Chapter 361 of 404

164 Ant. 20.181.

160 Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; cf. the penalty in Sen. Controv. 5.4, if genuine. So also reportedly Egyptian custom (Diod. Sic. 1.77.2). Diod. Sic. 12.12.2 thus considers particularly merciful a law which merely shames false witnesses so much that they flee a city.

161 E.g., Sus 48-62; m. Ab. 1:9; Sanh. 5:1-4; tos. Sanh. 6:3, 6; Sipre Deut. 93.2.1; 149.1.1-2; 189.1.3.

162 Brown, Death, 458; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 180-83. Greek rhetoric often preferred arguments from probability and internal consistency (which were frequent, e.g., Demosth. On the Embassy 120; Against Pantaenetus 23; Arist. Rhet. 1.15.17, 1376a; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.35.5-6; 11.34.1-6; Jos. Apion 1.219-20, 267, 286; 2.8-27, 82, 148; Life 342, 350; Acts 26:8) to witnesses (see Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 20-21), though the effective testimony of witnesses was nevertheless adequate to convict (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.78.3).

163 E.g., 1QpHab 9.4-5; Jos. Life 216; Ant. 20.181, 206; Test. Levi 14:1.

164 Ant. 20.181.

165 Ant. 20.206. Perhaps Josephus’ literary model was 1 Sam 2:14-16, but the behavior of many Medieval church leaders, not to mention quite a few since that time, confirms the more widespread temptation of sacerdotal power.

166 Life 192-93, 196-98, 216.

167 Ant. 20.163.

168 E.g., Avigad, Jerusalem, 130, citing tos. Minhot 13:21; b. Pes. 57:1.

169 E.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 299.

170 Brown, Death, 1230.

171 Jos. Life 204.

172 Those of rank, like Joseph, would often have had friends aware of plots even if they themselves were not present (cf. e.g., Corn. Nep. 4 [Pausanias], 5.1; 14 [Datames], 5.3). Even the Roman senate’s inner secrets often leaked out, in contrast to the practice of the earliest times (Valerius Maximus 2.2.1a).

173 See Donahue, Christ, 98-99; idem, “Temple,” 62-65; Dewey, “Curse,” 97-100.

174 Schubert, “Criticism,” 401; see pp. 385-402.

175 Also emphasized by Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 466.

176 See b. Sanh. 43a and the discussion in Herford, Christianity, 78-90.

177 Broer, “Death,” 159-60, 163.

178 Jos. Ant. 18.118.

179 Jos. War 6.303-5. For the latter, see also Broer, “Death,” 165-66, who adds also violations of the temple (166-67).

180 Broer, “Death,” 164-65.

181 Harvey, History, 16, citing e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.97; cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51. On delatores, see e.g., O’Neal, “Delation.”

182 Sherwin-White, Society, 47. For even fuller detail, see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 249.

183 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 286; cf. Borg, Vision, 179-82; for the temple cleansing as a Jewish issue, Broer, “Death,” 161, 166-67. Rabbinic attestation of a religious trial of Jesus (Stauffer, Jesus, 225; cf. Herford, Christianity, 78-83) is late and probably derivative, hence we do not admit it as independent evidence; but a Jewish hearing is essential for other reasons such as these. Even Winter, who emphasizes an arrest and agenda set by Romans (Trial, 30, 147), recognizes that Pilate would have expected the high priest’s aides to prepare the case (Trial, 29).

184 Cohn, Trial, 109; Flusser, Judaism, 589.

185 Cf. Brown, Death, 697. Smallwood, “Historians,” concludes that Philo is even more accurate than Josephus when reporting the same historical events (in this case, concerning Caligula).

186 Still despised in a later period, e.g., in Juv. Sat. 10.66, 76, 89-90, 104; Phaed. 3, prol. 41-44; cf. also Brown, Death, 694 on Philo Flacc. 1; Embassy 160-61.

187 Cf. rumors circulating in Lk 13:1 and Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 75. Brown, Death, 695-705 ultimately concludes, as we do, that most of the Gospel portrait fits what we know of Pilate from the other sources once all has been taken into account.

188 Tac. Ann. 15.44; also mentioned outside the Gospels and Acts in 1 Tim 6:13.

189 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 372.

190 The “governor” in Judea in this period was technically a “prefect,” rather than the later term “procurator” as in Tac. Ann. 15.44; the Gospels simply use the general title “governor,” which could have covered either. Literary sources employ the later term “procurator,” but an inscription supports the earlier title (see Brown, Death, 336-37; Evans, “Pilate Inscription,” 804). For the responsibilities of a governor, see e.g., Just. Dig. 1.16.4-13 in Jones, History, 180-83.

