Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

[rgprice]

Seems like a whole lot of work to state the obvious, like studies about how getting more sleep leads to being less tired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure ... berry_Finn

Story about a slave boy Jim that goes on an adventure to escape the American South in the 1840s.

Along the way they encounter al kinds of Southern rascals whom they elude and make look foolish.

Jim displays moral superiority by saving Tom leading to his own capture and is ultimately freed.

The story foreshadows much of the coming Civil War and attitudes toward slavery and the South that would emerge following the Civil War.

This story has just as much historical context and relevance as the Gospels do to their respective time period.

Showing that the story reflects historical conditions of the 1840s doesn't make the story real history. It doesn't mean the story wasn't the invention of a story writer.

.....and it doesn't mean that the invented story writer was asleep to history - anymore than the Jews of today are asleep to their past history. To assume that the gospel writers were asleep to history is to ignore the role history has played in the lives of all who live on this planet. In the case of the gospel story, that history is Roman occupation of Judaea - from 63 b.c. To simply ignore this history as being relevant to the gospel writers is to close ones eyes to the very large elephant standing in the room.

Of course, I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. But to ignore the role of the First Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the temple is an even greater disregard of history.

Huckleberry Finn was written in 1885, about 20 years after the end of the Civil War. The story is set about 20 years prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Contention over slavery had been an on-going issue in America since the founding of the nation, and many Africans had tried to escape for decades. There had already been many uprisings. The abolitionist movement had been in place since the founding of the country.

And yet, I would argue, a story like Huckleberry Finn would never have been written except in the environment in which it was, following the North's successful victory over the South and the abolition of slavery. It is only at that time, following the Civil War, that the story would be written, from the vantage point of the victorious Union over the vanquished Confederacy.

The same goes for the Gospels. The whole Gospel story is conceived much like Huckleberry Finn, from a vantage point where one can see Jerusalem and Temple in ruins, with Judaism crushed and repressed, and the Jews having brought destruction upon themselves, just as Mark Twain shows that the Southerners brought righteous vengeance upon themselves, even though there were a few good souls who also had to suffer for it. Of course Samuel Clements had knowledge of the pre-war conditions of the nation. It was that knowledge that informs his story. Just as it was that knowledge that informs the writer of the first Gospel, who was nevertheless inventing his story from the post-war perspective, just as Samuel Clements invented his.

And when brining up Josephus, we must indeed consider his perspective. In Wars of the Jews, Josephus claims that prior to the final destruction brought upon Jerusalem, Titus compelled Josephus himself, who had been taken prisoner, to deliver a speech to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the speech Josephus acknowledges that many in the audience considered him a traitor, but he accuses the rebels of being traitors to God. He accuses the rebels of having brought coming destruction upon themselves by disgracing the holy city. Josephus concluded with the following:

Thou hast indignation at me again, and makest a clamor at me, and reproachest me; indeed I cannot deny but I am worthy of worse treatment than all this amounts to, because, in opposition to fate, I make this kind invitation to thee, and endeavor to force deliverance upon those whom God hath condemned. And who is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them—and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city? For they foretold that this city should be then taken when somebody shall begin the slaughter of his own countrymen. And are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.

This IS the perspective of the writer of the first Gospel, this IS what his allegory is about. The WHOEL story is about this.

What that means is that the WHOEL STORY was created BY THE WRITER from the a post-war vantage point.

[maryhelena]

Of course, I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. But to ignore the role of the First Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the temple is an even greater disregard of history.

How about remembering an earlier Jewish/Roman/Herodian war - why deny Hasmonean/Jewish history as being relevant to the gospel writers ?

37 b.c. Herod and the Roman General Sosius against the Hasmonean King.

