Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

researching the Easter story through Roman eyes. Could the Romans have seen Jesus as a usurper ?

101 replies

ApriloNeil2026 · 03/04/2026 19:18

I'm currently researching the historical context of the Easter story and first-century Judea under Roman rule as part of looking at Holy Week, the crucifixion and resurrection I've been exploring how the Roman authorities might have perceived Jesus at the time and could the Romans have seen Jesus as a potential usurper

OP posts:
FiatLuxAdAstra · 20/04/2026 18:51

noblegiraffe · 16/04/2026 18:48

In the Bible they literally have Jews say 'His death be upon us and on our children'.

Which bible? Denomination and date please.
Because the bible has been added to, subtracted from, edited and (mis)translated many many times to suit the times.

FiatLuxAdAstra · 20/04/2026 18:55

ApriloNeil2026 · 03/04/2026 22:45

indeed and The belief of his followers that he rose from the dead, and their subsequent movement to spread his teachings, is what established him as a major historical figure, so basically he could have been knocked out etc and yet all that for one person and how many have died in his name and for what excatly ? the numbers lost dont justify all that for one man, there has been many people in history that have helped humanity alot better than jesus did

Edited

How is the misuse of a religion the fault of a founding man long dead when he is reported to have preached good ideals?

It’s not his fault, for example, that centuries to thousands of years after he died other men were genociding entire peoples in his name.

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 19:32

FiatLuxAdAstra · 20/04/2026 18:51

Which bible? Denomination and date please.
Because the bible has been added to, subtracted from, edited and (mis)translated many many times to suit the times.

All the gospels have a crowd of Jews demanding the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus and absolving Pilate who didn't want to execute him.

It is Matthew 27:25 which explicitly says "All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

Here's that verse in a variety of Bibles, it doesn't differ much between them.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2027%3A25

Matthew 27:25 - Bible Gateway

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2027%3A25

likelysuspect · 20/04/2026 19:36

I havent read the thread and am late to the party obviously

Jesus was just a political and social agitator so of course the Romans and the population at the time (Romans and Jews and other groups) had a downer on him. He would have had a ASBO equivalent, been like Swampy or Stop Oil

Seen as a genius with the 'truth' by some, seen as a nuisance and timewaster and up himself by others.

If the punishment for not following the rules was execution then that was his fate.

FiatLuxAdAstra · 20/04/2026 20:04

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 19:32

All the gospels have a crowd of Jews demanding the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus and absolving Pilate who didn't want to execute him.

It is Matthew 27:25 which explicitly says "All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

Here's that verse in a variety of Bibles, it doesn't differ much between them.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2027%3A25

Your oldest bible on there is less than 500years old and the vast majority are European. Who has been especially persecuted within Europe for the last 500yrs?

Matthew was written based on Mark.

Have a think on why the focus is on paid agitators in a crowd in Matthew and not the parts found in Mark 14:53 where there was a religious court in which Jesus was condemned to death.

Then think about why a Roman from Libya (Mark) who is trying to covert other Romans into Christians would want to portray the Roman leaders in his recollection as civilised while the oppressed colonised Jewish leaders were portrayed as the real culprits?

Mark was written around 55-65 - remember Jesus dies around 33.

Roman biographers of their contemporaries are well documented to have written their version of events in a propagandist way to condemn whoever was currently deemed an enemy while praising Rome as the superior civilisation. They even did this to justify assassinating high ranking Romans.

Even today we know that an eyewitness account does not mean you’re getting the truth of exactly what happened or even why. You’re getting events through the lens of one person. In 2,000 years we could well have historians arguing about was Covid real because of competing eyewitness reports of Covid being nothing but a hoax and others of people dying. It depends which voice becomes most popular through the ages and how much it gets modified to stay popular.

The general outline of events will be true, but not the details.

Londonmummy66 · 20/04/2026 20:37

FiatLuxAdAstra · 20/04/2026 18:51

Which bible? Denomination and date please.
Because the bible has been added to, subtracted from, edited and (mis)translated many many times to suit the times.

