Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Who crucified Jesus in Jn 19:16-18 - Revisited

Expand Messages
  • Keith Yoder
    Back in 2008 I posted message #5582 suggesting that John leads his readers to conclude that the Jews, rather than the Roman soldiers, crucified Jesus - see
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 30 6:32 AM
      Back in 2008 I posted message #5582 suggesting that John leads his readers to conclude that the Jews, rather than the Roman soldiers, crucified Jesus - see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/5582

      Revisiting that subject, I would appreciate any comments on these additional thoughts of mine about the text development of Jn 19:16.

      Keith Yoder
      ================

      All four canonical gospels agree on at least these two events in the run up to Jesus’ crucifixion:
      1. When Pilate condemned Jesus to die, he then hands Jesus over for execution;
      2. The persons who took Jesus from Pilate have unbroken custody of Jesus until they also crucify him.

      The identity of the people to whom Pilate hands Jesus for execution is a crucial issue.   They are the same people whom
      each gospel presents as the agents of Jesus’ crucifixion.  Here are the pertinent verses from each of the four gospels

      Mark 15:15-16
      ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος βουλόμενος τῷ ὄχλῳ τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν καὶ παρέδωκεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας ἵνα σταυρωθῇ.  οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ...
      And Pilate wishing to make satisfaction for the crowd, released to them Barabbas.  And he gave Jesus over, after scourging him, to be crucified.  And the soldiers led him away...

      Matthew 27:26-27
      τότε ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας παρέδωκεν
      ἵνα σταυρωθῇ. τότε οἱ στρατιῶται τοῦ ἡγεμόνος παραλαβόντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον συνήγαγον ἐπ' αὐτὸν ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν
      Then he released to them Barabbas, but, Jesus, he scourged and gave over to be crucified.  Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium...

      Luke 23:25-26
      ἀπέλυσεν δὲ τὸν διὰ στάσιν καὶ φόνον βεβλημένον εἰς φυλακὴν ὃν ᾐτοῦντο τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν.  καὶ ὡς ἀπήγαγον αὐτόν..
      And he released the one who because of rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison, whom they demanded.  But, Jesus, he gave over to their will.  And as they led him away...

      John 19:16
      τότε οὖν
      παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σταυρωθῇ παρέλαβον οὖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
      Therefore then he gave him over to them to be crucified.  Therefore they took Jesus.

      Mark and Matthew agree on the order of these three judicial steps:
      1. Pilate releases Barabbas “to them”, that is the crowd of Jews and High-Priests;
      2. Pilate “gives over” Jesus to be crucified;
      3. The soldiers take custody of Jesus.

      Luke’s three steps are in the same order, but he uses the genitive form of the pronoun (“their”) rather than the dative (“to them”) and moves it from step #1 to #2:
      1. Pilate releases a here unnamed prisoner...to nobody in particular;
      2. Pilate “gives over” Jesus “to their will”;
      3. An unnamed group of people take custody of Jesus.

      John has the shortest description of all, omitting the freeing of Barabbas  (step 1), but like Luke retaining
      and moving the pronoun “to them” to step #2:
      2. Pilate “gives over” Jesus “to them”;
      3. An unnamed group of people take custody of Jesus.

      Lining up John 19:16 beside the other three, we see a striking similarity with Matthew.  Comparing the 11 words of Jn 19:16 to Mt 27:26-27, there are lemma matches for 8 of the 11:
      • 6 also match morphology and order:  τότε, παρέδωκεν, ἵνα, σταυρωθῇ, τὸν, Ἰησοῦν
      • 1 also matches morphology but not order:  αὐτοῖς
      • 1 also matches order but not morphology:  παρέλαβον
      • 1 non-match is a pronoun replacement for τὸν Ἰησοῦν:  αὐτὸν
      • 2 non-matches are John’s signature and ubiquitous “therefore”:  οὖν

      If John was composing here in dependence on Matthew, then we would expect the pronoun “to them” (αὐτοῖς) would be out of order because it is
      part of Matthew’s freeing of Barabbas, which John omits – except for this word and the initial conjunction “then” (τότε).  Another possible indicator of Matthean dependence is John’s use of the augmented verb παραλαμβάνω.  John’s gospel uses this augmented form only twice elsewhere, in reference to his own not “receiving” Jesus (Jn 1:11) or Jesus “receiving” his own (Jn 14:3).  Using this form here creates heavy irony in that now “his own” do at last “receive” him but only with murderous intent.