191 E.g., Jos. Ant. 18.85. Much of the following section is adapted from Keener, Matthew, 662-67.

192 Philo Embassy to Gaius 299, 302.

193 With Harvey, History, 17.

194 Although the severest form of execution Pharisaic law acknowledged on the basis of the Hebrew Bible was stoning (b. Sanh. 49b-50a), Jewish rulers had used crucifixion before the Roman period. Under Roman rule, however, all official, public executions belonged to the Romans (see Appendix 7). Even the Essenes toned down capital sentences from Moses’ law (CD 12.2-5), while also detesting Gentile executions in the holy land (CD 9.1).

195 Jos. War 2.176-77; Ant. 18.60-62.

196 E.g., Arrian Alex. 6.30.2.

197 Livy 22.33.1-2; Suet. Dom. 10; Cic. Ag. Verr. 2.5.66.169; Sen. Controv. 3.9 excerpts.

198 E.g., Phaed. 3.5.10 (for throwing a stone at a rich man).

199 Stauffer, Jesus, 131. For the outrage at scourging, executing, and (worst of all) occasionally crucifying Roman citizens, see Cic. Verr. 1.5.13; 2.1.3.7-9; 2.3.3.6; 2.3.24.59; 2.4.11.26; 2.5.66.169.

200 Suet. Julius 4.

201 Harvey, History, 12; Overman, Crisis, 380-81, 387; e.g., Jos. War 2.75, 241, 253, 306; 3.321; 5.449; Ant. 20.102. It also appears as a fitting end for other military enemies (e.g., Diod. Sic. 2.1.10; 25.5.2; Jos. Ant. 12.256; 13.380) and for the most horrid crimes (Apul. Metam. 3.9); it was the epitome of a horrible way to die (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 101.10-12).

202 See Jos. Ant. 14.235, 260-61; cf. Jos. Apion 2.73; Acts 18:13-15; Judge, Pattern, 68.

203 Cf. Harvey, History, 17; Sanders, Figure, 274; Borg, Vision, 179; for an impoverished provincial condemned to death without trial, cf. e.g., Apul. Metam. 9.42.

204 Winter, Trial, 54-55, 60; Borg, Vision, 179.

205 Philo Embassy 302; Jos. Ant. 18.88-89; Sanders, Figure, 274. On governors being tried for abusing power, especially executing innocent people (particularly Roman citizens), see Pliny Ep. 2.11, in Jones, History, 192-95.

206 Others viewed this act as misappropriation of funds (Jos. War 2.175-76; cf. Ant. 18.60; The Suda in Sherk, Empire, 75); Pilate, however, probably assumed he followed safe Roman precedent, since public funds were often used for aqueducts and other projects (Frontinus De aquis 2.89-101, 116- 18, in Jones, History, 207; Jos. Life 199) — though not from Jerusalem’s temple. Romans, however, also complained when designated funds in a public treasury were redirected (App. C.W. 2.6.41; Lysias Or. 25.19, §173; 27.7, §178; 27.16, §179; Plut. Cicero 17.2; Caesar 35.2-4); they would have been angriest had he profited himself, which sometimes happened (Catullus 10.7-13). A governor who violated a temple treasury could be banished (Tac. Ann. 14.18).

207 Stauffer, Jesus, 72; Thompson, Archaeology, 308-9.

208 E.g., Cic. Verr. 1.1.2; 1.4.12; 2.3.22.55; 2.3.28.69; Sest. 25.55; many Judean governors as presented by Josephus, e.g., Ant. 20.106-17, 162-63, 215, 253-57; War 2.223-45, 272-79.

209 Cf. Benoit, Jesus, 1:141-42. Some first-century writers complained about societal injustice (e.g., Sen. Ep. Lucil. 95.30).

210 On the consistency of Pilate’s behavior, cf. e.g., Hoehner, “Significance,” 121-25.

211 Jos. War 6.305.

212 See Keener, John, 1106; idem, Matthew, 666.

213 The danger of making a harmless leader into a martyr occasionally even exempted one from scourging (Lucian Passing of Peregrinus 14). The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a suggesting special caution regarding Jesus’ conviction “because he was close to the kingdom” would be a Jewish deterrent but could have actually aggravated Roman hostility. It is, however, probably derived from later debate with Jewish Christians.

214 Philo Flacc. 1.

215 Stauffer, Jesus, 132; Lane, Mark, 556-57 n. 34; Baum, Jews and Gospel, 72; cf. Sherk, Empire, 75-77.

216 This is admittedly at best an unlikely guess, rather than a direct inference from our sources which, unanimously hostile to Sejanus, suggest that most of those who disagreed with him in Rome would have been more circumspect than to say so.

217 See Reicke, Era, 138, 175.

218 Cf. Malina, Windows, 115-16.

219 On the equestrian order, see e.g., Jones, History, 134-40.

220 E.g., Jos. War 2.169-77; Ant. 18.55-62.

221 Philo Embassy 301-2; Jos. War 2.171-74; Ant. 18.59.

222 Philo Embassy to Gaius 304-5. Cf. Jn 19:12.

223 Winter, Trial, 53-54.

224 Blinzler, Trial, 236; Smallwood, Jews, 169.

225 Cf. e.g., Tac. Ann. 2.50; 3.38; Bks. 4-5 passim (e.g., 4.17-21, 30, 60, 66, 69-70, 74; 5.3-6; Dio Cass. R.H. 57.9.2; 57.19.1; 57.23.1-2). Among Romans treason was the greatest crime (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.80.1).

