Jesus crucified on a X

[John T]

I seem to recall that no details on the exact style of crucifixion by the Romans are found in any ancient writings. Crucifixion could have been a "T", "X" or "I" or all three but no one knows for sure.

I vaguely remember in; "Killing Jesus" by O' Reilly, that the Romans were required to officially submit to Rome a list of the names/crimes of those crucified but again no such list has been found.

Supposedly even Josephus witnessed the personal horror of crucifixion during the Jewish revolt and even got Titus to have three of his friends taken down while still alive but no indication how they were crucified....Life 76

https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor ... ucifixion/

Even so, what difference does it make to those who feel Jesus never existed let alone what form of crucifixion he underwent?

[maryhelena]

I seem to recall that no details on the exact style of crucifixion by the Romans are found in any ancient writings. Crucifixion could have been a "T", "X" or "I" or all three but no one knows for sure.

I have also been told that the Romans were required to officially submit to Rome a list of the names/crimes of those crucified but again no such list has been found.

Supposedly even Josephus witnessed the personal horror of crucifixion during the Jewish revolt and even got Titus to have three of his friends taken down while still alive but no indication how they were crucified....Life 76

https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor ... ucifixion/

Even so, what difference does it make to those who feel Jesus never existed let alone what form of crucifixion he underwent?

It matters because ahistoricists/mythicists should be interested in history. If, as I do, one views the gospel story as a political allegory, then what happened in history is very very relevant to the gospel story.

Central to the gospel story, and to Christianity, is the crucifixion. One can, as some ahistoricists/mythicists seem wont to do, view the gospel story as fiction and thereby of no use re the debate with the Jesus historicists. On the contrary, my position is that it is only history that has potential for breaking the dead-lock between the historicists and the ahistoricists. i.e. the gospel figure of Jesus was not a historical figure - but - historical figures were used by the gospel writers in the creation of their composite literary Jesus figure. Thus, if it's early christian origins that we are interested in - we have to deal with the history from which the gospel writers developed their story - an allegorical story - a political allegory.

[John T]

"...my position is that it is only history that has potential for breaking the dead-lock between the historicists and the ahistoricists. i.e. the gospel figure of Jesus was not a historical figure..."...maryhelena

Who says there is a dead-lock between the historicists and ahistoricists?
The evidence for a historical Jesus is overwhelming.

Your tactic to put a spot light on the failure of ancient history to shine on minor details does not change the fact of history that: Jesus existed.

As far as the crucifixion of Jesus being central to the gospel story, well... you once again missed the bigger picture, which is, Jesus was believed to be the messiah by his followers.

Perhaps your time would be better spent on explaining why Jesus could not be the messiah instead of the preposterous claim that he never existed in the first place.

Still be as that may, for a political analysis of the historical Jesus I recommend; "The Jesus Dynasty" by James D. Tabor

Sincerely,
John T

[maryhelena]

"...my position is that it is only history that has potential for breaking the dead-lock between the historicists and the ahistoricists. i.e. the gospel figure of Jesus was not a historical figure..."...maryhelena

Who says there is a dead-lock between the historicists and ahistoricists?
The evidence for a historical Jesus is overwhelming.

Your tactic to put a spot light on the failure of ancient history to shine on minor details does not change the fact of history that: Jesus existed.

As far as the crucifixion of Jesus being central to the gospel story, well... you once again missed the bigger picture, which is, Jesus was believed to be the messiah by his followers.

Perhaps your time would be better spent on explaining why Jesus could not be the messiah instead of the preposterous claim that he never existed in the first place.

Still be as that may, for a political analysis of the historical Jesus I recommend; "The Jesus Dynasty" by James D. Tabor

Sincerely,
John T

[Peter Kirby]

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.)

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

I see your documentary's representation of these finds and raise you a BAR (regarding the well-known other guy who was crucified, for a truth) and a Bible Interpretation, along with the original scholarly reference and with the article alleged to support the conclusion.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... n-methods/

Notably, the graphic reconstruction here (of a different find) includes the (apparent) assumption that one nail went through both feet (the heels):



Actually this image is not BAR's. It's noted to come "Courtesy Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 20, Numbers 1–2, (1970)."

