S
steve53
Guest
Patrick, please don’t post the picture of that crucified horse.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
They are arguing with specific sentences in your posts without having read the whole thing.
Now you know how the Bible feels.
-Tim-
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
No, Tim. I think people are suspicious that the whole gnat-straining “cross versus stake” thing is a petty quibbling.
By all means, write a lengthy Op about the various shapes that may constitute a vertical cross or a diagonal cross or a T-shape, and post as many torture pics as you like.
But just remember that the sign of the Cross, and His Crucifixion, and His invitation to take up our crosses and follow Him, are not subordinate to the type of semantics we see going on here.
“Excruciating” - extremely painful; causing intense suffering; unbearably distressing; torture.
From the Latin verb excruciare (based on crux, cruc- ‘a cross’).
Yep. They had to invent a new word for that type of suffering.
By all means, write a lengthy Op about the various shapes that may constitute a vertical cross or a diagonal cross or a T-shape, and post as many torture pics as you like.
But just remember that the sign of the Cross, and His Crucifixion, and His invitation to take up our crosses and follow Him, are not subordinate to the type of semantics we see going on here.
“Excruciating” - extremely painful; causing intense suffering; unbearably distressing; torture.
From the Latin verb excruciare (based on crux, cruc- ‘a cross’).
Yep. They had to invent a new word for that type of suffering.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
I don’t think the thread is so lengthy yet that people need to have stuff repeated.
Cross. The intersection of two lines.
P
patrick457
Guest
I believe in the adage that repetition is the mother of learning, so expect me to sound like a broken record that I’ll probably drive people away.
I have a feeling that I’m gonna sound like the Athanasian Creed when I’m done.I feel it’s the length. I don’t have the gift of being able to put my thoughts in two or three sentences. So I end up sounding like that boring teacher nobody pays attention to in class.They are arguing with specific sentences in your posts without having read the whole thing.
Now you know how the Bible feels.
-Tim-
And that’s the whole point of the thread. Crux or stauros did not just mean “the intersection of two lines” or “two or more pieces of wood joined together at a certain angle” in opposition to “stake” (as Christians engaged in dialogue/debate with JWs seem to imply). But stauros or crux did not simply mean “stake” to the exclusion of “the intersection of two lines” either (as JWs engaged in dialogue/debate with Christians who use the traditional t/T shaped cross seem to imply.) Crux or stauros can mean both “stake” and “two or more pieces of wood joined together at a certain angle” - in fact, it just means ‘torture/hanging device’, of no specific shape.
The fact that you - we - automatically think of a ‘cross’ as an intersection of two lines and ‘crucifixion’ as something that happened to Jesus shows just how influential Jesus’ death (or the Christian ideas of Jesus’ death) was, to the point that His particular execution has become the standard with which we judge ancient hangings involving a crux.
There’s a time for everything I think. There are times when someone’s just gotta engage in petty quibbling. Partly so that the others do not have to engage in petty quibbling themselves. Don’t worry, I don’t have any illusions that I can miraculously change people’s minds - maybe me from six years ago would have, but I’m far too jaded and disillusioned a person for that right now.
Here’s an aside. When Jesus said to take up our crosses, isn’t wasn’t something abstract as our modern expression “carry the cross” was. It wasn’t just simply this figurative message about ‘carrying your daily troubles’ or something - it meant, literally carrying a real crux. In other words, whoever wants to become Jesus’ disciple should be prepared to give up his life for his discipleship - even to hang like Jesus did. (And many of the early Christians in turn - including some of the apostles - were literally hung on their own cruxes.)
In fact, it is said that that expression could have been original to Jesus. Nobody in the ancient world asked other people to ‘take up their crosses’ - there was no expression like that. I mean, people did insult each other by using phrases like ‘may you hang on a crux’ (which is one of the ancient equivalents of our modern f-word), but it’s only Jesus and Christians who make it seem as if the crux was a good thing.
P
patrick457
Guest
Sorry for the poor choice of words. A ledge is susceptible to that yes, nut what about a ‘horn’-like projection of enough length that the victim can straddle on?
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5705/sedile.jpg
As for the leg-breaking: we know it happened to the two criminals. We know that Romans sometimes broke peoples’ legs (not necessarily of people hanging on cruces) as a form of torture or to provide a quick death. But was it standard ‘crucifixion’ procedure - if there was any - or just something the soldiers did ad hoc to hasten the two men’s deaths? Or are we just reading those references to other leg-breakings to the specific one that happened at Calvary? (I’ll elaborate on this below.)
That’s true (the ‘crucifixion as public deterrent part’.)
But here’s the thing. We have only one explicit record of a guy being hung on a tall crux, as a cruel joke no less. This is from Suetonius’ biography of the emperor Galba:
At first [Galba] was rigorous and energetic and even over-severe in punishing offences; for he cut off the hands of a money-lender who carried on his business dishonestly and nailed them to his counter; crucified a man for poisoning his ward, whose property he was to inherit in case of his death; and when the man invoked the law and declared that he was a Roman citizen, Galba, pretending to lighten his punishment by some consolation and honor, ordered that a cross much higher than the rest and painted white be set up, and the man transferred to it.
On the other hand there’s also other references to people alive or dead who are eaten by beasts of prey while hanging on cruces - in their particular cases, we may infer that the gibbet they were hung on may not have been very tall, unlike the one Galba hung the guy who poisoned his ward on.
The only thing that tells us, really, is that crux depending on the circumstance can not just be of any shape, it can also theoretically be of any height. There was no standard regulation that the executioners had to adhere to. That’s probably why it’s useless to speculate on how just heavy or big a ‘cross’ could be, because no two cruces would have been the same. Hey, as long as the guy who hangs on it doesn’t fall off, that’s all good.
