Jesus Not Nailed to the Cross?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi "outhouse"

Wiki is incorrect that the gospel writers describe he crucifixion.

Which gospel describes Jesus' crucifixion. All we know is he was on a stavros (stake) and he could not get down. What was the size and shape of the stake? Six feet high? ten feet high? Pointed and sharp on top or flat? Did it have a crossbeam? Two crossbeam? Was there a footstool? Was he attached with ropes? chains? nails? Was his arm's attached? his legs? Was he bleeding? Matthew, unlike Mark, says they put "charges" over his head. How far over his head? One foot? Two Feet? How Big was the Sign? How was the sign attached? There were two robbers crucified with him. Did Jesus go up first or were they they all put up at the same time. Were they two feet away or ten feet apart? Were they all on the same type of stake? Did one man crucify him, or two, or three? Were they whistling while they worked?
None of the four writers actually bothered to describe anything about the crucifixion itself. This would suggest that the writers thought it was a typical crucifixion not worth describing. However, there were no typical crucifixions. Practically every one of the many dozens of crucifixion descriptions we have are quite different. It suggests that the writers just heard that Jesus was crucified, but did not hear how he was crucified.

Mark

15.25And it was the third hour, when they crucified him. 15.26And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews." 15.27And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. 15.28 15.29And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 15.30save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 15.31So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 15.32Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

Matthew

27.34 they offered him wine to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. 27.35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; 27.36 then they sat down and kept watch over him there. 27.37 And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews." 27.38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.

Luke

23.33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.

John
19.17

So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Gol'gotha. 19.18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. 19.19 Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." 19.20 Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. 19.21 The chief priests of the Jews then said to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'" 19.22 Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

It already is. Sorry the crucifixion has historicity at this time.

wiki

Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament Epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources

[outhouse]

Hi "outhouse"

Wiki is incorrect that the gospel writers describe he crucifixion.

It is correct in that they describe a crucifixion, it matters not that hey do not get into details. They give a basic description.

None of the four writers actually bothered to describe anything about the crucifixion itself.

Not needed for the mythology they were writing.

The point is about a man who made a selfless sacrifice of himself, crucified by Jews so they could make Romans like Pilate look innocent, and at the same time separate themselves from Jews viewed as stubborn rebellious people.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi outhouse,

I agree that the actual point of the gospel writers were quite different than latter Church fathers who imagined and obsessed over the crucifixion.

I think it is important that the crucifixion isn't described. It shows how the Christian imagination has painted their myth story so vividly that everybody believes there was a Biblical description of it.

We know now that there was no standard for of crucifixion and they varied widely from people being impaled on sharp stakes to people's body parts being placed on fences and walls after they were killed.

Of cause the word "describe" is a little ambiguous, in the sense that they do describe that he or Simon carried a stavros (stake) and there were two over people executed with him.

This is kind of like a newspaper headline saying "Jesus and Two other people shot Dead" with a story reading

Jesus of Nazareth was shot dead along with two other men who appeared to be criminals
Some witnesses said Jesus' last words were "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
But others said they were, "Why have you foresaken me, Oh Lord."

I would not count this as a description of the shooting, but more as a report of the shooting.

Thus NT gives us a report of the crucifixion, but the description of it is written by others much later.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi "outhouse"

Wiki is incorrect that the gospel writers describe he crucifixion.

It is correct in that they describe a crucifixion, it matters not that hey do not get into details. They give a basic description.

None of the four writers actually bothered to describe anything about the crucifixion itself.

Not needed for the mythology they were writing.

The point is about a man who made a selfless sacrifice of himself, crucified by Jews so they could make Romans like Pilate look innocent, and at the same time separate themselves from Jews viewed as stubborn rebellious people.

[outhouse]

Thus NT gives us a report of the crucifixion, but the description of it is written by others much later.

Agreed.

These unknown authors all removed from any event for any details, so none were added.


I also think these crucifixions when they were not killing hundreds and thousands, would have been different then a few at Passover to set examples in entrance or exit ways.

Even though the evidence is weak, to non existent, I follow a T shape for public displays.

[Clive]

The Terry Jones video I have posted on another thread shows Roman fortifications for Caesar's main attack on the Gauls. This includes pieces of sharp iron sticking out of fields, much like a mine field, but probably poison tipped and infected. They are large and would possibly fit in a category "nail".

There is also a story by Joseph Banks from the Captain Cook expedition to Hawaii how a villager got a nail and that it was incredibly valuable and useful.

