S
Spirithound
Guest
How long would the walk from Nazareth to Jerusalem be?
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
The distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem is about 65 miles (105 km) in an exact straight line. The distance if you take the road, meanwhile, is usually estimated to be around 80 miles (129 km). There’s one estimate that it would take four days for a person in good health walking an average of 20 miles per day to cover that distance.
T
Thing
Guest
What sort of clothes did the Apostles actually wear? So many renaissance artists have them dressed in classical style Roman garb and classical architectural settings.
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, what people wore in Roman-occupied Judea wasn’t that much different from what other peoples were wearing at that time-period, except in some particulars. After all, cultural influences and whatnot.
We’ve already touched on this a while back so I’ll just summarize: male clothing usually consisted of a tunic, which are actually two rectangular pieces of fabric sewn together with an opening for the head and arms and are sometimes decorated with clavi (you know, those stripes that run along the length of Roman tunics you sometimes see them wearing; those were actually quite popular in many areas of the Empire); a belt; and over the tunic is draped a rectangular cloak, sometimes with tassels (tzitzit) on its four corners in obedience to the commandment: the one item that makes a Jew distinguishable in public. Men often preferred less color in their clothing than women. Some might wear head-coverings of some sort as a protection against the elements.
T
Thing
Guest
Thank you Patrick, grand job.
P
patrick457
Guest
Bump!
I’ll admit that we’ll go back to talking about the Crucifixion a bit, but let’s do something out of the ordinary for the moment: let’s follow a scene from Deny Arcand’s Jesus of Montreal and add a bit of a commentary on it (they already do a good job expounding it, so we have little to add):
Assyrians: The use of impalement as a form of execution in many Ancient Near Eastern civilizations, such as the Neo-Assyrian empire, is evidenced by carvings and statues.
Darius I: Herodotus mentions the event (Histories 4.43.2, 7; 6.30.1; 7.194.1f.) as well as the Behistun Inscription (Column 3, lines 76-92; Column 4, line 1):
Darius the King says: While I was in Persia and Media, again a second time the Babylonians became rebellious from me. One man named Arkha, an Armenian, son of Haldita - he rose up in Babylon. A district named Dubala - from there he thus lied to the people: “I am Nabukudracara [Nebuchadrezzar], the son of Nabunaita [Nabonidus].” Thereupon the Babylonian people became rebellious from me, (and) went over to that Arkha. He seized Babylon; he became king in Babylon.
Darius the King says: Thereupon I sent forth an army to Babylon. A Persian named Vidafarnâ [Intaphernes], my subject – him I made chief of them. Thus I said to them: “Go forth; that Babylonian army smite, which shall not call itself mine!” Thereupon Vidafarnâ with the army marched off to Babylon. Ahuramazda bore me aid; by the favor of Ahuramazda Vidafarnâ smote the Babylonians and led them in bonds; of the month Varkazana 22 days were past [27 November] - then that Arkha who falsely called himself Nabukudracara and the men who were his foremost followers he took prisoner. I issued an order: this Arkha and the men who were his foremost followers were impaled at Babylon.
Darius the King says: This is what was done by me in Babylon.
Siege of Tyre (322 BC): A siege on the city orchestrated by Alexander the Great in 332 BC during his campaigns against the Persians. The Macedonian army was unable to capture the city through conventional means because it was on an island and had walls right up to the sea. So Alexander blockaded and besieged Tyre for seven months.
Alexander ordered his engineers to use the debris of the abandoned mainland city to build a causeway and once within reach of the city walls, he used his siege engines from both the causeway and his ships to batter and finally breach the fortifications. It is said that Alexander was so enraged at the Tyrians’ defense and the loss of his men that he destroyed half the city.
At the conclusion of the siege, those citizens that took shelter in the temple of Heracles were pardoned by Alexander, including the king of Tyre. According to the Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus (1st century) 6,000 fighting men were killed within the city and 2,000 Tyrians were crucified on the beach (Historia Alexandri Magni 4.4.17):
Triste deinde spectaculum victoribus ira praebuit regis: II milia, in quibus occidendis defecerat rabies, crucibus affixi per ingens litoris spatium pependerunt.
