Did the Jews Crucify Jesus?

This article is based on Tamás Visi, “Pilate Delivered Jesus to Them: Mark 15.15 in Ancient Versions and in Anti-Jewish Narratives,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 21 (2023): 35–74.

According to the Mishnah, Jewish death penalties consisted of suffocation, beheading, burning, and stoning. The impaling of bodies, as we see in the Bible, was a post-execution display tactic, not a form of execution in and of itself.

Ostensibly, a “baraita” is a tannaitic traditions, dating to before the beginning of the third century of the Common Era in Judea or the Galilee. Many such baraitot, however, found in the Babylonian Talmud, lack parallels in rabbinic sources from the Land of Israel, and their Hebrew dialect is often slightly different. For these and other reasons, scholar are often skeptical about the authenticity of baraitot that appear only in the Babylonian Talmud. Cf. Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, transl. Markus Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 198-199. The baraita about Jesus’ execution belongs to this group: in other words, despite its being presented as a tannaitic tradition, it is likely that it originated in Babylonia during the third to fifth centuries.

The Talmudic text will be discussed more below. See Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007), 64. Cf. David Instone-Brewer, “Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in the Uncensored Talmud,” Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011): 269-294 [280–282].

The English is from NRSVue. The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 14:63} ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς διαρρήξας τοὺς χιτῶνας αὐτοῦ λέγει· τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων; ^14:64 ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας· τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; οἱ δὲ πάντες κατέκριναν αὐτὸν ἔνοχον εἶναι θανάτου.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 14:65} Καὶ ἤρξαντό τινες ἐμπτύειν αὐτῷ καὶ περικαλύπτειν αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ κολαφίζειν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ· προφήτευσον, καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται ῥαπίσμασιν αὐτὸν ἔλαβον.

The imperial governor of a minor province.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15:1} Καὶ εὐθὺς πρωῒ συμβούλιον ποιήσαντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ γραμματέων καὶ ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον, δήσαντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπήνεγκαν καὶ παρέδωκαν Πιλάτῳ. ^15:2 Καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλᾶτος· σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει· σὺ λέγεις.

^15:3 καὶ κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς πολλά. ^15:4 ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος πάλιν ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν λέγων· οὐκ ἀποκρίνῃ οὐδέν; ἴδε πόσα σου κατηγοροῦσιν. ^15:5 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκέτι οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη, ὥστε θαυμάζειν τὸν Πιλᾶτον.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15:9} ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς λέγων· θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ^15:10 ἐγίνωσκεν γὰρ ὅτι διὰ φθόνον παραδεδώκεισαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς. ^15:11 οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς ἀνέσεισαν τὸν ὄχλον ἵνα μᾶλλον τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἀπολύσῃ αὐτοῖς.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15:12} ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος πάλιν ἀποκριθεὶς ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· τί οὖν [θέλετε] ποιήσω [ὃν λέγετε] τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ^15:13 οἱ δὲ πάλιν ἔκραξαν· σταύρωσον αὐτόν. ^15:14 ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· τί γὰρ ἐποίησεν κακόν; οἱ δὲ περισσῶς ἔκραξαν· σταύρωσον αὐτόν.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατά Μαθθαίον 27:24} Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Πιλᾶτος ὅτι οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον θόρυβος γίνεται, λαβὼν ὕδωρ ἀπενίψατο τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέναντι τοῦ ὄχλου λέγων· ἀθῷός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τούτου· ὑμεῖς ὄψεσθε. ^27:25 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πᾶς ὁ λαὸς εἶπεν· τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατά Λουκάν 23:22} ὁ δὲ τρίτον εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν οὗτος; οὐδὲν αἴτιον θανάτου εὗρον ἐν αὐτῷ· παιδεύσας οὖν αὐτὸν ἀπολύσω. ^23:23 οἱ δὲ ἐπέκειντο φωναῖς μεγάλαις αἰτούμενοι αὐτὸν σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ κατίσχυον αἱ φωναὶ αὐτῶν. ^23:24 Καὶ Πιλᾶτος ἐπέκρινεν γενέσθαι τὸ αἴτημα αὐτῶν·

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15:15} Ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος βουλόμενος τῷ ὄχλῳ τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν, καὶ παρέδωκεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας ἵνα σταυρωθῇ.

