The Gospels identify Jesus’ actions during his last week in Jerusalem as directed against the chief priests, their scribes, and the Sadducean leaders (Luke 19:45-46; 20:1-40). Yet, his popularity with the masses protected him against the chief priests, led by Caiaphas, who sought to destroy him (Luke 19:47-48; 20:19; 22:2). The book of Acts portrayed this same group as the opponents of the disciples in Jerusalem (Acts 4:1-7). They too, like their master, enjoyed the favor of the Jewish masses. The Gospels, moreover, indicate the chief priests and the officers of the Temple had to arrest Jesus under the cloak of darkness (Luke 22:52). Jesus commented on this, “When I was with you day after day in the Temple, you did not lay hands on me” (Luke 22:53). The implication being, his popularity with the crowds insulated him, and had the chief priests arrested him in the Temple while he taught, a riot would have likely ensued. They used the cloak of darkness to carry out and cover up their clandestine plans, out of the view of the people of Jerusalem and the pilgrims for Passover! The nighttime arrest of Jesus proves the crowds of Jerusalem never turned their backs on Jesus; otherwise, why would the chief priests used the darkness of night to protect themselves from the crowds only hours before Jesus’ crucifixion? In Luke, upon seeing the Romans brutalize Jesus, the crowds mourned for him (23:27, 48). Luke consistently contrasts the solidarity of the Jerusalem crowds with Jesus to the chief priests and Romans who mocked him (Luke 23:26-49).
Luke identified those who plotted to kill Jesus as “the chief priests and the scribes” (22:2). Their reason for his removal, “for they feared the people” (22:2). They understood Jesus’ popularity with the crowds and the messianic-redemptive hopes attached to him and his movement (Luke 24:21). John’s Gospel also attests to the priests’ fear with Caiaphas’ statement, “If we let him on like this, all the people will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy our place (Temple) and our nation” (11:48). The messianic-redemptive hopes attached to Jesus and his movement made him a threat to the status quo the chief priests sought to maintain. As the go-betweens between the Roman government and the people, the Sadducean chief priests benefited from their position and Roman rule. They understood the potential threat to the stasis of Jerusalem presented by such a popular redemptive movement, for Jewish redemption meant the removal of Rome, as well as the brining down of the mighty and exalting the humble (Luke 1:52-53; 6:20-26). Jesus was a threat; he had to be removed. So, they conscripted one of his disciples, Judas, to help them find a moment when Jesus was away from the crowds and they could arrest him quietly (Luke 22:4-6).
Luke described how, in the morning hours, after his nighttime arrest, Jesus was brought before “the assembly of the elders of the people…both chief priests and scribes” (22:66; see 23:10). Luke’s syntax places “the assembly of the elders of the people” in apposition to “chief priests and scribes,” meaning the nouns “chief priests and scribes” describe the composition of “the assembly of the elders of the people.” Luke’s statement, “Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate” (23:1), identified the Jewish crowd before Pilate as the chief priests and their scribes led by the high priest Caiaphas, i.e., the Sadducean authorities. Luke used the word “crowd” only once when Jesus appeared before Pilate, “And Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowd” (23:4). Luke’s Greek used a grammatical construction known as a hendiadys in which the conjunction “and” connects two nouns, in which one noun qualifies the other. In other words, “And Pilate said to the chief priests who were the crowd.” The “and” in this construction does not mean “this plus this,” but rather, “this equals this.” The “chief priests,” then, describe the composition of the “crowd” Pilate addressed. Luke consistently identified those who brought Jesus before Pilate as the chief priests and scribes (see 22:66, 23:1, 4, and10). After Pilate and Herod Antipas interviewed Jesus, Pilate “called together the chief priests and the rulers of the people” (Luke 23:13; see 22:66), who shouted for him to “Crucify, crucify” (Luke 23:21; see John 19:6).
