J. Massyngberde Ford<\/b><\/p>\n
[Dr. Massyngberde is Bernard Hanley Professor in the department of religious studies at the University of Santa Clara, California.]<\/i><\/p>\n
Scholars have always been excercised about the sentence of crucifixion on Jesus and the part which the first century Jews played in this. Most nave argued that this was a Roman punishment and that the gospel writers imposed the blame upon the Jews in order to exonerate the Romans. Not a few arguments rested on the interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:22\u201323 which appears to mean that the condemned person was placed on a tree after death until sunset; probably this was intended to be a deterrent to prevent further crime. Crucifixion does not appear to have been a punishment countenanced by mainline Judaism. Capital punishment was performed by stoning, strangulation, burning and decapitation. There seems to be no specific law about crucifixion but neither is it condemned by Scripture. Thus the gospels have been deemed unhistorical in blaming Jewish leaders for the crucifixion of Jesus, even though they are not only unanimous in stating that Jesus\u2019s own people asked for his crucifixion (Mark 15:13, Matthew 27:22, Luke 23:21, John 19:6) but that they did so even more insistently when Pilate remarked Jesus\u2019 innocence and attempted to avert the punishment (Mark 15:14, Matthew 27:23, Luke 23:23, John 19:15). However, scholarly debate may begin again when the Temple Scroll from Qumran appears in print.1 Some time ago an interesting article by Professor Y. Yadin on a portion of the unpublished Temple Scroll and Pesher Nahum2 appeared in the Israel Exploration Journal,<\/i> Vol. 21 (No. 1, 1971), pp. 1-12. There is a possibility that the Scroll <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 6:2 (Spring 1977) p. 50<\/p>\n
could confirm the historicity of the gospel account. In his article Professor Yadin discusses a portion of the Temple Scroll, which he translates:<\/p>\n
6. …If<\/p>\n
7. a man has informed against his people and has delivered his people up to a foreign nation and has done evil to his people<\/p>\n
8. you shall hang him on the tree and he shall die. On the evidence of two witnesses and on the evidence of three witnesses,<\/p>\n
9. he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree. If a man has committed a crime punishable by death and has run away unto<\/p>\n
10. the midst of the Gentiles, and has cursed his people and the children of Israel you shall hang him also on the tree<\/p>\n
11. and he shall die and you shall not leave their bodies upon the tree in the night but you shall bury them the same day, for<\/p>\n
12. the hanged upon the tree are accursed by God and men, and you shall not defile the land which I<\/p>\n
13. give you for an inheritance. .. .<\/p>\n
In the light of this text he would translate 4Qp Nahum 7\u20138<\/p>\n
7.. .. who hangs men alive<\/p>\n
8. [on the tree as this is the law] in Israel as of old the hanged one is called alive on the tree.<\/p>\n
Professor Yadin observes that in the passage from the Temple Scroll there are two interpolations into the text of Deuteronomy 21 and both specify crimes which are either of a political nature or sacrilegious, for example, cursing the people; both are punishable by hanging. It is Professor Yadin\u2019s opinion that 4QpNahum does not mean to condemn that Lion of Wrath (probably Alexander Janneus) because he punished his Jewish opponents, who invited Demetrius to assist them, by publicly hanging them alive in Jerusalem. This would be the appropriate punishment according to Professor Yadin\u2019s interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:22f as found in the Temple Scroll.<\/p>\n
Professor Joseph M. Baumgarten has argued against Professor Yadin\u2019s interpretation in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature,<\/i> Vol. 91 (No. 4, 1972), pp. 472-481. He avers that the restoration of the text is not \u2018as this is the law in Israel as of old\u2019 but \u2018had never been done in Israel beforetime\u2019. He draws attention to the prevailing view that slb<\/i> is the targumic rendering of tlh<\/i> and that the text of the Targum of Ruth 1:17, which lists hanging on a tree as a form of punishment, refers to strangulation, not crucifixion. He refers to the suicide of Jaqim of Serorot who used the four modes of execution. However, it might be added that the unfortunate man could hardly crucify himself. Professor Baumgarten mentions the <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 6:2 (Spring 1977) p. 51<\/p>\n
