Why Was Jesus The Galilean Crucified Al

Article
(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean

Crucied Alone? Solving
a False Conundrum
Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
36(2) 127154
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X13506166
jsnt.sagepub.com
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio
Departamento de Filologa Griega, Universidad Complutense, Spain
Abstract
One of the objections raised against the hypothesis that Jesus was involved in anti-Roman
seditious activity runs as follows: if Jesus was put to death as an insurrectionist, why was
he arrested and crucied alone, whilst his followers were left unharmed? Although this is
regarded as a real conundrum by the guild, the present article proposes that the question has
been incorrectly formulated, because it uncritically assumes that Jesus was indeed crucied
alone. The article argues that both sound reasoning and signicant evidence point to the fact
that some followers of Jesusor at least people related to him through a shared ideology
and/or activitieswere sought after and crucied along with him. In turn, this allows us to
understand in a novel way the reasons for the collective crucixion at Golgotha.
Keywords
Crucixion, (false) conundrums, identity, Jesus the Galilean, seditious activity
Das ist in der Form, wie es hier steht, eine ganz sonderbare Geschichte, voll von
Widersprchen, die ursprnglich ganz anders gelautet haben mu (Kautsky 1908).
Posing the Right Questions1

A large number of objections have been levelled against the hypothesis that Jesus
the Galilean, whatever else he may have been, was involved in some kind of
1.
I am deeply grateful to Dale C. Allison, Helen K. Bond, Paula Fredriksen, Tobias Hgerland,
Anthony Le Donne, Ramiro Moar, Josep Montserrat, and Antonio Piero, who kindly made
helpful suggestions and critical comments as I was preparing an earlier draft of this article. Of
course, none of them can be held responsible for the ideas set out here. My heartfelt thanks
go also to Jeff Morgan for his generous revision of my English text. This article is dedicated
to Gonzalo Puente Ojea as a token of friendship.
Corresponding author:
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, Departamento de Filologa Griega, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Email: fjlmbr@yahoo.es
128
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)
anti-Roman seditious activity.2 One of the main objections is the following: if

Jesus was put to death as an insurrectionist, why was he arrested and crucied
alone but his followers were left unscathed?3 If Jesus, according to conventional
wisdom, was the sole target of the Romans, this must prove that he was not perceived by them asand indeed was nota dangerous seditionist; otherwise his
disciples would also have been hunted down. However, Jesus was crucied
alone.4
Accepting that this is a real conundrum,5 quite a few scholars have organized
their views of Jesus and his death precisely around this puzzle. For instance,
according to Paula Fredriksen, while Jesus was not deemed politically dangerous, the enthusiastic reaction of the crowds in Jerusalem required the authorities
to arrest and crucify him.6 Recently, Justin Meggitt has sought to provide a new
solution to the alleged conundrum, by surmising that the Roman authorities executed Jesus because they thought they were disposing of a deluded lunatic.7
Unfortunately, these solutions are not compelling. Fredriksens reconstruction is grounded in a host of assumptions, most of which are uncertain or
unwarranted;8 moreover, by overlooking much evidence, she builds a portrait of
a politically innocuous Jesus that is rather implausible from a historical point of
view. Meggitts proposal also faces a number of serious objections. The details
amassed in support of his interpretation sit only loosely upon the episodes that
they are enlisted to explain,9 and in fact, much of the evidence he provides could
be (more plausibly) explained otherwise.10 Furthermore, much relevant material
2. There is an enormous body of literature devoted to refuting the claim that Jesus was a
seditionist. For the view that virtually every objection can be satisfactorily answered, see
Bermejo-Rubio forthcoming a.
3. See, e.g., Hengel 1970: 16; Catchpole 1984: 333; Sanders 1985: 304-305, 317; Brown 1994:
I, 683; Theissen and Merz 1996: 403; Bond 1998: 204; Riedo-Emmenegger 2005: 305.
4. See, e.g., Sacchi 1968: 454.
5. Old conundrum, double mystery (Marcus 2007: 421, 422); the core historical anomaly of
the Passion stories (Fredriksen 2000: 255).
6. See Fredriksen 2000: 234 (on the conundrum, see pp. 9, 224, 240-241). See also Fredriksen
2007: 418.
7. Meggitt 2007: 384 (for the conundrum, see pp. 379-81).
8. For example, the triumphal entry was an important event noticed by the authorities
(Fredriksen 2000: 242, 281-82); the crowds were excited by Jesus preaching and considered
him as Messiah and king even if he and his closest followers never claimed the role of Messiah
for him (244); Jesus had lost control of his audience (247, 252); Herod Antipas never tried to
halt Jesus (215-17). All these assumptions can be easily questioned with support drawn from
the available evidence.
9. See the criticisms made by Fredriksen 2007: 417.
10. For instance, Meggitt argues that from Pilates perspective, Jesus would have demonstrated
the symptoms of a madman by his behaviour, because during their encounter he refuses to
make any further response to the accusations made against him, thereby displaying the kind
of lack of concern for his own fate that typied the mad (2007: 402-403). Jesus refusal to
Bermejo-Rubio
129
is overlooked.11 Even more decisively, Meggitt does not really explain why Jesus
was executed through crucixion.12
Time and again, the solutions to the alleged conundrum prove to be unconvincing. Does this mean, then, that we are facing an insoluble problem? Instead
of drawing this hasty inference, perhaps we should begin to suspect that there is
no problem at all. Up to now, the usual way of posing the question has been: (If
Jesus was crucied as a seditionist), why was he crucied alone? This question
may, however, have been incorrectly formulated, not least because it assumes
that Jesus was indeed crucied alone. Is this assumption correct? Given that it
depends upon the Gospel accounts of Jesus passion, and that the Gospels are not
always reliable in historical matters, I propose a slight but signicant change,
namely, by shifting the question itself from Why was Jesus crucied alone? to
Was Jesus crucied alone?
By tackling the issue in a different waythinking outside the boxI will
argue that this shift in the way the question is posed allows us to discover that we
have so far been struggling with a false conundrum. I will contend that a careful
examination of the available evidence casts serious doubts on the claim that
other followers of Jesus were not arrested or prosecuted with him.
Recovering the Identity of those Crucied with Jesus:

Initial Explorations
The starting-point for the hypothesis that Jesus was not Pilates only target is the
fact that the four Gospels agree that Jesus was crucied along with two other
men.13 Given that scriptural reection prompted the creation of at least some items
pertinent to Jesus passion and crucixion, an elementary hermeneutic of suspicion
makes us question whether this particular piece of information is truly reliable. It
has often been suggested that Isa. 53.12 LXX (e0n toi=j a)no&moij e0logi/sqh) may
have played a role in the elaboration of the scene in Mark.14 This is not unreasonable, but it faces at least two basic objections. First, we should be wary of
11.
12.
13.
14.
answer, however, might have been because he was indeed guilty of seditious actions, and had
good reason not to give clear answers to a Roman prefect. If Pilate knew that Jesus was a
seditionist, he must have perceived his refusal to answer as the typical obstinacy (contumacia)
of a Jewish patriot.
For example, it seems that Jesus was well known as an eloquent teacher, and such people are
not usually considered to be mad. If Pilate had known something about Jesus, he would have
realized that there was method in his madness.
See Fredriksen 2007: 417; Marcus 2007: 422.
Mk 15:27 (kai\ su\n au0tw~| staurou=sin du/o lh|sta&j); Mk 15.32; Jn 19.18.
Especially in the light of Mk 15.28 (see Yarbro Collins 2007: 748). But this verse is not found
in important manuscripts; it is probably an assimilation to Lk. 22.37, with which the last four
Greek words agree.
130
Parallelenfreudigkeit: the notion of a person surrounded byor classied along

