HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From:          Tom Holeman
Subject:      Teaching Article by Dr. Brad Young


     THE CROSS, JESUS AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE

                                    by Brad H. Young

                You may visit Dr. Young's website at:

                      http://www.gospelresearch.org/

                      Gospel Research Foundation
                                PO Box 703101,
                                Tulsa, OK 74170


For students of early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism, the  significance of the cross of Jesus may be one of the most controversial questions. In more modern history, the cross has been an emblem filled with intense meaning for both Christians and Jews. It can be difficult, consequently, to analyze critically and historically the earliest Christian and Jewish sources pertaining to the cross.

The present essay will deal with some implications of the meaning of the cross both in the Synoptic Gospels and in some early Jewish sources. It by no means claims to treat its meaning adequately. Nonetheless, I hope to emphasize a forgotten aspect of the suffering of Jesus. This article also seeks to build upon some of the important studies written by David Flusser concerning the trial of Jesus and his execution.1

1. The Cross in the Gospels

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus asked all who desired to be his disciple to take up their cross and follow him. This is the earliest reference to the cross in the Gospels. The logion is
preserved in slightly different versions in the divergent contexts of the Gospel narratives. According to the arrangement of the Synoptics, Jesus is recorded to have made this demanding stipulation for discipleship during a time when his popularity was at its height.

It is a somewhat unusual and perplexing dominical saying. Not surprisingly, a number of scholars have seen it as an addition made by the church after the crucifixion of Jesus had become imprinted upon the hearts and minds of the early community.2 It can then be understood as a post-Easter saying that was adapted to the environment of the church following the fateful events of the passion week. But this is not the only possible interpretation. Could a Jewish teacher not have made reference to the Roman practice of crucifixion as part of his teaching on discipleship?

It is easy to reconstruct an original for the saying in the Hebrew idiom that seems to have characterized the better sources of the synoptics. The saying is also well attested in the Gospels,
occurring there in two contexts. One version appears in a series of unconnected logia and betrays Greek syntax and evidence of redaction (Matthew 16:24-28; Mark 8:34-9:1; Luke 9:23-27).3 Let us, therefore, consider the other context, which forms a part of the double tradition and seems to be based on better sources (Matthew 10:37-38 and Luke 14:25-33).4

Here we find that the whole passage appears to occur in an earlier version in Luke. For instance, the opening words, "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother..." (Luke 14:26), have been tamed in Matthew's version: "He who loves father or mother more than me..." (Matthew 10:37). Also Luke's "he cannot be my disciple" is better than Matthew's "is not worthy of me", though both can be reconstructed into idiomatic Hebrew. Matthew's "follow after me" 10:38) is likewise secondary to Luke's "come after me" (14:27). In fact, Luke 14:27 can be reconstructed into a text that reflects a linguistic idiom between later Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: 5

More philological research is needed to determine more precisely the language of Luke's Vorlage. The above linguistic analysis, however, suggests that in Luke 14:27 the logion does not show evidence of redaction in Greek and certainly has a claim to originality. In addition, it may be noted that the two parables that follow the saying in Luke's Gospel fit well the theme of the costs and the risks of discipleship in the kingdom (Luke 14:25-33).

Even granted that the saying is derived from the better sources of the Synoptics, another problem demands consideration. Can such a saying concerning the cross, attributed to a Jewish teacher from the days of the Second Temple, actually reflect the realities of its historical context? Would Jesus have employed such a metaphor to characterize discipleship in the kingdom? While the original Sitz im Leben of the text neither proves nor disproves the authenticity of the passage, it may provide a historical framework within which such a severe statement concerning discipleship could have been made. The final fate of Jesus and its deeper meaning for Christians should not be allowed to overshadow the force of this logion in the cultural and historical setting of the Second Commonwealth.6

2. The Cross and the Jewish People

The punishment of crucifixion is ancient.7 It was not invented by the Romans, although they discovered its utility as a means of suppressing popular discontent. The figure of a crucified man must have created great fear even in a period when brutality was all too familiar.

