Crucifixion and Roman punishment

[Ursus]

And for what it's worth, my last posts on this thread may be good material for Tartarus.

 

 

No reason for that. But since the argument over one little point was beginning to dominate the entire discussion, I split it off and moved it here.

[caldrail]

I imagine Pilate, with no easy way to excuse an unruly mob, might well give in to them temporarily. The problem with enforcing decisions upon a native people is that they don't like it, and Judaea was certainly no exception. Hadrian, for instance, had promised to rebuild Jerusalem (in ruins after the jewish revolt). What he actuallt did was make plans to build Aelia Capitolina on the site instead, and sparked off another revolt.

 

You can hate someone but be unable to do anything against them, and a politician hoping to make an impression in the provinces doesn't want to risk his reputation. Tiberius wasn't going to be impressed by a governor who shows he can't control a populace without resorting to violence at the drop of a hat.

 

I see plenty of anomalies, and I can assure you, I am anything but fundamentalist christian. The point is though that I also recognise the need for public image amongst Roman politicians. The Romans were powerful in military terms, but they weren't all powerful in occupation. If Tiberius sensed Pilate was weak or a poor decision maker - he was out of a job.

[sylla]

No reason for that. But since the argument over one little point was beginning to dominate the entire discussion, I split it off and moved it here.

Excellent idea; by themselves, the crucifixion and related public exemplary torture/execution methods were not religious at all.

 

Fallacies aside, if anyone want to check on the use of these methods on slaves and other low status populations by the Romans and its social implications, your search will be greatly enhanced if you add the heading "furca".

Edited May 11, 2009 by sylla

[DDickey]

The majority of scholars, Christian or non-believer, agree that Jesus probably was crucified. As with most stories from antiquity, it's hard to "prove" anything, but one can attach degrees of probability to the case(s). As such, the probability that Jesus was crucified is high because it fits several criteria.

 

1.) It's multiply attested,

 

2.) It meets the Dissimilarity (or Embarrassment) criterion, meaning, in this context, that if it runs contrary to Christian beliefs there's an increased probability that it actually occurred. Nowhere in Ancient Judaism can one find even an inference that the Messiah would be sacrificed, would be executed. That's not what Jews prior to Jesus' crucifixion believed; they believed their Messiah would be a conquering General who would destroy Israel's enemies and restore her to her rightful, God-given sovereignty. Even in the New Testament, one finds that Paul, in his epistles, states that the notion of Jesus being executed was the early Christians' largest stumbling block in converting Jews. It is THE reason why most Jews, both ancient and modern, didn't convert or conform to early beliefs about Jesus.

 

So one must ask: Why, if Jesus' death was mythical or fabricated, did the early Christians concoct the crucifixion story? Since it runs contrary to what the Jews believed, and we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, why would his followers invent a crucifixion story?

 

The answer is: They probably wouldn’t have invented the story. Jesus probably was crucified, but he, in my view, certainly wasn’t crucified as it was portrayed in the New Testament.

 

As for the reasons for Crucifixion, because we have no information about people being crucified for reasons other than sedition or armed rebellion, it is probable that those were the two primary reasons for executing men in such a manner. Simply because we do not have evidence in toto does not mean that that’s evidence to the contrary; if one states that men were crucified for other reasons, one must provided solid evidence. I see none in this regard. It is improbable that the events as narrated in the Gospels are what led to Jesus’ crucifixion; Pilate wouldn’t have been bullied by the local aristocracy—which is what the high priests were—nor would he have allowed himself to have been threatened, implicitly or otherwise, by a large group of people demanding Jesus’ death. However, we do have evidence from the First Century CE that Roman Magistrates in Judea did intervene through violence matters that should have been relegated to the Jews.

 

Still, I believe history has lost—or suppressed—vital information here. Jesus was probably crucified. If so, why? For sedition? Maybe; if so, what exactly did he do? If he was crucified for armed rebellion, no evidence was preserved—therefore making such claims would be speculation unfounded in our early sources.

 

The point is: Jesus probably was crucified; but it’s probable that he was for reasons not preserved in our sources.

 

I want to point out that this post was more or less a response to this quote by caldrail (emphasis mine):

 

This is another example of storytelling to create the myth. As Jesus was sentenced by an earthly court to be crucified (there's no hard evidence that actually happened and some circumstantial evidence that Jesus wasn't crucified at all) and was a mortal, his death was very real. In order to provide some meaning to it, some mystery, some religious awe in worshippers, the ressurection was added to justify the description of Jesus as the son of god.

Edited May 12, 2009 by DDickey

[caldrail]

So one must ask: Why, if Jesus' death was mythical or fabricated, did the early Christians concoct the crucifixion story? Since it runs contrary to what the Jews believed, and we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, why would his followers invent a crucifixion story?

