Baker Academic

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

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.

15 comments:

  1. Brian, I've heard from some Jewish teachers that one of the qualities of the Messiah is a reticence or reluctance to proclaim himself the Messiah. The proclamation is to be made by others (Akiva for Bar Kochba, and to a lesser extent, Nathan of Gaza for Sabbatai Tzvi). So, I don't place much stock in Jesus' "general reticence" as evidence that he didn't think he was the Messiah. "General reticence" is how a self-styled Messiah is supposed to act.

    I'm curious. Is there evidence of Rome crucifying Jews merely because they were messianic candidates (self-proclaimed or otherwise), in the absence of any acts of sedition? Might it be more accurate to say that no single aspect of Jesus' life rendered him crucifiable, but that certain aspects in combination (in particular, Jesus' messianic candidacy combined with his Temple cleansing) brought him to the cross?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I'm curious. Is there evidence of Rome crucifying Jews merely because they were messianic candidates (self-proclaimed or otherwise), in the absence of any acts of sedition?"

    According to Josephus, an unnamed Samaritan was executed for saying that he would uncover the Ark of the Covenant on the Samaritan temple mount and a would be Messiah named Theudas was killed and his followers scattered after he said he would part the Jordan river. Apparently, you could get killed just for threatening to perform a miracle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken, for your first story, are you referring to Josephus' Antiquities Book 18 Chapter 4? If so, this was the occasion for a battle between Pilate's forces and those of the unnamed Samaritan, and it's probably more accurate to conclude that the Samaritan was killed because he led armed people in battle against Pilate's troops.

      As for Theudas, he also appears to have led an unsuccessful revolt against Rome. Josephus reports that Theudas " persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it." (Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 5)

      Delete
  3. Thanks for another insightful comment Larry. I don't know how certain I would be that a would-be Messiah necessarily would not claim to be one. It is possible that those kingly claimants depicted by Josephus also claimed to be messiahs (cf. J.W. 2.57; 7.29, 36 ; Ant. 4.510; 17.273, 278, 280), but we have no way to know- especially in view of the fact that Josephus avoids apocalyptically charged language. These kingly claimants are narrated as being (either explicitly or implicitly) killed by the Romans, but I do not know of an explicit narration of one of these being killed by crucifixion.

    In contrast to the kingly claimants in Josephus, many of whom dress themselves as king (either placing a crown on the head or wearing purple), Jesus is much more subdued in the gospel narratives (even in the [Anti-]Triumphal Entry). Nevertheless, I do think that Jesus inspired a messianic conception within his disciples (following to a large extent E. P. Sanders' identification of Jesus as the “viceroy” of the kingdom of God): He appointed twelve disciples likely symbolizing the reconstitution of Israel, he declared who would be included in and excluded from the kingdom, he pronounced that the in-breaking of the kingdom was taking place in his own exorcisms, he described the kingdom as conferred to him by God, he pronounced that his disciples (and implicitly himself) would sit on thrones of judgment, and he described that in his own activity something greater than Jonah or King Solomon had arrived. In finale, I do think a number of factors led to Jesus being crucified, but in my view, a messianic acclamation is the sine qua non for a Jesus crucified as “King of the Jews”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian, thanks. I agree that a messianic candidate might (so to speak) announce his candidacy. But I think a certain reticence and modesty would not be unexpected. I look forward to hearing more about your thesis. You are examining a question of great interest to me.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your interest and feedback Larry!

      Delete
  4. Jesus entered Jerusalem as a (sort of) king, an act which could only be interpreted as a challenge to Caesar and his minions, and, as Brian said, is reported as saying things which imply kingship. I find it hard to imagine the church inventing the story of the triumphal entry; they wanted to convince people that Jesus was innocent of all charges, and here he is acting like a royal pretender. Then there's the charge on the titulus; again, something they'd be unlikely to invent.

    I don't see that as excluding the non-violent anti-imperialist, though. He apparently went off and chucked tables about in the Temple - another attack on the establishment - but a king can act as a royal reformer. He was concerned to give justice to the poor, but that's in line with the ideal king we see in Ps 72.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your response Ken. The Samaritan prophet may have claimed to be the Taheb. Putting someone on a cross was a form of public deterrence. So getting crucified is a bit different than getting slain on the spot (as was probably the case with the Samaritan prophet; cf. Ant. 18.87). I wouldn't classify Theudas as a would-be-Messiah. He is sometimes referred to as a "sign prophet". Theudas was captured and beheaded according to Josephus, which could indicate a higher social class than one crucified, or perhaps just the whim of the Romans in this case (Ant. 20.98) .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian or Anthony, do you have any thoughts on Fernando Bermejo-Rubio article (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/ber378008.shtml) since it seems to be a more scholarly presentation of the violent insurrectionist thesis than Aslan? I agree with Anthony in situating Jesus in terms of non-violent resistance - it seems to me that the "Bib & Int" article elides the eschatological hope for a coming kingdom to overturn the current powers with the assumption that Jesus advocating taking up arms and his strongest point is a singly attested saying in a late Gospel about buying a sword (Lk 22:36) - but I was curious about your thoughts. I also always thought Crossan made a good case about how Jesus was crucified but not his followers as revealing that the Romans were not too worried about an armed insurrection, but I guess Bermejo-Rubio has a publication in the works arguing that Jesus was crucified alongside two of his rebel followers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mike, my impression of Bermejo-Rubio's article that you cite is that it is largely a rehash of previous works (cf. S.G.F. Brandon). I also think it presents a false dichotomy: the apolitical/non-violent Jesus vs. the political/violent Jesus. Many scholars, especially within the past three decades, contextualize Jesus politically without seeing him as advocating or using violence.

      Delete
    2. BTW, I agree on that particular point with Crossan.

      Delete
  7. Brian, I am interested in your dissertation. Is it completed and available?

    In my opinion, calling crucifiability (under whatever name) a 'criterion' and listing it alongside other criteria, as does e.g. Meier, represents a confusion of categories and invites flawed conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tobias, thank you for your interest. My viva will not be until summer 2014. I will contact you when it is available. Would you mind unpacking your statement concerning category confusion? A lot hinges upon what one means by the term 'criterion'.

      Delete
  8. Thanks, Brian. What I meant to say was that while the conventional criteria (dissimilarity, multiple attestation etc.) are employed to assess the historicity of specific items in the gospel tradition, crucifiability seems to be a valid criterion for assessing the plausibility of scholarly reconstructions of Jesus. So I think I agree with you, it depends on what we mean by 'criterion' and especially what the criterion is intended to assess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that clarification Tobias. We do agree!

      Delete