Meanwhile, back in St.-Andrew's-cross-land... this other find is not recognized by all scholars to be a crucifixion at all (?!)...

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8008.shtml

in the words of Nietzsche there are ‘those who choose to believe and those who choose to know’.7 For the latter category, it’s simply but another Second Temple Period Jerusalem family tomb with an enigmatic inscription and an ossuary containing the remains of an elderly woman who tragically had been beheaded.8

8 In 2011 a blogger tried to make this find into something important, and it’s a prime example of what happens when those with little or no experience delve into the world of archaeology. For starters, Professor Smith is a dental anthropologist, i.e. she has a doctorate in both fields and is one of the most eminent scientists in her field. http://www.jjraymond.com/religion/abbatomb.html . Secondly, the nails he describes adhering to the phalanges are more in the realm of tacks, rather than nails which would have been used for crucifixion.

Here are Dr. Smith's conclusions after the original archaeological investigation.





In this whole subject of interest, I have never found time questioning and checking the bare basics of alleged "facts" to be time wasted...

Can anyone access that 2013 article? Oh, yes. I can. Here it is:

https://www.academia.edu/9867727/The_Ab ... s_Identity

This article's author seems to believe that the person was bound, nailed at the fingers to something, flogged, and then beheaded. This is partly based on his identification of the remains and the account in Josephus, and partly because there are some metal things that were found and the subject under consideration was indeed beheaded.



So even this article is not arguing for the idea that this person was a crucifixion victim (at least, not in any typical sense), and the object to which the author thinks the victim was nailed is not described as a St. Andrew's cross. He even points out that the word in the text just means stake, simply.



Tim Widowfield recently asked, “Doesn’t anybody read anymore?” My sentiments exactly...

Of course, none of this means that there weren't some different actual shapes for the stake/cross in crucifixion in antiquity (sample of one, after all)...

PS-- I'm not commenting here on the identity of the remains. It's an interesting question.

[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.)

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

I see your documentary's representation of these finds and raise you a BAR (regarding the well-known other guy who was crucified, for a truth) and a Bible Interpretation, along with the original scholarly reference and with the article alleged to support the conclusion.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... n-methods/

Notably, the graphic reconstruction here (of a different find) includes the (apparent) assumption that one nail went through both feet (the heels):



Actually this image is not BAR's. It's noted to come "Courtesy Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 20, Numbers 1–2, (1970)."

Yep, the nail going through both heels has been discredited re the size of the nail.

Meanwhile, back in Andrew's-cross-land... this other find is not recognized by all scholars to be a crucifixion at all (?!)...

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8008.shtml

in the words of Nietzsche there are ‘those who choose to believe and those who choose to know’.7 For the latter category, it’s simply but another Second Temple Period Jerusalem family tomb with an enigmatic inscription and an ossuary containing the remains of an elderly woman who tragically had been beheaded.8

8 In 2011 a blogger tried to make this find into something important, and it’s a prime example of what happens when those with little or no experience delve into the world of archaeology. For starters, Professor Smith is a dental anthropologist, i.e. she has a doctorate in both fields and is one of the most eminent scientists in her field. http://www.jjraymond.com/religion/abbatomb.html . Secondly, the nails he describes adhering to the phalanges are more in the realm of tacks, rather than nails which would have been used for crucifixion.

• Greg Doudna's question for Joe Zias was never answered: ''Just a question of detail re your footnote 8: since so little (i.e. nothing, in terms of hard information) is known concerning the mechanics of nailing of hands in ancient Roman crucifixion, how are you certain concerning the sizes of nails and/or tacks that "would have been used" on hands? A claim of certainty concerning large size of nail would seem to make sense only on the assumption of suspension of weight (and nailing through bone), but if ropes suspended weight and the nail/tack only went through flesh to pin the hand from moving (as suggested), without suspending weight, where the basis for negative certainty on this point? In this light, can crucifixion be excluded as an explanation for nails attached to finger bones found on a corpse (as distinguished from a conclusion of uncertainty)?''

Here are Dr. Smith's conclusions after the original archaeological investigation.





