See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328792602

Tom Holmén, "Crucifixion Hermeneutics in Judaism at the Time of Jesus", in

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 14 (2017), pp. 197-222.

Article  in  Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 3

1 author:

Tom Holmen
Åbo Akademi University
22 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tom Holmen on 08 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 journal for the study of the historical jesus
14 (2017) 197-222
brill.com/jshj

Crucifixion Hermeneutics in Judaism

at the Time of Jesus

Tom Holmén
Åbo Akademi University, Turku, FINLAND
tholmen@abo.fi

Abstract

This essay strongly suggests that prior to Jesus’ death and its interpretation Judaism
knew no interpretative means capable of transforming the ignominious death of cru-
cifixion into something favorable.

Keywords

Jesus – Crucifixion – martyrs – Josephus

1 Introduction

The story is well known: Jesus was crucified. Then, despite this terrible and
ignominious episode, some of Jesus’ followers went on proclaiming his mes-
sage. They believed that he had risen from the death, and they called him the
Messiah.
Hence, the early followers of Jesus managed to turn the ghastly punishment
of crucifixion into something favorable; they managed to maintain a positive
view of the crucified one. Were they the first to come up with how to do that?
Or did the Jewish tradition already know a hermeneutics for interpreting cruci-
fixion in a good way, explaining it for the better with respect to those crucified?
To be sure, Jews of the time could turn around even worst of calamities fallen
upon people individually or collectively. They could vindicate the victims of
many terrible punishments casting those put to death in a patriotic, pious or
otherwise favorable light. How about those who had been crucified? Was there
a similar positive hermeneutics for victims of crucifixion?

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/17455197-01403016

0003061423.INDD 197 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 198 HOLMÉN

The question to be scrutinized in the present article is: Prior to Jesus’ death
and its interpretation, can a positive hermeneutics of crucifixion be attested in
Judaism, i.e., can interpretations of crucifixion be found that, from the view-
point of the crucified one(s), suggest something good? To answer the question,
I will first examine the tradition of interpretation of the central text of the
topic, Deut 21:22–23, and its central expression “curse of God.” Second, I will
review concrete instances of crucifixion so aspiring to perceive how the Jews
responded to actual incidents, when one or more of their people had been
crucified.
The insight I am introducing in the study is to waive, as the ultimate goal,
the need to establish for good whether or not crucifixion was always under-
stood as incurring a divine curse. For it may be difficult to find out for certain
about the curse, yet the question about hermeneutics can be answered even
without such certainty. This is something that has not always been observed
in the discussion, not even in some recent studies that have again brought
crucifixion in antiquity into sharp focus.1 Concerning crucifixion in second
temple Jewish understanding, its purport has often been related to the curse
and, thereby, polarized: Did crucifixion always inflict God’s curse on the cruci-
fied ones? Or could it sometimes be interpreted as casting those so executed
in some favorable light?2 Dismissing such an untrue pairing of alternatives,
the present study will thus place the crucial weight on the question about a
positive hermeneutics, not on ascertaining a definitive understanding about
the curse.
The implications of the problem at hand for understanding the death of
Jesus are important and range from historical – the aftermath from the disci-
ples’ standpoint – to theological – the cross in (early) Christian proclamation.

1 What crucifixion was, when, how, why and by whom it was practiced have been among the
questions posed in the discussion. See for instance the major studies of D. Chapman, Ancient
Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (wunt 244, 2. Reihe; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008); W. Shi, Paul’s Message of the Cross as Body Language (wunt 254, 2. Reihe; Tübingen:
Mohr, 2008); G. Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity (wunt, 310, 2. Reihe; Tübingen: Mohr,
2011); J.G. Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (wunt 327, 1. Reihe; Tübingen: Mohr,
2014).
2 “No” and “yes”, respectively and with varying nuances, would be the answers of, for
­example, K.S. O’Brien, “The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and
Deuteronomy 21.22.23,” jsnt 29 (2006) 55–76; P. Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ (Yale: Yale
­University Press, 2008) 145–148, 155, 167–168; Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 262 and
­passim; see section 3.3. and footnote 105 below. Earlier, for example, G. Friedrich, Die Verkün-
digung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982)
122–130; C.J. den Heyer, Jesus and the Doctrine of the Atonement (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1998) 32.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 198 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 199

In the present article, I will not go into these issues. I will, however, focus the
time frame according to Jesus. In other words, the material to be reviewed
should ideally reflect and apply to the time of Jesus.
In recent years, even crucifixion as a relevant concept has been questioned.
Nonetheless, at least for the present purpose, it should be accurate and valid
enough to take “crucifixion” “to mean the executionary suspension of a person
on a cross-shaped object (allowing for a certain flexibility in shapes).”3 Most of
the texts analyzed below are clear and known attestations of the very thing.4

2 The Central Text: Deut 21:22–23

Let us have a closer look at the pivotal text, Deut 21:22–23.

‫וכי־יהיה באיׁש חטא מׁשפט־מות והומת ותלית אתו על־עץ׃ לא־תלין נבלתו‬
‫על־העץ כי־קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא כי־קללת אלהים תלוי ולא תטמא את־‬
‫אדמתך אׁשר יהוה אלהיך נתן לך נחלה׃‬

And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put

to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night
upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is
accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the Lord your God
gives you for an inheritance.5

The expression ‫קללת אלהים‬, “curse of God,” has often been regarded as crucial
with respect to the import of the passage. For our specific purpose it is all that
matters.6 Is it to be taken as a subjective genitive or as an objective genitive? Is
the man, executed as described here, cursed by God (subjective) or is he rather
cursing God (objective 1) or a curse to God (objective 2)?

3 Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 32. Cook, who also incorporates Samuelsson ­(Crucifixion
in Antiquity, for instance page 270; Samuelsson on his part is drawing from H.-W. Kuhn),
would agree; see Cook, Mediterranean World, 2.
4 Their most recent analysis in this as well as in some other respects comes from Cook,
­Mediterranean World.
5 Translations of Biblical and deuterocanonical texts are from the rsv.
6 That is, I am not here interested in questions such as whether the texts to be reviewed ­describe
the actual taking of life by crucifixion or if they rather depict a post-mortem ­crucifixion
(I take it that both are covered in the expression “executionary suspension”), whether they
command a crucifixion or just in some other way reflect on it, what crimes such a p­ unishment
would presuppose etc.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 199 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 200 HOLMÉN

How has the genitive been understood in subsequent Jewish and early
Christian literature? Most of the earliest – and thus the aptest – instances are
readily determinable:

• 11qt 64:7–13 adds a line that clarifies ‫כי מקוללי אלוהים ואנׁשים תלוי על העץ‬,
“those hanged on the tree are accursed by God and men” (v. 12),7 thus ac-
cording to the subjective genitive reading of Deut 21:22–23.8
• The lxx ad Deut 21:22–23 has it so: κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ πᾶς κρεμάμεμος
ἐπὶ ξύλου, “cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,” also according to the
subjective genitive reading.
• For Paul in Gal 3:13, of course, only subjective genitive will do: ἐπικατάρατος
πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, “cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.”9
• The lxx text is quoted almost verbatim by Philo in his De Posteritate Caini
26: κεκατηραμένον ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὸν κρεμάμενον ἐπὶ ξύλου φησίν, he “says … ‘he
that hangeth on a tree is cursed of God’.”10 Thus, for Philo, too, it is the sub-
jective genitive rendering.