The quoted translation assumes that αὐλῆς means “palace” here, a possible parallel to such usage of the Greek word is 1 Maccabees 11:46. Alternately, this word is an Aramaism: the root דור means “to dwell” in Aramaic but the noun דרתא means both “house, dwelling place” and “courtyard” (cf. Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra 67a where the ambiguity of the word is discussed in a legal context). The phrase קדם תרע דרתה “in front of the entrance of his courtyard” is attested in Tobith 7:1 among the Aramaic fragments found in the Judean Desert (4QTob^bar/4Q197 III.3, translated as παρὰ τὴν θύραν τῆς αὐλῆς in the MS Sinaiticus of the Septuagint); the phrases דרת בית מלכא “the courtyard of the palace [lit. ‘house of the king’]” and דרת מלכא “the court of the king” are also attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QPrEsther^dar/4Q550c III.4 and II.6 respectively). The double sense of דרתא is well-attested in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Syriac too. Thus, αὐλῆς in Mark 15:16 can be understood as a somehow unlucky rendering of Aramaic דרתא occurring in a hypothetical Aramaic source of Mark (and actually occurring in the Old Syriac and Peshitta versions of this sentence): while the original Aramaic text may have meant “dwelling place” or “[royal] court,” the Greek translator chose the meaning “courtyard.”

Translation here is modified. The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15:16} Οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστιν πραιτώριον, καὶ συγκαλοῦσιν ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15:17} καὶ ἐνδιδύσκουσιν αὐτὸν πορφύραν καὶ περιτιθέασιν αὐτῷ πλέξαντες ἀκάνθινον στέφανον· ^15:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀσπάζεσθαι αὐτόν· χαῖρε, βασιλεῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων· ^15:19 καὶ ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν καλάμῳ καὶ ἐνέπτυον αὐτῷ καὶ τιθέντες τὰ γόνατα προσεκύνουν αὐτῷ. ^15:20 Καὶ ὅτε ἐνέπαιξαν αὐτῷ, ἐξέδυσαν αὐτὸν τὴν πορφύραν καὶ ἐνέδυσαν αὐτὸν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἐξάγουσιν αὐτὸν ἵνα σταυρώσωσιν αὐτόν.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Μᾶρκον 15:24} Καὶ σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν καὶ διαμερίζονται τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ’ αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρῃ. ^15:25 ἦν δὲ ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν. 26 καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένη· ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

It comes from Latin centurio “commander of hundred [soldiers].”

See also Matthew 27:27 and 54, and Luke 23:36 and 47.

Earlier scholarship either ignored this problem or assumed that the soldiers acted on their own. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, Volume 1: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 1.865. The latter, as noted in the next paragraph, is not a cogent understanding of the passage in Mark.

Cf. Paula Fredriksen, “Why Was Jesus Crucified, But His Followers Were Not?” JSNT 29.4 (2007): 415–419 [417–418]; cf. idem, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, (New York: Vintage, 2000), 252–255.

Cf. Visi, “Pilate Delivered Jesus to Them,” 45–47.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατά Λουκάν 23:5} οἱ δὲ ἐπίσχυον λέγοντες ὅτι ἀνασείει τὸν λαὸν διδάσκων καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἕως ὧδε. ^23:6 Πιλᾶτος δὲ ἀκούσας ἐπηρώτησεν εἰ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν,

The Greek reads:

^{Κατά Λουκάν 23:7} καὶ ἐπιγνοὺς ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας Ἡρῴδου ἐστὶν ἀνέπεμψεν αὐτὸν πρὸς Ἡρῴδην, ὄντα καὶ αὐτὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατά Λουκάν 23:11} ἐξουθενήσας δὲ αὐτὸν [καὶ] ὁ Ἡρῴδης σὺν τοῖς στρατεύμασιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμπαίξας περιβαλὼν ἐσθῆτα λαμπρὰν ἀνέπεμψεν αὐτὸν τῷ Πιλάτῳ.

Luke 23:36–37 has “the soldiers”—presumably, Roman soldiers—offering vinegar to the crucified Jesus, and mocking him verbally: “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” Some manuscripts of Luke add here that the soldiers also put a crown of thorns on Jesus’ head. This is obviously a secondary addition with the purpose of harmonizing Luke with the other three canonical gospels.

