Was Christ really offered opium by the soldier?

[Pup7]

In addition to the ritual significance of hyssop being used in the OT to ritually purify, I have heard before in regards to the use of the hyssop branch at the crucifixion, that hyssop was and is used to help alleviate respiratory distress and to help stop coughing.

Much like what we use codeine in cough syrup for today. So it was a narcotic for certain, and not necessarily an opiate (opiates are derived from poppy plants).

 

[Seeksadvice]

What’s strange about that reasoning is that, well, we see what Rome did to Jerusalem about 35-40 years later. At the height of its power, nobody, but nobody, messed with Rome. Not sure why Pilate would be that worried about what the Jews did or did not think of him.

The reference to “gall” or bitterness, makes me think of possibly added plant toxins/parts, of which alkaloids are quite bitter.

If the wine did have some sort of plant compound (myrrh) mixed in with it, there could be a couple of reasons for that:

1. The cynical side of me looks at it from the standpoint of the legionnaires stationed there… to paraphrase the classic whines of kids… “Is he dead yet?” … “It’s hot out here.” Anything that might hasten the process would get them off Golgotha and back to the barracks faster.
2. The more compassionate side of me says, well, there were followers of Jesus who, unlike the Apostles, had significant assets (Joseph of Arimathea comes to mind). Could see one of them ponying up some cash to ease suffering and make it faster.

 

[dochawk]

as they may have viewed this as a way to cause the body to “give up the fight” and quicken the onset of death.

That seems unlikely.

Crucifixion wasn’t simply an execution; it was used when they wanted to make an example out of someone. It could take days for someone to lose the strength to remain upright enough to breathe; three hours was pretty much record time.

Hurrying things up would undermine the point (unless, perhaps, by a soldier wanting to go off duty).

hawk

 

[dochawk]

Not sure why Pilate would be that worried about what the Jews did or did not think of him.

the repeated revolts and insurrections sure didn’t look good back home in Rome. He would have wanted them to stay as calm as possible until he could get somewhere, anywhere, else.

hawk

 

[Seeksadvice]

Call 1-800-LEGIONS for all of your insurrection problems. The presence of centurions indicates an already existing military presence.

 

[dochawk]

“Yes, I’m calling to report a problem with these legions you sent me.”

“No, they arrived intact, and their swords are sharp.”

“Yes, they faithfully follow my orders and kill the riff-raff.”

"No, it’s that they don’t last long, and I have to keep applying. I send them to Bethlehem and they crack heads, but then I have to send them to Nazareth a week later. And just four days after that, this idiot Barrabas has Jerusalem in a tizzy.
“You see, it just doesn’t stick. Do you have anything stronger?”



hawk

 

[patrick457]

Matthew 27:34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it.

I’ve read some articles, most are from Protestant’s version. They said that “gall” is actually an opium. Is it correct? If yes, then what is the main reason that Jesus reject it? Is it because He must feel all the abuse but opium can lessen the pain, or because doing drug is a sin although that was not a case of a drug abuse?

(1) It could be that Jesus was willing to take all of the pain instead of anesthetizing Himself. He didn’t try to weasel Himself out of the torture.
(2) In the synoptics, during the Last Supper Jesus declares that He will never drink wine again until He drinks it anew in God’s kingdom / empire / reign. Probably, at this point He didn’t feel that it was the time yet. God’s kingship hasn’t arrived yet at that moment.

Since Jesus was not crucified by the Romans for offending them, but rather just to appease the Sanhedrin because of the worry of rebellion, the Romans had no personal vendetta or need to make Jesus’ execution particularly drawn out or torturous.

You have to remember that Rome did not rule Judaea directly - that just wasn’t their style of government. What they would do was delegate daily government to the local authorities, who would be answerable to the Roman governor in charge.

Essentially, the governor (the prefect) and many of his soldiers - who were auxiliaries, not legionaries - would have been invisible most of the year. They popped up every now and again (festival seasons like Passover is one such time) to remind the locals who’s boss, but otherwise they stayed far away from the sight of the Jews. So what happens is, the Jewish authorities are (1) responsible for both enforcing law and order in Rome’s behalf, and (2) representing the people before Rome.

That’s why Jesus was arrested by the high priest: it was his job, as the official in charge acting on Rome’s behalf, to do so. Caiaphas felt Jesus was a threat to public order, and he dealt with Him as one would troublemakers. Such troublemakers are first dealt with by the local authorities, who would then forward the case to the Roman governor if it was felt to be serious enough.

That seems unlikely.

Crucifixion wasn’t simply an execution; it was used when they wanted to make an example out of someone. It could take days for someone to lose the strength to remain upright enough to breathe; three hours was pretty much record time.

Hurrying things up would undermine the point (unless, perhaps, by a soldier wanting to go off duty).

hawk

Normally, yes. But the thing is, just as John says in his gospel (19:31-34), that Friday was the eve, the Preparation day of the Passover, not to mention that the next day was also a sabbath to boot, so it was a very special day. You couldn’t risk having these three men remain hanging up there and defile the holiday. That’s why the two criminals got their legs broken - so that they would die quickly.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Ive seen people spit broken teeth in the face of the person they were fighting lol adrenaline is a hell of a thing.

 

[patrick457]

Call 1-800-LEGIONS for all of your insurrection problems. The presence of centurions indicates an already existing military presence.