Then the wrath of the king presented a sad spectacle to the victors, for two thousand, for whose killing the general madness had spent itself, hung fixed to crosses over a huge stretch of the shore.
The others, some 30,000 people, were sold into slavery, both because of the length of the siege, and because the Tyrians had executed some captured sailors on the walls.
I’ll admit that we’ll go back to talking about the Crucifixion a bit, but let’s do something out of the ordinary for the moment: let’s follow a scene from Deny Arcand’s Jesus of Montreal and add a bit of a commentary on it (they already do a good job expounding it, so we have little to add):
Assyrians: The use of impalement as a form of execution in many Ancient Near Eastern civilizations, such as the Neo-Assyrian empire, is evidenced by carvings and statues.
Darius I: Herodotus mentions the event (Histories 4.43.2, 7; 6.30.1; 7.194.1f.) as well as the Behistun Inscription (Column 3, lines 76-92; Column 4, line 1):
Darius the King says: While I was in Persia and Media, again a second time the Babylonians became rebellious from me. One man named Arkha, an Armenian, son of Haldita - he rose up in Babylon. A district named Dubala - from there he thus lied to the people: “I am Nabukudracara [Nebuchadrezzar], the son of Nabunaita [Nabonidus].” Thereupon the Babylonian people became rebellious from me, (and) went over to that Arkha. He seized Babylon; he became king in Babylon.
Darius the King says: Thereupon I sent forth an army to Babylon. A Persian named Vidafarnâ [Intaphernes], my subject – him I made chief of them. Thus I said to them: “Go forth; that Babylonian army smite, which shall not call itself mine!” Thereupon Vidafarnâ with the army marched off to Babylon. Ahuramazda bore me aid; by the favor of Ahuramazda Vidafarnâ smote the Babylonians and led them in bonds; of the month Varkazana 22 days were past [27 November] - then that Arkha who falsely called himself Nabukudracara and the men who were his foremost followers he took prisoner. I issued an order: this Arkha and the men who were his foremost followers were impaled at Babylon.
Darius the King says: This is what was done by me in Babylon.
Siege of Tyre (322 BC): A siege on the city orchestrated by Alexander the Great in 332 BC during his campaigns against the Persians. The Macedonian army was unable to capture the city through conventional means because it was on an island and had walls right up to the sea. So Alexander blockaded and besieged Tyre for seven months.
Alexander ordered his engineers to use the debris of the abandoned mainland city to build a causeway and once within reach of the city walls, he used his siege engines from both the causeway and his ships to batter and finally breach the fortifications. It is said that Alexander was so enraged at the Tyrians’ defense and the loss of his men that he destroyed half the city.
At the conclusion of the siege, those citizens that took shelter in the temple of Heracles were pardoned by Alexander, including the king of Tyre. According to the Roman author Quintus Curtius Rufus (1st century) 6,000 fighting men were killed within the city and 2,000 Tyrians were crucified on the beach (Historia Alexandri Magni 4.4.17):
Triste deinde spectaculum victoribus ira praebuit regis: II milia, in quibus occidendis defecerat rabies, crucibus affixi per ingens litoris spatium pependerunt.
Then the wrath of the king presented a sad spectacle to the victors, for two thousand, for whose killing the general madness had spent itself, hung fixed to crosses over a huge stretch of the shore.
The others, some 30,000 people, were sold into slavery, both because of the length of the siege, and because the Tyrians had executed some captured sailors on the walls.
P
patrick457
Guest
(Continued, Part 2)
Alexander Jannaeus of Judea: King of Judea and High Priest from 103 BC to 76 BC. A son of John Hyrcanus who inherited the throne from his brother Aristobulus I, he appears to have married his brother’s widow, Shlomtzion or “Shelomit”, also known as Salome Alexandra, according to the Biblical law of levirate marriage, although Josephus is inexplicit on that point. Under the name King Yannai, he appears as a wicked tyrant in the Talmud, reflecting his conflict with the Pharisaic party. He is among the more colorful historical figures, despite being little known outside specialized history. He and his widow (who became queen regnant after his death) had substantial impact on the subsequent development of Judaism.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s.jpg/350px-WillemSwiddeAlexanderJannaeus.jpg
The execution of the Pharisees, showing Alexander Jannaeus feasting during the killings. Engraving by Willem Swidde, seventeenth century.