As for Josephus’ writings, some more detailed considerations are called for, al-
though a.j. 4.202 is probably his only passage that can be thought of relating to
Deut 21:22–23 in a way relevant to the present task:11

7 The texts are according to Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: Volume Two: Text and Commentary
(Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 422, 423. See also F. García Martínez and
E.J.C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 1286, 1287.
8 Otherwise D. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (wunt 60, 1. Rei-
he; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 81–88. See, however, Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 125–
32; Cook, Mediterranean World, 319–321. Similarly already, for example, Y. Yadin, The Tem-
ple Scroll: Volume One: Introduction (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 379;
See J.A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Tes-
tament,” cbq 40 (1978) 493–513, at 502–507 and further on page 512: “A second nomen
rectum has been introduced into the construct chain. … It clearly precludes a misunder-
standing of the Hebrew ‫ קללת אלהים‬as blasphemy or a ‘cursing of God.’” See also M. Wil-
cox, “‘Upon the Tree’ – Deut 21:22–23 in the New Testament,” jbl 96 (1977) 85–99, at 89.
9 Although “by God” is omitted here, it is clear that in Paul’s view, too, the curse is of divine
origin. Cf. O’Brien, “The Curse of the Law,” 65. See further footnote 13 below.
10 The texts are according to F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, lcl 227, pages 342, 343.
11 Chapman analyses even a.j. 4.264–265 which he thinks also refers to Deut 21:22–23. He
thinks, further, that “let not a corpse be left without its portion of earth, paying more than
its just penalty” (a.j. 4.265) could convey the idea that the corpse was cursed; Chapman,
Perceptions of Crucifixion, 136. Thus, this would attest to an understanding according to
the subjective genitive.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 200 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 201

‛Ο δὲ βλασφημήσας θεὸν καταλευσθεὶς κρεμάσθω διʼ ἡμέρας καὶ ἀτίμως καὶ
ἀφανῶς θαπτέσθω.
Let him who blasphemeth God be stoned, then hung for a day, and buried
ignominiously and in obscurity.12

A central question is where ‛Ο δὲ βλασφημήσας θεὸν comes from. In my view, the
passage mainly reflects Lev 24:14–16 – verse 16 stating “he who blasphemes the
name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him” –
and particularly so in its beginning, which introduces the topic. Additionally, if
we consider that Lev 24:14–15 speaks of “cursing” but Josephus of “blasphem-
ing,” thus following Lev 24:16 (cf. even 24:13), we can perhaps also observe here
a pious shying away from combining “curse” with “God.” Lest anyone accidently
pronounced a curse on God. The same phenomenon, becoming more promi-
nent with time, can be seen attested in later Jewish texts, too, to be assessed
below.13 For the rest of a.j. 4.202 even some other Biblical and extra-Biblical
traditions are relevant. Included in these, and most obviously underlying
(κρεμάσθω) διʼ ἡμέρας, is Deut 21:22c–23a.14 Hence, “blaspheming God” at the
beginning of the passage probably says nothing about Josephus’ understanding
of “curse of God” in Deut 21:23c.
From this time onwards, samples come from writings that clearly date from
the second century or later. Although not equally relevant to the situation at
the time of Jesus, they are still worth reviewing.
From Origen’s Hexapla fragments we learn that Aquila and Theodotion re-
tained the Hebrew ambiguity of “curse of God” in their Greek translations of
the Old Testament.15 Symmachus, instead, writes ὅτι διὰ τὴν βλασφημίαν τοῦ
θεοῦ ἐκρεμάσθη,16 “because he was hung on account of blasphemy of God,” and

12 The texts are according to H. St. J. Thackeray, lcl 242, pp. 572, 573.
13 J.M. Allegro, “Further Light on the History of the Qumran Sect,” jbl 75 (1956), 89–95, at
91, suggested that similar religious sensitivity can be discerned already in the 4Q pesher
Nahum which would have omitted the whole phrase “cursed of God.” Cf. also Gal 3:13
where Paul leaves out “God.” Besides the reluctance to combine “curse” and “God,” an-
other reason for this might be that Paul has just referred to and spoken of “the curse of (=
by) the law.” See Gal 3:10, 13a; cf. Deut 27:26 lxx. Wilcox, “Deut 21.22–23,” 87, also suggests
that ἐπικατάρατος in 3:13 is due to its use in 3:10.
14 Thus, I agree with L.H. Feldman who connects ‛Ο δὲ βλασφημήσας θεὸν with Lev
24:14–16 while seeing Deut 21:22–23 and some further texts reflected in the remaining
parts of a.j. 4.202. See L.H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary: Vol-
ume 3: Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden: Brill, 2000) 400–402.
15 Both translate κατάρα θεοῦ κρεμάμενος.
16 F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum: Tomus i (Oxonii: Clarendoniano, 1875), 304. Aquila,
­Symmachus and Theodotion write in the second century ce.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 201 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 202 HOLMÉN

this would seem to be according to the objective genitive rendering of

‫ קללת אלהים‬in Deut 21:23. Nevertheless, even the subjective genitive interpre-
tation of the Greek words βλασφημία τοῦ θεοῦ is quite possible grammatically,17
and so they could in principle be seen to reflect the Hebrew subjective genitive
as well. What actually makes us read the Greek according to the objective geni-
tive sense is the use of “blasphemy” instead of “curse.” With “blasphemy” (or
like substitutes; see shortly below), the only sensible way of understanding the
genitive expression is the objective one.18 Hence, the reason for what is con-
veyed by Symmachus’ formulation may not be his particular understanding of
the underlying Hebrew words but the pious preference of “curse” over
“blasphemy.”
As for the Targums,19 Neofiti states ‫ארום ליט קדם ייי כל דצליב‬, “every one
who is hanged is accursed before the Lord,” thus following the subjective
genitive reading.20 Onqelos, however, tells that ‫על דחב קדם יוי אצטליב‬,
“because he was impaled for having sinned before the Lord,” and we can as-
sume that “sinning” now serves the same function as “blasphemy,” i.e., it
guards against associating “curse” with “God.”21 So an understanding
comparable to the one produced by the objective genitive results. The same
goes with the “Syriac ­targum,” Peshiṭta, with its shying away from “curse”:

17 Compare here the lxx κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ, Philo’s κεκατηραμένον ὑπὸ θεοῦ, as well as
Josephus’ ‛Ο δὲ βλασφημήσας θεὸν which leave no doubt about the subject and the object.
Cf. also Paul’s formulation in Gal 3:13.
18 The subjective genitive is possible grammatically but it does not make sense: “because of
God’s blasphemy” = God blasphemed the man, so he was hung. In other words, a­ pplying
the difference directly to Deut 21:23, it is sensible to say “a hanged man is cursed by
God” but not “a hanged man is blasphemed by God.” Instead, with the objective genitive
“curse” and its circumventions are readily interchangeable, cf. “the hanged man cursed /
­blasphemed / sinned against God.”
19 “No responsible dating in the current literature would place any Targum to the Penta-
teuch within the first century.” B. Chilton, “The Targumim and Judaism of the First Cen-
tury,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part 3: Volume 2: Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in
Ancient Judaism (ed. J. Neusner and A.J. Avery-Peck; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 115–150, at 120. The
Aramaic texts are from A. Diez Macho (ed.), Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia: Series iv: Tar-
gum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum: L. 5: Deuteronomium (Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificas, 1980) 182–83; A. Sperber (ed.), The Bible in Aramaic: Based on
Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts: Volume i: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos
(Leiden: Brill, 1959) 327.
20 The translation is according to M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy: Translated,
with Apparatus and Notes (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997) 105.
21 A. Caneday, “‘Redeemed from the Curse of the Law’: The Use of Deut 21.22–23 in Gal 3.13,”
TrinJ 10 (1989) 185–209, at 197.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 202 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 203

