NT Pod 54 discusses the horror of crucifixion, looking at the archaeological and literary evidence and reflecting on its relevance to the Passion Narratives in the Gospels. It is twelve and a half minutes long.
NT Pod 54: The horror of crucifixion (mp3)
NT Pod 54: The horror of crucifixion (mp3) (Alternative location)
Feel free to leave your feedback below or on Twitter or on our Facebook page.
Thanks to Ram2000, Me and You, for the opening theme, released under a Creative Commons agreement.
Thanks - I wasn't aware of the archeological find. I've always been struck by the AD 70 - the fall of Jerusalem, when the Romans ran out of wood - when you consider the numbers involved that was an extremely horrific occasion of crucifixions.
ReplyDeleteHorrific thought, yes.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate you providing the contemporary perspective rather than hitting us over the head with the gory details like some presentations that shall remain nameless (like The Case for Christ - oops!)
ReplyDeleteIt is all the more horrifying as a political act
ReplyDeleteRight, yes. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteEye-opening, poignant, and relevant. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteOf course, facts about Jesus are always relevant!
Considering Jesus execution we are always said, that Romans hold the monopoly for capital punishment, and so Jewish authorities alone couldn't sentence anyone to death without getting Romans' approval. But they seemed to bother with it only in this particular, Jesus, case. What about stonings (of Stephen, e.g.)? Were all these stonings, ordered by Jewish and committed for religious purposes, illegal (from Romans' perspective) lynches?
ReplyDeleteJust to further emphasize the viciousness of crucifixion. Isn't it true that the word excruciating comes from the Latin word excruciatus which means "out of the cross."
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of pain there isn't a stronger adjective to describe it than excruciating.
Jarrett, crux primarily does not mean "cross", but "torture", "torment" etc., and in general every wooden instrument of torture or execution. (Accordingly, excruciatus simply means "tortured". It doesn't have anything to do with crucifixion or our modern Christian notion of the "cross".) The Christians have always had the term lignum crucis for the "cross", meaning "the wood of martyrdom". The "cross" is first and foremost represented by the material, by the wood (lignum), mirroring the σταυρός in the Gospel, while the crucis stands for Jesus' suffering and death.
ReplyDeletedivusjulius, crux doesn't mean simply "torture", "torment", etc. It means also "carriage tow-pole", "vine-support pole or bar", "aggravating person", "stupid (4-letter f-word)" (as an insult), "perdition", "impaling stake", "cross" (with or without an attached impaling spike -- although I think without was seldom if at all), "impalement", "crucifixion", and even "the projecting member of Priapus" and "buggery by the same". You can read comment on my posts: http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com/search/label/Crucifixion
Deletedivusjulius, thanks for the reply. You're right that strictly speaking that excruciatus means "tormented greatly, tortured, plagued, having been tortured."[1]
ReplyDeleteHowever, isn't excruciatus's etymology tied or at least derive from "the cross" or "out of the cross?" For example:
"Latin excruciatus, past participle of excruciare, from ex- + cruciare to crucify, from cruc-, crux cross"[2]
1. Wiktionary. "Excruciatus." Fri 3 Jun 2011. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excruciatus
2. Merriam-Webster.com. "Excruciate." Fri 3 Jun 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excruciate
Actually cruciare means "to torture" but the verb itself is derived from crux according to the lexica, such as the Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary.
DeleteSure, "excruciating" comes from the word crux, but crux does not primarily mean "cross". A crux can be a "tree", "wooden frame", "pole", "stake", "gallows", "torture", "destruction", "martyrdom", "misery", therefore also any "wooden instrument of execution", and as a special case crux can also mean a "cross", i.e. a wooden prop (incl. instrument of execution) in the form of a Tau-cross or Christian cross. But as I said above, in Christian liturgy crux can also mean (and means in the Good Friday liturgy) "martyrdom". Almost all "crucifixions" in the sources were either executed on a pole, or the sources tend to a describe a pole or gallows, or it's impossible to decide if it was a pole, gallows or a real cross in the Christian understanding of the word. There is one source by Seneca that describes an execution on the wood, where the victim has his arms outstretched. So we can safely say that crucifixions in our Christianized sense of the word did exist in antiquity. Btw: we can't even say with certainty that the Gospel describes a crucifixion with arms outstretched, or even a crucifixion at all (!). It's simply not in the text.