Where the problem sets in is when some people - scholars, no less! - try to read those other references (which are only applicable for the specific cases they describe) into other cases of crux-hangings for which specific information is absent. That’s why you see some people say: ‘crosses must not have been very tall, because blablabla’. The problem there is over-generalization: the assumption that what held true for one hanging must have held true for the other.
Just as I mentioned before: we are not sure that all people who were crucified had to carry their cruces to the place of execution. We know that it happened to Jesus, but in other hangings, it seemed that the crux was already set up and the person was just brought to where it was. (This would hold true for situations where you affix the person on something like a tree as in Conan the Barbarian - after all, how can you carry a tree?
) We cannot assume that just because Jesus had to carry His stauros/crux in His particular case that it held true for all other hangings as well.
P
patrick457
Guest
Speaking of scholars and mishmashing different details together, let’s check some of the scholarly retellings of a crucifixion. Here’s how the Encyclopedia Britannica describes ‘crucifixion’:
There were various methods of performing the execution. Usually, the condemned man, after being whipped, or “scourged,” dragged the crossbeam of his cross to the place of punishment, where the upright shaft was already fixed in the ground. Stripped of his clothing either then or earlier at his scourging, he was bound fast with outstretched arms to the crossbeam or nailed firmly to it through the wrists. The crossbeam was then raised high against the upright shaft and made fast to it about 9 to 12 feet (approximately 3 metres) from the ground. Next, the feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft. A ledge inserted about halfway up the upright shaft gave some support to the body; evidence for a similar ledge for the feet is rare and late. Over the criminal’s head was placed a notice stating his name and his crime. Death, apparently caused by exhaustion or by heart failure, could be hastened by shattering the legs (crucifragium) with an iron club, so that shock and asphyxiation soon ended his life.
You would notice that some parts of the article are bolded while others are in red. The red parts are taken from the gospels (which describe the hanging of a single - or three, if you count the two criminals - person); the ones in bold, meanwhile, are speculation.
“There were various methods of performing the execution.” All well and good, but the article seems to immediately eat its words by providing a vivid description of what a ‘crucifixion’ could have been like (note the word “usually”), as if to imply that there was a ‘standard procedure’, and that the ‘various methods’ are just small variations of it. Really, the article doesn’t so much describe a ‘standard crucifixion’ (if there actually was one) but the specific process called the crucifixion of Jesus, with heavy dollops of speculation. You cannot assume that everything that happened in Jesus’ execution also automatically happened in other crux hangings.
Just going by the gospels though, what do we know about the details of Jesus’ execution? As you can see, the gospels only provide us a bare-bones description of what happened.
Unlike what me from a couple years ago would say, we don’t know whether Jesus’ stauros looked like or was carried as in the left or the right picture or in some other manner entirely. And it isn’t really important.
I think I might have more focus if I’m answering questions. So if you guys have anything, ask away.
(Yes, I’m pretty much aware that this isn’t really a JW topic. I just used that as a launchpad really.)
There were various methods of performing the execution. Usually, the condemned man, after being whipped, or “scourged,” dragged the crossbeam of his cross to the place of punishment, where the upright shaft was already fixed in the ground. Stripped of his clothing either then or earlier at his scourging, he was bound fast with outstretched arms to the crossbeam or nailed firmly to it through the wrists. The crossbeam was then raised high against the upright shaft and made fast to it about 9 to 12 feet (approximately 3 metres) from the ground. Next, the feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft. A ledge inserted about halfway up the upright shaft gave some support to the body; evidence for a similar ledge for the feet is rare and late. Over the criminal’s head was placed a notice stating his name and his crime. Death, apparently caused by exhaustion or by heart failure, could be hastened by shattering the legs (crucifragium) with an iron club, so that shock and asphyxiation soon ended his life.
You would notice that some parts of the article are bolded while others are in red. The red parts are taken from the gospels (which describe the hanging of a single - or three, if you count the two criminals - person); the ones in bold, meanwhile, are speculation.
“There were various methods of performing the execution.” All well and good, but the article seems to immediately eat its words by providing a vivid description of what a ‘crucifixion’ could have been like (note the word “usually”), as if to imply that there was a ‘standard procedure’, and that the ‘various methods’ are just small variations of it. Really, the article doesn’t so much describe a ‘standard crucifixion’ (if there actually was one) but the specific process called the crucifixion of Jesus, with heavy dollops of speculation. You cannot assume that everything that happened in Jesus’ execution also automatically happened in other crux hangings.
Just going by the gospels though, what do we know about the details of Jesus’ execution? As you can see, the gospels only provide us a bare-bones description of what happened.
- Jesus was flogged and mocked (Matthew 27:26-31; Mark 15:15-20; John 19:1-3; Luke 23:11?)
- Jesus carried His stauros (John 19:17) / Simon carried His stauros for Him (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:26)
- Upon reaching a place called Golgotha, Jesus was affixed to said stauros (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18)
- Two other men were hung on either side, on His right and left (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18)
- A sign was placed on Jesus’ stauros (John 19:19) / “above His head” (Matthew 27:37) / “written over” (Mark 15:26) / “over Him” (Luke 23:38)
- The soldiers took His clothes (Matthew 27:35-36; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24; cf. Psalm 22:18)
- Nails were driven into Jesus’ hands (only implied; John 20:20, 25, 27; Luke 24:40?)
Unlike what me from a couple years ago would say, we don’t know whether Jesus’ stauros looked like or was carried as in the left or the right picture or in some other manner entirely. And it isn’t really important.
I think I might have more focus if I’m answering questions. So if you guys have anything, ask away.
(Yes, I’m pretty much aware that this isn’t really a JW topic. I just used that as a launchpad really.)
