Hmm.... historical question with religious overtones... sorry

[DavidC]

I watched the Movie The Gospel of John, recently. I don't know how close the movie is to the book, or how close the book is to history, and that's not really the point.

The two dudes that were crucified next to Jesus were removed prior to the Sabbath that started the religious holiday in Jerusalem (I think?).

Prior to being removed, their legs were broken. Jesus' apparently weren't because he was found to be already dead.

So, my question is, why did the romans break the legs of the people removed from the crucifixes? Was it a form of punsishment?

Also, what happened to them after they were removed? Were they just jailed then put back up after the sabbath, or were they free?

[Zygote]

Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]

So, my question is, why did the romans break the legs of the people removed from the crucifixes? Was it a form of punsishment?

Also, what happened to them after they were removed? Were they just jailed then put back up after the sabbath, or were they free?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have specific answers for you but;

I believe that people had their legs broken AS they were crucified- this makes it impossible for them to carry weight on their legs and makes the whole process one of slow suffocation- the idea being that they'd have to lift themselves up on broken legs and streched arms to breathe, until they were finally too exausted to do so, and died of suffocation. ugh.

Also, i don't know if this applies to this specific case, but generally, if a person survived three days on the cross, they were released. very very few made it three days.

[MrWookie47]

The two theives had their legs broken because they were not yet dead. Breaking your femur will often sever a major artery running down your leg (gets cut on a jagged piece of bone), resulting in massive internal bleeding and inevitable death. The guys weren't supposed to stay up there on the Sabbath, so they had to be killed right away. Breaking their legs seemed like a reasonable means to an end, I suppose. Jesus, however, was already dead. They could take him down right away.

[Sephus]

actually my impression is that broken legs expedited your death because youd suffocate very soon after.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
actually my impression is that broken legs expedited your death because youd suffocate very soon after.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the answer. You stay alive while you're being crucified by remaining standing so that you don't suffocate. Once the legs are broken you can no longer stand, so you suffocate.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

[Wetdog]

bholder hit upon the suffocation thing which was one tortuous way to get the job done. Jesus was, according to legend, nailed to the cross, as opposed to being tied up like the other dudes, which pretty much precluded him being able to bear any weight on any limb to breathe. The nails being put thru the wrists had the same effect as slicing them while giving skeletal and ligament support to the victim. Loss of blood was evidenced by the spear to the side where water gushed out with blood. This was most likely the cause of death, evidenced by the shout Jesus made shortly before death of "Eloi, Eloi lama sabacthani?" Lack of oxygen to the brain due to loss of blood made an otherwise very disciplined mind call out in an impassioned plea. The lack of blood in the now unconscious corpus was evidence enough that he was dead enough to be declared dead by the officer of the cohort (a cohort was 6 soldiers in the Cesarean Roman army, equivalent to a buck sergeant or corporal). There was no need to break his legs to hasten death.

The Romans did not wish to piss off the Jews by making them break Sabbath or laws relating to swift burial of the dead. Better to let them keep their "superstitions" than have them rise up in a holy war. No governor wanted to get a black eye politically by requesting more troops to put down an uprising. So execution and burial was expedited to keep the populace satisfied that religious protocols were kept.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, my question is, why did the romans break the legs of the people removed from the crucifixes? Was it a form of punsishment?

Also, what happened to them after they were removed? Were they just jailed then put back up after the sabbath, or were they free?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have specific answers for you but;

I believe that people had their legs broken AS they were crucified- this makes it impossible for them to carry weight on their legs and makes the whole process one of slow suffocation- the idea being that they'd have to lift themselves up on broken legs and streched arms to breathe, until they were finally too exausted to do so, and died of suffocation. ugh.

Also, i don't know if this applies to this specific case, but generally, if a person survived three days on the cross, they were released. very very few made it three days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that makes sense, although I can't really say I'm better for having heard it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Might it be possible thatthat the guys had their legs broken after a while of being on the cross, so that they would die, so that they could be taken down?

There was something mentioned in this movie, that he didn't get his legs broken. It was important, because in scriptures in the old testament I think it says somewhere that the mesiah will be killed without having any of his bones broken.

