Romans are to blame for death of Jesus

Mel Gibson's new movie stirs religious controversy

By Neil Schoenherr February 18, 2004

184Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)184Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new
window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new
window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

The soon to be released Mel Gibson movie “The Passion of The Christ” is creating quite a stir among
religious experts, as well as lay people. Many say the movie has anti-Semitic overtones. But according to
Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., professor of religious studies at Washington University in St. Louis, the Jews had
nothing to do with killing Jesus — the Romans are actually to blame.

Frank Flinn

Frank Flinn

“Had the Jewish authorities been directly involved, Jesus would have been stoned, as Stephen was in
Acts 7,” Flinn said. “Only Roman authorities could authorize crucifixions and they often did so on a
gruesome, massive scale.”

Flinn, an expert on Catholicism, said Gibson’s movie seems to merge all of the gospel stories about the
Passion into one epic, a made-for-the-big screen story that fails to show how opinions about the Jews’
role in the crucifixion have changed dramatically over time. He notes that our earliest accounts of the
crucifixion, such as the Gospel of Mark written circa 60-70 C.E., make clear that it was Pilate who had
Christ crucified. Gospels written much later, such as those of Matthew and Luke, reflect different
interests and viewpoints, and each places more and more blame on the Jews.

“Matthew, probably because of intra-Jewish rivalry, puts the ultimate blame squarely on the shoulders
of the Jewish authorities,” Flinn said. “In Luke, the “whitewash” of the Romans becomes nearly
complete. By the Middle Ages, the epithet ‘Christ-killers’ became the verbal club to justify the
ghettoization, persecution, and murder of Jews. We all know the end-term of this lamentable history.”
Who Killed Jesus?

A Guide to Viewing Mel Gibson’s Movie

By Frank K. Flinn

Romans killed Jesus as a political threat, as they had killed many other prophets, brigands, rebels during
the first century. Josephus the Jewish historian recounts many examples in his Jewish War and Jewish
Antiquities. Had the Jewish authorities been directly involved, Jesus would have been stoned, as
Stephen was in Acts 7. Only Roman authorities could authorize crucifixions and they often did so on a
gruesome, massive scale. The rebellion and crucifixion of Sparticus’ army is witness to their ruthless
power.

Jesus was seen by his earliest Galilean followers as a prophet like Elijah, who roamed the Galilean hills
healing the sick and raising the dead. Like all the prophets of earlier times, Jesus called for a renewal of
the terms of the covenant (Leviticus 19), a return of the land to the original tribal owners (law of
Jubilee), and often spoke out against the compromised leadership in Jerusalem.

Some (note “some’) Jewish leaders (Sadducees and Pharisees) owed their positions to their
patron/client relation to the Roman authorities. The emperor appointed the procurator of Judea who
appointed the High Priest. Other Jewish parties, including teachers and prophets in rural Galilee and the
Dead Sea Scrolls community of Qumran, either rejected or rebelled against the Jerusalem leaders’
tainted relationship with Rome. Julius Caesar had earlier exempted Jews from offering imperial worship
by having them pay a special tax to Rome. Temple authorities, via tax farmers, collected this tax for
Rome along with the Temple tax. Poor farmers in Galilee wound up having to mortgage their ancestral
lands to the powers that be in Jerusalem. The wealthy in Jerusalem should have returned this land to
the original tribes by the periodic law of Jubilee, but failed to do so.

Like the prophets of old, Jesus preached kingdom of God. “Render unto Caesar” means, give back to
Caesar his own coin with his image on it (according to Leviticus 19: 4, a blasphemy to the pious Jew!)
and to God what is God’s, namely, the land itself which God ultimately owns and which God gave
directly to Israel in the covenant (Joshua 24:13)! Jesus’ message was both spiritually and politically
threatening first to the Roman authorities and secondarily to their client appointees in Jerusalem.
Mark, the earliest Gospel we have, was written ca. 60-70 CE. He shows Jesus’ death as a collusion
between the compromised leaders and Pilate, kind of 50/50, but Mark 15:15 makes it clear that it was
Pilate who had him crucified.