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I don’t believe you have addressed the reason for breaking the legs in the peg chair instance you present. All weight is supported above the legs, the legs in your scenario are totally relaxed. Breaking the peg, would speed things along (which would be the reason for doing it), breaking the legs would not.
Also the Romans being ruthless, in a “this is what we do to our enemies” style, are hardly going to turn around and provide creature comfort. That would make them look like big softies to those witnessing. It is like someone being put into solitary confinement with a big couch, big screen tv and stocked refrigerator. Take that. They would not do that if there were easier alternatives which made them look slightly more “heartless” to rebellion.
The nature of the cross was an ensign. It was an image of the poles with flags (requiring a cross beam to make it readible), and banners, slogans, graphically portrayed in real life terms.
Also the Romans being ruthless, in a “this is what we do to our enemies” style, are hardly going to turn around and provide creature comfort. That would make them look like big softies to those witnessing. It is like someone being put into solitary confinement with a big couch, big screen tv and stocked refrigerator. Take that. They would not do that if there were easier alternatives which made them look slightly more “heartless” to rebellion.
The nature of the cross was an ensign. It was an image of the poles with flags (requiring a cross beam to make it readible), and banners, slogans, graphically portrayed in real life terms.
P
patrick457
Guest
I have a sense that we’re now entering into a complicated spiral. Let’s backtrack a bit.
You said that “it is next to impossible to breath with one’s hands above one’s head.” I just pointed out that that would only be the case if your feet were dangling off the ground and your arms take the load. In other words, if you’re hanging like this.
Breathing would probably not be much of a problem though if you had something to take the extra load off.
This is of course just a hypothetical scenario. (Particularly the footrest, since we have no actual ancient attestation for that.) What I’m trying to point is, that you can’t rule out the use of a stake as a crux just because “it is next to impossible to breath with one’s hands above one’s head.” I’m not saying Jesus or the two men were necessarily crucified on stakes. And I’m not denying that you could hang a person to a stake in such a way that they’ll suffocate - though there might even have been cases where that could have been an asset. Remember that there are cases when the exhibition of the bodies of ‘crucified’ people did not stop after their death - it stayed up there. Kind of like the practice of keeping decapitated heads on a spike in public view. The shaming, the exposition of their ‘shamed’ persons to public ridicule, continued after death.
Honestly, I don’t think we’re even disagreeing on something.
The cross of Jesus, you mean. Not just a crux in general, not any other crux. The one, specific crux Jesus was hung on. Yes, Christians connected it with the mark (T / t / X) of Ezekiel, yes, they believed it had five extremities.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Why would you need a foot rest when you have nails through your feet?
You seem to keep producing solutions to fix problems that are not actually there from a traditional perspective and understanding. For instance you haven’t explained to me what Ezekiel 9:4 “means” if as you posit early Christians interpreted the passage the way they desired with four extremities and one centrality. (At the time of Ezekiel it was a “t” the character changed over years after that into an “x”, they are not interchangeable they are period specific).
The traditional view answers all problems. Changing that method of crucifixion introduces complications and problems that must then be addressed, and solved, with solutions that are not required, they are superfluous, in the traditional approach.
I have to concede that Conan the Barbarian was a movie.
P
patrick457
Guest
Let’s grant for the moment that yes, Jesus’ feet were nailed. (I should point out that John 20 only implied that the hands were nailed, nothing about the feet. Now you can interpret Luke 24, where Jesus shows His hands and feet as implying that His feet were nailed, but be honest: the text nowhere directly states that.) But does that mean every other criminal’s feet were nailed?
Five extremities, if we go by St. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian. The four corners, plus a fifth projection in the middle where the crucified man rests.
There’s no one ‘correct’ way to write letters back then, so one person could write it more like a + while another person may write it more like an x (which is basically just a + slanted at an angle).
Haven’t you read me? I’m not disputing that Jesus could have been hung on a t- or T-shaped cross. I say ‘could have been’, because all you’ve got really is the early Christian belief that He was hung in such a crux. The gospels are silent, and you don’t have actual videos or photographs of the Crucifixion to determine the minute details of the process. It’s ultimately of whether you choose to go with the early Christian idea; and I don’t see any real need to dispute that.
What I am questioning (more in the rhetorical sense) is, why do we automatically imagine a + or T-shaped gibbet when we say ‘cross’, when the ancient words have a broader meaning than that. I just thought we’ve gotta have some brain teaser every now and then.
Some people might say, “It doesn’t really matter.” Yes, I’m fully aware of that. I’ll even be the first to say that - the fact that Jesus died is what’s important, the details are only secondary. But that doesn’t mean I can’t speculate. I’ll even say that the reason why I’m doing this is to find out for myself why it doesn’t matter. You might say it’s a form of therapy in my part.
Oh, and I’m also questioning whether there was really a ‘standard method of crucifixion’ - you know, the kind of descriptions you see in encyclopedias and most books - other than ‘hang the person onto a crux’ in those days.
To be honest, I don’t feel the way I’m writing is very clear and easy.
So feel free to say it if you’re confused as well. I’ll try to rephrase it.What, you think I didn’t know?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
My basis for saying that Jesus’ feet were nailed actually comes from the Old Testament. Types and allegories, help us to understand the work of Jesus Christ. Exodus 29:20.
So the blood is in four places. 1. the crown of thorns, 2. the hands, 3. the feet. then after that 4. applied to the altar. Do you see what is being prophesied there? I stand in awe of that. Hopefully you find that interesting too.
I think we all agree on the five points but I put it slightly differently as four extremities and one centrality the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Speculation is good my friend, and I found that my speculating lead me to the tradition of the Catholic teaching, and having spent so many years wrestling with speculation there becomes a sigh of relief for tradition.
- Blood on the ear lobe of the high priest pales in comparison to the crown of thorns that went right around the head, ear to ear. (Extremity compared to centrality).
