaws, was far more tolerant of its citizens than Rome was of irksome colonial subjects, wouldn’t you say?
My work computer still stubbornly refuses to post here, even though I’m logged in and can read everything on the site. So I have to find some other PC to log into during some spare moment, and thus am always pressed for time when composing these responses during the day, and forgot a point I’d wanted to make–guilt by association.
Socrates was probably not guilty of any overt conspiracy against Athenian Democracy, much as he despised it. Unlikely he broke any law, was involved in any cabals. He just disseminated ideas in the marketplace, as we do in different sorts of marketplaces today. How others made use of these ideas was hardly his fault. (Yes, it’s debatable, but we won’t debate it now). People came to him seeking tutelage, enlightenment, and he provided it. Where was the harm?
Jesus was likewise said to be somewhat careless in his associations. He ate and drank with all kinds of disreputable people (even tax collectors!) Because like Socrates, he had ideas he wished to share, and how could he know where he might find fertile soil for the seeds he wanted to plant?
Okay, but guilt by association is a thing–then, now, always. One of his disciples is said to have been known as Simon the Zealot. Now that word didn’t always refer to an active insurrectionist, but it certainly did refer to someone who wanted Roman rule overthrown. We can assume the zealots were as divided against themselves as all such revolutionaries have been. So some would have despised Jesus, others would have found him interesting, some might even have found him a kindred spirit, if perhaps deluded in his aversion to violence.
Would Jesus’ enemies in Jerusalem have needed to do much more than point out such associations to Pilate for Jesus’ death to be assured? And would Jesus have been the type–any more than Socrates is said to have been by Plato and Xenophon–to have protested his innocence and denied any connection to them? Named names, shall we say. No, I don’t believe that would have been a tune he’d be willing to play. He would have spoken as obliquely to Pilate or whoever interrogated him (if there was any interrogation), and in this context, silence definitely gives consent. In this case, consent to be crucified.
Most of antiquity didn’t have “laws” the way we think of, and court cases were not based on interpretatoins of the constitution in light of legislation that was passed. People judged to be a threat to the public good were dealt with accordingly, both Socrates and Jesus. Often it took very little to convince an Athenian jury (Socrates) or Roman administrator (Pilate) to act decisively.
No, I don’t think the Romans were well-informed about Jesus at *all*.
Whenever I read a discussion where *details* about what Jesus said or did are presented the question always comes to my mind: who was there to write all of this down to someday be a part of a gospel book? Either Jesus had a scribe at his side, or the details were meticulously remembered by the listeners or the writers just made up these stories from vague memories by his followers. I have asked this question often but never received any answers. I know you wrote a fine book about oral tradition but just passing down stories by word of mouth raises the question in my mind as to how can there be such fine detail in intimate conversations such as between Jesus and Pilate at his trial when no one was close enough even to hear what was said.
I can only think that there was a very generalized tradition of the events passed on and the gospel writers invented the detailed dialog when the books were written.
Do you have any thoughts on this? I would be very interested in reading what you think about this. This is a puzzle to me whenever I read scripture. Thank you.
Ah, as you probably know, there is a huge amount of scholarship devoted to the question (and of course not just for Jesus, but for any one who is quoted in antiquity). Several of my books are devoted to the question — my earliest, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, and a more recent one “Jesus Before the Gospels” It ain’t just guess work!
Judas did a lot more than merely telling the Temple police where Jesus was hiding. He wasn’t hiding and the police knew exactly where he was. They had been watching him for nearly a week–since his entrance into Jerusalem and his part in starting the ruckus in the Temple.
Judas gave Pilate all the cover he needed to crucify Jesus by revealing the private teachings of Jesus to his disciples–namely that he was the Chosen One, the Messiah, the king of the Jews. The charge was sedition–advocating the overthrow of the government. And that was the clear meaning of the written charge that was nailed to the cross above Jesus’ head.
According to Roman law he had committed a capital offense. If he were a Roman citizen of sufficiently high status, he would have been given the option of suicide. But Jesus was a Jew, a nobody, and as such his sentence was crucifixion. The Romans used this method of execution as a deterrent to other would be seditionists.
The story of Joseph of Arimathea, the tomb, and the Resurrection is a coverup to hide what actually happened. Jesus died on the cross, hung there several days while his body was desecrated, and then his remains were interred in a common grave.
Judas is portrayed as a bad egg in the Gospels. Some have suggested he was actually doing what Jesus wanted, to make things happen. Do you think Judas “betrayed” Jesus, and if so, why? Is it possible that Judas simply ran his mouth too much and the authorities caught wind of it? I suppose anything in ancient history is “possible” but do you think it’s likely that Judas accidentally spilled the beans, versus intentional, and if so, why betray his leader?
I better re-post on all this — since I have a very definite view about all this. But it’s probalby been a long while….
I’m not clear on why the “King of the Jews” claim would pass the criterion of dissimilarity. Mark seems to be trying to pin the whole thing on the chief priests, who “accused [Jesus] of many things” according to Mark 15. Couldn’t Mark just be saying that the chief priests made up this claim (among many others)? Even after Jesus responds “You have said so” to Pilate’s question about whether he’s King of the Jews (and then refuses to make further reply), Pilate still seemed willing to release him (“Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews”?) and even asked “What crime has he committed?” According to Mark, Pilate doesn’t even seem to believe that Jesus is dangerous, stating that Pilate knew “it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.” So maybe the “King of the Jews” claim is just more Markan literary drama?
One reason — a very big one indeed — for it passing the criterion of dissimilarity will strike you as odd. We have no record of Christians in the first century ever calling Jesus “the King of the Jews.” If it wasn’t a title they ever gave him (as opposed to Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, Rabbi, etc. etc. etc.), then it’s hard to see why they’d invent it only for this one occasoin.
Isn’t calling him the messiah the same thing as calling him the King of the Jews though?
I’m nt talking about what the titles *mean* — I’m talking about the *words used”. But in any event, I guess the answer is no. The messiah is the king of the nation of Israel, not of Jews living, say, in Ephesus. It’s a political term.
I would agree that at the time we’re talking about, those Jews in Judaea who were hoping for a messiah (and it’snot clear how widespread that was) saw him as a political/military leader who would kick the Romans out of the Holy Land. It’s instructive to read in Psalms of Solomon how the author expected the messiah to do this basically on his own power, while the Jews kind of stood on the sidelines (as in Daniel, when Michael would fix things up for them).
Later on, in Talmudic times, messiah does come to mean a savior for all Jews everywhere. That might be where some of the confusion over messiah = “king of the Jews” comes from.
Perhaps early Christians didn’t think he was King of the Jews. Perhaps they didn’t want their lord to be King of their type.
When Jesus is falsely accused in front of the priests he stays silent in Mark, but when asked if he is the son of god he agrees and speaks freely. In front of Pilate he is silent because the charges are false. The story needs the Jews to be false witnesses. They need to kill him unjustly by breaking the commandments on testimony. Otherwise the Jews are innocent.
How could you convert Roman Gentiles if he was executed completely legitimately by Roman authorities? How could the Romans tolerate a religion if the claim King of the Jews were true?
Thank you! This answered a long time question I had…if the Romans executed Jesus for proclaiming himself “King of the Jews” why didn’t the Gospels portray Jesus as calling himself “King of the Jews?” The answer you gave made sense.
My follow up question is this…is it historically accurate and reliable that Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin? I could see that Gospels being distributed in the Roman Empire blaming them for the crucifixion of Jesus could themselves be seen as treasonous putting the writers and holders of such documents at risk. Therefore blaming the Jewish religious authorities was a safe way out of this dilemma.
I debate teh question a lot. I do think that Jewish authorities had Jesus turned over to Pilate. But it seems a stretch to think that the actual Sanhedrin met to decide his case. I don’t think he was that important at the time. On the other hand it’s suggested in all the accounts. So .. so I debate the issue a lot.
A point that’s often raised (or should be) in response to the “meeting of the priests at midnight” is that they had just spent the whole day slaughtering sacrifices for the passover and would have been exhausted. I would think that if they did arrest Jesus, they could certainly have waited until morning when they would be awake an have clearer heads. Also, legal matters are not decided at night in Jewish law (unclear whether that was the case in that time, though) so a sanhedrin of 23, which is what you need for a capital case, would probably not have met at night.
There’s another problem to my mind. The priests were apparently afraid to arrest Jesus during the day because the crowd would have stopped them, but not 12 hours later the crowd (how many crowds could there be?) was unanimously calling for his blood. Do you suppose the priests went around in the middle of the night waking people up and convincing them to help them denounce Jesus?
ha! I guess so!
I read somewhere that the Jewish custom for capital punishment was stoning to death. Is this the case? If so it seems this further points out his crime was political, not religious.
Also sorry, unrelated question – could you comment on Acts 16:31 and it’s meaning, or intended meaning. And it’s clear opposition to Paul’s theology, if I understand the Acts verse correctly.
I’m not sure what you’re seeing as the issue. Lay it out for me?
Sorry I meant Jesus. Never mind about that! But did Paul teach you could be sanctified through your family?
Depends what you mean by that. He did say that a spouse could be “saved” by the other. But it’s not clear what that means. But pretty much ones own sanctity comes from oneself.
That was certainly one of the ways — as described in the Hebrew Bible. But there were other unpleasant modes as well. But the point is that it was Romans, not Jews, who killed Jesus. (They too had different ways of doing it.)
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that Jesus’ execution happened around Passover? One critical scholar said he was starting to question if it was around the time of the holiday or not.
I absolutely think so; the evidence strikes me as overwhelming.
Dr. Ehrman,
What should I cite as the best example? The multiple attestation?
Are we talking about the crucifixion? All the evidence; multiple independent attestation, dissimilarity, contextual credibility — all of it.
Interesting information. I take it as most of the Jewish leaders of that time disliked Jesus and wanted him at least removed from their midst for misleading people. I suppose they would have felt differently if any of the miracles Jesus was purported to have performed had actually happened. I hate to say it but today this type of person would be deemed mentally ill.
I am often puzzled about how a mental health professional distinguishes between religious and political beliefs that defy all evidence and logic and clinical delusions. Are all “flat earthers” delusional? What should we conclude about the prominent Christian leaders who believe that Trump is chosen by God (if they really do believe this), or all of the people who join cults, from Moonies to Scientologists. I think that mental illness requires more than irrational adherence to ludicrous beliefs.
Presumably, the sedition sentence also needed a more proximate cause that would have put Jesus on the authorities’ radar and in their ‘cross-hairs’. In other words, just traveling to Jerusalem for Passover with his disciples wouldn’t be enough (unless he had quite a *large* posse coming with him). Even if word got out that he was calling himself King of the Jews, I don’t think the authorities would have bothered with him – again, unless he were seen to be leading a large contingent (or what could in the authorities’ eyes easily become one) who were proclaiming him as Messiah.
I still think the “entry into Jerusalem” as it is described in the gospels may be broadly historical – it needn’t have been hundreds of people welcoming and proclaiming him as Messiah – perhaps a much smaller group of people that would still have put Jesus “on the radar”. True, the Romans usually quashed any disturbance right away, but perhaps Pilate didn’t see it as such (yet), or perhaps wasn’t even aware of it (yet), or just may not have wanted to initiate another blood-bath within the confines of the city at the height of this potentially explosive festival(?) If no “Entry” into Jerusalem as described in the gospels occurred, then the proximate cause was probably the temple disturbance, along with Judas’ betrayal at some point. I think it’s pretty certain (correct me if I’m wrong!) that Jesus was indeed arrested at night. This should tell us that the (probably Temple?) authorities who arrested him wished to avoid a potentially explosive incident – that would get the Romans involved and probably lead to the slaughter of many Jews – during broad daylight.
In other words, what I’m saying is that Jesus’ arrest needed a triggering event, and probably something more than just Judas strolling up to the temple authorities out of the blue and ‘spilling his beans’. All speculative, of course – all of this is in the end speculation except for the ‘King of the Jews’ charge and sentence under Pilate – but I still think it needed a more proximate spark.
Any clarifying or corrective comments would be most welcome!
I talk about the Triumphal Entry in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. I don’t think it could be historical. He would have been arrested on the spot? But some kind of incident in the Temple? I suspect that was the triggering event.
Also, along with the temple incident, either Jesus himself or people were saying that he is the Messiah, King of the Jews. What do you think? In the end that was the charge.
Another issue I keep trying to figure out. Was it enough for Jesus to believe that he is the Messiah just on Peter’s declaration? Wouldn’t it be more plausible if Jesus, for instance, had a vision or epilepsy like Paul and then Peter confirms to him that he is in fact the Messiah?
Yes, that was definitely the charge. And no, the evidence is not related to Peter’s confession. I talk about it on the blog, if you search for somethign like “Did Jesus Call Himself the Messiah”
Pilate was in Jerusalem to put down any possible demonstration that could stir up the populace at Passover time – the celebration of a previous Jewish escape from oppressors. If Jesus had stirred up anything at all like the gospels describe, Pilate would have pounced. And remember he had already locked up Barabbas for insurrection (according to some versions; lestes can mean robber or insurrectionist); having nipped one potential insurrection, he wasn’t about to let another one start.
Great post. For any readers; I’m currently half-way through “Zealot” by Reza Aslan. It goes into detail (as no doubt is the case with Dr. Ehrman’s literature) regarding first century BCE and CE Jewish sentiment towards governance and the Roman empire’s history of castigation and execution of Jews. It seems any Messianic behavior during that time was dealt with swiftly and harshly by the Romans. It also lists the other failed and executed Messiah figures that had come before and after Jesus of Nazareth. Great book so far.
It reads extremely well and is very interesting. I have a sustained set of critiques of it from years ago on the blog, some of them rather severe. Just search for his name and you’ll see.
Ya know what, Dr. Ehrman, I felt like an idiot because soon after I posted this I stumbled upon and read everything you had to say about Zealot and probably would now rescind my statements haha. However, I would like to ask you if what he had to say about the list of messiah figures is accurate. “Countless prophets, preachers, and messiahs tramped through the holy land delivering messages of god’s imminent judgement. Many of these so called “false messiahs” we know by name. A few are even mentioned in the new testament…” Then he talks about the following people:
Theudas
“The Egyptian”
Athronges
The Samaritan
Hezekiah the Bandit Chief
Simon of Peraea
Judas the Galilean
Menahem, grandson of Judas the Galilean
Simon bar Giora
Simon bar Kokhba
Is this an accurate portrayal of the scene and were these people messiah figures?
Well, I wouldn’t say they are “countless” :-). I would say that there were lots of people with apocaylptic views who thought the end was coming soon; some of them believeed it was important to take up the sword in support of the cause. Many of them did not. Jesus was definitely one who did not. (One way I look at it is that if you want to prove that a particular public figure is, say, a defense hawk who believes in regime change by violent means through military intervention, you can’t prove it — i.e. that this person is — by listing all the other people who are like that; see what I mean?)
Right, ya that makes sense.
Professor, do you discern anything from the NT or elsewhere as to why Jesus would have thought and said that? Your view on Azlan’s “Zealot” Seems to rule out a Simon bar Kokhba type figure (at least the warrior if not the nut).
I’m thinking here of Mathew 27:46/Mark 15:34 (multiply attested?, meets criteria of embarrassment?) would seem to indicate he believed he had prior contact with God? Perhaps heard voices?
No, not multiply attested (matthew got it from mark); not embarassement because it fits perfectly well with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus. It’s a quotation of Psalm 22, probably to show Jesus fulfilled scripture. So, no, I doubt if it’s historical.
Yes, he was not advocating a violent overthrow of the government. He thought *God* was going to do it in a cataclysmic act. But Roman authorities weren’t very interested in the theological niceties of his position.
I agree with Bart that the evidence from the NT favors non-violence and reliance on God. But I wonder, if Jesus had lived, perhaps that would have changed. Indeed, near the end, Jesus did engage in violence against the Temple and its money changers. This was also the moment when he “came out” – his first public act after his declaration that he was the promised Son of David. I happen to think this violence was a mistake on Jesus’ part, a departure from his dominant “love your enemy” and “forgive those who trespass against you” theme. But I also think Azlan presents a strong case for Jesus as Zealot. I appreciated the book especially for its research supporting the idea that Jesus did not believe he came as a sacrifice for sin, but as a leader to usher in God’s kingdom on earth.
I’m sure you’re familiar with Wrede’s argument that even privately Jesus was never known as a/the messiah in his lifetime; how do you deal with his position?
Also, the Sadducees who ran the Second Temple would have accepted only the Torah’s definition of blasphemy: cursing God by name (Lev. 24:16). Calling oneself “son of God” isn’t blasphemy by that definition. Other persons in that time were called “son of God.” I think the authors of the gospels didn’t grasp that point.
There’s also the story of Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers. I’m not convinced that ever happened, but if it did, the Romans would have seen it as se turbulente gessere and grounds for execution.
Yes, I’m saying that I think that view is wrong. I have an extended argument for why I think it’s wrong — but maybe I should post onthat for everyone to see rather than just here.
Dr. Ehrman, would the Romans have considered Jesus a more serious threat if he had had a much larger following?
Yes indeed.
Hello, this is my first comment.
Most of the answer is in the scriptures. John 19:7 KJV “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” The Jewish leaders wanted Him gone and his followers dispersed, so making Jesus an executed criminal would seem to be the perfect way.
John 19:12 “And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.”
I understand Pilate had a negative history with Caesar and the Jewish leaders were going to go after Pilate’s job.
John 19:15 “But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him…”
The Jews demanded Jesus be crucified and were clamoring and about to cause a riot. Pilate gave in to the will of the outspoken. This was not Roman justice at all, just an attempt to appease the masses. Thus, not only was his trials with the Jewish leaders unlawful according to the Torah, but the Roman sentence was also unlawful according to their own law.
But you are assuming that what is in the
Bible is correct as written. For example it is already known that Pilate didn’t really care about “appeasing the masses”. Besides, according to the same Bible, Jesus was really popular: remember Palm Sunday? So which set of “the masses” would he appease? According to the Bible he would have been offending one group.
Hello!
I expect I have to believe the Bible as written when it is clear and to the point. Pilate was only interested in appeasing the masses because his job was on the line. Jesus was popular when he entered Jerusalem, but immediately cleansed the temple which alienated the religious and cleansing the temple with a scourge may also have been against the law which alienates the law abiding.) By the time that he was crucified, he had very few friends remaining. The main groups he was offending was the Sadducees and Pharisees because he continually called them a bunch of hypocrites and did miracles they could not repeat.
Jewish leaders wanted Jesus out of the picture. They could have gone to Pilate and warned him Jesus was stirring up trouble during the volatile Passover days (e.g. the Temple incident) and asked he at least be arrested. If Pilate seemed unconvinced, the leaders would tell him they have an eyewitness/insider (Judas) who could attest to the “King of Jews” concept. In effect a deal could have been made: If Jesus was eliminated (crucified on charges of sedition), the Jewish leaders could assure Pilate of a relatively peaceful Passover that year.
You are mostly correct, but to show sovereignty (and something about jurisdiction), they had to do their own trial first. Thus Judas betrayed Jesus to the Jewish leaders at night when nearly all of the people were not with him. They wanted to take him secretly and stand him up for a church trial. This means that the Jewish leaders feared the people and needed an insider.
It appears Pilate didn’t really believed the Jewish leaders that Jesus was a threat to Rome even though Pilate refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews.. John 18:38-39
one more point may be important , when Jesus enter Jerusalem in his last week, he was welcomed by crowds of Jewish people who were shouting ( this is the son of David ) Matt 21
son of David is the sign of king that Jewish waiting for
this movement should be hit the bell of danger at the Roman side
also, the act of Jesus when he went to Temple and turn of the tables and kick out the people doing business over there which mean that he disrupt the general orders at very sensitive place in very sensitive time
all thes signs may lead the Roman authority to see that Jesus represent a future danger to the government.
Many years ago, I was influenced by Schweitzer’s books including his “Psychiatry of Jesus” where Schweitzer contends that Jesus was not mentally ill because his views fit within a certain subculture. On the other hand, if anyone today made such claims about setting up a future kingdom on earth and being head of that kingdom, then he/she would certainly be considered to be mentally ill. Hmm? Do any current Bible historians and scholars seriously consider the possibility that Jesus was mentally ill? Of course, at the time of Schweitzer, the field of psychiatry was still in its infancy.
Hello, Mr. Ehrman,
If you’il excuse me, I’m gonna ask you a lot of questions.
My first question is: do you really think Jesus was crucified?If true, then what do you think the apostles lived in relation to the resurrected Jesus?
Ed Perish Sanders: It is, in my opinion, a fact that the followers of Jesus and later Paul experienced experiences of the resurrection.I don’t know what the reality behind these experiences was(.Ed Perish Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus 1993)
My second question is: Do you agree with Paul’s view that Christianity is breaking? The basis of this claim is that the first Christians also lived by obeying some of the Jewish laws.
My third question: Did the Jerusalem Christians see Paul as his enemy? If so, what should we comment on for 2 Peter 3:15?
Best regards
Yes, he was. I don’t know what you’re asking in the second question in that sentence. Or the second question. No I don’t think they did.
It’s probably best to ask just one question at a time, in a separate comment each, and make sure you reread it and express it clearly. Thanks!
Hello, Mr. Ehrman,
Sorry if my question is not understood. Many theologians in my country say there are theological conflicts between the early Christian followers and Paul. They say that the apostles actually did not see Jesus as God, but as a prophet like Moses, Jonah or Abraham. They say, however, that Paul changed this teaching and placed the idea of Jesus’ deity. What do you think of that? Do you think there was theological dispute between Paul and the Apostles?
Ah, I got it — thanks, yes, that’s a helpful explanation. Some biblical scholars have argued that, with the implication that Paul invented the idea that Christ was the son of God. I don’t think so. I have a full discussion in my book How Jesus Became God, if you can get access to it. But there I argue that as soon as any of his followers came to think Jesus was raised from the dead and exalted to heaven, they would have concluded that he had been made divine. (In teh ancient world, anyone taken up to live wiht God or the gods in heaven after death was considered now to have become a divine being.) And this happened very soon after his death, years before Paul converted.
I want to say “THANK YOU” for a delightful dinner in Chicago last night with Bart and 5 other members of this blog. It was a thoughtful, animated and interesting evening of conversation and breaking bread together. To my fellow blog members, I appreciated each of your stories…thank you for sharing your personal journey experiences. And because we will not be attending the conference that brought you ….. I will donate what would have been the conference fees to your charities through the Bart Ehrman Foundation. Thank you again!
Many thanks! That was great fun!
Hmmm. If we put the miracles aside (where they belong) and assume that Jesus gained a following sufficient to threaten the Romans and invite crucifixion, we have to assume it was his message that did the trick. As the NT shows, the Romans cared not one bit about the Jewish deity, and Jesus preached non-violence.
Why would the real Romans of history care about a poor Nazarene carpenter instructing people to lay down their ambitions and accept suffering and death as if they had won the lottery? Whatever Jesus might have been, he was no military threat.
They wouldn’t. That’s my point!
Doesn’t that suggest that the crucifixion as described in the NT didn’t occur? Otherwise, we don’t have much of what Jesus actually taught.
No, I’m not sure I see the logic there? The crucifixion is the best attested event of Jesus’ life.
I mean, if Jesus actually taught non-violence and self-sacrifice, why would the Romans notice? Having noticed, why would they care? Having cared, why would they crucify him? What might they have wanted to do- convince the Jews not to surrender?
They crucified him because he said he was the future king.
You being the very last person in human history I would cite chapter and verse to, do you know of any other instance where the Romans crucified an innocent man and let a convicted insurrectionist go free at the behest of the Jews (or anyone else)?
They certainly crucified lots and lots of innocent people. The only incident that I know of of them letting someone off their cross came at the instigation of Josephus, who was on massively good terms with the Roman emperor himself.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think about the theory from the old German school about the resurrection, that Jesus survived the execution and then when he showed up later they thought he was resurrected? Do you agree this does not make sense because: 1) The Romans were experienced at crucifixions and would have made sure he was dead 2) Paul writes that not only did he die, but was also buried?
It’s an old theory, not invented in Germany. Most intriguing expression of it is in Hugh Schonfield, Passover Plot. I don’t think it’s all plasubile.
Dr. Ehrman,
The way you have put the clues together works very well and is certainly plausible, but if an insider betrayed Jesus then this would just be “hear say” or one’s word against the next. I could see the Romans being upset if Jesus was teaching where people could hear it, but would the Roman’s crucify someone based off the word of one person? There is probably something I’m missing and of course I am applying our modern legal system to antiquity.
Thanks, Jay
Yes, of course, if they had reason to suspect the person was right. (Happens still today: one eyewitness at a murder trial!)
Acts 4 quote Psalms 2 “The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed”. Do you think this was why Herod was added to Luke’s passion narrative?
Yes indeed!
I don’t think the Romans would crucify everyone who claimed to be king of the jews but only someone they saw as posing an actual threat. There’s no evidence of Jesus posing any sort of military threat.
In times of relative peace in Judea the Romans would have taken their cue on who was a threat from the ruling religious elite.
If these elite saw Jesus as posing a threat to their own religious authority he would necessarily also pose a threat to roman rule. I think the explanation of the gospels make the most historical sense for Jesus’s execution.
Anyone who claims to be a rival king, more or less by definition, was seen to be a threat. Or if not a serious threat, a nuisance. Easier to just get rid of them. Romans did not have a finely tuned judicial system.
Neither, from what I have read about him (Josephus and Philo), did Pilate have any compunction against offending or killing his Jewish subjects… his temperament reminds me of what was said about Billy the Kid shooting a man for snoring…
Still, the Romans would have considered a “serious threat” more serious than a “nuisance.” That’s why I asked, if his following had been much greater, would they have considered him a greater threat? There may be “no evidence of Jesus posing any sort of military threat” but religious threats could have easily lead to political problems, especially if he had had a large following. That would have been enough for the Romans to consider Jesus a “serious threat.” If, and I say if, there was sufficient evidence suggesting that Jesus’ following was much greater than we thought, wouldn’t that be significant?
Yes, it would. But I don’t think there are good reasons for thinking it was. My assumption is that the two other guys crucified that morning didn’t have big followings either….
I think the Jesus ben ananias story tells us the romans didnt just summarily execute any prisoner brought to them, nuisance or threat.
Also from what we now of Pilate he liked antagonizing jewish religious sensibilities but was warned by Tiberius to stop doing it. Fits in well with his portrayal in the gospels.
That’s right. They made a judgment in each case and handled it appropirately; and of course different administrators had different approaches. Among the differences, Jesus ben Ananias did not claim to be the future king.
” “King of the Jews” is not a term Jesus ever uses of himself in the Gospels and it is not a term every used *of* him in any Christian author of the first century. ”
Isn’t “King of the Jews” a synonym to “king of Israel”, the latter was purported proclaimed by Nathaniel in John 1?
Not necessarily. Most Jews were not living in Israel. I.e., “Jew” is not synonymous with “Citizen of Israel”
You think Jesus was secretly telling his disciples that he was going to be “the king of the Jews”.
However In
John 18:20
Jesus “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.
Then one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand saying don’t talk th the high priest like that.
I wonder if the officer knew Jesus was lying?
I do not thing John’s report of the sayings of Jesus is historically accurate. Long story that; if it doesn’t make sense, you may want to try my book Jesus: Apoclayptic Prophet of the new Millennium
I think the crucifixion was triggered by the ride into Jerusalem on what we call Psalm Sunday. In Zechariah 9:9 they were told, “your King will come humbly and riding on a donkey”. Jesus was offering himself up as their king by doing this and the chief priests would have been aware of these Scriptures. They didn’t arrest him on the spot because they didn’t want to start a riot.
All the details we get could only come from the scribes who had free access to the courts etc. and even be at the foot of the cross where the disciples themselves would definitely not want to be.
I think Kmbwhitmore [above] may have part of the answer, but for me the key event that led to Jesus’ crucifixion was Jesus’ attack on the moneychangers. Merely proclaiming himself messiah was problematic but not if he was just some kook. The attack on the moneychangers showed he was a potential threat to public order. The powers that be use this rationale even today to clamp down on new religious movements. The moneychangers event was also an attack on the economic foundation of the Temple, which relied on the moneychangers to enable financial offerings and [I think] purchase sacrificial animals. This provided the Temple authorities, especially the high priest and his cronies, a reason to act, and it also provided the Romans a reason to respond.
Am i right to assume that in the view the historical Jesus had, if he had become king, he would reign until death and then go to heaven?
I think at that oint there won’t be any more death. It’s an eternal kingdom, heaven on earth as it were.
I am lost in translations. Jesus was called messiah in Hebrew or Aramaic. In Koine messiah is translated to basileos or christos. We have f.e. Janneus coins with messianic claims in Hebrew and symbols on one side and basileos in Koine on other side. Pilate’s question is reffered to basileos in Mark15:2. But Cyrus is called christis in Septuagint. It looks like almah – bethulah problem.
Illegal activity motivated by messianic claims ( basileos or christos) looks more realistic then verbal claims only.
Old Reimarus’es idea never gets old 😉
I’d say almah/bethulah is very different. They are two words in the same language that mean different but related things, not two words in different languages that are translational equivalents.
Bart, a few days ago, you and I had a minor disagreement on whether Jesus was really distressed over the prospect of being tortured to death. You said that you imagined it would be distressing ‘even for the son of God’, to which I disagreed.
I am confused, then, by your insistence that Judas really did betray Jesus. If Judas really did turn Jesus in (ostensibly against Jesus’ wishes), then the Garden narrative (Jesus anguishing over his impending arrest) never happened. If Jesus didn’t want to be arrested, then he wouldn’t have been hanging out there, waiting to be caught…he would have been on the run. More likely, Judas betrayed Jesus, and he was subsequently- and unexpectedly- arrested without warning.
The garden narrative only makes sense if Jesus wanted to be arrested (at least in the sense that he thought it was necessary). And, if that were the case, then Judas didn’t really betray him at all, but was rather merely a pawn.
Thoughts/comments?
I was referring only to the narrative of teh Gospel of John — that is, in the world of the text (not in real life) Jesus is portrayed as distressed. When you’re referring to Judas it appears you’re not talking about the narrative world of the text, but what happened in real life. for that we would have to apply different crieria of evaluation.
Bart, I cannot recall where I read this years ago, but the claim was that it was a capital crime in Roman-occupied Judea for someone to run a gang that contained known Zealots. If this were true, then according to the authors of Mark and Matthew, the fact that Simon the Zealot was one of Jesus’ close disciples could explain the crime for which Jesus was executed by the Romans. Your thoughts?
Yeah, I don’t think that claim is right…
Thank you.
Interesting discussion.I have not read all the posts on this question,but from what I have read thus far nobody has mentioned the Bible narrative and what it was meant to teach or I’m missing the point.Where I lean towards in agreement that Jesus was crucified for political reasons,and being inferred to as King of the Jews,even though he never said that,is because he regarded himself as the Savior,to save mankind from sin and avail all that believe in him.He paid the price for us.The second time he will come as a King and rule over his kingdom that is established.That is what I have come to understand.Bart you also mentioned in a response to a post,that the romans crucified Jesus not the Jews.True they put forth the execution,but in response to the High Priests demand.It’s like saying the courts have found you guilty of murder and sentenced to dye by execution.The person giving the lethal injection or pulls the switch for the electric chair is the actual executioner and not the courts.They just gave the order to carry out.My point or question is this.Who would be responsible or accountable for the death if years down the road new evidence surfaced and found the victim to be innocent?
Oh yes, I’ve posted on different understandings of the meaning of the crucifixion (e.g. the very important differences on this point between Mark and Luke, the latter of which did not believe in an idea that Jesus’ death brought an atonement for sins!)
If Jesus wasn’t killed for committing blasphemy (and perhaps didn’t even commit blasphemy) why were the temple priests in Jerusalem so intent on sending men like Paul of Tarsus out to crush the Christian movement in the immediate years after Jesus died?
Because they were saying things that Jesus did not — that Jesus was the messiah who died for sins, and that he had been made divine.
Just assuming Jesus did predict his death and resurrection, how is it explained that his disciples didn’t have a clue what he meant, but the Chief priests and Pharisees understood, so as to place a guard at the tomb?
Yeah, good point! Of course, the guard at the tomb is only in Matthew, and the cluelessness of the disciples is mainly in Mark.
“He didn’t mean it in a spiritual sense and the Romans didn’t interpret it in a spiritual sense. Being King meant being the political leader of the people of Israel. And only the Roman governor or someone the Romans appointed (like Herod) could be king. Anyone else who *claimed* to be king was usurping Roman prerogatives and was seen as a threat, or if not a threat, at least a public nuisance. Romans had ways of dealing with lower class peasants who were trouble makers and public nuisances. They crucified them.”
Just a quickie . . .
Do you know offhand of a good source for Roman practices in this regard, i.e. the law and punishment relating to sedition? Internet if possible, but also a book or paper.
Thanks
I”m sure there’s really good stuff out there, but I’m not up on it. You would want a Roman historian, not a NT scholar. YOu might try Olivia Robinson, The Criuinal Law of ANcient Rome. I haven’t read it but it may be the kind of thing you’re looking for.
Many thanks Bart, that’s great, I will have a look.
I’m surprised, though, I thought you used this background information when you talked about the crucifixion in ‘When Jesus became God’.
Sorry, I forget to ask the question.
Was that not the case?
Ah — sorry. When I receive comments I don’t receive teh entire thread they are referring to. So you’ll need to repost the comment you made and then ask the question about it.
“Ah — sorry. When I receive comments I don’t receive teh entire thread they are referring to. So you’ll need to repost the comment you made and then ask the question about it.”
My apologies, I assumed you saw everything. I don’t know how any questions made sense in that case.
Anyway, here’s the thread again:
John H: Do you know offhand of a good source for Roman practices in this regard, i.e. the law and punishment relating to sedition? Internet if possible, but also a book or paper.
Bart E: I”m sure there’s really good stuff out there, but I’m not up on it. You would want a Roman historian, not a NT scholar. YOu might try Olivia Robinson, The Criuinal Law of ANcient Rome. I haven’t read it but it may be the kind of thing you’re looking for.
John H: Many thanks Bart, that’s great, I will have a look.
I’m surprised, though, I thought you used this background information when you talked about the crucifixion in ‘When Jesus became God’. Was this not the case? What sources did you use for the book in relation to Roman crucifixion practices?
Ah, thanks. I only see the few lines of the particular thing I said that someone was commenting on, and I can always infer the rest. But I can’t infer what I myself had been responding to.
In my book I don’t talk about particular practices related to *sedition* per se. I talk about Roman practices of leaving bodies on the cross. For that I read every Greek and Roman source that I could find that mentions the practices. (They almnost alwayts indicate that bodies were left to decay on the cross and be open to scavenging birds)
Hello Dr. Ehrman, do you think there is evidence that any of the narratives such as Jesus’ before Pilate or his dialogue from the cross are actually historical? I’m just trying to think of how anyone could’ve witnessed it and passed the story along to the gospel writers.
No, I don’t see how they could be. No one wsa taking notes, let alone one of Jesus’ followeers
There were large crowds of onlookers during the trial and execution, so Jesus’ companions could know the situation afterwards.
So as long as the authors were willing, they could tell you the true situation that happened at that time (what they later learned). But if they were unwilling, they would fabricate some lies, such as what Jesus said on the cross, which may be fabricated.
Dr. Ehrman, is it more than possible that in the final days, Jesus realized he would be arrested and likely be crucified and that HE came up with the idea that it was God’s will and told the disciples to watch for his return. It has always bothered me that the illiterate non-theological disciples could have so quickly have made up the “death and resurrection” theology on their own (surely they were in disarray if they had no warning about what might happen).
I can imagine Jesus, astute as he was, recalculating his ministry and giving his likrly death meaning through a new theology and the disciples, of course, then saw him as a risen being just as he told them to watch for – the seed had been planted.
It also means that not every “prediction” about the death and resurrection was after the fact because in the final days/hours, Jesus decided it was God’s will for him to die, but he still believed he would be king of Israel somehow – so, as a resurrected being. He might even have realized that in that way, he was in fact to be “the son of man.”
What do you think?
There should be no objection that Jesus’ death penalty was strongly demanded by the Jewish people at that time.
So why did the Jews at that time strongly demand the death penalty for Jesus?
Was it because Jesus incited violent resistance against Rome, which brought danger to the Jews? But the New Testament has no record of this.
Was it because Jesus claimed to be the “King of the Jews” and posed a threat to Rome? But Pilate also saw that this’ King of the Jews ‘was strongly demanded to be executed by the Jews, indicating that this’ King of the Jews’ posed no threat to Rome.
Or was it because Jesus impersonated the Son of God and deceived money that the Jews strongly demanded his execution?
So the true reason why Jesus was crucified was not why Pilate sentenced him to death, but why the Jews strongly demanded the execution of Jesus.