execution of eighty women in Askelon, but he refers only to the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud. Thus Professor Baumgarten argues that tlh<\/i> in the Temple Scroll means hanging. Indeed, if it meant crucifixion it would necessitate some extraneous means of hastening death for the Scroll included the requirement of taking the body down before sunset. Professor Baumgarten concludes against Professor Yadin that the Qumran sectarians would abhor the punishment of crucifixion. However, neither his article nor that of Professor Yadin give any consideration to the New Testament texts which should be regarded as primary sources.<\/p>\n
The early speeches of Acts (probably prior to Mark) are representative of the early Christian kerygma. Peter imputes the death (crucifixion) of Jesus to his Jewish contemporaries:<\/p>\n
(i) Acts 2:23: Him, being delivered up, you by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.<\/p>\n
(ii) Acts 2:36: God has made him Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.<\/p>\n
(iii) Acts 3:15: You killed the Prince of life.<\/p>\n
(iv) Acts 4:10: Him (Jesus) you crucified.<\/p>\n
(v) Acts 5:30:. .. Jesus, whom you slew hanging him on a tree.<\/p>\n
(vi) Acts 7:52:. .. of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers.<\/p>\n
(vii) Acts 10:39:. . .whom the Jews slew, hanging him on a tree.<\/p>\n
Concerning these texts one notes (1) that it is the Jews who initiate the capital punishment and (2) the death by crucifixion is expressed in different ways but the verbs which denote fixing to the cross are (a) in the past tense suggesting that the hanging was done before the death and (b) they are not qualified with \u2018alive\u2019 although we know that Jesus was alive on the cross; (c) only one of the texts refers to non-Jews in connexion with the death (Acts 2:23). Acts, therefore, seems to impute the sentence of crucifixion to the Jews and does not suggest at all that this was an unprecedented act. In fact, where Acts mentions the manner of death it shows the same order as the Temple Scroll\u2019s use of Deuteronomy 21:22, first hanging and then death. This illustrates the point which Professor Baumgarten makes concerning Professor Yadin\u2019s article:<\/p>\n
The crucial point which Yadin stresses in his comments on this new text is the twice repeated sequence of \u2018you shall hang him\u2019 followed by \u2018and he shall die\u2019 reversing the order of Deuteronomy 21:22. .. \u2018And he be put to death, (then) you hang him on a tree\u2019.<\/p>\n
When we turn to the synoptic gospels we find that they support the Jewish responsibility for the choice of crucifixion as a mode of <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 6:2 (Spring 1977) p. 52<\/p>\n
execution. In the first prediction of the Passion all three evangelists mention the elders, high priests and scribes (Mark 8:31\u201333, Matthew 16:21\u201323, Luke 9:22). Matthew, more than Mark and Luke, would have tended to modify the statement or place the onus on the Romans in view of his Jewish-Christian audience. Nevertheless in 20:19 he implies that the high priests and the scribes handed Jesus over to the Gentiles with the intention of having him crucified.<\/p>\n
John, in the three texts concerning the lifting up of the Son of Man (John 3:14, 8:28, 12:32\u20134), which are parallel to the three predictions in the synoptic gospels, associates the hanging with the manner of death (John 12:33) and the crowds understand this quite clearly for they are puzzled because they thought the Christ would last for ever (John 12:34). On all three occasions Jesus\u2019 audience comprises Jews.<\/p>\n