withevildoers is vague and general, and in fact there is no verbal similarity
between the passage in Isaiah and the Markan description of the co-crucied.15 It
is one thing to argue that the evangelists recalled this Isaianic passage in their writings, but it is yet another to contend that it generated the Gospel report. Secondly,
the free creation of this scene is not a plausible suggestion, insofar as it runs directly
against the tendency of the Gospels to isolate Jesus.16 Accordingly, there seem to
be no compelling reasons for questioning the historicity of this notice.
If the kernel of the Gospel reports on a collective crucixion is deemed
reliable, identifying the other protagonists in the scene is important in order to
gain more precise knowledge about Jesus fate. Strikingly, the identity of
these men is left unspecied by the evangelists. Mark and Matthew simply
call them lh|stai/. Although it has occasionally been proposed that this designation (probably a code word for political insurgents) might be secondary,17 I
nd this suggestion unconvincing for a number of reasons,18 not least because,
as far as is known, when the Romans controlled Judaea from 63 bce until the
Jewish War, they only crucied seditionists or those thought to be sympathetic
to them.19 The fact that this piece of information vanishes in the tradition
Lk. 23.33 calls them kakou=rgoi (malefactors),20 whilst John merely has
two others21seems to be another example of the de-politicizing process
which is perceptible in the Gospels. The current assumption that Luke replaced
an original, embarrassing lh|stai/ with kakou=rgoi and that John suppressed
15. The same may be said of the alleged similarity to Ps. 22.17. Moreover, although Luke is the
only Gospel that cites Isa. 53.12, one of his wrongdoers is depicted in a favourable light, not
as an anomos (see Brown 1994: II, 970).
16. See Lgasse 1994: 144.
17. lh|stai/ is wohl eine sekundre Konkretion (Reinbold 1994: 166 n. 250, who resorts to a
hypothetical pre-Markan passion narrative and refers to Isa. 53.12).
18. The reconstruction of a pre-Markan passion narrative is highly speculative, as is shown by the
many theories about its composition. See, e.g., Marion L. Soards Appendix in Brown 1994:
II, 1492-524. Furthermore, the use of lh|stai/ coheres well with the fact that Mk 15.7 refers to
sta&sij and stasiastai/, so a revolutionary activity is likewise implied by the former term.
19. See Kuhn 1982: 724. Roman law restricted this kind of execution to seditionists (see, e.g.,
Dig. 48, 19, 28 15; Dig. 48, 19, 38 1-2). Their supporters were subjected to identical
punishment: Receptores adgressorum itemque latronum eadem poena adciuntur qua ipsi
latrones (Paulus, Sent. 5, 3, 4). Given that there is no available counter-evidence, the burden
of proof lies with anyone wishing to question the view that the crucied men were lh|stai/.
20. Since the word order in some manuscripts of Lk. 23.32 (e3teroi kakou=rgoi du/o) could
suggest that Jesus was also a criminal, many manuscripts invert the word order to e3teroi du/o
kakou=rgoi. See Fitzmyer 1986: 1499.
21. Jn 19.18: au0to_n stau/rwsan, kai\ met 0 au0tou= a!llouj du/o. John does not use the term
lh|sth/j for those crucied with Jesus, but rather for Barabbas (18.40). Samuel Brandon
reasonably enquired whether that silence could indicate that John knew that these two
crucied with Jesus were his followers? (Brandon 1967: 351 n. 1).
Bermejo-Rubio
131
the term altogether is a reasonable surmise. With the aid of two different
devicesone univocally identifying the co-crucied as criminals/morally
inferior beings, and the other sparing them from any seditious contextboth
evangelists make a distinction between the two men and Jesus by defusing the
dangerousness of any association between the innocent Lord and those allegedly wretched men.22
The evangelists do not make further connections between these two men and
Jesus, nor in fact do the overwhelming majority of modern scholars. According
to current wisdom, these lh|stai/ are an enigma: we do not know whence they
come, and we do not know whither they go.23 Jesus story is told as if the two
men had nothing to do with him. The two co-crucied are, at best, part of the
narrative furniture.
Such a widespread assumption is, to say the least, both astounding and suspect. The simplest and most probable reason why a group of men was crucied
together by the Romans is that there was indeed an actual connection between
them, and that they were tried and sentenced for the same crime. Furthermore,
the widespread idea that Judaea was an idyllically quiet land during the reign of
Tiberius24 is untenable, as a critical reading of Tacitus,25 Josephus26 and the
Gospels themselves prove.27 But, in light of the evidence, the opposite view of a
Judaea lled with constant, outright revolts against the imperial Roman order28
also seems to be an unwarranted exaggeration: according to the extant sources,
political uprisings and crucixions were not especially frequent between 6 ce
and 41 ce, and the situation was, on the whole, relatively stable. It is highly
unlikely that several people who were crucied (accused of sedition) at the same
time and in the same place would not be linked to each other in some way. In
fact, even if the evangelists reluctantly and indirectly allow their readers to see
that Jesus was deemed a kind of lh|sth/j, the same label is used by Mark and
Matthew to designate his companions on the cross.29
22. Some scholars even state that Jesus was crucied by the Jews, whilst the execution of the two
lh|stai/ was entirely a Roman matter (Bammel 1984: 443).
23. See, e.g., Focant 2004: 574.
24. See, e.g., Barnett 1975; Giblet 1974.
25. J.J. Price has argued that Pilates stormy term belies Tacituss famous judgment that under
Tiberius all was quiet (Hist. 5.9.2), that Tacitus demonstrates a very sketchy knowledge
of Palestine 80 years earlier, and that the fact that Gratus deposed four high priests might
indicate a lack of calm already before Pilates arrival (see Price 1992: 6).
26. The sequence of reports in Ant. 18.55-87 describes a series of qo/ruboi.
27. The reference to Pilates mingling of the blood of Galileans with their sacrices; the reference
to a sta&sij in Mk 15.7 and Lk. 23.19; and the three men crucied under Pilate.
28. See Maccoby 1973: 125; Horsley 2003: 13, 53.
29. As against a rebel (w(j pi\ lh|sth_n) you have come out (Mk 14.48 and Mt. 26.55; Lk.
22.52).
132
It therefore seems a fair inference that those crucied with Jesus actually had
some kind of relationship to him, and that this was the reason why they were
crucied together.30 Of course, this contention does not yet allow us to determine
the precise nature of that relationship. The following possibilities arise: the men
were Jesus close disciples; they were Jesus followers or sympathizers in a
looser sense; they were people belonging to a different group. I will now consider these possibilities in some detail.
The fact that we do not hear of any of Jesus followers being imprisoned and
sentenced with him will make many readers (particularly those prone to trust the
Gospels as basically reliable historical sources) quite sceptical about the possibility that the co-crucied men were Jesus close disciples. We should not easily
yield to this temptation, certainly not before considering some intriguing details
in the Gospel accounts. For instance, had not several of Jesus followers given
the undertaking to die with him (Mk 10.38-39; 14.29, 31)? Be that as it may,
several scholars consider it perfectly reasonable that the men crucied with Jesus
belonged to his own group.31
The argument usually levelled against the possibility that the co-crucied men
were Jesus companions is that his disciples were left unharmed. Nevertheless, a
closer reading of the pertinent Gospels texts indicates otherwise. There are several converging hints which imply that the authorities were indeed interested in
capturing Jesus followers. First, according to Jn 18.19, the high priest questioned Jesus not only about his teaching, but also about his disciples, who are
strikingly mentioned rst: peri\ tw~n maqhtw~n au)tou= kai\ peri\ th=j didaxh=j
au)tou=. This enquiry is not followed up, and its precise meaning consequently
remains obscure. The question, however, betrays some apprehension regarding
Jesus circle.32
Secondly, the Gospels recount that, when Jesus was arrested, his disciples ed
(Mk 14.50-5133; Mt. 26.56). If these passages deserve any credibility, they point
to the disciples great fear. We also have the story of Peters threefold denial: he
fears the consequences of declaring that he is a follower of Jesus, to the point that
he breaks the loyalty oath to his master. Irrespective of whether this episode has
a historical basis, it reveals a powerful motive for avoiding recognition as one of
30. See Lk. 23.40: the crucied are e0n tw~| au0tw~| kri/mati.
31. See, e.g., Eisler 19291930: II, 525-26; two of his accomplices (Brandon 1968: 103);
possibly members of his own movement (Maccoby 1973: 218); Montserrat 2007: 142-43.
32. The simplest explanation is that they could be politically dangerous; see Barrett 1978: 527.
33. The contention in Mk 14.50 that all (pa&ntej) ed should be understood as an exaggeration.
On the one hand, it seems to be the fullment of Jesus prediction in Mk 14.27; on the other
hand, it serves the theological point of highlighting Jesus isolation. In fact, Mk 14.51-54
contradicts the generalization. Note that kra&tein is used both in Mk 14.46 and 14.51.
Bermejo-Rubio
133
Jesus disciples. The simplest explanation of both the ight and the denial is that
the disciples feared sharing the same fate as their master.34
Of course, one could argue that Pilate or the Jewish authorities might have
attempted to capture the disciples but failed to arrest anyone other than Jesus.
This is a possibility, but we should also note that in the scene of Peters denials
some further signicant, and usually overlooked, details can be gleaned.35 First,
in Mk 14.67 the high priests servant girl says to Peter: You also were with Jesus
the Nazarene (kai\ s meta_ tou= Nazarhnou= h]sqa tou= 0Ihsou=). This kai\ su/ is
usually considered odd,36 although not necessarily so if other people had been
arrested with Jesus. Secondly, we witness a striking pronominal shift from the
singular to the plural. Whilst in Mk 14.67 reference is made to Jesus alone, in
14.69 the servant says to those present: ou[toj e0c au)tw~n e0stin, and in 14.70
Peter is told by the bystanders: a)lhqw~j e0c au)tw~n ei]. The most plausible explanation of these features is that those arrested constitute a group of men, and that
Peter is accused of belonging to that same group. One could object that, if there
were other people arrested with Jesus, they had nothing to do with him. But the
maid signicantly adds: kai\ ga_r Galilai=oj ei].37 This seems to imply that several men had already been arrested,38 that they were all Galileans, and presumably constituted a unied group.39 In the Fourth Gospel (18.17, 25) the servant
asks Peter if he is one of the disciples of that man, but this does not seem to be
an innocuous reference to the obvious fact that Jesus had disciples, otherwise
Peters emphatic denial would be pointless. If, as the Gospel writers intend and
so many scholars assume, the disciples in Gethsemane were not the target of the
authorities, why would Peter feel fear at all? His negation makes sense ifand
only ifhe is frightened of being identied with a group of men who had already
been arrested, since that identication would presumably have led him to suffer
the same serious punishment as them.
The above analysis counters the widespread claim that the disciples were not
searched for; the hypothesis that the people crucied with Jesus might have been
his companions is also shown to be a far from fanciful idea. This is all the more
34. The saying about taking up the cross (Mk 8.34-35 and parallels; Gos. Thom. 55b) indicates a
mutual hostility between Jesus followers and the Empire, establishing a connection between
choosing Jesus way and the Romans death penalty against seditionists.
35. On the historicity of this episode, see Brown 1994: I, 621.
36. Marcus 2009: 1018.
37. Mt. 26.73 supplies a clue as to how the bystanders are able to discover Peters regional
identity: a)lhqw~j kai\ su\ e0c au0tw~n ei], kai\ ga_r h( lalia& sou dh=lo&n se poiei=.
38. The only way of guessing their regional identity would have been through linguistic features,
and this means, in turn, that those men have been heard (or more probably, interrogated).
39. Lk. 13.1-3 records that Pilate had trouble in the Temple area with Galileans. See Peschs
perceptive comment: Ob Galiler hier den politischen Beigeschmack der Verdchtigung
als politischen Rebellen hat, bleibt zu erwgen; die heftige Reaktion des Petrus wrde
verstndlicher (1977: II, 450).
134
so because there is evidence that Jesus followers were not restricted to an inner
group of (more or less) a dozen disciples, but also embraced a middle circle of
auxiliaries and supporters. The presence of such supporters during the last days
of Jesus life can be inferred not only from the report of the triumphal entry, but
also from Mk 11.1-6 and 14.12-16, which seem to assume the existence of a
Jerusalem network.40 As some members of this group must have been involved
in Jesus activities in the capital city, nothing seems to preclude the possibility
that they were arrested and crucied along with Jesus.
Admittedly, given the scant evidence, one cannot rule out the possibility that
people belonging to a different group were crucied with Jesus, and I readily
afrm that the precise degree of the relationship between him and these men is a
matter for debate. However, as I argue below, it is reasonably certain that even in
this case there existed some relationship between them.
If one rules out the possibility that the men crucied with Jesus were his followers, the most likely alternative is that they had taken part in the sta&sij mentioned in Mk 15.7 and Lk. 23.19;41 this group is the only one we hear of whose
members were liable to be crucied in Jerusalem during that period. However,
then we are bound to take up again the old hypothesis that the sta&sij group and
Jesus group were somehow interrelated.42 There are indeed a number of
signicant points in favour of this hypothesis. First, violent behaviour is a common denominator of both groups: according to Mk 15.7, the rebels had committed murder (fo&non) during the insurrection; according to Mk 14.47 (and
parallels), armed resistance, with homicidal intentions, was offered in
Gethsemane.43 Secondly, if the men executed with Jesus were connected to the
sta&sij, then they all would have been condemned for political reasons, namely,
a crimen laesae maiestatis (and in fact they were similarly punished through
crucixion).44 Thirdly, the Gospels do not speak of people being crucied in
separate groups, but of a unied group of crucied men. Fourthly, as I have
40. These passages may betray not only the existence of such followers, but the fact that some
of them might be previously unknown to (at least some of) Jesus disciples. Of course, on
a theological level these accounts aim at emphasizing Jesus foreknowledge and sovereign
control over events.
41. See, e.g., Pesch 1977: II, 486; Marcus 2009: 1043-44.
42. Lk. 23.19 locates the insurrection in Jerusalem, and everything indicates that it had occurred
very recently. For the contention that there was a coincidence of this incident and Jesus attack
in the Temple, and that the two commotions were related, see, e.g., Eisler 19291930: II, 459529; Brandon 1967: 263-64, 339; Brandon 1968: 102-103.
43. The act portrayed in Mk 14.47 was not a minor one: Der Schwertzieher begeht kein
Kavaliersdelikt, wenn er das Ohr eines anderen abschlgt. Htte der Schlag nur geringfgig
anders getroffen, so wren Kopf oder Hals verletzt worden. Dieser Schwertschlag ist
Gewaltanwendung mit mglicher Todesfolge (Theissen 1989: 198).
44. The fact that the insurrection and the insurrectionists are described as well known betrays
their relative importance.
Bermejo-Rubio
135
argued above, political uprisings do not seem to have been sufciently widespread during this period and in this geographical area to justify the lack of
relatedness as a plausible surmise. Any suggestion that the crucied mens different provenance from Jesus implies that they were not connected to him is a
most unlikely hypothesis.
Thus, there are three alternatives: the crucied men were (a) Jesus close disciples, (b) Jesus followers in a looser sense or (c) people belonging to another
group. In the light of my earlier arguments, whichever of these alternatives is
chosen, a concrete link must have existed between the three men crucied at
Golgotha. Hence, the burden of proof lies with those who seek to deny the existence of such a connection. Interestingly, this point can be strengthened through
further reasoning based on another detail attested in the Passion accounts.
Recovering the Identity of those Crucied with Jesus:

A Man in the Middle
The Gospels not only recount that Jesus was crucied along with two other men,
but that he was crucied between them. Jesus is crucied in the middle.45
Although this setting is usually accepted in New Testament scholarship and is
well established in iconography, its historical value could beand sometimes
has beenquestioned. Thus, for example, it is suggested that the image of Jesus
between the other two men, one on his right and one on his left, may evoke the
episode of James and John in Mk 10.35-37.46 In addition, it is sometimes proposed that more men may have been crucied with the group, and that the tradition that Jesus was placed in the middle developed for theological reasons,
presumably to emphasize Jesus importance: Were there others crucied besides
the two? The Gospel silence might imply a negative; yet the reason for specifying two is architectonic, so that Jesus might be portrayed in the center between
them.47
I readily grant that these suggestions give much food for thought, but, for a
number of reasons, I do not think they are strong enough to debunk the historical
reliability of the Golgotha scene. First, as I have already argued, it is extremely
unlikely that the scene has simply been concocted, because the collective
crucixion presents dangerous implications in that it runs the risk of relativizing
Jesus isolation. The portrayal of Jesus would probably have been even more
45. Mk 15.27 (e3na e0k deciw~n kai\ e3na e0c eu0wnu/mwn au0tou=); Jn 19.18 (met au0tou= a!llouj du/o
e0nteu=qen kai\ e0nteu=qen, me/son d t o_n Ihsou=n); see also Gos. Pet. 4.10.
46. See Yarbro Collins 2007: 748. Dale Allison has provided a thorough analysis of the literary
intertwining of Mt. 17.1-8 (the transguration) and Mt. 27.27-56, on the one hand, and the
close resemblance between Mt. 20.21-23 and Mt. 27.38, on the other (see Allison 2005: 22632). The same could be done with Mark.
47. Brown 1994: II, 971. See also Lgasse 1994: 144; Bammel 1984: 443.
136
effective if he had been presented as a single victim. Secondly, regarding the