- Blood on one thumb of the high priest pales in comparison to the nails in both hands of Jesus. (Extremity compared to centrality).
- Blood on one big toe of the high priest pales in comparison to the nails in both feet of Jesus. (Extremity compare to centrality).
So the blood is in four places. 1. the crown of thorns, 2. the hands, 3. the feet. then after that 4. applied to the altar. Do you see what is being prophesied there? I stand in awe of that. Hopefully you find that interesting too.
I think we all agree on the five points but I put it slightly differently as four extremities and one centrality the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Speculation is good my friend, and I found that my speculating lead me to the tradition of the Catholic teaching, and having spent so many years wrestling with speculation there becomes a sigh of relief for tradition.
P
patrick457
Guest
You’re forgetting Psalm 22. “They pierced my hands and my feet, and they numbered all my bones.”My basis for saying that Jesus’ feet were nailed actually comes from the Old Testament. Types and allegories, help us to understand the work of Jesus Christ. Exodus 29:20.
Then splash blood against the sides of the altar.
- Blood on the ear lobe of the high priest pales in comparison to the crown of thorns that went right around the head, ear to ear. (Extremity compared to centrality).
- Blood on one thumb of the high priest pales in comparison to the nails in both hands of Jesus. (Extremity compared to centrality).
- Blood on one big toe of the high priest pales in comparison to the nails in both feet of Jesus. (Extremity compare to centrality).
So the blood is in four places. 1. the crown of thorns, 2. the hands, 3. the feet. then after that 4. applied to the altar. Do you see what is being prophesied there? I stand in awe of that. Hopefully you find that interesting too.
I think we all agree on the five points but I put it slightly differently as four extremities and one centrality the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Speculation is good my friend, and I found that my speculating lead me to the tradition of the Catholic teaching, and having spent so many years wrestling with speculation there becomes a sigh of relief for tradition.
U
Usagi
Guest
I don’t think you’ve brought this up, Patrick, but even in Christian tradition we have the idea of multiple shapes of cross – St. Andrew supposedly got an X-shaped one, for example.
And ISTR an account (maybe by Josephus?) of an occasion on which the Romans crucified a large number of people, and by the end were getting very creative with both positioning and the things they were using as stauroi. I believe just nailing/attaching someone to the roof of a house was mentioned.
So you definitely seem to be on a firm foundation here, in that crucifixion can encompass a wide variety of methods. Naturally, I’d like to think that Jesus’ traditional t-shaped cross is something accurately handed down, but you are right that the fame of that one crucifixion has obscured our understanding of the wider practice.
Usagi
And ISTR an account (maybe by Josephus?) of an occasion on which the Romans crucified a large number of people, and by the end were getting very creative with both positioning and the things they were using as stauroi. I believe just nailing/attaching someone to the roof of a house was mentioned.
So you definitely seem to be on a firm foundation here, in that crucifixion can encompass a wide variety of methods. Naturally, I’d like to think that Jesus’ traditional t-shaped cross is something accurately handed down, but you are right that the fame of that one crucifixion has obscured our understanding of the wider practice.
Usagi
P
patrick457
Guest
Here’s an interesting tidbit. Literary sources or artworks which describe or depict St. Andrew’s martyrdom which predate the 11th-12th century simply depict his ‘cross’ as apparently shaped like the one traditionally ascribed to Jesus; in other words, a t. (This one for example.)
In the apocryphal Acts of Andrew (mid-2nd century), Andrew praises his cross just before he was hung on it (incidentally, Andrew in that work was said to not have carried his cross, which was already erected beforehand on the place of execution, in this case the sea-shore). It is heavily implied even there as being a t- cross:
I know thy mystery, for the which thou art set up: for thou art planted in the world to establish the things that are unstable: and the one part of thee stretcheth up toward heaven that thou mayest signify the heavenly word: and another part of thee is spread out to the right hand and the left that it may put to flight the envious and adverse power of the evil one, and gather into one the things that are scattered abroad. And another part of thee is planted in the earth, and securely set in the depth, that thou mayest join the things that are in the earth and that are under the earth unto the heavenly things.
By the medieval period though, a belief developed of Andrew getting all humble and deeming himself not worthy to be hung like Jesus was; so his executioners decided to use an X-shaped cross. (Does this pattern seem familiar to you? Yes, this is also the same scenario you have in the tale of St. Peter’s martyrdom.)
It took a long time for this idea to firmly hold root really: it is only by the 14th century that St. Andrew hanging on an X-cross became universal, but even then, Caravaggio in the late 16th century can still depict Andrew hanging on a t-shaped cross, in accordance with the earlier belief. Meanwhile, there’s an earlier painting which shows Andrew .from a tree
Yes, finally, someone who understood my ramblings!
That was during the siege of Jerusalem. “The soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.” (Jewish War 5.46)
This mention by Josephus - that the people Roman soldiers caught were each hung in different ways to their stauroi - would fit in with what Seneca said.
I see cruces there, not indeed of a single kind but different constructions by different [people]. Some had suspended [their victims] with the head toward the ground, others had driven stipes through the private parts [of the victims], others had spread out [their] arms on a patibulum. I see cords, I see scourges, and for each limb and joint there is an engine or torture.
Both Josephus and Seneca make it clear that there was no one single, standard method of ‘crucifixion’ nor one standard shape or form of a crux - notice that from Seneca’s quote that he apparently even considers impaling on a stipes - a stake (“others had driven stipes through the private parts [of the victims]”) - to be a ‘crucifixion’.
P
patrick457
Guest
I just thought of something.