ReplyDeleteBut back to the words: No derivative of crux exclusively refers to a "cross". The primary meanings all relate to torture, pain etc.: e.g. cruciare, which meas "to torture", "to cause pain", while the meaning "to crucify" is late and specifically church Latin; or cruciabilitas ("torment"), cruciabiliter ("with torture"), cruciamentum ("torture"), cruciatus ("act of tormenting", "pain"), excruciabilis ("deserving torture"), cruciator ("torturer"), crucius ("agonizing", "bad") etc. pp.… and of course excruciare, which means "to torture" etc. It does not mean "to crucify", which it would, if it had been derived from the specific meaning "cross", or even from the Crucifixion in the Gospel.
So "excruciating" derives etymologically from crux, but it does not derive from crux as meaning "cross" (i.e. the instrument of execution).
Another side note: "cross" in English also means "burden", "pain", "affliction" etc., e.g. in "to carry one's cross", so we can see that the English language has also retained the original general and primary meaning of crux, and not only the special meaning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedivisjulias, thanks for the informative reply.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to why you state, "Btw: we can't even say with certainty that the Gospel describes a crucifixion with arms outstretched, or even a crucifixion at all (!). It's simply not in the text."
Certainly in the Gospels alone there is no explicit text that reports on the arms of Jesus as being stretched out. Tradition though, has certainly thought of the crucified Jesus with his arms being stretched out (early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria).
My main question is what do what you mean when you wrote that we can't say [with certainty] that the Gospels even described a crucification at all? In all the Gospels it reads that Jesus was crucified (cf. Mk 15:24; Mat 27:35; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18). In the Gospel of John, albeit it's not a synoptic Gospel, we get the idea from Thomas that nails were used in the crucification (cf. Jn. 20:25).
Hi Jarrett, I have an answer ready, but the Blogger software always returns an error, when I try to post it in this thread. Since this post here was however published, I don't know if I can make the actual response work. (?)
ReplyDelete(1a) You mention tradition, and this is (to my mind) more important than scripture, because it can remain historically stable over many centuries. And tradition has the iconography of what we call the "crucifixion of Jesus", arms outstretched. But this is as much a crucifix tradition as it is a crucifixion tradition. There may be a remnant of an earlier crucifix tradition in scripture, namely in Acts 2:23, where it doesn't say that the Lord was "crucified". It says that He was "slain" (ἀνείλατε), but also "affixed" (προσπήξαντες; Latin: affigentes). The interpretation/translation of the word "affixed" as "crucified" is purely late Christian, and not original Greek. But yes, there is a cross in tradition, and yes, there is something crucifixed, but that's basically all we can say, because in the early tradition (the very few images we have) it could as well be a crucifix, not the depiction of a real crucifixion. Our interpretation of this imagery as "Jesus crucified", i.e. historically a real human being actually tormented to death on a "cross-crux", is projected into the early iconographical tradition based on an interpretation of scripture, and has developed slowly and only in the Middle Ages. So in this case, scripture is also important, because we need to see if that interpretation is correct. (CONTINUED)
ReplyDelete(1b) One side-note: in order to find out, if the arms were stretched-out, it is not really important to discuss whether there hung on the cross a real man (crucifixion) or a real man's likeness (funeral with crucifix, cf. Jesus' effigy in Qur'an 4:157 and possibly one apocryphal tradition), because we know from the Passion narrative that the Lord was stabbed in the side (by Longinus, according to ActsPil and tradition), which is important (see below). It doesn't say that He was pierced by nails. In fact, it says that He was actually stabbed with daggers according to the wording in Rev 1:7 (ἐξεκέντησαν, Latin: pupugerunt, "stabbed with daggers", with pugiones), and apparently even by several people (plural form of the verb). (On the London ivory casket, the earliest depiction in a narrative context, Longinus actually applies a dagger thrust to the Lord's side. Therefore