The Greek here (with a translation for those who need it) - not a denominational version but the original https://www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Matthew/Matthew-27-parsed.html

Matthew 27 Greek interlinear, parsed and per word translation, free online

The entire chapter Matthew 27 interlinear (Greek/English), translated word by word and with Greek grammar parsing codes, free online

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Matthew/Matthew-27-parsed.html

MarmaladeorJam · 20/04/2026 20:51

QuornPlaster · 03/04/2026 20:38

Post Alexander, the region was fought over & bounced between the Seleucid’s and Assyrian dynasties. Judea / Samaria became almost a buffer zone between these 2 superpowers. As their (Seleucid & Assyrian’s) power waned the Roman Empire stepped in to administer the region.

The Jews were always a difficult people to rule - they were an anomaly in the region, being monotheists, dietary laws etc…. The Roman’s gave greater religious freedoms to the Jews than they previously had under previous rulers.

This is usually referred to as the inter testamental period - stretch it from 200 bce to 100 ace for this conversation. & during this period we have Hellenism - the take up of the Greco-Roman religion/law/phillosopy. The age old problem of modernism within a religious community.

Jews did not want to be assimilated and ruled by Hellenism. There were plenty of revolutionary Jews ie Maccabean revolt which ended in about 160 bce in Masada. A last hilltop stand against the Romans.

Under Pompey in 60 bce and Titus in 70 ce Roman soldiers entered the Jerusalem Temple. Pompey entered the Holy of Holiest itself and defied the Temple. Titus caused the first Temple to be destroyed and the Jewish War. Gentiles entering the inner Temple. Wearing insignias of Caesar - a self declared living god was a defilement.

So although nothing was written about Jesus per se - there are early writings by Tacitus (& others) about early Christians. So going back to the reference of King of the Jews - an insult by the Romans to both Jesus and the Jews. They (Jews) would never refer to a Jewish leader as ‘King’ - that would be a title given to G_d. Nagid not malek - prince not king.

The Romans would have seen Jesus as a splinter group of Judaism like the Essenes.

An interesting period in time.

It is really interesting!

Jesus was a Jew and his followers were Jews. When he was knocking around there were many sects of Jews that did not move as one.

I imagine that it would be like now with the different Christian groups - I don't see Catholics and Protestants joining together in together in common cause, for example. Same with Muslims, as we see with the Sunni and Shi'a groups.

Three hundred years after the death of Jesus, Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. That is when the Jewish followers of Jesus broke away from Judaism and became Christian.

Would it be fair to say that Christians were not thrown to the lions? Actually, they were Jews. Or is that silly?

MarmaladeorJam · 20/04/2026 20:54

RhaenysRocks · 03/04/2026 21:01

The gospel all suggest that PP wasn't really interested in Jesus..only at the insistence of the Sanhedrin did he approve the execution. It was a tense time in Jerusalem with Passover and its themes of freedom from oppression. Nervous rulers, overnight illegal trials...interesting stuff for sure.

Also - PP was very ambitious politically. He wanted peace in the region so he could home as a successful administrator and be promoted.

MarmaladeorJam · 20/04/2026 21:03

noblegiraffe · 03/04/2026 21:08

If you read that with a critical hat on you can easily see it as a made-up story to transfer responsibility for the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews.
The Jews even say 'his blood be upon us and on our children'. Does that sound likely to have happened while they cried for the release of a brigand over someone who had done nothing wrong?

This, however, would be a quite convenient scenario for a fledgling Christian church who didn't want to create trouble with the Romans.

It's really interesting to read the Gospels and see the bits that were inserted into the stories for later convenience.

But @noblegiraffe , Christianity was not even an idea at that point. Jesus was a Jew, his followers were Jews. That remained the case for 300 years.

I mean, if we think back to 300 years ago here, and to today, we can see how much time has passed and how much change there has been.

There were loads of Jewish sects at the time of Jesus, and they did not move as one cohesive a group - in fact quite the opposite. There were huge class, religious and financial differences between the sects.

