The theatrical scene of the crucifixion of Jesus

A dramatic narrative in the theatrical scene of the crucifixion of Jesus

The anonymous authors of the New Testament Gospels did not have the privilege of personally knowing Jesus, nor did they have access to precise data about his life. Their only certainty was that he had been executed, but none of them were present at this dramatic event. Devoid of direct testimonies of his crucifixion, they wove a captivating narrative, populated by numerous characters, without overly concerning themselves with the coherence of their account. Despite their efforts to provide a coherent narration, the versions of the Gospels diverge. The writers could not draw from written testimonies, as it turns out that no one had deemed it necessary to record the words or actions of a Messiah revered by a group of simple fishermen in Galilee. Thus, it falls to historians to critically examine the accounts of the crucifixion, taking into account the cultural and political context in Judea within the Greco-Roman world. Without this context, it is difficult to understand how the characters connected to the crucifixion of Jesus were perceived under Roman occupation.

In the face of the lack of information about the life of Jesus, the authors of the Gospels had to fill in the gaps by creating a complex narrative aimed at captivating their audience. The richer and more unexpected the narrative was in its dramaturgy, the more likely it was to spread. A drama requires main characters, among whom are Jesus, his family, his disciples, and foremost, the one who continued his work or his legacy, Peter-Caiaphas. The dramatic plot also demands secondary characters to develop the storyline. The authors of the Gospels did not hesitate to introduce new symbolic characters to enrich the drama. In my opinion, most of them can be considered as characters appearing solely for narrative purposes. These include the character of Judas, symbolizing betrayal and tragic destiny; Joseph of Arimathea, tasked with the burial of Jesus and embodying the perspective of resurrection; Simon of Cyrene, who carried the cross and might have been crucified in Jesus’ place; Jesus Barabbas, the criminal whom the Judean crowd preferred to release instead of Jesus; the wise counsel of the wife of governor Pontius Pilate; the disciple Thomas, who doubted Jesus’ resurrection and died a martyr; and finally, the presumed father of Jesus, used to attribute to him a royal lineage with the dynasty of David. These characters have only ephemeral roles in the theatrical drama, appearing only at specific moments to advance the plot before disappearing after playing their part.

Judas: The Embodiment of Betrayal

Judas epitomizes betrayal and greed most emblematically. His name wasn’t chosen randomly; it derives from the name of the Judeans who betrayed Jesus. In the eyes of the Christian reader of the New Testament, Judas the traitor gives his name to the kingdom of Judah and its people, not the other way around. The Judeans are then a people of traitors, like the man who betrayed Jesus. The Gospels compete in means to discredit him. It’s surprising to note that the Epistles of Paul and the “Book of Revelation” don’t seem to have any knowledge of Judas. According to Luke, Matthew, and Mark, the evangelists knew in advance that Judas would be a traitor who would deliver Jesus to the Roman soldiers. Judas is primarily associated with money. He carried a purse with him and was responsible for the expenses of Jesus and his disciples. According to Matthew, what is most opposed to God is money: “You cannot serve God and money” (Matthew 6:24). Thus, much later, the link between Judas, the Jews, and money is established.

Judas participated like the other disciples in the Last Supper at Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives. Due to his natural inclination, Jesus, of course, knew he would betray him. According to Matthew, Judas asked, “Is it I, Rabbi?” Jesus replied to him, “You have said so” (Matthew 26:25). At the end of the meal, Judas came to Gethsemane with a group of soldiers. According to a prearranged sign, he approached Jesus and kissed him, and thus the soldiers knew whom to arrest.

Two conflicting versions tell the death of the traitor Judas. According to Matthew, Judas received thirty pieces of silver in exchange for his betrayal. After Jesus was crucified, tormented by remorse, he returned the money to the priests and hanged himself (Matthew 27:3-5). According to the Acts of the Apostles, Judas: “bought a field with the wages of iniquity and, falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his entrails gushed out, and it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood” (Acts 1:18-19). The betrayal obviously didn’t pay off and ended with the death of the traitor. Thus, Judas faced his punishment. Is Judas truly an authentic figure, or did the authors of the Gospels need a figure of an anti-hero symbolizing evil in contrast to the righteousness of Jesus? Does the story, which ends in a tragic death, not require an episode of betrayal to develop the plot?