226 Cullmann, State, 46-47.

227 Jos. Ant. 18.89 (though Krieger, “Problematik,” doubts Josephus’ reasons for Pilate’s dismissal).

228 Harvey, History, 17. Historically and socially, one who challenged the status quo of either Jerusalem’s priestly elite or the Romans would likely face such consequences (Hanson and Oakman, Palestine, 94-95).

229 Keener, John, 851-52; idem, “Truth”; Winter, Trial, 37.

230 Bruce, “Trial,” 14; cf. Bammel, “Trial,” 420. I treat this passage further in Keener, John, 1109- 14; idem, “Truth.”

231 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 294; the entire sentence is italicized in the original. A messianic claim could be indictable only if construed as treason (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 55).

232 Cf. Epict. Disc. 3.22.49; Plut. Flatterer 16, Mor 58E.

233 Sen. Ep. Lucil. 108.13; Plutarch Flatterer/Friend 16, Mor. 58E; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.122; see also Cicero Fin. 3.22.75; Horace Sat. 1.3.125 (ridiculing Stoics); Arius Didymus Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88- 89.26-29; 90-91.1-6; Grant, Paul, 30. This rested on their definition of kingship by nature (Musonius Rufus 8, p. 66.13-16, 21-26; cf. Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.14; 4.24-25). Cf. Chrysippus’ approach in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75-76; on Mus. Ruf., see Klassen, “Law.”

234 E.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 36.5.

235 E.g., Plato Rep. 5.472; Cicero Fin. 3.22.75; Quintilian Inst. 2.17.28; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 66.5; Dio Chrysostom Or. 49.4-14; Iamblichus Pyth. Life 27.129; 35.250.

236 E.g., Xenophon Mem. 2.1.6-7; Aristotle Pol. 3.2.5, 1277a; Isocrates To Nicocles 10-11, 29, Or. 2; Plutarch Uneducated Ruler, Mor. 779D-782F; Sayings of Romans, Cato the Elder 8, Mor. 198F; Sayings of Kings, Cyrus 2, Mor. 172E; Dio Chrysostom Or. 62.1; cf. Prov 8:15; Sir 9:17-10:26; the symposium section of Let. Aris.; Sipre Deut. 161.2.1. Many cultures have shared this concern (e.g., Confucius Analects 244-85).

237 E.g., Jos. War 2.306-8; 5.449; Livy 2.5.8; 9.24.15; 10.1.3; 26.40.13; 41.11.8; Polyb. 11.30.2; Cic. Verres 5.62.162; Dion. Hal. 3.40.3; 5.43.2; 7.69.1; 9.40.3-4; 12.6.7; 20.16.2; 20.17.2; Quintus Curtius 7.11.28; App. R.H. 3.9.3; Arrian Alex. 3.30.5; Tac. Hist. 3.77; Lucian Dead Come to Life/Fishermen 2; Klausner, Jesus, 350.

238 Brown, John, 2:874. On forms of beatings, see Rapske, Custody, 124-25.

239 Commentators cite Dig. 18.19.8.3; Cic. Verres 2.4.39.85; Philo Flacc. 75 (see Blinzler, Trial, 222-23). I have borrowed most of the information on scourging from Keener, Matthew, 672-73.

240 Jos. War 2.612.

241 War 6.304.

242 Test. Jos. 2:3; Dig. 47.21.2. For coercitio as part of preliminary examinations, cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 282-83. Josephus adapts such discipline (Life 335).

243 Bruce, Commentary, 445; cf. e.g., Cic. Ag. Piso 34.84.

244 Dig. 48.19.10; 68.28.2; Blinzler, Trial, 222.

245 Stripping before execution was standard (e.g., Polyb. 11.30.1-2; Dion. Hal. 7.69.2; Hdn. 8.8.6; Jos. Apion 1.191; 2.53; m. Sanh. 6:3; b. Sanh. 45a, bar.), as before public beatings (Longus 2.14; Aul. Gel. 10.3.3; Cic. Verr. 2.4.40.86; Herodes Mime 5.20).

246 Plaut. Bacchides 4.7.25; Artem. Oneir. 1.78 in Blinzler, Trial, 222; see also m. Mak. 3:12. One could also be scourged, presumably across the breast, while bound to the cross itself (Dio Cass. R.H. 49.22.6).

247 Apul. Metam. 7.30.154; Codex Theodos. 8.5.2; 9.35.2; Goguel, Jesus, 527; Blinzler, Trial, 222.

248 Klausner, Jesus, 350; Blinzler, Trial, 222.

249 E.g., Hor. Sat. 1.3.119; Cic. In Defense of Rabirius 5.15-16; Brown, Death, 851.

250 Cf. Suet. Calig. 26; Blinzler, Trial, 222.

251 Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 151.