I’m sure a lot of you have heard that controversial claim by John Dominic Crossan that the early Christians did not really know what happened to Jesus other than that He was crucified, because the male disciples ran away and the women disciples only saw Him ‘from a distance’ (Mark 15:40). In other words, the gospel accounts of the passion are, to put it bluntly, inventions by early Christians who picked whatever OT prophecy they thought described Jesus’ death that could get their hands on and made a story out of it - what Crossan calls ‘prophecy historicized.’ Crossan thinks that maybe Jesus was not even buried properly; His body was most likely just thrown to a ditch somewhere to be eaten by dogs.
Do you know why Crossan says that? Because he believes that customarily or normally, the bodies of crucified people were denied a proper burial to continue the shaming process - which was what ‘crucifixion’ was all about - even after the person died. It was either left hanging on the cross, or were thrown into a dump somewhere.
But here’s the problem: those two words right there, ‘customarily’ and ‘normally’. His usage of the word implies that there was a ‘standard method’ of crucifixion that the Romans adhered to.
One of what I’m really proposing in this thread is, maybe we shouldn’t even say: “there were various methods of performing crucifixion.” That implies the existence of one ‘standard’ procedure (‘crucifixion’), of which there are the occasional variants. Rather, as Gunnar Samuelsson said: “There was a whole spectrum of suspension punishments, which all shared terminology.” So there was really a whole family of different punishments which all involved hanging a person (alive or dead) in some way (from just about anything including poles, planks, walls, rostra, statues, or anything that’s ‘hang-able’), and which all shared key terms.
The type Jesus experienced is a ‘suspension punishment’ in its own right, different from the ones, say, the slaves who participated in Spartacus’ rebellion, the Roman citizen who was executed under Galba, or the people who were nailed to stauroi by Romans during Jerusalem were subjected to.
I think looking at it this way helps solve the problem. It is true that in some ‘suspension punishments’ the person’s corpse was not allowed to be buried, as Crossan points out. But in other forms of ‘suspension punishments’, it seems the victim’s body is allowed a proper burial - such as in Jesus’ case. This is especially true among the Jews, who based on the injunction on Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ensured that people who were hanged were buried the same day.
The fury of the Idumaeans being still unsatiated, they now turned [from the temple] to the city, looting every house and killing all who fell in their way, But, thinking their energies wasted on the common people, they went in search of the chief priests; it was for them that the main rush was made, and they were soon captured and slain. Then, standing over their dead bodies, they scoffed at Ananus for his patronage of the people and at Jesus [son of Gamalas - another chief priest] for the address which he had delivered from the wall. They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses [of the chief priests] without burial, although the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even [those] who have been sentenced to crucifixion (tous ek katadikēs anestaurōmenous) are taken down and buried before sunset. (Josephus, War 4.317)
Philo also implies that it was also the custom in Egypt for the bodies of hanged men to be given to relatives during festival seasons (for example, during the emperor’s birthday); which a governor, Flaccus, did not honor.
I have known instances before now of men who had been crucified when this festival and holiday was at hand, being taken down and given up to their relations, in order to receive the honours of sepulture, and to enjoy such observances as are due to the dead; for it used to be considered, that even the dead ought to derive some enjoyment from the natal festival of a good emperor, and also that the sacred character of the festival ought to be regarded. But this man did not order men who had already perished on crosses to be taken down, but he commanded living men to be crucified, men to whom the very time itself gave, if not entire forgiveness, still, at all events, a brief and temporary respite from punishment; and he did this after they had been beaten by scourgings in the middle of the theatre; and after he had tortured them with fire and sword; and the spectacle of their sufferings was divided; for the first part of the exhibition lasted from the morning to the third or fourth hour, in which the Jews were scourged, were hung up, were tortured on the wheel, were condemned, and were dragged to execution through the middle of the orchestra; and after this beautiful exhibition came the dancers, and the buffoons, and the flute-players, and all the other diversions of the theatrical contests. (Philo, Flaccus 10 §83-85).
So, while it is true that in some cases hanged men were denied burial, in other cases they were allowed to be buried. Crossan thus commits the same blunder many people do: taking an element found in some literary texts and reading it into other texts, when such is unnecessary.
I’m sure a lot of you have heard that controversial claim by John Dominic Crossan that the early Christians did not really know what happened to Jesus other than that He was crucified, because the male disciples ran away and the women disciples only saw Him ‘from a distance’ (Mark 15:40). In other words, the gospel accounts of the passion are, to put it bluntly, inventions by early Christians who picked whatever OT prophecy they thought described Jesus’ death that could get their hands on and made a story out of it - what Crossan calls ‘prophecy historicized.’ Crossan thinks that maybe Jesus was not even buried properly; His body was most likely just thrown to a ditch somewhere to be eaten by dogs.
Do you know why Crossan says that? Because he believes that customarily or normally, the bodies of crucified people were denied a proper burial to continue the shaming process - which was what ‘crucifixion’ was all about - even after the person died. It was either left hanging on the cross, or were thrown into a dump somewhere.
But here’s the problem: those two words right there, ‘customarily’ and ‘normally’. His usage of the word implies that there was a ‘standard method’ of crucifixion that the Romans adhered to.
One of what I’m really proposing in this thread is, maybe we shouldn’t even say: “there were various methods of performing crucifixion.” That implies the existence of one ‘standard’ procedure (‘crucifixion’), of which there are the occasional variants. Rather, as Gunnar Samuelsson said: “There was a whole spectrum of suspension punishments, which all shared terminology.” So there was really a whole family of different punishments which all involved hanging a person (alive or dead) in some way (from just about anything including poles, planks, walls, rostra, statues, or anything that’s ‘hang-able’), and which all shared key terms.
The type Jesus experienced is a ‘suspension punishment’ in its own right, different from the ones, say, the slaves who participated in Spartacus’ rebellion, the Roman citizen who was executed under Galba, or the people who were nailed to stauroi by Romans during Jerusalem were subjected to.
