What made Jesus seem so threatening?

[Vouthon]

Humour me, while I tell you a short story...

Once upon a time, in first century Roman-occupied Judea, there was a rural Jewish peasant called Jesus. He went around Jerusalem prophesying the imminent destruction of the city and its temple.

His words and actions aroused the rancour of the Judean priestly class, who - deeming him a blasphemer under some kind of supernatural impulse - arrested Jesus and gave him over to the Roman governor. The Romans flayed him to the bone with scourges and beat him, but Jesus stoically refused to recant his prophetic calling. When the Governor questioned him as to who he was and why he uttered the things he did, Jesus refused to answer him.

And then...the Governor made the magnanimous decision to let him go scot free, considering him but a madman. And four years later, Jesus was sadly killed by a stone launched from a catapult while the Romans were busy besieging the city, his prediction of "a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, woe to Jerusalem!" (unfortunately for him) proven true.

End of story.

Not the ending you were expecting, eh? That's right, because I ain't talking about Jesus Christ.

I just told you the tragic life-story of one Jesus ben Ananias, a plebian farmer who preached four years before the Roman-Jewish war in 66 A.D. and about 30 years after the crucifixion of his infinitely more famous namesake, the Jesus from Nazareth. We know about poor old Jesus son of Ananias from Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (published 75 A.D.). Your welcome to read what Josephus has to say about him below, if your interested:

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-6.htm

The parallels between this Jesus and Jesus Christ are interesting but what is far more instructive is the vastly different treatment meted out to the former by both the Judean religious elite and the Romans. The authorities did not take kindly to his prognostications of doom against the temple, or his unsettling of the people, and yet the outcome of his incarceration-torture was positively restrained compared to that of Jesus Christ.

Why? On the surface they both preached in Jerusalem against the temple. Not the first Jewish apocalyticists to do so, and wouldn't be the last either. What was it about Jesus of Nazareth that made the authorities feel so threatened, that they felt it necessary to execute him under the most severe penalty known to Roman law? The Roman historian Tacitus, when referring to Christ's execution by Pontius Pilate, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44, himself commented on the severity of the punishment thus: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome".

As the New Testament scholar Professor Larry Hurtado has noted in this regard:


Lord Jesus Christ

The outcome of the arrest of Jesus of Nazareth means that he must have been taken as a much more serious threat than the poor wretch described by Josephus, and that probably something more than a disturbance in the temple courts during a tense holy-day period was involved.

​

Why Was Jesus Crucified?

Earlier this week on Radio 4 a well-meaning “thought for the day” presenter opined that Jesus’ problem was that he was just a helluva nice guy up against some mean old religious leaders. They didn’t like his more free-wheeling “can’t we all just love one another” stance, and so . . . they just did him in. But I would say that such a view seriously misrepresents Jesus, the religious leaders, and pretty much everything.

Also, how does such a nice guy as this sort of Jesus manage to get himself crucified?

It’s important to note that Jesus didn’t simply die, he was killed, and not simply killed but executed, and not simply executed, he was crucified (despite the assurances of our Muslim friends to the contrary). We know from other incidents (as, e.g., reported by Josephus) how the Temple authorities and Roman administration treated people who simply caused a disturbance in the Temple, and it wasn’t crucifixion. Flogging, maybe but not crucifixion. The point of crucifixion wasn’t simply to end a person’s life but, much more, to humiliate and degrade to the extreme, to say “See what this guy got? This is what anyone gets who raises his hand against Rome!”

As I’ve put it (in Lord Jesus Christ (esp. 54-56), Jesus rather clearly polarized people over what to make of him. He “quickly became a figure of some notoriety and controversy” (LJC, 55). ​

Professor John P. Meier, the esteemed American biblical scholar and historical Jesus researcher, explained in his book series, The Marginal Jew how:

"...His teaching evinced a style and content that did not jibe with the views and practices of the major Jewish religious groups of his day...

By the time he died, Jesus had managed to make himself appear obnoxious, dangerous, or suspicious to everyone, from pious Pharisees through political high priests to an ever vigilant Pilate. One reason Jesus met a swift and brutal end is simple: he alienated so many individuals and groups in Palestine that, when the final clash came in Jerusalem in 30 AD, he had very few people, especially people of influence, on his side.

The political marginality of this poor layman from the Galilean countryside with disturbing doctrines and claims was because he was dangerously anti-establishment..."(Powell, 130-133)​

So, I ask you: in your opinion, why were the Romans comparatively lenient with Jesus ben Ananias but not Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[VoidCat]

Intriguing.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So, I ask you: in your opinion, why were the Romans comparatively lenient with Jesus ben Ananias but not Jesus of Nazareth?

The answer is clear from the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be both the Son of God and Messiah. For these reasons Caiaphas the high Jewish priest considered Him guilty of Blasphemy and so should be put to death.