252 Goguel, Jesus, 527.

253 Brown, Death, 852. Because John’s scourging occurs earlier in the narrative’s sequence, some scholars argue that John represents a lesser form of scourging than the form that took place in the Synoptics, perhaps as an inquisition rather than the first stage of execution (cf. Bruce, “Trial,” 15; Blinzler, Trial, 224; Bammel, “Trial,” 440-41, though Blinzler and Bammel go too far in separating this scourging from the crucifixion historically). In any case, the same historical event stands behind them; and the distinctions may well have eluded the Gospel writers’ original audiences anyway (Brown, Death, 851).

254 Johnson, Real Jesus, 120.

255 Dupont, Life, 126-27.

256 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:600. Public abuse of prisoners, even adorning one as a king and beating him, occurred on other occasions; see comment below.

257 Even the mockery at the cross, challenging Jesus to “save,” is plausible as a play on his Semitic name, a common method of mockery (cf. Paschke, “Namen”).

258 See Brown, Death, 877.

259 Commentators cite Philo Flacc. 36-39; CPJ 154, 158; Plut. Pompey 24; Dio Cass. 15.20-21; cf. also Winter, Trial, 102-3; Josephus’s mock funeral (Life 323); those in Alexandria were especially to be expected (cf. Hdn 4.9.2-3). Robbins, Teacher, xxvi, 189 helpfully supplies another parallel from Persian behavior at the Sacian festival (Dio Chrys. Or. 4.67-70), though he lays too much emphasis on this to the exclusion of other parallels.

260 Livy 36.14.4; Corn. Nep. 14 [Datames], 3.1-4; some commentators cite Pollux Onomasticon 9.110; cf. also Hdt. Hist. 1.114; Hor. Odes 1.4.18.

261 For a full survey of games of mockery, see Brown, Death, 874-77.

262 Valerius Max. 1.7.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.69.1; Blinzler, Trial, 244.

263 Jos. Life 420-21.

264 Klausner, Jesus, 353.

265 Cf. Goguel, Jesus, 530-31; Lane, Mark, 562; Davies, Matthew, 197; Brown, Death, 914.

266 John emphasizes instead Jesus carrying his own cross (19:17); although Jesus may have begun doing so initially, John’s descripton fits his theology (cf. his emphasis on Jesus laying down his life, Jn 10:15, 17-18; and remaining in control of the passion’s details, e.g., Jn 13:26; Keener, John, 820, 875, 901, 918-19, 1048, 1053, 1100-3, 1133-34).

267 That Simon was coming in from the “field” (Mk 15:21) cannot mean that he was coming from work — first, work was prohibited on the feast day (Lev 23:7-8) and second, one would hardly finish working in the fields at 9 a.m. The expression may thus mean that Simon had miscalculated his transportation and arrived from Cyrene late for the feast (cf. e.g., Acts 20:16; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 53.1-3; 57.1; though the most difficult travel season — cf. e.g., Acts 27:9; Jos. War 1.279-80; 2.203; 4.499; Ach. Tat. 8.19.3 — had probably ended a month before); more likely, it simply means “from outside the city” (Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 100-1), where he had spent the night, perhaps in a nearby town.

268 Brown, Death, 914 questions whether the Romans would force someone when Josephus says they did not force subjects to break their own laws (Apion 2.73), but this objection lays too much weight on Josephus’ propaganda; Josephus employs legal precedents apologetically (cf. Rajak, “Charter”). Soldiers sometimes abused the right of requisition (Livy 43.7.11; 43.8.1-10; Apul. Metam. 9.39; Herodian 2.3.4; 2.5.1; P. London 3.1171, ILGS 5.1998=SEG 17.755 in Sherk, Empire, 89, 136; P.S.I. 446; Jones, History, 197; Llewelyn, Documents 7:80-85; cf. p. Hag. 2:1, §8). On the Roman administration’s use of local transport services, see e.g., the kanon in Horsley, Documents 1:36-45; most fully, Llewelyn, Documents 7:58-92.

269 Brown, Death, 913.

270 Sanders, “Simon,” 56-57.

271 Cyrene was as much as a quarter Jewish (Jos. Ant. 14.115-18; cf. Apion 2.44; Caird, Age, 21; Brown, Death, 915) and its Jewish community is well-known (Acts 2:10; 11:20; 13:1; see especially Applebaum, Cyrene; Yamauchi, “Cyrene”).

272 Archaeologists have uncovered the grave of an “Alexander son of Simon,” a Cyrenian Jew, near Jerusalem (Lane, Mark, 563). This would fit the Jerusalem-based passion narrative Theissen suggests behind Mark, where Simon’s sons seem to have been familiar (Mk 15:21; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 176-77; some cite Rom 16:13 for Rome). Given the commonness of names like “Alexander” and “Simon” we need not assume that the same Cyrenian is in view, but the tomb at least illustrates the authenticity of the picture of Cyrenian Jews with such names in Jerusalem.

