General Disarray

I'm not sure I am buying the justification that crucifixion didn't exist in Rome. It had been around for centuries and we know of its use in other societies too. That with the quotations from Historians of the time make it an untenable hypothesis that crucifixion - that is the hanging of a person by nails or rope from a wooden frame until they died usually by asphyxiation or dehydration or a combination of both - was not a punishment that existed.

Hung or crucified? I suspect seeing as the punishment for sedition was crucifixion and that the Romans ultimately were responsible for passing sentence on Jesus rather than the Jews, he probably was; if indeed he ever existed as a distinct entity and we can believe the story of The Gospels.

The Romans were all about keeping the peace in a volatile area of uprising and rebellion. Crucifixion was meant both to be horrible for the victim but the fact it took sometimes days to die and was agonising was also meant to scare the plebs. So it seems likely that the punishment would of fitted that crime, that of movement against or uprising or words of disorder, declaration of intent to be placed above that of the legal state. ie sedition.

Jesus was passed back and forth between Roman and Jewish authorities, because it was a hot potato none of them wanted to handle, due to them not wanting to be seen to be the source of further unrest or to jeopardise their political reputation. Incidentally both Pontius Pilate and Herod the younger had excellent reputations amongst their peoples (Pontius even being somewhat well regarded amongst the Jews and vise a versa for the Romans and Herod) despite how it may seem if you are unfamiliar with the times.

When it was clear the trouble makers fate could not even be decided by their own authorities and that this would just become more and more of an issue Pontius took the most pragmatic (and dare I say typically Roman) approach and acceded to authority figures who were causing the most fuss, ie the Pharisee, to try and mollify the situation with as little disruption as possible.

Either that or there wasn't much on TV that day and they needed something to break up the monotony of throwing criminals to the lions/gladiators.

Crucifixion..? Good... One cross each door on the left...

Seems likely it would of been the T shape. But consider that also a prominent pagan symbol was that of the sword also a cruciform symbol, we might conclude that perhaps the cross was a more pragmatic symbol in terms of propaganda wars between the pagan and now Roman faith?

show_no_mercy

Where do you get that from?

General Disarray

A better source than wiki that's for sure.

Jewish historians as sources about Roman Governors? are they really all that reliable? We're talking about the man who condemned Jesus to crucifixion too. Have you read the history of Herod, young and old? Talk about not quite as it seemed. Gospel, petty tyrant and evil slayer of babies his spawn the condemner of Jesus and a vain and self important Roman puppet.

show_no_mercy

The wiki page cites its sources. You apparently are making stuff up as you go along.

You wrote that Pilate was popular among the Jews. I provided two Jewish accounts -- one even contemporaneous -- of Pilate that are the complete opposite of what you asserted.

Maybe you should try reading Philo's, "On The Embassy of Gauis Book XXXVIII 299-305" and Josephus' "Jewish War" 2.9.2-4 and "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.2

General Disarray

I'd prefer if you didn't call me a liar thanks.



You're exaggerating I didn't say he was popular, I merely pointed out that the claims of his unpopularity are as reliable as Herod being a brutal narcissistic nut case, and can probably be taken with as much of a pinch of salt.

He was however not as badly regarded as some people like to make out, certainly in some quarters which is what I implied.

Please if you want to make minor semantic points go ahead but at least try not to make up what I in fact said. Thanks.

it's perfectly valid to take sources from people written some time after the fact and with the issue being so contentious as being guilty of bias. Sorry you disagree, not my problem. It certainly would of been incredible had he been portrayed as a man put in a difficult position in a fractious area of the Roman Empire though wouldn't it?

Maybe you should stop jumping on minor semantic points people make and throwing around accusations of them being liars because you are bored?

Doug Shaver

We should certainly be skeptical of anything unfavorable that the oppressed say about their oppressors. Josephus, though, was Roman toady, if we're to believe what he says about himself. If he says Pilate was a nasty piece of work, then chances are Pilate was not a nice fellow.

General Disarray

He was writing after the fact, and let's face it that's kind of like saying Shakespeare was unfavourably disposed towards the Plantagenet Richard the Third so therefore he must of in fact of been a nasty piece of work. Considering the house that resided on the throne at the time, had fought and won the war of the roses for York against the Plantagenet. I'm saying sources presented a long time after the fact and given the context can often be taken with a pinch of salt especially when the situation itself is so contentious, and his likely sources biased anyway.

spin

Absolutely nowhere.

Our two relatively contemporary sources are Philo and Josephus (around only 30 years after the time), as you know. Outside those, there's a broken inscription from which we knew his rank was prefect. The only two people who we know had knowledge of Pilate were both Jews and they didn't regard him as having any repute.


spin

General Disarray

<edit>.

I never said what he said so you are attacking a straw man anyway. Maybe I should of made my point clearer, so that it didn't cause offence but the next person to even imply I am lying as both of you have done I am going to report. Because I am not lying when I say that the people commenting on the time were most likely extremely biased in their accounts. And I seriously doubt that he was the brutal despot he was made out to be any more than Herod or the younger Herod were according to less biased sources. <edit>

show_no_mercy

I'm calling out what you're doing. You have absolutely no source for saying that Pilate was "regarded somewhat well among the Jews". That is simply a fancy way of saying you're making things up.

Where is your source for saying that Pilate was regarded as somewhat well among the Jews?

After the fact? Philo was a contemporary of Pilate.

Again, where is your source that says that Pilate was regarded fairly well among the Jews?

Maybe you should provide your source for your assertion that Pilate was regarded fairly well among the Jews in the 1st century.