Login

05-03-2001, 02:38 AM

Just a quick question.... 
What type of centurion would be in charge of crucifictions? 
An answer to this question would help me excedingly! 
~Quintus

Thiudareiks Flavius · 05-31-2001, 11:05 PM

It's likely that there was usually some kind of military escort and guard on a crucifixion, since it was possible for friends or family of the victim to simply take him down before he dies. Given that it took up to three days for a strong man to die by crucifixion, this would have meant a rotating guard over several days in many cases. This was why victims were 'softened up' by flagellation and other physical abuse before the actual execution though, as the gospels suggest, a crucifixion could be cut short by breaking the victim's legs, forcing him to put his weight on his wrists and speeding up the process of aphixiation. 
 
Definitely a horrible way to die. 
 
Whether or not a centurion would be involved in the execution or guard detail would depend on the situation. The gospels specify a centurion was present at Jesus' execution, but there are many reasons to mistrust the gospel account on his crucifition as history (as opposed to theology). If one was present, he would have been a centurion from the auxiliary units Pilatus had under his command and which he had brought down to Jerusalem for the Passover festival period. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uthiudareiksflavius.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Thiudareiks Flavius</A> at: 6/1/01 12:21:31 pm

06-01-2001, 08:12 PM

There are two different Greek words to describe centurions that are used in the New Testament. The first is "kenturion." It is used to describe officers of cohort command. The second word, "ekkatontarcho," literally means "commander of 100," the lowest, or junior centurion. It is this type of centurion that is described in Matthew's account of the crucifixion of Jesus. Also, Jesus was abused by ROMAN soldiers, most likely Pilate's private escort from Caesarea. Some have said that the Jews did not distinguish between Romans and Auxiliary, but that is not necessarily true. We would do well to trust Gospel accounts better than we do. They have proven far more accurate that the "experts."

06-01-2001, 09:48 PM

I would like to know what the doubt historicity of the crucifixion would be. Are there implausibilities or anachronistic themes in them. I have always understood the difference between theology and history to be great but I have not heard of any significant items about the ( crucifiction) that would find the account implausible. As for who would have beaten Jesus, Pilate would most certainly travelled from caesarea with a guard. Jerusalem had the Antonia cohort that probably swelled at passover. So it could have been anybody available for the task. That is also a good point as to whether the Jews would have seen the auxillaries as Romans strictly or possibly some other shade as well. You have to remember about the gospels is that we see things in panoramic view and detail is significant. This incident was probably just another crucifiction detail done by ordinary auxillaries of another wannabe messiah.

06-01-2001, 09:49 PM

I need a spell checker

Thiudareiks Flavius · 06-02-2001, 02:58 AM

I didn't want to elaborate on that comment too much since I've noticed any hint that the gospels might not be 100% accurate tends to bring the Online Fundamentalist Avengers out of the woodwork. Oh well ... 
 
What I meant was that, while they are almost certainly recalling a historical crucifixion of a historical Yeshua by the historical Pontius Pilatus, the gospel accounts of the crucifixion were also written to make some important theological points. They were definitely written with one eye on various passages in the Old Testament, which the early Christians believed foretold the crucifixion, and they did so in the face of scepticism by their Jewish contemporaries regarding a crucified Messiah. 
 
In John, for example, the dying Jesus is given a drink of vinegar from a sponge held up to him on 'a hyssop stick'. Hyssop isn't a plant likely to produce a stick long enough to hold up to a crucified man, but it is one of the herbs associated with the Passover lamb. This detail is clearly theological rather than literal. 
 
The centurion actually first appears in what is likely to be the earliest gospel, Mark - a work which was possibly written in Rome for a Roman Christian audience. It seems to have been written in the wake of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, partially to disassociate early Christianity from the Jewish rebels. This gospel, and its synoptic successors, goes to some lengths to make it clear that Jesus was executed at the instigation of the Jewish leaders and paints Pilate as a reluctant executioner - which doesn't really fit with what we know about this ruthlessly efficient administrator from other sources. 
 
It's interesting therefore, that in Mark the very first person to comment on Jesus' death and to acknowledge he was more than a man was not one of his followers or even a Jew, it was a Roman - the centurion of Mk 15:39. 
 