In a later apocryphal text, the Gospel of Peter, it is Herod Antipas, and not Pilate, who condemns Jesus to death; see Paul Foster, The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 199.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Ἰωάννην 19:1} Τότε οὖν ἔλαβεν ὁ Πιλᾶτος τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἐμαστίγωσεν. ^19:2 καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν περιέβαλον αὐτὸν ^19:3 καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον· χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων· καὶ ἐδίδοσαν αὐτῷ ῥαπίσματα.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Ἰωάννην 19:4} Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν ἔξω ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἴδε ἄγω ὑμῖν αὐτὸν ἔξω, ἵνα γνῶτε ὅτι οὐδεμίαν αἰτίαν εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ. ^19:5 ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἔξω, φορῶν τὸν ἀκάνθινον στέφανον καὶ τὸ πορφυροῦν ἱμάτιον. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος.

Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1.865.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Ἰωάννην 19:6} Ὅτε οὖν εἶδον αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται ἐκραύγασαν λέγοντες· σταύρωσον σταύρωσον λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος· λάβετε αὐτὸν ὑμεῖς καὶ σταυρώσατε· ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐχ εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ αἰτίαν. ^19:7 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· ἡμεῖς νόμον ἔχομεν καὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὀφείλει ἀποθανεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸν θεοῦ ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν.

The Gospel of John tends to use the word “Jew” in an indiscriminate manner. While in other gospels Jesus has conflicts or debates with different groups of Jews, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, “Herodeans”, scribes, high priests, and even the disciples of John the Baptist, in the Gospel of John, there is a strong tendency to refer to all the aforesaid as “the Jews.” See Adele Reinhartz’s extensive discussion of the “historical referents” of the term “Jew” (Greek: ioudaios) in the fourth gospel: Adele Reinhartz, Cast out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John (Lanham, MD: Fortress Press, 2018), 67-108, esp. 81-86. Some scholars prefer to use the term “Judean” instead of “Jews” as translation of Greek ioudaios (“someone from Judea,” i.e. Judean, or Jew), even though ancient Greek authors did not use this word in a strictly geographical sense, but as referring to the ethno-religious group in pretty much the same way as the English word ‘Jew’ does. See the comment of the Roman historian Cassius Dio (ca. 165-235 CE): “the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews (ioudaioi). I do not know how this title came to be given them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances.” (Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 37.16.5-17.1, tr. E. Carry apud Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2, p. 351).

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Ἰωάννην 19:12} Ἐκ τούτου ὁ Πιλᾶτος ἐζήτει ἀπολῦσαι αὐτόν· οἱ δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐκραύγασαν λέγοντες· ἐὰν τοῦτον ἀπολύσῃς, οὐκ εἶ φίλος τοῦ Καίσαρος· πᾶς ὁ βασιλέα ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν ἀντιλέγει τῷ Καίσαρι. ^19:13 ὁ οὖν Πιλᾶτος ἀκούσας τῶν λόγων τούτων ἤγαγεν ἔξω τὸν Ἰησοῦν... ^19:14 …καὶ λέγει τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις· ἴδε ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν.

^19:15 ἐκραύγασαν οὖν ἐκεῖνοι· ἆρον ἆρον, σταύρωσον αὐτόν. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος· τὸν βασιλέα ὑμῶν σταυρώσω; ἀπεκρίθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς· οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα. ^19:16 Τότε οὖν παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σταυρωθῇ. Παρέλαβον οὖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament [NICNT] (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 946.

The Greek reads:

^{Κατὰ Ἰωάννην 19:23} Οἱ οὖν στρατιῶται, ὅτε ἐσταύρωσαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ἔλαβον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐποίησαν τέσσαρα μέρη, ἑκάστῳ στρατιώτῃ μέρος, καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα. ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος, ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑφαντὸς δι’ ὅλου.

Thus, writes Michaels (ad loc.):

The next sequence, looking back momentarily at the actual moment of crucifixion (v. 18), belatedly introduces the Roman soldiers (last heard from in v. 2), as those who literally crucified Jesus in the sense of nailing him to the cross.

Michaels, The Gospel of John, 950.

In his classic commentary Rudolf Bultmann argues that in John’s source19:16a originally stood between 18:40 and 19:1, and “to them” definitely referred to the Roman soldiers. Cf. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 649 [n.5]. Bultmann enumerates further instances of careless composition in this gospel; ibid., 650 [n.2].