An avid supporter of the aristocratic priestly faction known as the Sadducees, his reign was constantly challenged by opponents, among them a brother with a rival claim to the throne, and the populist urban-based Pharisee party.
At the beginning of his reign Alexander Jannaeus halted the suppression of the Pharisees and the Sages for a while, under the influence of his wife Salome Alexandra, said to be the sister of the great Jewish sage Shimon ben Shetach (c. 120-40 BC). This gave him time and resources to increase his power and prestige by extending the territory under his rule through war and conquest. As his power grew, however, he enlisted foreign soldiers to suppress his own people and eliminate the Pharisees.
One year during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Alexander Jannaeus, while officiating as the High Priest at the Temple in Jerusalem, demonstrated his support of the Sadducees by denying the law of the water libation. The crowd responded with shock at his mockery and showed their displeasure by pelting Alexander with the etrogim (citrons) that they were holding in their hands. Unwittingly, the crowd had played right into Alexander’s hands. He had intended to incite the people to riot and his soldiers fell upon the crowd at his command. The soldiers slew more than 6,000 people in the Temple courtyard.
A civil war started, in which the Pharisees allied with the Seleucid king Demetrius III Eucaerus (d. 88 BC) against Alexander. He first retreated, but then managed to oust his rivals thanks to popular support against the Seleucid invasion of Judea. During the civil war, Alexander suppressed his rivals brutally, killing his brother and many leading Pharisees.
The Roman historian Josephus wrote (Antiquities 13.14.2):
Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified (anastaurōsai); and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes.
Interestingly, one of the works found among the Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q169, known as the Commentary (Pesher) on Nahum, may refer to this event (translation by Geza Vermes):
Whither the lion goes, there is the lion’s cub, [with none to disturb it]. (Nahum 2:11b)
[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things (the Jewish rebels?), to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim (i.e. Romans). But then she shall be trampled under their feet…
The lion tears enough for its cubs, and it chokes prey for its lionesses. (2:12a)
Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion (Alexander Jannaeus?) who strikes by means of his great men, and by means of the men of his council.
[And it chokes prey for its lionesses; and it fills] its caves [with prey] and its dens with victims. (2:12b)
Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion [who executes revenge] against on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive, … formerly in Israel. Because of a man hanged alive on [the] tree, He proclaims, ‘Behold, I am against [you, says the Lord of Hosts].’ (2:13)
Alexander Jannaeus of Judea: King of Judea and High Priest from 103 BC to 76 BC. A son of John Hyrcanus who inherited the throne from his brother Aristobulus I, he appears to have married his brother’s widow, Shlomtzion or “Shelomit”, also known as Salome Alexandra, according to the Biblical law of levirate marriage, although Josephus is inexplicit on that point. Under the name King Yannai, he appears as a wicked tyrant in the Talmud, reflecting his conflict with the Pharisaic party. He is among the more colorful historical figures, despite being little known outside specialized history. He and his widow (who became queen regnant after his death) had substantial impact on the subsequent development of Judaism.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s.jpg/350px-WillemSwiddeAlexanderJannaeus.jpg
The execution of the Pharisees, showing Alexander Jannaeus feasting during the killings. Engraving by Willem Swidde, seventeenth century.
An avid supporter of the aristocratic priestly faction known as the Sadducees, his reign was constantly challenged by opponents, among them a brother with a rival claim to the throne, and the populist urban-based Pharisee party.
At the beginning of his reign Alexander Jannaeus halted the suppression of the Pharisees and the Sages for a while, under the influence of his wife Salome Alexandra, said to be the sister of the great Jewish sage Shimon ben Shetach (c. 120-40 BC). This gave him time and resources to increase his power and prestige by extending the territory under his rule through war and conquest. As his power grew, however, he enlisted foreign soldiers to suppress his own people and eliminate the Pharisees.
