Re: Fernando Bermejo-Rubio
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2024 12:41 am
Continuing my reading of Steven Pounds thesis. here
I'm particularly taken with the focus of this thesis. Pounds has taken the title 'King of the Jews' and has given it the most thorough investigation I've come across. (yep, unfortunately, like Bermejo-Rubio, he has failed to consider Hasmonean history as being relevant to the gospel crucifixion story of a King of the Jews). Pounds does mention the Hasmoneans ..... (earlier post) - including it here with his footnote - so close yet so far......
The Crucifiable Jesus
Steven Brian Pounds
3 Chapter Conclusion
The gospels' representation of Jesus being crucified as “King of the Jews” offers a probable line of
delimitation in reconstructing a crucifiable Jesus. Its historicity could dramatically constrain the
range of constructions. Numerous hypotheses have been put forward for explaining the origins of
this common gospel motif. John Dominic Crossan's thesis that a Cross Gospel was the source of the
motif in the canonical gospels was determined to be implausible due to its reliance on a later source,
which portrays Jewish actors carrying out Jesus' crucifixion. Justin Meggitt's hypothesis that the motif is rooted in the taunting of Jesus as insane finds certain point of analogy with primary source
representations of Carabas and Jesus son of Ananias, but a perception of insanity does not in and of
itself account for the specific mocking of Jesus as a 'king', nor does it satisfactorily account for
Jesus’ crucifixion. The more general thesis that “King of the Jews” is a post-Easter invention of Christian confession falters on the facts that “King of the Jews” was not a title of confession outsidethe gospels and that it would have been a potentially treasonous title for early Christians to hold up.
Because Romans rarely allowed the title “King of the Jews” to be used for client rulers, and royal
claimants were usually killed by Roman authorities, the motif in the gospels more plausibly comes
from an original indictment of sedition against Jesus. This conclusion is strengthened by analogies
of other Roman placcards similar to the one on Jesus' cross in the gospels.
A number of possible causes for this indictment have been imagined. N. A. Dahl placed
emphasis upon the historicity of Jesus' opponents putting forth the charge but does not offer an indepth explanation of their reason or source for making it. Paula Fredriksen argues that Passover
pilgrims who were only newly and vaguely acquainted with Jesus' mission made a royal messianic
acclamation, thus explaining the decision to crucify Jesus as a form of falsification of their hopes.
However, her reconstruction does not account for why Jesus' inner circle of disciples would pick up
this acclamation as a standard confession when the crucifixion demonstrated the opposite. James D.
G. Dunn goes one step further back than Fredriksen and proposes that the disciples entertained
messianic hopes for Jesus but against his own reprimands. As with Fredriksen's proposal, one
questions why the crucifixion did not end these hopes. Finally, we concluded that although Jesus
was hesitant to use “Messiah” as a self-designation and had reservations about taking on the violent
aspects of messianic expectation, he nevertheless limitedly accepted messianic acclamations and
indeed inspired royal messianic hopes with his own activities. He may have even considered
himself to be the Messias designatus. A Jesus who inspired and stood at the center of messianic
hopes and acclamations is certainly a crucifiable Jesus. We are now in a position to assess and draw conclusions on our findings from the dissertation as a whole.
(my colouring)
I highly recommend this thesis.
I'm particularly taken with the focus of this thesis. Pounds has taken the title 'King of the Jews' and has given it the most thorough investigation I've come across. (yep, unfortunately, like Bermejo-Rubio, he has failed to consider Hasmonean history as being relevant to the gospel crucifixion story of a King of the Jews). Pounds does mention the Hasmoneans ..... (earlier post) - including it here with his footnote - so close yet so far......
The Hasmonean rulers were the first to be called by the title “King of the Jews”.735
footnote
735 Josephus narrates Aristobolus II called “King of the Jews” by Romans (Ant. 14.36) In his earlier work,
Josephus refers to Alexander Jannaeus by that same title (J.W. 7.171); Josephus uses the title three times
anachronistically to refer to biblical kings: once for Jeconiah (J.W. 6.103) and twice for David (J.W. 6.439; Ant. 7.72);This is his least favourite designation. He uses the title “King of the Hebrews” six times and “King of Israelites” thirtyeight times.
footnote
735 Josephus narrates Aristobolus II called “King of the Jews” by Romans (Ant. 14.36) In his earlier work,
Josephus refers to Alexander Jannaeus by that same title (J.W. 7.171); Josephus uses the title three times
anachronistically to refer to biblical kings: once for Jeconiah (J.W. 6.103) and twice for David (J.W. 6.439; Ant. 7.72);This is his least favourite designation. He uses the title “King of the Hebrews” six times and “King of Israelites” thirtyeight times.
The Crucifiable Jesus
Steven Brian Pounds
3 Chapter Conclusion
The gospels' representation of Jesus being crucified as “King of the Jews” offers a probable line of
delimitation in reconstructing a crucifiable Jesus. Its historicity could dramatically constrain the
range of constructions. Numerous hypotheses have been put forward for explaining the origins of
this common gospel motif. John Dominic Crossan's thesis that a Cross Gospel was the source of the
motif in the canonical gospels was determined to be implausible due to its reliance on a later source,
which portrays Jewish actors carrying out Jesus' crucifixion. Justin Meggitt's hypothesis that the motif is rooted in the taunting of Jesus as insane finds certain point of analogy with primary source
representations of Carabas and Jesus son of Ananias, but a perception of insanity does not in and of
itself account for the specific mocking of Jesus as a 'king', nor does it satisfactorily account for
Jesus’ crucifixion. The more general thesis that “King of the Jews” is a post-Easter invention of Christian confession falters on the facts that “King of the Jews” was not a title of confession outsidethe gospels and that it would have been a potentially treasonous title for early Christians to hold up.
Because Romans rarely allowed the title “King of the Jews” to be used for client rulers, and royal
claimants were usually killed by Roman authorities, the motif in the gospels more plausibly comes
from an original indictment of sedition against Jesus. This conclusion is strengthened by analogies
of other Roman placcards similar to the one on Jesus' cross in the gospels.
A number of possible causes for this indictment have been imagined. N. A. Dahl placed
emphasis upon the historicity of Jesus' opponents putting forth the charge but does not offer an indepth explanation of their reason or source for making it. Paula Fredriksen argues that Passover
pilgrims who were only newly and vaguely acquainted with Jesus' mission made a royal messianic
acclamation, thus explaining the decision to crucify Jesus as a form of falsification of their hopes.
However, her reconstruction does not account for why Jesus' inner circle of disciples would pick up
this acclamation as a standard confession when the crucifixion demonstrated the opposite. James D.
G. Dunn goes one step further back than Fredriksen and proposes that the disciples entertained
messianic hopes for Jesus but against his own reprimands. As with Fredriksen's proposal, one
questions why the crucifixion did not end these hopes. Finally, we concluded that although Jesus
was hesitant to use “Messiah” as a self-designation and had reservations about taking on the violent
aspects of messianic expectation, he nevertheless limitedly accepted messianic acclamations and
indeed inspired royal messianic hopes with his own activities. He may have even considered
himself to be the Messias designatus. A Jesus who inspired and stood at the center of messianic
hopes and acclamations is certainly a crucifiable Jesus. We are now in a position to assess and draw conclusions on our findings from the dissertation as a whole.
(my colouring)
I highly recommend this thesis.