Question about the crucifixion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucky_Scrunchy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucky_Scrunchy

Guest
I heard on Catholic radio the other day someone explain that they gave people gall and vinegar on the cross to help numb the pain.

This makes no sense to me… if the whole point of crucifixion was to cause the most excruciating pain to the victim, why would they then offer something to help with the pain?
 
Crucifixion had several purposes. And, while one purpose was to put the person through excruciating pain, it was also to embarass them. The longer you can keep them alive the greater the embarrasment as well as the chance of using the crucifixion as a deterrent. I think the most important purpose to the Romans was that people see it and recognize the might of the Roman empire.

Someone with more insight should be able to verify if my answer is correct.

Pax,
 
Matthew says wine mixed with gall while Mark says wine drugged with Myrrh. Gall was bitter while Myrrh is sweet and is a narcotic. Both state that Jesus was offered wine before he was cricified and that he refused to drink it.

***they gave Jesus wine to drink mixed with gall. But when he had tasted it, he refused to drink. **(Matthew 27:34)

They gave him wine drugged with myrrh, but he did not take it. (Mark 15:23)*

Jesus’ refusal to drink wine prior to being crucified is consistent with his statement at the last supper as recorded in by Luke: that he would not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God comes.

He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." (Luke 22:15-18)

Both John and Luke however, state that Jesus took wine while actually being crucified, shortly before his moment of death.

Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine they called out, “If you are King of the Jews, save yourself.” (Luke 23:36-37)
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.” There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. (John 19:28-30)


While Luke does not specifically state that Jesus took the wine, only that he was offered, John is careful to note the fact that drinking wine was Jesus’ last act before saying “It is finished” and dying, and not only that, but that Jesus seems to have requested the wine himself. Jesus stated that he would not drink wine again until “The kingdom of God comes” and John’s statement that Jesus took wine and said, “It is finished” is (to me at least) an indication that God’s kingdom had come with Jesus crucifixtion. I think this is what St. John was getting at. I find putting these pieces of the puzzle together extremely interesting, and thinking about Jesus haning on the cross dying makes me want to cry right now.

The whole subject of wine, Jesus’ statement that he will not drink wine or eat the passover until the kingdom of God had come, and his taking wine in the very moment before his death, has a Eucharistic quality to it. With Jesus’ death, the kingdom of God had come, and now we could celebrate the Eucharist, and Jesus would eat the passover and drink the cup with us.

Anyway, to answer Lucky Scrunchy’s question, wine mixed with gall might be an allusion to Pslam 69, verse 22, which reads, “Instead they put gall in my food; for my thirst they gave me vinegar.” Jesus cry from the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” is most likely a quote from Pslam 22 and so Luke referencing a different Psalm is not out of the question. Pslam 22 and Pslam 69 are very similar in wording and message.

-Tim-
 
I heard on Catholic radio the other day someone explain that they gave people gall and vinegar on the cross to help numb the pain.

This makes no sense to me… if the whole point of crucifixion was to cause the most excruciating pain to the victim, why would they then offer something to help with the pain?
Well, we don’t know who offered the bile-mingled wine to Jesus in the first place, since Matthew and Mark only mention an unspecified “they.” Some folks are of the opinion that Jesus was offered the drink by a group of concerned women, citing a tradition recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a):

R. Huna said, “It is obvious to me that the stone with which one is stoned, the gallows on which one is hanged, the sword with which one is decapitated, and the cloth with which one is strangled, are all provided by the Community. And why so? Because we could not tell a man to go and fetch his own property to kill himself.”

“But,” asked R. Huna, “who provides the flag for signalling and the horse on which one rides to stop them? (footnote: from carrying out the sentence, in case one of the judges raises a new point for the defence) Seeing that they are for his protection, must they be provided by him, or rather, since the court is bound to endeavour to save him, by them? Again, what of R. Hiyya b. Ashi’s dictum in R. Hisda’s name: 'When one is led out to execution, he is given a goblet of wine containing a grain of frankincense, in order to benumb his senses, for it is written, “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul.”’” (Proverbs 31:6)

“And it has also been taught: ‘The noble women in Jerusalem used to donate and bring it.’ If these did not donate it, who provided it? As for that, it is certainly logical that it should be provided out of the public [funds]: Since it is written. ‘Give’, [the implication is] of what is theirs.”

