It seems likely in principle that a public execution would include some public explanation of the reason why the culprit was being executed.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:57 pmBefore I continue, let me quote the three cases in context.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 6:10 am google-translationA third relevant aspect is related to the titulus crucis, the tablet that specifies the reason for the sentence. In the canonical gospels there are four different formulations of the title, although all of them have as their common denominator the core βασιλεὺς τῶν ’Ιουδαίων. Now, what can we say about the historicity of the titulus? Some authors have denied it, citing as the main reason that the practice of fixing a tablet on the cross of the condemned is not, strictly speaking, attested outside the gospels. Although there are reports of the existence of criminal charges in explanatory tabellae, contrary to what is sometimes assumed this does not seem to have been a systematic practice in the Roman Empire, and in fact there are no further testimonies about tablets nailed to crosses, but only of tablets that precede the prisoner taken to the place of execution. Now, to this it can be answered, on the one hand, that in Mark's account it is not expressly said that the inscription is fixed to the cross; This being so, and as has been pointed out, at least one parallel can be adduced. On the other hand, the fact that descriptions of the crucifixion are relatively scarce in the Roman world may make the absence of parallels hardly significant, all the more so since it seems reasonable to assume that if the cause was deployed before the execution it would continue to be so. next to the condemned during the execution itself.
Sueton, De vita Caesarum, Caligula 32 Sueton, De vita Caesarum, Domitian 10 Cassius Dio, Roman History, 54.3 1 His acts and words were equally cruel, even when he was indulging in relaxation and given up to amusement and feasting. While he was lunching or revelling capital examinations by torture were often made in his presence, and a soldier who was adept at decapitation cut off the heads of those who were brought from prison. At Puteoli, at the dedication of the bridge that he contrived, as has been said, after inviting a number to come to him from the shore, on a sudden he had them all thrown overboard; and when some caught hold of the rudders of the ships, he pushed them off into the sea with boathooks and oars. 2 At a public banquet in Rome he immediately handed a slave over to the executioners for stealing a strip of silver from the couches, with orders that his hands be cut off and hung from his neck upon his breast, and that he then be led about among the guests, preceded by a placard giving the reason for his punishment (titulo qui causam poenae indicaret). 1 But he did not continue this course of mercy or integrity, although he turned to cruelty somewhat more speedily than to avarice. He put to death a pupil of the pantomimic actor Paris, who was still a beardless boy and ill at the time, because in his skill and his appearance he seemed not unlike his master; also Hermogenes of Tarsus because of some allusions in his History, besides crucifying even the slaves who had written it out. A householder who said that a Thracian gladiator was a match for the murmillo, but not for the giver of the games, he caused to be dragged from his seat and thrown into the arena to dogs, with this placard (titulo): "A favourer of the Thracians who spoke impiously." ("Impie locutus parmularius.") 4 … and others formed a plot against Augustus. Fannius Caepio was the instigator of it, but others also joined with him … 7 at any rate, when Caepio's father freed one of the two slaves who had accompanied his son in his flight because this slave had wished to defend his young master when he met with death, but in the case of the second slave, who had deserted his son, led him through the midst of the Forum with an inscription making known the reason why he was to be put to death (γραμμάτων τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς θανατώσεως), and afterwards crucified him, the emperor was not vexed.
It seems that Bermejo-Rubio is essentially correct. But I noticed the following things.
- No case is a really good parallel. The first two cases of Suetonius are the violent excesses of a ruler and the case of Cassius Dio is the private execution of a slave.
- In Cassius Dio's case, the emphasis is on the inscription being carried through the forum; it no longer plays a role at the crucifixion. Cassius Dio seems to suggest that the whole thing is a message from Caepio's father to the Emperor.
- The inscription seems to be something special for Suetonius and Cassius Dio, as if it were rare.
- My impression was correct that the usual translations ("inscription of the charge") of Mark's text are not good. Suetonius and Cassius Dio use the term "inscription -> of the reason -> for his punishment/killing. The last part is missing from Mark, it only says "inscription -> of the reason of him".
- The words of the inscription are mentioned only in the second case. What is mentioned there is the crime (impietās - impiety) as such, not what the householder said.
I'm reluctant to use the Historia Augusta as a source but the life of Alexander Severus has
This is oral not writtrn but the principle is the same.5 There were certain men that he always refused to see alone in the afternoon or, for that matter, in the morning hours, because he found out that they had said many things about him falsely, and chief among them was Verconius Turinus. 6 For Turinus had been treated by him as an intimate friend, and all the while he had sold favours under false pretences, with the result that he brought Alexander's rule into disrepute, for he made the Emperor seem a mere fool whom he, Turinus, had completely in his power and could persuade to do anything; in this way he made all believe that the Emperor did everything at his beck and call. 36 1 He was finally caught, however, by the following trick: A certain man was deputed to present a petition to the Emperor publicly, but secretly to ask Turinus, as it were for protection, namely, that he would privately plead with Alexander in his behalf. 2 All this was done, and Turinus promised him his support and later told him that he had said certain things to the Emperor (whereas in reality he had said nothing at all), and that it now depended on him alone whether or not the request would be granted; he then offered a favourable decision in return for money. And when Alexander ordered the petitioner to be summoned for a second hearing, Turinus, though apparently occupied in doing something else, signalled to the man by nodding his head, but said nothing to him in the room; then his petition was granted, and Turinus, in return for a favour sold under false pretences, received a huge reward from the successful petitioner. Thereupon Alexander ordered him to be indicted, and when all the charges had been proved by witnesses, of whom some were present and saw what Turinus had received and others heard what he had promised, he issued instructions to bind him to a stake in the Forum Transitorium. Then he ordered a fire of straw and wet logs to be made and had him suffocated by the smoke, and all the while a herald cried aloud, "The seller of smoke is punished by smoke." 3 And in order that it might not be thought that he was too cruel in thus punishing one single offence, he made a careful investigation before sentencing Turinus, and found that when selling a decision in a law-suit he had often taken money from both parties, and that he had also accepted bribes from all who had obtained appointments to commands or provinces.
Andrew Criddle
) In order to understand their argument, one must briefly consider how the Gospel of Mark was supposed to have developed from the very first eyewitness reports. 