Now as for the robberies which were committed, the king contrived that ambushes should be so laid, that they might restrain their excursions; and as for the want of provisions, he provided that they should be brought to them from great distances. He was also too hard for the Jews, by the Romans skill in the art of war; although they were bold to the utmost degree, now they durst not come to a plain battle with the Romans, which was certain death, but through their mines under ground they would appear in the midst of them on the sudden, and before they could batter down one wall, they built them another in its stead; and to sum up all at once, they did not shew any want either of pains-taking or of contrivances, as having resolved to hold out to the very last. Indeed though they had so great an army lying round about them, they bore a siege of five months, till some of Herod’s chosen men ventured to get upon the wall, and fell into the city, as did Sosius’s centurions after them; and now they first of all seized upon what was about the temple, and upon the pouring in of the army, there was slaughter of vast multitudes every where, by reason of the rage the Romans were in at the length of this siege, and by reason that the Jews, who were about Herod, earnestly endeavoured that none of their adversaries might remain; so they were cut to pieces by great multitudes, as they were crowded together in narrow streets and in houses, or were running away to the temple; nor was there any mercy shewed either to infants or to the aged, or to the weaker sex; insomuch that although the king sent about, and desired them to spare the people, nobody could be persuaded to withhold their right hand from slaughter, but they slew people of all ages, like madmen.War Book 1 ch.18

SETTING THE STAGE: THE EFFECTS OF THE ROMAN
CONQUEST AND THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY
Nadav Sharon

A Neglected Era

Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study. The events of this period brought about the end of the eighty-year-old independent and sovereign Judean state, established by the Hasmoneans in the aftermath of Antiochus Epiphanes’ religious decrees and the ensuing revolt. In fact, these events resulted in the almost complete annihilation of that prestigious priestly house. In 63 bce the independent Hasmonean state, with its large territorial gains, found itself suddenly under the domination of the expanding world empire, Rome, and downgraded to a small semiautonomous vassal state.

...........

It seems to me safe to assume that a change such as the loss of sovereignty must have had a tremendous impact on Judean religion and society. However, as already observed, historical study has relatively neglected this period, and has focused on the destruction of the Temple, not on the loss of independence, when reflecting upon the evolution of ancient Judaism.

..........

Finally, I hope that this paper has shown the great effect of the end of independence and the importance of the early Roman era in Judea, not only for the background of Christianity and the Great Revolt, but also for a better understanding of post-Destruction Judaism and how it was able to adapt and survive. Further study may uncover additional ways in which this period set the stage for developments that came to fruition after the Destruction.

https://www.academia.edu/2501352/Settin ... overeignty

And when brining up Josephus, we must indeed consider his perspective. In Wars of the Jews, Josephus claims that prior to the final destruction brought upon Jerusalem, Titus compelled Josephus himself, who had been taken prisoner, to deliver a speech to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the speech Josephus acknowledges that many in the audience considered him a traitor, but he accuses the rebels of being traitors to God. He accuses the rebels of having brought coming destruction upon themselves by disgracing the holy city. Josephus concluded with the following:

Thou hast indignation at me again, and makest a clamor at me, and reproachest me; indeed I cannot deny but I am worthy of worse treatment than all this amounts to, because, in opposition to fate, I make this kind invitation to thee, and endeavor to force deliverance upon those whom God hath condemned. And who is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them—and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city? For they foretold that this city should be then taken when somebody shall begin the slaughter of his own countrymen. And are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.

It was the historical events of 63 b.c.and 37 b.c. that led to the events of 70 c.e. To ignore this history is to ignore the historical lessons of the First World War.

[maryhelena]

Pontius Pilate at Work: Historicity of a Collective Crucifixion

The implausible nature of a great part of the crucifixion accounts compels us to be extremely wary when it comes to taking any Gospel report as a starting-point of historical research. The element that seems to be the most likely is precisely the crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of Roman soldiers, all the more so because it is framed within a collective execution. Unlike what happens with many other details of these accounts, there is no reason to doubt the mere fact of crucifixion: it is not reducible to a literary model, and virtually every scholar (excepting mythicists) considers it the surest ground. But since nothing can be simply taken for granted, I will set forth the main reasons supporting the historicity of the core of the crucifixion reports.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 206-207). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

