Ha Sido Refutada La Hipotesis de Un Jesus Sedicioso Una Respues PDF

BANDUE
Revista de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones
VII E D I TO R I A L T R OT TA número vii /2013

2013
BANDUE
JUAN ARNAU
FERNANDO BERMEJO RUBIO
ÓSCAR CELADOR ANGÓN
ÓSCAR FIGUEROA CASTRO
FRANCISCO LÓPEZ CEDEÑO
GRECY PÉREZ AMORES
SERGIO POU HERNÁNDEZ
ROBERTO CARLOS RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ
CARLOS A . SEGOVIA
bandue
Revista de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones
Journal of the Spanish Association for the Sciences of Religions
Vii / 2013
E D I T O R I A L T R O T T A
CONSEJO EDITORIAL / EDITORIAL BOARD
D irector / E ditor :
F rancisco D íez de V elasco , Universidad de La Laguna - Tenerife
S ecretaria / S ecretary :
A lmudena R odríguez M oya , Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia - Madrid
C onsejo de redacción / E ditorial C ommittee :

M ontserrat A bumalham , Universidad Complutense de Madrid
F ernando A mérigo , Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia - Madrid
M anuel R eyes M ate , CSIC Instituto de Filosofía - Madrid
J uan L uis P intos de C ea , Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
S alvador R odríguez B ecerra , Universidad de Sevilla
R amón T eja , Universidad de Cantabria
A mador V ega , Universidad Pompeu Fabra - Barcelona
C omité A sesor I nternacional / I nternational A dvisory B oard :

G ustavo B enavides , Villanova University - Estados Unidos
G iovanni C asadio , Università di Salerno - Italia
F lorentino G arcía M artínez , Rijkuniversiteit Groningen - Países Bajos
C harles G uittard , Université de Clermont II - Francia
R osalind H ackett , University of Tennessee - Estados Unidos
E lio M asferrer , Escuela Nacional de Antropología - México
R aimon P anikkar , California University at Santa Barbara - Estados Unidos (†)
B enjamín P reciado , Colegio de México
M ichael P ye , Universität Marburg - Alemania
I nstrucciones para los autores / I nstructions for authors :

Véase al final del volumen y la página web de Bandue /
Please, refer to the end of the volume and the webpage of Bandue:
http://www.secr.es/Bandue
Los artículos de Bandue han sido sometidos a una evaluación externa
y a una revisión académica por los miembros del Consejo Editorial /
The papers of Bandue have been submitted to external blind peer review
and an academic refereeing by the Editorial Board
E dición , administración , suscripciones y publicidad :

Editorial Trotta, Ferraz, 55. 28008 Madrid — Teléfono: 91 543 03 61;
Fax: 91 543 14 88. e-mail: editorial@trotta.es. http://www.trotta.es
© Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones y Editorial Trotta, S.A.
ISSN: 1888-346X
D.L.: M. 35-954-2007
Impresión: Service Point, S.A.

CONTENIDO
Lo que el budismo no es (y lo que pudiera ser): Juan Arnau.................... 5
Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow?

A Systematic Answer to the Doubters: Fernando Bermejo Rubio............. 19
Dimensión institucional, jurídica y constitucional de los Acuerdos

entre el Estado español y la Santa Sede de 1979: Óscar Celador Angón...... 59
«Ocho estrofas sobre Anuttara» (Anuttarāṣṭikā). Plegaria atribuida

a Abhinavagupta: Óscar Figueroa Castro................................................ 83
Claves para una hermenéutica de diálogo entre Averroes y Abenarabi:

Francisco López Cedeño......................................................................... 101
El objeto ausente. Sobre la desdichada objetividad del objeto: Grecy Pérez

Amores................................................................................................... 129
La leyenda de los asesinos. Mito, textos y correlatos a partir de la obra

Alamut de Vladimir Bartol: Sergio Pou Hernández.................................. 147
Historia y Cultura de las Religiones: una experiencia docente:

Roberto Carlos Rodríguez González........................................................ 169
Pablo de Tarso, Israel y los gentiles. El nuevo enfoque radical

sobre Pablo y el cariz judío de su mensaje: Carlos A. Segovia.................. 181
B A N D U E v I I / 2 0 1 3
CONTENTS
What the Buddihsm is not (and what it could be): Juan Arnau................ 5
Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow?

A Systematic Answer to the Doubters: Fernando Bermejo Rubio............. 19
Institutional, legal and constitutional dimensions of the 1979 agreements

between the Spanish State and the Holy See: Óscar Celador Angón........ 59
Eight stanzas on Anuttara (Anuttarāṣṭikā). Prayer ascribed

to Abhinavagupta: Óscar Figueroa Castro............................................... 83
Keys for a hermeneutic of dialogue between Averroes (Ibn Rushd)

and Abenarabi (Ibn Arabi): Francisco López Cedeño............................... 101
The absent object. On the unfortunate objectivity of the object:

Grecy Pérez Amores................................................................................ 129
The Assassin’s legend: Myth, texts and correlates from Vladimir Bartol’s
Alamut: Sergio Pou Hernández............................................................... 147
Historia y Cultura de las Religiones (History and Culture of Religions):

A teaching experience: Roberto Carlos Rodríguez González.................... 169
Reassesing Paul’s Jewishness: Israel, the Nations, and the Radical New
Perspective on Paul: Carlos A. Segovia.................................................... 181
Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist
Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow?
A Systematic Answer to the Doubters
¿Ha sido refutada la hipótesis de un Jesús sedicioso?
Una respuesta sistemática
Fernando Bermejo Rubio

Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Abstract: A large number of objections have been raised against the hypothesis
that the Galilean preacher Jesus the Nazarene was involved in some kind of
anti-Roman seditious ideology and activity. It is usually contended that those
objections have dealt a fatal blow to the hypothesis, to the extent that the over-
whelming majority of scholars take for granted that it is refuted and outdated.
The present article identifies those objections, and systematically argues that none
of them is really compelling. This sobering conclusion challenges deep-rooted
assumptions in the field, thereby providing a further cogent argument for the
view of Jesus as a figure whose message had subversive political implications and
was not ultimately incompatible with violence.
Keywords: Jesus the Nazarene, Roman Empire, sedition, objections, counter-
arguments.
Resumen: Contra la hipótesis según la cual el predicador galileo Jesús el Naza-

reno estuvo implicado en algún tipo de ideología y actividad sediciosas opuestas
al Imperio romano se han esgrimido numerosas objeciones. Suele creerse que
estas han asestado un golpe mortal a la hipótesis y, de hecho, la inmensa mayo-
ría de estudiosos da por supuesto que ha sido refutada y está obsoleta. Este ar-
tículo enumera una veintena de esas objeciones, y argumenta de modo sistemá-
tico que ninguna de ellas es realmente convincente. Esta instructiva conclusión
desafía presupuestos muy arraigados en el ámbito académico, proporcionando
con ello otro argumento a favor de la visión de Jesús como una figura cuyo
mensaje religioso tenía implicaciones políticas subversivas y de que no era, en
última instancia, incompatible con la violencia.
Palabras clave: Jesús el Nazareno, Imperio romano, sedición, objeciones,
contraargumentos.
«Do not find fault before you investigate. First examine,

and then reprove» (Sirach 11, 7)
For Javier Alonso, libre de la metáfora y del mito
BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

20 F e r nand o B e r m ej o Rubi o
The hypothesis that the Galilean preacher Jesus the Nazarene was ac-
tually involved in some kind of anti-Roman resistance is far from being
an idiosyncratic view or a boutade: it is as old as the Leben-Jesu-Forschung
itself, and has been intermittently proposed until today1. Notwithstan-
ding its pedigree, it certainly remains a minority position. Many articles
and books have been written to counteract that view as radical and
misguided, and even as definitely refuted2. Nowadays, the view of a
seditious Jesus is deemed to be outdated by the overwhelming majority
of New Testament scholars. Jesus is, accordingly, generally portrayed as
a politically quiescent religious preacher, who was no threat whatsoever
for the Romans3.
Truth and cogency of arguments, however, have nothing to do with
the number of scholars holding a certain stance. All the less convin-
cing is the force of the majority, when there are very good reasons to sur-
mise that the presence of ideological constraints might be at work. It is
indeed a repeatedly proved fact that in the Christian-dominated field of
New Testament scholarship and the historical study of Jesus, research
is too often distorted by theological prejudices4.
Spurned on by the recent discussion on the authenticity criteria, I
have tackled again this vexata quaestio in a series of forthcoming articles5,
and I have put forward a case defending the idea that the hypothesis of a
Jesus involved in anti-Roman activity is not only not outdated or refuted,
but it is perhaps the best hypothesis ever advanced to account for the text
of the Gospels and to critically understand the historical figure of Jesus.
1. I am deeply grateful to Lena Einhorn, Tobias Hägerland, Ramiro Moar, Josep

Montserrat, and Antonio Piñero, who attentively read an earlier draft of this paper and
kindly made helpful suggestions and critical comments. My heartfelt thanks go also to
Jeff Morgan for his revision and improvement of my text. This article has been written
in the framework of the Research Project entitled «250 años de investigación sobre el
Jesús histórico» (FFI-2009-09316: MICINN-MINECO).
2. The view «was dealt a fatal blow» (McKnight 1999: 229, n. 70). According to
Sean Freyne, there is no necessity to refute in detail the theory of a proponent (Bran-
don) of that view «since there is large-scale agreement that it is far too one-sided, hy-
pothetical and based on unfounded assumptions» (Freyne 1998: 223). This kind of
statement is unfortunately quoted as Scripture by generations of graduate students and
scholars.
3. «His ministry for the Kingdom was devoid of political, i.e., revolutionary inspi-
ration. He had no anti-Roman bias» (Vermes 2003: 401); «The tradition of his words and
works in general do not indicate the slightest interest in changing the forms or structures
of temporal power, in replacing one system of government with another, or in question as to
whether those who ruled were believers or pagans […] Jesus does not question the author-
ity of Rome’s client Herod Antipas […] does not question the authority of Rome’s col-
laborators the Sadducean high-priests […] does not question the authority of the pagan
Caesar» (Bryan 2005: 50-51). According to this author, Jesus’ concerns were not «specifi-
cally anti-Roman any more than they were anti-Jewish or anti-Parthian or anti-anything
else» (Bryan 2005: 51).
4. See Sanders 1985: 23-58; Crossley 2006; Crossley 2008: 173-194; Bermejo
Rubio 2009; Bermejo Rubio 2011.
5. See Bermejo Rubio (forthcoming a, b, c).

H a s t he H y p o t he s i s o f a Sedi t i o ni s t J e s u s B een D ea lt a F ata l B l o w ? 21
I think the arguments can be set forth in a clearer, more systematic and
compelling way than has been made before.
A first key argument is the existence of a recurrent pattern in the
Gospel tradition6. A good portion of this evidence is found in the Passion
accounts: Jesus was crucified, i.e., executed with the usual Roman punish-
ment for slaves and rebellious provincials, and two λῃσταί (not «thieves»,
but probably insurrectionists) were crucified on either side of him; the
titulus crucis was «King of the Jews»; the burlesque nature of the mock-
ing of Jesus by Pilate’s soldiers involves a parody of kingly epiphany;
the consideration of Jesus as a Messiah/Χριστός also entails a politi-
cally charged claim, as illuminated in Luke 23:2: «We found this fellow
perverting our nation»; the fact that a heavily armed party was sent to
seize Jesus secretly and at night strongly suggests that his group was
dangerous; some, at least, of Jesus’ disciples went about with concealed
weapons, as is attested by Luke 22:38.49, and they knew how to use
them (Mark 14:47 and par.). The interesting thing is that there is much
more relevant material throughout the Gospels7, and even in other New
Testament works8.
A second argument is the great explanatory power of the historical
reconstruction of Jesus suggested by that pattern. To start with, the
hypothesis of a seditious Jesus provides the best and simplest expla-
nation for the central event of his execution on the cross, whilst oth-
erwise it becomes an unfathomable conundrum9; and it provides the
most compelling explanation, as it is based on a cluster of converging
6. On patterns of recurrent attestation and their historicity, see Allison 2010: 10‑30;
Bermejo Rubio 2012: 393-399.
7. For instance, the preaching of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God
had an unmistakably political character, and the socio-political nature of the Kingdom is
proved by the disciples’ hopes to receive tangible, this-worldly rewards. The «triumphal en-
try» into Jerusalem was a prearranged action and involved clear political claims. Besides the
violence implied in several sayings of Jesus (e.g. Mark 8:33; Matt 10:34; Luke 12:49),
the final episode in the Temple (Mark 11:15-19 and par.) involves forcible activity of
some sort. According to the disciples’ own statements, Jesus was «the one to redeem Is-
rael» (Luke 24:21). There is evidence pointing to the fact that Jesus opposed the payment
of tribute to Rome. The episode of the Gerasene Exorcism (Mark 5:1-13) seems to have a
political (seditious) reference: the name of the unclean spirit is «Legion» (the Latin loan-
word is used). Seditious overtones are present from the beginning of Jesus’ mythical story
(Luke 1:32.51f.74). Several passages establish a link between the preaching and healing
activities of Jesus and popular uprisings (e.g. John 6:15); and so on. Further elements will
be set forth in the present article.
8. According to Acts 1:6, Jesus’ aim was to restore the kingdom to Israel. Ac-
cording to Acts 5:35-39, the Pharisee Gamaliel compared Jesus and his followers with
Theudas (a sign-prophet) and his movement as well as with that of Judas the Galilean
(a seditionist). The Book of Revelation has preserved the memory of a conception of
Christ as a fierce warrior, and describes the blood rising as high as the horse’s bridle
(Rev 14:20).
9. «The precise reason(s) why Jesus’ life ended as it did, namely at the hands of the
Roman prefect on the charge of claiming to be King of the Jews, is the starkest, most dis-
turbing, and most central of all the enigmas that Jesus posed and was» (Meier 2001: 646);

data. Moreover, in light of this hypothesis, many other pieces of evidence

make sense, whilst otherwise they remain desperately «strange», «en-
igmatic», «very intractable material»10. The remarkable thing is that
the explanation of the extant evidence is thus made in a simple and
unifying way.
A third argument lies in the unsound character of the other at-
tempts to explain away the evidence. If one wonders how the above-
mentioned pattern is accounted for by the scholars believing in a pacific
Jesus, one will easily check that, either the pattern is simply over-
looked —too often, only a small portion of the items I have referred
to is cited or discussed—, or an analysis of each passage is carried out
in order to prove that their apparent meaning must be discounted
and replaced by another interpretation in which any violent and revo-
lutionary meaning has been excised. This procedure does not carry
conviction, not only because it entails an atomizing and compartmen-
talizing approach to the evidence, but also because it systematically
involves strained, even far-fetched interpretations, to the extent that
many passages whose meaning is obvious enough (and even clearer
in light of the pattern) become cruces interpretum. The need of such
convoluted re-readings, always carried out in the sense of a blunt de-
politicization of Jesus’ preaching and activities, makes their reliability
highly suspicious, not to say simply incredible.
The present article enhances the case for a seditionist Jesus by putting
forward a further argument, namely, that virtually every objection
raised against that hypothesis can be convincingly countered. It goes
without saying that some of the arguments leveled against the cham-
pions of the hypothesis are legitimate and contain fair criticisms: I
do not think everything in the works of authors advocating an insur-
rectionist Jesus is valid, all the more so because this view has certainly
sometimes fuelled sensationalistic and whimsical claims. For instance,
there are many idiosyncratic and hardly defensible views in Robert
Eisler’s ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ11, and this is just one example12. As far as I can
see, however, the main objections do not stand up to examination,
either because their claims are dubious, or because they can be proved
unsound. Below I am surveying and answering a whole battery of
them.
«Die Hinrichtung Jesu, die wohl begreiflich wird, wenn er ein Rebell war, bleibt nun ein
völlig unverständlicher Akt sinnloser Bösheit» (Kautsky 1908: 389).
10. This is often recognized —however in a muffled way— in scholarship. See e.g.
Minear 1939. What G. Lampe says on one of those passages can be generalized: «That
the commentators have floundered in a morass of perplexity when faced with this notori-
ously difficult passage is undoubtedly true» (Lampe 1984: 335).
11. Eisler 1929-1930.
12. That Eisler overstated and spoilt his case by pushing his conclusions too far
through idiosyncratic moves is a widely recognized fact; see e.g. Brandon 1971: 48, n. 4.