The traditional Christian image of Pilate depicts him as “good old Pilate,” manipulated by the Jewish authorities and the throng of the Jewish crowds, who cried out “Crucify, crucify.” We will address Pilate in a forthcoming piece, suffice to say, he was a butcher (see Philo, Embassy to Gaius 299-305; Josephus, Antiquities 18:55-62, 84-89; and Luke 13:1), who had no trouble spilling Jewish blood including Jesus’. The Gospels agree with the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria that Pilate “executed without trial” (Embassy to Gaius 299-305); there was no trial of Jesus! What happened took place behind closed doors, out of the sight of the people (see Acts 4:27). It was a collaboration between the chief priests led by Caiaphas, who used the cloak of darkness to keep their clandestine activities secret (see b. Pesahim 57a), and Caiaphas’ partner, the butcher Pilate (see Josephus, Antiquities 18:88-95).
An often-overlooked detail, which further identifies the crowd before Pilate, is the cry of “Crucify.” Crucifixion was not an acceptable form of capital punishment among the Jewish masses, who generally followed Pharisaic dictum. According to Pharisaic tradition the four acceptable forms of capital punishment were stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling (hanging: חנק; m. Sanhedrin 7:1). The only instance of Jewish crucifixion happened under Hasmonean king and high priest, Alexander Jannaeus, who was a Sadducee.
According to Josephus (Antiquities 13:377-383; War 1:93-98), Alexander Jannaeus crucified eight hundred Pharisees who encouraged the Seleucid Demetrius to dethrone Jannaeus (c. 88 BC). The Qumran community, who authored the Dead Sea Scrolls and were bitter enemies of the Pharisees, commented on Jannaeus’ act of crucifying (i.e., hanging alive) eight hundred Pharisees. Their commentary on the book of Nahum (Pesher Nahum) states on Nahum 2:12: “’Wither the lion, the lioness went, the lion’s cub [and none terrify.’ It’s interpretation concerns Deme]trius, king of Greece, who sought to enter Jerusalem by the counsel of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things (the Essene name for the Pharisees)” (1QpNah 1:2). The author of the commentary interprets Nahum 2:13, “’The lion tears sufficient for his cubs, (and) strangles (מחנק) for his lionesses prey.’ [ Its interpretation] concerns the Lion of Wrath who will smite by his nobles and men of his counsel [ ‘And he filled with prey] his cave and his den with torn flesh’ [Nah. 2:13]. Its interpretation concerns the Lion of Wrath [ ven]geance on the Seekers-of-Smooth-Things when he hangs men up alive [ ] in Israel beforetime, for of a man hanged alive upon a tree it [re]ads: ‘Behold I am against [you] say[s Yahweh of hosts, and I will burn in smoke your abundance,] and your young lions the sword shall devour…’” (1QpNah 1:4-9; emphasis added). Most scholars identify the “Lion of Wrath” as Alexander Jannaeus and the commentary alludes to his crucifixion of the Pharisees described by Josephus. For our purposes, it is significant how the Qumran author interpreted the biblical word “strangles” (מחנק) from Nahum (2:13) as crucifixion (lit. “hanging men up alive”). This commentator connected “strangle” and “hanging alive” (crucifixion).
In addition to the passage from Nahum, the Qumran author had in mind the difficult passage of Deuteronomy 21:22-23: “When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, then you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” The biblical passage leaves many questions unanswered, but it apparently means the guilty person should be executed first and then hung on the tree. The author of the Temple Scroll, a document discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, read this verse differently: “If a man informs against his people, and delivers them up to a foreign nation, so doing evil to his people, you shall hang him on the tree, and he shall die. On the evidence of two or three witnesses he shall be put to death, and they shall hang him on the tree. If a man convicted of a capital crime and flees to the nations, cursing his people and the children of Israel, you are to hand him, also, upon a tree until dead” (11Q19 64:6-9). The Temple Scroll required the one who “informs against his people” to be hung on the tree as a means of death in a reversal of the Deuteronomic order: “…you shall hang him on the tree, and he shall die.”