To start with, crucifixion is reported in several independent sources, so the index of multiple attestation can be used here. We have Paul,50 Mark, Flavius Josephus, and Tacitus, and the belief is represented in the Alexamenos graffito. Although some ancient Greek and Roman works could depend on former Christian writings and could accordingly not be employed as independent witnesses, the fact that there are several sources and that some of them are not Christian increases the probability that they are not derivable from a single one. Among all the events regarding Jesus’ life, crucifixion is, by far, the best attested.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 207). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Moreover, several Jewish sources interpreted a statement contained in Dt 21:22–23 (“Anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse”) as a reference to crucifixion;51 Jesus’ first followers being wholehearted Jews, they would not have invented such a kind of death. A further aspect has to do with the assessment of crucifixion in the ancient Mediterranean world: in the Roman Empire it was regularly reserved for slaves and humiliores (in fact, it was called servile supplicium, namely, the slaves’ punishment); in the provincial realm, it was reserved for peregrini—people who were not Roman citizens—and for the most serious crimes, more specifically for those committed against the security of the Roman people (desertion, high treason, incitement to revolt), so the association between crucifixion and insurgence was very clear in the first century CE. In these circumstances, it is exceedingly unlikely that Christians invented a report that dangerously linked their hero to subversive activities.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 207-208). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

The conclusion that we have compelling reasons to trust the historicity of the core of the reports about the collective crucifixion is significant in a twofold sense. On the one hand, it unmistakably hints at the presence of a very serious conflict between Jesus and the Roman Empire,

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 209). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Indeed, the gospel crucifixion story is it's fundamental historical claim..

Indeed: ''Anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse”, would contribute to the idea that the gospel writers had no way to avoid a crucifixion as a foundational element of their story.

However, these two points do not support the historicity of the gospel figure of Jesus - simply because there is no historical evidence for such a figure. In other words, while the gospel crucifixion story reflects Roman history re crucifixions, Jewish OT theological ideas re being hung on a tree is a curse, - these elements of the gospel crucifixion story do not equate to the historicity of the gospel figure that is being referenced. What these points do suggest is that an historical enquiry into Hasmonean/Jesus history is required.

Pilate and Tiberius are only of relevance as the context in which the gospel writers choose to set down their crucifixion story. A time period Tacitus indicates was a time of quite, a time of pause in the struggle against Rome. A struggle that began in 63 b.c. - with it's rebels, its zealots and its seditionists.

Thus, while Bermejo-Rubio is right to pursue a seditious Jesus - his path has to go back into history, back before Pilate and Tiberius. The time of Pilate and Tiberius was a time in which past history was remembered - not a time in which the gospel writers were writing about current affairs.

[DCHindley]

But that was not what Bedrmejo-Rubio was trying to do.

He only worked with "Christian tradition," and this does not seem to allude to Antigonus Matthias II - other - than Africanus speaking of the physical descendants of Jesus' family as if they were called "desposyni." (little despots in waiting).

Africanus was one of those brilliant types with a screw or two loose, so how much can we read into his use of that term? He may have imagined Jesus' family was a political one. But his crazy stories about Herod burning the registers of the record of enrollment so it would not be shown that his daddy was not a bona-fide Judean (convert or not) but actually a temple slave in a pagan city (Ashkelon?), making Herod ineligible to hold kingship. He would have to be the son of a convert, or a descendant thereof, and I think there may have been a provision against appointing the son of a convert to high position, so probably the conversion was 2 generations before. I'm pretty sure the Romans vetted his father before granting him citizenship and the Roman procuratorship over Hyrcanus' tribute, and Herod would have been vetted too before they appointed him as a full-bore client king.

DCH (dinner calls ...)

[maryhelena]

But that was not what Bedrmejo-Rubio was trying to do.

He only worked with "Christian tradition," and this does not seem to allude to Antigonus Matthias II - other - than Africanus speaking of the physical descendants of Jesus' family as if they were called "desposyni." (little despots in waiting).

DCH (dinner calls ...)

That is the point I'm making. Bermejo-Rubio will not find his seditious Jesus under Pilate and Tiberius. He has to look prior to that time period to find a rebel Jewish King executed by Rome. That is standard history. History remembered during the time of Tiberius and Pilate. Just as we, in our own time, remember those
who lost their lives in service to their country.

Yep, he has to question the historicity of the gospel Jesus figure.