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
Matthew 26:62-65

 

[osgart]

The Romans appeased the large Jewish uprising over and against Jesus of Nazareth by executing him. I dont think the Romans were particulary interested in Jesus of Nazareth. Nor did they care one way or the other.

That is how it goes in my bible anyway.

But all i know of it is that the Bible tells the story.

I dont know how Josephus, and Tacitus recorded Jesus of Nazareth. But supposedly he was a real person.

 

[Salvador]

"Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables. Then, going over to the people who sold doves, he told them, "Get these things out of here."..."

 

[Sunstone]

It's the same now as it was then. Jesus was crucified because he challenged the elites and stood up for the common person -- always a sin against both the state and the god of the state.

The only difference between then and now is that back then the elites weren't as bright about it. They'd crucify you, thus making a martyr of you. Nowadays, the elites are much more sophisticated. They use their control of the media to label you an impractical kook, thus marginalizing you to the point you have little or no influence.

 

[Tumah]

Jesus of the NT was cozy with the publicani. A quick google will clarify the relationship between the publicani and local governors.

 

[PureX]

Organized religion, and those who control it, gain power by placing themselves as the gate-keepers between their adherents, and the gods. And they use the power of that position to fulfill their own desires. So that when someone comes along and starts telling their adherents everyone has immediate and equal access to the gods, themselves, the gatekeepers of religion lose their perceived positions of power, and thereby their ability to pursue their own desires. So, of course, they see themselves and being threatened by this spiritual egalitarian, and will seek to silence him/her.

 

[Vouthon]

It's the same now as it was then. Jesus was crucified because he challenged the elites and stood up for the common person -- always a sin against both the state and the god of the state.

Good post, always enjoy your contributions on this kind of topic.

The interesting thing is that a lot of historical Jesus scholars don't think he claimed to be the messiah. Some do, such as NT Wright, Larry Hurtado and Brant Pitre, but many are adamant that the available evidence tilts in the direction that this was the entrenched belief of his followers, rather than Jesus himself.

I have no definite opinion on this either way. Naturally, as a Christian, I'd like to think that Jesus did regard himself as the messiah - but I am fully cognisant that this is by no means a slam dunk from a scholarly POV, such that we have to think about this in more depth.

Given that we cannot guarantee he saw himself as fulfilling messianic prophecies, we have to reckon with the fact that he did something which in the eyes of the powers-that-be was felt to significantly challenge the social order.

The idea that he was a zealot - most recently touted by Reza Aslan - is point-blank refuted by a broad consensus of scholars. It's clear that Jesus did not advocate violent regime change.

But this contention nevertheless gets at a genuine truth - crucifixion was not something the Romans did lightly, even if it was used widely against special classes of prisoners. They may have been an autocratic, elitist and deeply inegalitarian superpower governed by a potent militarism and expansionism but they weren't Nazis. They had laws and - with the exception of the Caesars who were divine emperors above the law - stuck by them pretty well. Such a severe public punishment incurred spend from the already over-stretched imperial purse. As the scholar Professor Bart Ehrman notes:

"If Romans wanted simply to kill someone without a fuss, there were plenty of other means available – for example, beheading. Crucifixion was reserved for special cases...Crucifixion was not merely a death by torture. It was a symbolic statement that WE are Roman power and YOU are nothing. And if you oppose us, we will prove it, by rendering you absolutely, completely powerless, while we wrack your body with pain and make you scream...

Jesus was not executed as a member of the riff-raff, as a slave who committed a crime against his owner, as a lowly criminal from the lower classes...Virtually everyone agrees with that. Jesus was killed on a political charge...This could happen (in Roman eyes) only if there was a rebellion. Rebellions have to be suppressed – and if you’re Roman, they have to be suppressed violently, forcefully, mercilessly...

The crucifixion of Jesus was a forceful and unmistakable demonstration of Roman power. They humiliated him, tortured him, nailed him to a cross so that he couldn’t raise a hand in his own defense, let alone overthrow the ruling Roman authority. It is what Romans did to insurrectionists and prospective insurrectionists, to anyone who opposed their power by proposing to set up their own kingdom.

The humiliation and show of force was not limited to a six-hour (in Jesus’ case, somewhat unusually, if the Gospels can be trusted on this point) torture. To show what Roman power is, the body would be left on the cross, so everyone in that public place could see what happens to anyone who thinks they can cross the power of Rome. There was no quarter, no mercy, no sympathy. "​

In the gospels, we know that Jesus was tried alongside another Jesus - the one with the surname Barabbas, whom Matthew's gospel refers to as a "notorious prisoner" while Mark and Luke further refer to Barabbas as one involved in a στάσις (stasis, a riot), "one of the numerous insurrections against the Roman power" and who had committed murder in the pursuit of this goal.

