Crucifixion and Roman punishment

[sylla]

I wonder then if the spread of the remaining leaders was more to do with personal danger than religious zeal. The spread of christianity in the early days can't be ignored though. I see that the first ecumenical council was held in Jerusalem in ad50, on the subject of how to treat gentile converts.

 

It depends on what is meant by "Christianity". I seriously doubt the movement crystallized into a separate religion until the advent of Paul of Tarsus. Whatever writings we have available, both biblical and extra biblical, indicate that the early following of Jesus were pious Jews who followed the Mosaic Law, worshiped and sacrificed in the Temple, and were seen as fellow Jews by their own countrymen. That is, until the cataclysmic events of the 60s and the final fall of Masada. The school of thought adhered to by Paul, with its apolitical world view and its disregard for the Law and the Prophets, was the natural survivor of these happenings and finally metamorphosed into a bona fide religion.

In fact, the more conservative Christian groups (those still at least partially observing the Mosaic law) were progressively alienated after the council of Jerusalem, until being openly considered heretics (Ebionites) at least since the middle II century.

[caldrail]

The internal disagreement was the reason for the Council of Nicaea in ad325 - to sort out what was considered 'christian'. The Nicene Creed was based pretty much on Pauls work but Paul himself, as such, didn't create a unified christianity as the sects of his time were all independent. I doubt the earlier bishops cared much for unity either, since they were on a good earner and didn't want too much attention.

 

It was however the politicisation of religion in the 4th century that changed that. After the Edict of Milan, Constantine had created a regime in which religions could flourish. He then supported and encouraged Christianity. Mithraism persisted on the frontiers but withered nonetheless. In fact, Christians complained that Mithras worshippers were copying their rituals. Religion was becoming an important issue now that state support could be had. The Christians did recognise this and the political nature of their faith emerges very quickly from this period.

 

They weren't alone of course. Arianism was a popular sect (declared a heresy in ad325). Julian tried to restore paganism. Valens tried to restore Arianism. Theodosius restored Christianity. The impression I get is a hotbed of religious factions vying for political support and suffering the consequences if they didn't get it. I don't mean persecution, that was effectively a thing of the past, but the leading priests of the losing faction were gotten rid of every time the power changed hands.

Edited May 8, 2009 by caldrail

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

You mean in that moment; no less than four apostles (Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip) were eventually crucified.

 

Just out of curiosity, where does it say that they were were crucified?

Just out of curiosity, should I infer you didn't find any documentary evidence on the Roman indications for crucifixion?

There are plenty. Spartacus being the most famous example. Then all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus in Jewish Wars. All these executions were of a political nature, either armed rebellion or sedition. I haven't seen any documentary evidence of crucifixion for non-political offences.

So now, let me repeat the question - where is the evidence that Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip were crucified?

[sylla]

You mean in that moment; no less than four apostles (Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip) were eventually crucified.

 

Just out of curiosity, where does it say that they were were crucified?

Just out of curiosity, should I infer you didn't find any documentary evidence on the Roman indications for crucifixion?

There are plenty. Spartacus being the most famous example. Then all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus in Jewish Wars. All these executions were of a political nature, either armed rebellion or sedition. I haven't seen any documentary evidence of crucifixion for non-political offences.

So now, let me repeat the question - where is the evidence that Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip were crucified?

This may surprise you, but I already knew that Roman crucifixions were sometimes done for political reasons.

 

If you review my previous posts in this thread, you will find no one that denies it.

 

What I was asking you for (and you were obviously unable to find) was any quotation that explicitly states the crucifixions were exclusively done by the Romans for political reasons.

 

Now you want me to accept your statement just because you didn't find examples of non-political crucifixions after an exhaustive search (BTW without giving any specific quotation).

 

Besides, please check on the primary sources; Spartacus and his fellows were crucified for being rebel slaves, not for political reasons.

 

(Please give me a primary source quoting his political agenda, if you still disagree)

 

Additionaly, not all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus were explained for political reasons; non-political crimes (ie, robbing) is also mentioned.

 

For other non-political indications of Roman crucifixion, you can check on Horace and Juvenal.

 

For the crucified apostles , you can check on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Edited May 10, 2009 by sylla

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Besides, please check on the primary sources; Spartacus and his fellows were crucified for being rebel slaves, not for political reasons.

And how is being a rebel slave a non-political offence?

 

What I was asking you for (and you were obviously unable to find) was any quotation that explicitly states the crucifixions were exclusively done by the Romans for political reasons.

 

The absence of any such quotations does not give us the right to assume, especially with the lack of anecdotal or documentary evidence, that crucifixion was "sometimes" done for non-political reasons.

 

Additionaly, not all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus were explained for political reasons; non-political crimes (ie, robbing) is also mentioned.