One year during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Alexander Jannaeus, while officiating as the High Priest at the Temple in Jerusalem, demonstrated his support of the Sadducees by denying the law of the water libation. The crowd responded with shock at his mockery and showed their displeasure by pelting Alexander with the etrogim (citrons) that they were holding in their hands. Unwittingly, the crowd had played right into Alexander’s hands. He had intended to incite the people to riot and his soldiers fell upon the crowd at his command. The soldiers slew more than 6,000 people in the Temple courtyard.
A civil war started, in which the Pharisees allied with the Seleucid king Demetrius III Eucaerus (d. 88 BC) against Alexander. He first retreated, but then managed to oust his rivals thanks to popular support against the Seleucid invasion of Judea. During the civil war, Alexander suppressed his rivals brutally, killing his brother and many leading Pharisees.
The Roman historian Josephus wrote (Antiquities 13.14.2):
Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified (anastaurōsai); and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes.
Interestingly, one of the works found among the Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q169, known as the Commentary (Pesher) on Nahum, may refer to this event (translation by Geza Vermes):
Whither the lion goes, there is the lion’s cub, [with none to disturb it]. (Nahum 2:11b)
[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things (the Jewish rebels?), to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim (i.e. Romans). But then she shall be trampled under their feet…
The lion tears enough for its cubs, and it chokes prey for its lionesses. (2:12a)
Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion (Alexander Jannaeus?) who strikes by means of his great men, and by means of the men of his council.
[And it chokes prey for its lionesses; and it fills] its caves [with prey] and its dens with victims. (2:12b)
Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion [who executes revenge] against on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive, … formerly in Israel. Because of a man hanged alive on [the] tree, He proclaims, ‘Behold, I am against [you, says the Lord of Hosts].’ (2:13)
P
patrick457
Guest
(Part 3)
Spartacus: (c. 109–71 BC) The most notable leader of the slaves in the Third Servile War (73-71 BC), a major slave uprising against the Roman Republic. Little is known about Spartacus beyond the events of the war, and surviving historical accounts are sometimes contradictory and may not always be reliable.
Between 73 and 71 BC, a band of escaped slaves—originally a small cadre of about 78 escaped gladiators which grew into a band of over 120,000 men, women and children—wandered throughout and raided Italy with relative impunity under the guidance of several leaders, including Spartacus. The able-bodied adults of this band were a surprisingly effective armed force that repeatedly showed they could withstand the Roman military, from the local Campanian patrols, to the Roman militia, and to trained Roman legions under consular command.
The Roman Senate’s growing alarm about the continued military successes of this band, and about their depredations against Roman towns and the countryside, eventually led to Rome’s fielding of an army of eight legions under the harsh but effective leadership of Marcus Licinius Crassus. The war ended in 71 BC when the armies of Spartacus, after long and bitter fighting, retreating before the legions of Crassus, and realizing that the legions of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (aka Pompey) and Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus were moving in to entrap them, launched their full strength against Crassus’ legions and were utterly destroyed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/487/sparta2s.jpg
From Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus (1960)
While most of the rebel slaves had been killed during the war, some 6,000 survivors had been captured by Crassus’ legions. All of them were crucified along the Appian Way from Rome to Capua. The eventual fate of Spartacus himself is unknown, as his body was never found. Stanley Kubrick’s 1960 film portrays him hanging on a cross as well, but historians think that it was more probable that he had perished in battle along with his men.
Quintilian wanted them on busy roads: Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (ca. 35-100) was a Roman rhetorician from Hispania who began his career as a pleader in the courts of law; his reputation grew so great that Vespasian created a chair of rhetoric for him in Rome. He also founded public school of rhetoric and had for his pupils Pliny the Younger and perhaps Tacitus.