[maryhelena]

Jesus is usually portrayed in modern scholarship as an apocalyptic prophet, a religious visionary who thought that he was God’s spokesman. This is not wrong, but it is not the whole story. Although many authors state that he disclaimed any intention of being an earthly king, there is a great amount of material pointing to him having advanced a royal claim, and in a Davidic sense. The available evidence supports the contention that he presented himself as a royal pretender who “believed himself destined to judge and rule as the chief human figure of the latter days.”

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 215). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

1. The issue of kingship has a conspicuous presence in the hearing before the Roman prefect. Mark 15:2 presents Pilate asking: “Are you the king of the Jews?,” and in the remaining scene the phrase basileùs tōn Ioudaíōn is often found.2 All the Gospels refer to the so-called titulus crucis, which describes Jesus as “king of the Jews” (Mark 15:26 and pars.). The mocking by the soldiers in the employment of Rome involves a burlesque parody of kingly epiphany, which includes clothing him in a purple cloak, putting on him a crown of thorns, the mock

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 215). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Nowhere in the Gospels is he portrayed as effectively distancing himself from the messianic expectations of his followers or rebutting such a charge in the prefect’s presence. As Dale Allison has perceptively said, “if Jesus had repudiated the accusation of kingship, Pilate presumably would have spared his life, or at least crucified him for some other crime.”8 If the charge had been actually slanderous and lacked foundation, he would have been remembered as denying it. But he did not protest at all. The conclusion that he made kingly claims is thereby inescapable, and it can be established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 219). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

It is therefore significant that restoration of the kingdom was precisely Jesus’ goal, according to Luke 24:21 (“But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel”)

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 220). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

The political dimension of the claim explains the fact that the Gospels, aimed to depoliticize Jesus, try to persuade their addressees that “king of the Jews” is a charge set forth by the Jewish/Judaean authorities. In Mark 15:12 Pilate asks: “What do you wish me to do with the man you call the king of the Jews?” Since the Gospels offer an ominous portrait of those authorities as a malevolent group prone to get rid of Jesus, the attribution implies that the phrase does not constitute a reliable self-designation, but simple slander and a translation into political terms of a religious charge, through which the Jewish authorities would have presented the Galilean preacher to the prefect as a threat, just to obtain the removal of him.12

Although the Gospel writers—and, in their wake, many modern scholars—have assumed this version, intimating that “king of the Jews” is a malicious charge put forth by the Jewish authorities, compelling reasons give the lie to such intimation. First, the phrase “king of the Jews” does not seem to come from the Jewish context, but is rather an external (Roman) designation; in fact, its conspicuous presence in the Passion accounts corresponds to its use by Pilate.13 Second, it is hardly believable that the Jewish authorities had just concocted a political charge to get rid of an adversary if they had valid religious reasons to do it: if they had the right of capital jurisdiction, they could have resorted to it, but then the death penalty would be that envisaged in the Law (stoning) and not crucifixion; and if they did not have that right, the mere concoction of a charge did not only entail an unscrupulous hypocrisy, but also entailed a risky move regarding the prefect.

The motif of the royal claim has obviously been edited in the tradition, to the extent that our sources no longer contain a systematic and coherent portrayal of the Galilean teacher as a king. We cannot know, for instance, how Jesus came to such a self-perception. Some specialists have argued that his family claimed descent from David, and, given the Jewish expectation that the Messiah must come from a Davidic family, that claim could contribute to explaining the emergence of his royal consciousness.14 Be that as it may, the abundance of material reflecting the widespread belief in his royal nature should give pause.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 221). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

The gospel Jesus does of course go on to say to Pilate in the gospels of John: ''My kingdom is not of this world - otherwise my followers would fight......''

Two kingdoms, a kingdom of David, an earthly kingdom - and a kingdom not of this world, a heavenly, a spiritual or philosophical kingdom.

Early christians went with the heavenly kingdom - and downgraded the earthly kingdom. Forgetting of course that spiritual/philosophical ideas are only of value when having relevance for living on terra-firma. That the gospel story also includes elements of a seditious Jesus figure should leave no room for doubt that what happens here on the ground, in history, has it's own value.

Basically, the gospel Jesus figure is reflecting both history and philosophy. Hence, a seditious Jesus and a 'spiritual' Jesus are encapsulated within the gospel literary Jesus figure. History is reflected in the seditious Jesus element of the composite Jesus figure. Likewise, the spiritual or intellectual/philosophical Jesus.