‫ܡܛܠ ̇ܕܡܢ ܕܡܨܚܐ‬,22 “one who reviles God.” Finally, Pseudo-Jonathan takes yet a
step further away from the original in order to avoid combining “curse” with
“God”: ‫קדם אילקא למצלוב גבר אלהן חובוי גרמו ליה‬, “it is a disgrace before the
Lord to hang a man, unless his guilt caused it.”23 In my estimation, on this basis
we cannot really conclude anything about the feeling the meturgeman has had
on the Hebrew expression.24
In passing, we may note that Vetus latina as well as the Vulgate translate the
Hebrew expression according to the subjective genitive understanding (male-
dictus a Deo).
So we arrive at m. Sanh. 6:4, which will be our final text.25 In lieu of
­circumventions like blaspheming or sinning against God, the Mishnah attests
to a particular kind of paraphrase, an euphemism: ‫ מפני ׁשברך‬,‫מפני־מה זה תלוי‬
‫ ונמצא ׁשם־ׁשמים מתחלל‬,‫את־הׁשם‬, “Why was this one hanged? Because he
blessed the Name, and the Name of Heaven was found profaned.”26
By way of summarizing, the earliest witnesses to the understanding of Deut
21:22–23 mt, those who have clearest bearing on the contexts and currents of
interpretation at the time of Jesus, consistently stick to the subjective genitive
rendering of the Hebrew phrase ‫קללת אלהים‬.27 In the second century,
renderings­that correspond with the objective genitive reading appear but
the subjective genitive reading can also be attested, for instance, in the Jewish
writing Targum Neofiti. However, an intriguing observation is that, strictly

22 The text is from D.J. Lane et al., The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Ver-
sion: Part i, fascicle 2; Part ii, fascicle 1 b: Edited on behalf of the International Organization
for the Study of the Old Testament by The Peshiṭta Institute Leiden (Leiden: Brill, 1991) 60.
23 The translation is according to E.G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy:
­Translated, with Notes (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998) 59.
24 The idea that for Pseudo-Jonathan both objective and subjective understandings of the
genitive might be in play (so Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 140–141, referring to the
clause “so that the creatures will not treat him improperly”) is in my view too speculative.
25 I will skip Justin, who builds on an understanding according to the subjective genitive
(Dialogue with Trypho), as irrelevant. See O’Brien, “The Curse of the Law,” 59–62.
26 The Hebrew text follows S. Krauss, Die Mischna: Sanhedrin-Makkōṯ: Text, Übersetzung
und Erklärung: Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933) 198
(m. Sanh. 6.6). The translation is according to H. Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the
Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1933) 390.
27 Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 147–48, collects: “The earliest extant view (being
witnessed in the Septuagint and Old Latin texts, as well as in the Temple Scroll and later
in Targum Neofiti) is that the hung person is cursed by God.” Paul, Philo, perhaps even
Josephus (see footnote 11 above), and, later, the Vulgate, should be added to this list of
witnesses.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 203 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 204 HOLMÉN

speaking, the objective genitive sense of ‫ קללת אלהים‬is actually non-existent.

There is not one text where an objective genitive rendering of the Hebrew expres-
sion “curse of God” would have somebody “curse God.” Instead, what we encoun-
ter is blaspheming God, sinning against God, reviling God, and even blessing
God. All texts that in principle would suggest an objective genitive understand-
ing of the original Hebrew words use circumventions, probably with a view to
avoid combining “curse” with “God.” We must therefore at least take seriously
into account the possibility that behind them is not actually a particular per-
ception of Hebrew grammar but that this is simply something the circumven-
tions have led to. (For it would not have made sense to say “a hanged man is
blasphemed (etc.) by God,” thus according to the subjective genitive reading.)
If we now return to the Old Testament passage, there may in fact be good
causes in the Hebrew text itself for such history of interpretation: the inner
logic of the passage seems to speak against the objective genitive understand-
ing in both of its forms. We should ask why the fact that a man has cursed God
(objective genitive, alternative 1) would serve as the reason not to prolong his
remaining on the tree.28 Only if we understand the particular phrase so that as
crucified the man’s body has become a disgrace of God’s image and thus an af-
front to God (objective genitive, alternative 2) do we find a reason for the quick
lowering of the body, viz. in order to prevent defiling of the land. Yet even so, a
problem arises in that if crucifixion is an affront to God, it should not be per-
formed at all.29 The subjective genitive interpretation escapes both of these ob-
stacles being the most obvious rendering of the crucial Hebrew expression in
its own context. This may have caused the objective genitive interpretation to
appear only later, at least partly due to the attempts to circumvent combining
“curse” and “God” as well as with the rabbinic-style hermeneutics taking over.30

*****

28 In other words, the objective genitive understanding, alternative 1, of “curse of God”

does not quite work together with the context of the phrase. See M.J. Bernstein,
“‫( כי קללת אלהים תלוי‬Deut. 21:23): A Study in Early Jewish Exegesis,” jqr 74 (1983)
21–45, at 26, who observes this while discussing a rendering by b. Sanh. 45b. The Beraitha
avoids the problem by explaining the man’s transgression as the reason for his suspension
and exposure, not for the lowering of his corpse.
29 J.H. Tigay, Deuteronomy ‫דברים‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New jps Translation
Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 5756 / 1996) 198. This problem is
conveniently circumvented by Pseudo-Jonathan which, in the passage discussed above, adds
an exception: it is indeed an affront to God, “unless his [sc. the criminal’s] guilt caused it.”
30 For the later rabbinic interpretations, see Bernstein, “Early Jewish Exegesis,” 26, 29–38.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 204 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 205

So what does this all mean with respect to the question posed in the present
essay (i.e., positive hermeneutics)? Deut 21:22–23 is the one text for determin-
ing whether, in the Judaism of the time, a direct connection was made between
crucifixion and God’s curse. Had the statement ‫קללת אלהים‬, included in this
Torah commandment,31 not been understood to speak of “God cursing,”
the grounds for suggesting such a connection would have been weak. Since the
evidence on the contrary shows that all the earliest texts do understand the
Hebrew phrase so, i.e., according to the subjective genitive, we can consider it
highly possible, maybe even probable, that those crucified were indeed com-
monly seen as having incurred God’s curse. This would mean a clearly nega-
tively shaped hermeneutics of crucifixion. Moreover, this would exclude any
positive hermeneutics. For if God himself was known to be against the cruci-
fied people, no one and nothing could be invoked to help them.
We will now try to discover what was the practice. Would the hermeneutics
manifested in real life cohere with the suggested conclusions based on the tra-
dition of interpretation of ‫ קללת אלהים‬in Deut 21:22–23? How did the Jews re-
spond to actual incidents of crucifixion, when Jews were crucified?