In this whole subject of interest, I have never found time questioning and checking the bare basics of alleged "facts" to be time wasted...

Indeed, no time wasted in checking facts...And, re Elitzur's article - the findings of Dr. Smith have been challenged.

Can anyone access that 2013 article? Oh, yes. I can. Here it is:

https://www.academia.edu/9867727/The_Ab ... s_Identity

Yep, I've had the print copy of this article for some time. Great Library service in the UK - copy came from the British Library....Anyway, thanks for the pdf as it makes searching the article easy.

This article's author seems to believe that the person was bound, nailed at the fingers to something, flogged, and then beheaded--but not crucified. This is partly based on his identification of the remains and the account in Josephus, and partly because there are some metal things that were found and the subject under consideration was indeed beheaded.

Well, that depends on how one interprets 'crucifixion'. The basis meaning, from two major scholarly books, Chapman and Samuelsson, is that the term, at its basic meaning, relates to *suspension*. As to the Elitzur article: ''The picture that emerges from the synthesis of these two accounts (Dio and Strabo) is remarkable similar to the one attested to by the remains found in the ossuary: the man was tied to a wooden pole or stake and his fingers were nailed to it; he was brutally beaten until his bones were broken and his head was cut off from behind''.

Yes, Elitzur does not investigate the type of instrument used to which he thinks Antigonus was nailed to - his focus, after all, is the identification of the remains of the Abba Cave with Antigonus. It is the Biblical Conspiracies Secrets of the Crucifixion documentary that has attempted, re both sets of bones, to identify the type of cross used.

So even this article is not arguing for the idea that this person was a crucifixion victim (at least, not in any typical sense), and the object to which the author thinks the victim was nailed is not described as an Andrew's cross. He even points out that the word in the text just means stake, simply.



Tim Widowfield recently asked, “Doesn’t anybody read anymore?” My sentiments exactly...

Of course, none of this means that there weren't some different actual shapes for the stake in crucifixion in antiquity (sample of one, after all)...

PS-- I'm not commenting here on the identity of the remains. It's an interesting question.

• Cold case: Did archaeologists find the last Maccabean king, after all?
  Crucified remains and a broken jaw have confused scientists for decades. But it could well be that the last Hasmonean king has been found under a private house in Jerusalem.
  
  Was it a man after all?
  
  In yet another twist of this puzzling cold case, Haaretz can reveal that researchers did not return all the bones for reburial in the cave.
  
  Some key remains, including the nails and the cut jaw and vertebra, were sent for safekeeping to Tel Aviv University anthropologist Israel Hershkovitz and remained untouched in his lab for years.
  
  After reading Elitzur's paper, Hershkovitz re-examined the remains. He analyzed the nails using an electron microscope, determining that they did break the bones of the hand, as would occur in crucifixion. This itself is a blow to skeptics, since Romans rarely crucified women, Hershkovitz said.
  
  He also doubts Smith's finding that the time-worn jaw belonged to a woman.
  
  "Only the pelvis and the skull can give an indication of a skeleton's sex, it's impossible to scientifically determine it from a jaw bone, especially when it is severely fragmented," Hershkovitz told Haaretz. "Actually the size and shape look more like that of a male to me, but it's just a feeling, there is no scientific basis for it."
  
  Hershkovitz has been trying to extract DNA from the jaw in order to confirm whether it belonged to a man or a woman. Though that would not confirm Mattathiah's identity, it would give weight to all the other evidence that points to him, he said.
  
  "Once you remove the idea that the cut mandible belonged to a woman, you are left with all the other elements that prove that this is Mattathiah," he said. "In this case, the writing was literally on the wall."
  
  http://www.haaretz.com/life/archaeology ... m-1.587977

Professor Israel Hershkovitz was a major participant in the documentary and was involved with the demonstrations re the type of cross that the bones are suggesting - a X cross.

[Peter Kirby]

Yes, Elitzur does not investigate the type of instrument used to which he thinks Antigonus was nailed to - his focus, after all, is the identification of the remains of the Abba Cave with Antigonus. It is the Biblical Conspiracies Secrets of the Crucifixion documentary that has attempted, re both sets of bones, to identify the type of cross used.

Thank you. That was my point.