Bermejo-Rubio is upholding a basic element of the gospel story. Interestingly, of course, is that the history indicated, a Roman execution of a king of the Jews, allows one to pin-point from where the idea of a spiritual/intellectual kingdom has it's genesis. Hasmonean history. Josephus being our main source for that history.

I've gone on about Hasmonean history for years..............
Basically, that is a result of deciding which way to go after realizing the gospel Jesus is not a historical figure. Yep, many people will prefer to say it's more likely than not that a historical Jesus (of some variant) existed. That's an easy position to take - but it's a position without any fire in it's belly. The same merry=go-around continues with no forward movement whatsoever. On the other hand, some mythicists seem to think - no historical Jesus so history is a waste of time and opt for outer-space, philosophy type theories. A dead end approach to the historicity issue over the gospel Jesus.

I have found it to be profitable to turn to history. If Jesus is not a historical figure - then what? A decision can be wrong - but one won't know that until one runs with that decision to see how far it takes one. Sitting on the fence awaiting, hopefully for evidence or just thinking no answers are possible, is a waste of time. We have what we have - *If* Jesus is not a historical figure - what then ? What road do we take to move research forward ?

Bermejo-Rubio, by running with his seditious Jesus hypothesis, is attempting to keep the seditious nature of the gospel Jesus figure front and center of gospel research. Yes, he needs to take this theory much further......

[maryhelena]

As we have seen, there is a lot of significant evidence supporting the hypothesis that Jesus made kingly claims. But what can we say about the historicity of those reports? To start with, let us recall that to state the historicity of a recurrent motif does not require us to prove the authenticity of each single item of the cluster.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 222). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

An extremely powerful reason supporting the basic reliability of the surveyed material is the great explanatory value of the hypothesis. It provides the simplest and most natural explanation for the crucifixion: as the titulus crucis betrays, he must have been crucified because of the crime of maiestas imminuta, in the specific modality of aspiration to the throne (adfectatio regni). It could also explain the fact that the Gospel accounts portray Jesus in a central position at Golgotha: his placement in the middle of two lēstaí indicates that he was deemed the real auctor seditionis by the Roman power.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 225). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

From the previous survey, I infer that the hypothesis that Jesus made a royal claim in the traditional, Davidic mold has an extremely high degree of historical probability. Although the cluster I have identified is formed of scattered scraps, the convergent evidence witnessing the motif of kingship is overwhelming. If it is possible at all to draw a historical kernel from the available sources, it is hard to see how this conclusion could be avoided.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 225-226). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Historicity of the Titulus Crucis

As I have argued, to assert the historicity of the motif underlying a cluster of material does not entitle us to sustain the authenticity of every detail. The potential relevance of the titulus crucis, with its conspicuous presence in the Passion accounts, makes it advisable to separately tackle the historicity of this item, especially after having exposed the lack of reliability of so many particulars of the Passion narratives. There exist four diverse formulations of the title, but all of them have as common denominator the phrase basileùs tōn Ioudaíōn (“king of the Jews”).

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 226). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

There are indeed very good reasons to grant credibility to the titulus crucis. To start with, the association of the royal title with the cross lacks biblical precedence, and since the expression “king of the Jews” was not used as a Christian confession in the early literature, it should not be taken as the historicization of a dogmatic motive: Mark aims at presenting Jesus as son of God, not as king of the Jews, and the placard is just a circumstantial detail in his narrative.25 More importantly, as we have seen in the preceding section, the couching of the inscription has an unmistakable political meaning, which is made plain in John 19:12 and Acts 17:7. In these circumstances, it is hardly credible that Christians introduced by themselves the phrase “king of the Jews” as causa poenae, since this would have justified the Roman proceedings against Jesus as a rebel against the ruling state power. Besides, the irony of the Roman use of the inscription fits well with the parodic nature of crucifixion: the self-styled king finds the kind of death reserved for humiliores, thereby unveiling his unreasonable claim. Last but not least, the title conveys a longing for independence that is in harmony with the type of crimes (crimen maiestatis) to which crucifixion was applied in the Judaea subjected to Roman rule.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 227-228). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Despite the evidence and the sound arguments allowing us to put forward the hypothesis of Jesus making a royal claim, this stance has not been endorsed by most scholars. This fact is far from surprising. A royal claim in the usual, Davidic sense gives the lie to the deep-rooted theological assumption that the Galilean had nothing to do with the sordid matters of Judeo-Roman politics. It is thereby understandable that standard scholarship, in which the presence of exegetes subservient to Christian myth is overwhelming, has concocted several alternatives: Jesus had nothing to do with royal claims; such an idea was just a temptation for him; he harbored that claim, but he redefined the concept of kingship in a nonpolitical sense.26 The fact that these contentions are obviously mutually contradictory should give food for thought.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 228). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