3 The Practice

In order to find out about the Jewish response to crucifixions in actuality, we

need to turn to the Jewish literature of the time. In the present Section, we
will go through all relevant depictions of crucifixions of Jews provided by this
literature. We do this with a view to determining whether interpretations of
crucifixion can be discerned in them that suggest something good with respect
to the deaths of those crucified. In other words, we seek to detect a positive
hermeneutics of crucifixion. To be in a better position to perform this assess-
ment, however, we will first study a few examples of a different case: d­ epictions
of executions that do not involve crucifixion. For as will be seen, these exam-
ples will afford a useful point of comparison.

3.1 Not Crucifixion Stories

So how did the Jews respond to executions of Jews not involving crucifixion?
Many stories report of posthumous recognition of those put down and killed
by oppressing tyrants.32 This immediately shows that their deaths, calamitous

31 See 11qt 64:8, 10–11; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.151–152. Cf. also, for example, m. Sanh. 6:4:
“A n
­ egative command.”
32 Importantly, our perspective here needs to be posthumous since we are looking for
the effects of this particular form of execution, responses to this calamitous death. For

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 205 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:46 AM

 206 HOLMÉN

as they certainly were, could be interpreted positively; they could be made to

mean something good. Best known examples are the descriptions from 2 Mac-
cabees, chapters 6–7.33

So in this way he died, leaving in his death an example of nobility and a

memorial of courage, not only to the young but to the great body of his
nation.34

The words describe the pious Eleazar who was beaten, maimed, tortured and
burnt to death for not eating food forbidden in the Jewish law.

The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory.35

Said about a mother who died along her seven sons, being mutilated, fried,
skinned and tortured until dead for not eating forbidden food. While still
­living, she uttered trustingly to her dying sons:

The Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised
the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you
again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.36

And the last one of her sons alive she encourages:

Do not fear this butcher [sc. Antiochus iv Epiphanes] but prove worthy
of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back
again with your brothers.37

“posthumous­recognition,” see G.W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1995) 5, and the discussion with qualifications in D. Boyarin, Dy-
ing for God (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999) 93–97; see, further, J.J. Whitfield,
Pilgrim Holiness (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009) 35–38.
33 On the problem of second-temple Jewish martyrdom, see for instance Boyarin, Dying for
God; T. Rajak, Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Inter-
action (Leiden: Brill, 2000); J. Schwartz and M. Poorthuis, eds., Saints and Role Models in
Judaism and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2003); S. Shepkaru, Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and
Christian Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
34 2 Macc 6:31.
35 2 Macc 7:20.
36 2 Macc 7:23.
37 2 Macc 7:29.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 206 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 207

The son who dies last is also commented on so:

So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.38

The Testament of Moses also describes many atrocities probably intended as

referring to those inflicted by Antiochus. In the last chapters of the document,
the sacrifice of the life of Taxo and his seven sons who undergo a self-inflicted
death is said to bear the following outcome:

Our blood will be avenged before the Lord. Then his kingdom will appear
throughout his whole creation.39

From Josephus’ writings, the following examples can be mentioned:

The souls of those who came to such an end attained immortality and an
eternally abiding sense of felicity.40

For by winning eternal fame and glory for themselves they would be
praised by those now living and would leave the ever-memorable (ex-
ample of their) lives to future generations.41

“Why so exultant, when you will shortly be put to death?” “Because, after
our death, we shall enjoy greater felicity.”42

These are comments on and by some Jews, burnt alive, who in their zeal for
the law of the fathers removed a Roman golden eagle from over the great gate
of the temple.

38 2 Macc 7:40.
39 T. Mos. 9:7–10:1. The translation is according to J. Priest, otp 1 (1983), 931. Shepkaru, Jewish
Martyrs, 53, is probably right in that the reference to blood is best seen as aiming to link
the event to sacrificial rituals. I am not sure, however, that the death of Taxo and his sons
is thought to take place through starvation (ibid.). A death through attacking enemy and
because of Taxo’s non-resistance is at least equally probable; see 2 Macc 6:11.
40 b.j. 1.650. The translation is according to H. St. J. Thackeray, lcl 203, page 309.
41 a.j. 17.152. The translation is according to R. Marcus and A. Wikgren, lcl 410, page 443.
42 b.j. 1.653. lcl 203, page 311.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 207 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 208 HOLMÉN

Smiling (μειδιῶντες) in their agonies and mildly deriding their tormen-

tors, they cheerfully resigned their souls, confident that they would
­receive them back again.43

The statement concludes a description of Essenes who stayed loyal to the law
of forbidden foods despite being tortured by the Romans, their limbs twisted
and broken and being burnt and shattered.

This our laws enjoin, this our wives and children implore of us. The need
for this is of God’s sending.44

Eleazar’s characterization of the mass suicide of the Jews on Masada before

the storm of the Roman troops.
And Josephus can even commend the Sicarii for their resistance to acknowl-
edge Caesar as lord:

So far did the strength of courage rise superior to the weakness of their
frames.45

Naturally, the stories here do not have to be historical, although of course that
is what they purport to be, but it is the world of ideas they betray, teach and
pass on that counts.46 All these stories express a posthumous recognition of
some sort that applies to the people whose deaths they relate. At times this
materializes in a short eulogy, occasionally the narrator tells or lets some of
the characters of the story, sometimes the suffering people themselves, explain
that there is a good side to all the pain, humiliation and death. Further, their
comfort is a life everlasting but also a life in the memory of the people cher-
ishing their example. All in all, these are people who are honored even after
their deaths. We can also observe that Josephus could admire even rebellious
anti-Roman elements within the Jews and express words of recognition even
about a crowd of people planning to end their days by their own hands.47

43 b.j. 2.153. lcl 203, page 381.

44 b.j. 7.387. The translation is according to H. St. J. Thackeray, lcl 210, page 613.
45 b.j. 7.419. lcl 210, page 623. These rebels, among whom were also children, were probably
killed by burning.
46 Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 100. This estimate naturally applies to the texts, too, that are dealt
with in 3.2. below.
47 Indeed, compare b.j. 3.375–377. In light of these cases, inter alia, Chapman’s (Perceptions
of Crucifixion, 71) comment on b.j. 2.75 and a.j. 17.295 that, as with Romans, Josephus
would have taken the passionless stance of an observer, is not pertinent.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 208 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 209

Hence – and, indeed, as is well known of Judaism48 – violent and horrible

deaths could be interpreted for the better. There was a positive side to their
hermeneutics. Of course, as for what is conveyed by these samples, none of the
specified deaths and executions are crucifixions. Let us now look at instances
where the form of punishment is indeed identified so.

3.2 Explicit Crucifixion Stories

In the following, I will analyze all Jewish crucifixion texts, i.e., Jewish depic-
tions of crucifixions of Jews, relevant to the question of the present essay.49
The preceding review now affords an instructive point of comparison.

