Probably because he wasn’t all that important at the time, but was basically a political freedom fighter with a small band of followers, someone who sometimes seemed to be using religious metaphors as thinly disguised exhortations against the Romans. A great deal of Christian scripture appears to have been the result of retroactively turning a largely political revolutionary into a purely spiritual one, culminating in the first Council of Nicea which pretty much launched Christianity.
As to the OP, yes, crucifixions of alleged rebels seen as a threat to the state were very common, and at the time Jesus would have been just another one. The notion that there were so-called “thieves” or “bandits” crucified on either side of him comes from a misinterpretation of the Greek lestai which actually refers to the most common Roman designation for an insurrectionist, and was just how the Romans regarded Jesus. Indeed the titulus INRI (“Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum”) which was said to be on the cross and is often thought of as having been ironic mockery was likely meant quite literally, designating Jesus’ alleged kingship as a direct political threat to the Roman state.
Bloodstained wood, used in an execution?
You couldn’t re-use it. I suspect that, given Judaism use of ritual purification after kosher violations, that such wood would be ritually unclean.
Nobody in Judea would want it…except the Roman garrison.
The soldiers might use it to build crude furniture, or for firewood.
Actually the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, all record instances where Jesus was addressed as Rabbi, which means teacher. And Matthew talks about a time when he was addressed as “teacher” by one of the scribes of the Law.
And it is hardly accurate to say that Jesus did not leave any commentary on the Law that has been used as teaching material, even if He did not write it Himself.
CalMeacham points where He read, and the Gospel of John records where he wrote with his finger in the dust. It is not known what He wrote.
I don’t think that that’s unusual. The same is true of Buddha and Mohammed (the Koran was (probably) an oral tradition until after his death). I don’t think Confucius is supposed to have directly written anything. Socrates certainly didn’t.
Yeah, you can’t crucify someone on a second hand cross(-beam)! It might be against their religion, or they could catch a disease! Hands up all those who don’t want to be crucified here.
Unique only in its role in theology, granted. Although if the Bible is to be believed there were a few details that set the crucifixion of Jesus from, say, the two thieves with him. Namely that a sign was fixed to his cross and the crown of thorns attached to mock the claim of ‘King of the Jews’. There’s also the claim that he wasn’t just left to rot, but that Pilate allowed him to be taken down at the request of Joseph of Arimathea.
Probably less for altruistic reasons and maybe to try and quickly brush the matter under the carpet; Rome was surprisingly tolerant when it came to local religions and preferred to leave alone unless it made of problem of itself.
I know I’m asking about a piece of wood that existed 2000 years ago so there’s likely not to be any definite answers. Just wondering about the educated guesses as to its most likely fate.
In the sense of a wandering preacher and commentator on the Torah; the Bible has a few people call Jesus a Rabbi in the context of teacher or master;
Although it’s origin can’t be proven, the “True Cross” was a Byzantine relic. Constantine’s mother Helena found it in the holy land. As story the goes, the place where Jesus was crucified was holy to early Christians, but the Romans built a pagan temple there. Supposedly, Helena ordered it be torn down and she found three crosses buried underneath. She took them to an ill woman and when she touched the third cross, she was healed, thus that one was believed to be Jesus’s. The nails were sent to Constantine while the cross stayed in Jerusalem. It was lost but reclaimed one or twice during wars until Saladin captured Jerusalem and it was lost to history for good. Fragments still exist to this day.
Obviously, the story of the find is more legend than fact, but for hundreds of years, it was one of the Byzantines most prized holy relics and they did treat it as if it were the real cross. Since there are no other crosses competing for the title, that’s probably as close as you’re going to get.
It seems to me that 2 slightly different answers are being given to 2 slightly different questions as far as Jesus being called a rabbi.
That is, even if the oldest extant copies of the gospels that were all written post-crucifiction refer to Jesus as a rabbi, would anyone have called him that while he was alive?
From what I’ve read, probably not. For example, from wiki here: Rabbi - Wikipedia
And here’s an article so short that I figure I can only quote one sentence under fair use. Seriously, it’s only 8-10 sentences but does address both questions: http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2182/
So it seems to me that the bible may call Jesus a rabbi but the people of his time probably did not.
Hopefully you’ll be kind in pointing out anywhere I’ve gone wrong on this as I don’t claim to be any kind of theological scholar. I’m just sharing what I’ve read about it.
I’m a bit puzzled at the claim that the title is “first mentioned in the Mishnah (c. 200 CE)” since, as we’ve seen, it turns up in the synoptics and in John, both of which are considerably earlier than 200 CE. I’m thinking that this claim must relate to the use of the term to refer to someone with a formal “hierarchical” role; the use of the term to identify the holder of an established office or a recognised formal qualification.
The “formal title” use presumably evolved out of an earlier use of the word as a mark of respect for a teacher or mentor, and the synoptic gospels look like evidence that its use in this sense was current when the synoptics were written. Mark, thought to be the earliest of the synoptics, may have been written twenty to forty years after the death of Jesus. If so, then it’s entirely plausible that the sense of “rabbi” which was current when Mark was written was also current during the life of Jesus, and that the term was actually applied to Jesus, as Mark suggests. We can’t say that it was so, of course, but I don’t think we can say “probably not”.