It is obvious that the first followers of Jesus had to redefine his role and fate, given that any ambition for an earthly kingdom was denied by the unexpected crucifixion, which put an end to the group’s early expectations. In the light of Rome’s overwhelming military power, they had to rethink Jesus’ claim of kingship, thereby making him advocate a vision in which he had not harbored any political aims and had offered his life as a ransom for the many. The redefinition of his royal-messianic claim (and the notion that his real purposes had been misunderstood), which admittedly surfaces in several passages, does not accordingly go back to Jesus, but it is a fabrication of the later Christian tradition. The sheer need for survival dictated new doctrines.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 235). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Bermejo-Rubio gives a survey of scholars who preceded him on the question of a seditious, rebel, Jesus.

The foregoing overview constitutes just a transversal sample of learned and thoughtful authors who have realized the relevance of a royal claim to explain Jesus’ preaching and death.56 Such a brief historiographical survey does not constitute by itself an argument, but it should give much food for thought. The fact that, during half a millennium, scholars coming from very different cultural contexts, and having deeply diverging ideological backgrounds, have arrived at very similar views, makes us think that the idea of Jesus having harbored a kingly claim is not just any hypothesis, but one very well grounded on the textual evidence itself. At the same time, this conclusion allows the reader to grasp that what I offer in the present chapter are not idiosyncratic musings, but ideas standing on the shoulders of giants.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 243). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps the best that can be said over the title, 'king of the Jews', attributed to Pilate, is that there was no court stenography on hand, no video camera to record his words. What we are dealing with is a story in which the author has put words in the mouth of Pilate. It is what the author intended with this words that should be of concern - not arguments over Pilate. The words are there 'king of the Jews' - what did the author hope to achieve by using them ? A 'king of the Jews' suffered a Roman crucifixion. That is the basic, the fundamental, reading of these four simple words. King of the Jews executed by Rome.

Obviously, it's a political not a theological issue. Hence, it's a historical issue. The gospel writer is indicating we turn to history to grasp the relevance of his words. And yes, of course, historical developments would require that this element in early christian history would need to be downplayed. Not because it did not happen, not because a King of the Jews was executed by Rome - but because Hasmonean/Jewish nationalism was not the way forward if gentiles were to be part of the future 'spiritual' or intellectual/philosophical kingdom.

Denying the past, attempting to sidestep Hasmonean/Jewish history in the development of early christianity, is a reckless approach to historical research.

[maryhelena]

Interesting view by Bart Ehrman on 'king of the Jews'.....

Another U.S. New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, has tackled Jesus’ claim to kingship in the context of Judas Iscariot’s story. Assuming its basic historicity, Ehrman wonders what exactly Judas might have betrayed. In the wake of Albert Schweitzer, he argues in the following way. The disciples deemed Jesus the Messiah, so they must have thought that he would be somehow the future king; moreover, he was executed as “king of the Jews.” But our earliest sources do not clearly portray him as calling himself the Messiah in public. So where did they get the idea from? According to Ehrman, he privately told his disciples that he was to be the future king of Israel and that they would be his co-rulers in the impending kingdom brought in by the Son of Man; Judas’ betrayal consisted of disclosing this insider information that the authorities needed to arrest Jesus.53

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 242). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

footnote:

53. Ehrman, Lost Gospel, 153–70, esp. 161–65; see also Ehrman, How Jesus, 119–22.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 247). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition

Another footnote:

9. The attempts to deny it betray a preconceived opinion: “Even if Pilate and/or the high priests took Jesus as a popular king, the Gospel of Mark does not portray Jesus as a popular king leading a revolt” (Horsley, Politics, 161). This is a truism signifying nothing, because the depoliticizing agenda of the Gospel writer is too obvious.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 245). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Interesting point from the Slavonic Josephus regarding the betrayal of Jesus:

13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city. 14. And there also he avouched his cures p. 107 to the people. 15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants (Knechten) a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude.

