But I've come across this series of commentaries -
Larry Hurtado, 2013 -
It is a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifixion and that this did not change until the late fourth or fifth century. Crucifixion was shameful, and so (so the theory goes) Christians would have been hesitant to draw attention to the crucified Jesus. Indeed, some scholars have inferred from this the notion that pre-Constantinian Christianity avoided depictions of Jesus’ crucifixion. https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-arc ... iew/39/2/5
- .
That brief web-article^ alludes to and a fuller article (indeed, there's a url link on the image but it goes to a dud page), and the 3rd quoted article below cites it; but doesn't really clarify whether the statement in the title - a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifixion - is true. We know Galatians 3:1 has
.. You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified
and 1 Cor 2:2 has
.. I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
And there are, of course, the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion (including the soldiers and people in the crowd mocked him, saying, “Save yourself, and come down from the cross!”- Mark 15:30; Matthew 27:40–44; Luke 23:37–39).
.
and this, dated January 17, 2021 -
most scholars believe that early Christians did not use the cross as an image of their religion because crucifixion evoked the shameful death of a slave or criminal.1
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... the-cross/
1. For an overview of the literature and history of crucifixion, see the excellent study by John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); also the classical study by Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
.
That last article quotes more of Hurtado but I don't think it clarifies anything for me either ie. about early Christian - Church Fathers' - accounts of or depictions of the crucifixion.... Some believe the early church avoided images of Jesus on the cross until the fourth or fifth century. In “The Staurogram: Earliest Depiction of Jesus’ Crucifixion” in the March/April 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Larry Hurtado highlights an early Christian crucifixion symbol that sets the date back by 150–200 years.
The tau-rho staurogram is one of several christograms, or monogram-like devices, used by ancient Christians to refer to Jesus. However, Larry Hurtado points out that the staurogram only refers to the crucifixion, unlike others, which mention Jesus’ other characteristics ...
The tau-rho staurogram, like other christograms, was originally a pre-Christian symbol. A Herodian coin featuring the Staurogram predates the crucifixion. Soon after, Christian adoption of staurogram symbols served as the first visual images of Jesus on the cross.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... taurogram/
As some will know, I started a thread, Outstretched hands and The Cross, but it didn't address depictions or accounts of the the crucifixion other than references to Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus (On the Antichrist 61), Tertullian (Ad nationes XI, Minucius Felix (Octavius 29) - but most if not all of those are to signs of the cross.
There's also -
- Tertullian, in (Contra Marcionem 3.22, explains the Tau as a symbol of salvation by identification with the sign which in Ezekiel 9:4 was marked on the forehead of the saved ones.
- Ephrem the Syrian (4th century) discusses a Christian symbol, apparently combining the Tau-Rho with Alpha and Omega placed under the left and right horizontal arms of the Tau. Ephrem says that the Tau represents the cross of Jesus (prefigured by the outstretched hands of Moses in Exodus 17:11), the Alpha and Omega signify that the crucified Christ is "the beginning and end", and the Rho, finally, signifies "Help" (βοήθια [sic]; classical spelling: βοήθεια).