Indeed, one of the most famous Roman victims of crucifixion was none other than Spartacus - the Thracian gladiator and escaped slave who led an emancipatory revolt against the Romans. The only low-lifes who tended to be crucified were escaped slaves - and they were crucified specifically as a message to any other slaves who might challenge the institution and slave economy by chancing their luck at a taste of freedom.

So, scholars and the rest of us have to ask: what the heck must Jesus have said/done that so upset the authorities? The strong insinuation is that there must have been a political dimension - and a serious one at that. As can be seen from the case of Jesus ben Ananias, the Romans recognised harmless wannabe prophets and apocalypse-mongers when they saw them. They recognised that these types would tend to cause disturbances in the holy of holies in Jerusalem, and they didn't regard these superstitious Jewish ecstatics as much more than a laughable curiosity.

His preaching of a "kingdom of God" - which led the Romans, we presume, to fear that he regarded himself as the 'king' of this kingdom - in which the powerful would be cast down and humbled, while the poor, marginalized and oppressed - including women, prostitutes, lepers, disabled people, children, Samaritans - would be elevated in their stead, seems to have provoked manifest fear.

What's fascinating about this, is that so many have an image of a politically disengaged Jesus. But we have to seriously consider why the likes of Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mahavira and others did not die in their early 30s as condemned seditionists.

Jesus is quite different in this respect from most other religious figures, pardoning Husayn ibn Ali (in Shi'ism) and the Bab (in the Baha'i Faith) who were also murdered as political criminals. And yet, the latter two did engage in actual rebellions against the state that made use of actual acts of forcible resistance - whereas Jesus evidently didn't.

As such, his case is quite unique.

 

[metis]

So, I ask you: in your opinion, why were the Romans comparatively lenient with Jesus ben Ananias but not Jesus of Nazareth?

I believe it's because Jesus talking about the "kingdom" and his turning over tables at the Temple as monarchs don't like competition nor do they want tax revenues to them reduced.

 

[PureX]

My understanding of the story is that Jesus often spoke out, vehemently, against the Jewish high council. And so it was they who presented him to the Romans as a political insurrectionist. And he did, after all, preach that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, etc.,. So technically, he was perhaps speaking as one, but in a spiritual sense, rather than in a practical, political sense. Pilot questions him and finds no real grounds for presuming him to be a threat to the Roman state, but ends up condemning him, anyway, to appease the high priests.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

One point is that you had a different Roman official. Pilate, who crucified Jesus of Nazareth, was obviously anxious about keeping good relations with the Jewish establishment. Albinus was far less disposed to defer to them, especially after their illegal execution of Jesus's brother James.

 

[pearl]

Given that we cannot guarantee he saw himself as fulfilling messianic prophecies, we have to reckon with the fact that he did something which in the eyes of the powers-that-be was felt to significantly challenge the social order.

Both the social and economic order.
Passover in Jerusalem could be a volatile time. Thousands of Jewish pilgrims streamed to Jerusalem from all over the Mediterranean world to celebrate the festival of freedom from foreign domination, but upon arriving they would see many signs of Roman supremacy. The first-century writer Flavius Josephus tells of the regular Roman practice of stationing troops to maintain public order in the Temple precincts (Jewish Wars, 2.12.1). The inflamed mood of the Jewish populace at Passover probably explains why Pilate was in Jerusalem, instead of at his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima, when Jesus entered the city. If, as the synoptic Gospels relate, Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple after his arrival, this would certainly alarm both Jewish and Roman authorities: a Galilean troublemaker might be planning to start a Passover riot. Pilate would want to keep the peace. So would Caiaphas, who could reasonably fear that violence could lead to the destruction of the Temple. With this context of the times we must realize the time difference between the 'event', first stage, and the writing of, third stage, not only has a generation passed, but the accounts we now read are from post resurrection hindsight!

 

[Yerda]

So, I ask you: in your opinion, why were the Romans comparatively lenient with Jesus ben Ananias but not Jesus of Nazareth?

As I understand it the historical Nazarean one was charged with insurrection. When dealing with Rome, that's gonnae get ye strung (or nailed) up.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Humour me, while I tell you a short story...

Once upon a time, in first century Roman-occupied Judea, there was a rural Jewish peasant called Jesus. He went around Jerusalem prophesying the imminent destruction of the city and its temple.

His words and actions aroused the rancour of the Judean priestly class, who - deeming him a blasphemer under some kind of supernatural impulse - arrested Jesus and gave him over to the Roman governor. The Romans flayed him to the bone with scourges and beat him, but Jesus stoically refused to recant his prophetic calling. When the Governor questioned him as to who he was and why he uttered the things he did, Jesus refused to answer him.