      I think it very likely then Jn 19:16 was composed in dependence on Matthew.   That being the case, it would make sense that John intended for the pronoun αὐτοῖς to retain the same anaphoric referent as in the Matthew text, that is, the crowd of Jews and High-Priests.  Thus, what was Pilate releasing Barabbas “to them” in Matthew and Mark, now becomes Pilate handing
      over Jesus “to them” in John.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jack Kilmon
      Can you produce any evidence of Jewish authorities (Temple elite) crucifying other Jews in the Roman Period? Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved for
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 2, 2011
        Can you produce any evidence of Jewish authorities (Temple elite) crucifying
        other Jews in the Roman Period? Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved
        for sedition.
        There is a ton of primary and secondary literature on this Roman practice.
        I am sure that the Exactor Mortis...normally an assigned position for a
        centurion...and his quaternio, a team of four legionnairies who performed
        crucifixions..had a specific location near major provincial towns where a
        stipes or few were relatively permanently fixed waiting for a condemned
        nailed or tied to a patibulum. Even the use of posca by the exactor fits
        the historical praxis for Roman executions. There is so much in the text
        that conforms to an act by the Roman prefect at the request of the Sadducee
        elite. Jesus was not killed by Jews. He was executed by Roman Italians, the
        biggest irony in history.

        Jack Kilmon

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Keith Yoder
        Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:32 AM
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [John_Lit] Who crucified Jesus in Jn 19:16-18 - Revisited

        Back in 2008 I posted message #5582 suggesting that John leads his readers
        to conclude that the Jews, rather than the Roman soldiers, crucified Jesus -
        see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/message/5582

        Revisiting that subject, I would appreciate any comments on these additional
        thoughts of mine about the text development of Jn 19:16.

        Keith Yoder
        ================

        All four canonical gospels agree on at least these two events in the run up
        to Jesus’ crucifixion:
        1. When Pilate condemned Jesus to die, he then hands Jesus over for
        execution;
        2. The persons who took Jesus from Pilate have unbroken custody of Jesus
        until they also crucify him.

        The identity of the people to whom Pilate hands Jesus for execution is a
        crucial issue. They are the same people whom
        each gospel presents as the agents of Jesus’ crucifixion. Here are the
        pertinent verses from each of the four gospels

        Mark 15:15-16
        ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος βουλόμενος τῷ ὄχλῳ τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν
        Βαραββᾶν καὶ παρέδωκεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας ἵνα σταυρωθῇ. οἱ δὲ
        στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ...
        And Pilate wishing to make satisfaction for the crowd, released to them
        Barabbas. And he gave Jesus over, after scourging him, to be crucified.
        And the soldiers led him away...

        Matthew 27:26-27
        τότε ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας παρέδωκεν
        ἵνα σταυρωθῇ. τότε οἱ στρατιῶται τοῦ ἡγεμόνος παραλαβόντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸ
        πραιτώριον συνήγαγον ἐπ' αὐτὸν ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν
        Then he released to them Barabbas, but, Jesus, he scourged and gave over to
        be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the
        Praetorium...

        Luke 23:25-26
        ἀπέλυσεν δὲ τὸν διὰ στάσιν καὶ φόνον βεβλημένον εἰς φυλακὴν ὃν ᾐτοῦντο τὸν
        δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν. καὶ ὡς ἀπήγαγον αὐτόν..
        And he released the one who because of rebellion and murder had been thrown
        into prison, whom they demanded. But, Jesus, he gave over to their will.
        And as they led him away...

        John 19:16
        τότε οὖν
        παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σταυρωθῇ παρέλαβον οὖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
        Therefore then he gave him over to them to be crucified. Therefore they
        took Jesus.