UDS, are you citing manuscripts of the synoptics and in John that have been dated to have been written before 200 CE? Because manuscripts of the gospels dated 110 CE have many differences and additions than ones of the same gospels dated 80 CE. I don’t think they nailed down the Gospels until the Counsel of Nicea.
And I don’t understand why the Romans wouldn’t reuse a cross (or the crosspiece). What would they care about bloodstains? They’d probably be all dried by the time they reused it. Not to mention they didn’t always nail folks to crosses, they often just tied them.
Do you have any cites to back up what you suggest?
What you’ve posted does not agree with the cites I’ve given. The ‘‘teacher’’ meaning of rabbi was later, not earlier, than the time of Jesus according to my cites.
If anything, you could claim that people really did call him ‘‘rabbi’’ at the time that he was living but that it meant something more like ‘‘master’’. However, that is a different claim than saying he was called a rabbi meaning ‘‘teacher’’.
There are no manuscripts of any part of Mark from before the third century. I’d have to leave it to the scripture scholars to say whether there is any scholarly opinion that Mark’s use of “rabbi” is an interpolation, or has Marcan authorship. I’ve never seen any suggestion that it’s an interpolation, but I haven’t read widely in the area.
I concede that, if it is an interpolation (and if it is similarly an interpolation in Mt, whose use of it does not seem to be in a text copied from Mark) and in John, then the evidence that Jesus might have been addressed as “rabbi” in his own time is pretty feeble. But three independent interpolations of “rabbi”? When, if anything, the church was trying to distance itself from Judaism?
My guess is that they would reuse it. Which, possibly, fractionally increases the possibility that the early Christian community could later have acquired it, because they’d know where to look for it. It would be in the storeroom in the barracks where they keep all the crucifixion supplies. (Not that this ties in remotely with the story of how Helena acquired it.)
Sorry. I’m making a slightly different point. By 200 CE the term “rabbi”, whatever it’s literal/etymological meaning, is being used as an honorific for, e.g., people holding the office of president of the sanhedrin, and by sages ordained by the Sanhedrin.
My suggestion is that before it was formalised in this way it was used as an honorific in less well-defined circumstances to someone respected (by the person using the honorific) as a teacher, thinker or mentor. My only cite is the fact that it is used as an honorific applied to Jesus in Mk, Mt and Jn (and, yes, I’m assuming that these instances are not later interpolations). I’m not saying that it meant “teacher”, or “master”, or anything else in particular; just that it may have been in use as an honorific when the gospels were written and, possibly, during the time of Jesus.
But seriously, I don’t think a cross would quickly be used by anyone for furniture as one previous poster suggested. Something like that was probably considered unclean in everyone’s book (not literally book of course, make that superstition).
Since crucification was a Roman rather than a Jewish method of execution, kosher ritual purification after blood contamination wouldn’t be an issue with reuse of cross. I imagine the Roman soldiers would be practical and either reuse it somehow or burn it for fuel. It’s possible some portion of a crucification beam might have been kept as the sort of macho souvenir soldiers have been known to collect throughout the centuries or possibly since it was an instrument of execution it would have interest to some of the magic practicioners or mystery cultists of the day.
As I recall from long ago lessons, Pilate let them take the bodies down so that there would be no “unclean” dead bodies hanging around during passover. In fact, this is why they hurried the process along with a spear, so they could get the show over with.
A lot of the artifacts and sites were basically a “supply and demand” situation. To some extent, things like true crosses served to satisfy market demand once Christianity was legal and worshippers wanted to find souvenirs. This hit the peak during the crusades. Armies of important Europeans and pilgrims invaded the Holy Land and wanted to see it all. the locals were happy to oblige, producing all the sites necessary to satisfy the devout. In fact there are two crypts for Jesus, three or four fields where angels appeared to the Shepherds outside Bethlehem, and the location of the last supper is on the second floor of an obviously medieval building built 1,000 years too late. (But it has King David’s tomb on the first floor as a bonus attraction). There were even two copeting via dolorsae, depending on whether you were catolic or orthodox.
OTOH, most of Golgotha (assuming it’s the right place) has been quarried away to help build the church that surrounds it, and the Jesus prep table, a granite slab in the Chuch of the Holy Selpucher where he was laid out for burial preparation, was replaced 200 years ago with new stone.
Aslan’s book “Zealot” mentions that crucifixion was a punishment reserved for treason - i.e. insurrection and threatening the stability of the Roman state. Jesus was basically considered like the Messiahs before and after him, a freedom fighter attempting to liberate the Jewish state from Roman overlords and corrupt temple priests. In his case, it seemed he expected popular uprising to complete the job. It ended badly for him.
I suspect crosses were re-used for executions until they rotted so badly they had to be thrown away.
Reasons:
(1) wood large enough to furnish a cross would have had to be imported to Jerusalem - local trees would not supply beams that size - and so consequently, expensive. I can’t see thrifty Romans simply throwing it away after one use; and
(2) reusing wood on which rotting bodies had been nailed for other uses would be ooky, even for non-Jews (I doubt a Jew would consider it for a second - Jews were ‘into’ ritual cleanliness, and I can’t think of anything less ritually pure than a bloody cross).
My link in post 13 agrees that the date was a consideration. Usually the legs were broken after a time and the victim died when they couldn’t breathe any longer. Since he was apparently dead already the Romans did the spear.