 

Since the bible contains invented prose anyway, it isn't hard to believe the crucifixion of Jesus is also fictional. By that I mean the various miracles attributed to Jesus, which are also found in Indian and Egyptian mythos of the time. In other words, the story is embellished to portray Jesus as divine.

 

That doesn't cover the point however. There is a strong possibility that Jesus was indeed nailed up - we just don't have any positive proof of that and there is a contemporary tomb in northern India that is named as the tomb of Jesus, who spent his later years living there according to the locals. Don't dismiss that out of hand, there is a case to answer. After all, the sect of Saint Thomas was discovered in India by Portuguese explorers in the 16th century.

 

Now as to why Jesus's followers would spread stories of crucifixion we enter the realm of hypothesis. I could certainly attempt a few alternatives, but without any stronger historical connection, it wouldn't have any validity. That however is the problem with the bible. It's a story rewritten to give Jesus the status of a demigod, to make him the figurehead of a religion. Notice the bible is split into two. The Old Testament, an embellished account of Jewish history, and the New testament, a portrayal of Jesus. Although the bible is our primary source for the life of Jesus (as indeed it was always intended to be) it remains a biased and suspect work.

[Northern Neil]

So one must ask: Why, if Jesus' death was mythical or fabricated, did the early Christians concoct the crucifixion story? Since it runs contrary to what the Jews believed, and we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, why would his followers invent a crucifixion story?

 

Since the bible contains invented prose anyway, it isn't hard to believe the crucifixion of Jesus is also fictional. By that I mean the various miracles attributed to Jesus, which are also found in Indian and Egyptian mythos of the time. In other words, the story is embellished to portray Jesus as divine.

 

The whole crucifixion story, as well as those of the miracles, runs very close to the mythology of Dionysus/Bacchus. There is not one depiction of the biblical crucifixion prior to the fourth century, and one source I have suggests even later than that. Even the 'donkey on a cross' graffito in the catacombs, believed popularly to be a pagan mockery of Jesus (if so, a far from intelligent one) is nothing of the kind and is a reference to Osiris, whose stories also anticipate many of the Jesus ones. Depictions of Bacchus on a cross, however, are sometimes found, dating from the 2nd century. They even show the very familiar 'slump' of the knees to one side, seen so often in later crucifixes. (yes, I can provide references and pictures if required).

 

Maybe the crucifixion story was grafted from earlier mythology as a mechanism to make pagan converts feel comfortable with the idea of a deified Jesus. It would not be the only instance of pagan mythology being grafted on to the new faith.

[sylla]

It seems that one of the better known anecdotes on Roman crucifixion has not been mentioned yet on this thread; the famous execution of a pirate crew from Pharmacusa by a private citizen, Caius Julius Caesar, at Pergame in 75 BC. Caesar's excuse was that Marcus Iuncus (or Iunius?), the Proconsul in Asia, failed to punish them; as we all know, the same pirates had previously held Caesar captive for weeks. Velleius, Plutarch and Suetonius agree all that Caesar crucified them; with (unintended?) irony, the latter adds that as a sign of his mercy, Caesar cut their throats previous to the crucifixion.

 

For any reason, I guess a hidden esoteric political explanation may be hypothesized for these crucifixions. Needless to say, I'm not aware of any source that would support such extraordinary idea; I don't think I would be able to add anything else.

Edited May 13, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

It seems that one of the better known anecdotes on Roman crucifixion has not been mentioned yet on this thread; the famous execution of a pirate crew from Pharmacusa by a private citizen, Caius Julius Caesar, at Pergame in 75 BC. Caesar's excuse was that Marcus Iuncus (or Iunius?), the Proconsul in Asia, failed to punish them; as we all know, the same pirates had previously held Caesar captive for weeks. Velleius, Plutarch and Suetonius agree all that Caesar crucified them; with (unintended?) irony, the latter adds that as a sign of his mercy, Caesar cut their throats previous to the crucifixion.

 

For any reason, I guess a hidden esoteric political explanation may be hypothesized for these crucifixions. Needless to say, I'm not aware of any source that would support such extraordinary idea; I don't think I would be able to add anything else.

 

Suetonius was most probably not being ironic. Think about it. What would you choose ?

 

But crucifixion no doubt also had a symbolic purpose : it was the most dishonourable kind of execution. Dishonourable to the victim himself but also to his relatives. The most honourable one being to be allowed to take your own life.

 

I know the anecdote but didn't remember the throat cutting bit. It made me think : in the Middle Ages and later heretics and supposed witches were often condamned to be burned at the stake. But there were two kinds really : either you got strangled before the fire was lighted - the merciful kind - or you were really burned alive - the less merciful kind. Come to think of it, if you were a real baddy, they roasted you slowly over a coal fire.