Joseph of Arimathea: The Keeper of the Tomb

More than just a Judean figure of betrayal, Joseph of Arimathea enters into the history of Jesus’ death and resurrection as a key character who enables the weaving of a narrative around revelations to his disciples and close associates. Hebrew translators have linked his name to the city of Ramatayim. It’s difficult to decide on the meaning of his name, but it might be preferable to link it to Hebrew which suggests his appearance “after death” (aharei mot). After the execution of John the Baptist, his disciples took care of his body and placed it in a tomb (Mark 6:29), similarly after the stoning of Stephen by the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2). However, no close family member or disciple of Jesus was present at his crucifixion. All fled and left him alone (Mark 14:50). Did they have to hide in Jerusalem for fear of being arrested? Did the authors seek to underline the betrayal of Jesus’ close ones in contrast to the figure of Joseph of Arimathea?

After Jesus’ body was thrown into a tomb, Joseph of Arimathea suddenly appeared after his death, saving the body, thus marking a turning point in the story. According to the account, it fell to him to take Jesus down from the cross, to buy burial cloths, wrap the body, place it in a rock-hewn tomb, and seal the entrance of the cave with a heavy stone (Mark 15:46).
Joseph of Arimathea is designated as a secret disciple of Jesus, fearing the Judeans (John 19:38). The apocryphal Gospel of Peter attributes to him the status of friend of the Roman procurator in Judea. According to Luke, he was even a member of the Sanhedrin, an important official position (Luke 23:51). In this position, he could have met Pontius Pilate. As a friend, he would have obtained Pilate’s permission to retrieve the crucified body of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles highlight his role after Jesus’ death, indicating that although the authorities in Jerusalem ignored his identity, they effectively fulfilled the prophecies by crucifying him and placing him in a tomb (Acts 13:29-27).

However, a question arises: Did Joseph bury Jesus on the Sabbath, which would have been contrary to tradition? The Gospel according to Mark seems to contradict this notion by stating that all members of the Sanhedrin unanimously condemned Jesus to death. If Joseph was indeed a member of the Sanhedrin, it is legitimate to wonder if he participated in this decision. If he opposed the condemnation of Jesus, this could explain his role as a disciple.
According to the historian Flavius Josephus, the Sanhedrin did not possess autonomous powers but represented a respected assembly operating under the political authority of the Roman governor. This institution was well recognized in the Roman Empire, considered an advisory body by the local governor. Its status differed from that of the Greek Gerousia, the council of elders, which enjoyed political independence. Conversely, the Talmud attributes supreme status to the Sanhedrin of the Roman era, with extensive powers over the lives of the Judeans in religious, political, and legal domains. This institution, non-existent in the Roman era, was unknown to the Talmudic writers during its composition, as they lacked knowledge of that period.

After laying Jesus’ body in the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea’s role ended, his presence marking the end of his role as a bystander in the scene of Jesus’ death. However, his disappearance raises questions. Being one of the few close persons to the crucified present, his absence is notable, especially when neither his mother nor his brothers and sisters were present at the crucifixion. The disciples close to Jesus, including Peter, scattered for fear of the authorities. Joseph of Arimathea could have provided crucial testimony by describing in detail the crucifixion and burial to the authors of the gospels. However, they quickly eclipsed him, excluding him before he could testify to the protagonist’s final moments. Jesus’ death on the cross was, as expected, a humiliating end for the writers, who attempted to mitigate it, although the event was widely observed by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, making its nonexistence difficult. Nevertheless, no arrests of Jesus’ relatives, his twelve apostles, or his family occurred after his death. Were they feared to incite further riots?