So, while it could well be that there was a centurion amongst the guards there, it is also very possible that this detail was added to make a theological and a political point - (i) Jesus was first recognised by a Roman gentile while he was reviled by the Jews of his homeland, something the Marcan gospel's Roman audience would appreciate and (ii) Jesus was executed by the same sort of Jewish leaders who later stirred up the recent revolt, and was acknowledged as something beyond Judaism by a wise Roman gentile. 
 
John Dominic Crossan's excellent book 'Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus' (Harper Collins: San Francisco, 1995) examines all this and the Old Testament parallels and echoes in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and gives some good indicators as to which parts of these accounts may be less than historical. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

06-02-2001, 03:15 AM

I want to thank you all for giving me your views and information on this topic. Your knowledge I've found is extensive and helpful. It will be of great use. I have also found that the Biblical accounts in the Old and New Testament are indeed without error. This is my view however, and I hope it will soon become yours. Any other views or thoughts about centurions would be appreciated. 
My humble thanks, 
~Quintus

JRSCline · 06-02-2001, 06:17 AM

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and research! Turning out to be a really interesting discussion. 
 
On the topic of the historicity of the Bible, I'd recommend: 
 
Rewriting the Bible, by Amy D. Marcus (ISBN 0316648787) 
 
For further exploration of the historical context of the Bible, try to find in a library (it's $200): 
 
The Early Christian World, ed. Philip F. Esler (ISBN 0415241413) 
 
Cheers, 
 
Jenny

06-02-2001, 06:29 AM

Salve, 
 
More specifically on the Roman army in this context there are: 
 
Saddington, D.B., 'Roman military and administrative personnel in the New Testament' in: ANRW II- (1996), 2409-2435. 
 
Speidel, M.P., 'The army in Judea under the procurators' in: Ancient Society 13/14 (1983), 233-240. (also in RAS II. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

06-02-2001, 12:23 PM

The Roman forces mentioned in the New Testament were all auxiliaries. As Jews were excused form conscription into the Roman army for religious reasons, the soldiers at the crucifixion and in Acts were probably Syrian, Samaritan, or Caesarean (from the non-Jewish population in Caesarea, the administrative capitol of Judaea): certainly Herod the Great had Samaritans and Caesareans in his army, who were later incorporated into the Roman forces. The tension between Caesarean Jews and the Greek population was explosive and constant clashes between the two were an never ending headache for the Roman Praefects, and may explain, if it is to be believed, that Jesus received a particillarly savage beating at the hands of these Graeco-Syrian auxiliaries, Jesus being a Jew. 
 
This O.J. Simpson trial-like atmosphere surrounding the "trial" and sentencing of Jesus, I think, is largely an exaggeration. We know that the Passover holiday is a tinder box of insurrection waiting for a spark. The Romans knew this, and would certainly have had a quick, painless and efficient way of dealing with such matters (as the Romans are known to have.) You see a disurbance in the crowd, you single out the leader, you descend upon him, you hustle him out, you most likely take the person to a centurion, this centurion makes a determination, passes a sentence of death and the rabble rouser is crucified as an example. Jesus does not seem to have been a citizen, therefore had no right of appeal. 
 
So, Roman soldiers in on the death of Christ? Do be more exact, do you mean citzens, i.e. legionaries? Probably not. Roman auxiliaries? Possibly. Herod's royal troops? More likely. A Caesarean or Samaritan centurion in charge and a couple of lackeys to "tack him up!" 
 
Credo Elvem ipsum etian vivere...

06-02-2001, 01:30 PM

Salve, 
 
Despite centuries of contact with the Roman army apparently there did not develop a standard Greek terminology to describe it in the Hellenised eastern part of the empire. Part of the vocabulary was simply transliterated (eg Latin centurio becoming kenturioon in Greek), part of it was equated with the nearest existing Greek word ( centurio becoming hekatontarchÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨s or hekatontarchos. The former practice is much more common in epigraphic sources, the latter use is predominant in literary ones. It is not possible to link these terms directly to a specific type of centurion. It is more likely that just a variation in choice of words was sought rather than distinguishing particular officer grades, which apart from other literary sources can also occasionally be observed in inscriptions. 
 