I think looking at it this way helps solve the problem. It is true that in some ‘suspension punishments’ the person’s corpse was not allowed to be buried, as Crossan points out. But in other forms of ‘suspension punishments’, it seems the victim’s body is allowed a proper burial - such as in Jesus’ case. This is especially true among the Jews, who based on the injunction on Deuteronomy 21:22-23 ensured that people who were hanged were buried the same day.
The fury of the Idumaeans being still unsatiated, they now turned [from the temple] to the city, looting every house and killing all who fell in their way, But, thinking their energies wasted on the common people, they went in search of the chief priests; it was for them that the main rush was made, and they were soon captured and slain. Then, standing over their dead bodies, they scoffed at Ananus for his patronage of the people and at Jesus [son of Gamalas - another chief priest] for the address which he had delivered from the wall. They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses [of the chief priests] without burial, although the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even [those] who have been sentenced to crucifixion (tous ek katadikēs anestaurōmenous) are taken down and buried before sunset. (Josephus, War 4.317)
Philo also implies that it was also the custom in Egypt for the bodies of hanged men to be given to relatives during festival seasons (for example, during the emperor’s birthday); which a governor, Flaccus, did not honor.
I have known instances before now of men who had been crucified when this festival and holiday was at hand, being taken down and given up to their relations, in order to receive the honours of sepulture, and to enjoy such observances as are due to the dead; for it used to be considered, that even the dead ought to derive some enjoyment from the natal festival of a good emperor, and also that the sacred character of the festival ought to be regarded. But this man did not order men who had already perished on crosses to be taken down, but he commanded living men to be crucified, men to whom the very time itself gave, if not entire forgiveness, still, at all events, a brief and temporary respite from punishment; and he did this after they had been beaten by scourgings in the middle of the theatre; and after he had tortured them with fire and sword; and the spectacle of their sufferings was divided; for the first part of the exhibition lasted from the morning to the third or fourth hour, in which the Jews were scourged, were hung up, were tortured on the wheel, were condemned, and were dragged to execution through the middle of the orchestra; and after this beautiful exhibition came the dancers, and the buffoons, and the flute-players, and all the other diversions of the theatrical contests. (Philo, Flaccus 10 §83-85).
So, while it is true that in some cases hanged men were denied burial, in other cases they were allowed to be buried. Crossan thus commits the same blunder many people do: taking an element found in some literary texts and reading it into other texts, when such is unnecessary.
P
patrick457
Guest
Here’s an extract from a paper called “The Physical Death of Jesus Christ.” Again, same rule as the Encyclopedia Britannica article: red indicates information derived from the gospels, while bold is speculation. (Words in regular text indicate information that can be found from other, actual sources.)
It was customary for the condemned man to carry his own cross from the flogging post to the site of crucifixion outside the city walls. He was usually naked, unless this was prohibited by local customs. Since the weight of the entire cross was probably well over 300 lb. (136 kg), only the crossbar was carried. The patibulum, weighing 75 to 125 lb. (34 to 57 kg), was placed across the nape of the victim’s neck and balanced along both shoulders. Usually, the outstretched arms then were tied to the crossbar. The processional to the site of crucifixion was led by a complete Roman military guard, headed by a centurion. One of the soldiers carried a sign (titulus) on which the condemned man’s name and crime were displayed. Later, the titulus would be attached to the top of the cross. The Roman guard would not leave the victim until they were sure of his death.
Outside the city walls was permanently located the heavy upright wooden stipes, on which the patibulum would be secured. In the case of the Tau cross, this was accomplished by means of a mortise and tenon joint, with or without reinforcement by ropes. To prolong the crucifixion process, a horizontal wooden block or plank, serving as a crude seat (sedile or sedulum), often was attached midway down the stipes. Only very rarely, and probably later than the time of Christ, was an additional block (suppedaneum) employed for transfixion of the feet.
At the site of execution, by law, the victim was given a bitter drink of wine mixed with myrrh (gall) as a mild analgesic. The criminal was then thrown to the ground on his back, with his arms outstretched along the patibulum. The hands could be nailed or tied to the crossbar, but nailing apparently was preferred by the Romans. The archaeological remains of a crucified body, found in an ossuary near Jerusalem and dating from the time of Christ, indicate that the nails were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7 in (13 to 18 cm) long with a square shaft 3/8 in (1 cm) across. Furthermore, ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin have documented that the nails commonly were driven through the wrists rather than the palms.
After both arms were fixed to the crossbar, the patibulum and the victim, together, were lifted onto the stipes. On the low cross, four soldiers could accomplish this relatively easily. However, on the tall cross, the soldiers used either wooden forks or ladders.
Next, the feet were fixed to the cross, either by nails or ropes. Ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin suggest that nailing was the preferred Roman practice. Although the feet could be fixed to the sides of the stipes or to a wooden footrest (suppedaneum), they usually were nailed directly to the front of the stipes. To accomplish this, flexion of the knees may have been quite prominent, and the bent legs may have been rotated laterally.
When the nailing was completed, the titulus was attached to the cross, by nails or cords, just above the victim’s head. The soldiers and the civilian crowd often taunted and jeered the condemned man, and the soldiers customarily divided up his clothes among themselves. The length of survival generally ranged from three or four hours to three or four days and appears to have been inversely related to the severity of the scourging. However, even if the scourging had been relatively mild, the Roman soldiers could hasten death by breaking the legs below the knees (crucifragium or skelokopia).
Not uncommonly, insects would light upon or burrow into the open wounds or the eyes, ears, and nose of the dying and helpless victim, and birds of prey would tear at these sites. Moreover, it was customary to leave the corpse on the cross to be devoured by predatory animals. However, by Roman law, the family of the condemned could take the body for burial, after obtaining permission from the Roman judge.