Although the sufferings of the Jewish people under the Roman yoke are a fact noted by nearly all historians of the period, few have observed the rather obvious implications for the relationship of the death of Jesus to the overall sufferings of the Jewish people. The term "the Romans" is never used in the Synoptics. Of the Gospels, only John ever refers to them by name and then only once (John 11:48). Is it possible that the role played by Pilate, as the representative of Rome, in the betrayal, trial and execution of Jesus was minimized for all the obvious reasons?8

Tragically, at a very early period in church history, the cross became an emblem of the so-called Jewish rejection of Jesus and the collective responsibility of the Jewish people for his crucifixion. Incredible as it is to the modern analytical mind, it seemed perfectly logical to some church fathers to claim: "The Jews killed Christ and therefore we may treat the Jews as we please." These fathers did not trouble to consider historical facts. They never attached responsibility to the Romans for crucifying Jesus. Nor did they consider the version of Acts 4:27 - that both Roman representatives and certain Jewish elements collaborated in the arrest and execution of Jesus. Rather, they simply taught that the Jews crucified Jesus.

At an early period, the collective guilt of all the Jews for Jesus' death became a fixture of patristic theology. The older theme of the murder of the prophets was enlarged to include the crucifixion of Christ, the Messiah, as well. The view that the Jews and the Jews alone must be held responsible was then employed as a  justification for the Church's policy toward the Jewish people.9

A very different image of the cross emerges, however, when it is viewed in its historical context. It then appears as a symbol of the readiness of Jews to suffer martyrdom for their faith. The
Testament of Moses, a Jewish work which most probably precedes the time of Jesus,10 thus speaks of the crucifixion of the circumcision: "And there will come upon them [...] punishment and
wrath such as has never happened to them from the creation till that time when he stirs up against them a king of the kings of the  earth, who having supreme authority, will crucify those who
confess their circumcision. Even those who deny it, he will torture and hand them over to be led to prison in chains."11 A non-Jew, "a king of the kings of the earth," will be responsible for these acts of violence. All readers of the New Testament will quickly recognize the reference to the circumcision to be a designation of the Jewish people, a terminology that appears in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pauline epistles.

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, likewise, 4 QpNah 1:7-8 contains the following text:

It is accepted that here12 the mention of men being "hanged alive" refers to crucifixion, in a manner similar to the wording of a number of New Testament passages.13 Since Josephus reports that Jannaeus sent eight hundred Pharisees to their death on crosses (in 88 B.C.), most scholars agree that this tragic event is alluded to here in 4 QpNah 1:7-8.14

In rabbinic literature, it is prescribed that a condemned person's body should be hung upon a stake after execution. The sectarian Temple Scroll from Qumran, however, contradicts this
halakhic opinion when it mentions hanging a living person upon a stake or a cross as a means of execution.15 This idea is also reflected in the Targum on Ruth (1:17),16 where the mention of crucifixion preserves a divergent halakhic tradition which some scholars have theorized could be based upon earlier sectarian Jewish sources that opposed the oral law.17

Another reference to crucifixion in rabbinic literature describes the unjust execution of the early sage Jose ben Joezer (first half of the second century B.C.), who was one of the pair of rabbinic leaders in his time. The wicked priest Alcimus reportedly had his uncle, the righteous Jose ben Joezer, crucified.18 In midrashic literature, this motif is carefully developed, especially in recording the mockery that Alcimus made of his saintly uncle. While the Romans made crucifixion an all too common sight, the employment of this means of execution by Jannaeus and Alcimus must have shocked the Jewish people, who already had a legal system designed to provide a fair trial, besides means of capital punishment ensuring that the condemned would die quickly and without unnecessary agony.