        Mark and Matthew agree on the order of these three judicial steps:
        1. Pilate releases Barabbas “to them”, that is the crowd of Jews and
        High-Priests;
        2. Pilate “gives over” Jesus to be crucified;
        3. The soldiers take custody of Jesus.

        Luke’s three steps are in the same order, but he uses the genitive form of
        the pronoun (“their”) rather than the dative (“to them”) and moves it from
        step #1 to #2:
        1. Pilate releases a here unnamed prisoner...to nobody in particular;
        2. Pilate “gives over” Jesus “to their will”;
        3. An unnamed group of people take custody of Jesus.

        John has the shortest description of all, omitting the freeing of Barabbas
        (step 1), but like Luke retaining
        and moving the pronoun “to them” to step #2:
        2. Pilate “gives over” Jesus “to them”;
        3. An unnamed group of people take custody of Jesus.

        Lining up John 19:16 beside the other three, we see a striking similarity
        with Matthew. Comparing the 11 words of Jn 19:16 to Mt 27:26-27, there are
        lemma matches for 8 of the 11:
        • 6 also match morphology and order: τότε, παρέδωκεν, ἵνα, σταυρωθῇ, τὸν,
        Ἰησοῦν
        • 1 also matches morphology but not order: αὐτοῖς
        • 1 also matches order but not morphology: παρέλαβον
        • 1 non-match is a pronoun replacement for τὸν Ἰησοῦν: αὐτὸν
        • 2 non-matches are John’s signature and ubiquitous “therefore”: οὖν

        If John was composing here in dependence on Matthew, then we would expect
        the pronoun “to them” (αὐτοῖς) would be out of order because it is
        part of Matthew’s freeing of Barabbas, which John omits – except for this
        word and the initial conjunction “then” (τότε). Another possible indicator
        of Matthean dependence is John’s use of the augmented verb παραλαμβάνω.
        John’s gospel uses this augmented form only twice elsewhere, in reference to
        his own not “receiving” Jesus (Jn 1:11) or Jesus “receiving” his own (Jn
        14:3). Using this form here creates heavy irony in that now “his own” do at
        last “receive” him but only with murderous intent.

        I think it very likely then Jn 19:16 was composed in dependence on Matthew.
        That being the case, it would make sense that John intended for the pronoun
        αὐτοῖς to retain the same anaphoric referent as in the Matthew text, that
        is, the crowd of Jews and High-Priests. Thus, what was Pilate releasing
        Barabbas “to them” in Matthew and Mark, now becomes Pilate handing
        over Jesus “to them” in John.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
        GROUP HOMEPAGE: http://johannine.org/YGroup_John_Lit.htmYahoo! Groups Links
      • Keith Yoder
        Jack - You said: Can you produce any evidence of Jewish authorities (Temple elite) crucifying other Jews in the Roman Period? Crucifixion was a Roman
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 2, 2011
          Jack -

          You said:
          Can you produce any evidence of Jewish authorities (Temple elite)
          crucifying
          other Jews in the Roman Period? Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved
          for sedition...Jesus was not killed by Jews. He was executed by Roman
          Italians, the
          biggest irony in history.

          =====

          By no means am I saying that the Jews actually crucified Jesus, nor did
          I mean to leave that impression. What I argued in my original post
          #5582 in Jan 2008 is that the text of John 19:16-18 and the preceding
          context of the trial before Pilate covertly leads the reader to draw
          that conclusion.

          In my new post two days ago wanted to follow up on #5582 with thoughts
          about the textual development of John 19:16. My suggestion that John
          drew from Matthew 27:26-27 when composing 19:16 would result in adding
          support to my 2008 contention that the John is here trying to prompt his
          audience to mentally connect the dots in their own minds to infer that
          the Jews crucified Jesus - without him having to explicitly say that in
          his text.

          Historically, I agree it doesn't compute. But as part of a narrative
          strategy to blame the Jews for Jesus' death, it does fit together.