[andrewcriddle]

One reference to nails in crucifixion may be the lurid black magic episode in Lucan's Civil War http://omacl.org/Pharsalia/book6.html where the witch

gnaws the noose
By which some wretch has died, and from the tree
Drags down a pendent corpse, its members torn
Asunder to the winds: forth from the palms
Wrenches the iron, and from the unbending bond
Hangs by her teeth, and with her hands collects
The slimy gore which drips upon the limbs.

Criddle

Andrew Criddle

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi andrewcriddle,

This is very interesting. Thanks.

It is a little difficult to understand what is happening. It seems to be about some kind of supernatural evil witch named Erichtho.

"from the tree drags down a pendent corpse" - I'm not sure what "pendent" means here. She does apparently drag down a corpse from a tree.
"its members torn asunder to the winds." By "members," I guess it means the hands and/or feet. Did hands and/or feet remain on the tree when she dragged down the corpse?
"forth from the palms, wrenches the iron, and from the unbending bond hangs by her teeth" - I am not sure if "fourth from the palms" refers to the hanging members, or the palms of the witch as she climbs up. I am also not sure what "wrenches the iron" means. It seems to mean "grabs the iron". The iron could be a nail or it could be a chain or an iron bar that the corpse hung from. The phrase "unbending bond" is a little unclear too. Is the unbending bond, the bond of the iron and the corpses' members, the iron and the tree or the iron and the witch's teeth?
"and with her hands collects the slimy gore which drips upon the limbs"- I guess the slimy gore would be the blood dripping on her limbs.

We can't be sure if the corpse was put on the tree alive or not. We also cannot be sure that "the iron" refers to a nail or some other instrument used to attach a corpse to a tree.
If there were lots of references to people being attached to trees with iron nails, we could reasonably say it was a reference to nails used in a crucifixion. However, without that evidence, it seems difficult to use it for evidence of the use of nails in crucifixions. It may suggest that iron was sometimes used in attaching corpses to trees

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

One reference to nails in crucifixion may be the lurid black magic episode in Lucan's Civil War http://omacl.org/Pharsalia/book6.html where the witch

gnaws the noose
By which some wretch has died, and from the tree
Drags down a pendent corpse, its members torn
Asunder to the winds: forth from the palms
Wrenches the iron, and from the unbending bond
Hangs by her teeth, and with her hands collects
The slimy gore which drips upon the limbs.

Criddle

Andrew Criddle

[EdwardM]

Hi All,

In researching crucifixion, I have never found any evidence of anybody being actually nailed to a cross. I don't count the idiotic nonsense of the foot found with a nail in it as evidence of anything.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

There were two skeletons found on the island of Delos that were nailed to something with iron nails. The metacarpals showed rust stains commeasurate with iron nails being driven through the palms. (John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World)

Now to me it's the two-beam cross, or tropaeum (=crux immissa) that really grinds my gears. There is no evidence anywhere that the Romans nailed criminals to that sort of double-inlaid construction. The Vivat Crux graffito depicts a mast-type construction instead. The Pozzuoli, a utility pole (the transverse piece is very slender compared to the pole itself). And the Alexamenos? Crucifixion of a god on a T-type.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi EdwardM,

Can you tell me when these two skeletons were found? Do we know how old they are? Thanks

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi All,

In researching crucifixion, I have never found any evidence of anybody being actually nailed to a cross. I don't count the idiotic nonsense of the foot found with a nail in it as evidence of anything.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

There were two skeletons found on the island of Delos that were nailed to something with iron nails. The metacarpals showed rust stains commeasurate with iron nails being driven through the palms. (John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World)

Now to me it's the two-beam cross, or tropaeum (=crux immissa) that really grinds my gears. There is no evidence anywhere that the Romans nailed criminals to that sort of double-inlaid construction. The Vivat Crux graffito depicts a mast-type construction instead. The Pozzuoli, a utility pole (the transverse piece is very slender compared to the pole itself). And the Alexamenos? Crucifixion of a god on a T-type.

[EdwardM]

Hi Jay,

IIRC, the skeletons were discovered sometime in the 1960's. They were dated to about the 1st Cent. BCE or so (2nd C. BCE or 1st C. CE). Iron nails were discovered with the skeletons as well, some between major leg bones, and an 18 (?) cm long staple around one skeleton's ankle. More information may be available in Dr Cook's 500+ page book, even on Google Books preview.

I'll have to give you a heads-up, though. Most of that book is devoted to refuting Samuelsson, and proving Hengel right: that the Romans and previous cultures routinely nailed criminals to two-beam crosses, ie, tropaea, which I don't believe for a New York minute.