The Role of the Jews By Friday Emma. How Pilate came to be governor or prefect of Judea is important for assessing Jewish responsibilites for Jesus death. With the success of the Maccabean revolt in the mid-second century b.c., Judea gained political independence as well as a powerful protector in Rome. The Romans were called upon not only to protect the Maccabean dynasty from its foreign enemies but also to resolve internal and even family disputes. Herod the Great (an Idumean) married into the Jewish high priestly/ruling family and served as a client king to the Romans from 40 to 4 b.c. On Herods death, the region of Judea was assigned to one of his sons, Herod Archelaus. After ten years of turmoil and rebellion, the Romans decided in a.d. 6 to take more direct control of Judea by appointing a Roman prefect or governor. The most famous of these prefects was Pontius Pilate (a.d. 26 to 36). It was Roman policy to work with local people. When things got out of hand, the Roman armies would intervene with brutal force. But in normal times the Romans relied on local officials to collect taxes and to help keep the peace. And so in Judea it was was natural that there would be Jews who did the Romans bidding. Jerusalem was a pilgrimage site, indeed the pilgrimage center for Jews in the land of Israel and in the Diaspora. Three times a year—at Passover, Weeks/Pentecost and Tabernacles—Jews came in large numbers to worship at the Temple in the Holy City. The pilgrimage trade was a major industry in Jerusalem. The restoration and expansion of the Temple begun as part of Herod the Greats ambitious building prgram was likewise a major industry. To a great extent, all this was overseen by the chief priest and elders of the people in Jerusalem. The pilgrimages brought many people to Jerusalem, and the themes of the great festivals, especially Passover with its commemoration of Israels liberation from slavery in Egypt, could incite nationalistic fervor and even rebellion. And so it was natural that the Roman prefect, whose official residence was in Caesarea Maritima, would come to Jerusalem at Passover, and work with the local officials such as the chief priests and elders to keep things under control. Pilate and the local Jewish leaders had the same goal—to keep the peace. The four Gospels (see Mark 14:53-65; Matt 26:57-68; Luke 22:66-71; John 18:12-14, 19-24) recount a trial or hearing before the Jewish council presided over by the high priest. The Jews who took the initiative in this proceeding were not the opponents of Jesus during his public ministry (the Pharisees) but rather the high priest, the chief priests and the elders—those who had most at stake in the smooth running of the Temple and the peace of Jerusalem. According to Mark 14:53-65, there were two charges made against Jesus: He threatened to destroy the Temple (14:58) and claimed to be the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One (14:61). Although the first charge is denied and the second charge is given an interpretation (see 14:57, 59, 62), there was surely something to these charges. Jesus threat against the Temple fits with his symbolic prophetic action in cleansing the Temple (see Mark 11:15-19) and his prophecies about the Temples destruction (see Mark 13:1-2). For the Jewish leaders, merchants and construction workers whose livelihood depended on the smooth running of the Jerusalem Temple, the slightest (even symbolic) threat against the Temple would have been taken very seriously. Moreover, talk about Jesus as the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One would surely have set off alarms not only among the Romans but also among the Jewish leaders. Both viewed Jesus as another religious-political messianic pretender who had to be dealt with quickly. The kind of language being used about Jesus in some circles alerted them to the danger that he might pose to their power and to the status quo. How effective were the Jewish leaders in getting Jesus killed? The Gospels suggest that the Jewish leaders were the prime movers, and that the Romans only ratified their decision. There are, however, scholars who argue that no Jewish authority was involved in any way. Between these extremes there are mediating positions. One view says that the Romans were the prime movers and that the Jewish authorities reluctantly gave in to pressure from them. The other views states that, even though Jewish leaders were actively involved, the main legal formalities were carried out by the Romans. Two important points emerge: Jesus was killed under Pontius Pilate, and the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem probably played some role in getting Jesus killed. Whatever Jewish responsibility there may have been, it lay with a small group (the chief priests and elders) in a specific place (Jerusalem) and at a specific time (Passover of a.d. 30). Even the saying in Matthew 27:25 (His blood be upon us and upon our children) is best taken as referring to the crowd (us) manipulated by the leaders and to the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 (our children), not to the whole Jewish people for all ages. The official position of the Catholic Church on this matter was clearly stated in Vatican IIs Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (1965): Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. Jn 19:16), neither all Jews indiscrimately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion (#4). Christians today need to be sensitive to the manifest tendency in the Gospels to emphasize the responsibility of the Jewish leaders and to play down the Romans role. One can get the impression that the Jewish leaders manipulated Pilate to pass sentence on Jesus, and that he turned Jesus over to them to be executed. This impression grows as one moves from Mark to Matthew and Luke (who both used Mark as a source). Moreover, Johns Gospel lumps all Jesus opponents under the title the Jews, thus apparently extending Jewish responsibility beyond the chief priests and elders. Such passages need to be read in their late first-century context when Jerusalem had been destroyed and Christians were accommodating themselves to life within the Roman empire. When taken out of that context, these texts can contribute to anti-Judaism and obscure the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewish character of earliest Christianity.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:21:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015