supposed echo of Mk 10.37, the literary parallel is in fact limited. Raymond
Brown has remarked that the imagery of an honored seat or throne is so different
from what we have here that mention of right and left is not sufcient to establish
a parallel, and indeed the vocabulary for left is not the same.48 Thirdly, the
repetition of the motif of people being placed each side of Jesus is not striking.
For instance, if Jesus made kingly claims,49 his most ambitious supporters would
aspire to occupy the best places at his side, and the Romans might have reected
his claims by crucifying his supporters either side of him. As to the idea that the
central positioning of Jesus may have been created to emphasize his relevance,
this might be begging the question: a good explanation for Jesus being depicted
in the centre between two men (or of a larger group) is that he was actually
crucied in the centre.
I therefore think it is plausible that the reports placing Jesus in the middle of
other crucied men reect a historical fact that is deep-rooted in tradition.
What was the reason for it? In an account by Philo (Flacc. 6.36-41) which is
often cited in the interpretations of Mark, the pagan populace of Alexandria
dressed up Carabas as a mock king, and young men carrying rods on their
shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him (e9kate/rwqen ei9sth/kesan)
in imitation of a bodyguard (mimou/menoi dorufo/rouj). In Mk 10.35-40,
when James and John ask Jesus to allow them to sit, one at his right and the
other at his left, their request implies closest participation in his royal glory.
The seats to the right and the left of the king are of the highest rank and honour
after the king.50 The most plausible explanation of the Golgotha scene is that
Jesus was placed in the middle because the Romans considered him to be the
leader of the men crucied with him. These men were probably lh|stai/. But
did the placing of Jesus in the centre (thus implying his leadership) stem from
the feverish imagination of the Romans, or did it arise from some claim made
by Jesus himself?
To answer this question it is not necessary to resort to pure guesswork, as
there is another piece of evidence in the titulus crucis: king of the Jews.
Although its historicity has occasionally been called into question,51 this seems
to be a reliable piece of information.52 The formulation of the inscription is not
the result of the historicization of a dogmatic motif.53 The emphatic appearance
48. Brown 1994: II, 969 n. 84. The last contention is true if Mk 10.37 is envisaged, but see 10.40
(e0c eu0wnu/mwn).
49. See below.
50. See 2 Sam. 16.6; 1 Kgs 22.19; Ezra 4.29; Josephus, Ant. 6.11, 9. As Pesch comments: Zur
Rechten und zur Linkensind die dunatoi/ des Knigs (1977: II, 156).
51. See Catchpole 1984: 330.
52. See now Allison 2010: 233-40, 244-47.
53. Dahl 1991: 36-37.
Bermejo-Rubio
137
of this title in Pilates interrogation54and in the subsequent narrative55indicates that it gured prominently as the basis of the accusation brought against
Jesus. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus is not remembered as rebutting the charge
suggests that he considered himself to be a king or Gods viceroy. In fact, this
claim can also be inferred from other passages, such as Jn 19.21 and Lk. 22.2930. If the accounts of the mocking of Jesus by soldiers in the employ of Rome
(Mk 15.16-20; Jn 19.1-5) possess any credibility, their burlesque naturewhich
involves a parody of kingly epiphanyprovides us with evidence that, for the
soldiers, Jesus was a rebel who claimed to be a king. Jesus himself seems to
have made a kingship claim that was intrinsically insurrectionist (cf. Jn 19.12;
Acts 17.7).
If Jesus was placed amidst other crucied men, this would not have been the
result of a whim.56 The Roman authority, for the sake of deterrence, mocks Jesus
arrogant pretensions to royalty by crucifying him between two supporters, thus
parodying a kings retinue.57 For the reasons already noted, it is my contention
that the two men were either part of Jesus group, or were at least connected to
him through a shared ideology and/or activities. In fact, the historical scene
would have been all the more meaningful and signicant if there had formerly
been some degree of communality or convergence between all these men, since
crucixion (as in the case of other Roman punishments) had an intrinsically
mimetic character.58 Any other alternative would not make sense, for the Romans
or the onlookers, because an actual political lessona terrifying warning
would not otherwise have been taught.
The scene does indeed make sense when all the relevant evidence is gathered:
a collective crucixion, traces of the authorities motivation for tracking the disciples, some indirect hints that others were arrested with Jesus, the insurrectionist nature of the other crucied men, the depiction of Jesus being crucied
amongst them, and cumulative evidence for his royal claims. Despite the impression which the evangelists sought to convey, Jesus, in all probability, was not the
only target of the authorities; he was rather arrested and crucied along with
several of his followers or collaborators. We cannot know the exact number of
54. Mk 15.2, 9, 12 and parallels in Mt. 27.11 and Lk. 23.3. See also Jn 18.33, 37-39; 19.3, 19, 21.
55. Mk 15.18, 26, 32.
56. In response to the possible objection that, in and of itself, Jesus prominence is not necessarily
grounded in the fact that he was the leader of those crucied with him, I would note that sound
historical reconstruction is not merely built on abstract possibilities, but on the most probable
and explanatory course of events.
57. Marcus 2006: 73-74.
58. Crucixion was intended to unmask, in a deliberately grotesque manner, the pretension and
arrogance of those who had exalted themselves beyond their station; the authorities were bent
on demonstrating through the graphic tableau of the cross what such self-promotion meant
and whither it led (Marcus 2006: 78-79). See Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, Galba 9, 1.
138
victims, or whether they were captured together or in different places, but there
were at least three of them.59 More men could have been captured and crucied,
but many had managed to ee.60 In contrast to what is generally assumed, these
ndings corroborate what was common Roman practice, namely, that not only a
seditious leader61 but also his followers would be killed.62
Deconstructing the Synoptic Gospels Accounts of the

Co-Crucied
The evangelists seek to separate Jesus as much as possible from those crucied
with him, and they do so by concealing their relationship with him and by referring to them with terms (lh|stai/, kakou=rgoi) that they would never willingly use
to label Jesus. Yet another device is used by the evangelists to establish a clear
distinction between Jesus and the other crucied men: Mk 15.32b (Mt. 27.44)
tells us something about what the two men allegedly said, whereas Lk. 23.39-43
attributes direct speech to them. As these passages are deemed to be the creations
of the evangelists, their historical value is negligible because they t a theological
agenda. The increasing accumulation of hostility towards Jesus demonstrates that
he is dramatically singled out in this scene as everybodys target, which accords
with the early Christian contention that the Christ had been rejected by all. Given
the difculty of accepting that Jewish religious leaders would have publicly
reviled a co-religionist who was hanging on a cross after being crucied by soldiers in the service of the Roman Empire, it is also unlikely, from a historical
point of view, that Jesus co-crucied would have mocked him.63
The Lukan story is likewise suspect. First, it does not enjoy multiple attestation. Secondly, it could have been inspired by biblical antecedents.64 Thirdly, it
tallies too neatly with the writers apologetic agenda, in that it provides another
impartial witness to Jesus innocence, and provides yet another example of the
Lukan themes of human repentance and dominical forgiveness exercised during
the passion.65 Fourthly, much typically Lukan terminology is found in the
59. In light of Mk 15.7, the conjecture that other people could be crucied along with them is not
unreasonable.
60. See Allison 2010: 236 n. 60. It is evidently possible that people could escape an attack;
according to Josephus (War 2.261-62; Ant. 20.169), the Egyptian managed to ee when his
group was being attacked by the Romans.
61. So Tacitus about Tacfarinas: non nisi duce interfecto requiem belli fore (Annals 4.25, 3).
62. The ideological need to deny the most probable reconstruction is attested by the fact that some
scholars, after claiming that Jesus was crucied alone, proceed to argue that even if other
insurrectionists had been crucied alongside him, their numbers would have been too low
(see Sacchi 1968: 454).
63. That these stories are slanders is explicitly stated, e.g., by Maccoby 1973: 218.
64. Brown 1994: II, 1001 n. 49; 1002-1003.
65. See Brown 1994: II, 1000.
Bermejo-Rubio
139
narrative. All this has led most scholars to consider it as a haggadic development
of Mark/Matthew that serves theological purposes.
It could be argued that these four factors do not conclusively demonstrate that
Lukes account lacks historical value.66 Thus, even if it is doubtful that the Lukan
narrative (and the other Synoptic texts) can be considered historically trustworthy, I will examine them without precluding their historical signicance.67 I will
contend that a careful survey of these texts allows us to infer that their meaning
is quite different from what is traditionally ascribed to them.
The rst interesting feature to be noted is that the two mens reported behaviour in Mark and Matthew gives the lie to the claim that they had nothing to do
with Jesus. At rst sight, the fact that they rail against him seems to suggest that
Jesus is not one of them. However, this may be plausible on a literary but not on
a historical level. If these two men had been crucied with Jesus by sheer chance
alone, why would they have reviled him at all? It is difcult to understand why
those suffering a terrible death and having nothing to do with Jesus would react
negatively towards him unless they had taken part in an enterprise led or prompted
by Jesus as auctor seditionis and were disappointed at the result.
With regard to the Lukan account, just as other characters had sneered at
Jesus, one of those men hanging by his side says: Are you not the Messiah?
Save yourself and us (23.39). The evangelists aim is clear: this gure closes the
circle of those who mock Jesus. Nevertheless, as Robert Eisler has shrewdly
remarked, the Lukan assumption that this person was a common criminal makes
his declaration incomprehensible, for a common criminal would not have any
particular reason to expect the Messiah to save him. The wording of his declaration does not allow us to determine whether his words amount to sarcasm
intended to mock Jesus, or express a desperate plea on his part. However, even if
it is intended as mockery, and even if Jesus death put an end to the great dream
of his messiahship,68 the crucied mans words imply that, if Jesus had been
able to descend from the cross, he would have saved those who were condemned
with him. This claim makes sense only if the speaker deems himself (and his
companion) to be worthy of deliverance by the Messiah. This, in turn, is comprehensible if their crime was not robbery or murder carried out for non-ideological
reasons, but one related to some (religiously inspired) seditious act against the
Roman oppressor. According to Eisler, this means that they had taken part in
Jesus liberating enterprise.69 Be that as it may, the words of the crucied man are
66. See Garca Prez 1986: 297-304, who assumes an underlying Aramaic tradition from Lukes
special source.
67. Joel Marcus, while recognizing that it serves a Markan purpose, states: The railing at Jesus
by his fellow prisoners may be a historical memory (2009: 1044), although he does not
provide any further explanation.
68. Grelot 1967: 195, mettait n au grand rve de sa messianit.
69. See the perceptive comments in Eisler 19291930: II, 526.
140
understandable if the speaker has been unjustly condemned; only in this case
could he expect a Messiah to take his fate into account.
The lengthier speech of the other person crucied according to Lukes account
is even more telling. Whereas in v. 40 he rebukes the words of his companion by
alluding to their common state, in v. 41 he declares that they are both being justly
condemned: We are receiving what is worthy of what we did, but he did nothing
disorderly (a!topon). This story is aimed precisely at counteracting the embarrassing question that inquisitive readers have continued to pose throughout history: did Jesus deserve his death? The rebels words mean that while crucixion
tted his own crime and that of his companion, this was not the case with Jesus.
Then, in v. 42, with stunning intimacy, he requests an act of kindness: Jesus,
remember me whenever you come into your kingdom (basilei/a).70
It is noteworthy that several inconsistencies arise when we compare this
speech with the words of the other crucied man, as well as with current scholarly assumptions. On the one hand, the speech contains the mans self-indictment
and condemnation of his companion, but this clashes with the above-mentioned
contention that the words of the other crucied man are explicable only if he
supposes that he has not acted unjustly. On the other hand, and more importantly,
although he declares Jesus innocence as far as any unlawful action is concerned,
his request for kindness assumes the truthfulness of Jesus claim to kingship and
that he has the kingly power to dispense at will royal benets.71 This, in turn,
means that the man not only knows that Jesus claimed to be a king (as implied
by Jesus answer72), but also, with the deepest conviction, accepts his claim to
kingship. Now, this claim is the unmistakably political charge on which Jesus
had been accused and sentenced: from a Roman point of view, Jesus is guilty of
the crime of laesa maiestas. Therefore, despite himself (v. 41) and despite the
evangelists aim, this mans last words (v. 42), however indirectly, conrm that
Jesus has been rightly condemned. At the same time, by expressing his belief in
the true kingship of Jesus, he conrms that he is a faithful follower of his leader.
The inference that the man crucied with Jesus could have been one of his
followers recalls several other texts referring to the disciples. It is difcult to
detect a real difference between the hopes contained in Lk. 23.42 and those
expressed in Acts 1.6; in both passages, the uncertainty about the timing of the
arrival of the basilei/a is connected to a deep hope in its coming. As to Jesus
70. This mans air of familiarity with his interlocutor is striking; he is one of the few people in the
Gospels to address him with an unqualied Jesus (see Loisy 1924: 559). Such familiarity
has struck some interpreters as illogical on the part of a convicted evildoer who encounters
Jesus for the rst time (Brown 1994: II, 1005). But is this further evidence of closeness to his
king?
71. As stated by Brown (1994: II, 1005).
72. Jesus corroborates his lordship because he does not delay his power until an enthronement ad
calendas graecas; his power will be demonstrated today (sh/meron).
Bermejo-Rubio
141
answer in Lk. 23.43, it is difcult to distinguish the promises involved from