273 Acts 2:5-11; Jos. War 1.253; Ant. 17.254; Safrai, “Temple,” 898.

274 E.g., France, Matthew, 395; Brown, Death, 913.

275 See Theissen, Gospels in Context, 166-99.

276 Happily, most Roman officials initially seem to have understood them as a deviant form of Judaism worshiping someone dead, rather than a political threat (cf. e.g., Acts 25:19, if we do not read this as simply Luke’s apologetic).

277 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11.

278 E.g., Polyb. 2.56.7 (cf. 15.33). See discussion of the method in Quint. Inst. 4.2.113 (on Cic. Verr. 5.62).

279 E.g., Apul. Metam. 3.9; 6.32; Char. Chaer. 3.3.12.

280 Matthew, for example, “disposing of it in a participial clause” (Bruce, “Matthew,” 328). It was established rhetorical practice to hurry most quickly over points that might disturb the audience (Theon Progymn. 5.52-56).

281 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 331-32. Those who complain that emotional involvement would render a witness incapable of reporting true information would have to discount testimony from those involved in war, concentration camps, and so forth (Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 397-98; cf. Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 492-505).

282 Hengel, Crucifixion, 25; see e.g., Apul. Metam. 8.22. Thus positions varied, but for evidence for one probably common position, see Tzaferis, “Crucifixion,” 52-53. Before the Roman conquest, following hellenistic (e.g., Jos. Ant. 12.256) and Persian (Esth 9:25; De Vaux, Israel, 159) practice, Jewish executions had also adopted hanging by crucifixion (e.g., Jos. War 1.97; Ant. 13.380; 4QpNah 1.7-8; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. 11QTemple 64).

283 See Artem. Oneir. 2.56; Plautus Mostellaria 2.1.12-13; Lucan C.W. 6.545, 547; m. Shab. 6.10; Lane, Mark, 564; Jn 20:25; cf. Lk 24:39. Cf. Diod. Sic. 25.5.2 (if pros?lo? here means “nailed,” as it often does); also the skeleton recovered at Givat ha-Mivtar — Bruce, “Trial,” 18, though original reports about the ankle nail(s) have been revised (Stanton, Gospels, 148; Kuhn, “Gekreuzigten”); on the wrists, see Yamauchi, “Crucifixion,” 2; Tzaferis, “Crucifixion,” 52.

284 Artem. Oneir. 2.61; Brown, Death, 870 adds Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.69.2; Val. Max. Facta 1.7.4; Jos. Ant. 19.270.

285 Rabbinic tradition indicates that even most later rabbis allowed men to be executed naked (m. Sanh. 6:3; Sot. 3:8; b. Sanh. 45a, bar.).

286 Some later rabbis explaining the proper way to carry out theoretical executions allowed men a loincloth (m. Sanh. 6:3; Blinzler, Trial, 253).

287 Brown, Death, 870 thinks the Gospels might “reflect a local concession,” noting that Jos. War 2.246 and Ant. 20.136 do not mention Celer’s disrobing; but this would be an argument from silence. (Brown, Death, 953, citing Melito of Sardis On the Pasch 97 in favor of nakedness and Acts of Pilate 10.1 in favor of a loincloth, ultimately doubts that we can know either way.) Nakedness was probably the rule of thumb (in public Roman punishments, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.69.2; in non-Roman executions, e.g., Jos. Apion 1.191; 2.53).

288 E.g., Juv. Sat. 1.71; Plut. R.Q. 40, Mor. 274A; Diog. Laert. 2.73; but contrast Plato Rep. 5.452C; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.24.

289 E.g., Gen 3:7, 10-11; Jub. 3:21-22, 30-31; 7:8-10, 20; 1QS 7.12; tos. Ber. 2:14; Sipre Deut. 320.5.2.

290 Klausner, Jesus, 350.

291 The upright stakes were 10 feet at the highest, more often closer to six or seven feet so that the victim hung barely above the ground, with a seat (sedile) in the middle (Blinzler, Trial, 249; Reicke, Era, 186). Romans could employ high crosses to increase visibility for significant public executions (Suet. Galba 9.1), and given the reed here (Mk 15:36), Jesus may have been slightly higher than usual (Blinzler, Trial, 249); Brown, Death, 948-49, guesses seven feet.

292 Matt 27:37; Lk 23:38; cf. Jn 19:19. The location of the charge identifies the shape of the cross as in Christian tradition, rather than the T or X-shaped crosses also used; mass executions sometimes simply employed scaffolds (on various forms of crucifixion, Brown, Death, 948 cites e.g., Sen. Consol. 20.3; Jos. War 5.451; on the four-armed cross, the crux immissa, Iren. Haer. 2.24.4; Tert. Ad nationes 1.12.7).

293 So even Winter, Trial, 108-9.

294 Jos. Ant. 17.285, 295; Brown, Death, 968.

295 Jos. War 2.443-44; Ant. 17.285; Harvey, History, 13 n. 12.

296 Harvey, History, 13-14; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 173; cf. Acts 17:7. Surely the apolitical Markan community would have been an unlikely source for the invention (cf. Kee, Origins, 120-21).

