by Guy Shaked

Keywords: Anti-Semitism, Crucifixion, Jesus, Judas, New Testament, NT, The Passion of the Christ, Pilate, Shaked

In the New Testament, there is a feeling Pilate does not hold the full blame for the execution of Jesus. For the Jews are said to play a major rule in his capture and in the decision to execute him.

For it is under the order of Caiaphas that Jesus is seized and given over to the Pilate. When Pilate seems to have doubts regarding executing Jesus, and offers the Jews a choice for release between him and Barabbas, they chose the later. And later the mob cries that let Pilate not worry for his blood "be on them".

This depiction, regardless if one accepts it or not (as it is a matter of faith), does not perhaps emphasize enough Pilate's ultimate responsibility for the execution of Jesus. Assuming all that is written is true, there remains the problem of why did Pilate, if he had doubts as to whether Jesus merits his punishment, and only wanted to appease the Jews, execute Jesus in the manner of crucifixion which means much torture. He could have, as did the Roman proconsul of Africa about a hundred years later ordered Christians executed by the sword (without torture) as was done to the martyrs of Scillium [1]. It would have been an easy decision for Pilate to order Jesus' execution in this easier manner.

If one might suggest that it was under pressure from the Jews of that time that Pilate had to show a hard hand and no pity for Jesus because of some special place he held as a hated figure that it was important to execute in the harshest manner, then the small crowd arriving to Jesus' execution place at Golgotha and check small crowd, testifies the opposite is true. For, if Jesus was a most hated figure by the Jews and his death most desired by them - they would have shown up in large numbers to see him perish. It therefor appears that his treatment by the Jews through the passing at the Via Dolorosa and elsewhere was not "special" in any way. Suggesting again that if Pilate would have wanted to, he could have substituted Jesus death sentence with execution by the sword (with less suffering) or even perhaps with a life sentence in prison with hard labor.

As to the question that arises why the New Testament does not emphasize Pilate's cruelty and ultimate responsibility for the death of Jesus, while it does seem to deal more with the part the Jews played in this matter, two approaches can be taken.

The first is the "practical" late approach toward forces outside the Christian group which also suggests late manipulation. According to this approach, the scriptures were manipulated or selected in a manner as to have the Jews blamed instead of the Romans because the vast majority of Christians lived in the Roman empire and did not want to encourage prosecutions. Later, when the Romans became leaders of Christianity, they wanted the blame directed towards the Jews so that it won't lye on their ancestors. The accounts of the Jews attitude towards Jesus in Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" are then said to be later additions.

Yet, some problems exist with this approach. It seems the early Christians were persecuted anyway, regardless of what they thought or said of the Romans - just for being Christians. So it seems it didn't matter if they blamed the Jews or Pilate.

Furthermore, St. Peter was said to be cruelly persecuted by the Romans in Rome itself and that did not bother the Roman Christians at all. They, not only that did not attempt to blame others for it, but it seems to this day that they claim against some opposition that this story is true [2].

The second is the early "theological" approach toward inner forces inside the Christian group. This is exemplified best in the story of Judas. According to the later "practical" approach, Judas is a later anti Judaic insertion. Buy his name, Judas represents the Jewish people and is an allegorical figure. However, some problems exist with this claim.

For, Christian allegorical interpretations are from the Old Testament to the NT, and serve as proof of God's hand, in the fulfillment of these allegorical precedents in the NT. There are no conclusive examples of NT Allegorical figures and actions and there is no reason therefore to assume Judas is an allegorical figure any more than there is that Simon is one (allegorical to the tribe of Simon for example).

Furthermore, Judas is not "Judah" (?????spell in Greek from Old and New Testaments), and this is a most significant difference. The name Judas is not simply Hebrew name, but on the contrary, represents a Hellenistic name because of the addition of the "s" in the end. Furthermore, there is no word in the NT that Judas betrayed Jesus on grounds of Jewish belief.

It seems another interpretation is necessary and the most obvious one is that Judas was as superficially Christian as he was superficially Hellenistic (only having an "s" added to the most Jewish of names"). This seems to fit the early Christian movement perfectly.

According to such an interpretation, the problem the early Christians had which were much more crucial to them than the Roman persecutions were their situation as a prosecuted religion. For if they are the followers of the true Messiah, why are they faring so badly.

Blaming the Romans for their situation would not do, because their God and Messiah could have helped them easily against the Romans if he only wanted to. So they set out to examine why it is that Jesus is making them suffer. The answer was an inner one and it is this answer which explains the emphasis on the Jews in the NT: Those who were most expected to get closer to Christianity (i. e. the Jews) were not yet converted (so that the time of salvation was not yet here).

Yet, at those places where Jews were converting to Christianity and still Roman persecutions were occurring, there remained a problem to be explained. This was done by the figure of Judas, symbolizing those Christians who had converted but their belief was not strong enough.

To conclude, it should be noted that this shows that the NT not only is not anti-Jewish, but that the blame for Jesus' death the early Christians took mainly on themselves (in the figure of Judas the Christian).The Jews' role in the death of Jesus is highlighted in the NT only because of early Christian theological reasons and is not an indication of any anti-Jewish sentiment, perhaps it is even evidence to the contrary.

Read more of Guy's work in the book: Masters of Italian Sculpture

============================================================================

[1] Maurice M. Hassett, Martyers of Schilium , "Catholic Encyclopedia", http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13609b.htm

[2] J.P. Kirsch, St. Peter, Prince of the apostles, "Catholic Encyclopedia", http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

Hear Psalm 122 performed to the Author's Music

Dear visitor, please take a short moment to sign my guest book!

My Biography

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

© 2004 Emails are gladly received: shakedtg@hotmail.com

Music in the Bible

Other articles by G. Shaked: ART BIOLOGY CINEMA MUSIC PHILOSOPHY PHYSICS (ACOUSTICS)