The worthiest people and those of noble soul disregarded him [the king]
… and being on that account maltreated daily, and enduring bitter tor-
ments, they met their death. Indeed, they were whipped, their bodies
were mutilated, and while still alive and breathing, they were cruci-
fied (ἀνεσταυροῦντο),50 while their wives and the sons whom they had
­circumcised in despite of the king’s wishes were strangled, the children
being made to hang from the necks of their crucified (ἀνεσταυρωμένων)
parents.51

Thus, this was the fate of the “worthiest people” and of “those of noble soul”
who did not forsake the laws of the Jewish tradition, especially circumcision,
even though demanded by the oppressor king Antiochus iv Epiphanes. The
situation and the story are quite like those in the first passages above in 3.1. that
were offered for comparison. However, the posthumous recognition, a kind of
eulogy, even a short one, that we could observe in all of them is missing here.
The same applies to the next text, often also perceived to describe the same
event:

He stirs up against them a king of the kings of the earth who, having su-
preme authority, will crucify (in cruce suspendit) those who confess their

48 Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 107. See further, for instance, D.J. Simundson, Faith under Fire: Bib-
lical Interpretations of Suffering (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980).
49 Many of these texts are also analyzed by Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion. Although
he approaches them with a broader set of questions, the analyses are in most cases very
helpful even with respect to our more specific focus. Some of them, however, I have to
criticize. See further in 3.3.
50 See Chapman’s clarification of the semantics of ἀνασταυρόω in Josephus’ writings; Chap-
man, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 55. Similarly Cook, Mediterranean World, 236.
51 a.j. 12.255–256. The translation is according to R. Marcus, lcl 365, pages 131, 133.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 209 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 210 HOLMÉN

circumcision. Even those who deny it, he will torture and hand them over
to be led to prison in chains.52

“Those who confess” corresponds to the characterizations “worthiest” and

“noble” in the previous text. That is, it is those who remain loyal to the ancient
law that receive the worst punishment. The pattern is well known in all Jewish
literature describing times of oppression of the people. Surely, a word of rec-
ognition after their heroic deaths would have been in order. Yet, anything like
that is conspicuously missing here as well.
The following episode differs from the previous ones in that it takes place
intra muros of Judaism.

He did a thing that was as cruel as could be: while he feasted with his
concubines in a conspicuous place, he ordered some eight hundred of
the Jews to be crucified (ἀνασταυρῶσαι), and slaughtered their children
and wives before the eyes of the still living wretches.53

The cruel punisher here is Alexander Jannaeus, who puts down a revolt. Jose-
phus’ description of Alexander is all but favorable. In addition to calling the
penalty “as cruel as could be” and later “inhuman,” he portrays Alexander as
presumptuous and vindictive, feasting decadently at the moment of the cru-
cifixions so fulfilling his lust for a gruesome revenge.54 In the parallel episode
in b.j. 1.97, the massacre is even characterized as amounting to “impiety.” Nev-
ertheless, the crucified ones are indeed rebels against a Jewish king here. They
are not singled out as those “noble” or “worthy” or as ones who are dying for
God’s law. And even though their possible identification as Pharisees55 could
have cast them in a pious light, at least for some,56 the passage under scru-
tiny may not be considered particularly telling as a case that upon a report of
crucifixion fails to give the crucified ones posthumous recognition. Yet, in any
event, such recognition is missing here.57

52 T. Mos. 8:1–2. otp 1, pp. 930–31.

53 a.j. 13.380. lcl 365, page 417.
54 a.j. 13.381.
55 Cf. a.j. 13.400–406. Or: mostly as Pharisees.
56 The famous pejorative label “Seekers-after-Smooth-Things” probably refers to the Phari-
sees. See especially 4QpNah 3–4.1.6–9 discussed next in the text.
57 Interestingly, there does appear an eulogy, namely of Alexander, performed by the Phari-
sees who choose not to put Alexander’s dead body on public display, possibly on a cross.
More willing to gain in power than to retaliate, they decline Alexander’s offer to “dishon-
our my corpse by leaving it unburied … or … to offer my dead body any other form of

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 210 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 211

The Qumran Pesher 4qnah describes a crucifixion of Jews enacted by An-

tiochus, as in the first and maybe also in the second text scrutinized here in
3.2., or, more probably, by Alexander as in the text right above.58

Its interpretation concerns the Lion of Wrath […ven]geance on the

Seekers-after-Smooth-Things when he hangs men up alive […] in Israel
beforetime, for of the man hanged alive upon a tree it [re]ads: “Behold
I am against [thee] say[s Yahweh of hosts, and I will burn in smoke thine
abundance,] and thy young lions the sword shall devour.”59

It is debated whether the writer criticizes the action of the Lion or not.60 Either
way, the phrase “behold I am against you” should not be read as a comment
on the Lion. Instead, it is stated about the one who is crucified.61 It may well
be that this or other phrases of the passage do not warrant seeing a reference
being made to Deut 21:22–23.62 Further, the point of the passage may be in
establishing the fulfilment of Nah 2:13 and 2:14, not so much in condemning
the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things (who were hung up alive).63 Irrespective
of these things, “I am against you” as an explication of crucifixion amounts
to a judgment easily comparable to being cursed by God. This is remarkable

indignity.” See a.j. 13.403–406. As a quid pro quo, this formulation could be seen to refer to
crucifixion (Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 56).
58 Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 61–62; Cook, Crucifixion, 318.
59 4QpNah 3–4.1.6–9. The text is according to J.M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4: 1 (4Q158–4Q186)
(djd 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 39. For a recent discussion on reading and reconstruct-
ing these lines of the scroll, see S.L. Berrin, Pesher Nahum Scoll from Qumran: An Exegeti-
cal Study of 4Q169 (Leiden: Brill, 2004) 46–59.
60 For condemnation of the Lion, see for example Allegro, “Further Light,” 92; not con-
demned, see for instance Y. Yadin, “Pesher Nahum (4Qp Nahum) Reconsidered,” iej 21
(1971) 1– 12. Compare a.j. 13.380.
61 Berrin, Pesher Nahum, 165–92; Chapman, Perceptions of Crucifixion, 57–66, 94; Cook, Cru-
cifixion, 319.
62 Wilcox, “Deut 21:22–23,” 88. However, g.l. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition
(JSPSup 35; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 421–425, changes and augments
after “it [re]ads” (‫ )יקרא‬so: “[… is cal]led {‘accursed of God’}.” Berrin’s statement (Pesher
Nahum, 192) is attractive: “The echo of Deuteronomy here is not legal but theological and
deterministic, evidence for prophetic fulfillment. The force of ‘hanged alive’ is not to sup-
port crucifixion per se, but to present Jannaeus as having fulfilled Deuteronomy by hang-
ing the guilty ones alive, and to prompt the association of their execution with their being
cursed, thereby fulfilling the words of Nahum.”
63 Berrin, Pesher Nahum, 188.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 211 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 212 HOLMÉN

­ articularly in the case that the writer indeed disapproves the crucifixions per-
p
formed by the Lion.
Crucifixions reported in Philo’s In Flaccum tell about the hostilities towards
Jews that arose in Alexandria.

While those who did these things [i.e., torments and killing but not cruci-
fixion] like actors in a farce assumed the part of the sufferers, the friends
and kinsmen of the true sufferers, simply because they grieved over the
misfortunes of their relations, were arrested, scourged, tortured and after
all these outrages, which were all their bodies could make room for, the
final punishment kept in reserve was the cross.64

It is interesting that crucifixion, ordered by Flaccus,65 was the lot of the friends
and relatives of the first victims who for their part had been harassed by the
mob.66 None of the Jews here suffer for the cause of loyalty towards the ­Jewish
tradition as if in lieu of attending to orders from Roman officials.67 Neverthe-
less, it is clear that for Philo those so treated were innocent, not deserving
punishment for crime, and that those who received the worst kind of punish-
ment, crucifixion, deserved it least.68 Therefore it does not seem unreasonable
a thought that he could have expressed some words of recognition for their
memory or at least pitied them, but anything like that is missing. Instead, when
describing the cruelties of the mob, thus when crucifixion is out of sight, Philo
does utter his compassion.69
Josephus, however, tells about lamentations uttered even on behalf of cru-
cified people. The following happened when the Roman procurator Florus
­ordered soldiers to occupy the agora in Jerusalem, known as the upper market:

There ensued a stampede through the narrow alleys, massacre of all who
were caught, every variety of pillage; many of the peaceable citizens were
arrested and brought before Florus, who had them first scourged and
then crucified. The total number of that day’s victims, including women
and children, for even infancy received no quarter, amounted to about

64 Flacc. 72. The translation is according to F.H. Colson, lcl 363, page 341.
65 Flacc. 84.
66 See Flacc. 71 and backwards.
67 Simply, they suffer for being Jews.
68 Flacc. 81–82. In 78–80 Philo seems to speak of a different problem of injustice during
Flaccus: as with Jewish Alexandrians, punishments (deserved ones) were not properly
adjusted according to the standing of the convicted people.
69 E.g., Flacc. 65 (“poor wretches”), 68 (“pitiable,” “miserable victims”).

