Announcement

Collapse

World History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to World History 201.

Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.

This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.

The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Crucifixtion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by thormas View Post

    Is Florus the fellow who was born 100years after the death of Spartacus and wrote about those events in the early 2nd C CE?
    He's one of the earliest Roman historians from whom we have information about Spartacus and likely privy to information and sources long lost to us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian3
    replied
    Notice Hypatia_Alexandria and Thormas. Please get out of my topic thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • thormas
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Having read further I see that there is only one extant Roman source with any relevant information at all. The Roman historian Lucius Annaeus Florus who asserts that Spartacus was "a Roman soldier, that had deserted and became enslaved." Others don't cover his status before being enslaved. In fact there is very little information at all about Spartacus, especially prior to the revolt.

    Is Florus the fellow who was born 100years after the death of Spartacus and wrote about those events in the early 2nd C CE?

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Comments like this simply serve to make you look exceedingly foolish. Read some authoritative works on the Roman army in the late Republican period.
    Having read further I see that there is only one extant Roman source with any relevant information at all. The Roman historian Lucius Annaeus Florus who asserts that Spartacus was "a Roman soldier, that had deserted and became enslaved." Others don't cover his status before being enslaved. In fact there is very little information at all about Spartacus, especially prior to the revolt.


    Leave a comment:


  • thormas
    replied
    Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    rogue06,

    In accordance with my OP, I found this:

    Deuteronomy - Chapter 21: "If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole."

    This is an example of someone being put to death AND THEN impaled.

    This is what I was looking for.

    You are wasting your time with Hypatia_Alexandria.
    Yet aren't there drawings or descriptions of men crucified on a single tree (without branches) or a pole. So does this specify impalement or crucifixion?

    And whom was the author of Deu. speaking about - Rome?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
    rogue06,

    In accordance with my OP, I found this:

    Deuteronomy - Chapter 21: "If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole."

    This is an example of someone being put to death AND THEN impaled.

    This is what I was looking for.

    You are wasting your time with Hypatia_Alexandria.
    All very interesting but of little relevance to Roman capital punishment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    If he was in the Roman army at the time, he was a citizen. Or is yet something else you know about and disagree with the historians over?

    Comments like this simply serve to make you look exceedingly foolish. Read some authoritative works on the Roman army in the late Republican period.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-15-2020, 02:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian3
    replied
    rogue06,

    In accordance with my OP, I found this:

    Deuteronomy - Chapter 21: "If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole."

    This is an example of someone being put to death AND THEN impaled.

    This is what I was looking for.

    You are wasting your time with Hypatia_Alexandria.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Nor was Spartacus a Roman citizen as you imply. He came from Thrace [the region around modern Bulgaria] and as Strauss notes “had served in an allied unit of the Roman army. The Romans called these units auxilia [literally “the help”] [...] As an auxiliary Spartacus was probably representative of a conquered people fulfilling their military service to Rome; that is he was probably more a draftee than a mercenary. [...] In all likelihood he was cavalryman”.[see Barry Strauss The Spartacus War]
    If he was in the Roman army at the time, he was a citizen. Or is yet something else you know about and disagree with the historians over?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    In the words of the famous fictional TV detective Columbo, "one more thing..."

    Since HA has been reduced to quibbling over the use of the term "very rarely" I thought I should add the following

    From the paper "A multidisciplinary study of calcaneal trauma in Roman Italy: a possible case of crucifixion?" dealing with the examination of the remains of someone who had been crucified by the Romans and which can be downloaded for no charge HERE:

    In the Roman world, crucifixion was usually reserved for slaves (servile supplicium), although it was also applied to liberti (freed slaves), foreigners, revolutionaries, and criminals (very rarely to Roman citizens except in the case of desertion by soldiers) (Cantarella 2005).


    I wonder if our resident semantic quibbler caught the "very rarely to Roman citizens part.

    The work by Eva Cantarella cited is Origine e funzioni delle pene di morte in Grecia e a Roma ("Origin and functions of the penalties of death in Greece and Rome"). Cantarella is an Italian classicist and professor of Roman law and ancient Greek law at the University of Milan.

    And since I posted this I might as well add that Titus Kennedy, a field archaeologist who works primarily with sites and materials related to the Bible, notes in an article called Roman capital punishment that while "in cases of treason a Roman might be crucified, lashed to death, or burned alive" that

    The Romans knew the pain and dishonor of crucifixion, and avoided it as punishment for other Romans and themselves even if it meant suicide (Seneca, Ad Luicilium Epistulae Morales). Unlike Paul, Jesus was not a Roman citizen and therefore His execution was eligible for crucifixion rather than a swift and clean death such as beheading (Acts 21:39, 22:28, 25:10-11).