There are those who counter that is not a true parallel, since the Talmud notes that it was wine with frankincense, while the Gospels note that it was wine with myrrh/bile (traditionally ‘gall’), and because the following verses are concerned with the soldiers, not with women: in which case the offer has a tinge of mockery in it. Besides, the Talmud was only written a few centuries after the time of Jesus, and thus, whether it reflects a 1st century situation is ambiguous at best. Counter-arguments say that if it was an act of charity, it would have been not in keeping with the character of the soldiers (the only possibility left is that it was a routine practice, but we have no evidence for such), and in any case, the wording leaves it unclear as to exactly who offered Jesus the drink.
 
Crucifixion had several purposes. And, while one purpose was to put the person through excruciating pain, it was also to embarass them. The longer you can keep them alive the greater the embarrasment as well as the chance of using the crucifixion as a deterrent. I think the most important purpose to the Romans was that people see it and recognize the might of the Roman empire.

Someone with more insight should be able to verify if my answer is correct.

Pax,
Yeah, the Romans wanted the victims suffering for as long as possible up on the cross, and to this end they devised some ways to keep them alive. For instance, you have the sedile or cornu (‘horn’), a sort of ‘seat’ - more likely a peg or block of wood - attached halfway to the vertical post which helped the victim relieve himself from the stress placed on his body and be more ‘comfortable’ - in effect prolonging his life and his agony.

It also served another practical purpose: without the sedile or some such similar device, a person nailed to the front of a cross would lurch forward because of gravity’s pull, and there would be the danger of the victim breaking free of his nails (if he was nailed and not simply tied) and falling off. Those images of the crucified Jesus you see where He is able to keep an upright position and to rest His back to the cross is actually physically untenable.

Another method we know must have been practiced (due to the heel bone of a man crucified near the time of Jesus) is to the enlarge the heads of the nails with pieces of wood serving as washers which would make it difficult for the victim to break free of the nails.

http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/8290/sedilee.png

The seat is included (or at least, implied) in the above three images. Note the line depicted just above the buttocks of the crucified figure in the Alexamenos graffito in Rome (2nd-3rd century, left): it has been interpreted variously as a representation of a short tunic, a loincloth, or a sedile. The crucified victim in a graffiti found in Puzzuoli (center) has what seems to be a sedile pointing out and slanting downwards just below the man’s left leg. The figure depicted on the gem amulet from the Eastern Mediterranean (2nd-3rd century, right) has his legs spread wide away from the cross like a rider on horseback.
 
Both John and Luke however, state that Jesus took wine while actually being crucified, shortly before his moment of death.

Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine they called out, "If you are King of the Jews, save yourself." (Luke 23:36-37)
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.” There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. (John 19:28-30)

While Luke does not specifically state that Jesus took the wine, only that he was offered, John is careful to note the fact that drinking wine was Jesus’ last act before saying “It is finished” and dying, and not only that, but that Jesus seems to have requested the wine himself. Jesus stated that he would not drink wine again until “The kingdom of God comes” and John’s statement that Jesus took wine and said, “It is finished” is (to me at least) an indication that God’s kingdom had come with Jesus crucifixtion. I think this is what St. John was getting at. I find putting these pieces of the puzzle together extremely interesting, and thinking about Jesus haning on the cross dying makes me want to cry right now.

The whole subject of wine, Jesus’ statement that he will not drink wine or eat the passover until the kingdom of God had come, and his taking wine in the very moment before his death, has a Eucharistic quality to it. With Jesus’ death, the kingdom of God had come, and now we could celebrate the Eucharist, and Jesus would eat the passover and drink the cup with us.
For the record, there is also a theory about the sponge on the reed-stick/hyssop. It’s too eerily similar to the type of bottom-wiper (for lack of a better term) the Romans used in public toilets. This early ancestor of toilet paper was made out of - guess what? - a sponge on a stick!