The Roman gods were also in the area as were the remains of the Greeks.

There was a lot going on.

TiredShadows · 20/04/2026 21:07

Jesus was one of dozens around that time that people claiming they were the Moshiach. Many Jewish groups were eager for he overthrow of the Romans, and Roman authorities to some level were aware that the belief in the Moshiach would mean the overthrow of Roman power. Any claim that someone is the messiah is a claim to kingship, it's meant to be a continuation of the line of David and its rule into a divine Jewish age.

How any individual Romans would have seen that, we don't have much. I mean, the earliest representation we have from what we presume is an ordinary Roman person is graffiti mocking the whole concept (Jesus is portrayed with a donkey's head), but obviously enough would convert over the centuries to make it a power.

strictly speaking if they would riot etc then in theory what choice did the romans etc ?

They had a lot of other options, which they used repeatedly in the many riots that happened. Jesus wasn't unique in any of this, he's unique in that those who continued on after him developing enough of a following to separate out of Judaism in the centuries that followed, while the others developed back into it. We also no evidence of the time that any such riot was going to occur around Jesus - remember that there is no historical evidence of any thing in the Pontius Pilate court scene ever happening to anyone. The idea of some sort of annual tradition to release a prisoner, not seen anywhere else. The Jewish authorities at the time did not have the kind of authority or link with Roman powers that are portrayed and Rome had a lot of options for dealing with it. We see their use of it all over their empire.

The bible clearly states that the Romans, Pontius Pilate specifically, did not see Jesus Christ as a threat but the Jews (Saduccess and Pharisees) did and so, to pacify them under threat of rioting (and in order to fulfil the prophecy of the Messiah), He was crucified.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were religiously focused political groups that had fought each other for political and religious power for well over a century before Jesus came in. Their fighting is a big part of how Rome gained control in the way it did. Equating them to the Jewish people at the time is like saying Evangelical US Republicans is the same as all American Christians. They also supported various different potential messiahs during Roman rule (within some Jewish traditions, there are potential messiahs in every generation and there have been far more potentials that have fallen over the centuries).

Rome managed to handle all the other riots and rebellions without any mention of some tradition of sacrificing someone for the Jewish people's whims. Rome was really good at that for most of its empire.

plus how can anyone believe in Christianity, when the majority is copyed from pagan influences ? if Christianity was truly its own religion then why did the leaders of the day choose to include pagan rituals and believes etc

As others said, Christianity comes from Judaism. It developed enough and differently enough to splinter off of it.

The entire concept of pagan to mean a religious belief or rituals is a Christian concept. It was not something any Roman at the time of Jesus would have viewed themselves or their rituals as. Pagan to mean a belief system only shows up starting in the 4th century CE by Christian writers, after Christians developed out of Judaism and developed enough power to make an us vs them (pagans and at times Jewish people) dynamic in their writing. The polytheists of the time had various other language to discuss themselves, just as many do today. Pagan is simply an umbrella term created by Christians to cover (and largely homogenise) many different systems of belief (at the time of Jesus, religion had very different meaning, that's how we have secular and religious priests for quite a while).

The idea that Christianity just copied pagans is a Victorian myth by European folklorists and linguists who wanted to erase the Jewish history of Christianity and replace it with their ideas of European paganism that they largely made up to fill the gaps in the record and replace what they didn't like. I mean, we all hear how Christianity stole the dating of Yule to convert pagans - that first comes from Victorian writers. The remaining historical records show Yule was used to convert pagans - several centuries after it had started being celebrated. King Hakon of Norway, after converting to Christianity, moved the date of Yule back three weeks to line up with Christmas, which under the Julian calendar could line up with the winter solstice. Celebrating Yule on the winter solstice is a Christianised version. Most of what we have left is the Christianised version due to the limited resources left, and people develop things from that as people always do. That doesn't make modern paganism not a 'true religion', it just makes it one of many faith systems that have complicated roots.