    And as for Cicero... Steven Shisley, a historian who has written articles for the Biblical Archaeology Society, including Jesus and the Cross, in which he wrote

    In 70 B.C.E., Cicero accused a former governor of Sicily named Gaius Verres of crucifying a Roman citizen. According to Verres, the Roman citizen named P. Gavius was guilty of espionage. Cicero reports that while Gavius was flogged in the marketplace, the only sounds from his lips were the words, “I am a Roman citizen.” Despite his claim of Roman citizenship, a cross was prepared for him. “Yes, a cross,” says Cicero, was prepared for this “broken sufferer, who had never seen such an accursed thing till then” (Against Verres 2.5.162).5 Worst of all, Verres ordered for Gavius to be crucified on the shore facing the Italian mainland since he claimed Roman citizenship. This incident recorded in Cicero’s speech against Verres reveals that, at least for Roman elites, crucifixion was extremely rare to witness or suffer.


    Since the only thing mentioned about Verres was that he was a Roman citizen that must be what Shisley meant by "Roman elites"
    I have no idea why you are restating what has already been addressed. Did you actually read my reply yesterday? Judging from the above, it would appear you did not. However, I would point out that Shisley’s research focuses on early Christian worship, architecture and art. I would also add that given Kennedy’s connections with the Discovery Institute I am not minded to give his comments a great deal of credence.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    A lot of what I ran across made blanket statements along the lines that Roman law prohibited the crucifixion of Roman citizens thereby implying that it never happened but as the case mentioned by Cicero makes clear it did happen
    Once. As has already been addressed.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Roman soldiers could be crucified for desertion
    As has likewise already been addressed.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    and they were typically Roman citizens.
    Only if they were legionaries. Auxiliary troops were not and were often recruited from provincial tribes, although their "officer class" would have been citizens. On their discharge auxiliaries would receive their citizenship in the form of a diploma.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    But gain, this particular punishment appears to have been relatively rarely utilized with other forms of punishments and executions meted out.
    Again this has also been addressed in my previous reply.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    For instance, Spartacus, who's famous revolt resulted in something like 6000 of his followers being crucified, he was (according to the Roman historian Lucius Annaeus Florus) "a Roman soldier, that had deserted and became enslaved." This means that deserters weren't even always executed.
    Yet again this has already been commented upon.

    As for the Spartacus War Shisley is not exactly correct in his article. He writes:

    For instance, the Romans crucified Spartacus and his rebellious slaves on the Appian Way for everyone to see from Capua to Rome (Appian, The Civil Wars 1.120). [my emphasis]

    Appian writes that Spartacus’ body was never found and Plutarch in his Life of Crassus writes that Spartacus died in battle. Either way Spartacus was not crucified.

    Nor was Spartacus a Roman citizen as you imply. He came from Thrace [the region around modern Bulgaria] and as Strauss notes “had served in an allied unit of the Roman army. The Romans called these units auxilia [literally “the help”] [...] As an auxiliary Spartacus was probably representative of a conquered people fulfilling their military service to Rome; that is he was probably more a draftee than a mercenary. [...] In all likelihood he was cavalryman”.[see Barry Strauss The Spartacus War]

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Oh Lord. You've retreated to playing semantic games which is a dead give away that you know you're mistaken and are flailing desperately for a way out.

    I'm done here.
    I realise you wish to throw all you toys out of your Kinderbette but I have, nonetheless, done you the courtesy of replying.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I should note that among atheists and other non-believers I've heard that the fact Rome rarely crucified citizens be used as the basis for the claim Jesus would not have been crucified but was either executed by other means or exiled (hence explaining an empty tomb).
    Who has ever made such a claim and where?

    Rome did not even "rarely" crucify its citizens. I have no idea why you are making unfounded comments. One incident at the end of the late Republic during a period of chaos and major corruption is not indicative that such a procedure was even “rarely” carried out. Perhaps this, as with Jewish slaves and the Roman army, is another fixation you have.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    citizenship wasn't given to the people of Judea which was a client state of Rome
    Judaea in and of itself was never "a client state of Rome". It was part of the kingdom of Herod the Great until his death in 4 BCE. After that it was given to his son Archelaus who was made ethnarch of Samaria, Idumea, and Judaea until he was deposed in 6 CE when Judaea was taken into direct Roman control as a province.

