CRUCIFIXION: ELITE FORCE IN ACTION
Anthropologists who study peasants note that peasants do not often revolt
or even voice their feelings of hostility and oppression against elites.
They usually find covert ways of protesting: keeping secrets or lying to
elites, hiding taxable goods, sabotage (Scott 1985). But if peasants
occasionally responded by forming bandit groups when the situation became
intolerable, then crucifixion was the ruling elites' way of responding to
banditry and other forms of rebellion (along with other means of
execution). Crucifixion was an institution of humiliation, torture, and
execution designed to deal with the people considered most threatening to
the establishment and its interests (Neyrey 1996). It was public,
demeaning, and painful; and it was designed to strike fear into the hearts
of any who would dare pose a threat to the status quo. "Whenever we
crucify the condemned, the most crowded roads are chosen, where the most
people can see and be moved by this terror. For penalties relate not so
much to retribution as to their exemplary effect" (Pseudo-Quintilian,
Declamations 274; also Jos. War 5.450-51). Both Cicero
(Ag. Verr. 2.5.168) and Josephus (War 7.203) refer to it as
the worst form of death.
The condemned were often tortured by whipping, burning, or stabbing. They
were marched to their deaths carrying the crossbeam, parading them in
humiliation through the streets. They were then nailed to the cross,
although sometimes the arms were tied rather than nailed. And sometimes
signs designating their crimes were placed on or near the cross (John
19:19). Death could be slow or swift, depending upon a variety of
factors: the victim's physical constitution, prior sleep deprivation,
degree of torture, and whether or not the arms were nailed rather than
tied. The exact cause or causes of death in the crucifixion process have
been disputed over the past century. And one should keep in mind that the
exact form of crucifixion could vary (Jos. War 5.460). Le Bec and
Barbet both concluded that the immediate cause would have been
asphyxiation/suffocation when the diaphragm and intercostal muscles
weakened. Zugibe argued that hypovolemic shock was more likely (for a
discussion of these theories, see Zias & Charlesworth 1992:281-82).
The origins of crucifixion cannot be pinpointed; but Greco-Roman sources
mention different forms of nailing to a cross, a tree, or a board as
widespread in the ancient world: among the Persians, Scythians, Taurians,
Celts, Britons, Germans, Carthaginians, Greeks, Judeans, and Romans.
Alexander the Great crucified two thousand Tyrians who had refused to
surrender (Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander 4.4.17, quoted in
Hengel 1977:73). The Syrian king, Antiochus IV, crucified Judeans
unwilling to give up traditional practices in 167 BCE (Jos. Ant.
12.256). Alexander Jannaeus, the Judean high priest, crucified eight
hundred Judeans who had rebelled against him in 88 BCE (Jos. War
1.97-98/Ant. 13.380-83; see also the Qumran commentary [4QpNah] on
Nahum 2:13). The revolt in the wake of Herod the Great's death in 4 BCE
prompted Varus, the Roman legate in Syria, to execute two thousand of the
rebels (Jos. War 2.75). Philo recounts a story of how the governor
Flaccus crucified ethnic Israelites in the theater in Alexandria, Egypt,
in the early first century (Ag. Flacc. 82-85). Prisoners of war
were crucified by Titus' troops throughout the Roman siege of Jerusalem at
the end of the First Judean Revolt (66-70 CE; Jos. War 5.449-51;
Life 420; see Hengel 1977). And the Temple Scroll from the Dead
Sea Scrolls lists "hanging from a tree" (perhaps indicating crucifixion)
as the punishment for an offender who betrays the group to a foreign power
(11QTemple Scroll 64.6-10).
For all the literary reports of crucifixion under the Romans, the body of
only one victim of crucifixion has ever been recovered. It is the body of
a young adult male named Yehochanan, whose remains were found in an
*ossuary (bone box) with his name on it, buried in the Giv'at ha-Mivtar
area of Jerusalem. He was apparently 24-28 years old, 5 ft. 5¾ in. tall,
and was executed early in the first century. The reason it is certain
that he was crucified is that his executioners were not able to extract
the nail from his heel bones (see Strange 1976; Zias & Charlesworth 1992;
and Rousseau & Arav 1995:74-78).