 

The word used by the author is lestai, or lestes, indicating banditry, a term he routinely uses to describe the Jewish rebels. That does not necessarily mean they were robbers. It was a political term used by a historian writing in Vespasian's palace for a Greco-Roman audience (who indeed would have considered the rebels as "bandits"). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Communist authorities routinely described the Afghan rebels as "bandits". The Nazis used the same expression to describe the French resistance. You are obviously reading something into the text that is not there.

 

For the crucified apostles , you can check on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

Yes. I already have. The Catholic Encyclopedia just mentions letters by Ireneus, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers in which they regurgitate preexisting legends about the supposed martyrdom of the apostles. Nothing concrete there.

[sylla]

Additionaly, not all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus were explained for political reasons; non-political crimes (ie, robbing) is also mentioned.

 

The word used by the author is lestai, or lestes, indicating banditry, a term he routinely uses to describe the Jewish rebels. That does not necessarily mean they were robbers. It was a political term used by a historian writing in Vespasian's palace for a Greco-Roman audience (who indeed would have considered the rebels as "bandits"). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Communist authorities routinely described the Afghan rebels as "bandits". The Nazis used the same expression to describe the French resistance. You are obviously reading something into the text that is not there.

The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" because that charge was a valid reason to punish or even execute them

 

The original question here was on the indications for Roman crucifixions; your original statement was that there was no other reason but politics.

 

These Jews were crucified on the accusation of robbery; ergo, robbery was a valid explanation for their crucifixion, at least for the Romans (and Josephus' readers).

 

For the crucified apostles , you can check on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

Yes. I already have. The Catholic Encyclopedia just mentions letters by Ireneus, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers in which they regurgitate preexisting legends about the supposed martyrdom of the apostles. Nothing concrete there.

Hagiography is hardly a concrete science.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

For other non-political indications of Roman crucifixion, you can check on Horace and Juvenal.

 

What both Horace and Juvenal (who are both incidentally satirical writers not historians) indicate is that crucifixion was the normal method of putting slaves to death. No one denies that. Roman citizens were normally beheaded, not crucified. Neither writer specify political or non-political reasons for crucifixion.

 

For the crucified apostles , you can check on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

Yes. I already have. The Catholic Encyclopedia just mentions letters by Ireneus, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers in which they regurgitate preexisting legends about the supposed martyrdom of the apostles. Nothing concrete there.

Hagiography is hardly a concrete science.

Then why mention it in an intellectual discussion?

 

The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" because that charge was a valid reason to punish or even execute them

 

No. The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" to make it clear that they were not executing regular enemy soldiers and hence putting them beyond the pale of protection accorded to enemy combatants by international law. The offence was thus political, just as it was with the Romans.

[sylla]

Besides, please check on the primary sources; Spartacus and his fellows were crucified for being rebel slaves, not for political reasons.

And how is being a rebel slave a non-political offence?

Needless to say, most slaves were private property; any slave rebelled against his/her own master. The master required no public sanction to crucify them, at least until Hadrian.

 

Spartacus and his men were crucified for being rebel slaves, not political rebels. That's why bona fide political rebels of the time (ie, the men of Catilina) were not crucified.

 

I'm not aware of any political agenda from Spartacus & co; I will be glad to check on any primary source quoted by you on this issue.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

The original question here was on the indications for Roman crucifixions; your original statement was that there was no other reason but politics.

 

These Jews were crucified on the accusation of robbery; ergo, robbery was a valid explanation for their crucifixion, at least for the Romans (and Josephus' readers).

 

My original statement was that there is no evidence that crucifixion was used for other than political reasons. Those Jews were crucified as rebels against the empire not as robbers. The "robber" term was used to denigrate them, not to denote the nature of their crime.

 

Spartacus and his men were crucified for being rebel slaves, not political rebels. That's why bona fide political rebels of the time (ie, the men of Catilina) were not crucified.

 

The Caltiline conspirators were all Roman citizens, that is why they were not crucified. Spartacus and his men didn't just defy their private owners, they took up arms and annihilated more than one Roman army sent against them, hence their offence was political. One does not need to have a written political agenda in order for his acts to be considered political.

[sylla]

The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" because that charge was a valid reason to punish or even execute them

 

No. The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" to make it clear that they were not executing regular enemy soldiers and hence putting them beyond the pale of protection accorded to enemy combatants by international law. The offence was thus political, just as it was with the Romans.

You're only walking around my argument and you know it. The point is that robbery was one of the many reasons to crucify a man; if that man was a slave, the reasons were virtually limitless, entirely at his master's discretion.

 

Spartacus and his men were crucified for being rebel slaves, not political rebels. That's why bona fide political rebels of the time (ie, the men of Catilina) were not crucified.

 

The Caltiline conspirators were all Roman citizens, that is why they were not crucified. Spartacus and his men didn't just defy their private owners, they took up arms and annihilated more than one Roman army sent against them, hence their offence was political. One does not need to have a written political agenda in order for his acts to be considered political.

Then, anything is politics; in this case, the number of the rebels defined it so.

 

This is pointless.

 

If you really care, you can check on the dictionaries of William Smith and Daremberg et Saglio.

