real life wrote:hi Setanta,
Getting back for a moment to the question of Roman records, specifically of Jesus' execution:
Pilate questioned Jesus on several occasions that night and each time told the Jewish leaders that he had no basis on which to condemn Him.
It would seem that Pilate therefore would have no reason to have recorded passing the sentence of death upon Him, (since he did not do so), would he?
Your basis for this series of statements form authority is what? If it is the alleged "gospels," then you have missed the point of the discussion since page two. Although there are pages and pages of successful diversion by MOAN to make herself the topic, rather than the historicity of Jesus--when the subject of the thread has not been diverted, the focus has been on records which prove the contentions in the gospels. No one here that i have seen has said that anything were
disproven. So, the meat of the discussion, within the hedge of Christian self-promotion, is that an absence of records addresses the theme of the thread, the historicity of Jesus. More specifically, it has turned on the implication that a lack of
non-Christian support for the account in the "gospels" fatally undermines the contentions of historical evidence which are touted by Christian "scholars."
So, i have addressed the subject of whether or not Pilate would have left a record of either condemning or executing someone alleged to be a rebel or a potential rebel. As we have been discussing whether or not there are reliable historical records to that effect, and the "gospels" are not considered by reputable scholars without a religious agenda as reliable historical records, the silence of other records is telling. Pilate occupied the position of
Praefectus Civitatum. I intend to use the formal title from now on, as there are several types of Prefect, many of which were military ranks, and i strongly suspect that if CR ever comes up with his sources to suggest that Pilate had the authority to either condemn or execute someone, that the source will be a Christian source which either through ignorance or intended deceit, will have falsely characterized Pilate's office and its powers.
From the time of the expulsion of the Tarquins (about 500 BCE), the Romans were obsessively legalistic. No one could be put to death except upon conviction by a duly constituted court, and then death sentence was automatically to be reviewed by the Senate. If a Tribune declared
veto (literally: I forbid it.), then that person could only be executed upon a confimation of the sentence by a vote of the tribes duly assembled (the tribe was the basic political unit of the Roman Republic). All officers of any duly constituted court were members of the
Patres, the Senatorial order. The only exception to this was the Dictator. When in times of emergency a Dictator was elected, the
lictor carried before him the
fasces, a bundle of stave symbolic of the authority of the lictors acting under the orders of the Consuls or the Dicatator. Only the Dictator was preceeded by a
fasces with a ceremonial axe in the middle of the bundle, symbolic of the power of life and death which the Dictator weilded for the term of his office. Even the Consuls, the two elected "Kings" who served for a year's term, did not have the symbolic authority of a
fasces with the ceremonial axe--the
fasces carried before them was simply a bundle of staves--even the Consuls did not weild the power of life and death.
Caesar made himself Dictator, from the example of Sulla. After his assassination, and after Octavian had won the civil war against Brutus, Cassius and Marc Antony, Octavian became Caesar Augustus, and declared himself
Princeps, meaning "First Citizen." He took upon himself the powers of the Dictator. He continued to maintain all of the offices which had been created in the more than four century history of the Republican Empire, and until Constantine reorganized the Empire in the fourth century, the bureacratic, civil administrative and military system of Augustus was maintained. Consuls were appointed and became the rulers of Consular provinces, answerable only to the Emperor. Other provinces, of which Syria was an example, were Senatorial provinces, and a Legate or Proconsul was appointed--these men were also of Senatorial rank. Smaller provinces which were the constituent units of Consular or Senatorial provinces were ruled by Proconsuls or Prefects--depending upon their percieved importance. Civil Prefects--the
Praefectus Civitatum such as Pilate--were relatively uncommon. Iudaea was a Prefecture, if you will, because it had insignificant tax revenues, but laid across important trade routes, and hence was seen as needing a man locally to oversee the furtherance of commerce and the collection of commercial revenues.
A
Praefectus Civitatum was a man of Equestrian rank, below the rank of the Senatorial class. Pilate was a member of the Equestrian order. Even members of the Senatorial class were not competent to execute someone out of hand--they could only do so as a result of a sentence by a duly constituted court, and in matters of provincial controversy, usually referred to the Imperial authority before taking action. Look at the correspondence of Pliny with the Emperor Trajan. He has executed some people who were described as or who described themselves as Christians, because of impiety (in that they refused to perform the ritual worship of the state religion--which would have left them free to pursue their own cult unmolested). He felt constrained, however, to correspond with the Emperor to explain his actions and to ask for guidance--
even though Pliny was not just a member of the Senatorial order, but a Senator who had been made Governor of Pontus and Bythinia.
But the Christian "scholars" would have us believe that a civil administrator, the subordinate of and subject to the order of a Senatorial Legate, executed a man out of hand, and saw no reason to justify his actions. Let's construct a little analogy, and see how it holds up. A council of Shi'ite Imams in Iraq decides that a particular Sunni Arab is an insurrgent, so they
tell an American civil administrator to have him arrested. Incredibly, the civil administrator agrees, and
tells a military officer to arrest the man, who, still more incredibly, does so without further consulting the authority of
his superiors. Then, having examined the man,
he sends him back to the Imams, saying he has no reason to consider the man an insurrgent. Then, the Imams send him back, saying they have condemned him for a heretic and a rebel, and
tell the civil administrator to hve him executed. To ice the cake, the administrator then
tells a military officer to have him executed, and most incredibly of all, that officer basically says: "Sure, no problem."--and rounds up some enlisted men with rifles and takes the poor son-of-a-bitch out back and shoots him.
Your scenario is no less preposterous than that. Pilate had no authority to duly constitute a court, and no authority to exectue anyone. At the very least, just to cover his own ass, he would have sent such an individual to the Legate at Damascus with a
précis of the charges against him. There would have been a record in such a case. Therefore, if the putative Jesus actually did exist, and if indeed
someone executed him, the odds are astronomically against that someone having been Pilate.
Lowest common denominator, once again your preception and related reflection Eorl. Yet still, you cling to you are all knowing and you are right. Your choice of course. 