His only extant work is a twelve-volume textbook on rhetoric entitled Versipellis Neapolis, published around AD 95. This work deals not only with the theory and practice of rhetoric, but also with the foundational education and development of the orator himself. An earlier text, De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae (“On the Causes of Corrupted Eloquence”) has been lost, but is believed to have been a preliminary exposition of some of the views later set forth in Versipellis.
In addition, there are two sets of declamations, Declamationes Majores and Declamationes Minores, which have been traditionally attributed to Quintilian. However, there is presently some dispute over the real writer of these texts: some believe that the writer was either using Quintilian’s style or was trained by him. In Declamationes Minores (274) one can find a passage which states thus:
Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.
As a deterrent in the ancient world, many victims of crucifixion were crucified either at the scene of the crime (especially for robbers who committed murder on the spot) or along the city’s busiest thoroughfares. The Gospels themselves imply that Jesus was crucified near the road in an area only which was only a short distance away from the city:
And those passing by were reviling Him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who are going to tear down the Temple and in three days build it, save yourself! If Son you are of God, come down from the cross.”
Spartacus: (c. 109–71 BC) The most notable leader of the slaves in the Third Servile War (73-71 BC), a major slave uprising against the Roman Republic. Little is known about Spartacus beyond the events of the war, and surviving historical accounts are sometimes contradictory and may not always be reliable.
Between 73 and 71 BC, a band of escaped slaves—originally a small cadre of about 78 escaped gladiators which grew into a band of over 120,000 men, women and children—wandered throughout and raided Italy with relative impunity under the guidance of several leaders, including Spartacus. The able-bodied adults of this band were a surprisingly effective armed force that repeatedly showed they could withstand the Roman military, from the local Campanian patrols, to the Roman militia, and to trained Roman legions under consular command.
The Roman Senate’s growing alarm about the continued military successes of this band, and about their depredations against Roman towns and the countryside, eventually led to Rome’s fielding of an army of eight legions under the harsh but effective leadership of Marcus Licinius Crassus. The war ended in 71 BC when the armies of Spartacus, after long and bitter fighting, retreating before the legions of Crassus, and realizing that the legions of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (aka Pompey) and Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus were moving in to entrap them, launched their full strength against Crassus’ legions and were utterly destroyed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/487/sparta2s.jpg
From Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus (1960)
While most of the rebel slaves had been killed during the war, some 6,000 survivors had been captured by Crassus’ legions. All of them were crucified along the Appian Way from Rome to Capua. The eventual fate of Spartacus himself is unknown, as his body was never found. Stanley Kubrick’s 1960 film portrays him hanging on a cross as well, but historians think that it was more probable that he had perished in battle along with his men.
Quintilian wanted them on busy roads: Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (ca. 35-100) was a Roman rhetorician from Hispania who began his career as a pleader in the courts of law; his reputation grew so great that Vespasian created a chair of rhetoric for him in Rome. He also founded public school of rhetoric and had for his pupils Pliny the Younger and perhaps Tacitus.
His only extant work is a twelve-volume textbook on rhetoric entitled Versipellis Neapolis, published around AD 95. This work deals not only with the theory and practice of rhetoric, but also with the foundational education and development of the orator himself. An earlier text, De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae (“On the Causes of Corrupted Eloquence”) has been lost, but is believed to have been a preliminary exposition of some of the views later set forth in Versipellis.
In addition, there are two sets of declamations, Declamationes Majores and Declamationes Minores, which have been traditionally attributed to Quintilian. However, there is presently some dispute over the real writer of these texts: some believe that the writer was either using Quintilian’s style or was trained by him. In Declamationes Minores (274) one can find a passage which states thus:
Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.
As a deterrent in the ancient world, many victims of crucifixion were crucified either at the scene of the crime (especially for robbers who committed murder on the spot) or along the city’s busiest thoroughfares. The Gospels themselves imply that Jesus was crucified near the road in an area only which was only a short distance away from the city:
And those passing by were reviling Him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who are going to tear down the Temple and in three days build it, save yourself! If Son you are of God, come down from the cross.”