those made to the disciples about their participation in the kingdom.73 The solemnity of Jesus declaration (a)mh/n soi le/gw) supports the contention that the other
man will be with him.74 This is not surprising, as Jesus promises to his disciples were based on their intimate relationship with him, and, more specically,
on the fact that they had continued with me in my trials. Those who are crucied
with him have remained with Jesus throughout his peirasmoi/; they have truly
drunk from the same cup as Jesus.
Although the whole passage was most probably created by Luke or his
sources, the sobering lesson to be drawn from an analysis of the words of those
crucied with Jesus is that they allow us to deconstruct the traditional view. The
second mans attempt to dissociate Jesus from himself (and his companion) by
blaming himself (and his companion), as well as by absolving Jesus, is inconsistent, because his words express his full solidarity with Jesus kingly claims and
fate (similar to the way that the cry of the other man implies the solidarity of the
true Messiah with those who are crucied with him).75 In other words, if the two
men crucied with Jesus are guilty, so is he; if he is innocent, so are they. The
rst judgment (all three are guilty) reects the point of view of the Roman rulers;
the second view (all three are innocent) reects the perspective of the politicoreligious ideology of the Jewish liberation movements. Far from it, the assumption made by the evangelistsand by modern scholarsnamely, that Jesus
alone is innocent, reects the de-historicized view of a later Christian reconstruction, which seeks to separate what cannot be separated. This analysis therefore
conrms what has earlier been argued in this article: the most plausible historical
reconstruction is that the two men crucied with Jesus were, if not his disciples
or followers, certainly linked to him through a shared ideology and/or activity.
Why was the Identity of those Crucied with Jesus

Removed by the Gospel Tradition?
While some people will nd it difcult to imagine how earliest Christian memory could have simply forgotten the identity of the other crucied men, we should
try to ascertain why the evangelists would have discarded this piece of information. There are several possible answers to this question. According to memory
theorists, the vast majority of details are dropped unintentionally (via mnemonic
distanciation); we should not therefore necessarily assume that overt intentions
73. See, e.g., Lk. 22.28-30.
74. met e0mou= (Lk. 22.28, 43). See Mk 3.14 and Grelot 1967: 205.
75. The equivalence of messiahship and kingship in this context is not only attested by Mk 15.32
and Lk. 23.2, but also by the fact that both realities are complementarily referred to by the
co-crucied (cf. Lk. 23.39 and 23.42).
142
were at work. It could be objected that the missing names of the other crucied
men were too important to have been forgotten, and so they must have been
intentionally dropped. Be that as it may, I will now argue that the absence of
these names can be cogently explained.
First, it should be noted that a great deal of material, regardless of its importance, has been neglected or removed from the Gospel accounts. For instance,
what really happened during the Temple incident? How was it possible for a
single person to carry out what the evangelists attribute to Jesus? Did not this
arbitrary interruption evoke opposition? What was the reaction of the Temple
guards (and the Romans)? Not a single word of explanation is given. And what
was Jesus doing at night on the Mount of Olives with a group of armed men?
Why is Mk 14.47 silent about the identity of the attacker?76 Did not the assaulted
person defend himself? Did not the arresting party react to this bloodletting
attack? No answer is given to any of these questions. It seems exceedingly odd
that earliest Christian memory failed to register such seemingly momentous
events in Jesus life, of which many others could be noted.77 The true signicance
of numerous episodes has been obscured or disguised, either by the evangelists
or by the traditions on which they rely. It should not therefore come as a surprise
that a veil has been drawn over the identity of the two men crucied with Jesus.
Secondly, as I have argued above, the two men crucied alongside Jesus may
not have been among his closest disciples, but rather less signicant supporters,78
or members of another, albeit related, group. Where and when those men would
have been arrested remains an open question: were they caught in the sta&sij
mentioned by Mark and Luke, or in Gethsemane, or even somewhere else? If the
men were not among Jesus closest disciples, the fact that their identity has not
been preserved within the tradition is more intelligible; perhaps the chroniclers
did not know their names because there were no extant records.
Furthermore, it is not difcult to understand why the evangelists would have
had an interest in remaining silent about the identity of those crucied with Jesus,
and why Christian sources transmitted the idea that he had died alone. On the one
hand, had their true identities been unveiled, the Gospels device of distinguishing Jesus from, and raising him above, earlier failed revolutionary attempts
would have attracted suspicion. It is noteworthy that much of the material which
has been suppressedor whose point has been bluntedconcerns episodes (the
76. On this silence, and that concerning the young man in Mk 14.51, see Theissen 1989: 196-201.
77. Moreover, all the Gospel writers are reluctant to state plainly that the sentence of death was
pronounced by the governor. On the apologetic motive of the authors of the Gospels, see
Winter 1974: 79.
78. Interestingly, these supporters are usually anonymous, as in the case of the tinej tw~n e0kei=
e(sthko&twn who allow the disciples to go off with a colt in Mk 11.5, or the oi)kodespo&thj in
Mk 14.13-16.
Bermejo-Rubio
143
Temple incident, Gethsemane, the pericope of the swords) where violence and/
or seditious activities appear to have been involved.
On the other hand, because of early Christian belief in Jesus as an unparalleled
godlike hero and in the incomparable soteriological value of his death, there was
no interest in preserving the memory of others who were hunted down with
him,79 especially if they suffered the same death penalty as Jesus. Such a memory would have aroused embarrassing questions about the allegedly unique
potentialities and meaning of Jesus death. The theology of Jesus expiatory
death might have contributed to the omission of some signicant information.80
Given the evangelists manifest attempt to make Jesus fate incomparable and
transcendental, it would be dubious, to say the least, to use their writings as historical support for the claim that he was arrested and crucied alone.81 However,
this is precisely what most scholars still do today.
It could, of course, be objected that Paul describes himself as co-crucied with
Jesus, that Luke portrays Stephens fate as a replica of Jesus death, and that 1
John claims that one must lay down ones life for others in imitation of Jesus, and
that, consequently, the memory of others being executed with him would not have
aroused embarrassing questions.82 This, however, might be begging the question.
Jesus uniqueness and dramatic isolation are essential to the Christian soteriological scheme: his death is matchless, and any comparisons must be countered in
advance. Once the notion of Jesus once-for-all salvic death had been rmly
established, its association with other deaths could be allowed because they posed
no threat to the theological schema. In fact, this very association presupposes the
notion of Jesus incomparable death, because the fate of subsequent martyrs is
portrayed as imitating Jesus fate, but only insofar as they are deemed to partake
of it. It is precisely this incomparability that could have been called into question
by the story of Jesus crucixion with those closely related to him.
79. That Peter, despite his violent assault of the high priests servant (18:10), has not been
arrested along with Jesus underlines the uniqueness of Jesus as the one and only sacricial
victim. Only the one man, Jesus, not Peter also, will die for the people (Heil 1995: 737).
80. It could be objected that if Mark had known that these men were followers of Jesus, he
would have capitalized on it (he could have used such stalwart supporters as models of
how Christians should themselves prepare for possible persecution; they would have been
commemorated as ideal disciples). My answer to this objection is that perhaps Mark himself
did not know that the co-crucied were Jesus followers, but that if he did, it is doubtful
that he would have capitalized on it, because the theological disadvantages would have far
outweighed the eventual advantages.
81. Moreover, any good storyteller with persuasive aims selects information that (s)he wishes to
include and omit in order to achieve his/her objective. For recent analyses of the fallibility of
memory as applied to Jesus research, see Allison 2010: 1-30.
82. This objection was raised by Tobias Hgerland in a private communication (e-mail, 7 October
2012).
144
While the opacity of the Gospels on crucial points, and the terseness of their
accounts about the men crucied with Jesus, are bafing at rst sight, they
become less strange when the logic underlying so many concealments, memory failures, cryptic references and elusiveness is appreciated. All this seems to
have much to do with Jesus true character and fate, which is why it is now necessary to examine the reasons for the execution of a self-claimed king, as well as
that of some of his supporters, at the hands of the Roman forces.
Why were these Men Crucied?