16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us. 17. But that one scorned it.

18. And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: "We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans. 19. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined." 20. And they went and told it to Pilate.

https://sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

Although - in the Slavonic Josephus story, Jesus 'scorned' the idea of 'cutting down the Romans' - the leaders and priests were scared and went to Pilate - their argument being that they themselves would be put to the sword and loose their substance. Indicating, like Ehrman, that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was not simply a case of theological or ideological disagreement or wanting money - the betrayal involved reporting prospects of sedition to the leaders and high-priest. That is what took gospel Jesus to crucifixion, to Calvary's cross - a charge of sedition - a sedition feared by the Jewish leaders (in the story)

Yes, the gospel writers went on the downplay or sidestep the charge of sedition - but if gentiles were invited to join with a new Jewish philosophical 'spiritual' kingdom - then there really was no alternative but to smooth over the Hasmonean nationalism from which it developed.

[Peter Kirby]

The disciples deemed Jesus the Messiah, so they must have thought that he would be somehow the future king; moreover, he was executed as “king of the Jews.” But our earliest sources do not clearly portray him as calling himself the Messiah in public. So where did they get the idea from? According to Ehrman, he privately told his disciples that he was to be the future king of Israel and that they would be his co-rulers in the impending kingdom brought in by the Son of Man;

Historicity cop. I'm going to need you to pull over.

Mr Ehrman, do you know how fictional the thing you're reading was back there?

[maryhelena]

33. See Fredriksen, “Arms,” 323–24, and When Christians, 63–64. 34.

“There is not one occurrence of the word in the NT that clearly means ‘knife,’ and certainly not ‘sacrificial knife.’ And every use of the term could quite plausibly be a reference to a sword used in battle. The primary if not only meaning of máchaira in the NT is ‘sword,’ and there is no certain attestation of an instance anywhere in the NT of a better translation being ‘knife,’ much less ‘sacrificial knife’” (Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,” 337, italics in original). I fully agree with this remark. Nevertheless, Martin’s contention that the arrest is attributable attributable merely to the disciples’ possession of weapons does not take a lot of evidence into account.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 297-298). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

38. Something similar happens with a recent article, whose author argues that máchaira means “any bladed implement,” and that the datum that Jesus’ followers were armed in Gethsemane is “far too equivocal to support” the interpretation that “the historical Jesus believed that he would lead his followers in an apocalyptic battle of some kind” (Meggitt, “Putting,” 20). Among the problems of this argument are, first, that this scholar neither discusses nor takes into account the whole pattern of elements, found in the Gospels, pointing to the presence of an ideology of anti-Roman resistance in Jesus’ group and making full sense of máchairai as swords; second, that the existence of an apocalyptic atmosphere underlying both the expectations of the War Scroll and Jesus’ group does not mean that Jesus and his followers believed that the eschatological events would develop precisely according to the script envisaged in the Qumran text; third, and more importantly, that Meggitt’s contention that the term máchaira is an imprecise “catchall term,” which “became used for any bladed implement,” not necessarily swords (“Putting,” 16), does not explain at all why the mention of the máchairai and the injunction to acquire them take place on such crucial, climactic occasions in the Gospel story, thereby making the passages concerning those objects absolutely irrelevant, not to say ludicrous.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 298). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has some fire in his belly.....Great to see a scholar prepared to take a stand for what he believes with so much dignity and assurance. Here I stand, I cannot to otherwise - said or not said by Martin Luther.....Methinks the seditious Jesus hypothesis is in safe hands.....OK, Bermejo-Rubio is working within that historical Jesus bubble - but a theory does not fall because of the weak, punctured, wheels of the vehicle it has been travelling in....