- Matthew 27:39-40
- John 19:19-20
P
patrick457
Guest
(Part 4)
Crossbeam: As we have noted, a full cross would have probably been too heavy to be carried by a single man, so a possibility is that the condemned man carried only the patibulum or the horizontal beam (cf. Plutarch, Moralia 554AB, De sera numinis vindicta: ‘Every criminal who goes to execution carries out his own cross’; Artemidorus, Oneirokritika 2.56: ‘For the cross is like death and the man who is to be nailed carries it beforehand’). BTW, If you look around the scene, you’ll notice that the stipes, that is the vertical posts where the patibulum is fixed, all contain sedile, a sort of seat or projection where the crucified victim can rest and be ‘comfortable’ (which would actually prolong his torment).
I just need to mention here how the soldiers are rather gaudily-dressed in costumes which quite reminds me of the Temple guards (with eyepatches!
) in Mel’s The Passion of the Christ. This is supposed to be a low-budget Passion play so that’s understandable; but the amount of historical research crammed into the womens’ narration is just amazing, IMO.
Wine mixed with myrrh: The play-within-the-movie notes that it was a Palestinian custom, and shows one of the women offering ‘Jesus’ the drink. This reflects the opinion of some authors that a tradition recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) may be the key to this statement by the Evangelists:
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. 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 ambiguous as to who offered Jesus the drink.
Crossbeam: As we have noted, a full cross would have probably been too heavy to be carried by a single man, so a possibility is that the condemned man carried only the patibulum or the horizontal beam (cf. Plutarch, Moralia 554AB, De sera numinis vindicta: ‘Every criminal who goes to execution carries out his own cross’; Artemidorus, Oneirokritika 2.56: ‘For the cross is like death and the man who is to be nailed carries it beforehand’). BTW, If you look around the scene, you’ll notice that the stipes, that is the vertical posts where the patibulum is fixed, all contain sedile, a sort of seat or projection where the crucified victim can rest and be ‘comfortable’ (which would actually prolong his torment).
I just need to mention here how the soldiers are rather gaudily-dressed in costumes which quite reminds me of the Temple guards (with eyepatches!
) in Mel’s The Passion of the Christ. This is supposed to be a low-budget Passion play so that’s understandable; but the amount of historical research crammed into the womens’ narration is just amazing, IMO.Wine mixed with myrrh: The play-within-the-movie notes that it was a Palestinian custom, and shows one of the women offering ‘Jesus’ the drink. This reflects the opinion of some authors that a tradition recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) may be the key to this statement by the Evangelists:
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. 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 ambiguous as to who offered Jesus the drink.
S
Spirithound
Guest
I’ve been considering the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth lately. Mary was supposed to be a young woman, and Elizabeth was old enough to be considered barren, and so instead of the usual interpretation of cousins, might Elizabeth have been Mary’s aunt?
P
patrick457
Guest
That could have been possible, since the Greek syngenēs (syn ‘[together] with’ + genos ‘race, kind, nation, offspring’) can refer to various forms of kinship, say a cousin or an aunt or any kind of nearer or wider family relationship. BTW, the Quick Questions section from the July-August 2001 issue of This Rock talks briefly about the ambiguity:
The New Testament does not say that Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin, the Greek word for which is anepsios. The word used in Luke 1:36 to describe Elizabeth is suggenes (pronounced su-gen-ace*), which simply means kinswoman or relative. It tells us nothing about her exact relation within the extended family. All we can tell from the word suggenes is that Elizabeth was some kind of female relative of Mary’s. But whether she was an aunt, a cousin, or a more distant relation cannot be determined from the word.
*Personal note: This pronunciation follows the common ‘Erasmian’ convention of pronouncing Biblical Greek. Note, however that when gamma precedes kappa, chi, or another gamma it has the nasal sound ŋ] (ng, as in English ring or singer) so the pronunciation should be soo-ŋen-ace, if we follow the Erasmian method. In the Koine as it was spoken at the time, however, the letter υ aka upsilon/ypsilon would have been pronounced quite like the close front rounded vowel [y] (pronounced like , but with the lips rounded as for ) of modern French ‘U’, with the letter η eta/ita read like iota; thus, συγγενής was probably sy-ŋen-is, quite close to the Byzantine and Modern Greek pronunciation where ypsilon has fully iotacized: si-ŋen-is.