My earlier analysis has demonstrated that the usual question appears to have
been badly framed, because it assumes the reliability of the statement Jesus was
arrested and crucied alone. The traditional formulation should accordingly be
ruled out, because the Gospels do not speak of a crucied single man, nor about
people crucied in separate groups, but about a unied group of crucied men.
Thus, instead of asking, Why was Jesus crucied alone?, it is pertinent to ask:
Why were (at least) three men crucied together at Golgotha?
The simplest and most plausible answer is already indicated by the designation lh|stai/: they were politico-religious insurrectionists. Furthermore, the obvious inference from the fact that Jesus was crucied between these two men, with
a placard designating him king (usurper), is that he was also involved in subversive activities. For the Romans, he would have been a kind of a)rxilh|sth/j or
lh&|starxoj.83 Of course, from Jesus perspectiveand that of his followers or
sympathizershe was certainly not a bandit or seditionist, just as those crucied
with him would not have used any of these designations to describe themselves.84
He was a faithful believer, Gods prophet and spokesman; they in turn were his
faithful followers. Why, then, were Jesus and his companions regarded as lh|stai/
by the Roman authorities?
It is commonplace to label Jesus death as a puzzle, an enigma or a mystery.
In fact, the explanations currently on offerthat Jesus was crucied because he
was hated by priests, because he had blasphemed, it was due to a misunderstanding, he was deemed mad, Pilate was the victim of pressure by the malevolent
Jewish authorities, or, alternatively, he was capable of killing anyone for the slightest reasondo not necessarily offer adequate reasons for the mors turpissima crucis. This state of affairs accounts for the endless scholarly discussions about Jesus
death.
83. Celsus used such terms in his assessment of Jesus; see Contra Celsum 2.12; 2.44; 8.14 (th=j
sta&sewj a)rxhge&thj).
84. It is bewildering that Mk 14.48b is usually regarded as proof of Jesus lack of anti-Roman
activities, because it should be obvious that the verse says absolutely nothing about Jesus real
identity. Due to its negative connotations, lh|sth/j is not a term which would have been used
as a self-designation by seditious Jews. See, e.g., Grnewald 1999.
Bermejo-Rubio
145
The issue becomes more complexor, as we shall see, is perhaps simplied