There is a military presence in Judaea in the 30s, but as I mentioned earlier, it is more likely that Pilate’s soldiers were auxiliaries recruited from the local non-Jewish population, like Samaritans or Greek Syrians. (Jews were exempted from military service.)

All in all, the prefect had 3,000 auxiliaries - who were organized like the legions were, so yes, they would have centurions too - at his disposal. Most of these soldiers stayed with the prefect in the provincial capital of Caesarea Maritima. The rest were scattered across various frontier stations and garrisons throughout the province. (The Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem, located north of the Temple, is one such garrison.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The thing is, Judaea wasn’t really an important province. Its prefect was of equestrian rank (ordo equester), the second class of the Roman elite. You had to be a senator to command a legion. The legate of Syria, the prefect of Judaea’s superior, commanded four legions. In times of really serious trouble, the governor’s 3,000-strong force would not be enough, so in emergencies he would need the aid of the Syrian legate and his legions.

And that’s the thing: at the time of Jesus, we don’t hear of any legions coming down to Judaea. That meant that any disturbance that happened there wasn’t very big yet.

 

[dochawk]

You couldn’t risk having these three men remain hanging up there and defile the holiday. That’s why the two criminals got their legs broken - so that they would die quickly.

True, and, yes, at the Jewish request; not by Roman policy, though.

hawk

 

[Agathon]

The thing is, Judaea wasn’t really an important province. Its prefect was of equestrian rank (ordo equester), the second class of the Roman elite. You had to be a senator to command a legion. The legate of Syria, the prefect of Judaea’s superior, commanded four legions. In times of really serious trouble, the governor’s 3,000-strong force would not be enough, so in emergencies he would need the aid of the Syrian legate and his legions.

And that’s the thing: at the time of Jesus, we don’t hear of any legions coming down to Judaea. That meant that any disturbance that happened there wasn’t very big yet.

What of detached duty though?

 

[patrick457]

True, and, yes, at the Jewish request; not by Roman policy, though.

Romans actually gave Jews in Judaea quite a number of concessions, if you think about it. In most other places it was apparently the custom for crucified people to not be buried at all, to remain on the cross rotting. But in Judaea, thanks to Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God") people believed in burying even the crucified as soon as they were dead.

The historian Josephus once recounted an incident in AD 68 where the forces of the high priest Ananus and the Zealots fought with one another over the control of the Temple. Ananus managed to wrest control of the Temple, the Zealots called Idumaean forces to come to their aid, and the Idumaeans went on a killing spree, leaving thousands dead - including Ananus. The Idumaeans left the corpses of those they killed unburied, which was so offensive to Jewish sensibilities that Josephus commented that “the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.”

This explains why Pilate was apparently okay with Joseph taking down Jesus’ corpse upon confirming He was already dead (Mark 15:45). Leaving people behind unburied touched a sensitive nerve

 

[patrick457]

What of detached duty though?

There are only two centurions who show up in the gospels: one is the guy in Capernaum with the sick servant, and the other is the centurion at Golgotha.

The first centurion is most likely not a Roman one. He is more likely to have been a soldier in Herod Antipas’ army. The Herods had their own troops: Herod the Great had a multinational army made up of mercenaries and recruits from various places, which were organized among Roman lines. It’s likely that his sons also copied the Roman military structure for their own personal armies.

And because the Herods had their own military force, Roman soldiers really had no business being in the Galilee, which was Herod Antipas’ tetrarchy. Everything and everyone there was his: the soldiers, the tax collectors. Client territories, such as Antipas’ tetrarchy, were typically a source of manpower for the Romans, not additional territory for them to garrison. Roman troops were indeed occasionally supplied to client rulers whenever they faced internal or external threats, but that was the exception, not the norm. There was no serious military threat to the Galilee during the time of Jesus, so Antipas would not have needed Roman soldiers.

When Antipas got into trouble with Aretas, king of Nabataea (his womanizing with Herodias is involved here), Aretas thrashed Antipas’ army, but he did not run into a Roman legion; the legions in Syria had to be contacted first. Communications were slow though, so by the time they were ready to march, the emperor had died, orders got suspended, and Aretas got away without any impunity.

So all in all, the centurion with the ill servant is more likely to be a Herodian soldier than a Roman one. It’s also telling that John’s closest parallel to the story of the centurion’s servant is the story of the royal official’s son.

As for Judaea, Josephus only really tells us about three incidents during Pilate’s rule, where he cracked down hard against perceived unrest. And in all three instances, it seems that it was his own soldiers, rather than legionaries, were involved.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

That seems unlikely.

Crucifixion wasn’t simply an execution; it was used when they wanted to make an example out of someone. It could take days for someone to lose the strength to remain upright enough to breathe; three hours was pretty much record time.

Hurrying things up would undermine the point (unless, perhaps, by a soldier wanting to go off duty).

Normally, yes… it wouldn’t make sense for brutal Romans be merciful and try to hasten death. On that particular weekend though with the ongoing tension, political turmoil and unrest in Jerusalem, and the upcoming festival, plus the fact that Jesus was being crucified only at the request of the Sanhedrin, it would make sense that it would have been requested that the execution was completed quickly before the day of preparation had ended.

It was not an action of mercy on the part of the soldiers, but rather an attempt to appease the Jewish leadership to prevent further agitation of an already unruly population.