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 21:19

FiatLuxAdAstra · 20/04/2026 20:04

Your oldest bible on there is less than 500years old and the vast majority are European. Who has been especially persecuted within Europe for the last 500yrs?

Matthew was written based on Mark.

Have a think on why the focus is on paid agitators in a crowd in Matthew and not the parts found in Mark 14:53 where there was a religious court in which Jesus was condemned to death.

Then think about why a Roman from Libya (Mark) who is trying to covert other Romans into Christians would want to portray the Roman leaders in his recollection as civilised while the oppressed colonised Jewish leaders were portrayed as the real culprits?

Mark was written around 55-65 - remember Jesus dies around 33.

Roman biographers of their contemporaries are well documented to have written their version of events in a propagandist way to condemn whoever was currently deemed an enemy while praising Rome as the superior civilisation. They even did this to justify assassinating high ranking Romans.

Even today we know that an eyewitness account does not mean you’re getting the truth of exactly what happened or even why. You’re getting events through the lens of one person. In 2,000 years we could well have historians arguing about was Covid real because of competing eyewitness reports of Covid being nothing but a hoax and others of people dying. It depends which voice becomes most popular through the ages and how much it gets modified to stay popular.

The general outline of events will be true, but not the details.

Edited

Not sure what your point is about the age of those translations, are you suggesting that Matthew 27:25 was a late addition to the Gospel 500 years ago? All the gospels make an effort to offload the blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans.

And I certainly know I'm not getting the truth from reading the Gospels - obviously loads of that stuff never happened and was made up.

Mark was written around 55-65

Yeah...no. The bit where Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Jewish Temple was clearly written after AD70.

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 21:23

MarmaladeorJam · 20/04/2026 21:03

But @noblegiraffe , Christianity was not even an idea at that point. Jesus was a Jew, his followers were Jews. That remained the case for 300 years.

I mean, if we think back to 300 years ago here, and to today, we can see how much time has passed and how much change there has been.

There were loads of Jewish sects at the time of Jesus, and they did not move as one cohesive a group - in fact quite the opposite. There were huge class, religious and financial differences between the sects.

The Roman gods were also in the area as were the remains of the Greeks.

There was a lot going on.

His followers weren't all Jews from quite early on. Paul had a massive ruck with Peter about whether non-Jewish Christians needed to be circumcised.

maudelovesharold · 20/04/2026 21:45

Apologies for not contributing to the discussion, but I do believe this is one of the most interesting threads I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading on AIBU! Thanks. op 🙂

MarmaladeorJam · 20/04/2026 21:59

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 21:23

His followers weren't all Jews from quite early on. Paul had a massive ruck with Peter about whether non-Jewish Christians needed to be circumcised.

Christians came about at Nicea, where they separated from Judaism.

That was 300 year after he died.

That they argued among the secs about this and that - no doubt.

But they were Jewish.

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 20/04/2026 22:06

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 21:23

His followers weren't all Jews from quite early on. Paul had a massive ruck with Peter about whether non-Jewish Christians needed to be circumcised.

Early Christianity was an apocalyptic Jewish sect, the Peter/Paul disagreement about circumcision notwithstanding. There are modern Jewish sects that allow adults to convert without needing to be circumcised.

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 22:09

MarmaladeorJam · 20/04/2026 21:59

Christians came about at Nicea, where they separated from Judaism.

That was 300 year after he died.

That they argued among the secs about this and that - no doubt.

But they were Jewish.

The Gentile followers weren't Jewish, didn't have to follow Jewish Law. That was from very early on (Acts of the Apostles!).

tnorfotkcab · 20/04/2026 22:11

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 22:09

The Gentile followers weren't Jewish, didn't have to follow Jewish Law. That was from very early on (Acts of the Apostles!).

Gentiles by definition is "not Jewish".

MasterBeth · 20/04/2026 22:12

ApriloNeil2026 · 03/04/2026 19:18

I'm currently researching the historical context of the Easter story and first-century Judea under Roman rule as part of looking at Holy Week, the crucifixion and resurrection I've been exploring how the Roman authorities might have perceived Jesus at the time and could the Romans have seen Jesus as a potential usurper

Good for you.

