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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.