Objection 1. The hypothesis of a seditious Jesus is the result

of ideological prejudices and/or is sociologically conditioned
It is often contended either that the proponents of the hypothesis of a

seditious Jesus work with aprioristic assumptions13, or that their views are
fatally conditioned, as they reflect «the spirit of the times»14. Both repro-
aches aim, of course, at drawing the same corollary: whoever advances
that hypothesis does not seek the truth in an independent and objective
way, but simply and uncritically reflects his/her prejudices or a fashion
prevailing in radical political circles.
Given that —as I have recognized— bias is often present in New Tes-
tament scholarship, prima facie this is a not unreasonable kind of ob-
jection. Nevertheless, it shows its extreme frailty when one considers
that the hypothesis has been set forth in different epochs and by schol-
ars coming from very different ideological and cultural backgrounds.
Deists (H. S. Reimarus), Marxists (Karl Kautsky), contemporary Jews
(Robert Eisler, Joel Carmichael, Hyam Maccoby, Zev Garber), and lib-
eral historians (Samuel Brandon, Josep Montserrat) have put forward
versions of the hypothesis since the 18th century until the present15. In
the 20th century, even some Christians have —at least partially— clung
to that view16. Therefore its emergence or intermittent reappearance is
not simply due to a passing fashion or a restricted perspective.
In fact, such attempts at discrediting the hypothesis of a seditionist Je-
sus overlook the basic fact that its starting-point is not an aprioristic (po-
litical or philosophical) stance, but an attentive survey of the text of the
Canonical Gospels17. On the one hand, the Gospel accounts are riddled
—not to speak of the purely legendary material— with blatant inconsist-
encies and puzzling improbabilities18, so that any rigorous consideration
13. For instance, Martin Hengel reproached to Brandon that his goal was not «to inves-
tigate, sine ira et studio, but to demonstrate a preconceived opinion» (Hengel 1969: 235,
emphasis original).
14. E.g. Wink 1969: 58; «It is not surprising therefore, at a time of enthusiasm for
the ‘theology of revolution’ […] that Jesus should be represented as a social and political
‘revolutionary’» (Hengel 1969: 231).
15. The anthropologist Marvin Harris also endorsed this view in a famous book; see
Harris 1974: 177-203.
16. See e.g. Pike-Kennedy 1972; Carey 2009: 79-96.
17. This has been clearly stated by Brandon: «Serious ground for doubting the Gospel
presentation is actually provided by that presentation itself» (Brandon 1967: 2). Referring to
the Barabbas episode and the alleged custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover, sus-
pect on several grounds, he writes: «Mark’s presentation of the episode, as we have seen,
is so manifestly absurd that it suggests some explanation other than that of lack of logic»
(Brandon 1967: 4).
18. «Nor is this merely the incoherence of an imperfectly remembered event; the
incoherence is the result of dynamic factors —it is tendentiously incoherent» (Carmichael
19953: 41). For surveys of the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the Passion accounts, see
e.g. Winter 19742: 32, 78-82, 131-134; Brandon 1967: 2-10; Carmichael 19953: 5-29.
Among them, let us remark the following: a) Precisely the person (Jesus) who is portrayed

leads to a critical questioning and a search for a convincing explanation

of the problematic evidence19. On the other hand, as I have already re-
marked, these sources contain a great amount of material pointing —at
least at first sight— precisely to the hypothesis of an anti-Roman Jew,
thereby justifying that it should be advanced and carefully weighed up.
Paradoxically, it is rather in the hasty attempt of depriving that hypothesis
of scholarly respectability where bias and prejudices are to be found.
Objection 2: If Jesus had been an anti-Roman seditionist, we would

have (more) explicit evidence supporting the hypothesis, but that
evidence is lacking or insufficient20
Unfortunately, this objection not only overlooks the recurrent pattern
I have pointed to, but also misunderstands the nature of evidence and the
hypothetical character of any reconstruction21. If the Gospels had contai-
ned an unmistakable call to resistance to Rome and had explicitly and
consistently presented Jesus’ group as a dangerous gang of seditionists,
the hypothesis itself would be utterly superfluous, and scholars advan-
cing it could have spared their efforts. Moreover, the hypothesis of a
as claiming a peaceful attitude is arrested and crucified, whilst the people using a sword
with homicidal intentions (Mark 14:47 and par.) are left unharmed; b) The inhabitants
of an unruly province had been granted the unique privilege of freeing a prisoner at the
whim of a crowd; c) A Roman governor convinced of Jesus’ innocence, instead of setting
him free, leaves his sentence in the hands of a crowd; d) This governor allows the crowd
(the very crowd from which sedition could be most expected) the possibility of releasing
a person accused of sedition and bloodshed (Barabbas); e) The chief priests contrive a
charge of sedition for Jesus, whilst, at the same time, prompt the crowd to ask for Barabbas’
release; f) A Jewish crowd, with extraordinary spite and motiveless hatred, eagerly calls
for Jesus’ crucifixion, and the Jewish authorities are represented as reviling Jesus on the
cross; g) Pilate is unaware of the political implications of the title «King of the Jews»,
to the extent that the Jews must teach him that a claim to be «king» amounted to sedition
against Rome (John 19:12); h) The Jews blackmail Pilate by threatening to report him to
Caesar if he did not execute the Jew Jesus (John 19:12).
19. «Das ist in der Form, wie es hier steht, eine ganz sonderbare Geschichte, voll von
Widersprüchen, die ursprünglich ganz anders gelautet haben muß» (Kautsky 1908: 387).
20. «If Independence from Rome were Jesus’ agenda, it is strange overall that there
is not a single saying attributed to him in any gospel that unambiguously states that agenda»
(Bryan 2005: 46); «Was in seltsamen Widerspruch zu Brandons These steht, wir haben
nirgends den geringsten Beweis, dass er seine Jünger jemals in Guerillataktiken ausgebil-
det habe» (Ryan 1970: 24). «When we turn to the few secure pieces of evidence we can
garner from the historical Jesus’ life, we search in vain for any insurrectionist call to
arms against Rome» (Cohick 2008: 118). «Direct criticism of Roman rule, if any, is no-
where recorded in our Gospels» (Fast 1959: 91).
21. «My interpretation is indeed hypothetical; but so must be every attempt to recon-
struct from the relevant data an intelligible account of how Christianity began. And that,
I must insist, goes also, in a very true sense, for the accounts given in the Gospels them-
selves and in the Acts of the Apostles. For, as I have just endeavoured to show, the earliest
account of the Passion, namely, that in the Markan Gospel, is essentially an apologeti-
cal reconstruction of the events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus, and it is evidently
based upon a selection of traditional information about the event» (Brandon 1971: 56).

seditionist Jesus does not necessarily imply a maximalist view of him as

a sort of army chieftain22; it only implies that his ideology entailed an
anti-Roman stance, and that he was indeed involved in some kind of se-
ditious activity. Finally, the objection does not take into account that in
heavily dominated peoples an art of political disguise takes place (what
James Scott has called «hidden transcripts»); and this means that forms
of resistance are very often expressed covertly and in an indirect way23.
The lack of an open «call to arms» in the Gospels (but Luke 22:36 seems
to be exactly that!) would prove accordingly nothing.
The former objection, in fact, begs the question, as the actual politi-
cal atmosphere of Jesus’ activities has been further altered almost out of
recognition by the agenda of the first Gospel writer, who established
the guidelines to be followed by the other evangelists. In light of the
editing-process, the available material pointing to a seditionist stance has
become a set of disiecta membra, which must be gathered together in
order to produce a recognizable story. Moreover, that process involved
the dropping or erasure of much relevant material, as it is proved by the
fact that several Gospel episodes do not make real sense as they now
stand (the Temple incident and the arrest in Gethsemane being only the
most obvious examples)24. In these circumstances, the claim that the am-
biguity or lack of clarity regarding the Roman rule in the remembered
teachings of Jesus proves that he was not interested in political issues or
that he had a rather otherworldly view of it wholly misses the point25.
Given the obscuring editing-process, the significant thing is not that we
do not have more material, but that we have got indeed so much.
Objection 3: The hypothesis assumes that the Gospel accounts have
been edited in order to drop embarrassing evidence of a seditionist
Jesus, but this has not happened, because if it had been so, the
evangelists would have done a very bad job26
Paradoxically, this objection is virtually the opposite of the former one:
if there it was claimed that there is too little evidence supporting the
22. E.g.: «Jesus then was not a guerrilla leader» (Maccoby 1973: 158).
23. See Scott 1990. «Recent studies of modern peasantries have discerned that ac-
tive protests and movements form only the historically visible small fraction of the far
wider and deeper popular resistance that remains purposely hidden» (Horsley 2003: 53);
see also Horsley 2004.
24. «Wenn erzählt wird, daß einer der Anhänger Jesu bei dessen Verhaftung bewaff-
neten Widerstand gegen die Staatsgewalt leistet, müßte doch wohl auch eine Reaktion der
‘Schar mit Schwertern und Knüppeln’ erzählt werden, denn es ist undenkbar, daß eine
solche Reaktion unterblieb» (Linnemann 1970: 41).
25. This kind of «argument» is found e.g. in Bryan 2005: 47; among many others.
26. «One always wonders why the editors did not remove entirely any such refer-
ences if they were embarrassing to them. Given their historical situation, did they not a
curiously bad job of concealing Jesus’ relation to the Zealots, if indeed they had any desire
to conceal it at all?» (Klassen 1970: 19).

hypothesis, now it is claimed that there is too much: Jesus was not a sedi-
tionist, because if he had really been that, all the embarrassing evidence
would have been suppressed, and obviously this is not the case.
This is, however, an extremely flimsy objection. On the one hand,
there is every indication that some facts about Jesus were too well known
to be denied; there were data so deeply embedded in the tradition that
they could not be easily removed (the crucifixion between λῃσταί27, the
fact that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, the saying on the swords,
and so on)28, even if they were indeed embarrassing —that is why much
of this material has been clearly retouched in order to conceal its dan-
gerous nature29.
On the other hand, as we have seen, it is the recurrence of the items
that allows us to build a strong case for a seditionist Jesus, but many
of the items have been kept in just one of the New Testament writings, so
the passages in each work do not seem so embarrassing, as they are not
so abundant. Moreover, these passages are surrounded by much material
not characterized with revolutionary overtones, what makes those pas-
sages not so «dangerous»30. In fact, the job done by the evangelists was
pretty good, as it is shown by the Wirkungsgeschichte and the history of
the interpretation: a revolutionary Jesus is not the first impression got by
a first —or even a second— reading of the texts. It is necessary to make a
careful, critical survey and to carry out a painstaking historical reconstruc-
tion to tie up the loose ends and to discern a seditionist Jesus behind the
appearances (which do indeed present a very different image of him).
Objection 4: One-sidedness is a fatal shortcoming of any hypothesis

of an anti-Roman Jesus, as far as it overlooks the religious and ethical
dimensions of Jesus’ message and personality31
Although it is true that some scholars advancing the view of a seditio-

nist Jesus tend to downplay the relevance of his teaching, most of them
do not deny in the least the primarily religious nature of his personality,
27. Tacitus’ reference to the crucifixion (Annales XV. 44) testifies to the fact that it
was still remembered in Roman official circles in the early second century. Referring to
the «Feuer- und Schwert-worten», Eisler stated: «hätte man diese Worte sicher endgültig
getilgt — wenn man es gewagt hätte, d. h. wenn sie nicht zu sicher als echt bezeugt, als
echt empfunden worden wären» (Eisler 1929-1930, II: 254).
28. «The Gospel-writers were following the outline of an older Gospel. To twist this
Gospel to a new meaning required courage of a kind; sometimes their nerve may have
failed them. This would explain why the bones of the old narrative can sometimes be seen
jutting out uncomfortably from the body of the new» (Maccoby 1973: 188).
29. So Eisler: «Tatsächlich sind sie, wenn auch nicht einhellig gestrichen, so doch im
Lauf der Zeit so weit als möglich abgetönt worden» (Eisler 1929-1930, II: 254).
30. For a more detailed treatment of these issues, see Bermejo Rubio (forthcoming c).
31. «Brandon compromet sa thèse par le caractère unilateral qu’il lui donne. Si Jésus
a été ce que’il nous dit, il n’a pas été que cela. C’est tout l’Évangile qui témoigne que Jésus n’a
pas seulement été le Messie juif qui a voulu restaurer la royauté de Dieu dans la Palestine

or the fact that he often spoke to the people on spiritual and moral to-
pics, thereby accepting that he was more than a «mere seditionist»32. Hen-
ce the objection is misleading, because a seditionist framework for Jesus
is, by definition, just a framework, not the whole picture. People enga-
ged in nationalistic resistance need not be monomaniacs, so it would be
silly to think that one could reduce all in Jesus to his anti-Roman stance.
We should realize that the hypothesis does not seek to call into ques-
tion many well-assured results of Jesus Research, as the fact that he was an
apocalyptic and charismatic preacher, with a fame of exorcist and healer,
deep religious convictions and a spiritual commitment to his tradition (in
fact, the above-mentioned «pattern of recurrence» included references
to all these aspects); and, the other way around, his role as a preacher
does not preclude at all a seditious stance. This is to be expected, because
religion and politics were inextricably linked in first-century Judaism,
and to the Jews «national liberty was not just a matter of politics; it was
also of great spiritual significance»33. As other holy men in Jesus’ age, he
was able to do many things and address multiple concerns34.
Therefore, unlike the Markan Jesus himself and the scholarly tradi-
tion seem to imply35, there is no contradiction at all between being a
διδάσκαλος and being a λῃστής36. On the contrary, it was precisely the
intensity and seriousness of Jesus’ religious beliefs what led him to an
opposition which caused his death sentence by the Roman governor.
A last remark is in order. Given that there are thousands of books de-
voted to the spiritual dimensions of Jesus’ teaching and activities, it verges
on the unfair to blame those scholars focusing on political issues —which
are avoided by the overwhelming majority— for not tackling the whole
occupée par les idolâtres […] Réduire le procès du Christ à un épisode de la résistance
antiromaine en Palestine, c’est dénaturer radicalement les données historiques les plus sû-
res» (Daniélou 1968: 118); «Disastrous onesidedness» (Hengel 1969: 235).
32. See Brandon 1967: 17, n. 4. He states that Jesus’ activities were motivated by his
desire «to prepare Israel spiritually for the advent of the Kingdom of God» (Brandon 1967:
342). Others remark that Jesus’ preaching and parables «raises him from the status of a
blood-and-thunder ‘end-of-the-world’ revivalist» (Maccoby 1973: 154); «He was no or-
dinary rebel, either, but a Prophet with a lofty vision […] he was a King-Messiah […] At
the same time, he was a Rabbi» (Maccoby 1973: 209).
33. Maccoby 1973: 24.
34. See Anderson 1994: 70-72.
35. Mark 14:48-49. «Jesus of Nazareth was not in any sense of the word a λῃστής.
He was no revolutionary, prompted by political ambitions for the power of government;
he was a teacher» (Winter 19742: 69); «The entire teaching material which is attributed
to Jesus points away from his being a revolutionary in a way that would actually have
threatened Rome. Either the evangelists have not only invented the Jewish trial scenes,
but also an enormously rich body of teaching material, while completely hiding Jesus’
true views, or he was no revolutionary in the political sense of the word. The latter seems
overwhelmingly the more likely hypothesis» (Davies-Sanders 1999: 670).
36. Let us recall the case of the two great Torah teachers (σοφισταί) who encouraged
their disciples to cut the Roman eagle down from above the Temple gate as Herod lay dying
(Josephus, B.J. I 648-651); and Judas the Galilaean is also called a σοφιστής (B.J. II 118).

