Romans refuse to execute Jesus

[TinyTartar]

When the Romans, in the provinces at least, were faced with a decision between doing what they legally should and doing what will avoid a revolt, they chose to avoid revolts.

I don't see this happening, not unless the Sanhedrin is already in open rebellion and the Romans want to gain some potential allies in Jesus's followers.

 

[usertron2020]

Would that idea be theologically possible?

After the resurrection He just goes on living and preaching? Of course after a time you'd need reasons he never shows up in the local area.

You'd also need a reason Jesus isn't personally in charge of any church that forms.

I think that Jesus being an Immortal walking the Earth (Faith + Proof) would give Him plenty of time to organize his church. Why would He need to be separate from the church?

 

[Pesterfield]

Since this isn't the ASB section He's actually dead, but biblical writers see some advantage to an immortal Jesus.

After all why have a resurrection if he's not going to stick around?

 

[redlightning]

The Romans would probably adopt some sort of polytheistic religion over time. It could be as simple as all of the various pagan gods were actually the manifestation of one benevolent being. Zoroastrianism might have a much larger impact on the empire if Christians are not around.

 

[usertron2020]

Since this isn't the ASB section He's actually dead, but biblical writers see some advantage to an immortal Jesus.

After all why have a resurrection if he's not going to stick around?

Its only ASB if you are not a believer. Which we seem to have a fair share of here. And this is not the ASB Forum.

 

[Saphroneth]

Its only ASB if you are not a believer. Which we seem to have a fair share of here. And this is not the ASB Forum.

I would think that direct divine intervention of any sort would qualify something for ASB (and someone being immortal would count). Otherwise it becomes a choice between:

1) Adopting the Christian position (i.e. the Christian god exists.)
I think this is quite exclusionary - if nothing else it legitimizes divine intervention in any TL.
2) Assume all religions are correct.
This is madness, frankly.

As such, I think that any situation where direct divine intervention is assumed to happen in the story of Jesus IS ASB.




The alternative is to approach the story of Jesus through the secular approach - that is, to look at his life as that of an itinerant rabbi about whom the religion was later grown.

Or to adopt the mythicist position, which is that he did not exist at all.

Both of these approaches do not involve what could be termed "magic". It would not be acceptable for a believer in the Norse Gods to have a Post 1900 story where The Mighty Thor defeats America for Hitler, say...

 

[aktarian]

Aktarian, Pontius Pilate was possibly the least appropriate provincial governor possible for a place as distinctive and touchy as Judea- he did not suit them and they did not suit him. On the course of honour, where one is supposed to alternate between army and civil posts, Pilate's last job before going to Judea would have been as a senior military tribune- nominal second in command of a legion; alas, it is not known which one, or we would have a better idea who to blame.

His job was to prevent disorder, certainly, but he seems to have caused a fair bit of it himself, by over- reacting to various incidents. He certainly behaved like an army man, cracking down when he could. And going far enough to get himself into trouble on at least two prior occasions.

The ruins of his "Tiberiaeum" have been uncovered; the sort of man who builds a church, of sorts (very loose description) to the reigning Emperor as a living god- is that the sort of man who belongs in the Judea of the first century?

In fact, he may have been sent as a result of misreading the situation- thinking that a hard hand was needed. They got one all right, but with no dexterity, and little sense of touch.

A different governor could hardly have made the situation worse, and someone more urbane, with less of the sargeant-major in his makeup, could have done a better job of keeping Judea happy and tax-paying; but would probably also have made less of a fuss about executing a stray would- be messiah.

Well, I was asking more about how events prior to crucifixion would be affected by NoPilate governor. I.e. which events were made possible by Pilate as Pilate and not Pilate as governor.

 

[Agricola]

When the Romans, in the provinces at least, were faced with a decision between doing what they legally should and doing what will avoid a revolt, they chose to avoid revolts.

In my understanding Jesus was legally executed by roman law. He was not the first and not the last Messiah the romans executed legally. They did not execute Jesus by religious reasons. Messiah means the new King of the Jews. And Jesus did not clearly contradict as far as I remember the bible. This alone was a serious attack to roman authority and a violation of roman law. The usual penalty for high treason was death. So Pilatus decided correctly. And every other roman governor would decide the same way.

Even if Jesus would have tried to contradict, the jewish authorities would have done everything to proof that he called himself the Messiah in order to get him condemned.

Now if Jesus would have got roman citizen rights, by whatever reasons, the governor must send him to Tiberius. And far away in Rome a lot can happen. Christianity is fully unknown yet in Rome and not a problem at all. Without crucification and ressurection, christianity becomes just another short living sect.

