Was Pontious Pilot right to crucify Jesus?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Take into consideration Pilot's role as an agent of the Roman Empire when you make your decision. Also, make sure you state why you think his decision was right or wrong.

[Darth Wong]

What was the crime for which Jesus was crucified, again? I wasn't under the impression that he was a special case.

[Joe]

The poll won't let me vote, but I would say no. It doesn't appear that Jesus was involved in any sort of violent insurrection against Rome and (I'm going strictly on the Biblical account here) bending to the will of the mob isn't a good way of distributing justice (IIRC, Pontius Pilate actually wanted to let him go, but the crowd didn't). While the decision may have been good for the stability of Rome, it was ultimately a not very ethical decision.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I dont remember off the top of my head....... I'm going to check google quick to see if i can dig it up.

[XPViking]

I think the crime Jesus was accused was claiming to be the Son of God, which was considered blasphemy according to the Jews. As well, I think some efforts were made in trying to portray Jesus as inciting people to revolt against Roman rule.

XPViking

[weemadando]

Seeing as we have no evidence other than the bible, I'm basing my assumptions on that highly biased evidence as well as other cases of Roman law.

Jesus was leading an albeit small group that was threatening the stability of a province. Nowadays he'd be labelled a terrorist and be shot/blown up/shipped to Guantanamo Bay. The Romans generally dealt fairly severely with such insurrections and as such, execution was an option.

The Romans needed stability. Their empire was large and unwieldy, given the communications lag involved this stability was hard to maintain. As such, a few executions here and there would have been hardly that much of a price to pay for keeping the empire running.

As there is no evidence other than the Bible that Jesus existed and the only corroborating evidence that Pilate existed is a single inscription, that doesn't say anything other than a name... I don't see how we can even begin to debate this.

But seeing as I like the Empire, particularly around that time, I'll say, "Hell yes, crucify him..."

[Patrick Degan]

Recall from the New Testament that Pontius Pilate could not determine that Jesus had committed treason or any other crime against Roman authority. However, as Procurator, his primary responsibility was to ensure good order in the province. As a Roman officer, he had no real choice when the crowd selected Jesus as the one to be crucified, because the power of Rome was staked upon the enforcement of both Roman law and custom. Since it was Rome's practise to appease local custom where it did not conflict with the interests of the State, in order to pacify local populations and cement an implicit deal between them and Rome, Pilate would have opened the door to chaos and rebellion had he not carried out the execution, once Roman authority had been staked to it. He had to reaffirm the power of Rome.

This is the burden of empire. George Orwell wrote of this in a short story describing how, as a functionary of the Empire, it fell to him to kill an elephant. I do not recall the specifics of the situation, why he had to destroy the beast, but he had to do it in order to reaffirm the power and might of Britain in the eyes of the natives. Empires endure only for so long as they are perceived as mighty and enduring.

Pilate was carrying the burden of Empire upon his shoulders. It was not fair for either man. But the situation was unavoidable. He had to execute Jesus for the same reason that Orwell had to shoot the elephant. He had to keep the order of civilisation intact.

[Darth Wong]

If you look at how much damage his followers caused, I'd say crucifixion was mild.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

http://www.thelutheran.org/0203/page18.html

Not exactly the most unbiased source but it gives us a rough idea of what happened. If someone finds some non-biblical evidence about Pilot post it here, I'm sure we'll put it to good use.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

IIRC, this could shine some light on the subject:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjesuskill.html

[Howedar]

I think that Pilot was legally right to crucify Jesus, but I personally wouldn't have. I don't consider the crime he was accused of worthy of capital punishment.

If you look at how much damage his followers caused, I'd say crucifixion was mild.

Not really his fault IMHO.

[jegs2]

What was the crime for which Jesus was crucified, again? I wasn't under the impression that he was a special case.

He claimed to be the Son of God, which was considered heresy by the Pharisees.

[Darth Wong]

I think that Pilot was legally right to crucify Jesus, but I personally wouldn't have. I don't consider the crime he was accused of worthy of capital punishment.

Fair enough, but that was probably true of most crimes for which they crucified people. It was a violent, warrior society (gladiatorial combat, anyone?)

[Joe]

If you look at how much damage his followers caused, I'd say crucifixion was mild.

Whoah there, crucifixion and mild don't belong in the same sentence. Extraordinarily painful way to die.

[jegs2]

I think that Pilot was legally right to crucify Jesus, but I personally wouldn't have. I don't consider the crime he was accused of worthy of capital punishment.

Fair enough, but that was probably true of most crimes for which they crucified people. It was a violent, warrior society (gladiatorial combat, anyone?)

What is interesting is that Pilate repeatedly attempted to set Jesus free, saying, "This man has commited no crime worthy of death." The Jews loudly accused him of siding with a man who claimed to be, "King of the Jews," and said their only king was Caesar:


John 18:37-40
37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
38 "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.
39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"
40 They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
(NIV)

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Whoah there, crucifixion and mild don't belong in the same sentence. Extraordinarily painful way to die.

