javarush

Granted, they pretty much didn't stand higher than roadkill at the time but still, to my 20th-21st century mind, it wouldn't do for the Romans to hear whispers that they screwed-up a crucifixion, especially in a hostile land. After all, that form of punishment was meant to be a very public lesson. The same would seem to apply to the Jewish authorities that went through all that trouble to nail (pun not intended) the troublemaker. This issue is less about nipping a radical sect in the bud than it is about the practice of simply confirming that punishment was decisively carried out. Is there any reference to a similar event (a condemned man being supposedly executed and then escaping) from that time? Perhaps such an event involving a single individual was not noteworthy. But for the Christians, it would have been quite a triumph to chronicle -- if it happened.

Peter Watts

Zeichman and Pharoah,

I went back and thumbed through one of my sources and found that my memory was wrong.
There was no mention about the manner in which Roman guards would be executed, just that they would be put to death for falling asleep at their post.
Crucifixion was reserved for criminals and slaves, so it's doubtful a Roman would ever have faced that type of punishment.

Sorry — it was never my intent to mislead.

Agemegos

They were too busy dealing with all the bodies that got up and walked around Jerusalem and were seen by many.

chapka

This is a red herring.

I assume what you're thinking of is the story of the Roman guard told in Petronius' Satyricon. As Petronius tells it, a Roman guard was guarding a crucified body which was being left out exposed overnight, so that the relatives wouldn't come and give it an honorable burial. He heard sounds from a nearby tomb and went to investigate, and found a beautiful young widow starving herself to death to join her husband. He falls in love with her and tries to convince her to live, but she refuses and eventually he leaves in a huff. But while he was there the body has been stolen, and he's going to be crucified in its place; so she relents, agrees to live, and offers him her husband's body as a replacement to save his life.

Unfortunately, this doesn't really have any relevance to the gospel story. The alleged resurrection took place after Jesus had been taken down from the cross and the body had been claimed by the family and placed in a private tomb. There were no Roman guards who were supposed to be guarding the body, since there was no longer a danger of the family coming to take it away.

As for the OP, it's also not a terribly useful question, in my opinion. No, there's no evidence that anyone tried to find out if this particular criminal had somehow escaped, but then again there's no documentation of the original trial or execution itself from Roman sources. A lot of 2,000-year-old records didn't survive the dozen or so sacks Jerusalem experienced in the following 2,000 years.

Peter Watts

The enemies of Jesus, Jewish and Roman, were aware that He said he would rise again.
That's why Roman guards were sent to guard the tomb given to Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea — to prevent His followers from plotting any mischief, such as stealing the body and claiming that Jesus was resurrected.
All that would have been necessary to end any story of a resurrected Jesus was to produce his battered, nail-pierced body. That would have shut up the disciples very quickly.

mata leao

One argument is that the Romans didnt care that much about one escaped/"arisen" jew and that the jewish authorities were certainly not keen to record and draw attention to the fact that they may have just helped crucify the Son of God and their Messiah.

javarush

For the present, that seems to be quite correct in terms of official/bureaucratic-type records not surviving. Extrabiblically, what we have for now are only anecdotal mention of Jesus' case (e.g. the much disputed Testimonium Flavianum) and then only of the execution itself. And 'Acts' is certainly silent on there having been any attempts of recapture. The second strike is the apparent insignificance of the event at that time and so a record of it might not ever have existed to begin with. I'm inclined to agree that my original question is unlikely to be resolved.

CJD

I wasn't intending to back up his point, and I read the link I posted thoroughly. I could care less if so-and-so's point was not exactly on. Your response sounded like you'd never heard of Roman discipline before.

This time, instead of stopping to look for the information yourself before you post, you ought to consider stop being a jack ass before you post.

CJD

pharoah

Have a good day. :angel:

andrewcriddle

FWIW an inscription was found at Nazareth probably dating from the 1st half of the 1st century CE in which the Emperor threatens harsh penalties for grave-robbing.

Some have though this is a response to the disappearance of the body of Jesus, others have rejected this.

There is a good (though maybe over-sceptical) discussion by Richard Carrier at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...zarethlaw.html

Andrew Criddle