PS: Jesus family fled to Egypt. After they arrived young Jesus becomes enslaved and is sold to a roman family. With 30 he is manumitted, which was very usual these days. Now he is a roman freedman with latin citizen rights. Even full citizen rights are possible. He comes back to Iudaea, but tells nobody about the last 30 years. And if Pilatus condemns him to death, he shows his diploma and sneers.

 

[Salvador79]

Sounds like the beginning of an interesting little TL, Agricola.
I'd expect Jesus to have something to say about slavery then.

 

[voss749]

If he doesnt execute him the most likely punishment would be banishment from Judea. Possibly you could have Jesus wandering the world until hes an old man.

 

[fi11222]

Without crucification and ressurection, christianity becomes just another short living sect.

I am not so sure.

IMHO, Christianity - crucifixion = Islam.

Let me explain. At the time of Jesus, "Messiah" in Judaism did not mean "nice quasi-hippie peace and love guy", it meant "warlike conqueror of the whole world", i.e. something very close to Abu-Bakr al Bagdadi (of ISIS fame) or indeed, Hitler (Messiah of volkisch Aryan religion). That is why the zealots had such a bad rep in most quarters, even Jewish. Josephus calls them "lestai" (bandits) and the New testament calls Barabbas the same.

The only difference between such a crucifixion-less Christianity and mainstream (more Pharisaic) Judaism would have been a much more lax approach to Jewish customs and "law". So no knife-wielding on privvies, which would be a big plus for recruitment. This is exactly what Islam is: strict monotheism without Jewish law.

Concievably, this could have led to a sort of "Chrisitan caliphate" replacing the Roman Empire after a few centuries of underground agitation, urban warfare and guerilla.

 

[Napoleonrules]

I am not so sure.

IMHO, Christianity - crucifixion = Islam.

Let me explain. At the time of Jesus, "Messiah" in Judaism did not mean "nice quasi-hippie peace and love guy", it meant "warlike conqueror of the whole world", i.e. something very close to Abu-Bakr al Bagdadi (of ISIS fame) or indeed, Hitler (Messiah of volkisch Aryan religion). That is why the zealots had such a bad rep in most quarters, even Jewish. Josephus calls them "lestai" (bandits) and the New testament calls Barabbas the same.

The only difference between such a crucifixion-less Christianity and mainstream (more Pharisaic) Judaism would have been a much more lax approach to Jewish customs and "law". So no knife-wielding on privvies, which would be a big plus for recruitment. This is exactly what Islam is: strict monotheism without Jewish law.

Concievably, this could have led to a sort of "Chrisitan caliphate" replacing the Roman Empire after a few centuries of underground agitation, urban warfare and guerilla.

Completely agree

 

[Sir Chaos]

Aktarian, Pontius Pilate was possibly the least appropriate provincial governor possible for a place as distinctive and touchy as Judea- he did not suit them and they did not suit him. On the course of honour, where one is supposed to alternate between army and civil posts, Pilate's last job before going to Judea would have been as a senior military tribune- nominal second in command of a legion; alas, it is not known which one, or we would have a better idea who to blame.

His job was to prevent disorder, certainly, but he seems to have caused a fair bit of it himself, by over- reacting to various incidents. He certainly behaved like an army man, cracking down when he could. And going far enough to get himself into trouble on at least two prior occasions.

The ruins of his "Tiberiaeum" have been uncovered; the sort of man who builds a church, of sorts (very loose description) to the reigning Emperor as a living god- is that the sort of man who belongs in the Judea of the first century?

In fact, he may have been sent as a result of misreading the situation- thinking that a hard hand was needed. They got one all right, but with no dexterity, and little sense of touch.

A different governor could hardly have made the situation worse, and someone more urbane, with less of the sargeant-major in his makeup, could have done a better job of keeping Judea happy and tax-paying; but would probably also have made less of a fuss about executing a stray would- be messiah.

So, what if a more appropriate man is appointed governor of Judaea in place of Pilate? Would someone who generally respects the religious and cultural sensibilities of the locals, and perhaps even has their respect (grudging or otherwise) be able to refuse to execute Jesus?

 

[Agricola]

So, what if a more appropriate man is appointed governor of Judaea in place of Pilate? Would someone who generally respects the religious and cultural sensibilities of the locals, and perhaps even has their respect (grudging or otherwise) be able to refuse to execute Jesus?

As mentioned above, Jesus was guilty of treason according to roman law.

But there was a reason why roman governors have been admant, that capital crimes, fines above a certain cap, and cases between two civitates are the responsibility of the governor and not of the local judges. The romans made the experience, that such cases with high penalties were often used as an instrument in purely political feuds.