So I'm curious if they do this before or after you're on there...

What's their schedules? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Also, it might depend on what period in the roman empire this was.

Oh well.

But thank you very much for your information, here.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they were very wary of getting the Jews riled up. They appeased them as much they could to keep them from rebelling. There were numerous Jewish rebellions during the entire Roman occupation. Not having executions on the Sabbath would have been one of the concessions made to keep people happy.

[QTip]

As some mentioned here, breaking the legs sped up the death process.

This did have something to do with the sabbath because the Jews needed to get everything over with so as not to break any sabbath rules. You'll notice this in John. 19:31

Also, many believe (including myself) as mentioned in John 19:36, that Jesus legs not being broken were in fulfillment of a prophecy from several Old Testament passages.

I think the process went quite quickly after the legs were broken. I've never heard of someone being let go as one poster mentioned...I'll have to look into that.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
As some mentioned here, breaking the legs sped up the death process.

This did have something to do with the sabbath because the Jews needed to get everything over with so as not to break any sabbath rules. You'll notice this in John. 19:31

Also, many believe (including myself) as mentioned in John 19:36, that Jesus legs not being broken were in fulfillment of a prophecy from several Old Testament passages.

I think the process went quite quickly after the legs were broken. I've never heard of someone being let go as one poster mentioned...I'll have to look into that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... it would make more sense not to let them go than to let them go. It would also make a lot more sense not to break someone's legs before letting them go.

Something that bothers me about this prophecy thing is that Jesus was well aware of the scriptures, so he could have, I suppose, manufactured some of the fulfillments. However, in the big scheme of things, I don't think that is really too important (the fact that he could have manufactured some of the prophecy-events).

[Wetdog]

I have heard that the Jesus story was written by the Essenes who were killed by the Romans before the birth of Jesus of Nazereth. I can not substantiate this, but it could account for the "perfect" story of prophetic consumation related in the Gospels. A sort of dress rehearsal as it were.

If it were true that the story is made up, would it invalidate the values related in the Gospels? After all, isn't religion the practice of values related to us by (a) Deity/s through messengersvisionaries//clerics/prophets/messiahs?

I don't feel like doing a philo/religio deal so I won't take it to that forum.

[whiskeytown]

it's definately your legs are broken before you die (or rather to speed up the dying process)

Cruxification is basically death by stranglation - when your body sags like that you can't breathe, so you use your legs/arms to hold yourself up so you can breathe - by breaking legs, they were guaranteed that those guys would die before the sabbath cause no one could hold themselves up for long with just their arms.

Jesus was already dead, so they stuck a spear in him to prove it instead of breaking his legs.

RB

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
Something that bothers me about this prophecy thing is that Jesus was well aware of the scriptures, so he could have, I suppose, manufactured some of the fulfillments. However, in the big scheme of things, I don't think that is really too important (the fact that he could have manufactured some of the prophecy-events).

[/ QUOTE ]

a diehard apoligist would point out that he fulfilled several that were impossible to rig/fullill, per se -

this includes birthplace, where he grew up, being born of a virgin, etc, etc...

but I'm not gonna do it - I believe there are books out there that will go into detail "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" mostly comes to mind - if that's what you want.

RB

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they were very wary of getting the Jews riled up. They appeased them as much they could to keep them from rebelling. There were numerous Jewish rebellions during the entire Roman occupation. Not having executions on the Sabbath would have been one of the concessions made to keep people happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still makes no sense. Laws of the Sabbath do not apply to non-Jews and the Jews would have no reason to want the Romans to comply with laws of the Sabbath (at least regarding this specific example).

[toddw8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they were very wary of getting the Jews riled up. They appeased them as much they could to keep them from rebelling. There were numerous Jewish rebellions during the entire Roman occupation. Not having executions on the Sabbath would have been one of the concessions made to keep people happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still makes no sense. Laws of the Sabbath do not apply to non-Jews and the Jews would have no reason to want the Romans to comply with laws of the Sabbath (at least regarding this specific example).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Jews had to bury their dead, and would probably be pissed at the Romans if they were forced to do so on the sabbath.