Since no one was intended to survive crucifixions the body was not released to the family until the soldiers were sure that the victim was dead. By custom, one of the Roman guards would pierce the body with a sword or lance. Traditionally, this had been considered a spear wound to the heart through the right side of the chest – a fatal wound probably taught to most Roman soldiers. The Shroud of Turin documents this form of injury. Moreover, the standard infantry spear, which was 5 to 6 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m) long, could easily have reached the chest of a man crucified on the customary low cross.
I take back my words at a last post. Our modern ‘understanding’ of ‘crucifixion’, it would seem, consists of 5-10% actual literary references and 90-95% conjecture.
It was customary for the condemned man to carry his own cross from the flogging post to the site of crucifixion outside the city walls. He was usually naked, unless this was prohibited by local customs. Since the weight of the entire cross was probably well over 300 lb. (136 kg), only the crossbar was carried. The patibulum, weighing 75 to 125 lb. (34 to 57 kg), was placed across the nape of the victim’s neck and balanced along both shoulders. Usually, the outstretched arms then were tied to the crossbar. The processional to the site of crucifixion was led by a complete Roman military guard, headed by a centurion. One of the soldiers carried a sign (titulus) on which the condemned man’s name and crime were displayed. Later, the titulus would be attached to the top of the cross. The Roman guard would not leave the victim until they were sure of his death.
Outside the city walls was permanently located the heavy upright wooden stipes, on which the patibulum would be secured. In the case of the Tau cross, this was accomplished by means of a mortise and tenon joint, with or without reinforcement by ropes. To prolong the crucifixion process, a horizontal wooden block or plank, serving as a crude seat (sedile or sedulum), often was attached midway down the stipes. Only very rarely, and probably later than the time of Christ, was an additional block (suppedaneum) employed for transfixion of the feet.
At the site of execution, by law, the victim was given a bitter drink of wine mixed with myrrh (gall) as a mild analgesic. The criminal was then thrown to the ground on his back, with his arms outstretched along the patibulum. The hands could be nailed or tied to the crossbar, but nailing apparently was preferred by the Romans. The archaeological remains of a crucified body, found in an ossuary near Jerusalem and dating from the time of Christ, indicate that the nails were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7 in (13 to 18 cm) long with a square shaft 3/8 in (1 cm) across. Furthermore, ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin have documented that the nails commonly were driven through the wrists rather than the palms.
After both arms were fixed to the crossbar, the patibulum and the victim, together, were lifted onto the stipes. On the low cross, four soldiers could accomplish this relatively easily. However, on the tall cross, the soldiers used either wooden forks or ladders.
Next, the feet were fixed to the cross, either by nails or ropes. Ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin suggest that nailing was the preferred Roman practice. Although the feet could be fixed to the sides of the stipes or to a wooden footrest (suppedaneum), they usually were nailed directly to the front of the stipes. To accomplish this, flexion of the knees may have been quite prominent, and the bent legs may have been rotated laterally.
When the nailing was completed, the titulus was attached to the cross, by nails or cords, just above the victim’s head. The soldiers and the civilian crowd often taunted and jeered the condemned man, and the soldiers customarily divided up his clothes among themselves. The length of survival generally ranged from three or four hours to three or four days and appears to have been inversely related to the severity of the scourging. However, even if the scourging had been relatively mild, the Roman soldiers could hasten death by breaking the legs below the knees (crucifragium or skelokopia).
Not uncommonly, insects would light upon or burrow into the open wounds or the eyes, ears, and nose of the dying and helpless victim, and birds of prey would tear at these sites. Moreover, it was customary to leave the corpse on the cross to be devoured by predatory animals. However, by Roman law, the family of the condemned could take the body for burial, after obtaining permission from the Roman judge.
Since no one was intended to survive crucifixions the body was not released to the family until the soldiers were sure that the victim was dead. By custom, one of the Roman guards would pierce the body with a sword or lance. Traditionally, this had been considered a spear wound to the heart through the right side of the chest – a fatal wound probably taught to most Roman soldiers. The Shroud of Turin documents this form of injury. Moreover, the standard infantry spear, which was 5 to 6 ft (1.5 to 1.8 m) long, could easily have reached the chest of a man crucified on the customary low cross.
I take back my words at a last post. Our modern ‘understanding’ of ‘crucifixion’, it would seem, consists of 5-10% actual literary references and 90-95% conjecture.
S
steve53
Guest
If you start taking people like Crossan seriously, this thread will be a hundred pages long.
P
patrick457
Guest
At this point, everyone’s fair game really.
P
patrick457
Guest
I just reread Gunnar Samuelsson’s Q and A portion of his site and really, I think this guy has hit the mark.
Q: What is your personal understanding of what happened on Calvary?
A: Here, I have as much to say as everyone that reads the Bible. I think that my personal beliefs cohere well with those of most Christians. I believe that Jesus was forced to carry a part or the whole execution device toward Calvary, I believe that he was executed by being nailed (nails implied outside the passion narratives, e.g., John 20.25–27) to it. I believe also that Jesus rose from the death on the third day, that he at this very moment is with the Father and that he will return in glory to judge the living and dead.
I have in my research nothing to say about the historical or theological side of the salvation of man. As a scholar who deals with philology my interest is ancient text, and the ancient texts usually do not depict in detail executions such as the one Jesus was subjected to. This is also the case in the Gospels. They do not describe the event in length. This is my only point. The non-detailed accounts of the Gospels do not, however, contradict the traditional understanding. So the traditional understanding of the death of Jesus is correct, but we could acknowledge that it is more based on the eyewitness accounts than the actual passion narratives.
Q: How were the reactions to your research, particularly by Christian organizations? Was it what you expected?
