The Crucifiable Jesus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo The Crucifiable Jesus Steven Brian Pounds Peterhouse Faculty of Divinity University of Cambridge This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy February 2019 This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my thesis has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee Steven Brian Pounds “The Crucifiable Jesus” Abstract: In recent decades, scholars have both used Jesus’ crucifixion as a criterion of historicity and employed the rhetoric of a “crucifiable Jesus”– suggesting that some historical reconstructions of Jesus more plausibly explain his crucifixion than others. This dissertation tests the grounds of these proposals, whilst offering its own reconstruction of a crucifiable Jesus. It first investigates primary source depictions of Roman crucifixion and focuses upon the offences for which crucifixions were carried out. As a first level conclusion, it determines that, in a formal sense, a bare appeal to crucifiability or to a criterion of crucifixion does not yield what it purports to deliver because a wide range of offences were punishable by crucifixion. Moreover, sometimes victims of circumstance were crucified. However, in a less strict sense, this dissertation determines that the concept of crucifiability does retain some value if the particular situation and context of Jesus’ crucifixion are taken into account. In Roman orderings of crucifixion during peacetime, consideration was usually given to culpability, and a basic hearing was often given. Accordingly, Pontius Pilate was probably a typical governor who ordered Jesus’ crucifixion on the basis of a customary charge according to Roman penal convention. This dissertation goes on to propose that the types of gospel conflicts that are usually isolated by scholars in accounting for a crucifiable Jesus are better seen as complimentary rather than rival explanations for his crucifixion. The so-called temple cleansing, though not a large enough event to singularly explain the crucifixion, could plausibly fit with other economic conflicts within Jesus’ life. Jesus’ religious conflicts with his Jewish contemporaries perhaps explain some general animus towards him but not his Roman execution. Jesus’ condemnation of élites explains the hostility of Judaean and Roman powerholders towards him but not the titulus on the cross. Lastly, it is determined that a royal messianic acclamation of Jesus inspired by the implications of his activities likely explains his crucifixion as “King of the Jews”. As a final conclusion, this dissertation proposes that in the future, scholars should replace the language of ‘criterion’ with the language of historical ‘control’ when speaking of Jesus’ crucifixion. Acknowledgements Though I alone am responsible for the quality and conclusions of this dissertation, I am thankful to numerous people who have made its completion possible. My supervisor, Dr. Peter M. Head offered helpful criticisms and corrections throughout the writing process. Without his encouragement, patience, and wide-ranging knowledge this dissertation would have never been completed. Professor Marianne Meye Thompson first suggested the topic of crucifiability and gave invaluable guidance in the early stages of its conception while I was a student at Fuller Theological Seminary. Professor Gerd Theißen was a hospitable and gracious host during my visiting year at Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg. His insights led to numerous improvements. Dr. John Muddiman and Dr. Alexander N. Kirk provided useful comments on Chapter Five at the Oxbridge Graduate New Testament Seminar. At the New Testament Seminar at Emory University, Dr. Steven J. Kraftchick and Dr. Richard “Bo” Adams offered helpful critique on Chapter Seven. My examiners, Professor Helen K. Bond and Dr. James Carleton Paget, also offered helpful challenge and comments. A large portion of the research for this dissertation was conducted at Tyndale House, Cambridge. I am thankful to its staff members for their gracious assistance and hospitality. In addition, I am thankful to my fellow New Testament graduate students who frequently offered dialogue, encouragement, and comradery. They include: Dr. Christian Askeland, Dr. Collin Bullard, Dr. Hannah Cocksworth, Dr. Sarah Underwood Dixon, Dr. Peter Malik, Dr. Frederick Mulder, Dr. Will Timmins, and Dr. Lorne Zelyck. During and following my time as an adjunct instructor at the University of Georgia, Dr. Wayne Coppins has been a true friend and supporter. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Graham H. Twelftree and Professor Donald A. Hagner, who have both been academic and spiritual mentors to me over the years. I offer my deepest thanks to my wife Noelle and my children Everett and Avonlea for their long-suffering during the writing of this dissertation. The accomplishment would mean little to me without their love. Finally, thank you God. Steven Brian Pounds Contents Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1 A Brief History of Research ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Jesus' Crucifixion as an Historical Criterion ............................................................... 1 1.2 The Rhetoric of a “Crucifiable Jesus” ......................................................................... 6 1.3 Common Themes ....................................................................................................... 11 2 Method and Outline of the Dissertation .............................................................................. 12 2.1 Crucifiable Offences .................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Crucifixion as an Historical Constraint and the Role of Pilate .................................. 14 2.3 The Temple Incident as the Sole Cause of Jesus' Crucifixion? ................................. 16 2.4 Three Reconstruction Types Claimed to Be Verified by the Crucifixion ................ 18 2.4.1 A Crucified Antinomian? ....................................................................... 18 2.4.2 A Crucified Anti-Imperialist? ................................................................. 19 2.4.3 A Crucified Messiah? ............................................................................. 20 3 A Critical-Realist Philosophy of Historiography ................................................................ 22 Chapter Two: CrucifiaBle Offences in the Roman World ......................... 26 1 Banditry ................................................................................................................................ 28 2 Murder .................................................................................................................................. 31 3 Treason and Sedition ............................................................................................................ 32 3.1 Defamation of the Emperor ...................................................................................... 33 3.2 Military Desertion and Cowardice ............................................................................ 34 3.3 Rebellion .................................................................................................................... 34 3.3.1 Slave Revolts .......................................................................................... 34 3.3.2 Provincial Resistance and Revolt ........................................................... 36 3.4 Civil War ................................................................................................................... 36 3.4.1 Caesar’s Civil War .................................................................................. 36 3.4.2 Antony’s Civil War ................................................................................ 37 3.4.3 Year of the Four Emperors ..................................................................... 38 4 Membership in a Despised Religious Group ........................................................................ 38 4.1 Jews in Alexandria ..................................................................................................... 38 4.2 Roman Christians under Nero ................................................................................... 40 4.3 Tiberius’ Crucifixion of Priests of Isis ...................................................................... 41 5 Crucifixion and Class ........................................................................................................... 42 5.1 Crucifixion of Slaves ................................................................................................