I am very pleased to feature S. Brian Pounds' response to Dale Martin. Dr. Pounds is a recent graduate of Cambridge and is now teaching at the University of Georgia. His dissertation topic (and forthcoming book) addresses the "crucifiability" of Jesus in historical assessment.
-anthony
Here is part one:
Dale B. Martin in a recently published article entitled “Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous” (http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/current) has offered a variation of the long-standing thesis that Jesus and his followers participated in a failed armed revolt. As a starting point, Martin cites the Gospel of Mark's narration of armed resistance at the time of Jesus' arrest (14:47) and the subsequent 'embarrassment' demonstrated by the other evangelists who provide their own respective mollifications of the episode (Matt 26:52; Luke 22:51; John 18:11). According to Martin, from Mark's narrative one would assume that most or all of Jesus' disciples were armed (p 5). Citing the prohibition of arms within the boundaries of Rome, Martin proposes that the same would have been the case in Jerusalem (pp 7–9). On this basis, he goes on to suggest that simply bearing arms within the city around the time of Passover would have been a great enough offense to get Jesus crucified (p 9). [Martin does offer a fuller hypothesis concerning the causes of Jesus' crucifixion, which I will outline and discuss tomorrow.]
With regard to Martin's first point, I can plausibly imagine that more than one disciple was armed at Jesus' arrest. However, based upon the narrative of Mark there is no way to determine whether or not this was actually the case. For the sake of argument though I will follow Martin in assuming that most of the disciples were armed. Granting his first point, I have greater reservation in accepting the second step of Martin's proposal. It is true that weapons were generally forbidden within the official city limits of Rome, but it does not follow that this was also likely the case in Jerusalem. Cultic sanctity and civic ideal within the Roman pomerium prohibited not only weapons but also legions, military dress, certain exotic cults, and even burial (cf. J. Rüpke, Religion of Rome, 182; O. F. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome, 95). Thus, the heart of the empire compared to other urban centres was in many ways a special rather than a typical case. Furthermore, there is no source stating that it was illegal–much less crucifiable–for an individual or group of individuals to carry weapons in Jerusalem. In fact, Roman legal codes and narrative accounts from various periods often convey the right of individuals to bear and use arms for protection, particularly in cases of travellers defending themselves against bandits (e.g. Twelve Tables 8.13; Cicero Mil. 11; Cod. justin. 3.27.1; 9.16.3 Dig. 43.16.3.9; Apuleius Metam. 8.16–18).
This is a fact recognised by many studies dealing with Roman criminal law and penal practice (R. Baumann, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome, 39; J. Harries, Law and Crime in the Roman World, 113; O. F. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome, 42, 45). More likely than not these same travellers who bore small arms for protection were usually allowed to continue carrying them after reaching urban destinations. Thus, if one or more of Jesus' disciples was carrying a short sword (machaira), it may simply have been one of the accoutrements of travel for the journey to Jerusalem for Passover (cf. J.W. 2.125, 232; Ant. 20.116). In tomorrow's post I will address some of the remaining points in Martin's article.
This is a fact recognised by many studies dealing with Roman criminal law and penal practice (R. Baumann, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome, 39; J. Harries, Law and Crime in the Roman World, 113; O. F. Robinson, The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome, 42, 45). More likely than not these same travellers who bore small arms for protection were usually allowed to continue carrying them after reaching urban destinations. Thus, if one or more of Jesus' disciples was carrying a short sword (machaira), it may simply have been one of the accoutrements of travel for the journey to Jerusalem for Passover (cf. J.W. 2.125, 232; Ant. 20.116). In tomorrow's post I will address some of the remaining points in Martin's article.
I noticed right away that there were a lot of assumptions in Martin's article. I agree with you, Dr. Le Donne, that there is no real way to tell how many of his disciples were armed. Luke 22:49 makes it seem like a lot (maybe even most) of the disciples were armed, but all you are really doing is just assuming. In John's narrative, though, he says, "Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it" (John 18:10). The fact that John points out that Peter had a sword makes me think that it could have been more of a unique situation...not as many of the disciples had swords as Martin says. I think I would fall under the camp that thinks that there were a couple swords in their party.
ReplyDeleteI realize now that the whole thing is Pounds' response, not yours. But my points still stand.
ReplyDeleteBrian, thanks a ton for this. The travelling has always seemed to me to be the best, though not only, explanation for the arms. Is there enough evidence for you to say whether this was *typical* for travellers at the time?
ReplyDeleteThanks Chris, I don't know that I can say it's typical (of course that would be a strong claim), but it certainly was not uncommon. The sword as a traveler's protection is much more plausible to my mind than the hypothesis that the arm(s) were for the purpose of revolt. I'll get into the almost obvious weaknesses of that hypothesis in tomorrow's post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the prohibition against weapons and soldiers within the walls of Rome does not carry over into Jerusalem. The biggest and most glaring reason is that there was a Roman garrison within the confines of the city (X Legion). There were also temple gaurds that we likely armed.
ReplyDeleteI found Martin's article provoking, but it seemed to put a lot of weight on some fragile proposals. Thanks for doing this series to help us think deeper about the subject.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what kind of blog would Jesus had now, if he was alive. Anyway I would read it for sure. Thanks, very interesting reading, cheers.
ReplyDeleteThat's very impressive post.
ReplyDeleteI must say that post is full of information.
ReplyDelete