range of topics which are typical of the endless literature on the Galilean.
Paradoxically, one-sidedness could be blamed on those scholars rejecting
the hypothesis, as they do not take seriously into account the evidence
and arguments on which that hypothesis relies.
Objection 5: Jesus could not be a seditionist since in his age

there was complete peace in Judaea37
It is well-known that, according to Tacitus, «sub Tiberio quies», but it is

striking that this global statement is used to refuse a priori the presence
of any subversive action in a period lasting several decades; unfortunately,
this amounts to gross oversimplification38. Of course, it is quite possible
to exaggerate the intensity and the extent of the spirit of revolt during
the time of Jesus39, but the truth is that it is also possible to minimize it.
On the one hand, Tacitus’ statement can and should be understood
only in a relative way: in comparison with armed insurrection in various
regions, including Galilee, in the age of Sabinus and Varus, and the gen-
eral uprising leading to war in 66 c.e. (and even the risings of Theudas
and the Egyptian in the 40s), Tiberius’ age seems to have been relatively
peaceful, but the qualification «relatively» is necessary. As to Josephus,
although he does not refer to important upheavals or crucifixions in
this epoch, one should be cautious about using an argumentum ex silen-
tio, which carries relatively little weight. Josephus’ silence is not conclu-
sive: it may merely mean either that his sources did not supply him with
definite information or that he did not think it essential to record all the
riots and petty rebellions that broke out from time to time. The fact that
Josephus fails to give any clear and concrete evidences of the activity of
liberation movements between the time of Judas’ attempted revolt in
6 c.e. and the reign of Agrippa I (44 c.e.) does not mean that they did
not exist40. Josephus implies the existence of a connection between Ju-
37. See Barnett 1975; Giblet 1974; Guevara 1985; Fast 1959: 53-54.
38. As Jonathan Price put it, «Pilate’s stormy term (26-37 [?] C.E.) belies Tacitus’
famous judgment that ‘under Tiberius all was quiet’ (Hist. 5.9.2); the problem was a lack
of information even in Tacitus’ day, although five serious disturbances under Pilate alone are
recorded in sources Tacitus did not consult. Pilate’s immediate predecessor, Valerius Gra-
tus, deposed four high priests, indicating perhaps a lack of calm already before Pilate’s
arrival» (Price 1992: 6). Among the disturbances under Pilate, let us notice Pilate’s attack
on the (armed) Samaritans at Mount Gerizim (36-37 c.e.). Besides, Josephus attributes the
arrest and subsequent execution of John the Baptist to Herod Antipas’s fear of an uprising;
political terminology is embedded in the reference to John: στάσις, μεταβολή and the phrase
τί νεώτερον, an euphemism used to designate a rebellion (A.J. XVIII 118-119).
39. Some scholars maintain the view of a Palestine filled with persistent political un-
rest and protests, movements, and outright revolts against the imperial Roman order (see
e.g. Horsley 2003: 13, 35, 53-54; Maccoby 1973: 125, 147).
40. According to Josephus (B.J. II 118; A.J. XVIII 4), Judas «caused the people to re-
volt (εἰς ἀπόστασιν)», and was the founder of a sect (σοφιστὴς ἰδίας αἱρέσεως). Presumably, this
sect and its ideas did survive, since the circumstances which gave rise to it remained. More-

das of Galilee’s activities and claims, and the Jewish War41; but whatever
Josephus’ «Fourth Philosophy» called itself, this sect survived, continued
its opposition to the Romans, and was led by his descendants.
On the other hand, the Gospels themselves give the lie to that alleged-
ly idyllic picture: they make mention of Galileans «whose blood Pilate
had mingled with their sacrifices»42, mention an insurrection (στάσις) in
Jerusalem about the time of Jesus’ arrival (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19), and
some of them refer to other crucified men along with Jesus as λῃσταί43.
In these circumstances, the claim that Jesus’ age was completely peaceful
and calm is manifestly unfounded.
Objection 6: Jesus could not advocate any kind of violent resistance
against the Empire because he thought God was in charge,
so any human activity would be superfluous44
Admittedly, the assumption entailed in this objection is probably correct.

It is plausible that Jesus thought that the arrival of the kingdom was in
over, Josephus states that the ideas of Judas and Saddok were enthusiastically received by the
people: «When they heard their appeals, responded gladly (καὶ ἡδονῇ γὰρ τὴν ἀκρόασιν ὧν
λέγοιεν ἐδέχοντο οἱ ἄνθωρποι), the plot to strike boldly made serious progress» (A.J. XVIII 6).
41. At the beginning of the 18th book of his Antiquities, the Jewish historian uses the
metaphor of sowing and «planting the roots» (ῥίζας ἐφυτεύσαντο) in order to establish
the relationship between this «fourth philosophy» and the ominous events which later took
place for the Jewish people, including the destruction of the Temple (A.J. XVIII 8-10).
Even if Josephus did not apply the term «Zealots» to the opponents of the Romans before
the revolt, when he came to the events of the revolt itself he made a descendant of Judas of
Galilee, Menahem, the leader of the Zealots; in Massada, the leadership was held by Elea-
zar ben Jair, another descendant of Judas. Moreover, the two sons of Judas were crucified
by Tiberius Julius Alexander in about 46 e.c. (A.J. XX 102), so presumably the resist-
ance went on in Jesus’ age.
42. Luke 13:1-3. Pilate’s action could repress an insurrectionary movement: «Es kön-
nte freilich vielleicht auch irgendein früherer Zeloten-Aufstand gemeint sein» (Bultmann
19708: 57). In Luke 13:4 there is also a reference to «those eighteen upon whom the tower
in Siloam fell». Robert Eisler associated the falling of the tower of Siloam with the massacre
of the Galileans, by arguing that the fall of the tower was not a natural calamity but a mili-
tary operation. Other scholars have found this conjecture plausible (see Wood 1956: 263).
43. Mark 15:27; Matt 27:38. In a non-published paper («A Shift in Time: Parallels
between events depicted in the New Testament and later events depicted in the writings
of Josephus»), Lena Einhorn has advanced the idea that several parallels among the Jewish
historian and the Gospels (and Acts) suggest a deliberate time shift in the New Testa-
ment narratives, so the Jesus story should be dated in the mid-40s to early 50s and Jesus
would be possibly identical to the messianic leader Josephus calls «the Egyptian». I re-
main, however, unconvinced by her bold arguments.
44. «In the thought of Jesus this political hope and this idea that political measures
were necessary in order to bring about the establishment of the kingdom appear to be
completely absent. For Jesus, the kingdom was not a political order whose realization
could be furthered by political manipulation and aggression. Neither was it an idealistic
social or economic order which men by their own efforts could evolve or establish […]
It was God’s supreme gift to man and its coming was in the Father’s own hands [Luke
13:32] » (Fast 1959: 86); Fredriksen 2000: 244; among others.

God’s hands, that it would not be established by human might, and

accordingly that the dirty work of crushing the Romans and their colla-
borators would be God’s (or his angelic hosts’) task. Accordingly, he did
not need to work for the overthrow of the existing political system.
The objection itself, however, is too simplistic. The belief that the
coming of the kingdom depended on God’s will does not imply that hu-
man beings should be completely passive. That belief did not preclude Je-
sus from thinking that they had a role to play and that they must prepare
its coming by their efforts45. At least for Jesus, it required a wholehearted
personal commitment to the will and purpose of God (Mark 8:34-35;
10:29-30; Luke 14:33; according to Matt 6:24, nobody can have two
masters). God’s will at least led to Jesus’ harsh denunciation of the au-
thorities, protests against attitudes that were out of harmony with the
spirit of the kingdom, violent action in the Jerusalem Temple at Passover,
the collaboration of a good number of disciples and something related
to carrying swords. A convincing explanation for the extant evidence
seems to be that Jesus, believing in the imminent eschatological mani-
festation of God in the decisive turning-point of his (last) visit to Jeru-
salem, hoping that God would intervene in order to establish his kingdom
there and then, made his followers ready for the upcoming breakthrough.
This is understandable in light of the Jewish prophetic literature, for the
prophets had said that at the end of time there would be a final battle
and one should be prepared for it46. Significantly, there are other exam-
ples of contemporary Jews leading an apparently only spiritual-oriented
life and opting out of practical politics, who nevertheless envisaged a fi-
nal real-life battle which would result in the defeat of the pagans: several
Dead Sea Scrolls (the so-called War Texts) depict the preparation for the
eschatological battle(s)47, thereby indicating that the Qumran commu-
nity expected the angelic hosts to fight along with them against the
45. About Judas Maccabeus, who was preparing for the battle, is told: «for he knew
that it is not by arms, but as the Lord decides, that he gains the victory for those who deserve
it» (2 Macc 15:21). Significantly, Josephus offered divergent reports about the Egyptian
prophet, whose conquest of Jerusalem was expected to occur through military action ac-
cording to B.J. II 261-263, but through divine intervention according to A.J. XX 169-170.
46. Joel 4:9-10. The prophecy of Zechariah, on which Jesus seems to have particularly
relied (see Zech. 9:9 for the colt; Zech. 14:21 —«And there shall no longer be a trader in
the house of the Lord of hosts on that day»—), states that the location of the eschatological
miracle would be the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:1-5), and that the Lord of Hosts would
raise up the sons of Zion to do battle against the heathen forces.
47. On these texts, see Yadin 1962; Duhaime 2004. Duhaime considered the possi-
bility that Jews drew on some version of the War Scroll for inspiration during the Jewish
Revolt, although he ultimately backed away from any attempt to connect the Scroll to
actual combat because of its ritualism and heavy reliance on supernatural power. Steven
Weitzman, however, has argued that the War Scroll’s focus on ‘strengthening the heart’
was not so impractical after all, and that this writing «can be plausibly read as offering
a perfectly rational plan of action at least by the standards of rationality adhered to by the
foes against whom Jews were fighting in this period» (Weitzman 2009: 239).

enemies of Israel, at whose head stands a nation called «Kittim», assisted

by Belial and the powers of darkness under his authority48. In fact, the
congregation seems to have ended up fighting against the Romans, who
destroyed the community’s settlement as they swept through Palestine
during the First Jewish-Roman War.
Furthermore, the objection does not take into account that several
proponents of the hypothesis of a seditionist Jesus explicitly assume that
Jesus seems to have thought that the coming of the kingdom depended
on God’s will49. This fact further proves that the objection is not a neces-
sary corollary of that assumption.
Objection 7: It is not right to speak about the Anti-Roman activity

of Jesus because his target seems to have been the priestly caste,
the religious and political ruling class in Judaism50
Admittedly, according to Mark, Jesus’ primary conflict was with the high-
priestly rulers in Jerusalem, and it is highly probable that Jesus included
the Jerusalem elite among the «unrighteous rulers» whom God will judge.
The objection, however, presents two weak points. The first one is that
it blithely downplays or overlooks the fact that at least a part of the evi-
dence (the crucifixion, the mocking by the soldiers, the issue of the tribute
with the reference to Caesar —and, in Luke 20:20, to the governor—, the
titulus crucis, the mention of a cohort in John 18:351, the comparison of
Jesus’ movement with that of Theudas and the Egyptian in the Book
of Acts…) unmistakably points to a conflict with the Romans. Interest-
ingly, both the saying about «taking up the cross» (Mark 8:34‑35; see
Matt 10:38/Luke 14:27), and John 11:47‑50 imply a direct connection
between choosing Jesus’ way and a violent Roman intervention. This
48. See e.g. 1QM; 4Q491-496. On the non-pacifist stance of the Qumran commu-
nity, see Batsch 2004.
49. «Jesus was first and foremost an apocalyptist: he believed in the miraculous char-
acter of the coming salvation […] Again and again he described its sudden, miraculous ap-
pearance» (Maccoby 1973: 157-158).
50. See e.g. Hengel 19762: 346, n. 3 (Jesus’ attack was addressed «nicht gegen die rö-
mische Oberherrschaft sondern gegen die religiös und politisch herrschende Schicht im
Judentum selbst»). See also Blinzler 19694: 75f.
51. The term «cohort» (σπεῖρα), which according to the Fourth Gospel is the force
responsible for arresting Jesus, appears in Mark 15:16 to describe the set of soldiers who
mock Jesus. Quite a few scholars opt for the historicity of the Johannine picture: «La ten-
dance philoromaine étant, dans le quatrième Évangile, plus accentuée encore que dans les
Synoptiques, il est impossible de supposer que la cohorte et le centurion ont été introduits
dans le récit par Jean» (Goguel 1932: 453). See also Cullmann 1970: 49-50; «It is likely
that the editor exaggerated the strength of the detachment and the rank of the officer in
command of the troops, but not that he freely invented the report of Jesus’ arrest by the
Romans» (Winter 19742: 61, n. 4). It is much easier to imagine why other Gospel writers
would have dropped it. See also Bond 1998: 197.