The lable of Roman was applied to peregrine auxiliaries serving with the Roman army as well as Roman citizen troops. The auxiliary garrison in Judea was for a large part simply the former army of Herodes (in particular the Sebastenoi) units of which were incorporated as regular regiments in the Syrian army as Rome brought the area under direct control as well as other Roman units transferred there (eg the speira SebastÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨ probably identical to the spirÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨ AugustÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨ from AE 1925, 121. Local forces of the eastern client kingdoms were organised along Roman lines and would have resembled the auxiliary units of the regular army. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

06-02-2001, 07:16 PM

I recently read an interesting book on the politics of Pilate and 1st century Judea. It's a bit off the topic.... 
 
First, Jesus probably was not well known in Judea (he was from Galilee), and so the gospel's account of "The entire city turning out" to welcome him with palms was an exaggeration. Thus, neither Pilate nor the mainstream Jewish leadership would have noticed him at first. Still, Jesus managed to make a name for himself in a period of a few weeks, and eventually the Jewish leadership would have asked Pilate to do something about it. Pilate was normally not a wishy-washy man who would regretfully give in to the demands of the High Priest's Council, but at the time he was in a tight political corner. (This is not saying he otherwise wouldn't have ordered the execution.) His patron in the court of Tiberius had been the Praetorian Prefect, Sejanus. Sejanus virtually ran the empire for a number of years, as the old emperor retreated to some luxurious island villa. As time went on, however, Tiberius learned that his ambitious lieutenant was planning a coup-d'etat. The emperor gave the word, and the unpopular Prefect was executed by an enthusiastic Senate and populace. (Sejanus had made many enemies during his dictatorship.) Naturally, the government began to purge its ranks of Sejanus' supporters and clients... and Pilate knew this all too well. The last thing he wanted was a full scale revolt, which would provide an excuse for his recall and execution/exile. Thus, Pontius Pilate, a rough "take-no-prisoners" former soldier and known Jew-hater, was far more meek than he normally would have been, not only in handling Jesus' case but also in handling virtually everything else that passover. 
 
-Quintus Constantius, Praetorian Prefect and Consul of Rome

Thiudareiks Flavius · 06-02-2001, 08:45 PM

The Caesarion Section wrote: 
 
 So, Roman soldiers in on the death of Christ? Do be more exact, do you mean citzens, i.e. legionaries? Probably not. Roman auxiliaries? Possibly. Herod's royal troops? More likely. 
 
I'd say it's pretty unlikely that any of Herod's men were involved. If he was in Jerusalem at all - one of the four gospels says so, but it's the latest of them and so may not be reliable on this point - he would have been there as the Tetrach of Gallilee visiting for the Passover. Judea was ruled directly by Rome through the Governor's Prefect, Pilatus, so Herod would have had no jurisdiction in Jerusalem. Any crucifixions of trouble makers would have been done by Pilatus, who had come down to the city from Caesarea specifically to keep order during the festival. 
 
I'd say it's most likely he was crucified by Caesarean auxiliaries. 
 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

Thiudareiks Flavius · 06-02-2001, 08:55 PM

Lord Praetorian Prefect wrote: 
 
 I recently read an interesting book on the politics of Pilate and 1st century Judea. It's a bit off the topic.... 
 
We are drifting from the subject of centurions in Syria, but this website gives a summary of a similar theory. It's an interesting idea, but my problem with it is that it takes the gospel picture of Pilatus as being at the mercy of the Jewish leaders at face value and assumes this 'change in his attitude towards the Jews' compared with the hard line we find in Josephus is historical and that, therefore, there must be a reason for it. Another interpretation is that the early Church wanted to distance itself from Jewish nationalism and didn't want Jesus to appear like a rebel. Depicting him as being executed at the urging of the Jewish leadership and having this execution reluctantly carried out by a Roman officer who thinks him innocent helped to remove some of the stigma of having a founder who had been crucified like a ordinary Jewish bandit. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

06-03-2001, 10:52 PM

Is there ANY archaeological evidence of any Roman detachments in Jerusalem (Fortress Antonia) prior to the Jewish Wars of the mid first century AD? 
 
Valete, 
TF Rufio

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me