Matthew and Luke were written much later, ca. 80-95, and reflect different interests and viewpoints.
Matthew portrays Jesus as a Super Teacher or Rabbi on the model of Moses. Being a Jewish follower of
Jesus (the word “Christian” first occurs in Antioch), Matthew also reflects a period after the destruction
of Jerusalem in 70 CE when conflicts broke out between rabbinic Yavneh Jews and the Jewish followers
of Jesus. Surviving rabbis at the Council Yavhneh (ca. 90) tried to exclude “Nazoreans” (followers of the
man from Nazareth) from partaking in the synagogue. The rabbis may not have been too successful.
Recent archeological research indicates that later Jewish Christians partook in the synagogue until the
7th century! (I always point out to my students that a Christian can go to any Jewish Sabbath service and
say all the prayers with full religious sincerity.) Matthew goes to some length to remove blame from the
Roman authorities. He has Pilate’s wife interceding for Jesus (many emperor’s wives interceded for
Christians in Rome) and Pilate washing his hands as a sign of innocence. Probably because of intra-
Jewish rivalry, puts the ultimate blame squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities by adding the
verse “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matthew 24:25).

In Luke, the “whitewash” of the Romans becomes nearly complete. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of
Acts should be read as one work. Luke/Acts is unfolds in ascending dyptychs and was written for a
Roman audience, probably a noble audience. We can now use the word “Christian” which occurs at Acts
11:26 for the first time, but the term was almost certainly a pejorative epithet in origin. Luke/Acts
unfolds according to the following pattern: from John Baptist to Jesus, from Galilee to Jerusalem, from
Peter to Paul, and from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke is trying to justify Christianity in the face of criticism by
the Romans who accused it of being “superstition.” Luke goes beyond Matthew to establish Roman
innocence. The crowning with thorns and mocking of Jesus passages are removed. Then three times
Pilate declares Jesus’ innocence to the crowd. Luke finesses Pilate’s responsibility: “But Jesus he [Pilate]
delivered up to their [the crowd’s] will” (Luke 23:26). Perhaps I should say “Romanwash” instead of
“whitewash.” Other souces tell us that Pontius Pilate was a particularly cruel govenor who brooked no
opposition.

The Gospel of John, as most scholars maintain, stands by itself but one of the signs of its lateness in its
present form (ca. 100-110 CE) is that John does not lay Jesus’ death so much on Pilate, or Pilate Jewish
authorities, or even the Jewish authorities alone, but “Jews” as a whole (John 19:12). The break with
Judaism is nigh complete. The stereotype is set for the later, fateful charge that “the Jews killed Jesus”
although John does not say this.
In the next centuries Christian apologists portrayed the “Jews” as a “stiff-necked people” who refused
the light of salvation. It was not until after Constantine brought about a full breach with Judaism as such
that the phrase “Christ-killers” was put to use. Even in this case, there is an interesting subtext. John
Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople (ca. 398-407), was the first to accuse Jews of being “Christ-killers”
but his reason for doing so was that his Christian congregants were continuing to attend the local
synagogue, no doubt because the rabbis were more learned than many priests and were better biblical
preachers!

By the Middle Ages the epithet “Christ-killers” became the verbal club justifying the ghettoization,
persecution, and murder of Jews. We all know the end-term of this lamentable history.

My discussion lays out a sequence of who was responsible for Jesus’ death and the appropriate terms
for each stage:

• Romans

• Romans /Jewish leaders

• High Priest, Scribes, Elders/Romans

• Chief Priest, Scribes, Elders, Crowd/Pilate (sort of)

• Jews (in general)

• “Stiff-necked People”

• “Christ-killers…”
From what I can gather about Mel Gibson’s movie in published reports, is that like many past movies
about Jesus it merges all the gospel stories about the passion together. As I show above, the different
gospels say very different things. Secondly the Gibson movie, by his own admission, is bloody and gory
and stresses the role of Mary way beyond any of the gospels. This makes it sound like the notorious
traditional Catholic Oberammergau Passion Play in Germany which in its original form was blatantly
stereotypical and anti-Semitic. Most importantly, the tendency in almost all Christian views of Jesus’
death is to assume, not the first term in the sequence I give above but the last, as one’s frame of
reference. But to be fair, we have to wait until the movie comes out.