is all the more revealing because our sources seem to have been deeply
interested in muffling as far as possible the clash between Jesus and the
Empire.
The second problem is that resistance to Rome is not only expressed
in the above-mentioned items, but also in the (historically reliable)
criticism towards the chief priests. Given that the attitude of the high
priests was one of political pliancy rather than of resistance —the
high-priest owed his appointment to the governor and was in fact little
more than a tool in his hands—, outraged national feelings would be
directed in the first place against the indigenous supporters or collabo-
rators of the invading power, perceived as quislings by those longing for
freedom. It is therefore most natural that a nationalistic patriot would
have turned against them with even more vindictiveness than against
the Romans themselves. The fact that Jesus pronounced God’s judgment
on the Jewish and Jerusalem rulers is understandable in the light of the
fact that they were the face that the Roman imperial order presented to
the people of Palestine. Therefore, an attack against them implied an
attack against the Romans themselves. This indirect action has also been
a typical procedure of certain twentieth century anti-colonial movements
(e.g., the Mau Mau in Kenya or EOKA in Cyprus), and in fact that was
a well-known behavior in First Century Palestine: the Sicarii targeted
privileged power-holders of their own society who were collaborating
in imperial rule, rather than the alien rulers themselves52.
Objection 8: Jesus’ disciples had no relationship with Zealotism
It has been often proposed that the nicknames of several of Jesus’ disci-
ples —«Qananaios»/«Zealot», «Barjona» and «Iskarioth»— betray their
belonging to anti-Roman resistance53. Other scholars, however, have ar-
gued that those etymologies do not hold (and even that they might be
anachronistic)54, thereby denying the existence of a relationship of the
disciples with political rebels. From here they conclude that a seditious
stance in Jesus’ group must be excluded.
Nevertheless, this objection overlooks further Gospel evidence. Even
if the proposed etymologies of the nicknames of Simon and Judas were
52. «Insofar as Roman imperial rule in Judea worked through the high-priestly
rulers in the Jerusalem Temple, moreover, the Sicarii may have thought they were also
striking symbolic blows against the empire» (Horsley 2003: 43).
53. See respectively Mark 3:18/Luke 6:15-Acts 1:13; Matt 16:17; Mark 3:19, 14:10
and par. See e.g. Brandon 1967: 203-204, 243-245. «These disciples retained their Zealot
nicknames even after joining Jesus, which suggests there was no fundamental disparity be-
tween Jesus’s aims and those of the militant Zealots» (Maccoby 1973: 159). The presence
of Zealots in the disciples was also held by Cullmann 1961: 9-12; Cullmann 1970: 22-23.
54. Hengel 19762: 55-57; Morin 1975; Brown 1994: 1413-16; Mézange 2000;
Bockmuehl 2004: 65-66; Taylor 2010.

wrong (and this is still a debatable matter), the violent disposition of at

least some disciples chosen by Jesus is well attested in the tradition. The ti-
tle «Boanerges», «Sons of Thunder», given to James and John (Mark 3:17),
strongly suggests a rowdy reputation. Whilst «Boane-» may represent
bĕnē, the Hebrew word for «sons of», the rest of Mark’s transliteration
seems to come from a word for «excitement» (rgz), for «commotion» and
«anger» (rgš), or for «quaking» (r‘š)55. In any case, it probably hints at
negative aspects of some prominent disciples, and particularly to the
hot temper of the sons of Zebedee, which will be later significantly
displayed in Mark 9:38, and more harshly in their desire to resort to
violence against a village of uncooperative Samaritans (Luke 9:51-56).
This last point is highly significant, especially when the information
about several of Jesus’ followers —precisely those three who are portrayed
as his most intimate companions—56 giving the undertaking to die with
him is taken into account: Peter (Mark 14:29.31/Luke 22:31‑33) and the
Sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:38-39). Such an offer seems to make sense
only in a seditious atmosphere.
Be that as it may, it would be a gross mistake to assume that anti-
Roman violent resistance was restricted to groups such as Zealots and
Sicarii57. Biblical models as Phineas and Elijah were influential in shaping
the resistance to direct Roman government, in which resistance a promi-
nent figure was Judas of Galilee; but there is no evidence that this sect
organized all the resistance to the Romans58. Even if one assumes that
Jesus’ disciples had no connections with organized anti-Roman groups,
this fact by itself proves accordingly nothing.
Objection 9: Jesus was deeply different from his disciples, and any
violence conveyed in the Gospels should be attributed only to them
Since, as we have seen, there are hints in the tradition at the violent
proclivities of some disciples, a very frequent device consists in drawing
a systematic and neat dividing line between the disciples —who could
be sometimes aggressive and short-sighted— and an utterly pacific Jesus,
who appears to be beyond their violent logic and unconnected with ex-
ternal turbulences59.
55. On the Hebrew and Aramaic words from which «Boanerges» may have been de-
rived, see Rook 1981.
56. See Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; cf. 13:3.
57. Let us note that the Zealot party played only a minor role in the war against Rome.
58. See e.g. Smith 1971: 18.
59. This device is all-pervasive in Christian quarters, but it is also found in e.g. the Jew-
ish scholar Paul Winter. He recognizes that several sayings exemplify the political concern of
the disciples (19742: 193), and that «the little group that gathered around Jesus clearly had
political-revolutionary tendencies» (196). But he adds: «Yet they do not prove anything
about Jesus himself […] All the same, as Jesus was crucified on the ground of a charge of tu-

Admittedly, Jesus was a charismatic preacher who seems to have had

a strong personality and some idiosyncratic views, so one can surely as-
sume that there were differences between him and his disciples (just as
there were probably differences within the group of his disciples them-
selves). Several problems arise, however, when it comes to establishing
a yawning chasm. Jesus was the leader and master of his group, and it was
he who commanded and gave orders, so his guidelines must have been
followed. And it was he indeed who chose the group which became
his discipleship, who held them as his disciples along his public life, and
who sent them to preach as missionaries in his name60, so he must have
checked that they were not too obtuse61. This means that there must have
been continuity between the ideas of the master and those of his disciples
during his lifetime. To think otherwise means attributing to Jesus a degree
of lack of realism which does not fit what the tradition recounts of him.
Moreover, although only the disciples are portrayed as carrying and
using swords, it was Jesus who uttered the sayings on taking the cross,
on bringing a sword on the earth (Matt 10:34), and on acquiring swords
(Luke 22:36), and it was he who nurtured their hopes to become leading
figures in Israel (Matt 19:28). It was he who, according to the sources,
provoked an incident in the Temple entailing forcible activity, and who
had royal ambitions. To claim that political aims and violence only
concerns the disciples is extremely unlikely from a psychological and a
historical point of view62. In fact, that claim seems to depend on the theo-
logical myth of Jesus’ uniqueness.
Therefore, what the disciples wanted and did must have agreed, at
least in general terms, with Jesus’ own goals and expectations. This means
that, if the disciples waited for an integral redemption of Israel, Jesus
must have expected it too; and that, if they were armed with swords and
eventually used them, violence was not ultimately incompatible with
Jesus’ view63.
mult or sedition, his activities must have had a political aspect for some people even before
his death had taken place. But this does not in any way mean that he himself put forward
political claims, or asserted his messiahship, i.e., his vocation to become Israel’s ruler
[…] The sayings in Acts 1, 6; Mt 19, 28 and Lc 19, 27 are evidently ‘Gemeindebildungen’ […]
they in no wise afford information concerning Jesus himself» (193, emphasis original).
60. See e.g. Mark 6,7-12; 9, 14-18; Luke 9,1-10.52; 10,1-17. The principle of the
disciple being like the master (Matt 10,24-25; Luke 6:40; 10:16: «Whoever listens to you
listens to me»; John 13:16; 15:20) must have been in effect, so that to join in Jesus’ ministry
implied repeating to some extent what he proclaimed; see Riesner 1981: 453-475.
61. See the perceptive remark by Irenaeus of Lyon: «Why did the Lord send the twelve
apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, if these men did not know the truth?» (Adv.
Haer. III 13, 2).
62. «If Jesus had been leading a nonviolent revolution he apparently selected a non-
cooperative group» (Buchanan 1984: 247).
63. The attribution of misunderstanding to the disciples appears in the Gospels
themselves —e.g. in the so-called Markan «messianic secret» (which has the disciples not

Objection 10: Jesus’ message was innocuous,

but it was misunderstood in a political sense64
The idea that Jesus was misunderstood, both by his followers and other
contemporaries, is often maintained in the field. It partially overlaps with
the former objection, but it is more wide-ranging: Jesus would have been
misinterpreted not only by his disciples, but also generally by his other
contemporaries, especially by Pilate. This «explanation» has been used
e.g. to deny that Jesus held an apocalyptic outlook, but particularly to
counter the obvious implications of Jesus’ crucifixion by the Roman
power: Jesus would have been a harmless man, but was tragically mis-
construed.
Surely no one doubts that different sectors of Jesus’ audiences reached
different conclusions about him65, but the idea of an overall misinterpreta-
tion becomes implausible through even a cursory scrutiny. To start with,
such a claim might perhaps be convincingly argued if we had only a few
items of the above-mentioned pattern at our disposal. In the light of
so many pieces of evidence pointing to a seditionist Jesus, however, a
systematic misunderstanding is exceedingly unlikely.
Furthermore, this claim assumes either that Jesus’ message was es-
pecially complex, or that he was a total failure as a teacher, or both.
Nevertheless, there is no ground for accepting in the least any of these
assumptions. On the one hand, the preaching of the impending kingdom
of God and the ethical teaching of a Galilean craftsman do not seem to
have been particularly intricate, sophisticated and abstruse so as hav-
ing been misunderstood66, especially if Jesus was uneducated and did not
hold scribal literacy67. On the other hand, even discounting some of what
the tradition said about an exalted Jesus, the image of him conveyed by
the evidence is that of a skilful preacher and communicator, not that of
a slow man, unable to transmit his message.
As to the contention that Jesus was misunderstood by Pilate, this could
be plausibly made if we only had the fact of the crucifixion at our dis-
grasping the truth about Jesus before Easter); see also e.g. John 12:16—, but there is eve-
ry indication that it is, to put it bluntly, a blatantly apologetic device.
64. «Seine Verurteilung wegen Zelotismus ein Justizirrtum war. Das Wesen seiner
eschatologischen Einstellung wurde von den Heiden nicht verstanden und konnte von
ihnen wohl auch nicht verstanden werden» (Cullmann 1970: 51; see also 48f, 54); «Im
Hinblick auf die römische Besatzungsmacht darf man von einem politischen Mißver-
ständnis im unmittelbaren Sinn reden» (Kuhn 1982: 735). For many other examples, see
Allison 2010: 155, n. 557.
65. See Luke 11:53-12:1; 13:17; John 7:47-52.
66. It should not be ruled out that the idea of a misunderstood Jesus is conditioned
by the belief in his special ontological nature, or a projection onto his message of the sub-
tleties of the Christian theological thinking.
67. The conclusion of a recent careful monograph on the topic is that Jesus most
likely did not hold scribal literacy, but managed to convince many in his audiences that
he did (Keith 2011: 26, 187-188).

posal. Nevertheless, we have got a lot of further evidence: Jesus had been
preaching a coming kingdom, made royal claims —and made them also in
Jerusalem at the delicate period of Passover—68, opposed the payment of
tribute69, was surrounded by a group of men armed with swords70, ready to
use them (and perhaps he also organized some disturbance at the gates
of Jerusalem and in the Temple implying forcible activity, in which case
things would have been even worse). In light of the whole evidence, I find
the argument based on Pilate’s misunderstanding to be utterly implausi-
ble71: it can be rather considered an objection mounted from desperation,
and forwarded only to allow many scholars to discount texts and evi-
dence which have quite embarrassing implications for their views of Jesus.
Objection 11: Jesus was not a seditionist, as he enjoyed freedom

of movement in Galilee, and was only arrested after some time
of activity in Jerusalem72
It is undoubtedly true that, according to the available sources, Jesus was

not killed by the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. The problem with this ob-
jection lies, however, in the fact that «freedom of movement» enjoyed by
Jesus in Galilee must have been, at best, rather restricted, as the scholars
advancing this objection must avow. The Gospels witness a consistent,
antagonistic relationship between Jesus and the tetrarch Herod Antipas73,
who —according to the convergent witness of Josephus and the Gos-
pels— killed John the Baptist, was keeping a watchful eye on Jesus and his
followers, and «would fain kill» Jesus74. Jesus feared Antipas —the face
that the Roman imperial order presented to the Galilean people— and
68. On this point, see the careful arguments in Allison 2010: 233-240.
69. On this aspect, see infra, Answer to Objection 14.
70. See Mark 14:47 and par.; Luke 22:36.38.49.
71. This is also the reason why I do not consider the comparison with the Baptist’s
fate convincing. Perhaps Antipas (according to Josephus) let John be executed only be-
cause he hypochondriacally feared that the Baptist’s entourage would become dangerous,
but there is every indication that Pilate had serious reasons to act.
72. «The relative freedom of movement Jesus enjoyed» in Galilee «denotes that he
did not organize a band of Roman resisters» (Cohick 2008: 130); «Antipas never arrested Je-
sus, nor […] did he ever try to halt his mission […] what would he have done with some-
one actually claiming to be the Messiah? Jesus would have been executed long before
reaching Jerusalem» (Fredriksen, 2010: 216-217). Let us notice that Cohick speaks about
«relative freedom of movement».
73. Jesus disparagingly called him «that fox» (Luke 13:32), and warned his disciples
about him (Mark 8:15). «The reed shaken by the wind» of Matt 11:7 might have been an
ironic reference to Antipas (see Theissen 1989: 26-41). In Q 9:58, Jesus seems to have used
veiled allegory to refer to Antipas (the «fox») and the elites of Sepphoris.
74. Luke 13:31. Antipas must have been perceived as a client ruler, not only because
he was brought up in Rome and owed his position to the beneficence of the Roman over-
lord, but also because he walled Sepphoris and Beth Ramtha, renamed them in honor of the
Imperial House (Autokratōr, Livias/Iulias respectively), and built Tiberias in honor of Tiberius.

repeatedly fled from him75. Therefore, the fact that Jesus was not killed
by the tetrarch proves nothing: it is highly probable that Antipas did not
kill Jesus simply because he did not manage to do it76. Furthermore, if
Jesus did not lead a whole army, but rather a small band of followers
—and it is precisely that which the sources recount—, he would have
more easily passed unnoticed.
As to the relatively late arrest in Jerusalem —assuming that our
sources are to be trusted—, it can be explained in several ways. Once
one discounts the hagiographic nature of the Gospels, which are prone
to tell about crowds hailing Jesus77, it is rather probable that Jesus’
followers and supporters could pass unnoticed for a time (especially if the
narrated events took place in the Passover period, when Jerusalem was
overcrowded). Besides, several passages in Mark describe preparations
and Jesus’ activities in Jerusalem which presuppose secrecy and caution,
clandestine connection with supporters within the city, and even the use
of some kind of password78. In light of all this, the fact that Jesus’ arrest
did not take place immediately, even if he was carrying out seditious
preaching or activities, becomes quite understandable.
Objection 12: Jesus could not endorse an anti-Roman stance, because

he clearly rebukes violence in the episode of the arrest, according to
Matt 26:52-5379
The idea of a pacific, harmless Jesus, whose conception of the kingdom

was purely apolitical, is very often grounded in Matt 26:52-53, where
Jesus is depicted as scolding one of his disciples for resorting to arms.
75. See Mark 6:31f; 6:45; 6:53; 7:31; 8:10.22.27; 9:2.30.33; 10:1. «There are in-
dications that Antipas was an active enemy from whom Jesus was compelled to flee […]
The Markan, and hence the Synoptic, outline of the career of Jesus can most naturally
be seen as a chase and flight. The itinerary of Jesus can, in its broadest outline, be ac-
counted for as a flight from Antipas» (Tyson 1960: 239-240). Interestingly, many scholars
try to downplay the obvious implications of that flight; see e.g. Hoehner 1972: 201-202;
«No drastic action was taken» (Freyne 1998: 223).
76. Strangely, this possibility is also contemplated in passing by Fredriksen 2000: 165.
77. On the probably rather modest size of the crowd accompanying Jesus’ entry, and
the probability that it did not attract Roman attention, see e.g. Kinman 2009: 411‑415;
«Perhaps the event took place but was a small occurrence which went unnoticed. Per-
haps only a few disciples unostentatiously dropped their garments in front of the ass
[…] while only a few quietly murmured ‘Hosanna’» (Sanders 1985: 306).
78. See Mark 11:1-6; 11:11.19; 14:12 ss. «The statement […] that, on the day of
the triumphal entry, Jesus had gone into the Temple, and having ‘looked round about on
all things’, left without comment or action, is curious. Was περιβλεφάμενος πάντα an act
of reconnoitring for action on the morrow?» (Brandon 1967: 9, n. 4).
79. Cullmann calls this passage «das Wort, das alles Zelotentum verurteilt» (1970: 24).
«If we can take Matt. 26:52-53 as authentic dominical utterances […] Jesus dissociated
Himself absolutely from political zealotry» (Black 1984: 293). Jesus «refused to strike a blow
in defense, either of Himself or of His cause, and […] did not even allow others to strike a
blow in His behalf» (Fast 1959: 102). See also Klassen 1970: 17.