Normally, the Romans and Judeans reserved crucifixion for the most heinous
crimes: rebellion (including social banditry), treason, military
desertion, and murder. And since it was associated with slaves, the
Romans would, under most circumstances, not crucify a Roman citizen,
considering it too shameful. This explains where Barabbas fits into the
social landscape of first-century Palestine. The gospels indicate that he
was being held for crucifixion by the Romans because he was a bandit
chieftain, a social bandit. When Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea,
offered the crowd a choice between releasing Jesus or Barabbas (Mark
15:6-15), the gospels say the crowd chose Barabbas. (On Roman governors
releasing prisoners [including bandits] in Jerusalem, see Jos. Ant.
20.215.) This may sound like a perfectly idiotic decision to a modern
reader; after all, what sensible people would call for the release of a
convicted bandit and murderer rather than a peaceful prophet and healer?
But this reaction fails to take into account both the popularity of social
bandits like Barabbas and the potential danger posed by Jesus. If
Barabbas was a threat to the social order because he led a violent band of
bandits, at least these bandits usually concentrated on attacking country
estates, Roman garrisons, and Roman supply-lines. Jesus posed a different
sort of threat to the urban elites. He gathered large crowds wherever he
went, and he was recruiting members for a new group. Rumors had begun to
spread about his healings and exorcisms, his radical statements about
Roman taxation, the Jerusalem temple, and Herod Antipas. He was known to
flaunt the scribes' conservative interpretations of the Sabbath and
purity laws. And pivotal to the gospel passion narratives, Jesus was
accused of in fact being a pretender to the royal throne of Judea (a
"messiah"), meaning he was a threat to both the Roman rule of Palestine
and the leadership role of the high priestly families.
Notice that when Jesus was interrogated by the Jerusalem high priest
(Joseph Caiaphas), he was asked: "Are you the Christ, the son of the
Blessed?" (Mark 14:61). This is parallel to Pilate's question: "Are you
the king of the Judeans?" (15:2a). Pilate uses the common term "king,"
and Caiaphas uses traditional Judean designations. "Christ" (Greek
christos) is the equivalent of "messiah" (Hebrew mashiach):
both meaning "anointed one," referring to the traditional anointing as
part of the Judean royal ritual (1 Kgs 1:33-35). And "son of the Blessed"
is a phrase acknowledging the Judean king's "adoption" as son of Yahweh (2
Sam 7:7; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27). What both Caiaphas and Pilate want to know
is: Was Jesus intentionally a threat to the political status quo by
re-inaugurating popular Judean kingship? The gospels, in fact, differ in
their accounts of how Jesus answered these questions. In Mark, Jesus
seems to answer Caiaphas affirmatively (14:62), and Pilate vaguely
(15:2b). In Matthew, Jesus is evasive to Pilate and silent before the
Jerusalem leaders (27:11-14). In Luke's account, Jesus gives the evasive
"You say that I am" to the Jerusalem leaders (22:70) and "You have said
so" to Pilate (23:3). And in John, Jesus answers the Jerusalem leaders
evasively (18:19-23) while telling Pilate: "My royal power does not come
from this world [Palestinian politics or the Roman empire]; otherwise, my
adherents would have fought to keep me from being handed over to the
Judeans" (18:36). The difference between these accusations is not between
religious and political deviance, but political deviance in Judean and
Roman terms (Belo 1981:223-24).
What Jesus actually said or did not say to the accusations made against
him cannot be assuredly recovered by comparing these accounts. It does
appear that Jesus' ambiguous answer, which plays a role in all of the
accounts, fits both his way of dealing with direct challenges (as seen in
many of the gospel dialogs) and his skepticism that any sort of straight
answer would satisfy these authorities. But all the passion narratives
agree: Jesus was not crucified for being a teacher, or healer, or making
personal claims. He was crucified as a perceived enemy of the Romans and
the Jerusalem priestly elite. Jesus was not a messiah in a traditional
sense: a reigning king; but he led a faction under the banner of "The
Reign of God." How do authorities usually deal with someone who refuses
to conform, and who fails to fit the well-known categories? Execution
usually works well when the political establishment wants to insure that a
leader not upset the status quo and that a group gets derailed. Public
crucifixion was usually a great "damper" on popular movements. Little did
they know that this execution would not be the last word. [pp. 90-95]
|
Return to the Palestine in the Time of Jesus Website