The change of the biblical order in the Temple Scroll is significant considering how the Sages of Israel referenced the order of the biblical text (i.e., the criminal is killed and then hung upon a tree) to rule against the practice of crucifixion. Commenting on Deuteronomy 21:22, Sifre states, “Might it be interpreted that he is to be hanged alive, as is done by the state (i.e., Rome)? Therefore, Scripture says, ‘and he is put to death, then you hang him on a tree’ (Deut. 21:22)” (Sifre Deuteronomy, 254). Another discussion spells this issue out in more detail: “Our Rabbis taught: Had it been written, ‘If he has sinned, then you shall hang him,’ I could have said that he is hanged (i.e., crucified) and then put to death, as does the state (Rome). Therefore Scripture says, ‘and he is put to death, then you shall hang him’—he is first put to death and afterwards hanged” (b. Sanhedrin 46b). The Aramaic translation of the passage in Deuteronomy that originated in the land of Israel reads: “But if one is condemned to death, he is to be put to death by stoning, and afterwards they may hang him on a tree.” This manner of reading Deuteronomy 21:22 apparently existed in the first century, as some Jews condemned the Roman practice of crucifixion, which was supported as a means of execution by certain Jewish groups, as attested by the Temple Scroll.
Most scholars date the composition of the Temple Scroll to “the days of John Hyrcanus (the father of Alexander Jannaeus, the “Lion of Wrath”) or shortly earlier.” Rabbinic tradition mentions a Sage, Shimon ben Shetah, a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus and his wife Salome Alexandra, who hung alive eighty witches in one day: “A man is hanged with his face to the people and a woman with her face towards the gallows (lit. tree). So Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say: A man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women in Ashkelon? They answered: He hanged eighty women, whereas two ought not to be judged in the one day” (m. Sanhedrin6:4; see also y. Hagigah 2.2, 77d). The story of Shimon ben Shetah embarrassed the Sages in later periods, which suggests they did not invent it. This rabbinic tradition about Shimon ben Shetah’s execution of eighty witches by hanging them alive may reflect the religious turmoil of his days. According to Josephus and rabbinic tradition (Antiquities 13:408-409; b. Sotah 22b), the Sadducee Alexander Jannaeus instructed his wife Salome Alexandra upon his deathbed to make peace with the Pharisees, which she did. In response to their persecutions by Alexander Jannaeus and the Sadducees during Jannaeus’ reign, the Pharisees, now in a position of power, began to persecute their enemies including ordering the execution of the former counselors of Alexander Jannaeus (Josephus, Antiquities 13:410-417; War 1:113-114). The story of Shimon ben Shetah and the eighty witches most likely comes from this period when Shimon and the Pharisees were in a position of religious and political power during the reign of Salome Alexandra. The embarrassment of the later Sages at Shimon’s actions of hanging alive these women reflects the shame felt by the Pharisees from the reign of Herod the Great and afterwards at the religious persecutions of their forefathers. Jesus acknowledged this embarrassment and remorse of the Pharisees in his statement, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets” (Matt. 23:30).
From the time of John Hyrcanus (135-104 BC) until the final days of the Hasmoneans (63 BC), the Hasmonean state experienced many political and religious conflicts between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The principal mention of crucifixion (hanging a person alive) within Jewish sources comes from this period: the Temple Scroll, the actions of Alexander Jannaeus against the Pharisees, and the rabbinic tradition about Shimon ben Shetah. The Temple Scroll and Pesher Nahum show how some Jews interpreted Deuteronomy 21:22 to mean a criminal could be executed by being hung alive (crucified): “you shall hang him on a tree, and he shall die.” The Temple Scroll originated from the priestly circle from which the Essene community would emerge, so too, Alexander Jannaeus, the high priest, was a Sadducee. Apparently, this reading of Deuteronomy 21:22—“you shall hang him on a tree, and he shall die”—was popular among priestly circles. It may have even grown out of priestly circles.
Rabbinic tradition identified four forms of capital punishment: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling (חנק: m. Sanhedrin 7:1). The Aramaic translation of the book of Ruth (1:17) also lists four means of capital punishment: stoning, burning, beheading, and crucifixion (צליבת קיסא). The lists are identical except crucifixion appears in place of strangulation in the Targum of Ruth. Some scholars suggest the Aramaic translation of Ruth preserves an ancient pre-Tannaitic (early rabbinic) tradition, possibly deriving from Sadducean circles. The acceptance of crucifixion as an appropriate means of capital punishment within the Temple Scroll and the actions of the Sadducee Alexander Jannaeus may indicate the Aramaic translation of Ruth preserves an older, Sadducean list of acceptable capital punishments. Above we noted how the author of Pesher Nahum interpreted the Hebrew word “strangles” (מחנק) in Nahum 2:13 as the act of “hanging men alive” (i.e., crucifixion). This does not mean the terms are synonymous; rather, it witnesses to the different interpretation preserved in Aramaic Ruth and the Mishnah. The evidence of the Temple Scroll and Pesher Nahum suggests the inclusion of crucifixion in Aramaic Ruth likely derived from a reading of Deuteronomy 21:22, which allowed hanging (crucifixion) as a means of execution. The variation between these two traditions preserved in Aramaic Ruth and the Mishnah may have originated in the interpretive traditions on Deuteronomy 21:22 going back to the second century BC.