The Greek reads:

^{Πράξεις Ἀποστόλων 2:22} Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, ἀκούσατε τοὺς λόγους τούτους· Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσιν καὶ τέρασιν καὶ σημείοις οἷς ἐποίησεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν καθὼς αὐτοὶ οἴδατε, ^2:23 τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ ἔκδοτον διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε,

τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε.

The Greek reads:

^{Α’ Θεσσαλονικέων 2:14} Ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ^2:15 τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων, ^2:16 κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν, εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.

Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), 551–558. See also, David Gurevich, “Why Did Vespasian and Titus Destroy Jerusalem?” TheTorah (2016).

For example, Tacitus (ca. 56-124 C.E.) writes that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity (hostile odium).” (Tacitus, Historia V, 5:1, tr. C. H. Moore apud Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2, p. 26). The pagan philosopher Porphyry (ca. 234-305 CE) referred to the Jews as “the impious enemies of all the nations (tōn dyssebōn pasin ethnesi poleimōn)” (tr. E H. Gifford, see Stern, ibid., 448-449).

The latter phrase probably refers to a major catastrophe of Jewish history, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE or the failure of the Diaspora Rebellion (117 C.E.) or Bar Kochba Revolt (135 C.E.).

A thorough argument for the case that 1Thess 2:14-16 is a post-70 interpolation: Birger A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” The Harvard Theological Review 64.1 (1971): 79–94. The same conclusion is reached through an in-depth analysis of the syntactic structures of the Greek text by Daryl Schmidt, “1 Thess 2:13-16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation,” JBL 102 (1983): 269-279. While many New Testament scholars refuse the accept these results, their counterarguments are not on the same level of methodological coherence as the argumentation of Pearson and Schmidt. For a more recent restatement of the inauthenticity of the passage, cf. Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, Sacra Pagina Series 11 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2007), 119–127.

He was born in Mesopotamia around 120 C.E. but travelled to Rome where he became Christian and a disciple of Justin Martyr. After Justin’s death in 165 C.E., Tatian returned to the East and established a school in Mesopotamia. He probably wrote the Diatessaron harmony before the establishment of the Roman provinces in the late second century. Editor’s note: For more on the Diatessaron, see Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “The Diatessaron and Its Relevance to the Study of the Pentateuch,” TheTorah (2014).

It is closely related to Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, the language of the Babylonian Talmud.

Other than some fragments, the Greek text is lost, as is most of the Syriac, but it can be reconstructed to some degree on the basis of an early medieval Arabic translation and the early Syriac and Arabic gospel translations. Modern researchers have concluded that the Arabic version preserved the structure of the original Diatessaron accurately, but the wording of the text was often corrected according to the canonical gospels. See James W. Baker, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Composition, Redaction, Recension, and Reception, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), 8.

^[46] The Arabic reads:

وأسلم ايسوع الى الصلب على حسب مأثورهم [...] واليهود اخذوا ايسوع ومضوا ليصلبوه

Diatessaron de Tatien, ed. A.-S. Marmardji, 484-486. In the omitted passage Judas’ remorse and suicide is narrated.

Marcion’s lost gospel may have contained textual variants pointing to the same direction; cf. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, 197-198; Dieter T. Roth, The Text of Marcion’s Gospel, New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents, 49 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 337. Cf. also Pierangelo Gramaglia, Marcione e il Vangelo (di Luca): Un confront con Matthias Klinghardt (Torino: Academia University Press, 2017), xiv and 324.

This word is etymologically related to Hebrew knesset, “assembly.” On the reconstruction of this word in the Diatessaron, see Visi, “Pilate Delivered Jesus to Them,” 51–52. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter also has the crowd mock Jesus; it’s relationship to the Diatessaron is unclear, cf. Visi, “Pilate Delivered Jesus to Them,” 67–68.

The somewhat later Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac that brought it closer to the sense of the Greek original. However, in Mark 15.15–16 the Peshitta agrees with the Old Syriac version.