when the fact of the collective crucixion at Golgotha is taken into account. If a
crucixion was a grave event, this also applied a fortiori to a collective crucixion.
Even if a ruler was ruthless and carried out trials by cognitio extra ordinemor
simple interrogationsto allow him greater exibility, he must have had
signicant reasons for crucifying men. In Pilates case, he had to answer his own
conscience, but also the emperor. Besides, he knew fully that arbitrary crucixions
could incur the hatred of many people against him. Perhaps Pilate did not care in
the least about being hated, but he surely cared a great deal about the eventual
consequences of that hatred. In all probability the prefect would have much preferred to have powerful reasons for crucifying a group of Jews.85
What could those reasons be? We need not resort to conjecture, because the
Gospels provide additional pieces of evidence,86 including the issue of the tribute
to Rome. Although countless scholars have clung to a reading that views Jesus
as approving the payment of the tribute, interpreting Mk 12 as stating that nothing whatsoever is owed to Caesar makes the best sense of the episode and of its
inner articulation.87 That Jesus did not endorse the payment is strongly supported
by Lk. 23.2, where witnesses accuse Jesus of forbidding the payment of taxesa
charge which shows no sign of having been invented. This reading is all the more
plausible when the consequences of the religious and economic pressure of the
tribute on the population and Jesus deep concern about socioeconomic injustice
85. Helen Bonds statement that the execution of Jesus was in all probability a routine crucixion
of a messianic agitator (1998: 204) seems unwarranted. We have no explicit evidence that
Pilate crucied other people (although he probably did), or had to face other messianic
agitators on a regular basis (the only exception, several years later, is the Samaritan messianic
claimant), so it does not seem to have been a matter of routine.
86. A possible misunderstanding must be countered in advance: I do not assume that, if Jesus
was crucied as a seditionist, he must indeed have been a seditionist. This would beg the
question, and I readily admit that the single datum of the crucixion proves nothing, because it
admits a plurality of interpretations (it could, for example, be explained as the result of a tragic
misconception). What I argue in this sectionand more thoroughly in forthcoming articles
is that there is much convergent material in the Gospels that points to Jesus seditious stance,
thus justifying the inference that he was crucied as a seditionist for good reasons. At the same
time, it should be obvious that this does not constitute a moral judgment nor a legitimization of
the violence carried out by the Roman Empire; it is rather an explanation of a historical event.
In this light, William Horburys oft-cited judgment on the assessment of Christ as brigand
The crime of the crucied has been made to t his punishment (Horbury 1984: 193)could
perhaps be true in the case of some ancient anti-Christian polemics, but it is misguided as a
general assessment of the hypothesis of a seditious Jesus.
87. Jesus gave a clever answer which entails frontal opposition to the taxes whilst not openly
recognizing it. See, e.g., Brandon 1967: 345-48; Puente Ojea 1992: 108-14; Horsley 1993:
306-17. See also now Oakman 2012: 127 (Jesus had, in fact, been a lsts in advocating
rearrangements of debts and tax resistance).
146
are taken into account.88 Most likely, Jesus did oppose the payment of the tribute
to Rome, and did so with the same rationale as Judas the Galilean.89
Another crucial point is that there are several converging passages (Lk. 22.38,
49; Mk 14.47 and parallels) which indicate thatat least during the nal phase of
Jesus ministryhis disciples were armed and were prepared to use the weapons
they carried. According to Lk. 22.36, Jesus encouraged his followers to arm themselves with swords,90 which means that these texts are inextricably connected.91
All four Gospels record that armed resistance was offered in Gethsemane,92 and
three of the accounts identify the one who struck off the servants ear as a disciple of Jesus.93 While it is certainly true that most scholars downplay the
signicance of the passages attesting the presence of swords in Jesus group,94
there are in fact good reasons for taking seriously the historicity of those
passages.95 Furthermore, this evidence is consistent with the fact that Jesus was
remembered as having said and done some other things which are difcult to
reconcile with a pacist avant la lettre.96
88. On the rst issue, see Stenger 1988: 127-46. On Jesus harsh attitude towards the rich, see
Crossley 2006: 35-74.
89. The idea that Jesus clung to his conviction of Yahwehs lordship nds support in several
sayings; see Mk 12.29, Mt. 4.10 (Lk. 4.8) and Mt. 6.24 (= Lk. 16.13).
90. This sentence cannot be understood in a gurative sense (see Cullmann 1961: 23).
91. See Loisy 1924: 522-23.
92. Mk 14.47 and parallels; Jn 18.10-11.
93. Incidentally, the Gethsemane episode further supports my contention that the disciples were
searched for. Kautsky (1908: 389) perceptively remarked how unlikely is the Gospel story
according to which Jesus (who is portrayed as claiming a pacic attitude) is arrested, whilst
the people using a sword with homicidal intentions are left unscathed.
94. Many scholars do not even cite the Gospel passages which refer to swords in discussions of Jesus
politics. See, e.g., Riedo-Emmenegger 2005; McKnight and Modica 2008; Oakman 2012.
95. Among them we can enumerate the following: (1) The texts meet the criterion of
embarrassment (see, e.g., Maccoby 1973: 188). (2) Swords in Jesus entourage are not only
present in Luke, but in all the Gospels (Mk 14.47 and parallels). (3) The presence of arms in
Jesus group (and not only an isolated sword carried by a single disciple) better explains the
heavily armed party sent to arrest Jesus and also the crucixion; usually, Rome did not crucify
visionary, harmless preachers. (4) The passages mentioning the swords cohere well with a
pattern of evidence pointing to seditious moves and ideas among members of Jesus group.
(5) It is hard to imagine a convincing rationale for the possibility of an editorial creation. (6)
The criterion of contextual plausibility can also be applied (see my remarks below on the
Qumran community).
96. The usual objection that Jesus advocated non-violence would be convincing if it had been
demonstrated that Jesus really was a radical pacist, but this is precisely what several
passages fundamentally call into question. An analysis of the evidence shows that Jesus zu
Gewaltanwendung kein prinzipiell negatives Verhltnis hat (Berger 1996: 127a). In fact,
Eisler (19291930: II, 257-66) convincingly answered this objection. See also Maccoby
1973: 144; Bermejo-Rubio, forthcoming a.
Bermejo-Rubio
147
The many devices that have been formulated to water down or explain away
the signicance of the above-mentioned facts are telling.97 For instance, the contention is unwarranted that Jesus group could not be involved in any armed
action because the disciples, at most, had two swords.98 The presence of only two
swords is refuted by Lk. 22.36 (o( mh_ e!xwn) and 22.49 (u/rie, ei) pata&comen
e0n maxai/r|;), both of which suggest that several disciples carried swords, while
the second could imply that all of them did. Moreover, the claim that it would be
absurd to carry only a few swords for the purpose of a violent encounter does not
take into account the lack of pragmatic measures by some eschatological visionaries, nor the fact that several heroes in Israelite tradition, such as Samson,
Gideon and the Maccabees, had fought against apparently hopeless odds.99
Surprisingly, this claim does not take into account the fact that Jesus and his
disciples seem to have passionately believed that, at the right moment, Godor
his angelic legions100would be on their side.101 The Qumran community, which
led an apparently spiritual-oriented life and opted out of practical politics,
expected angelic hosts to ght along with themdespite the overwhelming military superiority of the Romans.102
The fact that swords were carried by members of Jesus group does not necessarily mean103 that Jesus was a Zealot (in the technical sense), or the leader of
97. Jesus has nothing to do with swords, even for defense (Fitzmyer 1986: II, 1434).
98. According to Eisler (19291930: II, 268), the disciples had two swords each.
99. See, e.g., 1 Sam. 14.6; 1 Macc. 4.30-33; 2 Macc. 8.18-20.
100. According to Mt. 26.53, Jesus said he could call down more than twelve legions of angels to bring
him aid. Admittedly, he rejects such assistance, but the mere fact that he envisages the possibility
of commanding angelic armies is quite signicant. Given the extent of the distortion that operated
in Jesus tradition, perhaps we should not rule out several possibilities: that Jesus hoped the angels
would join him, but not at that moment; or that somebody remembered or preserved a sentence
which revealed that Jesus hoped that the angelic hosts would join him, but that person thought that
it could not be true, and tampered with it in such a way that it meant the opposite. I owe this last
suggestion to Dale Allison (personal communication by e-mail, 1 October 2012).
101. Jesus possibly had in mind the example of Gideon, whose army was reduced from tens of
thousands to 300. On Judas Maccabeus, who was preparing for the battle, it is said: For he
knew that it is not by arms, but as the Lord decides, that he gains the victory for those who
deserve it (2Macc. 15.21).
102. 1 QM 12.8-10. See Batsch 2004; Weitzman 2009. See also 1 Macc. 7.41-42; 2 Macc. 15.2224. For evidence of rst-century Jews entering the desert, expecting to see divine signs, and
facing Roman troops despite being unarmed, see Josephus, War 7.437-40.
103. I emphasize necessarily. Some scholars state that our sources have dramatically downplayed
the seriousness of the danger represented by Jesus and by the events in Gethsemane, where
perhaps a battle took place (see, e.g., Eisler 19291930; Montserrat 2007). Even if such views
are rejected, one should admit that what happened on the Mount of Olives must have later
been oversimplied, for the reason that the extant accounts do not make sense. Nonetheless,
we can only surmise about the true extent of the group led by Jesus, and (given that we cannot
be sure about the size and nature of the troops sent against his group) I opt for a relatively
minimalistic view: Jesus hadat leasta small band of armed supporters.
148
an army,104 or that the core of his preaching was advocating armed struggle
against the Romans. It is probable, as most scholars claim, that Jesus believed
that the arrival of the kingdom was in Gods hands, that it would not be established by human might, and, accordingly, that the dirty work of crushing the
Romans and their collaborators would be Gods task. However, it seems that this
did not prevent him from telling his disciples to arm themselves. A convincing
explanation for the extant evidence seems to be that Jesus prepared his disciples
for the imminent eschatological manifestation of God at the decisive turningpoint of his (last) visit to Jerusalem.105 This is understandable in the light of the
prophetic literature, which states that at the end of time there would be a nal
battle for which one should be prepared.106 While spiritualnot militarypreparedness was paramount, ghting would be required when the hour nally
arrived, and so a certain synergism with God is presupposed.107
The sobering fact is that, according to one of our sources, Jesus opposition to
the payment of the tribute to Caesar explicitly appears among the charges brought
against him (Lk. 23.2). Furthermore, the presence of an armed following takes
on particular signicance in the light of another charge which is repeated time
and again: that of stirring up the people.108 Many scholars are prone to believe
the evangelists when they say that the witnesses were false (Mk 14.59), but one
should take a somewhat more sceptical view. In fact, the bewildering oversight
of the above-mentioned aspects has disastrous consequences when it comes to
explaining the events at Golgotha, since it forces scholars to offer over-imaginative explanations.
It has been aptly remarked that, to be historical, Jesus must have been
cruciable.109 If we take into account the evidence considered earlier in this article, there can be no reasonable doubt why Pilate decided to crucify Jesus and his
followerspresumably all those that his soldiers (or the troops belonging to the
Jewish authorities, or a combined throng) could capture. Pilate had incontrovertible proof that they were a subversive group. Their leader had been preaching a
104. It is not necessary for a man making royal claims to have an army, and it was not necessary to
have a whole army at ones disposal to constitute a threat to the peace in Jerusalem (especially
during the religiously and politically charged Passover season) and to be accused of sedition:
even a small group of armed men would have been enough.
105. See Montserrat 2007: 139-40. Die Gewaltsamkeiten im Wirken Jesu hufen sich anllich
seines Kontaktes mit Jerusalem (Berger 1996: 119a; see also 127a).
106. Joel 4.9-10. The prophecy of Zechariah, on which Jesus might have particularly relied (see
Zech. 9.9; 14.21), states that the location of the eschatological miracle would be the Mount of
Olives (Zech. 14.1-5), and that the Lord of Hosts would raise up the sons of Zion to do battle
against the heathen forces.
107. We recall that Judas the Galilean and his spiritual followers were not of the opinion that they
did not require Gods help (see Josephus, War 2.451).
108. Lk. 23.2, 5, 14. The verbs are a)nastre/fw, diastre/fw, a)nasei/w.
109. See, e.g., Dunn 2003: 784.
Bermejo-Rubio
149
coming kingdom, made royal claims in Jerusalem during the sensitive period of
Passover, opposed the payment of tribute, and was surrounded by a band of men
who were armed with swords and were ready to use them. Perhaps he also organized some disturbance at the gates of Jerusalem and/or the Temple, in which case
things would have been even worse.110 Having gathered together this consistent
body of evidence, no ruler in his right mind would have regarded Jesus as a
harmless preacher or a deluded lunatic, and no further investigation would have
been necessary. There is every indication that, not only subjectively but objectively, Jesus and his followers constituted a threat to public order. Any Roman
governor would have sought to remove such a (cruciable) group, particularly its
leader.111
This explains why Jesus was crucied as an insurrectionist and self-styled
king, why he was crucied along with some of his followers or collaborators (or
people ideologically related to him), and why he was crucied in the middle.112
We are bound to infer that the Roman authorities did not make a mistake or cause
a misunderstanding. They knew very well what they were doing when they used
this kind of mors aggravata. The available evidence can thus be interpreted
without recourse to unfathomable mysteries and false conundrums.
Conclusions
The starting-point of this article was the alleged conundrum that Jesus was put to
death as an insurrectionist, even though he was arrested and crucied alone. My
analysis leads me to draw a different conclusion and to offer a more plausible
110. The clash between Jesus group and Roman rule has been softened in the Gospels, but it is still
audible in the sayings on taking the cross, in the royal claim and the titulus crucis, in Jesus
promise that his disciples would judge Israels twelve tribes, in the disciples view of Jesus
as Israels liberator, in the speech of Gamaliel (Acts 5.35-39) comparing Jesus movement
with those of Theudas and Judas the Galilean, and, of course, in the collective crucixion at
Golgotha. For a more exhaustive list, see Bermejo-Rubio 2013, forthcoming b.
111. It is not possible to tackle here the issue of Jewish participation in Jesus death. The widespread
idea that the Jewish authorities played a role in Jesus fate is not an unreasonable hypothesis
(they were responsible for maintaining public order in Judaea). However, I would contend
that, if they did, their intervention must have been along the lines of a scenario such as that
contained in Jn 11.47-50, a passage which runs contrary to the Johannine perspective itself,
insofar as the grounds for Caiaphass recommendation and the Sanhedrins condemnation are
prudential not theological. It is noteworthy that Jn 11.48 implies a direct connection between
believing in Jesus and Roman intervention. Another interesting implication is that Jesus was
not acting alone, because a single unsupported man could not have represented such an actual
threat.
112. This allows us to unveil the unsound nature of many alleged explanations. Just one example:
Spiritual and non-violent resistance wasan essential part of the Messianic ideal as pursued
by Jesus. Crucixion by the Romans was its inevitable result (Grifths 1969: 363). In other
words: Jesus was crucied because he was non-violent!
150
hypothesis, namely, that, at the very least, the men who were crucied with Jesus
shared with him a common ideology and/or activities, and that they could even
be among his followers, whether in a narrow or a loose sense. The view that
those crucied with Jesus had nothing to do with him is not only exceedingly
improbable from a historical standpoint, but it uncritically relies upon the story
told in biased sources: only the theological necessity to distance Jesus from any
rebellious connection can account for the tenacity with which this view is held.113
Conundrums are sometimes merely gments of the scholarly imagination.
We should accordingly start to look differently at Golgotha, and replace the
isolationist and devotional Ecce homo with an integrating and more realistic
Ecce homines. Although there is every indication that the men who were crucied
with Jesus shared his hopes and ideals, and were accordingly by his side until the
very end, they have been unfairly forgotten for far too long.
Even if one remains unconvinced by the main arguments set out in this article,
and still clings to the cherished belief that Jesus was crucied alone, it should
be acknowledged that this assumption cannot be legitimately upgraded to the
status of a cogent objection against the hypothesis of a seditionist Jesus; perhaps
all that happened is that Jesus followers managed to ee. The widespread notion
that Jesus could not be involved in signicant anti-Roman activity because his
followers were not crucied with him is nothing more than a paralogism.
In fact, when we take into account the large number of clues that Jesus thought
and acted as a seditionistadmittedly an idiosyncratic seditionist, and also much
more than that114the traditional music of New Testament scholarship sounds
somewhat out of tune. Unlike what is so often repeated, Jesus received the same
treatment as other contemporaneous leaders of popular movements, because he
was similar to them in many respects and likewise represented a real threat to
Roman rule. This will be a disturbing result for many, but for the historically
minded scholar it has a great advantage: the mode of Jesus death no longer
seems so much of a puzzle.
References
Allison, Dale C.
2005
Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
2010
Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Academic).
113. Theological constraints do indeed account for quite a few odd phenomena in the study of
the historical Jesus, including the rise and dissemination of the untenable historiographical
paradigm of the three quests. For a thorough treatment of this issue, see Bermejo-Rubio
2009.
114. Let us recall that also Judas the Galilean was a sofisth/j (War 2.117) with a doctrine.
151
Bermejo-Rubio
Bammel, Ernst

1984
The Trial before Pilate, in Ernst Bammel and Charles F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus
and the Politics of his Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 415-51.
Barnett, Paul W.