The Pharisees rejected crucifixion (the manner of execution used by Rome) as an acceptable form of capital punishment because of its cruelty. Rabbi Meir told a parable to explain the Pharisaic position on crucifixion: “Why does Scripture say, ‘For one which is hanged is cursed by God’ (Deut. 21:23)? The matter may be compared to two brothers who were twins that looked exactly alike. One was the king of the whole universe and the other became a thief. After a time, the thief was caught. They crucified him upon a cross. Everyone who passed by said, ‘This one who is being crucified looks just like the king!’ Therefore it is said, ‘accursed is God because of a hanged man’ (Deut. 21:23)” (t. Sanhedrin 9:7).
The cry of the crowd, who were the chief priests, the Sadducean aristocracy of Jerusalem, before Pilate to “Crucify” Jesus further identified this Jewish group. They belonged to the priestly groups, like the Temple Scroll and Alexander Jannaeus, who viewed crucifixion as a suitable means of execution. The Temple Scroll, the Pesher on Nahum, and the Targum of Ruth approve of crucifixion as an acceptable form of capital punishment based upon their alternative reading of Deuteronomy 21:22. These sources reflect the ideology found within priestly groups of the Greco-Roman period. The teachings of the Pharisees influenced most of the people (see Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls, New Testament, and rabbinic tradition). It is likely the majority of the Jewish people, like the Pharisees, rejected crucifixion as a form of capital punishment. The cry of “Crucify” belonged to the ideology of Sadducean priests, not the masses of the Jewish people! This is Luke’s description of the event before Pilate: “Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers of the people…but they (i.e., the chief priests and the rulers of the people) shouted out, ‘Crucify, crucify him!’” (23:13-21). The testimony of Acts further corroborates the Jewish populace of Jerusalem’s ignorance of the chief priests’ involvement in handing Jesus over to the Romans. The chief priests charged the disciples to quit preaching in Jesus’ name “lest you bring this man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:27-28). This statement assumes the population of Jerusalem did not participate in condemning Jesus before Pilate, and even sometime later, they did not know what role the chief priests played in his death. The chief priests feared their role in Jesus’ death would be discovered, which would make them culpable of the unpardonable sin in Judaism, to hand over a fellow Jew to death at the hands of non-Jews (see t. Terumot 7:20; Seder Olam Rabbah 3:84-90; and 11QTemp 64:6-8).
Another observation in light of our study pertains to Matthew’s version of Judas’ death, in which he hung himself (27:3-10, especially verse 5). The difference between the two lists of capital punishments in the Aramaic version of Ruth and the Mishnah shed light upon Judas’ actions. We cannot give a full treatment of Judas’ actions at this time; however, it seems he did not fully comprehend the goal of the chief priests (he would not be the first person in history enticed to do something heinous by the greed of financial gain). In Matthew, upon seeing Jesus taken before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, Judas recognized he played the role of the betrayer (מוסר, i.e., a Jew who hands a fellow Jew over to death by a non-Jew; see Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 3; cf. t. Sanhedrin 13:4-5; and b. Rosh HaShanah 17a) whereupon he returned the money to the chief priests and hanged (απήγξατο: חנק) himself (Matthew 27:3-5). We have already noted the parallel between “hanging” and “crucifixion” in the Temple Scroll and the Nahum Pesher. Judas committed the unpardonable sin by betraying Jesus. His hope of atonement lay in him taking his life as an act of repentance for his betrayal. Rabbi Yehudah stated, “Death and the Day of Atonement make atonement with repentance; repentance atones with death; and the day of death counts as atonement” (t. Yoma 4:9). The Sages comment about one being led to the place of execution, “For the one about to die who confesses. Everyone who confesses has a place in the world to come…but if he does not know to confess, they [those leading him to the place of execution] will say to him, ‘Say, “Let my death atone for all my sins”’” (m. Sanhedrin 6:2; see Josephus, War 2:469-476; 7:329-333; and Psalms of Solomon 10:1-2). The belief that one condemned to death, who repents by confession of guilt, finds atonement reflects the humane spirit within Pharisaic circles, which contrasts with the position of the Sadducees.