In the gospels various charges are brought against Jesus. In Mark and Matthew the accusations appear to be of a religious nature: threatening to destroy the Temple (Mark 14:58, Matthew 26:61) and blasphemy (Mark 14:64, Matthew 26:65). However, in Luke they appear to be more political: \u2018perverting the nation\u2019 (Luke 23:2, 14), stirring up the people (Luke 23:5) and forbidding tribute to Caesar (Luke 23:2). In John the Jews assert that Jesus is a threat to Caesar\u2019s authority (John 19:12, 15). In other words, all the charges fall into the category of those which could be punished by crucifixion according to Professor Yadin\u2019s interpretation of the Temple Scroll (lines 7\u20138).<\/p>\n
There might, however, be another accusation to which Jesus was vulnerable, namely, cursing his people (Temple Scroll line 10). Two of the synoptic gospels record the peculiar incident of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12\u201314, 20\u201326, Matthew 21:18\u201319, cf. Luke 13:6\u20139). The most poignant description is in Mark because the curse seems to form a kind of inclusion which encloses both the cleansing of the Temple and the conspiracy of the chief priests and scribes against Jesus (Mark 11:15\u201319). The curse is mentioned before these incidents and the condition of the tree, dramatically withered to the roots (Mark 11:20), is remarked by Peter (Mark 11:21). Jesus\u2019 answer to Peter concerning both faith and forgiveness is not inappropriate because Jesus found neither of these in the Jewish authorities. Matthew\u2019s record is in only one pericope and the tree withers immediately. Both Matthew and Luke seem to show great reluctance to give their pericopes prominence and John omits the entire episode. Yet originally the cursing of the fig tree may have been an important contributing cause of Jesus\u2019 death. It stands out as the only destructive miracle (save for the Gadarene swine) implemented <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 6:2 (Spring 1977) p. 53<\/p>\n
by Jesus. Perhaps it should be regarded not so much as a miracle but a prophetic sign. The fig tree was symbolic of the people of Israel. In Jeremiah 24 (cf. 29:17) the two baskets of figs which the prophet sees represent the good exiles and the evil people from Judah who stay in the land. However, two baskets are before the Temple of the Lord (Jeremiah 24:1); similarly Mark\u2019s account of the cursing of the fig tree appears to be associated with the Temple. In prophetic literature the withering or unfruitfulness of the fig tree spells impending disaster for the people (Amos 4:9, Joel 1:7, 12, Jeremiah 5:17, 8:13). By cursing the fig tree (the people) Jesus may have exposed himself to the penalties which Professor Yadin finds in the Temple Scroll.<\/p>\n
Further, in the light of this, the words of Pilate in John 18:31, \u2018Take him and judge him according to your law\u2019 and in John 19:6 to the chief priests and officers after his exhibition of Jesus clothed as a king, \u2018Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him\u2019 are understandable. From the fact that Pilate scourged Jesus hoping that this would appease his opponents, it would seem that, in his eyes, the penalty for Jesus\u2019 conduct could be other than crucifixion. When the Jews reply, \u2018We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God\u2019 (John 19 7), they may not merely refer, as commentators suggest, to Leviticus 24:16 but also the the law in Deuteronomy 21:22 as represented by the Temple Scroll. It is noticeable that the first mention of \u2018Law\u2019 is anarthrous, the article with the second \u2018law\u2019 seems to be demonstrative in nature.<\/p>\n
As in many other incidents the evidence of Luke may corroborate John. Luke 23:24 reports that Pilate \u2018gave sentence that their (the Jews\u2019) demand should be granted\u2019. Their demand, however, was specifically for crucifixion, not for another form of capital punishment. Moreover, the Jewish demand for crucifixion explains both Luke 23:25 which records that Pilate delivered Jesus \u2018to their will\u2019, the antecedent in v. 13 being \u2018the chief priests and the rulers and the people\u2019 and in John 19:16b where Pilate hands Jesus over \u2018to them\u2019, the antecedent again being \u2018the chief priests\u2019.<\/p>\n
