Abstract Recently, Andrew Ter Ern Loke and Nick Meader published a critique in this journal of an article in which I consider the possibility of bereavement visions as an explanation for the initial sighting of the post-resurrection Jesus by Peter (Lk. 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5) and mass delusions as an explanation for the collective sightings. Loke and Meaders’ response comes under four headings: distorted memory, bereavement hallucinations, ‘mass hysteria’ and cognitive dissonance. In each of these they seek to undermine the effectiveness of my arguments in favour of a more traditional interpretation of events. In my response I attempt to flesh out my earlier presentation and to clarify any misconceptions and misunderstandings, hoping thereby to strengthen my position. I also seek to challenge the view expressed by these scholars that contemporary events such as alleged appearances of the Virgin Mary or of Jesus himself have no relevance to my argument.

Abstract Although the ancient church celebrated the place of Jesus’ execution inside or near the basilica later built by Constantine, in the last two hundred years, some scholars have insisted on other locations. This article surveys and analyzes six suggested sites for Jesus’ crucifixion (including three proposed in the nineteenth century, which remain surprisingly popular) but also argues for yet another (a seventh) topos as most likely. The investigation will lead us through a range of – mainly archaeological – evidence. My thesis is that the traditional site is near – but not identical to – the location of Jesus’ death.

Abstract The present article offers a rejoinder to the reviews of the book They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha. The response replies individually to each of the essays by Christina Gousopoulos, Paul Middleton, Bruce Worthington, Warren Goldstein, and James Crossley. The important issues discussed include the relationship between History and Theology, ideological assumptions and positionality, the nature of the notion of ‘kingdom of God’, the historicity and character of the men crucified along with Jesus, the responsibility of Romans and Jewish authorities in Jesus’ (and others’) crucifixion, the causes of Jesus’ (and others’) crucifixion, the distortions and caricature of the hypothesis about a Jesus involved in anti-Roman resistance, and the potential impact and future of such a hypothesis.

Abstract This article reviews Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s monograph, They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (2023). This book is the latest publication arguing for the ‘seditious Jesus’ hypothesis, the idea that Jesus was an armed revolutionary. It is argued that the volume rightly critiques some theological tendency in New Testament scholarship to downplay or ignore violence inherent in the Jesus tradition, but the argument that the men crucified with Jesus were either some of his disciples or sympathetic to his violent cause fails to convince. Despite arguing for historical minimalism in relation to the Gospel material, Bermejo-Rubio builds his case on the material he judges to be historical, but that is better explained by the imagination of the evangelists.

Abstract In Jewish religious literature of the Second Temple period, coins as physical objects were closely associated with the sins that were committed through them. Such ‘tainted money’ could bring about bad luck or divine punishment to its owner according to the mindset of the authors. Some of the religious ideals reflected in early Christian texts can be interpreted as responses to the anxiety about sinful money too. Ascetic life in desert and voluntary poverty were both capable of neutralizing the sinful nature of coins. In particular, the image of John the Baptist in New Testament texts suggests that at the core of the Baptist’s success was anxiety about sinful money.

Abstract This is a review essay of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s book, They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance (Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2023). The starting point for the book is the crucifixion of Jesus at Golgotha with him at the center and two bandits crucified on both sides of him. Since crucifixion was the Roman punishment for rebellion, Bermejo-Rubio conjectures that Jesus was the leader of a rebellion and that he must have had some connection with the two bandits. Bermejo-Rubio does this to counteract the predominant narrative in the Gospels that it was the priests, elders, and the scribes who were responsible for Jesus’ execution, in other words, that the Jews killed Jesus. This article argues that Bermejo-Rubio absolves the responsibility of the Jewish priest class and that it was most likely both them and the Romans who were responsible for Jesus’ death.