javarush

If Jesus was being reported seen again, why does there seem to be no mention of a reaction by the authorities to what may be interpreted as reports of the escape/survival of a condemned criminal? Lack of interest for some reason? Or that it was not worthy of recording (a discovery in the future not withstanding)?

pharoah

Apparently he was only seen by believers. Of course the gospel writers never addressed the question of why was it that the Roman guards didn't see him and apparently didn't report to their superiors about a missing body.

Peter Watts

Reporting the disappearance of a body that you were supposed to be guarding would mean death for the Roman guards ... usually the same manner of death as the executed person they were guarding.
Maybe they didn't like the idea of being crucified.

pharoah

I'm sure that you have sources for that bit of info.

javarush

Aside from the (probably legendary) guard at the tomb, I'm specifically puzzled as to the lack of record of an authoritative reaction to reports of Jesus "risen". It seems that the apostles would be making that part of their public message soon after the Pentacost which may have started, say, a fairly short seven to eight weeks after the crucifixion. And if the message was that Jesus was risen bodily, then I'd expect that to be even more reason for the condemning authorities to suspect an escape of some sort. To construct a possible scenario, I haven't yet found a description of how first century authorities would "normally" react to the situation of an escaped/survived condemned individual. An escape/survival would seem to be an intolerably embarrasing event so that some effort would be made to validate the sightings and, if found believable, hunt down the escapee. Perhaps such an effort was made for Jesus but was not recorded or the records did not survive or have not yet been found. Or perhaps the authorities were so convinced of death that no reaction was necessary.... Elvis has, indeed, left the building

CJD

Roman discipline is a taken-for-granted bit of knowledge for anyone remotely familiar with the army's history. This describes the general discipline of the Roman army, but the specific detail of receiving whatever punishment of the one whom they were guarding remains elusive for the time being.

Also, from here (first para. under "The Legionary and the Legion"): "The Romans were noted for their harsh discipline — stoning to death, for example, being the punishment for anyone found asleep on guard duty."

You know, you really could find this and a lot more if you'd only take the time to look for yourself before you post.

CJD

Zeichman

Roman citizens would be granted a quick death, you may be interested to know.

And I too would like to know your source for this.

pharoah

Maybe it's elusive because it has heretofore eluded historians? Here's a quote from your source that shows what the death penalty was applied for and the relative rareness of it:

Corporal punishment (castigatio), monetary fine, (pecunaria multa), added duty (munerum indictio), relegation to an inferior service (militiae mutatio), reduction in rank (gradus deiectio) or dishonourable discharge from service (missio ignominiosa) were all forms of minor punishments at the disposal of commanders seeking to maintain discipline. Execution - The death penalty was a deterrent used against desertion, mutiny or insubordination. In practice however, it was rare. Even in cases of desertion, factors such as the soldier's length of service, his rank, previous conduct, etc. were taken into consideration. Special consideration was also given to young soldiers. After all, trained soldiers didn't grow on trees. To kill off one's own ranks was to be avoided as much as possible.

Aside from this being contradictory to the above source it doesn't really apply to this issue at all unless you can prove that the soldier(s) were asleep on duty. I can't imagine that any legion commander would believe that a soldier was asleep while a heavy stone was being rolled away from a tomb, can you?

You know, you really could find relevant information before you post. :rolling:

javarush

Yes, given the efficiency and effectiveness of Roman discipline/punishment, then I'm all the more puzzled at the apparent silence of reports of attempts to investigate the possible survival and escape of a crucified man. At this point, I can only believe that the apostles originally did not preach a resurrection of the flesh, contrary to the Gospel accounts. If the resurrection was a vision (as Paul seems to have taken it), then that may be reason enough for no reaction from either Roman or Jewish authorities. Perhaps that is the answer. In the alternative of a resurrected body walking, talking, and eating, I have difficulty believing that the authorities would not react; at the very least, interrogating the witnesses. The incident of crucifixion survival involving Josephus and Titus is a different scenario as the victims were not yet dead and their dismounting and treatment was openly performed under that assumption (that they weren't dead). But it is also relevant here because it does record that survival was possible after being hung.

anthony93

Nah, the Romans had bigger fish to fry

Matthew: 27 : 51 And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent;
Matthew: 27 : 52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised;

of course what rocks were rent is an open question, but all those open grave had to be closed, right? And if it was a major earthquake - with another coming on Sunday

Matthew: 28 : 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.

- what a commotion. And the Temple all messy, on Passover no less. Some hick from Galilee, pretender to the throne or not would have been a low priority.