![\"Jesus'](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/980\/2025\/06\/JanikKrajc-199x300.jpg\")
Richard A. Horsley is one of the earliest New Testament scholars to make the economic and political conditions of first-century Palestine a key to understanding Jesus. His work and that of few others then represented a courageous break from traditional interpretations. In earlier posts I have explored, and found persuasive, Horsley\u2019s Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine <\/em>as well as similar works by two other scholars. (See here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a> for Horsley and here<\/a> (Ched Myers) and here<\/a> (William Herzog.)) But I have not found anywhere else the idea Horsley proposes in the final 13 pages of the above book. \u201cCrucifixion as Breakthrough,\u201d Horsley\u2019s last chapter, argues that Jesus\u2019 death by crucifixion, not the resurrection, was the decisive inspiration for the Jesus movement. I will be exploring this last point, on which Horsley has not persuaded me.<\/p>\n Horsley argues well, up to this point, that Jesus was a leader of a peasant\/village renewal movement. Jesus\u2019 program included resistance against Roman disruption of traditional village life and against collaboration by Jerusalem\u2019s wealthy elite. Reading Horsley\u2019s last chapter, one gets the impression that, for any practical effect in this world, the resurrection could as well not have happened. It was the crucifixion that was the impetutus for the movement\u2019s expansion. The resurrection gets a mention, offhand, in Horsley\u2019s book, but nothing more.<\/p>\n Herzog notes the failures of two modern interpretations of Jesus \u2013 as an itinerant sage or as an apocalyptic preacher. Roman officials would not have crucified a mere wisdom teacher or prophet of end times. Jerusalem\u2019s elite, with theological concerns, would have meant nothing to Rome. Rome crucified by the thousands actors who threatened their political and economic control. Similarly, Judean officialdom and wealthy families, profiting under Rome\u2019s lead, would have sought to eliminate threats to their position. A purveyor of new theologies or moral platitudes, even a worker of miracles \u2013Palestine could accomodate a few of those well enough.<\/p>\n There is both wisdom teacher and prophet of a new age in Jesus, but he taught and prophesied in service to a political and economic program. It was the same program Jesus\u2019 Scriptures propounded. The same preference for widow, orphan, and stranger. And the same program of debt cancellation, keeping struggling peasant families on their apportioned land. The same, or even stronger, legal prescriptions for preserving and enhancing life in village communities. And \u2013 in new circumstances \u2013 the same insistence on freedom for God\u2019s people from imperial domination.<\/p>\n In locating Jesus\u2019 work within his political circumstances, Horsley focusses on three \u201crealities not usually considered\u201d: the reason Rome employed crucifixion, how coercive power affected subject peoples, and, notably, the effect a decisive leader can have in stimulating a movement of resistance. (p. 154)<\/p>\n Crucifixion, which Rome employed by the thousands, was not so much punishment of an individual as examples and warnings to any who would oppose Rome. The force of that lesson is not hard to imagine. Neither is it hard to figure out how economic and political oppression would affect a subject population and the angry or helpless feelings it would inspire. Horsley takes special care to specify the role of a leader in articulating such effects and orienting such emotions.<\/p>\n Horsley describes Jesus\u2019 last days before his execution by crucifixion as a time of radicalization of his role as leader of a popular renewal movement. Until then Jesus participated in and encouraged the subtle resistance that subject peoples of many cultures learn to employ when direct opposition is too dangerous. They will say what the empire wants to hear in public but the truth among themselves in private. (p. 163) In public they may code the truth they see in harmless-seeming symbolic language. Many of Jesus\u2019 parables are of this sort.<\/p>\n But Jesus\u2019 last days were marked by more direct confrontation in word and act. Provocative words about the Roman tax and Jewish leaders\u2019 faithlessness. A violent demonstration in the Temple that invited both attention and response. Jesus may well have taken on deliberately the role of the sacrificial leader, \u201cspeaking truth to power\u201d and knowing the risk. Such bold speaking and acting, Horsley says, \u201ccan transform the collective indignation into an excitement and energy that inspire collective protest or resistance.\u201d And, \u201ca leaders\u2019 public articulation of the people\u2019s indignation is often what energizes the coalescence and expansion of a movement.\u201d (p. 154)<\/p>\n Horsley first criticizes the traditional idea that the disciples were so dispirited after Jesus\u2019 execution that they had no will to continue his mission. Then he says it wasn\u2019t the resurrection that brought the Jesus movement back to life. Neither of these moves is quite successful.<\/p>\n Horsley considers the disciples\u2019 desertion, their failure to watch with Jesus, and Peter\u2019s denial. All of these may have more to do with a Gospel writer\u2019s literary plan than with reality. They are the \u201cclimax of [Mark\u2019s] Gospel\u2019s subplot of the disciples\u2019 failure to understand and follow Jesus.\u201d\u00a0 Thus they don\u2019t allow any conclusion about the disciples\u2019 fear of Rome. (p. 155)<\/p>\n Luke\u2019s story has two disciples on the way to Emmaus in a state of dejection and near despair. But Luke\u2019s purpose is \u201cto strengthen subsequent believers\u2019 recognition of the risen Jesus in the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\u201d (p. 155) Presumably, the disciples\u2019 feelings just make it a better story rather than reflecting reality.<\/p>\n In John\u2019s Gospel we find the disciples behind locked doors. That\u2019s not because of the crucifixion, Horsley claims, but, as this Gospel says, \u201cfor fear of the Judeans.\u201d<\/p>\n Horsley concludes:<\/p>\n It is thus difficult to find any support in the Gospel sources for the previously standard interpretation that crucifixion left the disciples feeling defeated.\u201d (156)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Horsley\u2019s third, and weakest, point is the only one that doesn\u2019t depend on a biblical author\u2019s augmentations of history. But could Mark make up claims about beloved disciples\u2019 failures when eyewitnesses to the people and events were still around? Could Luke ascribe feelings to disciples that some in his audience would know they never felt? Here I\u2019m taking a page from Richard Bauckham\u2019s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses<\/em><\/a>. A Gospel story has to have enough verisimilitude to get past eyewitness censors.<\/p>\n Horsley next (p. 156) looks for evidence to refute the view that Jesus\u2019 resurrection reanimated the dispirited disciples. I summarize and add some objections:<\/p>\nJesus, the political activist<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Jesus speaks truth to power<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The Crucifixion didn\u2019t leave the disciples in despair, Horsley claims<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The Resurrection didn\u2019t restart a moribund Jesus movement in Horsley\u2019s view<\/strong><\/h3>\n