          Keith
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Keith Yoder Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:58 PM To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Who crucified Jesus in Jn
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 3, 2011
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Keith Yoder
            Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:58 PM
            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Who crucified Jesus in Jn 19:16-18 - Revisited

            Jack -

            You said:
            Can you produce any evidence of Jewish authorities (Temple elite)
            crucifying
            other Jews in the Roman Period? Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved
            for sedition...Jesus was not killed by Jews. He was executed by Roman
            Italians, the
            biggest irony in history.

            =====

            By no means am I saying that the Jews actually crucified Jesus, nor did
            I mean to leave that impression. What I argued in my original post
            #5582 in Jan 2008 is that the text of John 19:16-18 and the preceding
            context of the trial before Pilate covertly leads the reader to draw
            that conclusion.

            JK] Keep in mind that 4G was written in Asia Minor for Gentiles but it has
            an interesting blend of original Aramaic material pre-dating Mark couched in
            a late first century Gentile Church frame. As such it has decidedly
            anti-Jewish flavors such as the "Ye are of your father the devil" when
            talking about the Jews (visually depicted in that anti-Semitic moron, Mel
            Gibson's silly movie by Satan carrying a hairy, ugly baby pass the cross).
            Having said that, John 19 has original material and depicts Roman procedural
            praxis such as the titulus and the quaternio playing the "King's game."
            John includes the Markan fiction of Barabbas, an indication of departure
            from the early source document, or more likely later interpolation. John is
            the most heavily edited, redacted, reshuffled, glossed and interpolated book
            of the New Testament.

            In my new post two days ago wanted to follow up on #5582 with thoughts
            about the textual development of John 19:16. My suggestion that John
            drew from Matthew 27:26-27 when composing 19:16 would result in adding
            support to my 2008 contention that the John is here trying to prompt his
            audience to mentally connect the dots in their own minds to infer that
            the Jews crucified Jesus - without him having to explicitly say that in
            his text.

            JK] I agree with you on the anti-Jewish intent and am presenting a more
            historical aspect. Mel Gibson picked up on this as well, along with the
            hallucinating schizophrenic 18th century nun who was his source. This is
            why he depicts creepy looking, hook-nosed Shylock/Goebbels looking Temple
            priests.

            Historically, I agree it doesn't compute. But as part of a narrative
            strategy to blame the Jews for Jesus' death, it does fit together.

            JK] It appears we have been looking through separate windows (a good way to
            conduct historical criticism) and have come together on this issue.

            Jack Kilmon
            Houston, TX


            Keith



            ------------------------------------

            SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
            MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
            GROUP HOMEPAGE: http://johannine.org/YGroup_John_Lit.htmYahoo! Groups Links
          • kealy@duq.edu
            Thank you Bob, Sean Kealy C.S.Sp.
            Message 5 of 7 , Dec 3, 2011
              Thank you Bob, Sean Kealy C.S.Sp.
            • Elizabeth Danna
              I agree with Jack. The Johannine account, in which the Jewish authorities investigate briefly to see whiether they have enough of a case to take to Pilate,
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 8, 2011
                I agree with Jack. The Johannine account, in which the Jewish authorities investigate briefly to see whiether they have enough of a case to take to Pilate, decide they do, and take the case to him, is more historically plausible than the Synoptic accounts, which lay the emphasis on Jesus' appearance before the Sanhedrin rather than on his appearance before Pilate. But there is also some literary evidece which is worth loooking at.

                1) John uses _speira_("detachment"), the usual Greek equivalent of the Latin _cohors_, in Jn. 18:3,12, and _chiliarchos_, the usual Greek equivalent of the Latin _tribunus militum_ in Jn. 18:12. These words are usually used of Roman soldiers and their commmander. This involves the Romans earlier in the narrative than the Synoptics do.