In the Tosefta, R. Meir tells a parable which illustrates how Israel's sages viewed the cruel practice of crucifixion. "It may be compared to two brothers who were twins that looked exactly alike. One was the king over the whole universe and the other became a thief. After a time, the thief was caught. They crucified him upon a cross. Everyone who passed by said, 'Methinks
that the king has been crucified!' Thus it was written, '...accursed is God [because] of a hanged man' (Deut. 21:23)."19 Of course, the king over whole universe is none other than God Himself. Hence, according to the humanistic approach of R. Meir, whenever a human being created in the divine image is crucified, then God Himself is accursed. Even when applied to a notorious criminal, crucifixion diminishes the very divine image of God.

Regarding the trial of Jesus, it may be questioned whether the Jewish courts still had authority to execute prisoners. Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, according to a number of important talmudic sources, this power was removed from the jurisdiction of the Jewish legal system and would have been restricted to the Romans.20 Some scholars, however, have questioned the authenticity of these sources in theory as well as in practice. But why was Jesus even brought before the Roman authorities?21 On the one hand, if the Jewish legal system
could not put Jesus to death, then the Romans passed sentence upon Jesus and carried out the order for execution. On the other hand, if the Jewish court had the legal power to execute Jesus
- then bringing him before the Roman authorities would have been unnecessary. In any case, according to the historical picture portrayed in the Gospels, the responsibility of the Roman officials for the crucifixion of Jesus is beyond question. Furthermore, as Flusser has pointed out, in Luke there is no mention of a meeting of the Sanhedrin.22

The historical record of Josephus provides abundant evidence that the Romans were all too ready and willing to suppress opposition. Death by crucifixion was one of their favorite methods of instilling fear into their subjects. Josephus relates his personal experience as a  witness to the cruel practice. During the Jewish war against Roman rule, he tried to save three men being crucified and Titus granted his request. Only one of them recovered.23 Whenever any  of the insurgents fell into Roman hands, Titus had them tortured and  crucified so that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem could see their agony.24 The cruelty of a Roman ruler, however, did not require the  excuse of armed revolt. During the difficult days that preceded the war, Florus (66 A.D.) sought revenge against certain Jews who mocked his greed after he had stolen funds from the Temple treasury. He had a sizable number of citizens as well as knights of Jewish descent
abducted at random, put in chains and crucified, despite the pleas for mercy of Queen Bernice.25

During the years leading up to the Temple's destruction, revolutionaries, political activists and other persons believed to oppose Rome were readily given harsh treatment. In the days of Ummidius Quadratus (44-66 A.D.), some troublemakers involved in disturbances in Samaria were captured by Ventidius Cumanus (48-52 A.D.). They were crucified and five were beheaded, 26 showing how little the authorities might hesitate to use crucifixion as a death penalty. During the famine a few years earlier, James and Simeon, the two sons of the Zealot Judas the Galilean mentioned in Acts 5:37, were captured and crucified. Their crime is not recorded and it is possible that their merely being sons of a notorious Zealot ringleader was sufficient for their condemnation and crucifixion.27

Perhaps the most gruesome sight of mass crucifixions, which must have left a lasting impression on the Jewish inhabitants of the small country of Israel, occurred at about the time of Jesus' birth in the wake of Herod's death. According to Josephus, Quintilius Varus had two thousand Jews crucified.28 The account of Josephus suggests that although crucifixion was all too familiar, the acts of Varus would not soon have been forgotten.