I agree, I watched a show on the history channel about Spartacus earlier this evening and they described how painful crucification truly was. The way the body hanged caused immense pressure to be put on the rib cage of the victim, making it difficult to breathe. This naturally made the victim shift their weight to their nailed ankels so that they could breathe, but of course this was extremely painful and after a short time they had to shift their weight again making it difficult to breathe, this, of course, starts the painful process again. Add this to the dehydration, lack of food, and exposure to the elements and you have a truley ugly way of making an example of someone.
In my opinion, the really sad part of the pilot affair is that most people only associate crucification with Jesus and the cross with Christianity. Many people other then Jesus died on the cross, most of them Non-Christians. The signifigance of things like the crucification of the survivors of Roman slave revolt, led by Spartacus, are lost to people simply because of the punishment of one person, who at the time, was nothing more then the leader of a Jewish cult. [/quote]

[Joe]

The Romans had an interesting custom; if you were able to survive on a cross for three days, they would let you down, because they figured that you had done penance for your crime at that point.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The Romans had an interesting custom; if you were able to survive on a cross for three days, they would let you down, because they figured that you had done penance for your crime at that point.

Makes sense, the show I watched estimated that a healthy young man could survive for almost 72 hours after he was crucified. Not everyone would make it that far though and even if this is true, not everyone got the benefit of this custom. The survivors of the great Roman slave revolt, all 6000 of them, were left to rot on their crosses, along the Appian Way, for months.

[David]

The way the cruxifiction is shown in paintings and things are wrong. Most depict Jesus with a little blood comming from his chest, hands, feet, and head.

In actuality, many of those cruxified were tied with ropes. Those actually nailed to a cross had a large nail put through the two large bones in the forearm. Putting it through the hands would not support a grown man's weight. Also the thorns are usually wrong. They are small in the paintings, but the thorns used at the time in that part of the world are several inches long.

[NecronLord]

http://members.tripod.com/~owen_eir/pilate.html

Letters of Pontius Pilate

I cannot vouch for their authenticity. However...

The trial was short but in due form and order. Jesus was accused of disturbing the peace, stirring up disaffection and claiming to be King of the Jews. There was evidence both from our side and from that of the Jews, both from Galilee and from this city. Caiaphas, Annas and the leading Sadducees were prominent and so were some but not all of the chief Pharisees; some of the Pharisees would lend no assistance in convicting a rebel against Caesar however much they desired his death as a rebel against themselves. However, that did not help him. The priests had much to say of his attacks on their religion, but I cut them short on that. They cannot have it both ways. If we are not allowed to interfere in their religion, they cannot appeal to us when their observances are attacked; as soon as the offence becomes political, directly or indirectly, then we take note of it. They may squabble about Yahveh, like the Egyptians about Isis, till they burst, but when a man brawls in the Temple he tends to provoke a general explosion and that concerns us closely. The charge against Jesus of disturbing the peace was proved to the hilt and he could not deny it.

That says it all. "You are a rebel and a traitor, Take him away!"

[NecronLord]

Commend me, my friend, for a good Roman. I too am carrying the blessings of Italy to the benighted East. I have brought two surveyors, one from Alexandria and one from Antioch. I have instructed them to present plans to me for remaking certain roads, for constructing baths at Samaria, and for leading a good supply of water to Jerusalem from the springs south of the City. I shall get no thanks for this, but where or when does the Roman receive gratitude for the benefits which he brings to the Eastern peoples? They live like pigs and when he raises them from their filthy state they only complain that he sweats money out of them to pay for public works which he wants and not they. Was it not Caesar Augustus - or was it the great Julius - who called this the Roman's burden, which, whatever his inclinations, he cannot avoid?

I like the guy already

[Zoink]

I was under the impression that there was no direct evidence for Pilot's existance (such as these letters). With the nearest reference being from Tacitus' "Annals of Imperial Rome" (circa 115AD), which is also the only reference to Rome's persecution of the Christians.

There is contraversy because Tacitus' work appeared in the Dark Ages (circa 1000s) .. and some say the text refering to Pilot and Jesus isn't consistant with the rest of the text. An example: Tacitus refers to Pilot by the wrong title: its prefect, not a procurator.

Further reference to Christians (followers of Crestus) is also in contraversy, because it might refer to followers of a popular egyptian cult. Tacitus' reference to Nero's persecution of the Christians (that whole Christians being fed to the lions thing, circa 60) is the only historical reference to this event. Its bizarre because there weren't very many Christians *IN* Rome in 60AD and the term Christian wasn't in popular use at that time.

Many would suggest that the entries are forged by Dark Age scholars, either on purpose, or by inserting later accounts (Sulpicius Severus circa 403AD who has an identical account) to fill gaps, or that Tacitus was recording his account directly from what Christians told him, rather than from imperial records.

[Kuja]

It was because of Caesar worship. Throught the Roman Empire, people were told to burn insence occaisonally and say "Caesar is lord"

Of course, when the early Christians refused to do so, they were put to death, which is why they were martyrs.

That was the crime the Jews accused Christ of: stealing Caesar's glory. It was an underhanded attempt to get rid of him by appealing to a system which they refust to conform to themselves.

[NecronLord]

I was under the impression that there was no direct evidence for Pilot's existance (such as these letters). With the nearest reference being from Tacitus' "Annals of Imperial Rome" (circa 115AD), which is also the only reference to Rome's persecution of the Christians.

So was I, as I said, and the site says in the foreword these may or may not be real.

It does directly contradict the bible though.

[Iceberg]

I think that Pilot was legally right to crucify Jesus, but I personally wouldn't have. I don't consider the crime he was accused of worthy of capital punishment.

Fair enough, but that was probably true of most crimes for which they crucified people. It was a violent, warrior society (gladiatorial combat, anyone?)

This, for some reason, brings to mind the image of Jesus fighting Maximus in the Colosseum (yes, I know that's a rather anachronistic image. So?)