Either scholars claim that the passage is authentic and proves that Jesus
rebuked violence, or they assert that it faithfully reflects Jesus’ renun-
ciation of violence80.
A basic problem lies in the fact that we are not sure in the least that
the utterance containing a quasi-proverbial saying —«Put your sword back
into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword»—81
really comes from Jesus. In fact, Mark records no response on Jesus’ part
to the disciple’s act of resistance, which indicates that the utterance
of Matt 26:52 might be a later interpolation; it is hard to believe that
Mark would have overlooked that rebuttal in such a crucial moment, so
there are good reasons to think that the sentence is a pious addition82,
aimed at countering the scandal of Jesus’ impotence83.
But even assuming, for the sake of the discussion, that the sentence
comes from Jesus, it is not necessarily a «pacifistic» utterance. As Brandon
rightly observed, it is obviously untrue as a general statement, insofar as
experience teaches that the compensatory justice contended in it does not
always happen84. Moreover, the sentence does not entail a general rejec-
tion of violence; in fact, it could convey a mere opportunistic pragma-
tism: it would make sense if pronounced in a context in which a leader
realizes that any armed resistance would be doomed to failure, for in-
stance due to the overwhelming superiority of the opposing forces85.
Therefore, the widespread claim that this passage supports the image of
a non-violent Jesus is unwarranted.
Matt 26:53 has Jesus saying that he could call down «more than
twelve legions of angels» to bring him aid. Although this passage does not
enjoy multiple attestation, I will accept its authenticity for the sake of the
discussion. Admittedly, Jesus rejects the assistance of angels, but the mere
fact that he envisages the possibility to command angelic armies is quite
significant by itself. Moreover, the actual rationale for not resorting to
violence significantly lies here only in that such option would frustrate
the divine plan (Matt 26:54: «But how then should the scriptures be ful-
filled, that it must be so?»), not in a rejection of violence as such86. In
80. According to Martin Hengel, these sayings «zwar spätere Ausmalungen, geben aber
die Intention des Gewaltverzichts Jesu grundsätzlich richtig wieder» (Hengel 1974: 18-19).
81. See Rev 13:10. The saying in Matthew is probably a quotation from Targ Is 50, 11;
see Kosmala 1960.
82. «Rhétorique édifiante» (Guignebert 1969: 478); see Brandon 1967: 306-308.
83. «The verse resolves the scandal of the Son’s impotence —it is, in accordance with
the resignation of Gethsemane, voluntary —and makes him a moral model: the pacifistic
Messiah eschews holy war» (Allison 2004: 486).
84. Many scholars, however, consider the saying as a valid and general law on violence.
85. The history of the interpretation (e.g. that of Luther and other Reform thinkers)
confirms this point.
86. For perceptive comments on this passage, see Puente Ojea 1992: 83-84: «El Na-
zareno está manifiestamente formulando aquí, no una condena incondicionada de la vio-
lencia (que aparece como entrevista y no excluida a priori mediante el envío de guerreras
legiones angélicas, al modo esenio), sino más bien la exigencia de que se cumplan las pre-

fact, given the extent of the distortion operated in Jesus’ tradition, we

should not rule out several possibilities: that Jesus hoped the angels
would join him, but not at that moment; or that Jesus did indeed hope
the angels would join him, but somebody decided that he did not87.
There are many scholars who, while assuming that the exact word-
ing of Matt 26:52-53 may be secondary, think that the passage in fact cap-
tures the allegedly pacifistic attitude of the historical Jesus. The problem
is that such radical non-violence and harmlessness seem to be nothing
but aprioristic claims88, whose reliability is radically called into question
by quite a few pieces of evidence —the episode of the driving out of the
money-changers, the sayings in Matt 10:34, the counsel to his disciples
to acquire swords (Luke 22:36), the armed resistance in Gethsemane,
and so on—89. Jesus’ message does not seem to have been incompatible at
all with violence90. In fact, his alleged pacifism seems paradoxically to be
the result of a literary campaign aimed at disguising the real reasons of
his crucifixion91.
Objection 13: The message of «love of enemies» (Matt 5:38-48)

puts Jesus beyond the political antagonisms of his age92
This typical objection to any hypothesis of a seditious Jesus was already

countered by Robert Eisler almost a century ago, by arguing that there
visiones proféticas —las cuales han sido, a su vez, manipuladas para legitimar ex eventu
un desastre inesperado».
87. Elsewhere in the Gospels we have denials of what may well have happened. For
instance, Luke 19:11 suggests that the disciples (but not Jesus) were wrong as they ex-
pected the kingdom to appear at once. According to John 21:23, Jesus did not say that
the end would precede the death of all his disciples (but this contradicts Mark 9:1). These
texts seem to be secondary rationalizations, thereby lacking historical plausibility. Maybe
Matt 26:53 is the same sort of thing —somebody remembered or preserved a sentence which
revealed that Jesus hoped that the angelic hosts would join him, but that person thought
that it could not be true, and tampered with it in such a way that it meant the opposite. I
owe this suggestion to Dale Allison (personal communication by e-mail, October 1st 2012).
88. See e.g. Green 2001: 96. The alleged «harmlessness» of Jesus is restated time and
again by Fredriksen 2000.
89. As even some Christian scholars avow, an analysis of the evidence shows that Je-
sus «zu Gewaltanwendung kein prinzipiell negatives Verhältnis hat» (Berger 1996: 127a).
90. As Maccoby wrote: «Any money-changer on whose shoulders Jesus’s whip
descended would be justified in regarding Jesus as an odd kind of pacifist. Are we to
understand that Jesus was a pacifist only towards Romans, and not towards Jews? […]
Clearly Jesus was not a pacifist at all» (Maccoby 1973: 144).
91. It is Brandon’s thesis that Matthew and Luke «elaborated the Markan portrait of
Jesus into that of the pacific Christ, which became the established tradition of Christianity»
(Brandon 1967: 285). Moreover, the thesis of a Jesus involved in some kind of anti-Roman
resistance and who was not a pacifist does not imply that his aim was war as such or that he
was an especially bellicose man. Undoubtedly, Jesus probably longed for an age and a state
(the «Kingdom of God») where violence and human conflict would be definitely wiped out.
92. Cullmann 1970: 24; Hengel 1970: 20-22; Bryan 2005: 53f; Balz 1970: 32;
Merkel 1984: 143-4; Klassen 1970: 21.

are several reasonable answers. One of them is, put simply, that religious
visionaries are not usually consistent93. Such an answer, however, is ad-
mittedly easy, and it can be used in the most diverse ways. Another one
is that, if one finds a contradiction between Matt 5 and —for instance—
the sayings about the swords, and decides to drop the latter as secondary,
then one could also, and maybe with better reasons, to drop the saying
on love to enemies as secondary and inauthentic94.
Another —more convincing— possibility for explaining the whole
evidence is to state the idea of a spiritual evolution in Jesus95. There are
two interrelated reasons to think so. Firstly, Jesus appears to be a sedi-
tionist most clearly in the closing stages of his life96. Secondly, such as
Eisler remarked, texts as Luke 22:36 seem to witness a shift in Jesus’
attitude97. This idea is all the more reasonable because there are several
Gospel passages indicating that, as the decisive moment in Jerusalem ap-
proached, Jesus underwent some critical situations and adopted serious
decisions.
A further possibility lies in not finding contradiction at all between
Matt 5:38-48 and an anti-Roman stance98. In fact, the two closing antith-
eses of the Sermon on the Mount have been interpreted as making sense
not (or not primarily and specifically) in the political realm, but rather
in a context of local social interaction, and more probably in conflicts that
would have been related to the economic difficulties of communities
which are disintegrating precisely because of the rigorous taxation by
Roman client rulers, so indirectly because of Roman imperialism99. If this
reading is correct100, the «love of enemies» saying would not be addressed
to political enemies, but would paradoxically express a form of resistance
to oppressive foreign rule through constructive social relations charac-
terized by mutual assistance and a spirit of solidarity101.
93. Eisler 1929-1930, II: 257 (see also Sanders 1998); «Millenarian prophets are con-
sistently inconsistent» (Allison 2001: 91).
94. Eisler 1929-1930, II: 256.
95. This possibility was endorsed by Eisler 1929-1930, II: 259-266.
96. «Die Gewaltsamkeiten im Wirken Jesu häufen sich anläßlich seines Kontaktes
mit Jerusalem» (Berger 1996: 119a).
97. «Hier ist zunächst deutlich die Zeit der ersten Aussendung der Jünger von einem
‘jetzt’ (ἀλλὰ νῦν) unterschieden» (Eisler 1929-1930, II: 267).
98. See Puente Ojea 1991: 89-94; Piñero 1993: 289-293.
99. «Jesus addresses conflicts rooted in such economic pressures with the principle
‘Love your enemies’. From the context indicated in the content of the ensuing focal instanc-
es we can see that local conflicts are addressed, not relations with Roman soldiers, who
would not have been on the scene as an occupying army in any case» (Horsley 2003: 118).
100. «Whether it can be transposed to the social or political realms is a matter of on-
going debate» (Harrington 1991: 88).
101. «Instead of imitating the imperial patterns in which ‘great ones’ wielded power
over others, those who would provide leadership must become servants of others. The
renewed covenantal community that Jesus advocated and enacted also forms a striking con-
trast with frequent modern interpretation of his teachings. In the context of covenant re-
newal, ‘love’ refers not to a feeling or an attitude, but to concrete economic practices in

It is worthwhile remarking that the main answers which have been

offered present an interesting explanatory advantage. If both the violent
and quietistic features as transmitted in the Gospels go back to the
historical Jesus (because of a certain inconsistency in the character, or
because of a shift of attitude, or because they were not really contra-
dictory, or even because of the fact that his statements had different
addresses...), it is easier to account for the later process of ascribing him
a purely «pacifist» stance. It would not have involved a complete replace-
ment of a violent character by an entirely different one, but only a process
of selection and reinterpretation.
Objection 14: Jesus was not a seditionist, as he recognized

Caesar’s rights and acquiesced in the payment of tribute to Rome102
It is certainly true that legions of scholars through the centuries have

clung to a reading that sees Jesus as approving the payment of tribute (and
thereby opposing a «Zealot» view). Nevertheless, a reading of Mark 12
in the sense that nothing whatever is owed to Caesar103 —Jesus gave a
very clever, crafty response which entails frontal opposition to the taxes
whilst not openly recognizing it— makes very good (and perhaps even
the best) sense of the account and of its inner articulation104. Further-
more, that Jesus did not endorse the payment is strongly supported by
Luke 23:2 (where witnesses accuse Jesus of forbidding the payment of
taxes to Caesar —a charge which shows no sign of having been invented).
This reading is all the more convincing when the consequences of the
twofold pressure of the tribute on the Palestinian population —religious
and economic— are contemplated, and Jesus’ deep concern about socio-
economic inequality is taken into account105. Moreover, this is consist-
village community, such as canceling debts and generous mutual sharing of resources»
(Horsley 2003: 127).
102. See e.g. Cullmann 1970: 64-65; Jossa 1980: 252-266; Bruce 1984: 249-263;
among many others.
103. For scholars arguing that Jesus rejected the payment, see e.g. Kennard 1950; Bran-
don 1967: 345-348; Brandon 1968: 66-68, 146; Maccoby 1973: 132-133; Horsley 1993:
306-317; Herzog 2000: 219-232; Puente Ojea 1992: 108-114; Oakman 2012: 127 («Je-
sus had, in fact, been a lēstēs in advocating rearrangements of debts and tax resistance»).
104. It explains: a) the fact that the question was put to Jesus «to entrap him in his
talk» (Mark 12:13.15a; see Luke 20:20: «so that they might hand him over to the power
and authority of the governor») implies that the questioners knew his position on the
matter, and that it was opposed to the payment; b) In Jewish ears, the answer «Render
to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s» would not
have been a double entendre insofar as pious Jews thought all things belonged to God; c)
The fact that Mark 12:17 says that the inquirers «were amazed at him» makes full sense
because, through his answer, Jesus avoids being trapped, opposing the payment without
saying it explicitly.
105. See Stenger 1988: 136. For a reassessment of Jesus’ aggressive stance towards the
rich, see Crossley 2006: 35-74.