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

http://www.englishheritageprints.com/image/Roman-latrine-J000112_440440.jpg

As you can notice in the illustrations above, Roman public toilets did not just have holes at the top of the benches, but also at the front; in addition, you can see shallow channels for running water immediately at the foot of the bench. When you finished their business in a Roman toilet, what you did is: take the sponge-stick, rinse it in the channel of running water at your feet, and push the stick through the hole in the front and wipe your bottom with it (repeat as needed). When you’ve finished, you rinsed it and left it in a basin for the next person to use - it was public property, after all. Not very sanitary from a modern POV, really. :eek:

It was possible that soldiers carried one with them - I guess plain ol’ human hands just wouldn’t cut it - after all, the call of nature waits for no one. 🤷
 
Oh, and about the oxos (‘vinegar’, ‘sour-wine’):

it was probably the Roman beverage known as posca, made by mixing sour wine/wine vinegar (i.e. wine that was spoiled by faulty storage) with water, in some cases, flavoring herbs or eggs were also mixed. It originated in Greece as a medicinal mixture of vinegar mixed with water (oxykraton) with no general name, sometimes drunk or sometimes used externally. Eventually it became a favorite everyday drink for the Roman army and the lower classes from around the 2nd century BC, continuing to be used throughout Roman history and into the Byzantine period.

The word is derived from either the Latin potor, ‘to drink’ or from the Greek epoxos ‘very sharp’. It was initially an unfamiliar beverage in the largely Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean region, where more sweet-tasting wines were preferred. As the Greeks originally lacked a word for posca, sources written in Greek, such as Plutarch and the Gospels, use the word oxos in its place (translated as acetum in the Vulgate). The word eventually migrated into Greek from about the 6th century AD onwards as the Byzantine army continued the Roman tradition of drinking what they now termed phouska.

Wine vinegar didn’t have any alcohol left, but was wine that had turned, well, sour. It is made by the action of acetic acid bacteria on alcohol to produce acetic acid. Since the bacteria that cause this reaction are aerobic, they require that the wine be exposed to oxygen in order to form vinegar. (Hey, we must note that our English word vinegar actually comes from the Old French vin aigre, ‘sour wine’! ;))

Posca was increasingly heavily used by the Roman army during the Republican period when it became a standard beverage for soldiers. The drinking of quality wine was considered a sign of indiscipline, to the point that some generals banned imported vintage wine altogether. Appian records both posca and wine as being among the provisions of the army of Lucullus in his Spanish campaign of 153 BC. The Historia Augusta records that by Hadrian’s time it was a standard part of the normal “camp fare” (cibus castrensis). A decree from the year 360 instructed the lower ranks of the army to drink posca and wine on alternate days.

Although it was primarily associated with soldiers and the lower classes, some higher-ranked Romans also drank posca to express solidarity with their troops. According to Plutarch, Cato the Elder was particularly noted for liking it.

In Ancient Rome - or in most of the ancient world in general, it was dangerous to drink pure water since it contained so much bacteria it could lead to diseases. This was one of the reasons why posca was so popular: it was affordable enough and is one of the better alternatives to tap water. The wine’s acidity took longer to spoil, it killed all the harmful bacteria and the flavoring helped to overcome the bad smell and taste of local water supplies. As well as being a source of liquid, it provided calories and was an antiscorbutic, helping to prevent scurvy by providing vitamin C. It was apparently also refreshing and made a decent thirst-quencher.
 
Too much information, Pat!

Favorite subject of yours?

If you like conspiracies, Hugh Schonfield in his Passover Plot theorized that what Jesus got was a narcotic-like substance, or some type of drug to simulate death. After he was taken down, her was revived by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and was “resurrected.” He survived to make a few appearances, but was so damaged by the ordeal that he died after a month or so.

Like I said, you gotta believe in conspiracies.
 
Too much information, Pat!

Favorite subject of yours?
Yes. Yes it is. 😃
If you like conspiracies, Hugh Schonfield in his Passover Plot theorized that what Jesus got was a narcotic-like substance, or some type of drug to simulate death. After he was taken down, her was revived by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and was “resurrected.” He survived to make a few appearances, but was so damaged by the ordeal that he died after a month or so.
Like I said, you gotta believe in conspiracies.
Schonfield. You never really hear much about his work (which does have a few interesting elements in it but ultimately falls flat with his cunning Jesus and gullible disciples) nowadays, and probably that’s for the best; we could all do without unnecessary publicity. For the record, I’m trying to get my hands on the very obscure 1976 film adaptation of Schonfield’s book (Jesus films are also one passion of mine), but I could only find VHS copies of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top