Posted: Aug 20, 2011 11:08 pm
Alan B wrote:A short while ago, I had a brief discussion with a friend of mine (also an atheist) about why was Jesus crucified and not stoned. His reply was that under Roman rule only they could execute someone (e.g. crucfixion) and that the Jews had no autonomy in this matter (even though Jesus was given back to the Jews for sentencing - allegedly).
Yet we read (in the Bible) that on a couple of occaisions the crowd were ready to stone Jesus because he 'blasphemed'.
Could someone enlighten me on the historical practices of Roman occupation with regard to local customs and punishment? Was some autonomy granted to the occupied? Scholarly references would be useful.
I've tried Googling but all I get are the self-opinionated religious offering their views and trying to justify this or that according to their beliefs.
Presumably the Romans executed him for what they saw as criminal activities. Regardless of autonomy of the Jewish state at the time, Roman justice used crucifixion for scum (decapitation for less scum, up to strangulation for the toffs). If the Jews had killed him then it would have been stoning, because they seemed very fond of stoning.
I think it comes down to rabble rouser in a province is a case of Romans keeping the peace, and as such it would have been a Roman execution. I suspect the anti-jewish flavour to those stories may have had some enhancement over time, possibly when rewritten to appeal to Romans. As another poster mentioned, best taken with a small mountain of salt.
Please moderate your intake of salt, and if possible vary from just sodium chloride, although the Nitrate salts are best avoided, especially in mountain form