The AD33 crucifixion detail in Judea

[Crispvs]

Brian,

I don't know where you got most of that from but it certainly does not come from any of our sources. Hence it would appear to modern disingenuous speculation and nothing more. There is little evidence to tell us how people would have sat/lain at passover meals and there may have been many different seating practices in operation - we simply cannot know these things. It is true that the room may have been laid out like a Roman triclinium, but Christ and His apostles were not Romans and it is equally (or even more) possible that it may have have been laid out differently. There is no way that we can have any idea of whether or not they would have followed a Roman (ie foreign) dining practice. A sixteenth century painting of the event may not be correct no matter how famous it is, but in any case no-one would consider it evidence of any sort anyway. The Last Supper, though, is not the subject of this thread so I would suggest moving back to the matters at hand.

There is also zero evidence for Christ having made some sort of deal with Judas to betray Him - it is simply a modern reconstruction which assumes information not given by the contemporary sources. It is true that if a normal person wanted an interview with the man who was the de-facto head of state, the request would probably be refused, but we know that He had already met some of the Chief Priests whilst preaching in the temple and as these men were all close (and even related) to Caiaphas, if He had wished to communicate something to him, He could probably have arranged a meeting with one or more of them had it suited His purpose. Added to that, John's gospel tells us that one of Christ's disciples (probably from the wider group of disciples rather than one of the twelve apostles) actually knew Caiaphas and at least two members of the Sanhedrin were sympathetic to Jesus. Nicodemus had come to meet with Him and discuss spiritual matters and Joseph of Arimathea, although it seems he had not made his sympathy public, was sufficiently sympathetic to petition Pilate for His body and donate his own tomb. Thus, if Jesus had wanted to communicate with a forum Caiaphas was a part of and might listen to, in time He could have done so without taking the drastic step of having Himself arrested to gain an immediate interview where he would be in a position of vulnerability and could be taken for an acknowledged criminal.

I don't know where the detail of bleeding from the forehead comes from - it certainly isn't mentioned in any of the gospels. If you have access to a contemporary source which mentions this then there are many millions of people who would be very keen to hear from you. :wink:

As to records of court proceedings, I am sure that they did exist, but like the records of pretty much every other one of the millions of court cases which must have taken place over the centuries of Roman justice, they have not survived.

There does, however, appear to have been a report of the matter in Rome's archives, for this is what the 'Acts of Pilate' which Antoninus Pius had access to in AD155 probably were - a part of a report to Rome that Pilate must surely have made at the time. We know from Pliny the Younger's correspondence that any little matter would be reported back to Rome, and the execution of a man who had been attracting thousands of followers must surely have been a matter Pilate reported back on. In fact it is possible that the 'Acts of Pilate' might originally have been the collected reports from throughout his praefecture, as it is reasonable to assume that the reports of all governors and prefects would have been kept in order to be consulted where necessary. Unfortunately these things simply do not survive. Who knows what was burned during the Visigoth and Vandal sackings of Rome, quite aside from what was not copied before its papyrus simply disintegrated or its ink faded through age anyway?

Please Brian, a good historian starts with the source material and only consults modern theories after all surviving contemporary sources have been fully read and considered. Many modern theories have been advanced more for the purpose of discrediting Christianity than for any purpose of historiographical rigour. It is important not to be misled by these. If what you read says something happened, before you take it at face value, check to see if any contemporary source mentions it. If not, then ask yourself if it is a reasonable assumption based on what the contemporary source materials do say or show. If it does not seem to be securely based on what contemporary sources say, them you are better off disregarding it.

Crispvs