ent with Jesus’ claim to be «king of the Jews», with his being considered by
his disciples as the redeemer of Israel, and with his having been crucified.
All in all, by far the most convincing reading of the available evidence is
that Jesus did indeed oppose the payment of tribute to Rome, in the same
line and with the same rationale as Judas the Galilean106.
Objection 15: Jesus was arrested and crucified alone, and his disciples
and followers were left unharmed, but this does not correspond
to the usual Roman procedure against seditionists107
The answer to this question has its starting-point in that the objection
itself is badly framed, as it assumes the reliability of the statement «Jesus
was arrested and crucified alone». There are, however, strong reasons for
maintaining that this assumption is unwarranted108. Firstly, the Gos-
pels assert that Jesus was crucified along with two λῃσταί; even if the
Gospel writers do not say a word about the possible relationship of these
men with Jesus (they rather try to make a clear distinction between tho-
se λῃσταί and the alleged non-λῃστής, between the allegedly innocent
Jesus and the allegedly criminals), such disconnectedness is highly im-
probable, because the simplest explanation for several men being cru-
cified together is that they were interrelated (the Gospels do not speak of
people crucified in separated groups, but only of a unified group).
Secondly, the four Gospels witness that Jesus was crucified in the
center of those men, and the most natural explanation for that is that
he was their ringleader. In fact, the charge on which he had been con-
demned was inscribed on his cross: the claim to be «king of the Jews».
This claim, which was intrinsically insurrectionist, in all probability cor-
responds to Jesus’ own self-understanding109. The contention that Jesus
was placed amidst the other crucified men because they were his support-
ers —whether in a narrow or a loose sense— is made even more plausible
when the fact that crucifixion (as other Roman punishments) had an in-
trinsic mimetic character, aimed at deterrence, is taken into account110.
Thirdly, there are several hints pointing to the fact that the disciples
were also persecuted, and that they deeply feared facing the same death
as Jesus: a) the disciples’ flight, including the story in Mark 14:51-52;
106. The idea that Jesus clung to the conviction of Yahweh’s lordship finds support
in several sayings; see Mark 12:29, Matt 4:10 (Luke 4:8), and Matt 6:24 (= Luke 16:13).
107. See e.g. Hengel 1970: 16; Sanders 1985: 304-305; Theissen-Merz 1996: 403;
Bond 1998: 204; Bryan 2005: 62.
108. For a thorough treatment of this issue, see Bermejo Rubio (2013b).
109. It is not plausible in the least that the formulation of the inscription, which
stems neither from proof from prophecy nor from Christological interests, and which has
a decidedly political ring, is the result of a historicization of a dogmatic motif. See Dahl
1991: 36-37; and especially Allison 2010: 233-240.
110. See Marcus 2006.

b) the story of Peter’s denial, obviously out of fear111; c) according to

John 18:19, «the high priest asked Jesus about his disciples». Again, the
most natural explanation of these fears is that they were caused by
the seditious activities of the group, and the simplest explanation for the
enquiry by the high priest, which betrays some apprehension regarding
Jesus’ followers, is that they could be politically dangerous.
All this indicates that, despite the impression which the Gospel
writers try to convey, the disciples worried the authorities, and in all
probability Jesus must not have been arrested alone, but rather arrested
and crucified along with several followers112, —or at least people re-
lated to him through a shared ideology and/or activities—. But even if one
clings to the cherished belief that Jesus was crucified ‘alone’, it should
be acknowledged that this assumption cannot be legitimately upgraded
to the status of a cogent objection against the hypothesis of a sedition-
ist Jesus: perhaps all that happened is that Jesus’ followers managed
to flee. The widespread notion that Jesus could not be involved in sig-
nificant anti-Roman activity because his followers were not crucified
with him is nothing more than a paralogism.
Objection 16: If Jesus had been involved in seditionist activities,

his followers would have been searched out, but the Romans did not
persecute the movement after his death113
This objection is basically the same as the former one, but applied to the
later history of the Christian groups. It also presents several problems.
The first one is that if, as I have argued, the Christian tradition has proba-
bly dropped evidence pointing to the search for Jesus’ disciples, it could
also drop further evidence regarding later developments. Accordingly, to
start with, one should not forget the biased nature of our sources.
More importantly, even taking for granted that there was no fur-
ther persecution, this can be easily understood. If Jesus and his follow-
ers had reserved the use of arms for the moment when the eschatologi-
cal irruption of God took place, it would be understandable that, once
having checked that Jesus’ hopes had been unfulfilled, his followers
111. Even if the details of this story were to be deemed unhistorical, its kernel shows
the extent of a disciple’s fear. It is significant that, in this episode, Peter is told: «Surely
you also are one of them» (Ἀληθῶς καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ); the plural pronoun presupposes
that the people arrested constituted a group.
112. That the other men crucified with Jesus were possibly members of his own
movement has been advanced by several scholars: See e.g. Eisler, 1929-1930, II: 525‑526;
Brandon 1968: 103; Maccoby 1973: 218; Montserrat 2007: 142-143.
113. «Perchè non c’è restato traccia di una persecuzione romana del cristianesi-
mo nascente in Giudea, ma solo di una persecuzione ebraica (Stefano, Giacomo)?» (Sac-
chi 1968: 454); Fredriksen 2000, 9; «The Romans played no role in the persecution of the
movement after the death of Jesus» (Sanders 1985: 285; see Sanders 1985: 318); Hen-
gel 1969: 237.

immediately renounced the use of weapons and limited themselves to

wait for his glorious return; in fact, the crucifixion itself seems to have
acted as a deterrent for a recourse to arms. In these circumstances, the
fact that they were not persecuted by the Romans is not especially in-
triguing. Probably the Romans tended to limit their intervention to the
occasions when the threat was real —when people were armed, or when
there were big crowds involved114. If the Romans had persecuted the
sympathizers of every alleged messiah and/or king, they would have
had to kill hundreds or thousands of Jews every year. It is probable that
the authorities did not see Jesus’ followers as posing any threat once their
leader and self-styled king (and probably some of his supporters) were
crucified, especially if the Nazarene sect did not organize open messianic
disturbances, and it did not115.
Perhaps there was a brief interval of persecution (Mark and Matthew
keep record of the disciples going to Galilee), and when the leaders
of the new movement established themselves in Jerusalem the danger was
gone. Therefore, the fact that the Nazarene sect, which rapidly became
an apolitical messianic group, remained active in Jerusalem is not neces-
sarily a valid argument against the involvement of Jesus in anti-Roman
activities116.
Moreover, even if, when we come to know of persecution by the Ro-
man government —the earliest stages of intervention on the part of the
Roman government are particularly obscure to us—, the charge familiar
to us is that of simply «being a Christian» (they were punished «for the
Name», the nomen Christianum), the Roman system of criminal prosecu-
tion tended to be accusatorial, not inquisitorial117. Before the «parting
of the ways» developed, the Nazarenes were a sect within Judaism, so
they were protected under the aegis of the Synagogue118. The other
Jews would have not presumably informed against their Nazarene core-
ligionists to the Romans.
114. «If […] the disciples fled to Galilee on the night of Jesus’ arrest, and if there
were only twelve of them, they may have been difficult for the Romans to track, and the
latter may have quickly reached the conclusion that to try to do so was senseless, since
the revolutionary ferment seemed to have been nipped in the bud by Jesus’ crucifixion»
(Marcus 2007: 423).
115. According to Josephus, A.J. 20.1.1, Cuspius Fadus put an end to brigandage by
making an example of a few; some Roman authorities in first-century Palestine seem to
have considered preemptive killing of the leaders of a trouble-making group to be suffi-
cient to quell the disturbance and stir up fear among the followers.
116. As far as I know, after the incidents at Waco Siege and David Koresh’s death in
1993, the Branch Davidians were not violently persecuted by the U.S. government, even
despite the fact that some of them returned to Mount Carmel Center.
117. When Pliny the Younger writes to Trajan for advice (Pliny 10.96), the Emperor
advises him not to seek out Christians for prosecution («conquirendi non sunt»).
118. The available evidence of the primitive Jewish Church of Jerusalem indicates
that the members of that community remained closely integrated with Jewish religious
and social life in Judaea until 70 e.c.

Objection 17: The hypothesis of a seditionist Jesus is inconsistent

with later Christian developments and emphases, which proceeded
in the direction of pacifism.
This objection unfortunately ignores the kind of inverting processes and

surprising shifts which take place in the history of religions, away from
the goals of founders (or allegedly founding figures). It also ignores
significant developments in Jesus’ own movement. For instance, Jesus’
mission was exclusively directed towards the (lost sheep of the) house
of Israel, not towards the Gentiles (about whom Jesus did not have a
flattering opinion119). This fact —which has caused a lot of headaches
and embarrassment to Christian scholars— did not prevent people re-
ferring to Jesus as their Lord from transferring the Tanak’s promises to
the Gentiles. If this innovation succeeded, why could not others have
taken place? And if Jesus the Jew was rapidly thought of as not being a
Jew at all, and was even transformed into a kind of anti-Jewish figure,
and if a flawed Galilean man aware of his limits (see Mark 10:18) was
transformed by his followers into a blameless and divine being, why
should we rule out the possibility that an anti-Roman seditionist was
turned into a wonderful pacifist120?
Let us take the example of Paul. How could the apparently pro-Ro-
man Paul preach and honor an anti-Roman Jesus121? The answer to this
alleged objection lies in the character of his faith, and in some general
considerations of religious psychology. As far as we know, Paul was
not an eye-witness of Jesus’ deeds, neither one of his companions or
kinsfolk. He was an enthusiast who derived his ideas about Jesus not only
from tradition but also from ecstatic visions, out of which Paul granted
Jesus superhuman status, and interpreted his death as a saving event. In
this sense, Paul’s interest in Jesus’ life must have been rather selective.
When human beings seriously hold religious beliefs which are comfort-
ing and meaningful for their lives, and especially when they refer to a
being deemed to be divine, quite a few concrete data —all the more
so when they are potentially embarrassing— are dropped or become
irrelevant.
119. See Mark 7:26-27; Matt 5:47; 6:7-8.32; 15:22-26.

120. According to a variant of the objection, the vindication of Jesus as exalted Mes-
siah presupposes that his death was unjust, but to state such an injustice would be strange
if Jesus had indeed been a seditionist (I have not found this objection in scholarly work,
but, as far as I can remember, it was advanced by an anonymous writer on a blog discus-
sion). This, however, overlooks the fact that, for his early followers and many other Jews,
Jesus’ crucifixion was, by definition, unjust, because it was carried out by the occupying
and hated Roman forces, whilst Jesus, precisely because he had been a pious Jew and had
resisted the power of Rome, was a kind of hero; likewise, from the standpoint of the Gos-
pel writers, Jesus had been an innocent victim at the hands of his Jewish adversaries.
121. Let us notice that Paul’s political stance has been (and still is) a much debated
issue, with contrasting conclusions. On Paul’s ambivalence toward the discourse and set-
ting of the Roman Empire, see e.g. Lopez 2008; Stanley 2011.

Objection 18: Jesus’ reported fellowship with «tax collectors»

—deemed to be a kind of quislings and collaborators with the
Romans— proves that he opposed any anti-Roman stance122
Although it has become a virtual consensus that Jesus did in fact consort
with tax collectors, and even that this fellowship was the most distinctive
aspect of his ministry, there are several problems with all that. Firstly, the
evidence for Jesus’ supposed association with toll collectors is scant and
problematic indeed, as the very scholars making those claims point out123.
Secondly, the Synoptic Gospels (the Fourth Gospel preserves no ref-
erence to Jesus associating with tax collectors) preserve traditions which
suggest that Jesus held a highly disparaging view regarding tax collectors.
Sayings as Matt 5:47, 18:17, and 21:31-32 assume a derogatory evalua-
tion of toll collectors (the same disparaging evaluation as that held by
Jesus’ addressees), thereby not betraying a receptive attitude towards that
group124.
Thirdly, the references to intimate contacts between Jesus and tax
collectors take, for the most part, the form of accusations by his opponents,
and the charge does not seem to have been viewed as true in the sayings
themselves. Matt 11:18-19/Luke 7:33-34, which present Jesus as «a
friend of tax collectors and sinners», also present him as «a glutton and
a drunkard»125; this last statement is, however, obviously polemical,
and does not seem to be reliable126. Even clearer is the unreliability of the
accusation, in the same passage, that John the Baptist «has a demon».
Fourthly, there are several possibilities for the basis of the charge,
which do not require extensive or intimate contact of Jesus with tax col-
lectors. For instance, there may have been something about Jesus’ eating
and drinking habits which provoked the charge, since he apparently was
not overly punctilious regarding the prescribed fasts; or perhaps Jesus
did indeed refer to tax collectors in his preaching, not in any positive
manner but simply to emphasize the obstinacy of his critics; or maybe
the phrase «a friend of tax collectors and sinners» was used in somewhat
122. «The tax-gatherers, considered to be outside the pale by Jesus in Mt 18, 17b,
are in other passages (Mk 2, 15; Mt 11, 19; Lk 7, 34 and 18,9-14) represented as persons
with whom he entertained cordial relations […] We are here provided with evidence that
Jesus adopted a friendly attitude towards a class of people whom ‘nationalistically-minded’
Jews despised» (Winter 19742: 194); Hengel 1970: 19-21; Cullmann 1970: 63; Ryan
2005: 25; Catchpole 1970: 51; Edwards 1972: 58; Klassen 1970: 16-17.
123. There are only two passages in the extant evidence which actually report that
Jesus did hold table fellowship with tax collectors, and both of those passages can plausibly
be regarded as editorial constructions rather than historical accounts. For this aspect and
the ensuing discussion, see Walker 1978: 221-238; Horsley 1993: 212-217.
124. Such traditions appear particularly, but not exclusively, in Matthew. See Walker
1978: 224-229; «Lukas denkt letztlich nicht viel anders» (Michel 1969: 104).
125. «It is not at all clear that these accusations are based upon fact» (Walker 1978: 230).
126. On Jesus’ probable asceticism, see Allison 1998: 172-216; Bermejo Rubio 2010:
50-54.

the same disparaging way as «nigger-lover» was used in the United States;
and so on127.
Fifthly, even if Jesus did associate intimately with tax collectors (this
cannot be ruled out, since, as an eschatological prophet, he aimed at
encompassing all Israel), such behavior would not necessarily contradict
his involvement in anti-Roman ideology and resistance, as it is highly
likely that he expected them to renounce their previous commitments
upon following him128 or joining his band129: they were regarded as stand-
ing in need of repentance. This is made clear in the story about Zaccha-
eus, in which Jesus speaks of him as one of «the lost», and he does in
fact repent130.
A close survey of the evidence proves that the question of the asso-
ciation of Jesus with tax collectors must, at least for the present, remain
open, as also its meaning. And this, in turn, cuts the ground from under
one of the usual objections against the picture of a seditionist Jesus.
Objection 19: The hypothesis is unnecessarily complicated to explain

Jesus’ death. A simpler explanation is to be preferred, because, given
the arbitrariness and harshness of Roman rule, almost anything
would have sufficed as a ground for the condemnation of a Jew to be
crucified131
This objection presents several problems. Firstly, it takes too slightly the
logic of the Imperium. Even if a ruler was ruthless and carried out trials
by cognitio extra ordinem —or simple interrogations— to allow him
127. For these and other perceptive comments and suggestions, see Walker 1978:
230-231.
128. This is all the more probable if, such as Horsley, claims, «there is no clear evidence
that they would have been viewed as ‘quisling’ collaborators with the Romans in the con-
text of Jesus’ ministry» (Horsley 1993: 212).
129. Note that the specific identification of one of the Twelve as a tax collector is, to
say the least, problematic (Walker 1978 234-237); but even if he was, it is most probable
that he abandoned his activity in order to follow Jesus.
130. «The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector and the story of Zacchaeus
cannot, therefore, be used to show that Jesus was sympathetic to or associated with tax
collectors without explicit ‘repentance’ on their part» (Walker 1978: 229).
131. «Jesus could have been one of those innocent victims who are picked up by po-
lice action at a time when peace-keeping has become difficult and the forces of law and
order are over-stretched, and then arbitrarily put to death» (Harvey 1982: 16); Sanders
1985: 304‑305; «It is customary to assume that a significant event must have a significant
cause […], but the death of Jesus was only significant in retrospect, and it might well not
have been the consequence of anything much (the Temple incident might well be enough,
or Jesus’ insolence during the audience with Pilate). Jesus’ execution was hardly worth a
second thought by Pilate» (Meggitt 2007: 406); «So far as the governor was concerned,
he would have seen sufficient reason for ordering the crucifixion if he had come to feel
that Jesus’ itinerant preaching tended to excite the masses to expect the end of the existing
order» (Winter 19742: 206-207); among many others.