A: I was prepared for some turmoil but not for breaking headlines around the world. Sadly some fellow Christians have misunderstood (with good help by media) what I have done in my research. I do not question the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus. Neither do I enter the field of theology. As far as the historical and theological questions are concerned I believe as almost every Christian that Jesus was the son of God who was crucified for our sins, that he was raised from the dead after three days, that he is with God on this very day and will return in glory to judge the living and dead.
What I have dealt with in my research is mainly classical philology, that is, I am focusing on written text – and only on written texts. That is why I have left out, e.g., archeology and Christian art. If you embark on the effort to reconstruct historical events or study theological themes, you should embrace every field that is relevant. But, I am not doing history or theology. I am on the preceding step.
Q: The Crucifix is the most important Christian symbol. Is there reason for a change?
A: No (see above). What there is reason to change is our acknowledgement of what we bases our beliefs on. As Protestants we stress that we have the Scripture as only authority for the life of the Church while we conclude with sorrow that the Catholic church has both the Scripture and the tradition as their authority. What I try to add to such a view is that we Protestants also are dependent on the tradition of the church. Let me explain.
I have no problem to believe that Jesus died in the way that you can see depicted in almost every church – on a regular cross. It is plausible that those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ death retold how he died after his resurrection. It became important how Jesus died, what it looked like. These accounts were retold by the Christians with great awe, and they became a crucial part of the Christian traditions.
But, strangely enough these traditions did not enter the texts of the Gospels when they were subsequently written. So when I say that I believe that Jesus died in this certain way I base that knowledge of the tradition of the church, not mainly on the passion texts. And I think that I am not alone with that. So even an orthodox Protestant does what he might criticize the Catholic Church for, as he relies on the tradition of his church.
My only suggestion for the church is to read the biblical texts as they are, not as we think they are. The biblical texts are sufficient; we do not need to add anything.
…]
Q: When is the first evidence that nailing prisoners to the cross actually happened?
A: The first evidence of nailed victims is found already in Herodotus’ texts (Hdt. 7.33.1; 9.120.4, 122.1). But there the suspension device is a plank or a board (sanis). If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross (†) you will not find any text beside the Gospels. Some later texts, such as the novelist Chariton and the historian Josephus, end up rather close in some instances but they do not explicitly depict what you ask for.
Romans suspended criminals and defeated enemies in a way that seems fit for the moment. There appears not to have been a fixed methodology called “crucifixion” in ancient Rome.
Q: What is your personal understanding of what happened on Calvary?
A: Here, I have as much to say as everyone that reads the Bible. I think that my personal beliefs cohere well with those of most Christians. I believe that Jesus was forced to carry a part or the whole execution device toward Calvary, I believe that he was executed by being nailed (nails implied outside the passion narratives, e.g., John 20.25–27) to it. I believe also that Jesus rose from the death on the third day, that he at this very moment is with the Father and that he will return in glory to judge the living and dead.
I have in my research nothing to say about the historical or theological side of the salvation of man. As a scholar who deals with philology my interest is ancient text, and the ancient texts usually do not depict in detail executions such as the one Jesus was subjected to. This is also the case in the Gospels. They do not describe the event in length. This is my only point. The non-detailed accounts of the Gospels do not, however, contradict the traditional understanding. So the traditional understanding of the death of Jesus is correct, but we could acknowledge that it is more based on the eyewitness accounts than the actual passion narratives.
Q: How were the reactions to your research, particularly by Christian organizations? Was it what you expected?
A: I was prepared for some turmoil but not for breaking headlines around the world. Sadly some fellow Christians have misunderstood (with good help by media) what I have done in my research. I do not question the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus. Neither do I enter the field of theology. As far as the historical and theological questions are concerned I believe as almost every Christian that Jesus was the son of God who was crucified for our sins, that he was raised from the dead after three days, that he is with God on this very day and will return in glory to judge the living and dead.
What I have dealt with in my research is mainly classical philology, that is, I am focusing on written text – and only on written texts. That is why I have left out, e.g., archeology and Christian art. If you embark on the effort to reconstruct historical events or study theological themes, you should embrace every field that is relevant. But, I am not doing history or theology. I am on the preceding step.
Q: The Crucifix is the most important Christian symbol. Is there reason for a change?
A: No (see above). What there is reason to change is our acknowledgement of what we bases our beliefs on. As Protestants we stress that we have the Scripture as only authority for the life of the Church while we conclude with sorrow that the Catholic church has both the Scripture and the tradition as their authority. What I try to add to such a view is that we Protestants also are dependent on the tradition of the church. Let me explain.
I have no problem to believe that Jesus died in the way that you can see depicted in almost every church – on a regular cross. It is plausible that those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ death retold how he died after his resurrection. It became important how Jesus died, what it looked like. These accounts were retold by the Christians with great awe, and they became a crucial part of the Christian traditions.
But, strangely enough these traditions did not enter the texts of the Gospels when they were subsequently written. So when I say that I believe that Jesus died in this certain way I base that knowledge of the tradition of the church, not mainly on the passion texts. And I think that I am not alone with that. So even an orthodox Protestant does what he might criticize the Catholic Church for, as he relies on the tradition of his church.
My only suggestion for the church is to read the biblical texts as they are, not as we think they are. The biblical texts are sufficient; we do not need to add anything.
…]
Q: When is the first evidence that nailing prisoners to the cross actually happened?
A: The first evidence of nailed victims is found already in Herodotus’ texts (Hdt. 7.33.1; 9.120.4, 122.1). But there the suspension device is a plank or a board (sanis). If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross (†) you will not find any text beside the Gospels. Some later texts, such as the novelist Chariton and the historian Josephus, end up rather close in some instances but they do not explicitly depict what you ask for.
Romans suspended criminals and defeated enemies in a way that seems fit for the moment. There appears not to have been a fixed methodology called “crucifixion” in ancient Rome.
- Status