It should not be surprising that Israel's sages also show an awareness of how crucifixion could symbolize the sufferings of the Jewish people in a hostile world. The Hebrew word tzalav appears a number of times in rabbinic literature.29 It can have the meaning of "to hang" a corpse upon a stake after execution; according to the context, however, it should be translated more
properly "to crucify" or "to impale." In the Mekhilta, the Tanna R. Nathan displays a keen awareness that observance of the commandments can lead to persecution and martyrdom. On Exodus 20:6, he says: "'Of them that love Me and keep My commandments,' refers to those who dwell in the Land of Israel and risk their lives for the sake of the commandments. 'Why are you being led out to be decapitated?' 'Because I circumcised my son to be an Israelite.' 'Why are being led out to be burned?' 'Because I read the Torah.' 'Why are you being led out to be
crucified?' 'Because I ate the unleavened bread.'"30

Yet perhaps the most astounding reference to execution by crucifixion in rabbinic literature appears in the early Jewish interpretation of the Binding of Isaac. The young Isaac took the wood upon his back in order to carry it to the altar where his father Abraham was prepared to offer his beloved son as a human sacrifice at God's command. The narrative has given occasion for many fascinating sermons both by Christian and by Jewish exegetes. In the early Jewish midrash Genesis Rabbah, however, the expositor graphically explains: "...it was like a condemned man who took his cross upon his shoulders..."31 Thus, in trying to convey the significance of this momentous event in the biblical text, the Jewish interpreter selected the picture of a condemned man taking up his cross and going to the place of execution. Conceivably, just this or some similar midrash lies behind the saying of Jesus that we have been examining.

3. Jesus, the Cross and the Jews

The evidence cited above does not provide absolute proof that Jesus himself indeed told his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him. It does, however, show that such a saying could have deep roots in the sufferings of the Jewish people during the Second Temple period. The Roman practice of terrifying subject nations with this brutal method of execution was so familiar to Jews of the time that a Jewish source, too, could have recourse to it as a metaphor for the readiness of the innocent to suffer death in obedience to God's will.

This conclusion also has broader implications. It is a tragic paradox that Jesus' suffering on the cross, which we have seen to be representative of Jewish suffering of the period, was so readily
employed by fathers of the church for the absurd claim that the Jewish people must bear the collective responsibility for the death of Jesus. Jesus was one of the many Jews who willingly suffered for their faith and their people under the yoke of Rome. Yet his passion was made into the theological basis and justification for Christian persecution of the Jews, paving the way for their own long and torturous Via Dolorosa. It became a spring from which haters of Israel have constantly drunk, as they perpetrated acts of violence against the people of Jesus himself, the people that he loved and for whom he suffered.

The cross had deep significance for Jesus. From a personal standpoint, it signified his betrayal by one of his own disciples.32 As we have seen, he could indeed well have employed it as a metaphor for discipleship in the kingdom. However, Jesus' suffering should also be understood as an historical event where both Christians and Jews are united before the cross. For the Christian, Jesus' vicarious sacrifice provides redemption and atonement between God and humankind. At the same time, from the standpoint of Jewish people's commitment to do God's will, the cross exemplifies their readiness to stand firm in every adversity in order to affirm their belief in the one true God and His promise to send a deliverer.

The Romans had crucified thousands of Jews even before Jesus. They ardently maintained a policy of suppressing popular Jewish messianic hopes. Jesus and his followers presented them with a familiar threat. He was another problematic Jew who had to be dealt with quickly and severely. The cross thus demonstrates Jesus' solidarity with his people, the Jews, and their national suffering in history. In addition, the cross also teaches that the greatest defeat can be transformed into a victory. Indeed, Jesus' ultimate triumph cannot easily be denied, for his message can still be heard and his suffering can still bring redemption wherever any respond to his call and put his teachings into practice.


NOTES


1. See especially David Flusser, "What Was the Original Meaning of Ecce-Homo?" Immanuel 19(1985), 30-40; "The Crucified One and the Jews" Immanuel 7(1977), 25-37; "A Literary Approach to the Trial of Jesus" Judaism 20(1971), 32-36. These studies are reprinted in Flusser's new book, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 575-609. See also David Flusser, "Sie wissen nicht, was sie tun," P.G. Mller, ed., Kontinuitt und Einheit - fr Franz Mussner (Freiburg, 1981), pp. 393-410.