So if Jesus can convince the governor, that he is not the Messiah and just a victim of a jewish intrigue, a fair-minded governor might refuse to execute him. But according to the bible it seems, that Jesus was not very active in defending himself.

 

[Umbral]

It would be very difficult for Jesus to plead innocence. Hed spent his career since leaving John the Baptists side fitting the prophesies of the messiah. According to Roman law, claiming to be the "King of the Jews" or the Messiah" was sedition, and punished by execution.

And people were regularly executed for this. Jesus was guilty as sin, and had during his preaching made quite a splash with this.

There were two powers in the land at that time, and the Romans were by far the the dominant. The other power was the priest class. Jesus call for reform, not only attending to the sick, the lepers, the lame, the possessed, all those who could not be admitted to the Temple, but doing it for free. And even telling the healed to go show themselves to the priests. Along with the parables, it was a blatant attack on the priests.

Both the powers wanted Jesus executed. The Romans routinely, like they did with every other zealot that claimed to be the messiah.

Edit: Panthera survives and becomes the governor at the time?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

WI there was a different governor from start? How would that play out for earlier events?

Probably just as bad. The Romans didn't waste any of their talented statesmen on a small procuratorship subservient to the provincial governor in Syria. It's why Judea suffered from a series of bad Roman administrators that just either intentionally made the problem worse or were woefully incompetent. Pilate isn't likely to be replaced by anyone much better, and even if he was, Jesus's execution was standard Roman procedure when dealing with sedition, especially in an already on edge province.

 

[Socrates]

The reason Judaism is against converts is BECAUSE of Christianity. Judaism was a fast growing religion in Rome and outnumbered any other single "cult" or "mystery" of the time. It was these converts to Judaism that left en masse to Christianity (and took their original pagan beliefs with them) that left a bad taste in the psyche of Judaism regarding converts and what they brought in (Jesus saying he was the son of G-d to them meant he was THE son of G-d because their original pagan religion had tons of that stuff and it was not rare or unusual; rather than understanding ALL Jews say they are the sons (and daughters) of G-d, it's read from our prayer book to this day!) and you begin to see the hardness to convert to Rabbinical Judaism (there are many forms of Judaism beyond the Rabbinical Judaism of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform; such as the Karraites who don't have rabbis). In Roman times Jews made up 1/3 of the population of Alexandria which had 500,000 people total (making Jews about 167,000).

Do you have a source for the fastest growing thing and the Alexandria thing?

I remember reading somewhere that Christianity spread among Hellenized Jewish populations that had adopted Greek thought, not gentile converts to Judaism.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Honestly, Christianity as it ultimately developed seems like a version of Judaism designed to appeal to the Roman world. Can we really doubt that would not arrive anyways? Perhaps it wouldn't have the same impact but what's to stop people from picking a different messiah figure? Weren't there a reasonable number of them in the period?

The Roman world was looking for some sort of universal faith. There were various options - something like Manichaeism might have sprung up, Isis was always popular with the peasant folk and Mithra with the soldiers and merchants. Something would have come along, and it would have been based, in all likelihood, on something "eastern" or something Hellenic, and probably a bit of both.

We know so little about Jesus that isn't filtered through later religious ideology. It's like asking "What if the Buddha never leaves his father's palace?" We can say "Well I guess he becomes a King" but its total speculation. What would he have done? Nobody knows.

 

[jmc247]

So, what if a more appropriate man is appointed governor of Judaea in place of Pilate? Would someone who generally respects the religious and cultural sensibilities of the locals, and perhaps even has their respect (grudging or otherwise) be able to refuse to execute Jesus?

Here is the problem, the whole concept of the Roman governor is to keep order and keep the taxes coming. I have zero doubt that Pilate didn't gave a damn one way or the other in what he viewed as a schism in the Jewish community. After all Jesus said pay your taxes and he has thousands of gods and demi gods in his pantheon.

In the end I don't doubt the Bible when it says he tossed it to the people do you want to free some rapist murder or free one of your people who says things heretical to your local religious leaders.

That is in the end how most Roman governors would handle the situation, because in the end its about keeping the people happy and the taxes coming. The best way to save Jesus at this point would be to have his disciples organize a counter protest at the site, but in the end Jesus told them to accept his death, even calling Peter Satan for not accepting that he would be killed, he wanted to die for the sins of the world.

If Jesus didn't want to die for the sins of the world his disciples and supporters could have saved him by showing and organizing public support like the local leaders did against him.

 

[Mike Stearns]

If Jesus didn't want to die for the sins of the world his disciples and supporters could have saved him by showing and organizing public support like the local leaders did against him.

If than happens, then the scribes and the chief priests seize their opportunity and crucify Jesus and all of His followers. Christianity is a historical footnote at best, if its remembered at all.