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 212 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 213

three thousand six hundred. The calamity was aggravated by the unprec-
edented character of the Romans’ cruelty. For Florus ventured that day
to do what none had ever done before, namely, to scourge before his tri-
bunal and nail to the cross men of equestrian rank, men who, if Jews by
birth, were at least invested with that Roman dignity.70

Again it is clear that at least part of the suffering populace is innocent, but not
only so. They are also “peaceable,” “good citizens,” and “steady-going members
of the congregation.”71 In Bellum Judaicum Josephus tries to argue for the Jews
by showing how reluctant they in general were to act against the Romans. Char-
acterizations like those, then, correspond well in this context to the labels “wor-
thiest people” and “those of noble soul” Josephus employs when describing Jews
under the Greek Antiochus.72 Now Florus, too, had threatened the holy tradi-
tions of the Jews,73 and so something similar is happening here, even though it
is not a straightforward “dying for the law” situation where the crucifixions take
place this time. This time, however, a reaction upon the calamity is recorded:

On the following day the multitude, overcome with distress, flocked

to the upper agora, uttering terrific lamentations for the dead (βοαῖς
ἐξαισίοις περι τῶν ἀπολωλότων ἀνωδύρετο), but the shouts of i­ mprecation
upon Florus preponderated.74

According to Josephus, this is the behavior of “the mob” that the “leading
men and the chief priests” try to silence.75 So it is in his view not a welcome
reaction – although not as a reaction to the crucifixions but because of the
shouts of curse that could again inflame Florus – and of course the victims had
not all suffered death by crucifixion. Nonetheless, here we probably perceive a
possible communal response to a calamity consisting even of crucifixions. It is
desperation and hate.
An intimate response, namely Josephus’ own, can be found in Vita.

When I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealius and a thousand horse
to a village called Tekoa, to prospect whether it was a suitable place for
an entrenched camp, and on my return saw many prisoners who had

70 b.j. 2.306–308. lcl 203, page 443.

71 Cf. b.j. 2.306, 302, 304, 290.
72 See a.j. 12.255–256 discussed above.
73 b.j. 2.293–294.
74 b.j. 2.315. lcl 203, page 445.
75 b.j. 2.316.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 213 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 214 HOLMÉN

been crucified, and recognized three of my acquaintances among them,

I was cut to the heart and came and told Titus with tears what I had seen
(ἤλγησά τε τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἶπον). He gave
orders immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most
careful treatment. Two of them died in the physicians’ hands; the third
survived.76

Clearly, it was important to Josephus that his friends should live rather than die
by crucifixion. This would fit well with him believing that their deaths would
have brought them under God’s curse, but the story is of course understand-
able even without such an assumption. In any event, we can again establish
the lack of posthumous recognition, conspicuous considering that Josephus
had first been moved to tears finding his acquaintances struggling on the cross.
The three following accounts form a small group of their own in that they
yield somewhat more distinctive a grasp of how the Jews conceived the ulti-
mate purport of crucifixion. Two of them pertain to an individual and will be
discussed first. The last one concerns a gruesome scene of mass crucifixions.
Throughout his writings Josephus underlines how adamant the Jews could
be when it came to adhering to their ancestral laws or, especially in war situa-
tions, staying faithful to their compatriots. Nevertheless, Josephus does relate
to his readers one thing that the Roman enemy sometimes knew to deploy in
order to shake the ironclad loyalty of the Jews. This was crucifixion. The first
case is most explicit about that.77
A courageous Jewish lad named Eleazar had been captured by the Romans.
For a reason not stated – we can perhaps surmise that this was because the lad
had many times distinguished himself in battles against them – the Romans,
commanded by their leader Bassus, brought Eleazar to a place which could
be seen from the Jewish city fortress and chastised him severely. According to
Josephus, this provoked a strong reaction of despair from the Jews even though
it was only one man that was being tormented:

The whole town burst into such wailing and lamentation as the misfor-
tune of a mere individual seemed hardly to justify.78

76 Vita 420–421. The translation is according to H. St. J. Thackeray, lcl 186, page 155. Ma-
son suggests that the roads from Jerusalem where lined with crosses like Via Appia after
Spartacus’ revolt. S. Mason, Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill,
2001) 167.
77 The case serves our review well even though the crucifixion spoken about and already
prepared for in the story is eventually not followed through.
78 b.j. 7.200. lcl 210, page 563.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 214 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 215

Seeing the surprising and disproportionate response that arose because

of this particular individual, Bassus decided “to practice a ruse” (στρατήγημα).
This was to let the viewers in the city believe he was going to crucify Eleazar.
The result was an even deeper dismay from the side of the Jews. Moreover,
at this point even the ironclad loyalty towards the common cause of the Jews
was fractured:

At this juncture, moreover, Eleazar besought them [i.e., his compatriots]

not to leave him to undergo the most pitiable of deaths, but to consult
their own safety by yielding to the might and fortune of the Romans, now
that all others had been subdued. Overcome by his appeals, which were
backed by many interceders within – for he came of a distinguished and
extremely numerous family – they yielded to a compassion contrary to
their nature and hastily dispatched a deputation to discuss the surrender
of the fortress, stipulating for permission to depart in safety, taking Elea-
zar with them.79

Thus, not only did Eleazar break. The whole city decided to surrender. Cer-
tainly, this Eleazar was a particular case, but the same must be said of crucifix-
ion as a means of chastisement.80 Finney correctly observes and emphasizes
that – at least in Josephus’ world – the Roman commander clearly seemed to
know this.81
So did Titus consider this could be a soft spot for the Jews:

One incident in this engagement was the capture of a Jewish prisoner,

whom Titus ordered to crucifixion before the walls, in the hope that the
spectacle (πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν) might lead the rest to surrender in dismay.82

The trick did not play out this time but, apparently, the Jews retired for other
reasons.83 At any event, the “incident” is depicted very sparsely leaving the im-
pression that the tactic in question was almost common wisdom.
Finally, we have a scene of mass crucifixions that takes place just outside the
besieged Jerusalem temple area. Forced by famine, many Jews took a risk and

79 b.j. 7.203–205. lcl 210, pages 563, 565.