The Syriac reads:

ܦܝܠܛܘܣ ܕܝܢ ܨܒܐ ܗܘܐ ܕܢܥܒܕ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܠܟܢܫܐ ܘܫܪܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܒܪ‌ ܐܒܐ ܘܐܫܠܡ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܝܫܘܥ ܟܕ ܡܬܢܓܕ ܕܢܙܕܩܦ

Text: Crawford Burkitt (ed.), Evangelion Da-mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic evidence, I (Cambridge: The University Press, 1904), 238 and Agnes Lewis (ed.), The Old Syriac Gospels: or, Evangelion da-Mepharrashe (London: Williams and Norgate 1910), 117. English translation by Burkitt, ibid., 239.

ibid. ܘܐܤܛܪܛܝܘܛܐ ܐܘܒܠܘܗܝ ܠܓܘ ܕܪܬܐ ܕܐܝܬܝܗ ܦܪܛܘܪܝܢ ܘܩܪܘ ܠܟܠܗ ܐܤܦܝܪ

The Old Syriac version of Matthew 27:27 retains the original reading kenšā, “crowd” instead of “cohort.”

As has been mentioned, the Arabic text was translated from the Syriac version, and not from the Greek original. The Arabic reads:

^{مرقس 15:15} فأحب فيلاطس أن يسعف المحافل بطلبتهم ويتبع هواهم فأطلق لهم برابا ودفع اليهم ايسوع معزراً ليُصْلَبَ ^15:16 فانطلق به الشرطة الى رحبة القضاء فدعوا الجماعة باسرها

Ms Vatican, BAV, ar. 13, fol. 73v. In the transcription of the Arabic text the diacritic signs have been modified in accordance with modern conventions, and some vowel signs have been added.

Among the few witnesses of this reading are M (021, Codex Campianus, Paris, BNF, Gr. 48, 9^th century) and Θ (038, Codex Coridethianus, Tbilisi, Inst. rukop. Gr. 28, 9^th century). Constantin Tischendorf (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece, vol. 1, (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869), 391, apparatus ad locum.

The Hebrew verb used (תלאוהו tela’uhu “they hanged him”) can be understood as a calque of Syriac זקפוהי (ܙܩܦܘܗܝ), which literally means “they hanged him” but in the passion narrative it denotes the act of crucifying. It occurs, e.g., in the Old Syriac version of Matthew 27:35 translating σταυρώσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν (they crucified him). Cf. ibid., 285. The main verb for crucifixion in rabbinic Hebrew is צלב but תלה is also used (or understood) occasionally in the same sense; cf. Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, 315­–326 and Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, 211-236. The same verb (זקף) is well-attested in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic in the sense “to hang” but there is no unambiguous evidence for the meaning “to crucify” in Jewish texts. Cf. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Period, (Ramat-Gan, Baltimore, and London: Bar Ilan University Press and The John Hopkins University Press, 2002), 419 s.v. זקף. Cf. Hagiga 5b and Yoma 87b where the verb may denote crucifixion (although this is not certain). Translating ܙܩܦܘܗܝ as תלאוהו to Hebrew, the rabbis could reinterpret the method of execution as stoning to death with postmortem hanging in accordance with Jewish religious law.

Cf. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 122­–125.

In context, this passage is commenting on Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4, which discusses the rules of stoning and prescribes postmortem hanging of stoned criminals in certain cases. The fact that the redactors of the Babylonian Talmud inserted the tradition about the “hanging” of Jesus into this place suggests they believed that Jesus was stoned to death and the so-called crucifixion was but the post-mortem hanging prescribed in the Mishnah. But despite the herald’s announcement, the baraita does not say that they stoned then hanged Jesus, just that they hanged him. Indeed, the reference to stoning in the herald’s announcement—which contradicts the opening assertion of the baraita—appears to be a secondary redaction, bringing the content of the tradition closer to rabbinic law.

The Manichaean psalms include a special emphasis on the Jews as the people of the (Mosaic) law opposing Christ. For example, one of the Manichaean psalms, which is extant only in a Coptic translation, uses the phrase ⲛⲁⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ “those of the Law,” or “the people of the Torah” (translated as “the scribes” by Allberry) to denote the people who persecuted and crucified Jesus. Charles R. C. Allberry (ed. and tr.), A Manichaean Psalm-Book: Part II (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938), 195 [line 23]. On the Manichaeans’ familiarity with the Diatessaron, see Gilles Quispel, “Mani et la tradition évangélique des judéo-chrétiens,” in idem, Gnostice, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel, ed. Johannes van Ort (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 263-269. Ephrem saw it necessary to insert a polemic remark against Manichaeanism in his hymns on the crucifixion (Crucif. V.11.3, ed. Beck, p. 62) as well as in the Commentary on the Diatessaron, see Éphrem de Nisibe, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, 375.