the lance, the spear, λόγχη in John 19:34, can be viewed as the lectio facilior of the name Longinus, not the other way around, which is a textcritically false notion.) But the fact that the Gospel tells us that he was stabbed in the side is evidence enough, in my view, because I don't see how a wound on the side of a crucifix could have been visible to the witnesses, if the arms were not outstretched or at least stretched upward, the latter e.g. on a pole/stake instead of a cross. But I don't see any reason to assume a crucifixion on the stake. How would Christianity have acquired its main symbol, the cross, if there hadn't been a real cross present during the Passion, in whatever function?! (CONTINUED)
ReplyDelete(2) The Gospel of John is not a synoptic gospel, and it's a later tradition, right, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it. Every source is important, including even the apocryphal ones. However, in this post-resurrection instance (Jn 20:25) it doesn't refer to wounds, but only mentions the "place of the nails" (τὸν τύπον⸃ τῶν ἥλων). But we can't even assume that nails are referenced here, because ἥλος does not only mean "nail", but also "stud", "bolt", "pin" etc. But even if that passage referred to nails, it would not be evidence of an actual crucifixion, because nails can be used for many things, including the affixing of an effigy (in iconography: crucifix tradition, as opposed to the later crucifixion tradition). However, the early crucifix iconography didn't even depict nails, but fastened the "Crucified One" to the cross with ropes. The nails appeared later, approximately in the 5th to 6th century, while the legs were still often tied to the vertical beam, e.g. on the Monza ampule. In ritual tradition nails can theoretically be assumed: some Christian Good Friday rites include the hammering on the wood before the effigy of Jesus is affixed to the cross. The nails themselves however seem to have been ritualized only very late in Christian history: the so-called desenclavo (removal of the nails) is not documented before the 17th century. (CONTINUED)
ReplyDelete(3) As for the alleged description of a "real crucifixion" in the Gospel, we only have an en-passant-use of the verb σταυρόω, almost as a side-issue, which is interpreted by later Christians as "to crucify". But it's the same dilemma as with the word crux. σταυρόω can mean many things, and "crucify" in the specific Christian sense is not found in the pre-Christian sources. There we find "execute on the stake", "hang [from gallows or a tree or a wooden beam]", "put to death on a wooden execution instrument", and even "present body parts of a dismembered person on a wooden prop" etc. There is not a single pre-Christian source, which unequivocally pertains to a "crucifixion" in the Christian sense, when using the verb σταυρόω, while many sources explicitly do not speak of this kind of crucifixion, when using the verb. But the primary meaning of σταυρόω is something else, anyway, namely to "fence in with pales", "erect wood as a palisade", ergo generally to erect something made of wood, or (in connection with a person) to put someone on the wood, which can as well be a pyre for a cremation, if you ask me. I'm pretty sure that there is not a single instance in the gospels to assume the idea that there was a "real crucifixion" taking place. Incidentally, we find the cremation as a requisite for Jesus' apotheosis in Augustine (Quaest. Num. 4.33.5, apotheosis by fire), where he specifically says that the the Greek verb kremô, the "hanging" of the Lord (ostensibly on the Cross in Christian interpretation) is connected to the Latin verb cremo, meaning "to cremate". (This also sheds a completely new light on the Christian Easter Fire tradition, by the way. Of Nordic/Germanic origin, they say? They've got to be kidding me.) (END)
ReplyDelete(4) A little ADDITION: So, what if we assume that Augustine's passage on Jesus' apotheosis by fire (i.e. by cremation) was based on a real historical tradition, and the Lord was in fact cremated, i.e. the stauróô refers to a funeral pyre, and the kremô to a cremation? Then the crucifix tradition in Christian iconography would not stem from an actual crucifixion, but from a cross, to which an effigy was affixed during the Passion, just as the Qur'an tells us. It was then only later interpreted as the depiction of an actually crucified person, in turn influencing how scripture was interpreted and translated—and then vice versa as a religious feedback: kinda like the hen and the egg. It would explain