80 After all, Eleazar had already been tortured and would probably have been killed anyway.
The surrender finally came due to Bassus’ “ruse.”
81 M.T. Finney, “servile Supplicium: Shame and the Deuteronomic Curse – Crucifixion in its
Cultural Context,” btb 43 (2013) 124–134, at 132.
82 b.j. 5.289. lcl 210, page 291.
83 Cf. b.j. 5.296–302.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 215 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 216 HOLMÉN

left the besieged temple to find food. Then they were captured by Roman sol-
diers who subjected them to many sorts of torture also crucifying them in large
numbers opposite the temple walls, that is, in sight of all those who remained
within the temple. Josephus casts Titus in a soothing light letting him show
compassion towards his enemies who were maltreated by his troops.84 There
were some reasons, however, why Titus allowed the soldiers’ rage to continue.
One was that he could not think of taking so many captives. However,

his main reason for not stopping the crucifixions was the hope that the
spectacle (πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν) might perhaps induce the Jews to surrender, for
fear that continued resistance would involve them in a similar fate.85

Titus’ tactics here are the same that he employed in the just mentioned brief
incident and what Josephus dubbed as Bassus’ “ruse.” The rebellious Jews,
­however, turned it against Titus. They utilized the sight of crucifixions to
­convince their fellow-beleaguered not to surrender, claiming that this would
be their destiny, too, if they did.86
Behind all these examples we observe one and the same idea: the Jews are
particularly horrified by crucifixion and this is something that can be used for
military purposes. The state of affairs here is readily explainable if the Jews
commonly thought crucifixion would inflict God’s curse on them. The Ro-
mans naturally need not to have known about the details. However, they did
know how to take advantage of the peculiarities of their subdued people.87
As an apposite parallel phenomenon, the tactics that relied on the Jews’ re-
luctance to wage war on the Sabbath day can be mentioned.88 I am not aware

84 “Titus indeed commiserated their fate, five hundred or sometimes more being captured
daily.” b.j. 5.450.
85 b.j. 5.450. lcl 210, page 341.
86 b.j. 5.452–453. So, even the Jews themselves could make tactical moves based on what
crucifixion meant to them.
87 Romans were also familiar with making a spectacle out of crucifixion scenes. See Shi,
Message of the Cross, 41–45; J.G. Cook, “Crucifixion as Spectacle in Roman Campania,” nt
54 (2012) 68–100.
88 This is how Josephus describes Pompey’s ruse during an earlier siege of Jerusalem:
“Indeed, the labours of the Romans would have been endless, had not Pompey taken ad-
vantage of the seventh day of the week, on which the Jews, from religious scruples, refrain
from all manual work, and then proceeded to raise the earthworks, while forbidding his
troops to engage in hostilities; for on the Sabbaths the Jews fight only in self-defence.”
b.j. 1.146; lcl 203, pages 67, 69; see also a.j. 14.63; cf. 1 Macc 2:40–41. See even Strabo,
Geogr. 16.2.40.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 216 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 217

that crucifixion­was supposed to trigger a similar effect with any other people,
although of course it was often the main deterrent for rebellious elements. At
least the Roman thought professes quite an opposite stance in that Seneca
finds death the ultimate consolation, even when it takes place on a cross:

I see instruments of torture (Video istic cruces), not indeed of a single

kind, but differently contrived by different peoples; some hang their vic-
tims with head toward the ground, some impale their private parts; oth-
ers stretch out their arms on a fork-shaped gibbet … But I see also Death
… Slavery is no hardship when, if a man wearies of the yoke, by a single
step he may pass to freedom. O Life, by the favour of Death I hold thee
dear!89

As we have seen, when it came to deaths by torture, burning, decapitation,

tearing apart etc., the Jews, too, could strengthen themselves with a similar
hope. But as for crucifixion they evidently knew no comfort. Hence, the “ruse”
and “spectacle” of crucifying Jews. And as we also saw, even the Jews them-
selves could resort to pulling that string.
Of course, as is clear from Josephus’ and other writings, even crucifixion
could fail to produce the desired result. Many Jews disregarded pagan rules,
refused to eat pork and continued to circumcise their sons under the threat
of crucifixion and even when the threat was carried out.90 And we observed
that unlike other accounts of deaths of good and loyal Jews, the crucifixion
scenes present no eulogies on behalf of the executed people, they lack any
kind of posthumous recognition. Josephus now tells about a case when the
tactics based on crucifixion had failed Vespasian:

On a former occasion a man of Jotapata who had been taken prisoner

had held out under every variety of torture, and, without betraying to the

89 Seneca, De Consolatione ad Marciam 20.3. The translation (and text) is according to

J.W. Basore, lcl 254, pages (68,) 69, 71. Moreover, some Roman writers and rhetors re-
count the story of Regulus, honored despite his pitiful death which some depict as cruci-
fixion. He is worthy of admiration and an example of loyalty, who did not renounce his
dignity and so gains great glory (see, for example, Seneca, De Providentia, 3.9–10; Florus,
­Epitomae, 1.18, 2.2.25). These characterizations are reminiscent of the Jewish eulogies that
we found in texts not describing crucifixions. Pace M. Hengel, The Cross of the Son of God
(London: scm, 1986) 156–160. Their absence in texts that present Jews crucified is all the
more conspicuous.
90 Although in these occasions, too, we also hear of those who succumbed.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 217 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 218 HOLMÉN

enemy a word about the state of the town, even under the ordeal of fire,
was finally crucified, meeting death with a smile (καταμειδιῶν).91

Taking the phrase “meeting death with a smile” as an indication that a posi-
tive interpretation of crucifixion is now operative overstates the significance
of the facial expression in question, understates the import of Josephus’ other
accounts of crucifixion, and overlooks the differences between this story and
the story about the Essenes who also died smiling.92 The reason for the Essenes
to show their defiance was indeed that they expected to receive posthumous
recognition, namely in the form that God would restore their lives: as Josephus
lets them explicitly state, they would regain their soul from God. As regards the
man of Jotapata, now, with no such interpretive words on the outcome of his
death, the mention of the smile, if it is to mean anything particular, probably
only seeks to underline the man’s adamantine character. Moreover, there are
also different motives in play. By having stood his ground through everything
and till the end without revealing any military secrets to the enemy, the man
had saved his compatriots. Whatever happened to him, his comrades would be
secure (cf. Rom 9:3).
In passing,93 I mention the crucifixions of some brigands, allied to the brig-
and chief Eleazar, by procurator Felix,94 an act which Josephus considers a
clearing of the land;95 the crucifixions of some rebellious Samaritans and Jews
by governor Quadratus;96 the crucifixions of Jews who had caused a minor up-
rising during the absence of Archelaus;97 as well as the crucifixions of James
and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean, by procurator Tiberius Alexander,98
which probably are also to be seen as punishments of criminal elements. These
instances introduce nothing new to the picture we have glimpsed in the other
scrutinized passages.
In fact, there is only one text that comes as close as to almost breaking the
pattern that has emerged:

91 b.j. 3.321. lcl 203, page 667.