                2) There are some verbal parallels which link the Romans with the unbelieving "Jews." First, in Jn. 18:37 Jesus tells Pilate, "Everyone who is of the truth _akouei mou tes phones_ ("hears my voice"). This is similar phrasing to 10:27, where Jesus, describing himself as the Good Shepherd, says that his sheep _tes phones mou akouei_ ("hear my voice"). In 18:37 Jesus implicitly invites Pilate to be one of those who are of the truth; Pilate declines the invitation, as do "the Jews." Second, in Jn. 19:3 the narrator ends the description of the Roman abuse and mockery of Jesus with _edidoun autw rapismata_ ("they gave him slaps"). In Jn 18:22 Jesus receives the same treatment from a temple policeman: _edoken rapisma tw Iesou_ ("he gave Jesus a slap"). while the Gospel of John does not have a pericope of Jewish mockery of Jesus, as the Synoptics do, the narrator here clearly intends to connect the treatment of Jesus by "the Jews" and the treatment he gets from the Romans. Third, in Jn. 19:9 Pilate asks Jesus, "Where are you from?". Jesus does not answer, because a complete answer to the questiojn is an answer that Pilate cannot understand. "The Jews" also reaise the question of where Jesus is from, in Jn. 7:41b-42 and in 9:29f. But a complete answer to the question eludes them as much as it eludes Pilate. These verbal parallels link the Romans and the unbelieving "Jews" as opponents of Jesus, part of "the world," which is blind to Jesus' revelation and unwilling to receive it. I suggest that such shared characterisation is part of John's way of expressing the shared responsibility of the Romans and "the Jews" in Jesus' death.

                3) We may note that all the Romans are are involved in the mistreatment and execution of Jesus. Pilate orders the flogging and actual crucifixion, and the soldiers play the game of "mock king."

                4) The Johannine Pilate is a weakling and a coward. He has the authority to drop the case, especially since the Jewish authorities are not exactly forthcoming with their evidence against Jesus, and when they do speak up, their charge against Jesus is one that is outside Pilate's jurisdiction (Jn. 19:7). But he is too afraid of the Jewish authorities to stand up to them. He vacillates (expressed by his running back and forth between outside and inside, between Jesus and "the Jews"), then gives in to them when they threaten to report him to Caesar (19:12).

                All in all, I suggest that while John does not let "the Jews" off the hook with respect to responsibility for Jesus' death, he does not let the Romans off the hook either.

                Elizabeth Danna
              • Tom Butler
                My friends on the Johannine Literature List, I have just completed ten lectures on the trilogy of stories in chapters 11, 12 and 13 (The Raising of Lazarus,
                Message 7 of 7 , Dec 13, 2011
                  My friends on the Johannine Literature List,

                  I have just completed ten lectures on the trilogy of stories in chapters 11, 12
                  and 13 (The Raising of Lazarus, The Anointing of the Feet of Jesus by Mary of
                  Bethany, and The Washing of the Feet of the Disciples by Jesus).  These lectures
                  expand upon the work I published in 1998 in a book called Let Her Keep
                  It: Jesus' Ordination of Mary of Bethany - A New Approach to the Study of the
                  Gospel According to John through its use of Mosaic Oracles.

                  My method relies upon the discovery of Mosaic oracles woven into the text of
                  these three stories as signs.  The specific links these signs make to the Torah
                  appear to me to be evidence of the use of the rabbinic midrash method of
                  instruction by the leaders of the Johannine community/school.  I'm convinced
                  that this method has the potential to unlock a significant level of hidden
                  meaning throughout the Gospel narrative.  It may also suggest how and why the
                  Gospel was written (ie: as a record of a growing body of midrash commentaries
                  developed by members of the community/school as part of the school's didactic
                  process.)  As I understand it, midrash may have been a commonly used method for
                  training rabbis in Jewish schools in the first century.  It's use in the
                  Johannine community's school may have been designed to teach new
                  Jewish-Christian leaders to think, lead and teach as disciples of Jesus. 


                  Is anyone else working on or be familiar with previous work done on the use of
                  Mosaic oracles in the Fourth Gospel? 


                  If so, would you be willing to engage in a dialogue with me on this list or if
                  you prefer in a private e-mail exchange?      I am eager to test my theories and
                  my method by presenting them for scrutiny by the scholars on this list.
                    Yours in Christ's service,
                  Dr. Tom Butler

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.