Professor Israel Hershkovitz was a major participant in the documentary and was involved with the demonstrations re the type of cross that the bones are suggesting - a X cross.

My other point is that none of the difficulties in interpreting this evidence were mentioned in the O.P.

My third point, buried in a single sentence, is that a sample of one is useless.

But, referring back to the previous point, do we even have a sample of one? On which to make inferences about the exact shape of ancient crucifixion instruments? You've questioned the manner of crucifixion of the other guy (which doesn't flip it over to the other side--if anything, it'd just remove it from the data that can be used), and a large number of scholars have questioned anything and everything regarding the claim of crucifixion for this guy/girl.

But thanks for your exacting cross-examination of my post, all the same... Not that there was much point to it, in the context of the "X" cross claim, i.e.:

The documentary demonstrates three kinds of crucifixions with a man upon the various shapes. Both the ✝ and the T found to be unsatisfactory. The T being worse and death would be very quick re heart problems. In the ✝ shape, in particular, the body is in danger, because of its weight, of pulling itself down from the execution instrument. It is the X that holds the body more securely - thus allowing for a very much slower death.

While these medical considerations might be relevant (or not, causing health problems is sort of the point here?!), the conclusion that the "T" shape (or even a simple stake) was not used for crucifixion in antiquity cannot be supported from the archaeological evidence.

[maryhelena]

Yes, Elitzur does not investigate the type of instrument used to which he thinks Antigonus was nailed to - his focus, after all, is the identification of the remains of the Abba Cave with Antigonus. It is the Biblical Conspiracies Secrets of the Crucifixion documentary that has attempted, re both sets of bones, to identify the type of cross used.

Thank you. That was my point.

Sure. The focus of the OP, however, is the Biblical Conspiracies documentary = Secrets of the Crucifixion. A program in which - 'Professor Israel Hershkovitz was a major participant in the documentary and was involved with the demonstrations re the type of cross that the bones are suggesting - a X cross.

Keep in mind also, that Elitzer was himself in that documentary - thus indicating that he was supporting the ongoing research into the Abba Cave and the human remains found there...

[Peter Kirby]

The fact that the nails were associated with the fingers might suggest that this person could have been on an "X" shape, if they were hung from nails at all, due to the fact that they would have been ripped out of the hands if the body was being suspended without support for the arms (as in a "T" or pole shape). But it's just one body. All it might do--and it appears that scholars aren't even ready to accept that yet, generally--is suggest that the "X" shape could have been used (for hanging, not even necessarily to kill, given the indications of beheading) sometimes, and that this person was one of those "sometimes."

We'd need at least 5 bodies to be anywhere near statistical significance, and most would want ~8 or more. It's some kind of math thing.

[maryhelena]

Yes, Elitzur does not investigate the type of instrument used to which he thinks Antigonus was nailed to - his focus, after all, is the identification of the remains of the Abba Cave with Antigonus. It is the Biblical Conspiracies Secrets of the Crucifixion documentary that has attempted, re both sets of bones, to identify the type of cross used.

Thank you. That was my point.

Professor Israel Hershkovitz was a major participant in the documentary and was involved with the demonstrations re the type of cross that the bones are suggesting - a X cross.

My other point is that none of the difficulties in interpreting this evidence were mentioned in the O.P.

My third point, buried in a single sentence, is that a sample of one is useless.

But, referring back to the previous point, do we even have a sample of one? On which to make inferences about the exact shape of ancient crucifixion instruments? You've questioned the manner of crucifixion of the other guy (which doesn't flip it over to the other side--if anything, it'd just remove it from the data that can be used), and a large number of scholars have questioned anything and everything regarding the claim of crucifixion for this guy/girl.

But thanks for your exacting cross-examination of my post, all the same... Not that there was much point to it, in the context of the "X" cross claim, i.e.:

From the physical evidence available, re Roman crucifixion, a X cross could be used. Sure, discard this as having no relevance to the gospel crucifixion story. I'd rather see this physical evidence and the bones from the Abba Cave as being relevant to the gospel crucifixion story. Like everything in this historicist vs ahistoricist debate one makes ones choices - and then see where they take one....