297 Cullmann, State, 42-43; Reicke, Era, 186; Brown, Death, 963 cite Suet. Calig. 32.2; Domit. 10.1; Dio Cass. Hist. 54.3.7; 54.8; Tert. Apol. 2.20; Euseb. H.E. 5.1.44; cf. b. Sanh. 43a. The posting of the accusation on the cross is not well-attested, either because those describing crucifixion had already mentioned it being carried (Bammel, “Titulus,” 353) or because the practice was not in fact standard, although, given the variations among executions, it is in no way improbable (Harvey, History, 13). Blinzler, Trial, 254, thinks the tablet was “in black or red letters on a white ground.”

298 E.g., Stauffer, Jesus, 140; Gundry, Old Testament, 203; Jeremias, Theology, 189. Boring et al., Commentary, 157-60 rightly contrasts Jesus’ pain here with the standard traditions of glad martyrs (2 Macc 6:18-7:42; Jos. War 2.119-20; b. Ber. 61b), adding that Matthew’s signs, Luke’s psalm of trust (Lk 23:46 citing Ps 31:5) and certainly John work to alleviate some of the starkness of Mark’s portrait.

299 Jesus’ contemporaries recognized in the psalm a plea for mercy (cf. Mek. Shirata 3.75ff, Lauterbach 2:28), which accords with Jesus’ most recent recorded prayer (Mk 14:35-36), a prayer that also fits the criterion of embarrassment (though the likeliest potential witnesses are said to be dozing). “My God” implies continuing trust (Kingsbury, Christology, 130), and Jesus had to know that Psalm 22 went on to declare the psalmist’s vindication (22:22-24; cf. e.g., Meier, Matthew, 349); given the practice of Jewish Scripture citations, Jesus may have even quoted more than the sample preserved (cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 140). Nevertheless, we would expect free invention to have emphasized the vindication, not the note of apparent despair.

300 Perhaps following an early Palestinian tradition that conformed Jesus’ cry to the Targum.

301 Cf. e.g., evidence in Bar-Asher, “Formules.” Nevertheless, this Hebraism had come over into Aramaic. Cf. also the use of “Eli” in Qumran’s hymns.

302 Eliyahu; Jeremias, Theology, 5 n. 2; cf. Anderson, Mark, 346. Matthew’s inference here could be correct (pace e.g., Cope, Scribe, 104).

303 Rabbinic tradition emphasizes that Elijah (who had never died in the OT — 2 Kgs 2:11) would periodically rescue sages in distress or aid them in their needs (cf. b. A.Z. 17b; Taan. 21a; p. Ket. 12:3, §6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; Gen. Rab. 33:3; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 205-6; cf. Bamberger, “Prophet,” 308). Although rabbinic tradition is often later, its congruence with independent gospel tradition here likely suggests its antiquity in this case.

304 Pace Barrett, John, 551. Women relatives were typically allowed, for example, to visit a man in prison (e.g., Lysias Or. 13.39-40, §133).

305 See e.g., Liefeld, “Preacher,” 239-40; Ilan, “Attraction.” With very few exceptions, women could not be disciples in Jewish Palestine (Swidler, Women, 97-111; Keener, Paul, 83-84). Although there were apparently some exceptions in the Diaspora, rigorous training in Torah was apparently normally restricted to boys (Safrai, “Education,” 955).

306 Witherington, Women, 117; Sanders, Figure, 109.

307 On crowds present, see e.g., Morris, John, 807.

308 E.g., Witherington, Women, 94, 187 n. 103.

309 See e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.320 (Israelite society); Hom. Il. 18.30-31, 50-51; 19.284-85; Soph. Ajax 580; Eurip. M. Her. 536; Thucyd. 2.34.4; Cic. Ad Fam. 5.16.6; Diod. Sic. 17.37.3; Dion. Hal. 7.67.2; 8.39.1; Livy 26.9.7; Valerius Maximus 2.6.13; Pomeroy, Women, 44; Dupont, Life, 115. Ancients did, however, expect both parents of a crucified person to mourn (Sipre Deut. 308.2.1).

310 Cf. e.g., Val. Max. 5.4.7 (cited in Rapske, Custody, 247); 9.2.1; Polyb. 5.56.15 (mob action); Jos. Apion 2.267 (on Athenian execution of women); Ovid Metam. 13.497 (among captives; cf. Polyb. 5.111.6, in a camp).

311 Lane, Mark, 576, citing tos. Git. 7:1; p. Git. 48c; Witherington, Women, 94, 187 n. 103; cf. also Sipre Deut. 308.2.1.