The Sages interpreted the death of King Saul in a similar manner, who went into battle knowing his death awaited, as told him by Samuel (Leviticus Rabbah 26:7-9). The midrash describes Saul questioning Samuel, after the prophet told Saul he would fall the next day in battle, whether he could avoid death if he fled. Samuel responded: “If you flee you will be safe, but if you accept the divine judgment, tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.” Saul’s acceptance of his death as repentance for his sins will atone for his guilt and allow him to enter heaven (see Luke 23:40-43).
We quoted the passage from the Temple Scroll requiring a criminal to die by being hung alive: “If a man informs against his people and delivers his people up to a foreign nation…you shall hang him on the tree, and he shall die” (11Q19 64:6-8). When the chief priests handed Jesus over to Pilate, Judas became one who “delivers his people up to a foreign nation.” His only hope of redemption, to his mind, was to die in a manner like the one whose death he caused. His choice of strangulation is not mere happenstance. Within rabbinic circles, strangulation offered a more humane substitute for crucifixion, and the one who “delivers his people to a foreign nation” should be hung! Judas, then, exacted upon himself the rabbinic death penalty, which paralleled Jesus’ crucifixion by the Romans. He sought atonement for his betrayal by his death, which signaled his repentance.
An interesting parallel to the death of Judas appears in the rabbinic legend about the death of the pro-Greek, high priest Alcimus, who captured and executed sixty Hasidim (1 Maccabees 7:16-17). Although the death of Alcimus recorded in this legend never happened (he died of a stroke; see 1 Macc. 9:54-56; Josephus, Antiquities 12:413), it allows us to understand Judas’ actions. According to the legend as part of his execution of the sixty Hasidim, he executed his uncle Yose ben Yoezer: “Yakim (Alcimus), a man of trouble, who was the nephew of Yose ben Yoezer a man of Zareydah, was riding upon his horse. A decree went forth that Yose ben Yoezer was to be crucified (lit. “to be hanged”). He (Alcimus) said to him (Yose), “See the horse that my master has given me, and look at the horse that your master has given you.”And he (Yose) replied to him (Alcimus), “If it is such with those who anger Him how much more with those who do His will?” To which, he (Alcimus) responded to him (Yose), “Is there a person who does His will more than you?” He (Yose) replied to him (Alcimus), “If it is such with those who do His will how much more with those who anger Him?” The word entered him (Alciums) like the venom of a serpent, and he went to fulfill by his own hand the four forms of capital punishment…Yose ben Yoezer was sleeping [on the cross] and saw his (Alcimus’) death rising through the air. He said, “By a brief moment, he preceded me to Paradise” (Genesis Rabbah 65:22; see Midrash Tehillim to Psalm 11:7; see also Luke 23:40-43). To atone for his role in the death of Yose ben Yoezer, Alcimus subjected himself to the four types of capital punishment: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling. In doing so, he repented and preceded Yose into heaven. Judas likewise sought to atone for his role in the crucifixion of Jesus. He followed the Pharisaic form of death, strangling, as a substitute for crucifixion.
The chief priests plotted to kill Jesus because he threatened their way of life, and his popularity with the people heightened his threat. They had to use the cloak of darkness to cover up their actions from the people and enlisted the help of Judas. The chief priests made up the crowds standing in front of Pilate, and their cry of “Crucify” identified them as Sadducean. Judas, enticed by the promise of financial reward, betrayed Jesus, which meant he played a role in handing Jesus over to the Romans. His hope of repentance lay in the taking of his own life, which he did.
We often read the New Testament within a cultural and historical vacuum, separated from the spiritual nuances of the world of ancient Judaism. So too, our readings of the biblical text often lack careful attention to the language of the text; we allow our traditions to blind us. Entering the world of the Bible sensitizes us to the thought and issues of the ancient world. It enables us to reflect upon what as written through the eyes of the ancients.