Jesus crucified on a X

[maryhelena]

I recently watched a documentary that has used the hand bone from the Abba Cave and the heel bone from Yehohanan to demonstrate that Jesus was not crucified on the traditional cross (i.e. the type of cross this gospel figure is usually depicted on.)

Apart from this interesting finding, the documentary made many references to the bones from the Abba Cave as being those of Antigonus. This is not an official position on the bones. That aside, the fact that the documentary has made that inference re the bones - and used the bones and the Antigonus identification as a means to demonstrate the type of crucifixion of the gospel Jesus - does bring the Antigonus history to a wide TV audience...

Obviously, from my perspective, any public linkage between Antigonus and the gospel Jesus is welcome...At the very least it brings the gospel story face to face with Hasmonean/Jewish history. And that can only be a good thing!
-------------------------------------
Secrets of the Crucifixion
A scientific investigation of 2,000-year-old bones may hold the key to the Crucifixion, revealing that the classical depiction of Jesus on the cross may be all wrong.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d40n ... ol?start=3

---

For those interested in the Abba Cave and the identification of the bones with Antigonus:

Yoel Elitzur: IE. 2013. The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal Regarding Abba’s Identity.

However, there has been a response to Elitzur – unfortunately published in Hebrew:

Nadav Sharon
“Three Notes on the Life and Death of Mattathias Antigonus and the Names of the Last Hasmoneans: A Response to Yoel Elitzur, ‘The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a Proposed Identification’,” [in Hebrew].

Publication Name: Zion 79 (2014) 93-97

[MrMacSon]

I have seen commentary that crucifixions were, in those days at least, on X or T shaped structures; never t shaped ones.

[Peter Kirby]

I have seen commentary that crucifixions were, in those days at least, on X or T shaped structures; never t shaped ones.

Just speaking in a general way, that does make sense. Creating the iconographic✝shape would require a bit more carpentry than seems warranted just to be able to have some wood to hang somebody on.

[outhouse]

I find the T shape the most plausible, more so then the X.

the t, not so much.

[maryhelena]

I have seen commentary that crucifixions were, in those days at least, on X or T shaped structures; never t shaped ones.

After watching the video I'm thinking that the crucifixion on a X was not just a longer more painful death i.e. the body being more secure on the X and the placing of the nails in the back of the hand as opposed to the palm of the hand - and the nails in the heel area being placed where pain would be severe re any movement - but it was a more humiliating position for the body to be exposed in. The standard crucifixion pictures seem almost regal compared to a crucifixion on a X. i.e. arms outstretched is not a degrading position whereas legs outstretched somehow suggests a loss of dignity.

[MrMacSon]

A significant effect, apparently, was the head was not supported.

The standard crucifixion pictures seem almost regal compared to a crucifixion on a X. ie. arms outstretched is not a degrading position whereas legs outstretched somehow suggests a loss of dignity.

I agree with both those points, as well.

[toejam]

I don't see that it really makes any difference whether it was a T, an X, or (as the Jehovah's Witnesses insist), just a single pole. People were executed and had their bodies strung up on timber as a symbol of degradation. That's crucifixion.

[GakuseiDon]

I don't see that it really makes any difference whether it was a T, an X, or (as the Jehovah's Witnesses insist), just a single pole. People were executed and had their bodies strung up on timber as a symbol of degradation. That's crucifixion.

It depends on the theory being proposed. It wouldn't from a secular HJ perspective. But Acharya S stresses the cruciform shapes in her theories, so it may matter to astrotheology.

From her "Was Krishna Crucified" pages: http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified-5.htm

• ... pious Christian Henry David Ward quotes "The Illustrated History of the British Empire in India" as saying:
  
  "The mystic T, the initial of Tammuz, was variously written. It was marked on the foreheads of the worshippers when they were admitted to the mysteries"
  
  Indeed, this mark of the cross upon the forehead was common among a number of pre-Christian peoples, including the Persians and Hebrews. Obviously, we possess traditions and images of crosses and crucified gods not only in the Pagan world at large but also in the Israelite/Jewish world, and in the very area where Christianity is purported to have been created..

So an "X" shaped cross or a single pole might have ramifications there.

Some images from her website:

(1) Krishna crucified:


(2) Quoting pious Reverend Lundy: An 'old Irish cross at Tuam, erected before Christian times':


(3) Egyptian image:

[Peter Kirby]

There appears to be a disconnect.

Archaeological evidence about actual crucifixions cannot give us any direct information, one way or another, about the art / iconography, or about the mythology / theology, or about the mental furniture / structural anthropology, of the same or similar concepts.

Even if a historical Jesus would have received a different type of 'crucifixion', the historical Jesus is not exactly the subject when speaking on a 'history of religions' level. We're more interested in the ideas, in that regard. Now, maybe they can't be narrowed down much further, simply from the most ancient statements. But at the same time, they definitely can't be narrowed down further, with much confidence, from some archaeological digs of actual crucifixions. Unless of course you find the true cross...

[Stephan Huller]

I was flown to Toronto and filmed for that documentary. My interview was only retained in the European version apparently (they haven't sent it yet to my mom)