    Nor were Jews overly eager to become Roman citizens, I recommend you read A N Sherwin-White on that topic.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    although Herod and members of the aristocracy would have been granted it.
    We know that Antipater and his son Herod the Great were given Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar but we do not know precisely how that would have been "played out" and we do not know what happened during the civil wars following Caesar’s assassination when Herod the Great temporarily switched sides and backed Antony and Cleopatra against Octavian [Caesar’s heir].

    That short transfer of allegiance may well have decided Octavian [given what we know of his personality] to remove or disregard the pre-imposed dignity.

    However, I would be be very grateful if you would provide your primary historical source[s] that confirms "members of the Jewish aristocracy" being granted Roman citizenship.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    So Jesus would not have been a member of the Provinciales (a lower rank of citizenship who essentially only possessed the rights afforded the ius gentium)
    What on earth are you attempting to allege? A man of his status [i.e. a rural peasant] would have come under the category of humiliores.

    With regard to ius gentium [law of nations] the following thumbnail from The Oxford Classical Dictionary may enlighten you:

    [1] In a 'practical' sense it denotes that part of Roman private law which was open to citizens and non-citizens alike. The institutions of the old ius civile were accessible only to Romans, but the growth of international trade made it necessary to recognize some institutions which could be applied by Roman courts to relations between foreigners and between foreigners and citizens.

    However, the course of the development of this ius gentiumns is conjectural. The establishment circa 242 BCE of the office of praetor peregrinus played a part, but there must have been other factors, since in classical law ius gentium was not regarded as a praetorian creation and it was applicable also to relations purely between citizens. It included even some institutions which were part of the old ius civile [notably stipulation except in the form using “spondeo”]. It covered the most flexible and commercially significant parts of Roman law and after the constitutio Antoniniana, [212 CE] when the same law was applied to Romans and foreigners, ius gentium in this sense became only an historical reminiscence.

    [2] In a more 'theoretical' sense ius gentium is equated with the ius natural [philosophica law of nature] . Thus for Gaius the second century CE law teacherius gentium is “the law observed by all nations'” in contrast with the ius civile of each individual state; and this universal law is that which “natural reason establishes among all mankind”. Ius naturale therefore looks to the origin of this law in natural reason, while ius gentium looks to its universal application.

    [3] Ius gentium also sometimes denotes legal rules governing relations between states, and corresponds to the modern concept of 'public international law'. [See The Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd Ed. 2000]

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    He would have instead been a "subject" of the Roman Empire.
    As a Galilean Jesus would have been a “subject “ of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, who was a client king to Rome in the early part of the first century and who died after 39 CE.

    However, as Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem which was within the Roman province of Judaea he would been considered a provincial and have come under the jurisdiction of the Praefectus [Pontius Pilate].

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    1. OTOH, Paul was from Tarsus which meant he was a Roman citizen
    Paul never tells us where he came from and his authentic letters make no reference to his Roman citizenship.

    It would also have been extremely unusual for a relatively low born artisanal Jewish provincial to be a citizen. There remains of course the possibility that he bought his citizenship.

    The author of Acts has Paul make reference to his status as a citizen but in his authentic letters he never mentions it. For example in II Corinthians 11.25 when he was 'beaten with rods' (i.e. by the Roman lictors] three times, he made no protest on those occasions that, as a Roman citizen, his punishment was illegal.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-15-2020, 08:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Oh Lord. You've retreated to playing semantic games which is a dead give away that you know you're mistaken and are flailing desperately for a way out.

    I'm done here.
    In the words of the famous fictional TV detective Columbo, "one more thing..."

    Since HA has been reduced to quibbling over the use of the term "very rarely" I thought I should add the following

    From the paper "A multidisciplinary study of calcaneal trauma in Roman Italy: a possible case of crucifixion?" dealing with the examination of the remains of someone who had been crucified by the Romans and which can be downloaded for no charge HERE:

    In the Roman world, crucifixion was usually reserved for slaves (servile supplicium), although it was also applied to liberti (freed slaves), foreigners, revolutionaries, and criminals (very rarely to Roman citizens except in the case of desertion by soldiers) (Cantarella 2005).


    I wonder if our resident semantic quibbler caught the "very rarely to Roman citizens part.