Ephrem, Crucif. IV.2.1-3.5, 5.1-6, and 11.1-2. See, Edmund Beck (ed.), Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Paschahymnen (De azymis, de crucifixione, de resurrectione), Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 248 (Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum , 1964), 55–57. For an English translation, consult Philippus J. Botha, “The Paradox between Appearance and Truth in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn de Crucifixione IV,” Acta patristica et byzantina 13 (2002): 34–49.

Cf. also Christine Shepardson, Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy: Ephrem’s Hymns in Fourth-Century Syria, North American Patristics Society Patristic Monograph Series, 20, (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 95-98. The same is hinted at in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Cf. Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr, 1909), 203. Édouard Massaux, Influence de l’Évangile de Saint Matthieu sur la littérature chrétienne avant Saint Irénée, 2^nd ed. (Leuven: Peeters, 1986 [1950]), 367–368.

This phrase alludes to an apocryphal episode of the passion that is related a few lines earlier in the Cave of Treasures: the Jews intended to tear apart Jesus’ royal tunic, but the roman centurion stopped them from doing so. Carl Bezold (ed.), Die Schatzhöle, (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1883), 255–256.

Bezold (ed.), Die Schatzhöle, 258-259.

Luke does not include a scene with thorns, but the other three gospels all have the Roman soldiers as responsible.

Other passages within the same text explicitly state this. Bezold (ed.), Die Schatzhöle, 255: ܘܟܕ ܓܝܪ ܙܩܦܘܗܝ ܝܗܘܵܕܝܐ ܠܡܫܝܚܐ ܥܠ ܩܝܣܐ ܕܨܠܝܒܐ (“when the Jews crucified Christ on the wood of the cross...”) and 257 ܘܓܕܠܘ ܠܡ ܟܠܝܠܐ ܡܢ ܟܘܵܒܐ ܕܥܘܙܵܢܝܐ ܘܣܡܘ ܥܠ ܪܫܗ (“and they made a crown of thorns of boxthorn bush and put it on his head...”).

Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones IV.18; cf. David L. Dusenbury, The Innocence of Pontius Pilate: How the Roman Trial of Jesus Shaped History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 62-64.

The methodologies that led to the hypothesis that such a text (“the Western Archetype”) existed has been recently criticized, see Ulrich B. Schmid, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” in Ehrman and Holmes, The Text of the New Testamentt, 115-142. However, in his recent monograph, James W. Baker has amassed compelling evidence in favor of the hypothesis. See Baker, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 88-121.

Plooij et al., The Liège Diatessaron, 728-9. I quote Adelphine H. A. Bakker’s English translation of the Middle Dutch text; italics are mine.

His interpretation of Pilate’s role in Jesus’ trial accorded to the general view about the Roman governors’ duties, which were summarized by Ulpian of Tyre (ca. 170-223/228 CE) and was summarized in the Digest of Justitian. Francesco Lardone, “Roman Law in the Works of St. Augustine,” in Richard O. Brooks (ed.), Augustine and Modern Law (London: Routledge, 2011), 229- 250 [originally published in Georgetown Law Journal 21 (1933): 435-456]; Caroline Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 202-204.

Augustine, Tractatus in Joannis Evangelium 116.9, PL 35:1944. English tr. John W. Rettig in St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 112-114, Tractates on the First Epistle of John, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 92 (Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 31-32.

On the legal background of Pilate’s judgement, see Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, 3^rd edition, 227-232 and 249-257. Cf. also Dusenbury, The Innocence of Pontius Pilate, 141-156. According to a Dusenbury, this view of Augustine had decisive impact on the concept of “secular” in European thought.

PL 114: 421; Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinaria […] et Postilla Nicolai Lyrani […], vol. 5 (Venice: n. p., 1603), col. 1311.

Jeremy Cohen, “The Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition, from Augustine to the Friars.” Traditio 39 (1983), 1–37, esp. 8-10. On Augustine’s attitude towards Jews, see Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York, London, Toronto, etc.: Doubleday, 2008), esp. 260-352.

Colum Hourihane, Pontius Pilate, Anti-Semitism, and the Passion in Medieval Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), esp. 92.