What's your question, caller?

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 22:13

tnorfotkcab · 20/04/2026 22:11

Gentiles by definition is "not Jewish".

Well yes, I'm a bit confused by this insistence that they were!

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 20/04/2026 22:35

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 22:09

The Gentile followers weren't Jewish, didn't have to follow Jewish Law. That was from very early on (Acts of the Apostles!).

A key part of the Jesus mythos is that he was the (Jewish) messiah, as foretold in the (Jewish) Tanakh.

That some of his early followers came from non-Jewish backgrounds doesn't change that, any more than modern Christians converting to Islam doesn't mean that Islam is no longer Islam.

noblegiraffe · 20/04/2026 22:56

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 20/04/2026 22:35

A key part of the Jesus mythos is that he was the (Jewish) messiah, as foretold in the (Jewish) Tanakh.

That some of his early followers came from non-Jewish backgrounds doesn't change that, any more than modern Christians converting to Islam doesn't mean that Islam is no longer Islam.

They didn't convert to Judaism! They were referred to as the Gentile followers because they weren't Jewish.

As Paul said, if they needed to become Jewish and follow the Jewish laws, then what was the point in Jesus dying?

"Even that question came up only because of some so-called believers there—false ones, reallyb]—who were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations. 5 But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the gospel message for you."

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 2 - New Living Translation

The Apostles Accept Paul - Then fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem again, this time with Barnabas; and Titus came along, too. I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered t...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202&version=NLT#fen-NLT-29046b

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 21/04/2026 08:35

The early followers of the Jew Jesus, all of whose disciples were Jews, thought he was the Jewish messiah as foretold in the Jewish Tanakh. They then spun that off in to a new Jewish sect and thought that the other Jews who didn't agree with them about Jesus being the messiah were obviously doing Judaism wrong.

It's like how evangelical Christians think that Roman Catholics are doing Christianity wrong nevertheless they're both Christian sects.

CoffeeCantata · 21/04/2026 08:41

tnorfotkcab · 20/04/2026 22:11

Gentiles by definition is "not Jewish".

Yes - I think the Hebrew term is 'goyim', meaning all those who are not Jewish.

In the gospels Jesus is described as 'a light unto the gentiles', which I think means he came not just for the Jewish people but for everyone. The Epiphany story of the Magi is specifically intended to symbolise this - they were not Jews.

Of course, that's how it's spun - the gospels were written with a distinct purpose years after Jesus's lifetime.

MasterBeth · 21/04/2026 08:51

FiatLuxAdAstra · 04/04/2026 04:39

Not that long. The earliest gospel was written some 30 years after his death.

Just think about the logistics of that.

Imagine today someone writing the first life story of Lady Di, who died around 30 years ago with no ability to reference anything that was written about her up until now because no-one had written anything down. How historically accurate do you think such a life story would be?

noblegiraffe · 21/04/2026 08:57

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 21/04/2026 08:35

The early followers of the Jew Jesus, all of whose disciples were Jews, thought he was the Jewish messiah as foretold in the Jewish Tanakh. They then spun that off in to a new Jewish sect and thought that the other Jews who didn't agree with them about Jesus being the messiah were obviously doing Judaism wrong.

It's like how evangelical Christians think that Roman Catholics are doing Christianity wrong nevertheless they're both Christian sects.

The early followers of the Jew Jesus, all of whose disciples were Jews, thought he was the Jewish messiah as foretold in the Jewish Tanakh.

Then came along Paul with his Damascus conversion who preached about the resurrected Jesus to the Gentiles and who was very clear that they didn’t need to become Jews and follow Jewish Law to be followers of Jesus.

It’s fairly obvious, looking at modern Christianity, that Paul’s non-Jewish version of Christianity won the argument.

One of the problems with Jesus as Jewish Messiah was that the Jews were expecting a great military leader who would overthrow the Romans. And yet the gospel writers were keen to placate the Romans by absolving them of the death of Jesus.