Gotta love those Romans! Always thinking of the victim. 
Is this the same History Channel that airs documentaries about aliens visiting Earth throughout history, and other documentaries about who *really *killed Kennedy?
Thtwike him, Centuwion! Vewy woughly!
Most likely this is St. Paul’s propaganda or later writer embellishments. When you are trying to convert gentiles, many citizens of the Roman empire, when you are trying to avoid irritating the powers in Rome (how’d that go for ya, eh?) then it was convenient to blame the Temple authorities and make Pilate reluctant. In fact, IIRC, one of his contemporaries complained bitterly to Rome about Pilate’s excessive cruelty. Most likely he put an inconvenient troublemaker to death without a second of consideration.
Paul doesn’t give any info on the crucifixion other than it happened. The response to a question here lists the type of thing he mentioned. Remember, Paul paid surprisingly little attention to Jesus’s pre-resurrection life. He was all about the resurrection and what followed.
On the contrary, I believe the Gospels paint a believable picture given the complexities of Roman-Jewish politics. Pilate may have been insensitive and thuggish, but not that doesn’t mean he was keen to execute people to satisfy the Sanhedrin. But note that he is almost always viewed as a very ambiguous figure who isn’t simply categorized. He wanted to determine if Jesus represented some kind of political threat, possibly with the implication that he suspected the Temple officials were trying to foist their religious problems off on him.
Also, while I have seen this argument before… it really doesn’t make much sense. Christians were being persecuted quite early in their history, and some kind words (which were more matter-of-fact than anything) toward an ex-official in Judea wouldn’t have mattered much. Pilate is not exactly considered a very positive figure, and in fact is generally compared unfavorably with his wife.
Jesus was strung up with two other “bandits” which according to Aslan in “Zealot” is code for the liberation guerilla groups operating in the hills of Judea. There were plenty of these “messiahs”. Remember, crucifixion was reserved for treason, for rebels and those who sought to overthrow the order of the empire, not petty thieves -something has been lost in translation. The very barbarity of the act was designed to be an object lesson about challenging authority. Jesus entered Jerusalem to giant boisterous crowds - which is enough to make authorities wary in past times. He then proceeded to trash the main market of the Temple, a major business concern and revenue source for the temple authorities. If that didn’t scream “troublemaker” what did? It certainly did not come across as a theological dispute. Besides, do you think Pilate even talked to Jesus? Likely Pilate spoke no Aramaic, and Jesus spoke no Latin. There’s a remote possibility they spoke Greek, but unlikely. Similarly - Pilate’s wife has a dream warning about Jesus? Sounds like a very Wife-of-Julius-Caesar type of writer embellishment too, like the sky darkening and the temple curtain ripping…
Isn’t mythology wonderful?
Maybe more like a phallus with wings?
Thread over! Ignotus has totally nailed the answer.
Oh, I don’t doubt there was a real preacher named Jesus who wandered Judea until he was crucified by the Romans. He appealed to enough followers to have a continual following even after he was gone. St. Paul especially, made up a lot of what is the current Christianity and pushed on the gentiles. Then the cult took off, and writers embellished and altered and fabricated on existing epistles and gospels to make Jesus sound more supernaturally awe-inspiring and to push their version of doctrine. The councils around 300AD put their foot down and got rid of the stupider embellishments, like the Infancy apocrypha where Jesus as a child zaps annoying kids and his teacher…
But very very likely there was a Jesus, he did some of the things in the gospels, and was crucified by the Romans because it seemed he was challenging the established order.
In a land where wood was relatively valuable, and finished wood more so, odds are the cross components were recycled as long as they could hold a nail.
“Always look on the bright side of life…” ♫
Reading through this it makes me wonder if the common depiction of Jesus on the cross is incorrect (as are many depictions of what happened in his life).
Could it be that there was a main post and a short cross piece, say, less than a couple of feet long? That way the person to be crucified could drag his cross, it would be more stable, lighter and easier to handle for those performing the crucifixion. The arms would be almost directly overhead, not splayed out as is commonly depicted.
In any event, it would be a miserable way to die.
I’m thinking the circumstances of his demise were altered enough to tie it into an already established religious symbol.
Romans used more than one method of crucifixion. Acts 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.
(bolding mine). Could have been a cross, a pole or even a tree.
The cross, Jesus being in the middle of three, looking to his right, are all very symbolic in Christian tradition. That matter is not worth discussing on this board.
Did the symbols spring forth from the facts, or were the facts massaged to fit the symbols?
The earliest depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion is from the 2nd Century AD, and shows the crosspiece. Cite.
Crucifixion is not a common theme in Christian art before Constantine adopted the religion. So it seems the fact came before the symbol.
Regards,
Shodan
Like most issues with bible interpretation, we need to hear from a linguistic expert whether tree means what we think it means here.
Plus, one discussion I recall was that the main pole was already planted; putting up a pole planted deep enough to stay upright with a substantial load is no trivial task. The center pole would remain planted, and the condemned would haul his crossbar out to execution point where he was attached and then the bar was hauled up onto the center post. Although, if you go to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and see where the cross was allegedly planted, most of the hill has been chopped away. the spot where you can stick your hand into the hole, it’s solid rock with a hole less than a foot deep.
The other possibility about crossbar or lack, is that whoever set the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine simply enjoyed being contrary simply to prove that they were right and everyone else was wrong. .
What of the ankh, the ndj and the nfr? The letter Taw? Could any of these have influenced the shape of the christian symbol?
The Greek word in Acts 13:29 refers generally to things made of wood. Cite. The Greek word referring more specifically to the tree growing in the ground is “Dendron”. AFAIK only the KJV translates Acts 13:29 as “tree”.
Regards,
Shodan
Without a polaroid of the crucifixion, we’ll never know exactly was involved. The atonement is what the cross represents, regardless of whether it actually involved a tree, a pole, or a cross. Beyond that, no doubt it gets a little spin.