It would seem, therefore, that in the absence of a standard text of the Hebrew Scriptures in the time contemporary with Jesus some may have used the text of Deuteronomy 21:22 as presented in the Temple Scroll. Jesus\u2019 crucifixion was no isolated case. There is the notorious occasion of Alexander Jannaeus\u2019 crucifixion of eight hundred Jewish opponents (Josephus War<\/i> 1:92\u201397; Antiquities<\/i> 13: 376\u2013383). Further, eighty women from Ashkelon who were charged with witchcraft were executed by Simon b. Shetah. The punishment <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 6:2 (Spring 1977) p. 54<\/p>\n
was death by hanging. The Babylonian Talmud expounds at length on this particular case for some regarded it as illegal because two capital cases may not be tried in one day (Sanhedrin<\/i> 46a). However, the answer is given that it was permissible because it was an emergency and was done not to disregard the Torah but to safeguard it. Then other cases are cited: stoning, not because the culprit was liable \u2018but because it was [practically] required by the times\u2019, and also flogging for the same reason. Thus these cases would show some flexibility in the law. However, Sanhedrin<\/i> 46b may have been written expressly against the practice of crucifixion by the Jews which would presume the practice by some of the co-religionists. The text reads:<\/p>\n
Our Rabbis taught: Had it been written, \u2018If he has sinned, then thou shalt hang him\u2019, I should have said that he is hanged and then put to death, as the State does. Therefore Scripture says. And he be put to death,<\/i> then thou shalt hang him \u2014 he is first put to death and afterwards hanged.<\/p>\n
Professor E. Stauffer in Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesus Christi<\/i> (Bern, 1957), 123\u2013127, contends that crucifixion was practised in the Hellenistic period when Alcimos, the high priest crucified sixty hasidim3 in 162 B.C. (1 Maccabees 7:16, Josepbus Antiquities<\/i> 12:396). He cites 4 QpNahum 2:12ff as an example of this punishment being introduced into Israel. He emphasizes the enormous number of crucifixions in the Roman period. The more one discovers about Judaism of the first century B.C. and A.D. the less uniformity one finds. It is entirely possible that there were different punishments among different groups of Jews. The officials who condemned Jesus may have done so in the same spirit as Alexander Janneus. I do not wish to be anti-semitic or to suggest that more than a handful of first century leaders (possibly with Roman sympathies) condemned Jesus. However, Professor Yadin\u2019s interpretation of the Temple Scroll would seem to strengthen the historicity of Acts, the Synoptics and John (cf. also 1 Thessalonians 2:15: \u2018Who (the Jews) killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us\u2019).<\/p>\n
Finally, the law as presented in the Temple Scroll may elucidate Galatians 3:13: \u2018Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us \u2014 for it is written, \u201cCursed be every one who hangs on a tree\u201d.\u2019 Here Paul clearly associates Deuteronomy 21:22\u201323 with crucifixion. It is not likely that a Pharisee, like Paul, would apply the text of Deuteronomy 21:22 to Roman crucifixion; <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 6:2 (Spring 1977) p. 55<\/p>\n
the curse in Deuteronomy applies to those who transgress the Torah. Christ became a curse by hanging on the tree but, as G. Klein observes, the taluy<\/i> of Deuteronomy 21:23 has a twofold meaning like hupsoun<\/i> in John, namely, \u2018to be hanged\u2019 or \u2018to be elevated\u2019. It is through the Jewish law that Jesus becomes the \u2018end\u2019 (fulfilment) of the same law. The Temple Scroll would seem, therefore, to confirm both the historicity of the gospels and Acts, and Paul\u2019s placing of the death of Jesus precisely within the context of the Jewish law.<\/p>\n
(Reprinted by permission from The Expository Times,<\/i> Vol. LXXXVII, No. 9, June, 1976.).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
J. Massyngberde Ford [Dr. Massyngberde is Bernard Hanley Professor in the department of religious studies at the University of Santa Clara, California.] Scholars have always been excercised about the sentence of crucifixion on Jesus and the part which the first century Jews played in this. Most nave argued that this was a Roman punishment and … Continue reading “\u201cCRUCIFY
\nHIM, CRUCIFY HIM\u201d AND THE TEMPLE SCROLL”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}