312 Crossan, “Tomb,” 152.

313 Brown, Death, 1240; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:647.

314 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:647; contrast Mart. Poly. 17.2. Acts 13:29 can be construed as burial by his enemies among the rulers (13:27) who also sought his execution (13:28), but is summary language; Luke (who offers this summary) also knows of Joseph as righteous (Lk 23:50-53). On the reliability of Mark’s burial story, including the account of Joseph of Arimathea, against Crossan, see also O’Collins and Kendall, “Joseph of Arimathea.”

315 We would therefore question the view attributed to J. D. Crossan (by Ostling, “Jesus,” as cited in Craig, “Rise?” 142), namely that Jesus’ corpse was merely covered with a little dirt and probably eaten by wild dogs (being eaten by birds or dogs was the normal fate of the unburied, e.g., Hom. Il. 11.395; Aeschylus Suppl. Maidens 751-52, 801-2; other sources in Keener, Matthew, 582, 695). This view seems unduly skeptical that Pilate would have accommodated Jewish burial practices, especially if he was not personally committed to affirming Jesus’ guilt.

316 Petron. Sat. 112; Brown, Death, 962, 1208 cites also Phaedrus Fables of Aesop Perotti’s Appendix 15.9; Hor. Ep. 1.16.48. Llewelyn, New Documents 8:1-3, §1, cites a slave left to hang so animals could eat him.

317 See further Jos. War 4.317; Safrai, “Home,” 774.

318 War 4.317.

319 E.g., Gen 23:3-20; 50:12-14, 25-26; Sir 38:16-17; Tob 1:17-20; 2:7-10; 4:3-4; 6:14; 1QM 7.2; Acts 8:2; Jos. Apion 2.205, 211; Test. Job 39:10/7.

320 Soph. Antig. 43-48; Diod. Sic. 20.84.3; Plut. Nicias 6.5-6; Diog. Laert. 6.2.52; Paus. 1.32.5; Char. Chaer. 4.1.3; Philostratus Hrk. 33.33; cf. Plut. Solon 21.1. See further discussion of burials (with numerous other sources, both Jewish and Gentile), in Keener, John, 1157-59.

321 E.g., Hom. Il. 23.65-71; Od. 11.71-76; 21.363-64; 22.476; Eurip. Ch. Her. 588-90; Hec. 47-50; Ph. M. 1447-50; Suppliants, passim; Diod. Sic. 15.35.1; Philostratus Hrk. 19.7; it was necessary to enter the netherworld (Hom. Il. 23.71; Virg. Aen. 6.365-66; Heliod. Ethiop. 6.15).

322 Eccl 6:3; Jub. 23:23; Jos. War 5.514; Sib. Or. 3.643; Eccl. Rab. 3:2, §2.

323 If a Jewish court rather than a Roman one rendered the verdict (cf. Jos. Ant. 5.44; b. Sanh. 47b), Jewish people may have usually buried condemned criminals in a shameful common grave reserved for that purpose (cf. m. Sanh. 6:5; tos. Sanh. 9:8; Daube, NT and Judaism, 311; idem, “Gospels,” 342), which some think likely here (cf. McCane, “Shame,” 452). Jewish custom expected the gathering of the bones to the place of one’s ancestors a year later (m. Sanh. 6:6), meaning that the bones were kept track of even in the “common” grave, not scattered (Brown, Death, 1209-11; cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 209). If one objects that the handing over custom is late, one might suppose the same for the regular use of common graves for the executed.

324 Jos. Apion 2.211; cf. Tannaim in Crane, “Burying.”

325 Jos. Ant. 4.202, 264-65. Honorable burials were, however, important to most people (e.g., Corn. Nep. 10 [Dion], 10.3; Aul. Gel. 15.10.2).

326 The paucity of crucifixion victims in tomb excavations may suggest that the case was more difficult with mass executions (and that the numbers of individuals crucified were a tiny proportion of the population), but the skeleton from Givat ha-Mivtar shows that some were buried. A case where Jewish officials had any input would undoubtedly require burial, if the officials had any concern for demands of the written Torah.

327 Brown, Death, 1240.

328 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:648.

329 To bury Jesus in his own tomb fits the situation of haste and location, but also suggests a special love normally reserved for family members or those equally esteemed (cf. 1 Kgs 13:30-31). Further, archaeological evidence for the tombs in this area may suggest that the tomb belonged to a person of some material substance (Craig, “Rise?” 148; cf. Wahlde, “Archaeology,” 581).

330 Safrai, “Home,” 779-80; among Gentiles, e.g., Stambaugh, City, 197. At least one crucifixion victim shows that such bodies could be released to families or persons with means (Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 123; idem, “Jesus, Literature and Archaeology,” 193), and the gospel story does make sense here.

331 Brown, Death, 1218.

332 Brown, Death, 1230.

333 Joseph may have sought the audience while Jesus was dying, but Mk 15:43-45 sounds as if Jesus expired before Joseph sought permission and Pilate confirmed the death.