 

You will find there the reasons for crucifixion were multiple and, in the case of slaves, infinite.

 

If I understood it rightly, the quid was that Jesus crucifixion must have been political, because crucifixion was never done for other reasons.

 

Even I actually find no reason to disagree with the political nature of Jesus' crucifixion (even the Gospels did give a political interpretation) your argument is patently false. Period.

 

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

[Formosus Viriustus]

Salvete Omnes !

 

On Spartacus : from the Roman point of view, he was of course nothing like a politician. From their point of view he was a rebel slave, a criminal. But I think it is fair to say that from our point of view he very much was a political leader. His people weren't a gang of robbers. They were people with very clear and just aspirations. But I'm sure the Romans didn't take our point of view much into account. We know very little about him, but from that little I dare to conclude that he was an exceptional man.

 

Formosus

[caldrail]

For other non-political indications of Roman crucifixion, you can check on Horace and Juvenal.

 

What both Horace and Juvenal (who are both incidentally satirical writers not historians) indicate is that crucifixion was the normal method of putting slaves to death. No one denies that. Roman citizens were normally beheaded, not crucified. Neither writer specify political or non-political reasons for crucifixion.

 

There were a number of punishments depending on the crime. A citizen might be sentenced to fight animals in the arena, or be forced to fight another criminal for the crowds edification and delight. Some were thrown from the Tarpian Rock, or ritually strangled, or simply bumped off quietly. Beheading is mentioned but I believe that was a punishment from the later period of Roman history?

 

In the early Byzantine period, one unfortunate fellow was accused of plotting against the Emperor. They blinded him, cut out his tongue, cut off his arms and legs, paraded him around town then set him adrift on a boat... Which they thoughtfully set fire to.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Even I actually find no reason to disagree with the political nature of Jesus' crucifixion (even the Gospels did give a political interpretation) your argument is patently false. Period.

 

If you find no reason to disagree with the political nature of Jesus' crucifixion then you and I are in agreement and therefore my argument IS correct. So now YOU are dancing around the argument and you know it.

 

even the Gospels did give a political interpretation

 

The Gospels certainly do not give a political interpretation. They actually imply that Jesus was innocent of political sedition and was executed by Roman soldiery by a Roman governor in a Roman province for violation Jewish religious law - a premise that is patently absurd. But they give the game away by saying that Pilate affixed a sign on the cross saying Jesus the Nazerene King of the Jews.

 

Then, anything is politics; in this case, the number of the rebels defined it so.

 

Wrong. The fact that they took up arms against the Senate and the People of Rome defined it so.

[caldrail]

They actually imply that Jesus was innocent of political sedition and was executed by Roman soldiery by a Roman governor in a Roman province for violation Jewish religious law - a premise that is patently absurd.

 

Not so. One of the duties of a provincial governor was to uphold law and the native legal system wasn't replaced - the Romans merely added their own laws to the mix. The result was a difficult and sometimes delicate balancing act between needs of the occupying state and those of the culturally diverse natives.

 

Remember that the Romans didn't want revolts. One means of achieving this acceptance of their presence was to accept the native legal system. It was after all important to bring the natives on-side as Roman clients, a fundamental part of their political policies. The Romans did not supplant the native systems, merely persuaded their leaders to join the Roman side. It is simply wrong to assume that provincials were automatically romanised, even if they did enjoy some of the benefits of Roman rule.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

They actually imply that Jesus was innocent of political sedition and was executed by Roman soldiery by a Roman governor in a Roman province for violation Jewish religious law - a premise that is patently absurd.

 

Not so. One of the duties of a provincial governor was to uphold law and the native legal system wasn't replaced - the Romans merely added their own laws to the mix. The result was a difficult and sometimes delicate balancing act between needs of the occupying state and those of the culturally diverse natives.

 

Remember that the Romans didn't want revolts. One means of achieving this acceptance of their presence was to accept the native legal system. It was after all important to bring the natives on-side as Roman clients, a fundamental part of their political policies. The Romans did not supplant the native systems, merely persuaded their leaders to join the Roman side. It is simply wrong to assume that provincials were automatically romanised, even if they did enjoy some of the benefits of Roman rule.

 

Not so. As you say, the native legal system wasn't replaced. Therefore Jesus could easily have been just stoned to death for blasphemy. This is exactly what happened with Stephen and James the Just. What made the Jesus case so different?. One would think that the most important people in Jewry had nothing better to do on the eve of the greatest religious festival in Judaism than twiddle their thumbs in expectation of a trial of Jesus by a Roman governor at 3 o'clock in the morning.

And the idea that a Jew hater like Pilate, who never missed an opportunity to commit mass murder in the province, would give in to the demands of an unruly mob is doubly absurd.

These are not my theories. I am following the school of thought of prominent biblical and classical scholars. The only dissenters, AFAIK, are fundamentalist Christian scholars who simply refuse to see the anomaly in the whole story.