Why did the Roman soldiers not brake the leg bones of Jesus on the cross?

"Hey guys, I think we have a live one here!"

“Hey guys, I think we have a live one here!”

1. Jesus was allready dead.

This can not be, because they punctured his side right after making the assumption, that he was dead and he was still bleeding. The only wittnesses to the events interviewed by the Gospel writers were the women, who were not likely to understand a word of latin (or other languages the soldiers might have spoken, if they were auxilia mercenaries and not legionaries, or palatia guards), to know what the Roman soldiers actually thought.

2. Joseph of Arimathea had bribed them not to.

For some reason the Gospel writers do not include Joseph, no more as a writer, or as an actual wittness of the event he was alledgedly preset at. But he was a rich merchant and a council member, who according to the eyewitness statements took Jesus to his own tomb. What happened afterwards is unclear. Certainly he had the means and was the one to ask for the body of Jesus from the Romans. I would expect even the body did not come cheap, but if he was bribing the soldiers to give him the body, why not bribe them to give him while he was still alive?

3. They were affraid of this alledged son of a local god.

Again the alledged eyewittnesses could propably not understand what the soldiers spoke, but it is plausible that the polytheist soldiers thought that Jesus was the son of some local god. Especially so, if the story about the storm braking out during the execution is true. That might have kept their hand from being too harsh on him. Especially, since their officer in command had allready tried to save Jesus and had “washed his hands” from the blood of Jesus. Pretty much, shown absolute dissinterrest in wether, or not this man is killed, or not, but leaning on him to be saved.

4. Their commander had ordered them not to kill Jesus, because he wanted to use the Roman conduct of “divide and conquer” on the Jews.

It is well within possibilities, that Jesus was saved by the Romans who wanted to play him against the Jewish priesthood. The Romans would have done what ever to pitch the Jews against each other. They only had a small garrison in a country at the brink of a revolt. Nearest legion was in Syria and all sorts of “roadside bombing” was directed at the Romans. Jesus was a known dissident, that had a following, but who also preached a non-violence message. What else suited better for the local Roman officials, than to release him secretly to mess up the authority of the Jewish priesthood?

5. They only thought he was dead.

A contemporary historian Josephus mentions people who survived crucifixion, if they were taken down early enough. He does not mention how long had these people been up on the cross, or how fit, or old were they, but certainly Jesus an unemployed carpenter and a known ascetic in his early thirties was a man in prime condition to survive such treatment, if ever anyone was. Unless he died of a heart failure, or an internal trauma from the alledged beating before his crucifixion.

There were no doctors present at the execution and coma was not a known medical condition. Even modern doctors make occasional mistake of diagnosing a coma patient to be dead. However, this does not totally explain why they did not brake his leg bones. The bones were broken in order to speed the death of the sentenced, but also to make sure a criminal would not survive the treatment and crawl out of the mass grave where the crucified men were usually thrown into. The Jews had asked the Romans to finish the executions on the pretence that their holy days of Passover were about to begin. This demand is in direct contradiction to their eagerness just few hours before to get Jesus crucified. Perhaps the Romans did not brake the bones of Jesus just to spite the Jews and to remind them who actually called the shots.

All this just assuming, that the entire story is not a fabrication in the first place.

The Gospels are not reliable historical sources. But if this story is to be taken as a history and not as a mere myth, then it has to be submitted to the same scientific scrutany as other such historical sources.Β  The writers of Gospels had no idea of historical integrity (wich had been a known concept among classical writers for centuries at the time whose stories are not taken at face value, if they add something supernatural to the narrative) and most of the Gospel writers have obviously been adding their own stuff to the story. Silly stuff like the dead rising from their graves in Jerusalem during the crucifixion of Jesus, wich was not important enough to be mentioned by more than one Gospel, or private conversations between the Roman commander and Jewish high priests.

Klodovig, the first Christian king of the Franks once said, that if he and his Franks had been at Jerusalem, Jesus would surely not have been crucified. This tells us that:

a) Klodovig did not have much understanding about the religion he and his folks (by his command) joined.

b) The idea that one man would be sacrificed for the misconduct of others was totally alien to him and his cultural sense of justice.

c) Klodovig had higher morals, than the Abrahamic god, as he seemed to understand, that the ethical responsibility of anyone who can, is to stop the execution of an innocent man.