neilgodfrey

Your question arises from the canonical literature exclusively. Justin Martyr, mid 2nd century, writes that Herod was responsible for crucifying Jesus, that it was the Jews who pierced their king, and Pilate is only named as a chronological and jurisdiction marker -- Herod and the Jews did this "under Pilate". (I've listed the references here.)

Gospel of Peter agrees. It was Herod and the Jews who performed the crucifixion.

We may speculate that these are later sources pointing to avalanching anti-semiticisms reshaping the story, but if so, one would want to explain how they missed some of the even "better" anti-semitisms in Matthew's and John's gospels. And the evidence for the chronological sequencing/geographic spread of the gospels (canonical, noncanonical, pre-both canonical and non-canonical) is hardly secure.

Point is, it is clear that crucifixion did not necessarily imply Jesus had to be crucified by the Romans. To argue it does is to over-rely on our canonical witnesses (or at least rely on them without a clear rationale) and perhaps even to anachronistically impute a little of our matter-of-fact historical mindedness into what are first or second century theological narratives.

And the gnostic gospels do not even agree that Jesus was crucified. How could "that" twist have evolved from an historical crucifixion event? Fact is, it didn't. If the idea does come later than the canonical gospels and/or Paul, and is traced back to interpretations of the canonical gospels and/or Paul, then it originates in statements about the crucifixion that are first and last theological statements -- not historical statements. Frederickson can say that "the single most solid fact about Jesus' life is his death" but to make this claim she does not use any noncontroversial evidence that independently corroborates that an historical event lay behind any of our theologically embedded statements about his death.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

jjramsey

No, I am denying that he is using the four elements as part of his argument.

jjramsey

Aren't you missing the possibility that Christians wanted to deflect blame from the Romans so as not to offend them?

neilgodfrey

That's a possibility but needs to be argued with evidence to become more than a possibility.

One reason I doubt it prima facie is that the Gospel of Peter and Justin Martyr directly draw their Jewish connection to the crucifixion from a desire to establish a theological point -- their discussion is couched in terms of biblical/OT fulfilment of prophecies.

The OT links are direct evidence that their Jewish responsibility claim was a theological one pure and simple. This of course opens the possibility/question that GMark's Roman responsibility is a similar theological one: look at the balancing throughout the gospel on Jesus' mission to both Jews and gentiles. One might wonder if the conclusion is a similar attempt to draw both in to the action. I have argued this in a bit more depth elsewhere, but the point is such hypotheses require argument, not default assumption.

And one more point: The original story of Jesus' crucifixion by the Romans has elsewhere been plausibly argued as being modelled on the Roman Triumph, being another ironic or paradoxical statement of theology re the "glorification" of Christ.

So both the crucifixion by the Jews story and the crucifixion by the Romans version are arguably equally embedded in theological -- not historical -- statements. The immediate evidence at hand would appear to suggest the characters responsible for the crucifixion are chosen on the basis of theological signifance.

Another reason for doubting the argument about avoiding offence to the Romans is that Justin Martyr in First Apology 40 is actually far harder on Pilate than the canonicals are. He says that Pilate was one of the joint conspirators against Christ!


(It's often said that the author "Luke" was at pains not to offend the Romans - if so, why did he not go the way of GPeter and leave Jesus in the hands of Herod himself? Besides, the canonical gospels did a pretty good job of portraying an innocent Pilate and heaping all the blame on the Jews anyway.)



Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

EarlOfLade

Are there any examples, except for the biblical account, of romans letting people take down dead from crosses? I seem to remember that they were left on the cross until there were nothing but bones left and that they used to put them along the roads leading into cities as a deterrent and warning.

neilgodfrey

I should have explained a little more in my previous post that I ended up revising about 3 times anyway (arguing that the evidence points to a theological -- not historical -- reason for Romans being chosen as the culprits):

The one who argued that Mark's passion narrative draws on the Roman Triumph (Schmidt, NTS, 41, 1995, 1-18) also concluded that the author was attempting to subtly avoid upsetting the Romans. But the only reason Schmidt offers to justify this is Mark's parabolic style, his 'hidden meanings'. Yet this is very odd grounds for the claim that he was writing to avoid offending Roman sensitivities. The whole gospel of Mark has elsewhere been argued as being riddled with riddles throughout (Kelber, Tolbert, Fowler, Wrede, Weeden .......). So to single out just one of these for a purpose that is exceptional to the theological rationales for all the others just does not do.

(Besides, Duff in JBL 111/1 1992 55-71 places the passion in a similar context with a Jesus' entry into Jerusalem drawing on a similar imperial triumphal march, and his explanation of the 'hidden ironies' behind it sits compatibly with the theological rationales for the other Markan ironies. There is no need to make an exception with the Roman story and say that it had a separate political function -- to avoid political offence.)

The Gospel of Peter likewise draws on theological rationales for its Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion. (I have compiled a list of the Gospel of Peter's allusions to OT literature here.) It is also more critical of Pilate than the canonical Matthew: where GMatthew has the Jews bribing the soldiers to keep them quiet about the resurrection, GPeter has Pilate himself directly commanding the guard to keep quiet about it.

So where we have the differences between a Roman crucifixion and Jewish crucifixion drawing on sources that strongly suggest a theological dialogue between the two versions, on what grounds or evidence do we need to look any further and assume that there is some attempt in either or both to avoid offending Romans? Especially when we see other hints that GPeter and Justin (see previous post) are not so fearful of a negative portrayal of Pilate as this hypothesis would seem to require.

So as for the question, 'Why is jesus crucified by the romans?'.... dunno. If we had earlier sources that pointed to a historical crucifixion then the question would not arise. But our earliest sources point to a theological reason for the choice of Romans, not a historical one.


Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

rlogan

Hi neil


I'm in agreement with you on this (theologically based) and would like to add something.

I think theologically it was important (from Isaiah 53) that the peoplerejected him, which is why Pilate actually pronounces that he can find no fault in him and lets the crowd choose Barabas to be "saved" in the phony passover tradition of letting a criminal go.

He needs to be numbered amongst the transgressors, so it has to be an official death sentence, but at the same time he needs to be rejected by his own people.

Hence the convoluted and preposterous interaction between Sanhedrin, Pilate, and the crowd. He's innocent (Isaiah 53 requires, and Pilate affirms) -but is nevertheless executed.

Amaleq13

From Carrier's article, Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus, and the Third Day:

EarlOfLade

So, in some cases, when there was a holiday coming up, they were allowed to take them down. Was there a holiday coming up when Jesus allegedly was crucified? Do we really have a way of knowing that?

Amaleq13

Passover. You should read the entire article.