334 M. Shab. 23:5. Washing the corpse was standard preburial practice in Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Hom. Il. 18.345, 350; 24.582; Eurip. Ph. M. 1667; Virg. Aen. 6.219; 9.487; Ovid Metam. 13.531- 32; Apul. Metam. 9.30; Acts 9:37), and anointing appears to be frequent as well (e.g., Hom. Il. 18.350-51; 24.582; Virg. Aen. 6.219; Mart. Epig. 3.12; Test. Ab. 20:11A); for ointments in embalming, e.g., Hdn. 4.2.8; Hagner, Matthew, 758 cites P. Oxy. 736.13; Artemidorus 1.5; Gen 50:2 LXX. For the practice in other cultures, see Mbiti, Religions, 329.

335 See Safrai, “Home,” 776-77 for samples of these.

336 M. Shab. 23:5. The Sabbath interrupted various activities that could be resumed after its completion (e.g., 2 Macc 8:27-28).

337 For the use of spices at funerals, see Jos. Ant. 17.199; War 1.673; m. Ber. 8:6; Safrai, “Home,” 776; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 97-98.

338 Cf. m. Sanh. 6:6; m. Pes. 8:8; M.K. 1:5; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 28. On ossuaries in this period, see e.g., Evans, Ossuaries; for a possible contrast between ossuaries and later Christian reliquaries, see McCane, “Bones.”

339 Weeden, Mark, 104.

340 Craig, “Tomb,” 184.

341 Some would regard as relevant here scientific debate surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. On the one hand, the radiocarbon dating seems against it (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 119-20, noting the three independent Carbon 14 tests, each claiming 95% certainty); the colors are known from Medieval artists’ pigments (cf. Thompson, Debate, 238-43, who surveys both sides); and the shroud is first confirmed at a time “when many dubious ‘relics’ were flooding the West” (Meier, “Reflections,” 106; for arguments for the shroud’s earlier history, see Long, “Edessa”; idem, “City”). One also wonders why Jesus’ allies would have put coins of Pilate over his eyes (McRay, Archaeology and NT, 221). On the other, traces of Palestinian plant fibers and early-first-century Judean burial customs could suggest some elements of accurate portrayal (Borkan, “Authenticity,” also noting scientific evaluations regarding the contamination of the radiocarbon sample). Whether or not authentic, the shroud’s details apply specifically to Jesus (Habermas, Evidence, 156-59, 167; Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict). If the Shroud dates from 1260 to 1390 as the radiocarbon tests suggest, it suggests remarkable technology; but the historical case for Jesus being wrapped in a shroud in no wise depends on that shroud’s authenticity.

342 Finegan, Archeology, 213. For information on wrapping in shrouds, see Safrai, “Home,” 777. 343. Test. Ab. 20:10A; Life of Adam 48.1; Apoc. Moses 40.1-3; b. Ber. 18b; cf. white wrappings in L.A.B. 64:6; Gen. Rab. 96:5.

344 The rock-hewn tomb (Mk 15:46) and soil for a garden (Jn 19:41) both fit local topography (Wahlde, “Archaeology,” 578-79).

345 Reicke, Era, 185.

346 Brown, Death, 1280-81.

347 Admittedly evidence for early veneration there is lacking, perhaps because the body was not there (Craig, “Rise?” 148-49, 152; cf. Wedderburn, Resurrection, 63-65, somewhat ambivalently).

348 Tomb architecture changed radically after Jerusalem’s fall (Goodenough, Symbols, 1:84-89), and the skull shape of the Protestant tomb is later than the first century (Brown, Death, 938-39).

349 On the latter, see Brown, John, 2:899; idem, Death, 1279-83; Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 124; McRay, Archaeology and NT, 206-17; cf. Blinzler, Trial, 251-52; Smith, “Tomb”; Ross, “Church”; Riesner, “Golgotha.” On the former, see Frantzman and Kark, “Gordon.”

350 Finegan, Archeology, 164; see further discussion of the tradition in Skarsaune, Shadow, 183- 86; cf. possibly Belayche, “Mont du Temple,” though it probably reflects a minority opinion.

351 4 Bar. 7:13; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 146. This custom was not specifically Palestinian Jewish, hence would also be assumed in the Diaspora (see e.g., Walbank, “Graves,” 250; Stambaugh, City, 194).

352 Jos. Ant. 19.326-27. See e.g., Brown, Death, 1282; Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 123-24; Wahlde, “Archaeology,” 579; cf. Blinzler, Trial, 251-52; for archaeological data, see also the notes in Cornfeld, Josephus, 338-40, on Jos. War 5.148-55.

353 See further Keener, Matthew, 694. John is the least clear of the Gospels on the tomb belonging to Joseph (Jn 19:41-42).

354 For Eusebius’ report (believable in most of its details) that this was among the Judean holy sites desecrated by Hadrian (for whom Jewish and Christian holy sites were probably indistinguishable), see Finegan, Archeology, 164.

355 Talbert, John, 246, cites Euseb. Life of Constantine 3.26; Bordeaux Pilgrim; Cyril of Alexandria Catechetical Lectures 13.39; 14.5, 22; 18.

↑ Back to top