Indeed, Islamic tradition follows the idea that Elizabeth was sister of Mary’s mother.
There was a traditional belief that St. Anne had a sister named Sobe, who in turn was the mother of Elizabeth, which makes her Mary’s literal maternal cousin. The name first appears in writings of about the 8th century by Eastern writers such as Hippolytus of Thebes, St. Andrew of Crete, and Epiphanius Monachus, and later in Nicephorus Callistus and Andronicus. All recount essentially the same passage, given by the last two as follows:
There were three sisters of Bethlehem, daughters of Matthan the priest, and Mary his wife, under the reign of Cleopatra and Sosipatrus, before the reign of Herod, the son of Antipater: the eldest was Mary, the second was Sobe, the youngest’s name was Anne. The eldest being married in Bethlehem, had for daughter Salome the midwife; Sobe the second likewise married in Bethlehem, and was the mother of Elizabeth; last of all the third married in Galilee, and brought forth Mary the mother of Christ.
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich implies meanwhile that the mother of Elizabeth was a woman named Emerentia, the maternal aunt of Anne’s sister Sobe.
P
patrick457
Guest
Part 5 on our teeny analysis of a scene from Deny Arcand’s Jesus of Montreal
Crucifixion: The posture in which the actor is crucified reflects the original reconstruction of how the crucified man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar (aka Jehohanan) may have been fixed to his cross. Nicu Haas originally suggested that the osteological evidence pointed to the fact that the victim’s heels had been nailed together sideways on the cross by one nail. Later examination of the bones proved his reconstruction to have some flaws (for example, the surviving nail was too short to have pierced both feet, thus Jehohanan’s ankles were probably nailed separately to either side of the upright post of the cross, so that he straddled it), which led some experts to propose another picture (readers of this thread may already be familiar with this one).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/image.axd?picture=2009%2F10%2FTwoProposals.jpg
The picture shows two proposals for ancient crucifixion as demonstrated by Haas. The position on the right was the original anthropological speculation which was later changed to the position on the left. However, both positions may actually be incorrect. The film follows the reconstruction at right. Despite these later researches, however, some books and films continue to follow this drawing, such as The Last Temptation of Christ and The Miracle Maker. (interestingly, an earlier scene from the film features this very drawing!)
As of now, Jesus of Montreal, along with the film version of The Last Temptation, are the only movies who dare show Jesus being totally nude at the crucifixion (which is one historical possibility). Even then, they seem to engage in some form of self-censorship by adopting Haas’ initial reconstruction, which obstructs the view of the genitals and allows the director to take a full frontal shot of the actor without totally distracting the audience.
Titulus: The play commits two tiny blunders - one of which the History Channel documentary on Crucifixion also falls into - by showing the inscription which states Jesus’ ‘crime’ as hanging around the actor’s neck (which makes you wonder: they have very tall vertical posts in the play, with more than enough space to fix the inscription over the actor’s head, yet they didn’t bother putting it there?) Another is one which another film also shares (Mel’s The Passion): the placard is only written in Hebrew and Latin. Where did the Greek part go?
Early Christians: For the most part, this was true. Some of the earliest artworks we have portraying the Crucifixion during the 2nd-4th centuries were mostly done by anti-Christians seeking to ridicule Christianity (the Alexamenos Graffito) or by superstitious folks who carved the image of Jesus crucified onto gems to serve as amulets.
Five centuries later: We do have some orthodox artworks dating from about 400 or so years after Jesus’ death, such as a panel from the door of Santa Sabina in Rome (c. 430 AD) and a roughly contemporaneous ivory casket (c. 420-430).