greater flexibility, he must have had serious reasons for crucifying a

man (and, a fortiori, a group of men)132. Pilate was a rather competent
prefect, as he held his charge in Judaea for over ten years. He knew that
he had to answer the emperor, and that arbitrary crucifixions could in-
cur the hatred of many people against him. Perhaps Pilate did not care
in the least about being hated, but he surely cared a great deal about
the eventual consequences of that hatred. This means that the prefect
would have much preferred to have powerful reasons for crucifying a
group of Jews133. Therefore, the more reasons there are, the better; and
the stronger the reasons, the better. It is extremely unlikely that Pilate
carried out a (collective) crucifixion over a trifle; in fact, we do not have
more evidence of Pilate having crucified other Jews.
Secondly, and by far more importantly, although the fact of the cruci-
fixion is a crucial factor supporting the hypothesis of a seditionist Jesus, it
is not at all the only piece of evidence (as I have argued above). The cur-
rent explanations of Jesus’ crucifixion, by excluding that he was involved
in anti-Roman activity, are systematically compelled to conjecture about
the reasons which prompted the Roman prefect to crucify him, with the
result that they are usually far-fetched, and too often nothing but pure
speculation134. But not everything can account for Jesus’ crucifixion, and
all the available evidence must be taken into account and weighed up.
The hypothesis of a seditionist Jesus has nothing to do with the na-
ivety of assuming that a significant event must always have a significant
cause, or that a sentence always presupposes the existence of guilt. Jus-
tice can miscarry, and judicial murder occurs everywhere, so the Gospel
view of an innocent Jesus is not intrinsically improbable on a cursory
reading135. It is, however, exceedingly implausible when it is thoroughly
surveyed. Admittedly, the simpler explanation is to be preferred, but
when the whole evidence is assembled, the simplest explanation is pre-
cisely that Jesus was crucified because he was a seditionist. In the light
of evidence, the claim that almost anything would have sufficed as a
ground for crucifying Jesus is both unwarranted and misleading.
132. In the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan (Pliny, Ep. 10.30),
concerning two slaves discovered among army recruits, the emperor says: «de quibus cog-
nosci oportebit, an capitale supplicium meruisse videantur»: even though they were slaves,
a cognitio or investigation is needed, if they are to be executed.
133. «The Romans, one doubts, executed Jesus for a crime for which the evidence
was nil» (Allison 2010: 238); «Justice can miscarry, so that punishment falls upon the in-
nocent. Yet if Jesus had repudiated the accusation of kingship, Pilate presumably would
have spared his life, or at least crucified him for some other crime» (Allison 2010: 239);
«The least convoluted explanation for the political charge against Jesus is that it corre-
sponded in some way to his self-perception» (Allison 2010: 239).
134. According to Meggitt 2007, the Romans executed Jesus because they thought he
was a deluded lunatic.
135. This point was explicitly recognized, for instance, by Brandon 1967: 2.

Objection 20: If Jesus had been a seditionist, the Jewish historian

Flavius Josephus would have mentioned it, but he has not recorded
anything of it136
This objection is reliant upon the passage on Jesus in Antiquitates Judaicae

XVIII 63-64, better known as Testimonium Flavianum. The first problem
with this objection, however, is that one should be cautious about that
text, given that its authenticity and nature is a debatable issue. There is
every indication that it has been tampered with by Christian interpo-
lators, probably during the second half of the third century. Thus, the
original text might have had a different assessment of Jesus than that
conveyed by the textus receptus.
In fact, against the widespread claim that a «neutral» reconstruction
of the Testimonium Flavianum is the most compelling one, several
scholars from different ideological backgrounds (R. Eisler, W. Bienert,
S.G.F. Brandon, E. Bammel, G.N. Stanton, G.H. Twelftree…) have ad-
vanced the proposal that the original form of the text was hostile to
Jesus, and that it presented him as a rebellious leader137. There is indeed
an a priori contention supporting this reading: Josephus did not feel any
sympathy for popular messianic claimants. Now, we can be sure that
he knew the messianic claims made by and about Jesus138, and also the
connection between this claim and political subversion139, all the more so
because he explicitly states that Jesus was crucified. All this must have
been enough for Josephus taking a critical stance towards him. There-
fore, it is prima facie extremely hard to believe that a «neutral» assess-
ment of Jesus by Josephus is the more likely possibility.
I have recently reassessed the contemporary discussion on Josephus’
text in order to ascertain which is the most plausible hypothesis regard-
ing the nature of its Vorlage, and I have drawn the conclusion that the
original text must have been at least implicitly negative140. On the one
hand, none of the arguments provided by the proponents of a neutral
136. «Why is it that Josephus does not portray Jesus as a villain of the same kind as
Theudas, the Egyptian et alii, if indeed he was an anti-Roman insurrectionist?» (Tobias
Hägerland, in a personal communication: e-mail, October 7th 2012).
137. See e.g. Eisler, 1929-1930, I: 46-84. «This pro-Roman Jewish historian equated
Jesus with the many other Zealot leaders and Messianic pretenders, whose activity he de-
plores as leading the Jewish people into fatal contest with Rome» (Brandon 1967: 363);
«It seems that Josephus understood Jesus to be a messianic pretender misleading or de-
ceiving the people and being part of the causes of the trouble in his homeland» (Twelftree
1985: 310).
138. Even if Josephus did not mention the term «Christ» in the original text, he knew
that Jesus had made messianic claims: this can be inferred from AJ XX 200 and from his
use of the term Χριστιανοί.
139. The equivalence of Messiahship and kingship in some quarters is attested in
Mk 15:32 and Lk. 23:2. According to y. Ta‘an. 4:8 and Lam. Rab. 2:2, R. Akiba ac-
claimed Bar Kokhba as messiah by saying: ‫הוא מלכא משי חא‬.
140. See Bermejo Rubio (forthcoming b).

version is compelling enough. On the other hand, I have shown that the
hypothesis of a somewhat negative text provides the best explanation
for a large amount of data: 1) the fact that several phrases in the textus
receptus —and even in the alleged Vorlage, such as reconstructed by
the proponents of a «neutral» text— have negative overtones141; 2) the
presence of the pronoun τις after Ἰησοῦς in some manuscripts of Euse-
bius’ Historia ecclesiastica; 3) the context of the passage (it is embedded
in a sequence of events under Pilate whose term in office is reported as
a series of disturbances: A.J. XVIII 55-89)142; 4) the fact that the text
seems to have been tampered with143.
Given the hotly-debated issue of the historicity and reliability of the
Testimonium Flavianum144, the wisest procedure is to use this source,
at most, to confirm the results which have been independently reached,
and not to build far-reaching cases from it. To do otherwise seems to be
methodologically unsound. But if one insists in using this text, then, ironi-
cally, the evidence pointing to its probably negative Vorlage might be
used as further evidence for the hypothesis that the Galilean preacher was
somehow connected to the anti-Roman resistance ideology, in the wake
of the Fourth Philosophy.
Conclusions
It is a remarkable phenomenon that, whenever the hypothesis of a seditio-

nist Jesus is put forward, the prevailing reaction in both the literature and
public opinion, even before having weighed up the reasons supporting it
and evaluating its explanatory power, is not only to raise one’s eyebrows
but also to raise whatever objection which comes into one’s head. In fact,
I have enumerated and answered a score of such objections, trying to
141. «Ici affleure une mise en perspective discrètement polémique, que complète la
banalisation résultant des rapprochements que nous avons pu effectuer avec les notices
des multiples agitateurs […] Et le terme de Χριστιανοί a vraisemblablement pour effet de
conforter cette impression. Pour un lecteur de culture et de religion gréco-romaines, le
terme, à cette époque, ne peut évoquer qu’une seule réalité: des groupes d’agitation qui,
peut-être déjà sous Caligula, et de toute façon sous Claude et Néron, se sont fait remar-
quer dans les grands centres urbains de l’empire» (Bardet 2002: 176).
142. The passage follows immediately after the account of Pilate’s suppression of the
disturbance caused by his using Temple funds for building an aqueduct in Jerusalem
(A.J. XVIII 60-62); the last word before the passage on Jesus is στάσις. After dealing with
Jesus, Josephus records the troubles which happened to the Jews in Rome, by using the
verb θορυβεῖν: καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦς αὐτοῦς χρόνους ἕτερόν τι δεινὸν ἐθορύβει τοὺς Ἰουδαὶους; see
Norden 1973: 30-33.
143. The simplest and most probable explanation for the text having been edited is
not that it was neutral, but rather that the Christian interpolator(s) did not like what (t)
he(y) found, because (t)he(y) found it disturbing or offensive.
144. Let us notice that the authenticity of the passage regarding the Baptist has been
recently called into question. See Nir 2012: 32-62 (although I have not found this article
compelling enough).

be as exhaustive as possible in their assembling145. Although the piling up

of objections is quite impressive at first sight, their unconvincing nature
becomes rather obvious when one takes the trouble to think each of
them through. Then one gets the impression that most objections have
been too hastily and tendentiously formulated (to the point that, some-
times, they even neutralize each other). In these circumstances, the high
number of objections suggests not so much how flimsy the hypothesis
is as how great is the need of many scholars to convince themselves of
such alleged flimsiness146.
The fact that every objection can be convincingly answered is ex-
ceedingly sobering, and reveals that everybody who has claimed that the
hypothesis of a seditionist Jesus has been dealt a fatal blow has come to
premature and unwarranted conclusions. That claim is, I am afraid,
nothing but wishful thinking. The worrying thing is that it is precisely
the above-mentioned set of objections (or even just a portion of it) that
works for many scholars as an excuse not to weigh up the arguments of
the hypothesis, and to consider it definitely outdated.
Forty years ago, Samuel Brandon thought that a notable advance
had been achieved, as it was «generally recognized by most of the critics
that the extant evidence concerning Christian Origins is of such a na-
ture historically that other interpretations, besides the traditional one,
can be legitimately drawn»147. Constructive criticism is welcome by any
responsible scholar seeking improvement, but when one notices how
often and how easily outright dismissal of the hypothesis of a seditionist
Jesus takes place in scholarship, one can legitimately doubt that such an
advance has occurred. Good history seeks the truth regardless of how
it makes us feel, but too many in the field seem to be prone to oppose
embarrassing ideas at all costs, even at the expense of consistency.
Although this means that we should not be particularly optimistic
about progress in the study of the historical Jesus —many theologically-
145. Some authors draw far-reaching conclusions from Matt. 8:5-13/Luke 7,1-10,
with a story on the healing of a centurion’s servant (Bryan 2005: 46-47). Leaving aside
the fact that this seems to be an isolated and extraordinary episode (Luke makes clear the
faith and the pro-Jewish stance of the man) and that the healed person is presumably a
Jew, this did not take place in Judaea but in Galilee, which at the time was a nominally
independent kingdom of Antipas. Moreover, it is doubtful that the centurion was a Ro-
man: «All that can be definitely said is that the centurion in Matthew was a Gentile: his
actual ethnicity cannot be determined» (Saddington 2006: 142).
146. The idea that Jesus was somehow involved in anti-Roman resistance, and that
his crucifixion (and, presumably, that of others) was the result of his insurrectionist
preaching and activity is extremely upsetting for too many people, who see it as an af-
front to their most cherished beliefs: «The very asking of the question will cause offence
and suggest a distressing scepticism about that which is sacred» (Brandon 1967: xiii). We
could also cite here what Maurice Casey once wrote, referring to the study of the histori-
cal figure of Jesus: «A significant function of scholarship has been to ward off anything
too uncomfortable» (Casey 1991: 171).
147. Brandon 1971: 51.

driven scholars will presumably carry on dismissing or repressing the most

plausible and explanatory hypotheses—, at least we can quite well un-
derstand why any reconstruction which blithely overlooks the evidence
for a seditious Jesus, however seemingly sophisticated and erudite, lacks
scholarly rigour and soundness.
REFERENCES
Allison, D. C. (1998), Jesus of Nazareth, Millenarian Prophet, Minneapolis: For-

tress.
Allison, D. C. (2001) «A Response», in R. J. Miller (ed.), The Apocalyptic Jesus.
A Debate, Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, pp. 83-105.
Allison, D. C. (ed.) (2004), Matthew. A Shorter Commentary Based on the Three-
Volume International Critical Commentary by W. D. Davies and D. C. Alli-
son, London: T & T Clark.
Allison, D. C. (2010), Constructing Jesus. Memory, Imagination, and History,
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Anderson, G. (1994), Sage, Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in
the Early Roman Empire, London: Routledge.
Balz, H. R. (1970), «Review of S. G. F. Brandon, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth,
London, 1968»: Theologische Literaturzeitung 95, pp. 30-32.
Bardet, S. (2002), Le Testimonium Flavianum. Examen historique, considérations
historiographiques, Paris: Cerf.
Barnett, P. W. (1975), «Under Tiberius all was Quiet»: New Testament Studies 21,
pp. 564-571.
Batsch, C. (2004), «Le ‘pacifisme des esséniens’, un mythe historiographique»:
Revue de Qumran 83, pp. 457-468.
Berger, K. (1996), «Der ‘brutale’ Jesus. Gewaltsames in Wirken und Verkündi-
gung Jesu»: Bibel und Kirche 51, pp. 119-127.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (2009), «The Fiction of the ‘Three Quests’. An Argument for
Dismantling a Dubious Historiographical Paradigm»: Journal for the Study
of the Historical Jesus 7, pp. 211-253.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (2010), «Juan el Bautista y Jesús de Nazaret en el judaísmo
del Segundo Templo: paralelismos fenomenológicos y diferencias implau-
sibles»: ’Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 15, pp. 27-56.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (2011), «La relación de Juan el Bautista y Jesús de Nazaret
en la historiografía contemporánea: la persistencia del mito de la singulari-
dad»: Bandue 5, pp. 5-39.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (2012), «La figura histórica de Jesús y los patrones de recurren-
cia. Por qué los límites de los criterios de autenticidad no abocan al escepti-
cismo»: Estudios Bíblicos 70, pp. 371-401.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (2013a), «Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman
Rebel Alive and Well? Theological Apologetics versus Historical Plausibi-
lity»: Bible and Interpretation, http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/
ber378008.shtml.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (2013b), «(Why) Was Jesus Crucified Alone? Solving a False
Conundrum»: Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36, pp. 127-154.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (forthcoming a), «Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. A
Reassessment of the Arguments»: Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