the Easter Fire tradition. It would explain why there are so few early Christian images of the alleged crucifixion: because a depiction of a depiction (i.e. the secondary depiction of an effigy, which is already a depiction) was not necessary, and these images only started to grow in numbers, when the idea of a "real crucifixion" slowly took hold. It would explain why the original Nicene Creed did not mention the crucifixion, before it was redacted decades later. It would also explain the lignum crucis, the emphasis on the "wood of martyrdom", not on the cross. If we look at the Jerusalem Good Friday report by Egeria (37.1–4; 4th century), we see that there was not only a standing cross in the rite—surely with a crucifixed effigy, as it is still done today—, but also the lignum sanctum crucis, the "holy wood of martyrdom", which was simply a relic, a piece of wood… ergo: a two-fold rite, a distinction between the crucifix and the wood. It would explain why Venantius Fortunatus mentioned the tropaeum crucis, the "trophy of martyrdom", an ancient way of representing triumphal arms, spoils of defeated enemies, and even effigies on a (sometimes cruciform) prop, notably effigies of the god Dionysus (Bacchus, Liber Pater): because then that's what would have happened in reality during the Passion, a praesentatio Christi in effigies, perpetuated to this day in the Good Friday rituals and processions. Etc.
ReplyDeletedivusjulius, thank you for all the fascinating information!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. I have found more on the spread arms and non-nails, but this Blogger software, which podacre uses, is (as always) a nuisance. I'll try to post it somehow, if the goddess of digital clemency has mercy.
ReplyDeleteFrom the crucifixion in the Gospel of Nonnus, a paraphrase of GJn written ca. at the end of the 4th century in Greek, incl. a later faithful Latin translation. Whereas John simply mentions in passing what we call the "crucifixion", almost as a marginal side-issue, Nonnus actually has a small report, and it reads more like an ostentatio (exhibition/display) of the crucifix. He says that Jesus was motionless (ἀτίνακτον, immotus), but that he "appeared" in an elevated position (ὑψιφανῆ, sublimis), which rings a bit like the Quranic effigy crucifix. Then he turns to the actions of the ministri mortis, the "servants of annihilation", i.e. the "deathsmen", which are described as "our adversaries" (nostri adversarii) and "collaborative assassins" (homicidae communes), which is definitely not a description of your average executioners, and which also ties well into the multitude that (according to the canon) stabbed Jesus with daggers. Before parting among themselves the garments—the "divine robe" (divinam vestem), while there is also a "splendid tunica" (splendidam tunicam), btw not used as a prop of mockery—they laid Jesus down and stretched him out (ἐκταδὸν, explicarè), i.e. possibly his arms, then they tied (!) him (δεθέντα, ligatum) to the crux (ἐπὶ σταυροῖο), and then raised him up (ὀρθώσαντες, erigentes).
ReplyDeleteAt the very least this shows how 4th century Christianity interpreted GJn. Nonnus had other (written) sources (he mentions a divine song, diviniloquus cantus), but he could also have used Christian Good Friday tradition to amend GJn, maybe even based on a Passion play or the crucifix tradition in the Christian rituals. One important thing is that there are no nails, which corresponds to the late development of the nail iconography in Christian art, which at first only showed ropes.
OMG I can't believe how much divusjulius has drowned your thread! Anyway, I'll make my comment short.
ReplyDeleteFirst, crucifixion was utterly shameful. The cross was usually, if not always, equipped with a bodily support called an acuta crux "pointed stake" or a sedilis excessu "a projection of a seat." It was the source of the greatest shame.
Second, the wax image of Julius Caesar on a frame of a tropaeum is apparently the source of all Christian Crucfixion imagery for the reality was too ugly.
Third, in a way a crucified one was cremated: by being exposed stark naked to the rays of the sun.
If you want to read a lot more, you may read my blogposts on the subject: http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com/search/label/Crucifixion
Just stumbled on your podcast... it's a real treat, I'm sorry to see it not up and running any more. Thanks so much for this informed commentary!
ReplyDeleteThanks! It is coming back again soon. It had to take a summer break because I was too busy.
Delete