Crucifixion: The posture in which the actor is crucified reflects the original reconstruction of how the crucified man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar (aka Jehohanan) may have been fixed to his cross. Nicu Haas originally suggested that the osteological evidence pointed to the fact that the victim’s heels had been nailed together sideways on the cross by one nail. Later examination of the bones proved his reconstruction to have some flaws (for example, the surviving nail was too short to have pierced both feet, thus Jehohanan’s ankles were probably nailed separately to either side of the upright post of the cross, so that he straddled it), which led some experts to propose another picture (readers of this thread may already be familiar with this one).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/image.axd?picture=2009%2F10%2FTwoProposals.jpg
The picture shows two proposals for ancient crucifixion as demonstrated by Haas. The position on the right was the original anthropological speculation which was later changed to the position on the left. However, both positions may actually be incorrect. The film follows the reconstruction at right. Despite these later researches, however, some books and films continue to follow this drawing, such as The Last Temptation of Christ and The Miracle Maker. (interestingly, an earlier scene from the film features this very drawing!)
As of now, Jesus of Montreal, along with the film version of The Last Temptation, are the only movies who dare show Jesus being totally nude at the crucifixion (which is one historical possibility). Even then, they seem to engage in some form of self-censorship by adopting Haas’ initial reconstruction, which obstructs the view of the genitals and allows the director to take a full frontal shot of the actor without totally distracting the audience.
Titulus: The play commits two tiny blunders - one of which the History Channel documentary on Crucifixion also falls into - by showing the inscription which states Jesus’ ‘crime’ as hanging around the actor’s neck (which makes you wonder: they have very tall vertical posts in the play, with more than enough space to fix the inscription over the actor’s head, yet they didn’t bother putting it there?) Another is one which another film also shares (Mel’s The Passion): the placard is only written in Hebrew and Latin. Where did the Greek part go?
Early Christians: For the most part, this was true. Some of the earliest artworks we have portraying the Crucifixion during the 2nd-4th centuries were mostly done by anti-Christians seeking to ridicule Christianity (the Alexamenos Graffito) or by superstitious folks who carved the image of Jesus crucified onto gems to serve as amulets.
Five centuries later: We do have some orthodox artworks dating from about 400 or so years after Jesus’ death, such as a panel from the door of Santa Sabina in Rome (c. 430 AD) and a roughly contemporaneous ivory casket (c. 420-430).
P
patrick457
Guest
Anything else? 
T
Thing
Guest
:coffeeread: I read here that Jesus and the Apostles ate fish, but what type of fish?Anything else?
(well, you did say minor and trivial)
S
Spirithound
Guest
And such trivia to love!
Today thirty-five species of fish make their home in the waters of the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River, but three types seem to be most common in the New Testament record.
- The sardines were a staple of the locals’ diet and these were probably the “two small fish” which Jesus used to feed the multitude.
- The musht fish has a long dorsal fin which resembles a comb and is today popularly known as “St. Peter’s fish.” This tasty fish could measure up to a foot and a half long (0.5 m.) and weigh 3.3 lbs (1.5 kg.).
- The catfish is not considered kosher because of its lack of scales. These probably would have been brought to mind when Jesus referred to the bad fish that would be thrown away (Mt. 13:48).
- My other source speaks of barbels, so called because of the barbs at the corners of the mouth, but does not indicate that they are not kosher, so I don’t think they are catfish.
T
Thing
Guest
Thankyou SH, for your trivial facts and stuff. As I happen to like sardines on thick white toast, it now strikes me as all very consistant with fishing by nets and all that, sardines sound like a shoal fish to me, - why did I not think of that before. The other musht fish looks like it might be a shoal fish too, though smaller shoals possibly.
Funny that the catfish is not kosher and lots of people like eating catfish and the barbel is kosher but is probably inedible…
P
patrick457
Guest
Bump, unto eternity.
T
Thing
Guest
Did the Pharisees or Sadducees ever describe an eternity?Bump, unto eternity.
P
patrick457
Guest
Okay, I’m a bit slow this morning, so I’ll have to ask to repeat that in more clearer terms.
T
Thing
Guest
Can’t be done, I’m afraid. What time did the Pharisees or Sadducees go to bed?Okay, I’m a bit slow this morning, so I’ll have to ask to repeat that in more clearer terms.
- Status