Bermejo Rubio, F. (forthcoming b), «Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testi-
monium Flavianum a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on
Antiquitates Judaicae XVIII 63-64»: Journal for the Study of Judaism.
Bermejo Rubio, F. (forthcoming c), «Changing Methods, Unpalatable Truths.
Should the Criterion of Embarrassment Be Dismissed in Jesus Research?»:
Revue des Études Juives.
Black, M. (1984), «Not peace but a sword: Matt 10:34ff; Luke 12:51ff», in
E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day,
Cambridge: CUP, pp. 287-294.
Blinzler, J. (19694), Der Prozeß Jesu, Regensburg: F. Pustet.
Bockmuehl, M. (2004), «Simon Peter’s Names in Jewish Sources»: Journal of
Jewish Studies 55, pp. 58-80.
Bond, H. K. (1998), Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Cambridge: CUP.
Brandon, S. G. F. (1967), Jesus and the Zealots. A Study of the Political Factor
in Primitive Christianity, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Brandon, S. G. F. (1968), The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, London: Batsford.
Brandon, S. G. F. (1971), «Jesus and the Zealots: Aftermath»: Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library Manchester 54, pp. 47-66.
Brown, R. (1994), The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, II,
New York: Doubleday.
Bruce, F. F. (1984), «Render to Caesar», in E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (eds.),
Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 249-263.
Bryan, C. (2005), Render to Caesar. Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Su-
perpower, Oxford: OUP.
Buchanan, G. W. (1984), Jesus. The King and His Kingdom, Macon: Mercer UP.
Bultmann, R. (19708), Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
Carey, G. (2009), Sinners. Jesus and his earliest followers, Waco: Baylor Univer-
sity Press.
Carmichael, J. (19953), The Death of Jesus, New York: Barnes & Noble.
Casey, M. (1991), From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God. The Origins and Deve-
lopment of New Testament Christology, Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.
Catchpole, D. R. (1970), «The problem of the Historicity of the Sanhedrin
Trial», in E. Bammel (ed.), The Trial of Jesus. Cambridge Studies in Honour
of C.F.D. Moule, London: SCM Press, pp. 47-65.
Cohick, L. H. (2008), «Jesus as King of the Jews», in S. McKnight and J. B. Mo-
dica (eds.), Who Do My Opponents Say I Am? An Investigation of the Accu-
sations against Jesus, London: T & T Clark, pp. 111-132.
Crossley, J. G. (2006), Why Christianity Happened. A Sociohistorical Account of
Christian Origins (26-50 CE), Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Crossley, J. G. (2008), Jesus in an Age of Terror, London/Oakville: Equinox.
Cullmann, O. (1961), Der Staat im Neuen Testament, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck).
Cullmann, O. (1970), Jesus und die Revolutionären seiner Zeit: Gottesdienst,
Gesellschaft, Politik, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Dahl, N. A. (1991), «The Crucified Messiah», in Id., Jesus the Christ: the His-
torical Origins of Christology Doctrine, ed. D. H. Juel, Minneapolis: For-
tress.
Daniélou, J. (1968), «Bulletin d’Histoire des Origines Chrétiennes», Recherches
de Science Religieuse 56, pp. 110-169.

Duhaime, J. (2004), The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts, London:
T & T Clark.
Edwards, G. R. (1972), Jesus and the Politics of Violence, New York: Harper and
Row.
Eisler, R. (1929-1930), ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ. Die messianische Unab-
hängigkeitsbewegung vom Auftreten Johannes des Täufers bis zum Untergang
Jakobs des Gerechten, 2 vols., Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuch-
handlung.
Fast, H. A. (1959), Jesus and Human Conflict, Scottdale: Herald Press.
Fredriksen, P. (2000), Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, New York: Vintage.
Freyne, S. (1998 [1980]), Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian
323BCE to 135CE, Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Giblet, J. (1974), «Un mouvement de résistance armée au temps de Jésus?»: Revue
Théologique de Louvain 5, pp. 409-429.
Goguel, M. (1932), La vie de Jésus, Paris: Payot.
Green, J. (2001), «Crucifixion», in M. Bockmuehl (ed.), The Cambridge Compa-
nion to Jesus, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 87-101.
Guevara, H. (1985), Ambiente político del pueblo judío en tiempos de Jesús,
Madrid: Cristiandad.
Guignebert, C. (1969 [1933]), Jésus, Paris: Albin Michel.
Harrington, D. (1991), The Gospel of Matthew, Collegeville: Liturgical Press.
Harris, M. (1974), Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: the Riddles of Culture, New
York: Vintage Books.
Harvey, A. E. (1982), Jesus and the Constraints of History, London: Duckworth.
Hengel, M. (1969), «Review of S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots»: Jour-
nal of Semitic Studies 14, pp. 231-240.
Hengel, M. (1970), War Jesus Revolutionär?, Stuttgart: Calwer.
Hengel, M. (1974), Christus und die Macht, Stuttgart: Calwer.
Hengel, M. (19762 [1961]), Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur Jüdischen Frei-
heitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr., Leiden: Brill.
Herzog, W. R. (2000), Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God, Louisville: West-
minster John Knox Press.
Hoehner, H. W. (1972), Herod Antipas, Cambridge: CUP.
Horsley, R. (1993), Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Horsley, R. (2003), Jesus and Empire. The Kingdom of God and the New World
Disorder, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Horsley, R. (ed.) (2004), Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying
the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul, Leiden: Brill.
Joseph, S. J. (2010), «The Ascetic Jesus»: Journal for the Study of the Historical
Jesus 8, pp. 146-181.
Jossa, G. (1980), Gesù e i movimenti di liberazione della Palestina, Brescia: Paideia.
Kautsky, K. (1908), Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersu-
chung, Stuttgart: Verlag von J. H. W. Dietz Nachf.
Keith, C. (2011), Jesus’ Literacy. Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee,
London: T & T Clark.
Kennard, J. S. (1950), Render to God. A Study of the Tribute Passage, New
York: OUP.
Kinman, B. (2009), «Jesus’ Royal Entry into Jerusalem», in D. L. Bock and
R. L. Webb (eds.), Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, pp. 383-427.

Klassen, W. (1970), «Jesus and the Zealot Option»: Canadian Journal of Theo-
logy 16, pp. 12-21.
Kosmala, H. (1960), «Matthew xxvi 52 – A Quotation from the Targum»: Novum
Testamentum 4, pp. 3-5.
Kuhn, H.-W. (1982), «Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre
Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Christentums», in Aufstieg und
Niedergang der Römischen Welt 25.1, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter,
pp. 648-793.
Lampe, G. W. H. (1984), «The two swords (Luke 22:35-38)», in E. Bammel and
C.F.D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge: CUP,
pp. 335-351.
Linnemann, E. (1970), Studien zur Passionsgeschichte, Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
Lopez, D. C. (2008), Apostle to the Conquered. Reimagining Paul’s Mission, Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press.
Maccoby, H. (1973), Revolution in Judaea. Jesus & The Jewish Resistance, Lon-
don: Ocean.
Marcus, J. (2006), «Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation»: Journal of Biblical Lite-
rature 125, pp. 73-87.
Marcus, J. (2007), «Meggitt on the Madness and Kingship of Jesus»: Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 29, pp. 421-424.
McKnight, S. (1999), A New Vision for Israel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Meggitt, J. J. (2007), «The Madness of King Jesus: Why Was Jesus Put to Death,
but His Followers Were Not?»: Journal for the Study of the New Testament
29, pp. 379-413.
Meier, J. P. (2001), A Marginal Jew. Vol. 3: Companions and Competitors, New
York: Doubleday.
Merkel, H. (1984), «The opposition between Jesus and Judaism», in E. Bammel
and C. F. D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day, Cambridge:
CUP, pp. 129-144.
Mézange, C. (2000), «Simon le Zélote était-il un révolutionnaire?»: Biblica 81,
pp. 489-506.
Michel, O. (1969), «Telōnēs», Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament
VIII, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Minear, P. S. (1939), «The Enigma of the Swords»: Expository Times 49, pp. 467-470.
Montserrat, J. (2007), El galileo armado. Historia laica de Jesús, Madrid: Edaf.
Morin, J. A. (1975), «Les deux derniers des douze: Simon le Zélote et Judas
Iskariôth», Revue Biblique 80, pp. 332-349.
Nir, R. (2012), «Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A Christian Interpola-
tion?»: Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 10, pp. 32-62.
Norden, E. (1973), «Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messia-
nische Prophetie», in A. Schalit (ed.), Zur Josephus-Forschung, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 27-69.
Oakman, D. E. (2012), The Political Aims of Jesus, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Pike, D. K. and Kennedy, R. S. (1972), The Wilderness Revolt. A New View of the
Life and Death of Jesus based on Ideas and Notes of the Late Bishop James
A. Pike, New York: Doubleday.
Piñero, A. (1993), «El ‘Evangelio paulino’ y los diversos ‘Evangelios’ del Nuevo
Testamento», in Id. (ed.), Fuentes del cristianismo. Tradiciones primitivas so-
bre Jesús, Córdoba: El Almendro, pp. 269-363.

Price, J. J. (1992), Jerusalem under Siege: the Collapse of the Jewish State, 66-70
C.E., Leiden: Brill.
Puente Ojea, G. (1991), Fe cristiana, Iglesia, Poder, Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Puente Ojea, G. (1992), El Evangelio de Marcos, Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Riesner, R. (1988), Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung, Tübingen: Mohr.
Rook, J. T. (1981), «‘Boanerges, Sons of Thunder’ (Mark 3:17)»: Journal of
Biblical Literature 100, pp. 94-5.
Ryan, D. (1970), «Review of S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots»: Theolo-
gische Revue 66, pp. 20-25.
Sacchi, P. (1968), «Review of S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots», Revue de
Qumran 23, pp. 444-455.
Saddington, D. B. (2006), «The Centurion on Matthew 8:5-13: Considerations
of the Proposal of Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., and Tat-Siong Benny Liew»:
Journal of Biblical Literature 125, pp. 140-142.
Sanders, E. P. (1985), Jesus and Judaism, London: SCM Press.
Sanders, J. T. (1998), «The Criterion of Coherence and the Randomness of Cha-
risma: Poring through some Aporias in the Jesus Tradition»: New Testa-
ment Studies 44, pp. 1-25.
Scott, J. C. (1990), Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Hidden Transcripts,
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smith, M. (1971), «Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation»: Harvard
Theological Review 64, pp. 1-19.
Stanley, C. D. (ed.) (2011), The Colonized Apostle. Paul through Postcolonial
Eyes, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Stenger, W. (1988), «Gebt dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist…!». Eine sozialges-
chichtliche Untersuchung zur Besteuerung Palästinas in neutestamentlicher
Zeit, Bonn: Athenäum.
Taylor, J. E. (2010), «The Name ‘Iskarioth’ (Iscariot)», Journal of Biblical Lite-
rature 129, pp. 367-383.
Theissen, G. (1989), Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition, Freiburg: Universitäts-
verlag.
Theissen, G. and Merz, A. (1996), Der historische Jesus. Ein Lehrbuch, Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Twelftree, G. H. (1985), «Jesus in Jewish Traditions», in D. Wenham (ed.),
Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, Shef-
field: JSOT Press, pp. 289-342.
Tyson, J. B. (1960), «Jesus and Herod Antipas»: Journal of Biblical Literature 79,
pp. 239-246.
Vermes, G. (2003), The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, London: Penguin.
Walker, W. O. (1978), «Jesus and the Tax Collectors»: Journal of Biblical Lite-
rature 97, pp. 221-238.
Weitzman, S. (2009), «Warring against Terror. The War Scroll and the Mobili-
zation of Emotion»: Journal for the Study of Judaism 40, pp. 213-241.
Wink, W. (1969), «Jesus and Revolution. Reflections on S. G. F. Brandon’s Jesus
and the Zealots»: Union Seminary Quarterly Review 25, pp. 37-59.
Winter, P. (1973), «Josephus on Jesus and James», in The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), by E. Schürer, vol. I.
Revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar, Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
pp. 428-441.

Winter, P. (19742), On the Trial of Jesus, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Wood, H. G. (1956), «Interpreting this Time»: New Testament Studies 4, pp. 262-
266.
Yadin, Y. (1962), The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of
Darkness, edited with commentary and introduction, Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.

Ha Sido Refutada La Hipotesis de Un Jesus Sedicioso Una Respues PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ha Sido Refutada La Hipotesis de Un Jesus Sedicioso Una Respues PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

BANDUE

Revista de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones

VII E D I TO R I A L T R OT TA número vii /2013

FERNANDO BERMEJO RUBIO

ÓSCAR CELADOR ANGÓN

ÓSCAR FIGUEROA CASTRO

FRANCISCO LÓPEZ CEDEÑO

GRECY PÉREZ AMORES

SERGIO POU HERNÁNDEZ

ROBERTO CARLOS RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ

C onsejo de redacción / E ditorial C ommittee :

C omité A sesor I nternacional / I nternational A dvisory B oard :

I nstrucciones para los autores / I nstructions for authors :

E dición , administración , suscripciones y publicidad :

© Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones y Editorial Trotta, S.A.

Impresión: Service Point, S.A.

Lo que el budismo no es (y lo que pudiera ser): Juan Arnau.................... 5

Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow?

Dimensión institucional, jurídica y constitucional de los Acuerdos

«Ocho estrofas sobre Anuttara» (Anuttarāṣṭikā). Plegaria atribuida

Claves para una hermenéutica de diálogo entre Averroes y Abenarabi:

El objeto ausente. Sobre la desdichada objetividad del objeto: Grecy Pérez

La leyenda de los asesinos. Mito, textos y correlatos a partir de la obra

Historia y Cultura de las Religiones: una experiencia docente:

Pablo de Tarso, Israel y los gentiles. El nuevo enfoque radical

Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow?

Institutional, legal and constitutional dimensions of the 1979 agreements

Eight stanzas on Anuttara (Anuttarāṣṭikā). Prayer ascribed

Keys for a hermeneutic of dialogue between Averroes (Ibn Rushd)

The absent object. On the unfortunate objectivity of the object:

Historia y Cultura de las Religiones (History and Culture of Religions):

Fernando Bermejo Rubio

Resumen: Contra la hipótesis según la cual el predicador galileo Jesús el Naza-

«Do not find fault before you investigate. First examine,

For Javier Alonso, libre de la metáfora y del mito

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

1. I am deeply grateful to Lena Einhorn, Tobias Hägerland, Ramiro Moar, Josep

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

data. Moreover, in light of this hypothesis, many other pieces of evidence

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

Objection 1. The hypothesis of a seditious Jesus is the result

It is often contended either that the proponents of the hypothesis of a

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

leads to a critical questioning and a search for a convincing explanation

Objection 2: If Jesus had been an anti-Roman seditionist, we would

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

seditionist Jesus does not necessarily imply a maximalist view of him as

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

Objection 4: One-sidedness is a fatal shortcoming of any hypothesis

Although it is true that some scholars advancing the view of a seditio-

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

Objection 5: Jesus could not be a seditionist since in his age

It is well-known that, according to Tacitus, «sub Tiberio quies», but it is

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

Admittedly, the assumption entailed in this objection is probably correct.

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

God’s hands, that it would not be established by human might, and

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57

enemies of Israel, at whose head stands a nation called «Kittim», assisted

Objection 7: It is not right to speak about the Anti-Roman activity

BANDUE vII/2013 19-57