WI Jesus was handed over to the emperor and executed in Rome?
- Thread starter Avrorrange
- Start date
-
- Tags
- church jesus roman empire rome
That is literally asb lol.In this section of the forum we don’t count divine influences into consideration.
I am one of those Christians. I mean I understand the doubt that comes with the text, because the Christians at the time didn't want to be too "anti-Roman" and so might have done their best to make Pilate seem more fair, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that the case brought against Jesus was brought by the Sanhedrin, they were the ones trying to pressure him into giving treasonous statements.
Whether or not Pilate really "washed his hands", he wasn't an idiot, and if he had the crime deferred to Rome, he would've made an enemy out of the Sanhedrin, and the Jewish priestly elite as a whole.
And I don't think I can recall any case where a person (at least, a non-citizen) ever committed a crime in the provinces, and was recalled to Rome. It's just a weird thing. Local regions always had their forms of administering justice, and deferring to Imperial authority only really happened when the Emperor was in the province, or if it was a large scale and severe crime.
The PoD is interesting, but in the end futile IMO. The circumstances just can't line up for this situation to happen.
Not really inconsequential. There would be drastic changes in Church politics, where Rome’s leadership was always disputed.The act would have made Rome the holiest city in Christiandom.It’s value in secular politics likely would have inflated a lot more than otl where the emperors essentially allowed it to fall into a decrepit state.
Last edited:
So instead of going with the inclins of his personality from the gospels and surviving letters we should just reduce him to a stereotype?.
He was a stereotypical nasty governor if you look at actual historical sources.He annoyed the locals so much that he was eventually sacked by the emperor.
Jesus dying in Jerusalem(and it's importance to his life and death) didn't make anything out of Jerusalem
Current politics and power obviously matters far more. So what if Rome has more excuses to claim primacy, the Emperor in Constantinople still has no reason to let them be bossing him around.
In one of the two letters that survive he also acquiesced to the Jewish authorities, then he was chastised by an Emperor after being reported one time(which would have made him less likely to abuse his power over Jewish Legal/Traditional powers) and only really resorted to sending soldiers to kill people when they were acting like they are gonna have another round of revolt(or something like that, I can't remember it well as it's been some years but they did instigate him).
Nothing here really conflicts with his characterisation in the Gospels.
Jerusalem became one of, if not, THE most sacred city to the Christians and shit load of ‘em died trying to conquer/defend it.
Question is whether the Christian emperors would still want to move to Constantinople?And whether what came after them wouldn’t want to establish a capital there?If anything, Rome could potentially receive a higher boost from pilgrimages than otl where it was only the seat of the Pope and where some early apostles died.
Last edited:
The early Christians made him look like a reasonable guy who was somewhat sympathetic to Jesus, and even made a nasty point about how he(and the Romans) were not responsible for killing Jesus—in order to deflect blame from the Romans.In real life though, he had not once, but multiple run ins with the local Jews due to religious differences.
Last edited:
Peter was tried in Rome because he was arrested there. Paul was tried in Rome because he was a Roman citizen (probably the son of a freed slave) and had the right of appeal there. Jesus wasn't and didn't. There would have been no reason for him to be taken there rather than been made an example of in Jerusalem.
I'm inclined to think that the basic events of Passion week are historical, even though the motives attributed to them may not be. Jesus did stage a showy entrance into Jerusalem, and did cause a disturbance in the Temple. People did hail him as 'King of the Jews,' and there may have been minor rioting and some deaths as a result. Both the Sanhedrin and Pilate wanted him punished, and so he was, in the most immediate and violent way possible. And Pilate did put a notice above his head that read KING OF THE JEWS - the ultimate symbol of Roman supremacy. His disciples would have been in shock.
That's not the end of the story, of course. The Gospels, in their various ways, are attempts to explain how and why it was not. Was the notice true, after all? Jesus had not raised an army, but was he in some sense really King? Maybe Pilate knew that all along.
To me, it seems more likely that Pilate neither knew nor cared who Jesus was, or whether he had any right to that title. It was just a cruel joke, or perhaps a veiled warning to Herod Antipas - this is how we deal with troublemakers from your country. Watch your step, or this could be you.
I'm inclined to think that the basic events of Passion week are historical, even though the motives attributed to them may not be. Jesus did stage a showy entrance into Jerusalem, and did cause a disturbance in the Temple. People did hail him as 'King of the Jews,' and there may have been minor rioting and some deaths as a result. Both the Sanhedrin and Pilate wanted him punished, and so he was, in the most immediate and violent way possible. And Pilate did put a notice above his head that read KING OF THE JEWS - the ultimate symbol of Roman supremacy. His disciples would have been in shock.
That's not the end of the story, of course. The Gospels, in their various ways, are attempts to explain how and why it was not. Was the notice true, after all? Jesus had not raised an army, but was he in some sense really King? Maybe Pilate knew that all along.
To me, it seems more likely that Pilate neither knew nor cared who Jesus was, or whether he had any right to that title. It was just a cruel joke, or perhaps a veiled warning to Herod Antipas - this is how we deal with troublemakers from your country. Watch your step, or this could be you.
Likely a ritualized strangulation after a parade or triumpf like with Vercingetorix after a few years in a dark, moldy dungeon in Rome.
The better question would be if the government in Rome would be able so speak Greek (very likely they did) which would made communication with subjects from Judea more easier, hell, the oldest depiction of Jesus is in Rome and written in Greek - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
Regardless of theological considerations, it's likely that Jesus spoke basic Greek, given that it was the lingua-franca of the Levant at the time, and many Jews were also fluent in Greek, if Jesus actually had a conversation with Pilate as the gospels portray, then they would have communicated with each other in Greek.
Execution by stranglation is quiet possible but hardly parade. They wouldn't bother with that since Jesus wasn't captured during rebellion and he was quiet minor annoyance if even that much for Romans.
Most plausible probably would be that Tiberious just says to Jesus "F*** off bothering me!" and let Jesus go wherever he wants. Or then just jail Jesus and send letter to Pilatus asking "Why in names of gods you are bothering me with that kind of minor thing? You are appointed to your office for that! If yu can't solve that yourself, I can send new man who can!".
So no legions of angry Seraphim melting the Roman's faces off?
The Romans did not steal the arc of of the covenant and they would be genuinely respectful of other people's religion, unlike the Nazis.
To the best of by Knowledge, Ancient works just skips through the scribes and translators that we know should have been present, like the various stories of Briton chiefs in Rome talking with the Emperor obviously happened through translators that were never mentioned. Similarly with how we know that most official writing would have been done with scribes, I think it was Cicero that even recommends scribes but if Paul's writings are any indications, it was so normal to use Scribes that not using them is when it becomes something of note.
I mean, it would probably be better not to view the Romans or even Mongol tolerance in the light of the religiously tolerant vs religiously intolerant view. Their religious view was Polytheistic, Pagan and folk. It's their religion to appease other gods(even foreign ones) as well and get the priests to those gods to get those gods to support them. When this mindset meet with Christianity that saw the best way to get gods favour is following the one correct path it is unsurprising the Romans got intolerant(might not help to revert back to the dynamic/world view that I disagreed with but its is best in describing what I am trying to describe here).
To get what I mean, the Pagan Romans persecuted the Druids of Gaul and Manicheans to extinction. The Druids in many ways were a node of resistance/didn't fall into the "praying to our gods to support the empire" mold as well.