Not really a debate as such, but I’m told here is the place for questions of a religious nature.
As I understand, scourging was a punishment for lesser, but still serious crimes. IIRC, Christ got scourged, but that wasnt enough for the crowd; they wanted him crucified. Does this mean that he got it on the double? Or was everyone that was sentenced to crucifiction scourged first, for good measure?
Of course, its hard not to remember the scourging scene in The Passion of the Christ, where Christ got what can mildly be described as a hiding. It was portrayed that they laid into him a bit harder than usual as he was so defiant. Would these wounds have killed him anyway? If not, what was the treatment for scourged people back then? TLC just might not cut it.
Scourging was a routine step (not always done) in a Roman crucifixion. If it happened to you, you’d appreciate it – the shock and blood loss would make you die on the cross a bit sooner than if you were not scourged first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Roman_Empire
If you believe the Gospels then it was a Jewish mob who had been worked up by the sanhedrin.
If you are amenable to more critical, scholary views of the Gospels, there probably was no mob. The most likely historical scenario is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans stirring up trouble at the Temple during Passover. The Romans were extremely paranoid about riots during Passover (a time when they were greatly outnumbered) and anyone who looked like they might be starting some shit was sorted out right quick. Crucifixion was a specifically Roman form of execution and was only used for crimes against the state like treason or sedition. People who seemed likely to threaten Roman authority, be involved in insurgency or similar activities were basically thought of as terrorists and executed without mercy (Pilate is described in contemporary sources outside the Bible as being ruthless and brutal…so much so that he was reprimanded by the Emperor for it). If Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah (i.e. the King of Jews) that would have been seen as an unambiguous challenge to the authority of Rome and if it was thought that he had any following, a one way ticket to Skull Hill.
Many scholars now believe that the angry Jewish mob and Pilate’s ambivelence were apologetic inventions by Mark to try to take the blame off the Romans and place it on the Jews.
And while Annas and Caiaphas are portrayed as hypocritical villains for sacrificing one man for the common good, subsequent events proved them right. When the Judaeans rebelled against Rome later, in 66 AD, they were crushed. Jerusalem was sacked, the Temple razed. It would have gone the same way if anyone had tried to declare Jesus king. The Sadducees – the priestly party – knew that would happen because they were a little bit more traveled and sophisticated than the Zealots or the Pharisees. The Zealots wanted to throw off
Rome like the Maccabees had thrown off the Seleucids. The Sadducees knew that would be national suicide; the Romans were a whole lot tougher.
Although Christ died much faster than was common. One Gospel says He was crucified at about 9:00am; one at about noon. He died before sundown. Therefore there was no need to break His legs as with the others who were crucified at the same time as He. So apparently He was in worse shape than they were, perhaps because of the scourging, perhaps because he had been beaten several times, walked all over Jerusalem, had not eaten since Thursday night, not slept since Wednesday, and so forth.
I recall a comment in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible that the cynical calculation of letting one man die for the people is “a principle constantly used by all governments both before and after the time of Caiaphas”.
I don’t think that’s a logical conclusion to draw. The legal authorities were Roman, so it’s entirely plausible that the Jews would clamor for Roman punishment to be enacted.
I thought the Jews just counted any part of a day as a day, and a day ended at sundown.
So Jesus was crucified on Friday (day one, ending on sundown Friday), lay in the grave on Friday night and Saturday (day two, ending on Saturday night), and then rose on Easter (day three, starting Saturday night).
Right on both counts with, of course, “Friday night” as we reckon it being part of Saturday.
One piece of useless information I learned some years ago and never forgot was the phrase “quotidian tertian”, referring to a fever that recurs every “third” day… counting each fever day as being the first. In other words, it comes back every other day.
Similarly, in music, two notes are a “fifth apart” if you count five notes to get from one to the other (e.g. A-B-C-D-E) and a fifth plus a fourth is an octave (not a ninth).
And the Jews who called for Christ’s death clearly despised him as well. Even if we grant that they despised crucifixion, it’s hardly implausible to say that they would have called for Christ’s death, knowing full well that this meant the Romans would use their customary methods of execution.