Your comment that Jesus may not have been as popular as suggested by Mark may help explain why only Jesus was crucified. If the Romans really viewed Jesus and his followers as a threat to Roman rule and/or as just a troublesome gang, why only kill Jesus? Pilate was not known to be merciful. If he really considered Jesus a danger, why not get rid of his followers as well? Maybe Jesus really only had a few people tagging along with him or did not have any followers at all.
Thanks Walter, an interesting point! I'll let Tyler weigh in, but what do you make of the traditional explanation that Jesus was known as non-violent, and therefore the real problem was not his followers and their movement, but simply the fact that the following had gathered around Jesus (who was a potential cause for trouble)?
As I understand, Pilate was often harsh and brutal and was known for his violent suppression of uprisings. My guess is that Pilate would have erred on the side of complete elimination of Jesus and his following without regard to whether he thought Jesus himself was non-violent. Better to nip any possible uprising in the bud and not let it fester and grow. Also, hard for me to see Pilate carefully making a distinction between Jesus and his followers. Seems to me Pilate would have lumped them all together and treated them the same. So, if Jesus had a following, Pilate would have ordered the lot of them to be crucified. But, on the other hand, as I recall, Tiberius eventually sacked Pilate because of the violent way he handled a Samaritan uprising. So maybe Pilate was aware of his bad reputation in Rome and therefore was more careful in his handling of Jesus and figured if he killed Jesus, his following would wither away and not be any further trouble. Too bad smart phones with audio and video recording capabilities were not invented for another 2,000 years or so. If such phones were around in 33 AD, maybe we would have a definitive answer. But then likely that the battery would be dead in the smart phone of Pilate's PR man tasked with recording Pilate's important decisions to assist Pilate's ghost writer in penning Pilate's autobiography.
Thanks for the thoughts and questions, Walter. I think you're spot on with Pilate. The Gospel authors portray him in a way that doesn't seem to fit with what extrabiblical sources tell us--I've written more about that in my Character Snapshot of Pilate. The Gospels do tell us that Jesus was crucified along with two others. I've always been curious about who they might have been. Just two other badly behaved dudes on the docket for crucifixion that day? Or, perhaps, followers of Jesus who were arrested with him? I'm not entirely sure, but what complicates our interpretations of Jesus' final days is that our best sources (the Gospels) are not primarily interested in giving us perfect historical recollection.
Interesting. I think I learned from Bart Ehrman that "leistes" means insurrectionist as well as robber. So maybe the two were unidentified and unfortunate Jesus followers who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. You are correct about the Gospels. All were clearly written to promote the Jesus story instead of telling an historically accurate story. If Robin Faith Walsh is correct that the Synoptic Gospels were written by "elite cultural producers" and were not reordered recollections of certain communities of Jesus followers, then the Synoptic Gospels are basically "fan fiction".
Yes, I wrote an academic review of Walsh's book where she mentions that and I enjoyed her work. To me, the Gospels are not history or fiction but history and fiction, and there are not lines between the two but instead its like two liquids in a cup that don't fully mix together. You can tell there are two substances there, but where one ends and the other begins is difficult to discern. But that's what makes all of it fun I suppose.
I’ll have to circle back to that page!
Your comment that Jesus may not have been as popular as suggested by Mark may help explain why only Jesus was crucified. If the Romans really viewed Jesus and his followers as a threat to Roman rule and/or as just a troublesome gang, why only kill Jesus? Pilate was not known to be merciful. If he really considered Jesus a danger, why not get rid of his followers as well? Maybe Jesus really only had a few people tagging along with him or did not have any followers at all.
Thanks Walter, an interesting point! I'll let Tyler weigh in, but what do you make of the traditional explanation that Jesus was known as non-violent, and therefore the real problem was not his followers and their movement, but simply the fact that the following had gathered around Jesus (who was a potential cause for trouble)?
As I understand, Pilate was often harsh and brutal and was known for his violent suppression of uprisings. My guess is that Pilate would have erred on the side of complete elimination of Jesus and his following without regard to whether he thought Jesus himself was non-violent. Better to nip any possible uprising in the bud and not let it fester and grow. Also, hard for me to see Pilate carefully making a distinction between Jesus and his followers. Seems to me Pilate would have lumped them all together and treated them the same. So, if Jesus had a following, Pilate would have ordered the lot of them to be crucified. But, on the other hand, as I recall, Tiberius eventually sacked Pilate because of the violent way he handled a Samaritan uprising. So maybe Pilate was aware of his bad reputation in Rome and therefore was more careful in his handling of Jesus and figured if he killed Jesus, his following would wither away and not be any further trouble. Too bad smart phones with audio and video recording capabilities were not invented for another 2,000 years or so. If such phones were around in 33 AD, maybe we would have a definitive answer. But then likely that the battery would be dead in the smart phone of Pilate's PR man tasked with recording Pilate's important decisions to assist Pilate's ghost writer in penning Pilate's autobiography.
Thanks for the thoughts and questions, Walter. I think you're spot on with Pilate. The Gospel authors portray him in a way that doesn't seem to fit with what extrabiblical sources tell us--I've written more about that in my Character Snapshot of Pilate. The Gospels do tell us that Jesus was crucified along with two others. I've always been curious about who they might have been. Just two other badly behaved dudes on the docket for crucifixion that day? Or, perhaps, followers of Jesus who were arrested with him? I'm not entirely sure, but what complicates our interpretations of Jesus' final days is that our best sources (the Gospels) are not primarily interested in giving us perfect historical recollection.
Interesting. I think I learned from Bart Ehrman that "leistes" means insurrectionist as well as robber. So maybe the two were unidentified and unfortunate Jesus followers who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. You are correct about the Gospels. All were clearly written to promote the Jesus story instead of telling an historically accurate story. If Robin Faith Walsh is correct that the Synoptic Gospels were written by "elite cultural producers" and were not reordered recollections of certain communities of Jesus followers, then the Synoptic Gospels are basically "fan fiction".
Yes, I wrote an academic review of Walsh's book where she mentions that and I enjoyed her work. To me, the Gospels are not history or fiction but history and fiction, and there are not lines between the two but instead its like two liquids in a cup that don't fully mix together. You can tell there are two substances there, but where one ends and the other begins is difficult to discern. But that's what makes all of it fun I suppose.