2. See J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (New York, 1981), vol. 1, p. 785. Fitzmyer concludes: "Since it is only the joining of Jesus' own messiahship with the cross on which he was crucified that makes the metaphor have any sense, the saying, as we now have it, must come from the early Christian community."

3. A fresh and full examination of these doublets in light of recent developments in the study of the Synoptic Gospels would be very beneficial. Here it is only possible to observe that these sayings are better preserved in their parallel texts. It seems that a pre-Synoptic redactor has collected these sayings and reorganized them into a new context. His work has destroyed the
original framework of the sayings. Nonetheless, one should compare each logion's parallel: Mt. 16:24, Mk. 8:34, Lk. 9:23-27 = Mt. 10:38, Lk. 14:27; Mt. 16:25-26, Mk. 8:35-37, Lk.9:24-25 = Mt. 10:39, Lk. 17:33; Mt. 16:27, Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26 = Mt.10:32-33, Lk. 12:8-9; Mt. 16:28, Mk. 9:1, Lk. 9:27 = Mt. 24:34, Mk. 13:30, Lk. 21:32. A careful comparison of these
sayings in light of their parallels betrays the work of the redactor(s) in Mt. 16:24-28, Mk. 8:34-9:1, Lk. 9:23-27.

4. Although Lk. 14:27 is missing in later minuscule codices and versions, there is little reason to doubt its originality in Luke. Not only is the textual attestation of the saying quite strong, but the
wording of the logion in Lk. 14:27 is significantly different from its doublets as well. Hence it seems very unlikely that the saying was copied from one of its parallels and inserted here.

5. Luke's text (bastazei) could reflect the Hebrew word igy which appears in the rabbinic parallel (Genesis Rabbah 56:3, Albeck, p. 598, see note 31 below). However, Matthew employed the Greek word lambanei, which is the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew taf.

6. The Christian doctrine of the atoning death of Jesus appears in the New Testament, e.g. Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14:24; Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45 (missing in Lukan parallels), 1 Tim. 2:6; and cf. Acts 8:32ff. See also the classic treatment by A. Bchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (New York, reprint, 1967) and cf. J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London, 1971), pp. 286-288.

7. See M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 22-23; cf. H. Cohn, "Crucifixion," Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 5, cols.
1133-1135. See also Tzaferis, note 9 below.

8. Regarding Pilate's attempt to release Jesus, it is worth quoting the observation of David Flusser: "Jesus shared imprisonment in the Roman fortress with at least three others. They were anti-Roman guerillas, and chief among them was Barabbas, who had taken part in terrorism that had already cost lives. We know from the Gospels and from Rabbinic literature, that the Roman governor customarily released a Jewish prisoner on the Passover." Flusser, "A Literary Approach to the Trial of Jesus" (op. cit., note 1), p. 35; Jesus (Hamburg, 1968), pp. 124f. The custom of releasing a prisoner has been discussed by S. Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Temples (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), p. 206 (cf. mPesah 8:6, bPesah 91a, jPesah 36a; compare also Moed Katan 3:1-2). The gospels attest to the custom: Mt. 27:15, Mk. 15:6, Lk. 23:17 (vs. 17 may be an original part of Luke's Gospel) and Jn. 18:39. Certainly, Pilate realized that
Jesus was much less dangerous to Rome than Barabbas. Why do the Gospels picture him as trying to release Jesus instead of Barabbas, the notorious insurrectionist? If a prisoner had to be released, as far as the Roman authorities were concerned, Jesus would have been preferable to Barabbas. In any case, as Flusser observed, the Gospel portrayal is not so unlike Josephus' description of Pilate as a cruel and shrewd politician (Josephus Wars 2:169-174; Antiquities 18:55-59 and Wars 2:175-177; Antiquities 18:60-62; Flusser, "A Literary Approach to the Trial of Jesus," pp. 35-36). Note that among the seven accusations against Pilate made by Philo, one is "the executions without trial constantly repeated" (Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium, 301).

