Horace Abram Rigg, Jr. Source: Journal of Biblical ... - YoYo.pl

Recommendations

Info

RIGG: BARABBAS 453 Ananias."7 But 'Christ' (i. e., Messiah) was made to mean: 'King of the Jews.' It should be pointed out that Messiah (which may or may not have meant much to Pilate - though the term certainly must have been known to him) really meant: 'King of Israel.' Which was and is quite different.28 It was through this rendering of Messiah as 'King of the Jews' and the charges and threats with which it was substantiated"9 that the case of Jesus was fixed.130 For it now became political and, as treason, quite within Pilate's competence.1'3 I have only begun to show the possibilities of this fantastic thesis. I would, however, make one further point. It seems to ,27 On this point, such a passage as Mk 3 21 is interesting; cf. Burkitt, JTS 17 (1915) 11. "8 Cf. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels I. 371 and Swete, Mark ad xv. 2. See Gutbrod, TWNT III. 376-91; cf. K. Kaster, "Jesus vor Pilatus" (Neutestamentl. Abhandl. IV 2/3. Miinster, 1912) 179, and H. Lietzmann, The Beginnings of the Christian Church (New York, 1937) 74 ff. The Gospel of Peter (ed. James, 91) gives 'King of Israel.' Otherwise the Gospels never use the term at the time of the trial. While Jesus is on the cross the rabbis and elders speak accurately - despite the sign over his head (Mt 27 41-2; Mk 15 31-2): f3aaoXivs 'IopparX karTv KrX. "he is king of Israel" (the sense, clearer in Mk, being that if he is king, etc., then let him, etc). Note that the chief priests suggest a change in the titulus (Jn 19 21-2); a point that Pilate refuses to consider. On this whole subject see J. Lengle, "Zum Prozess Jesu" (Hermes 70 [1935] 312-21). Later, of course, the terms are again confused; as, for instance, by Melito (ed. Bonner, 157, lines 96-7); cf. Resch, op. cit., 350 ff. 139 In the sense that Jn 19 12 is a threat that no procurator could easily belittle. It involves the normal - all too human - fear of the home office. 30o Possibly still best put by Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus XVIII. 3 (ed. Gebhardt, III. 225 Is. 22-3): "Pilatus namque, ut Pharisaeorum irae concederet, Christum, quem innocentum noverat, crucifigere jussit." '3' Cf. Jalowicz, op. cit. 327-8: "Definitions of treason are seldom precise, but the Romans do not seem to have attained even a moderate degree of precision in the matter, and trials for maiestas were decided mainly on political considerations." See, J. S. Kennard, Politique et Religion chez les Juifs au Temps de Jesus (Paris, 1927) and the extraordinary interview with M. Lyautey in P. van Paasen, Days of Our Years (New York, 1939) 144-9. Also T. Ulrich, "Pietas (Pius) als politischer Begriff im r6misch. Staate" (Historische Untersuchungen, hrsg. Kornemann-Kaehler. Breslau, 1930) and F. Vittinghof, Der Staatsfeind in d. r6misch. Kaiserzeit (Speyer, 1936) 1 ff. Full literature for maiestas in Pauly-Wissowa, s. v.
454 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE me that there is much cant in the prevailing tendency to dis- cover an increasing anti-Jewish bias in the Gospels. Practically everyone has succumbed to it, so that it has almost become a complex. What we do find in the Gospels, I suggest, is often the attempt to resolve what must have been a profoundly dis- turbing and exquisitely delicate dilemma. Most of the early Christian communities perforce had to grow - indeed, survive - for three centuries (the crucial period for the texts!) within the Roman Empire. They proclaimed and maintained and had to explain a religion intimately centering on a figure who had been officially tried for and convicted of the highest crime in Roman law: treason. And he had been executed in a manner reserved for the worst criminals: crucifixion.132 For three centuries this must have been as dead a weight as any group has ever had to carry - in fact, it is unique. For three centuries the Roman government had two strikes on them. This point has not been borne in mind enough. The Christian communities had con- stantly to avoid (or, failing that, to talk down) this untoward political (worldly) beginning.133 The very historicity of Jesus must have almost at once been a stumbling block in this respect. It was the constant knowledge of these two strikes, not any primary bias against the Jews as such, which is involved in the construction of the Gospel traditions. What would it have served to blame the Jews so promiscuously, as some nowadays make out? Would it not have all the more irked the Roman government to be told that they had been duped by the Jews? The fact was clear: Jesus had been crucified by the Roman government. There is no evidence that the Roman government ever announced that the verdict was in error! 132 See Paulus, Sent. V. 22, 1 =Dig. XLVIII. 19, 38, 2. 133 Origen. adv. Cels. II. 34 (ed. Koetschau, 113-5) is but an example. For apologetic rejections of political interests, Tertullian, Apolog. 38 and Clement, Paedagogus III. 8, 41 are again but examples. For the constant threat of treason, see Tertullian, ad Scap. I and ad Nat. I. 17; cf. T. Mommsen, R6misch. Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899) 569, and W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (New York, 1893) passim. In this respect it might be pointed out that missionaries to outlying districts and countries beyond the pale had, really, an easier time of it.
Page 1 and 2: Barabbas Author(s): Horace Abram Ri
Page 3 and 4: 418 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
Page 37: 452 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
Page 41: 456 JOURNAL OF BIBILCAL LITERATURE

Horace Abram Rigg, Jr. Source: Journal of Biblical ... - YoYo.pl

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?