    The work by Eva Cantarella cited is Origine e funzioni delle pene di morte in Grecia e a Roma ("Origin and functions of the penalties of death in Greece and Rome"). Cantarella is an Italian classicist and professor of Roman law and ancient Greek law at the University of Milan.

    And since I posted this I might as well add that Titus Kennedy, a field archaeologist who works primarily with sites and materials related to the Bible, notes in an article called Roman capital punishment that while "in cases of treason a Roman might be crucified, lashed to death, or burned alive" that

    The Romans knew the pain and dishonor of crucifixion, and avoided it as punishment for other Romans and themselves even if it meant suicide (Seneca, Ad Luicilium Epistulae Morales). Unlike Paul, Jesus was not a Roman citizen and therefore His execution was eligible for crucifixion rather than a swift and clean death such as beheading (Acts 21:39, 22:28, 25:10-11).


    And as for Cicero... Steven Shisley, a historian who has written articles for the Biblical Archaeology Society, including Jesus and the Cross, in which he wrote

    In 70 B.C.E., Cicero accused a former governor of Sicily named Gaius Verres of crucifying a Roman citizen. According to Verres, the Roman citizen named P. Gavius was guilty of espionage. Cicero reports that while Gavius was flogged in the marketplace, the only sounds from his lips were the words, “I am a Roman citizen.” Despite his claim of Roman citizenship, a cross was prepared for him. “Yes, a cross,” says Cicero, was prepared for this “broken sufferer, who had never seen such an accursed thing till then” (Against Verres 2.5.162).5 Worst of all, Verres ordered for Gavius to be crucified on the shore facing the Italian mainland since he claimed Roman citizenship. This incident recorded in Cicero’s speech against Verres reveals that, at least for Roman elites, crucifixion was extremely rare to witness or suffer.


    Since the only thing mentioned about Verres was that he was a Roman citizen that must be what Shisley meant by "Roman elites"

    A lot of what I ran across made blanket statements along the lines that Roman law prohibited the crucifixion of Roman citizens thereby implying that it never happened but as the case mentioned by Cicero makes clear it did happen - although very rarely. Roman soldiers could be crucified for desertion and they were typically Roman citizens. But gain, this particular punishment appears to have been relatively rarely utilized with other forms of punishments and executions meted out. For instance, Spartacus, who's famous revolt resulted in something like 6000 of his followers being crucified, he was (according to the Roman historian Lucius Annaeus Florus) "a Roman soldier, that had deserted and became enslaved." This means that deserters weren't even always executed.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    One recorded incident does not suggest "very rarely". And the rest of your citations prove my point.
    Oh Lord. You've retreated to playing semantic games which is a dead give away that you know you're mistaken and are flailing desperately for a way out.

    I'm done here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Arguing that the Roman army applied brutal discipline (look up the concept of decimation) does not prop up your erroneous claim. Even there crucifixion was rarely used and only for the worst cases and your source even notes that in the case where it could have been used other means of execution were generally employed.

    The fact remains that as my sources, which for some reason you studiously ignored, show that crucifixion of a Roman citizen was "only very rarely to Roman citizens" just as Retief and Cillier asserted in their paper.
    One recorded incident does not suggest "very rarely". And the rest of your citations prove my point.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Arguing that the Roman army applied brutal discipline (look up the concept of decimation) does not prop up your erroneous claim. Even there crucifixion was rarely used and only for the worst cases and your source even notes that in the case where it could have been used other means of execution were generally employed.

    The fact remains that as my sources, which for some reason you studiously ignored, show that crucifixion of a Roman citizen was "only very rarely to Roman citizens" just as Retief and Cillier asserted in their paper.
    I should note that among atheists and other non-believers I've heard that the fact Rome rarely crucified citizens be used as the basis for the claim Jesus would not have been crucified but was either executed by other means or exiled (hence explaining an empty tomb). But citizenship wasn't given to the people of Judea which was a client state of Rome[1] although Herod and members of the aristocracy would have been granted it. So Jesus would not have been a member of the Provinciales (a lower rank of citizenship who essentially only possessed the rights afforded the ius gentium), He would have instead been a "subject" of the Roman Empire.



    1. OTOH, Paul was from Tarsus which meant he was a Roman citizen and unlike Jesus and Peter was pretty much exempt from being crucified -- but not from being executed.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Andius, 11-26-2020, 07:42 PM
0 responses
12 views
1 like
Last Post Andius
by Andius
 
Started by Christian3, 03-31-2019, 11:02 AM
27 responses
3,744 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X