Re: [XTalk] Re: the crucifixion
- In a message dated 9/11/2002 9:56:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
> I just do not see why we should believe that the Romans wentWhat is there to suggest randomness in the Roman crucifixion of Jesus? All
> about crucifying Jews in such a random and ad hoc manner.
the hypotheses I have seen propose that Jesus committed some sort of overt
defiance of Roman authority--in the company of his followers. And at the
volatile time of Passover. Reaction to this would not be random on the part
of the Romans.
Again, I am not suggesting that some involvement by Jewish temple authorities
is at all implausible. I am merely saying that there is also nothing
implausible about the Romans unilaterally executing the leader of a band of
what they perceived to be insurrectionists.
If the Romans would beat a lone blathering lunatic half to death, is it at
all unreasonable that they'd execute a rational peasant leader who threatens
overt insurrection? Maybe the Jewish leaders did urge the Romans to act, as
they did in the case of the "other Jesus." But if Jesus' actions came to the
attention of the Roman authorities, there'd be no need for Jewish
intervention. The Romans would act against it on their own.
Baton Rouge, LA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- In a message dated 9/28/2 7:33:01 AM, Karel wrote:
Josephus praises the piety of Herod Agrippa I (40-44) to the sky while Luke
reports that a vehement persecution around Passover was launched by Herod -
John Zebedee decapitated and threw Simon Peter in prison with the same
As a good historian, he should have mentioned the broad based Jesus-movement
other movements in pre-70 Judea and Galilee. He apparently shied away from
while on the other hand he does write the so called testimonia re. the
Jesus and the brother of Jesus, James, the latter as if many of his readers
know whom he was referring to.
>>You're right. He definitely assumes that his contemporary reader will know a
little about Jesus, bro James, and John the B, who are historical figures
from that time who made a big enough splash so that he could assume this, but
I think it's still a viable explanation that he thinks the Jesus movement, at
the time a gentile craze, to be a trivial aside. Because he does mention
these I do not think he is actively suppressing the movement from his
history, but that it just doesn't seem that significant a thing to him. He
may agree with Agrippa's attempt to persecute the movement, and he may even
have xian cultists at his door twice a year, but this would perhaps only
further convince him (through knee jerk emotion rather than counting the
evidence) of the trivialness of the cult to his history.
Even maybe he has a hand in counseling Domitian to stamp them out; still
he might not realize any threat that he would be motivated to suppress.
I don't mean to be pigheaded about this though, and perhaps my opinion on
this has excused too many examples and postulations and will look a little
silly in hindsight, but I haven't got to that point yet.
Take Emmett Grogan or Abbie Hoffman as recent day examples; they will
probably not make the history books any time soon, although the movement of
irritants to the community that they furthered and epitomized, contrary to
the constant news (wish?) of their demise (a fad, out of fashion, stuck in
the sixties) are still and have all along been very much with us. (Maybe
though this is Schweitzer being right again about people reading themselves
into Jesus). Even, because it's only a vague movement, not significant
enough to be a cult, I don't think even hippie historians would include any
of the movement's shenanigans into any serious history of the 20th century
although the real effects, both good and evil and merely neutral (like the
acceptance of the colors), have been very significant. It was a minor
incident for a judge who recently died to have declared war on these urchins,
and the rather long accolades to him in the local newspapers did not even
mention his persecution of such a trivial group.
Maybe I can exterpolate this attitude to Josephus - did he really wish to
leave them out or did he think their inclusion would mar his book with a
needless obscurity? (This line sounds reasonable to me, but has the feel of
one of those historical dichotomies David Fisher ((Historical Fallacies))