1975
Under Tiberius all was Quiet, NTS 21: 564-71.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley

1978
The Gospel According to St John (2nd edn; London: SPCK, orig. edn 1955).
Batsch, Christophe

2004
Le pacisme des essniens, un mythe historiographique, Revue de Qumran

83: 457-68.
Berger, Klaus

1996
Der brutale Jesus. Gewaltsames in Wirken und Verkndigung Jesu, Bibel und
Kirche 51: 119-27.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando

2009
The Fiction of the Three Quests. An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious

Historiographical Paradigm, JSHJ 7: 211-53.
2013
Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?
Theological Apologetics versus Historical Plausibility, Bible and Interpretation,
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/ber378008.shtml
Forthcoming a Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow? A Systematic
Answer to the Doubters, Bandue. Revista de la Sociedad Espaola de Ciencias
de las Religiones 7 (2013).
Forthcoming b Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. A Reassessment of the Arguments, JSHJ.
Bond, Helen K.
1998
Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).
Brandon, Samuel G.F.

1967
Jesus and the Zealots. A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity
(Manchester: Manchester University Press).
1968
The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (London: Batsford).
Brown, Raymond E.
1994
The Death of the Messiah (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday).
Catchpole, David R.

1984
The Triumphal Entry, in Ernst Bammel and Charles F.D. Moule (eds.),
Jesus and the Politics of his Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press):
319-34.
Crossley, James G.
2006
Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (26

50 CE) (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
Cullmann, Oscar
1961
Der Staat im Neuen Testament (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).
152
Dahl, Nils A.

1991
The Crucied Messiah, in idem, Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of
Christology Doctrine, ed. D.H. Juel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; orig. edn 1974).
Dunn, James D.G.

2003
Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Eisler, Robert
19291930
IHSOUS BASILEUS OU BASILEUSAS: Die messianische Unabhngigkeitsbewegung vom Auftreten Johannes des Tufers bis zum Untergang Jakobs des
Gerechten (2 vols.; Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universittsbuchhandlung).
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1986
The Gospel According to Luke, II (New York: Doubleday).
Focant, Camille
2004
Lvangile selon Marc (Paris: Cerf).
Fredriksen, Paula
2000
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York: Vintage).
Why was Jesus Crucied, but his Followers were Not?, JSNT 29.4: 415-19.
2007
Garca Prez, Jos Miguel

1986
El relato del buen ladrn (Lc 23,39-43), Estudios Bblicos 44: 263-304.
Giblet, Jean

1974
Un mouvement de rsistance arme au temps de Jsus?, RTL 5: 409-29.
Grelot, Pierre

1967
Aujourdhui tu seras avec moi dans le paradis (Luc, xxiii, 43), Revue Biblique
74: 194-214.
Grifths, J. Gwyn

1969
The Disciples Cross, NTS 16: 358-64.
Grnewald, Thomas
1999
Ruber, Rebellen, Rivalen, Rcher: Studien zu Latrones im rmischen Reich

(Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur).
Heil, John Paul

1995
Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John, CBQ 57: 729-45.
Hengel, Martin
1970
War Jesus Revolutionr? (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag).
Horbury, William

1984
Christ as Brigand in Ancient Anti-Christian Polemic, in Ernst Bammel and

Charles F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of his Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 183-95.
Horsley, Richard
1993
Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
2003
Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
153
Bermejo-Rubio
Kautsky, Karl
1908
Der Ursprung des Christentums: Eine historische Untersuchung (Stuttgart: Verlag von J.H.W. Dietz Nachf.).
Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang

1982
Die Kreuzesstrafe whrend der frhen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung
in der Umwelt des Urchristentums, ANRW 25.1: 648-793.
Lgasse, Simon
1994
Le procs de Jsus: Lhistoire (Paris: Cerf).
Loisy, Alfred
1924
Lvangile selon Luc (Paris: mile Nourry).
Maccoby, Hyam
1973
Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance (London: Ocean).
Marcus, Joel

2006
Crucixion as Parodic Exaltation, JBL 125.1: 73-87.
2007
Meggitt on the Madness and Kingship of Jesus, JSNT 29.4: 421-24.
2009
Mark 816. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press).
McKnight, Scot, and Joseph B. Modica (eds.)

2008
Who Do my Opponents Say I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against

Jesus (London: T&T Clark).
Meggitt, Justin J.

2007
The Madness of King Jesus: Why Was Jesus Put to Death, but his Followers
Were Not?, JSNT 29: 379-413.
Montserrat, Josep
2007
El galileo armado: Historia laica de Jess (Madrid: Edaf).
Oakman, Douglas E.
2012
The Political Aims of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Pesch, Rudolf
1977
Das Markusevangelium II. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 8, 2716, 20 (Freiburg:

Herder).
Price, Jonathan J.
1992
Jerusalem under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State, 6670 C.E. (Leiden:
Brill).
Puente Ojea, Gonzalo

1992
El Evangelio de Marcos: Del Cristo de la fe al Jess de la historia (Madrid: Siglo

XXI).
Reinbold, Wolfgang
1994
Der lteste Bericht ber den Tod Jesu: Literarische Analyse und
historische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien (Berlin: De
Gruyter).
154
Riedo-Emmenegger, Christoph
2005
Prophetisch-messianische Provokateure der Pax Romana: Jesus von Nazaret und

andere Strenfriede im Konikt mit dem rmischen Reich (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Sacchi, Paolo

1968
Review of S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, Revue de Qumran 23: 444-55.
Sanders, Ed P.
1985
Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press).
Stenger, Werner
1988
Gebt dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist!: Eine sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Besteuerung Palstinas in neutestamentlicher Zeit (Bonn: Athenum).
Theissen, Gerd
1989
Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte

der synoptischen Tradition (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz

1996
Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Weitzman, Steven

2009
Warring against Terror. The War Scroll and the Mobilization of Emotion, JSJ 40:
213-41.
Winter, Paul
1974
On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, orig. edn 1961).
Yarbro Collins, Adela

2007
Mark: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

Why Was Jesus The Galilean Crucified Al

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Why Was Jesus The Galilean Crucified Al

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Article

(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean

Journal for the Study of

Departamento de Filologa Griega, Universidad Complutense, Spain

Posing the Right Questions1

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

anti-Roman seditious activity.2 One of the main objections is the following: if

Recovering the Identity of those Crucied with Jesus:

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Parallelenfreudigkeit: the notion of a person surrounded byor classied along

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Recovering the Identity of those Crucied with Jesus:

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

effective if he had been presented as a single victim. Secondly, regarding the

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Deconstructing the Synoptic Gospels Accounts of the

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

answer in Lk. 23.43, it is difcult to distinguish the promises involved from

Why was the Identity of those Crucied with Jesus

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Why were these Men Crucied?

The issue becomes more complexor, as we shall see, is perhaps simplied

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).

Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI:

Under Tiberius all was Quiet, NTS 21: 564-71.

Barrett, Charles Kingsley

Le pacisme des essniens, un mythe historiographique, Revue de Qumran

The Fiction of the Three Quests. An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious

Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Brandon, Samuel G.F.

The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (London: Batsford).

The Death of the Messiah (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday).

Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (26

Der Staat im Neuen Testament (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(2)

Dunn, James D.G.

Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

The Gospel According to Luke, II (New York: Doubleday).

Lvangile selon Marc (Paris: Cerf).

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York: Vintage).

Garca Prez, Jos Miguel

Un mouvement de rsistance arme au temps de Jsus?, RTL 5: 409-29.

The Disciples Cross, NTS 16: 358-64.

Ruber, Rebellen, Rivalen, Rcher: Studien zu Latrones im rmischen Reich

Heil, John Paul

War Jesus Revolutionr? (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag).

Christ as Brigand in Ancient Anti-Christian Polemic, in Ernst Bammel and

Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

Le procs de Jsus: Lhistoire (Paris: Cerf).

Lvangile selon Luc (Paris: mile Nourry).

Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance (London: Ocean).

Crucixion as Parodic Exaltation, JBL 125.1: 73-87.

Meggitt on the Madness and Kingship of Jesus, JSNT 29.4: 421-24.

McKnight, Scot, and Joseph B. Modica (eds.)

Who Do my Opponents Say I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against

El galileo armado: Historia laica de Jess (Madrid: Edaf).

The Political Aims of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

Das Markusevangelium II. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 8, 2716, 20 (Freiburg: