Three Dominant Lines of Argument for Jesus' Execution

In his first post, Brian Pounds pointed out a fallacy at the heart of Reza Aslan’s logic concerning Jesus’
political agenda and the telos of his career.  Today he concludes by reviewing how the Criterion of Crucifiability has been applied (with varying degrees of success) among scholars established within the field of Jesus research.

Yesterday, I discussed the misuse of crucifixion as a criterion in the so-called Zealot theory. Aside from the insurrectionist theory, three other dominant theses have been used to explain Jesus' execution. Some scholars (hearkening back to the 'New Quest') have proposed that Jesus' execution validates the thesis that he was perceived as a violator of Torah (e.g. Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 97; cf. J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:627). However, Jesus' death on a Roman cross – rather than by stoning, a punishment with which Jesus was possibly threatened and by which Stephen and James were put to death as law-breakers (John 10:31-33; 11:8; Acts 6:12-14; 7:58-59; Ant. 20.200)– directs us away from understanding this as a central issue that led to his execution. 

 Another line of argument is that Jesus' manner of death validates the thesis that he was a non-violent anti-imperialist (e.g. Richard Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 7, 132). This is a more plausible thesis than the violent insurrectionist theory. A convincing emphasis of this type of thesis is its incorporation of the recurrently attested theme of Jesus' economic critique of elites (e.g. Mark 10:21-25, 31; 12:1-12, 40; Matthew 11:7-10=Luke 7:24-27; Luke 6:24-26). In my judgment, this is an important set of conflicts most often left out of 'apocalyptic' Jesus portraits but with explanatory value for understanding one of the causes for Jesus' crucifixion. It fits especially well with Jesus' climactic Temple Action (which itself carries a dimension of economic critique within the gospels–Mark 11:15-17; John 2:15-16). Yet, many of those who advocate the updated anti-imperial thesis fail to connect Jesus' crucifixion with the probable charge on which he was executed (see below). 

Finally, the cross is sometimes used to validate messianic (re)constructions of Jesus. According to this avenue of explanation, Jesus was crucified for styling himself as a royal Messiah (cf. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 86, 106-08). One of the primary supports for this view is found in the gospel narrations of a titulus on the cross including the inscription “King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26; John 19:19). Its lack of use as a christological title elsewhere and its inconvenient seditious connotations tell in favor of its historical origin in the life of Jesus. Moreover, analogies exist for the advertisement of offense accompanying the executed (e.g. Suetonius, Caligula 32.2; Cassius Dio, Roman History 54.3.7). The greatest evidence against the straightforward view that Jesus was crucified for putting himself forward as Messiah is his lack of use of the title in self-reference and his general reticence for unequivocally accepting either the title Messiah or king within the Gospels (Mark 8:30-33; 15:2; Matt 26:64). 

Nevertheless, in my judgment and in the judgment of many scholars with diverse presuppositional backgrounds (e.g. Paula Fredriksen, Gerd Theissen, James Dunn) a royal messianic acclamation of Jesus by others, best explains how he came to be crucified specifically as “King of the Jews”. How one goes about explaining why some of Jesus' contemporaries saw him in this light and the degree to which he inspired, accepted, or modified the acclamation is open here to further debate and discussion. 

Thank you again, Brian.