And then...the Governor made the magnanimous decision to let him go scot free, considering him but a madman. And four years later, Jesus was sadly killed by a stone launched from a catapult while the Romans were busy besieging the city, his prediction of "a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, woe to Jerusalem!" (unfortunately for him) proven true.

End of story.

Not the ending you were expecting, eh? That's right, because I ain't talking about Jesus Christ.

I just told you the tragic life-story of one Jesus ben Ananias, a plebian farmer who preached four years before the Roman-Jewish war in 66 A.D. and about 30 years after the crucifixion of his infinitely more famous namesake, the Jesus from Nazareth. We know about poor old Jesus son of Ananias from Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (published 75 A.D.). Your welcome to read what Josephus has to say about him below, if your interested:

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-6.htm

The parallels between this Jesus and Jesus Christ are interesting but what is far more instructive is the vastly different treatment meted out to the former by both the Judean religious elite and the Romans. The authorities did not take kindly to his prognostications of doom against the temple, or his unsettling of the people, and yet the outcome of his incarceration-torture was positively restrained compared to that of Jesus Christ.

Why? On the surface they both preached in Jerusalem against the temple. Not the first Jewish apocalyticists to do so, and wouldn't be the last either. What was it about Jesus of Nazareth that made the authorities feel so threatened, that they felt it necessary to execute him under the most severe penalty known to Roman law? The Roman historian Tacitus, when referring to Christ's execution by Pontius Pilate, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44, himself commented on the severity of the punishment thus: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome".

As the New Testament scholar Professor Larry Hurtado has noted in this regard:


Lord Jesus Christ

The outcome of the arrest of Jesus of Nazareth means that he must have been taken as a much more serious threat than the poor wretch described by Josephus, and that probably something more than a disturbance in the temple courts during a tense holy-day period was involved.

​

Why Was Jesus Crucified?

Earlier this week on Radio 4 a well-meaning “thought for the day” presenter opined that Jesus’ problem was that he was just a helluva nice guy up against some mean old religious leaders. They didn’t like his more free-wheeling “can’t we all just love one another” stance, and so . . . they just did him in. But I would say that such a view seriously misrepresents Jesus, the religious leaders, and pretty much everything.

Also, how does such a nice guy as this sort of Jesus manage to get himself crucified?

It’s important to note that Jesus didn’t simply die, he was killed, and not simply killed but executed, and not simply executed, he was crucified (despite the assurances of our Muslim friends to the contrary). We know from other incidents (as, e.g., reported by Josephus) how the Temple authorities and Roman administration treated people who simply caused a disturbance in the Temple, and it wasn’t crucifixion. Flogging, maybe but not crucifixion. The point of crucifixion wasn’t simply to end a person’s life but, much more, to humiliate and degrade to the extreme, to say “See what this guy got? This is what anyone gets who raises his hand against Rome!”

As I’ve put it (in Lord Jesus Christ (esp. 54-56), Jesus rather clearly polarized people over what to make of him. He “quickly became a figure of some notoriety and controversy” (LJC, 55). ​

Professor John P. Meier, the esteemed American biblical scholar and historical Jesus researcher, explained in his book series, The Marginal Jew how:

"...His teaching evinced a style and content that did not jibe with the views and practices of the major Jewish religious groups of his day...

By the time he died, Jesus had managed to make himself appear obnoxious, dangerous, or suspicious to everyone, from pious Pharisees through political high priests to an ever vigilant Pilate. One reason Jesus met a swift and brutal end is simple: he alienated so many individuals and groups in Palestine that, when the final clash came in Jerusalem in 30 AD, he had very few people, especially people of influence, on his side.

The political marginality of this poor layman from the Galilean countryside with disturbing doctrines and claims was because he was dangerously anti-establishment..."(Powell, 130-133)​

So, I ask you: in your opinion, why were the Romans comparatively lenient with Jesus ben Ananias but not Jesus of Nazareth?

Actually, at least one Roman (Pilate) and King Herod wanted to spare Jesus the Christ, but mob rule did him in. Why? Well, two possible reasons:
1. He was the real deal. If he had even a fraction of his power, he would be seen as a legit threat to Jewish authority. There's a resurrection story where they mention Roman officials and Jews colluding to come with a story that the disciples took his body. I want you to think about this. What's more dangerous than a rabble rouser? Someone who convinces ppl death isn't real. If I don't fear death, suddenly I don't fear that spear you're stabbing me with because I rebelled.
2. He was a scapegoat. The Jews envisioned him as some powerful leader who would toss down Rome, and when they saw he wouldn't, they sided with Barabbas. There was a revolt going on and Barabbas was part of it, so the Romans actively wanted a quick end to things, but ppl wouldn't be happy if a potential revolt stopped because their fighter died. Meanwhile, the Pharisees saw him as a convenient way to kill too birds with on stone, get rid of the troublemaker and appease the Romans by appearing to cooperate.