But the being burned after being strangled was a kind of condamnatio memoria I guess. On a few occasions heretics who had been dead for decades where unearthed in order to burn their remains.

 

Could it be that in Roman times you also had two or more kinds of crucifixion ? The most merciful one where they killed you before they crucified you - the crucifixion itself then being symbolic - then maybe the Jesus Christ style, where they let you hang for a few hours and then finished you off and finally the most cruel one : where they just let you hang to die a slow and horrible death drawn out over three, four days maybe.

 

 

Formosus

Edited May 14, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[DDickey]

It seems that one of the better known anecdotes on Roman crucifixion has not been mentioned yet on this thread; the famous execution of a pirate crew from Pharmacusa by a private citizen, Caius Julius Caesar, at Pergame in 75 BC. Caesar's excuse was that Marcus Iuncus (or Iunius?), the Proconsul in Asia, failed to punish them; as we all know, the same pirates had previously held Caesar captive for weeks. Velleius, Plutarch and Suetonius agree all that Caesar crucified them; with (unintended?) irony, the latter adds that as a sign of his mercy, Caesar cut their throats previous to the crucifixion.

 

For any reason, I guess a hidden esoteric political explanation may be hypothesized for these crucifixions. Needless to say, I'm not aware of any source that would support such extraordinary idea; I don't think I would be able to add anything else.

 

I'd considered mentioning it the other day, but didn't think it was relevant to the conversation we were having. It's possible the story is apocryphal. If not, this certainly isn't a case of state-sanctioned crucifixion, so I excluded it from the discussion.

 

I do, however, find this point interesting.

 

But crucifixion no doubt also had a symbolic purpose : it was the most dishonourable kind of execution. Dishonourable to the victim himself but also to his relatives. The most honourable one being to be allowed to take your own life.

Formosus

[/color]

Edited May 14, 2009 by DDickey

[Kosmo]

Depictions of Bacchus on a cross, however, are sometimes found, dating from the 2nd century. They even show the very familiar 'slump' of the knees to one side, seen so often in later crucifixes. (yes, I can provide references and pictures if required).

 

Please do. I never heard about this before.

[sylla]

Suetonius was most probably not being ironic. Think about it. What would you choose ?...Could it be that in Roman times you also had two or more kinds of crucifixion ? The most merciful one where they killed you before they crucified you...

The implicit irony would be that, if the victims have already been killed, why would you bother in hanging them?

IMHO, hanging a corpse would deprive the crucifixion from most if not all of its dramatic effect; it would be like using slaughtered cattle for bullfighting.

Edited May 14, 2009 by sylla

[sylla]

It's possible the story is apocryphal. If not, this certainly isn't a case of state-sanctioned crucifixion, so I excluded it from the discussion.

As I have already noted, this story was reported by three independent and regularly used classical sources, two of them regularly considered as particularly reliable. With all due respect, this story performs far better on this count than Jesus' crucifixion.

BTW, it is exactly because it wasn't state-sanctioned that this crucifixion is so relevant for this discussion.

[Maty]

It's possible the story is apocryphal. If not, this certainly isn't a case of state-sanctioned crucifixion, so I excluded it from the discussion.

As I have already noted, this story was reported by three independent and regularly used classical sources, two of them regularly considered as particularly reliable. With all due respect, this story performs far better on this count than Jesus' crucifixion.

BTW, it is exactly because it wasn't state-sanctioned that this crucifixion is so relevant for this discussion.

 

Wasn't the idea that Caesar had promised the miscreants that he would crucify them? Therefore he was delivering on his word, even though he was 'kind' enough to crucify them as corpses.

[sylla]

Wasn't the idea that Caesar had promised the miscreants that he would crucify them? Therefore he was delivering on his word, even though he was 'kind' enough to crucify them as corpses.

That's exact.

This strange mercy (cp. 74) is rather suspicious, because:

- Neither Velleius (the earlier account) nor Plutarch (the most detailed), not even Suetonius in his first quotation (cp. 4) mentioned the open throats.

- As most of his peers, Caesar mostly reserved his mercy for other Romans, especially when it was politically useful.

- After his traumatic experience for so many weeks, it

Edited May 14, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

Since slaves were not considered human beings, torture wasn't considered an unusual way of treating them. After all, the testimony of a slave was not valid unless torture had been used to extract it (because the slave may have been ordered to say something particular).

 

Suetonius isn't just underlining a prevailing attitude, but using the example to illustrate a character. Caesar is noted as, compared to some Romans, a man of action. Torture may have been a common result for a slave assassin, but since the slave was his and therefore not sent to kill him by someone else, was there any need to uncover the reason? Slaves are either obedient or punished. Caesar is therefore dealing with Philemon in a very practical manner and to do otherwise would give Philemon status he did not deserve.