9. See Heinz Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.-11.Jh.) (Bern, 1982), esp. pp. 125-131, 221-222 (Tertullian), 244
(Commodianus), 336 (Jerome), 354-355 (Augustine), 469-470 (Beda). Compare Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 8 and De Oratione 14. Tertullian writes: "...all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him: 'His blood be upon us, and upon our children...'" Tertullian, "An Answer to the Jews," Chapter 8, A. Roberts and J. Donaldson
eds., Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 18, p. 225. In his treatise on prayer, Tertullian places guilt upon all the Jewish people throughout eternity both for Jesus' death and for the murder of the prophets: "Albeit Israel wash daily all his limbs over, yet is he never clean. His hands, at all events, are ever unclean, eternally dyed with the blood of the prophets, and of the Lord Himself;
on that account, as being hereditary culprits from their privity to their fathers' crimes..." Tertullian, "On Prayer," Chapter 14, Roberts and Donaldson eds., Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 11, p. 189. Of course, the cross had other meanings for the fathers and it took on greater significance in the fourth century; see the unpublished doctorate of Vassilius Tzaferis, Christian Symbols of the 4th Century and the Church Fathers (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1971). See now my work, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (Paulist Press: New York, 1989), pp. 282-316.

10. On the date of the work, see J. Licht, "Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance," Journal of Jewish Studies 12(1961), 95-103; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Studies in the Testament of Moses (Cambridge, 1973). Both authors have suggested that the work was composed during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. See also J.P.M. Sweet, "The Assumption of Moses," H.F.D. Sparks ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford, 1984), p. 603.

11. Testament of Moses 8:1-2; J. Priest, "Testament of Moses," J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York, 1983), vol. 1, pp. 930-931. Interestingly, in the Biblical Antiquities of Philo 55:3, the Philistines are said to have practiced crucifixion (D.J. Harrington, "Pseudo-Philo," The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 369).

12. Compare G. Vermes' reconstruction and translation of the text: "Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion [who executes revenge] on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive, [a thing never done] formerly in Israel. Because of a man hanged alive on [the] tree..." Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Baltimore, 1965), p. 232. See esp. Flusser, "Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in the Pesher Nahum," In Memory of G. Alon, Essays in Jewish History and Philology (Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1970), pp. 133-168 (Hebrew). Here I have used the
Hebrew text and reconstruction printed in Flusser's article. His article was translated into German as "Phariser, Sadduzer und Essener im Pesher Nahum," in Qumran (Darmstadt, 1981), pp. 121-166. Y. Yadin has proposed a different reconstruction of the lacunae; see his "Pesher Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered," IEJ 21(1971), 1-12, and The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem,
1983), vol. 1, p. 378. The text has been discussed by Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (Washington D.C., 1979), pp. 166-191. The Hebrew word "tselov" does not appear in the text as H. Cohn claimed in his book The Trial and Death of Jesus (New York, 1977), p. 210.

13. In Lk. 22:39, one of the malefactors crucified with Jesus is said to have been "hanged"; cf. Acts 5:30, where the phrase opexawavtes eci ?y@ky appears, and see also Acts 10:39 and Gal. 3:13. Cf. P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neun Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, 1926), vol. 3, pp. 544f.

14. Josephus, Antiquities 13:377-383; War 1:93-98; see Flusser, "Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in the Pesher Nahum," pp. 136ff., and Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, p. 161. See further D. Halperin, "Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher and the Penalty of Strangulation" JJS 32(1982), 32-46, and also note 16 below. Cf. also the tradition
concerning Simeon ben Shatah, mSanhedrin 6:4, ySanhedrin 23c (6:9); yHagigah 77d-78a (2:2); Sifre Deut. 221 (Finkelstein, p. 253).

15. See Yadin, Temple Scroll, vol. 1, pp. 373-379.

**********************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.