92 Cf. b.j. 2.153 discussed in 3.1. above.
93 The following incidents describe punishments of criminal elements who, in the narrator’s
perspective, would not have deserved recognition in any case, thus even if the form of
their execution had been some other than crucifixion.
94 b.j. 2.253. Cf. a.j. 20.160–161 which does not mention crucifixion.
95 b.j. 2.254.
96 a.j. 20.129; b.j. 2.241. See b.j. 2.238.
97 b.j. 2.75; a.j. 17.295.
98 a.j. 20.102.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 218 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 219

When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing
amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the
first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. … And
the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not
disappeared.99

There are, as is known, many problems and uncertainties that revolve about
this passage. However, in the case that the above lines should be regarded as
useable,100 what can we say about the response to the reported crucifixion that
it exposes? What makes this particular passage different from other crucifixion
scenes is that the first and also the only time we now expressly hear of people
who even afterwards, after the calamity of crucifixion, kept loving memory
of the executed person and adhered to him. Their depiction here must be
distinguished from Jews carefully burying “even malefactors who have been
sentenced to crucifixion”101 or from onlookers’ immediate reaction of mourn-
ing.102 They cannot be equated with grieving relatives and friends,103 either.
This is now something more and longer lasting and involves a certain group
of people, a group of followers. And yet, even so, the depiction does not quite
match with those eulogies and words of recognition we have encountered
in other situations. It is not actually comparable to that kind of posthumous
­recognition which we have been searching for and examples of which we have
also found in texts that speak of other kinds of violent deaths of Jews.104
Because of the many inherent unclarities of this passage, it may best be
­allowed to rest. Nonetheless, were it to suggest anything useful regarding our

99 a.j. 18.64. The translation is according to L.H. Feldman, lcl 433, page 51.
100 For the reconstruction, see for example J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Histori-
cal Jesus: Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991)
59–69.
101 b.j. 4.317. See also Tob 1.18; Philo, Flacc 83; Mark 15.42–46; John 19.31, 38–42; see here the
comments in J.G. Cook, ‘Crucifixion and Burial’, nts 57 (2011) 193–213, at 211–13. Cf. also the
crucified man from Givʿat ha-Mivtar.
102 Cf. b.j. 2.315 discussed above.
103 Cf. Vita 420–421 discussed above. The crucified man from Givʿat ha-Mivtar fits here, too,
as an example.
104 One problem is that we cannot determine exactly how Josephus perceives Jesus. Even
though he states that Jesus was accused by Jews of the highest standing, he does not quite
seem to include Jesus in the group of criminals such as those listed just previously in the
text above. Also, depending on how much we can rely on the passage – and how we re-
construct it – he calls Jesus a wise man, a doer of startling deeds and a teacher of people
who receive the truth with pleasure.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 219 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 220 HOLMÉN

interests, this would be the picture of Josephus who remains quite uncompre-
hending about a positive interpretation of crucifixion while at the same time
speaking of a group of people who, to all appearances, did not

3.3 Summary
Jesus’ crucifixion was interpreted favorably by some of his followers. How was
crucifixion viewed prior to that?
Ruling out the case of a.j. 18, which is about Jesus, we can state with clarity:
in none of the incidents where executions are said to take place by crucifixion
are the deaths characterized in any positive way, nor are the executed ones rec-
ognized as crucified martyrs, religious heroes or patriots or the like. That many
of them indeed had been innocent and pious (from the Jewish perspective),
that they indeed had stood firmly for the law of God and the ancient tradi-
tions, is not in question here. Had their character not been such, why should
we expect that their deaths would be called those of martyrs or heroes in the
first place? The point is that when such good and pious people were executed
by other means of punishment we find them honored even after their execu-
tion (cf. 3.1.). When, however, the means of execution is specified as crucifix-
ion, there is but a blank silence afterwards (cf. 3.2.). There appear no accounts
of crucifixion with even one favorable word that would apply posthumously
to those whose deaths had taken place so. It is here that Chapman’s other-
wise scrupulous treatment loses its way. The fact that some accounts tell how
people who had done good and been good suffer and are crucified seems to
mean to him that even their deaths could be interpreted positively. This is not
the case as we have seen.105 In fact, the instances pointed out by Chapman,
viz. crucifixions of good people, present the most conspicuous cases of the
above review: not even their crucifixions were interpreted for the better. Take
instead some other means of execution into c­ onsideration and positive inter-
pretations appear.
Indeed, the Jews of Jesus’ time were familiar with the thought that even
their patriotic and religious heroes and other innocent people could meet the
ignominious death of crucifixion. This was the harsh reality, there was no de-
nying it. Additionally, as regards ignominious deaths in general, it stands that
the Jews had “many ways of snatching meaning out of the deaths of martyrs,

105 The misunderstanding grows into a major point of conclusion and contention. See Chap-
man, Perceptions of Crucifixion, for example pages 74, 96, 214, 218, 254, 259, 260–261, 262.
However, in Chapman’s favor we must state that he indeed analyzes the texts while other
studies presenting similar views (see footnote 2 above) settle with merely alleging that
positive interpretations must have existed.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 220 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 Crucifixion Hermeneutics In Judaism At The Time Of Jesus 221

of turning physical disaster into psychic (and perhaps ultimately physical)

victory. The diverse Jewish literature of the period, which incorporated a high-
ly diversified religious world, generated varied reactions.”106 Despite these two
points being true, however, there is no trace that any positive meanings of
crucifixion had been generated.107 And the intriguing question is, naturally,
why?
None of the reviewed concrete cases of crucifixion definitely revealed that
the reason and cause for the missing of positive interpretations should be
found in the Torah passage Deut 21:22–23 and its mention of God’s curse. This
conclusion was anticipated and therefore the crucial weight of the study was
placed on the positive hermeneutics question.108 Nonetheless, a categorically
negative understanding of crucifixion, based on a commandment of the Law,
would of course excellently explain the concrete cases. If God himself puts a
curse on the crucified people and so expresses that he is against them, there
should be no getting away from it.109 Thus, the hermeneutics manifested in
real life, viz. complete missing of positive interpretations, coheres well with
the suggestion (see 3.2.) that was made on basis of the tradition of interpreta-
tion of ‫ קללת אלהים‬in Deut 21:22–23, viz. that those crucified were commonly
seen as having incurred God’s curse.

4 Conclusions

The present essay has sought to find out whether, prior to Jesus’ death and
its interpretation, a positive hermeneutics of crucifixion can be attested in
Judaism, i.e., whether there appear interpretations that, from the viewpoint
of the crucified one(s), suggest something good. First, the investigation of
the central text of the topic, Deut 21.22–23, and its central expression “curse
of God” rendered it very possible or even probable that crucified people were
commonly seen as having incurred God’s curse. Such a categorically negative

106 Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 107.

107 That is, of course, prior to Jesus’ death and its interpretation.
108 See Section 1: “The question to be scrutinized in the present article is: Prior to Jesus’ death
and its interpretation, can a positive hermeneutics of crucifixion be attested in Judaism,
i.e., can interpretations of crucifixion be found that, from the viewpoint of the crucified
one(s), suggest something good?” And: “The insight I am introducing in the study is to
waive, as the ultimate goal, the need to establish for good whether or not crucifixion was
always understood as incurring a divine curse.”
109 I believe the Christian understanding of the cross of Christ managed to pull this off pre-
cisely because it could explain how Jesus was at once the blessed one and the cursed one.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 221 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM

 222 HOLMÉN

way to look on the issue would, expectably, exclude any positive hermeneu-
tics. Second, the review of actual instances of crucifixion, Jewish depictions
of crucifixions of Jews, came to the conclusion that positive interpretations
of crucifixion cannot be attested. In a context where all other kinds of terrible
calamities could find hope-giving meanings attached to them, this can be con-
sidered remarkable indeed.
The results of this essay strongly suggest that prior to Jesus’ death and its
interpretation Judaism knew no hermeneutics capable of transforming the
­ignominious death of crucifixion into something favorable.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 14 (2017) 197-222

0003061423.INDD 222
View publication stats 301935 3/9/2017 2:59:47 AM