All four gospels indicate that Pilate found no fault in Jesus.
While an ''artificial and polemical device'' argument removes guilt from the Jerusalem authorities (re the gospel storyline) it does not address the question of why the gospel writers put the condemning words into the mouths of the Jerusalem authorities. The consequences of these words have haunted Jewish/Christian relationships ever since. The Jews killed Jesus - a clarion call through the ages of anti-semitism.
For Bermejo-Rubio's seditious Jesus the words attributed to Pilate clearly have consequences. Pilate/Rome found no fault in Jesus during the time of Pilate and Tiberius. From an ahistorical perspective there was no historical Jesus crucified during the time of Tiberius and Pilate. However, a historical perspective of Roman occupation of Judaea can throw some light on what the gospel writers were attempting to reflect.
In 37 b.c. the Roman General Marc Antony executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Whether that execution involved being put on a stake/cross, flogging and beheading is, ultimately, of secondary relevance. It's the execution itself that is primary. (Crucifixion being a Roman method of dealing with rebels, seditionists, zealots -
as Josephus details after the war of 70 c.e.)
The interesting point is that the Roman execution of 37 b.c. involved not just Marc Antony it also involved King Herod:
A 'dishonorable death' ? Methinks being hung up, on a cross or stake, would be a very Jewish way in which to dishonour Antigonus in the eyes of the Jews. Beheading would have simply made him into a martyr. Crucifixion viewed as a curse ? Well - removing a man's feet from terra-firm indicates such a man is not worthy of standing on it...not worthy of standing on sacred ground.
Rome, via Marc Antony executed the last King and HIgh Priest of the Jews. King Herod paid Marc Antony a great deal of money to execute Antigonus. Who was the real killer - the man who pulled the trigger or the man who paid the assassin. Both, of course, are guilty - and perhaps that is what the gospel crucifixion story is attempting to highlight. Herod, re the above quote, killed 45 of Antigonus's party - Herod killed Hasmoneans. Consequently, it is perhaps more historical to read the Jerusalem chief priests and elders of being of Herod's party - Herodian Jews who called for the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus.
Looking to history for answers, for understanding of the gospel crucifixion story - indicates that while the gospel account reflects history - it is not, in and off itself, an historical account of the Pilate crucifixion story. All was quite under Tiberius.
Mark. ch.15: Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
[15] And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
[15] And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
Matthew ch.17: When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:................
And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
[23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
[24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
[23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
[24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Luke ch.12. :Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man............. No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him........And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him.
John ch.18/19: Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them,I find in him no fault at all.........When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
As is well known, the Gospels ascribe the moral responsibility for Jesus’ death to hoi ’Ioudaîoi, either in the general sense “the Jews” or in the more specific “the Judaeans” (those who lived in Judaea, or, more
concretely, the Jerusalem authorities).
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 49). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
concretely, the Jerusalem authorities).
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 49). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
This interpretation is fostered by the fact that a little earlier in the narrative Pilate addresses the chief priests and the police with the following words: “Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him” (John 19:6). The former remarks explain why some Christian scholars have gone so far as to say that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. For instance, the German exegete Ernst Bammel, well known as the editor of a collective volume addressed against Samuel Brandon’s ideas, has surmised that “the Sanhedrin, responsible for the execution, borrowed Pilate’s officers and soldiers to perform the execution, since the Romans had in any case two others to execute,” and in the same article ends up stating that the evidence points “rather to a Jewish execution than to a Roman one.”42 Despite being untenable from a historical standpoint—no serious author would nowadays endorse such an exceedingly unreasonable conclusion, Bammel’s assertion can claim its remote precedent in the Gospels themselves.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 51/52). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 51/52). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
Such a sordid portrait of the Jerusalem authorities is an artificial and polemical device aimed at presenting them as intractably evil, but it does not deserve any credit as historical description.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 52-53). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 52-53). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
While an ''artificial and polemical device'' argument removes guilt from the Jerusalem authorities (re the gospel storyline) it does not address the question of why the gospel writers put the condemning words into the mouths of the Jerusalem authorities. The consequences of these words have haunted Jewish/Christian relationships ever since. The Jews killed Jesus - a clarion call through the ages of anti-semitism.
For Bermejo-Rubio's seditious Jesus the words attributed to Pilate clearly have consequences. Pilate/Rome found no fault in Jesus during the time of Pilate and Tiberius. From an ahistorical perspective there was no historical Jesus crucified during the time of Tiberius and Pilate. However, a historical perspective of Roman occupation of Judaea can throw some light on what the gospel writers were attempting to reflect.
In 37 b.c. the Roman General Marc Antony executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Whether that execution involved being put on a stake/cross, flogging and beheading is, ultimately, of secondary relevance. It's the execution itself that is primary. (Crucifixion being a Roman method of dealing with rebels, seditionists, zealots -
as Josephus details after the war of 70 c.e.)
The interesting point is that the Roman execution of 37 b.c. involved not just Marc Antony it also involved King Herod:
Antiquities book 14: So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem; and carried Antigonus with him, in bonds to Antony. But Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony: and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate; and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the Kingdom, on account of the family they were of; in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod’s fear of this it was, that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease; an hundred, twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one; both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the High Priesthood; as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation. But these men lost the government by their dissentions one with another; and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater; who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction; but one that was subject to other Kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family.
At this time Herod, now he had got Jerusalem under his power,..............He also slew forty-five of the principal men of Antigonus’s party;............................Now when Antony had received Antigonus, as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph. But when he heard that the nation grew seditious; and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch; (2) for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said; when he thus speaks; “Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a King; as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews, so as to receive Herod, whom he had made King in his stead. For by no torments could they he forced to call him King: so great a fondness they had for their former King. So he thought that this dishonourable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus’s memory; and at the same time would diminish their hatred they bear to Herod.” Thus far Strabo.
A 'dishonorable death' ? Methinks being hung up, on a cross or stake, would be a very Jewish way in which to dishonour Antigonus in the eyes of the Jews. Beheading would have simply made him into a martyr. Crucifixion viewed as a curse ? Well - removing a man's feet from terra-firm indicates such a man is not worthy of standing on it...not worthy of standing on sacred ground.
Rome, via Marc Antony executed the last King and HIgh Priest of the Jews. King Herod paid Marc Antony a great deal of money to execute Antigonus. Who was the real killer - the man who pulled the trigger or the man who paid the assassin. Both, of course, are guilty - and perhaps that is what the gospel crucifixion story is attempting to highlight. Herod, re the above quote, killed 45 of Antigonus's party - Herod killed Hasmoneans. Consequently, it is perhaps more historical to read the Jerusalem chief priests and elders of being of Herod's party - Herodian Jews who called for the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus.
Looking to history for answers, for understanding of the gospel crucifixion story - indicates that while the gospel account reflects history - it is not, in and off itself, an historical account of the Pilate crucifixion story. All was quite under Tiberius.
Statistics: Posted by maryhelena — Fri Feb 23, 2024 10:14 am