I have been skeptical of the Alexamenos graffiti for a few months, since reading Gunnar Samuelson's book about crucifixions and how varied the practice could be.
I think reading the article in peeusmega9's opening post by L.L. Wellborn got me to look more closely at the image. It was the fact that Wellborn doesn't address the issue of how we know this is a crucifixion image, but accepts it without discussion, that made me think more about it.
The more closely I looked the more problems I saw with the interpretation.
Incidentally, I noted in the last post that the "rope" appeared to be merely a wall crack. I found a good high resolution picture of the area that confirms that it is not a rope hanging from the horizontal line/crossbeam. It is definitely a simple wall crack. Here is the picture:
Understanding this, allows us to see the image as being much further from the crucifixion amulet image and therefore much further from a crucifixion image.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
pakeha wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi peseusomega9,
In teaching "Humanities" courses for the past 15 years, I have come across dozens of cases where experts have mislabeled or misunderstood images for centuries. I will take this as another case, since you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. Thanks.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
Thanks for your thoughts; you've made me see this graffiti with fresh eyes.
And you're right about misunderstanding images- The Pray Codex comes to mind.
spin wrote:These two references point away from a christian interpretation of the graffito, which springs from the 3rd c. during the reign of S.Severus, based on the location where it was found. Crucifixion was a subject of mime performances (see eg AJ 19.94), as is dressing up. Someone might have been using mime imagery to have a shot at this Alexamenos. The thing that I should add is that christians were supposed to have been persecuted at that time, so it is strange that such a graffito was left intact if it referred to a christian. As soon as the victim saw the parody, he would have attempted to destroy it. It is certainly not clear that we are dealing with a christian image.
The parody is is all probability an attack on one member of the imperial household by another.
For technical reasons imperial freedmen were probably largely immune from persecution for their Christian faith. See Christians at Rome
Has anyone actually seen the graffito? I believe that it is in the little museum on the Palatine hill, but I looked for it in vain when I was last there.
The link provided to the 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia by DCHindley is a gold mine! There is in the article one paragraph concerning a Gnostic sect that worshipped Typhon-Seth and that the donkey's head with the "Y" next to it is repeated on many defixiones, citing the work of one German scholar, Munsch. (sp?) So to me the graffito in question probably wasn't even a portrayal of a crucified god at first, but one perhaps standing on a platform behind a wall. Later on, I think, someone saw fit to draw a few lines, and voila! The ass-headed god is now tied to and standing on a cross that included a foot-piece. For what reason I don't know. Maybe Alexamenos switched religions and became a Chrestian/Christian???
spin wrote:These two references point away from a christian interpretation of the graffito, which springs from the 3rd c. during the reign of S.Severus, based on the location where it was found. Crucifixion was a subject of mime performances (see eg AJ 19.94), as is dressing up. Someone might have been using mime imagery to have a shot at this Alexamenos. The thing that I should add is that christians were supposed to have been persecuted at that time, so it is strange that such a graffito was left intact if it referred to a christian. As soon as the victim saw the parody, he would have attempted to destroy it. It is certainly not clear that we are dealing with a christian image.
The parody is is all probability an attack on one member of the imperial household by another.
The location of the graffito find should quash that probability. It served as living quarters for servants and slaves and the walls were covered in hundreds of graffiti.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
spin wrote:These two references point away from a christian interpretation of the graffito, which springs from the 3rd c. during the reign of S.Severus, based on the location where it was found. Crucifixion was a subject of mime performances (see eg AJ 19.94), as is dressing up. Someone might have been using mime imagery to have a shot at this Alexamenos. The thing that I should add is that christians were supposed to have been persecuted at that time, so it is strange that such a graffito was left intact if it referred to a christian. As soon as the victim saw the parody, he would have attempted to destroy it. It is certainly not clear that we are dealing with a christian image.
The parody is is all probability an attack on one member of the imperial household by another.
The location of the graffito find should quash that probability. It served as living quarters for servants and slaves and the walls were covered in hundreds of graffiti.
I may have been unclear.
By imperial household I didn't mean a member of the emperor's family or anything like that. I meant the slaves and freedmen working for the emperor. Members of the imperial household in this sense, were probably reasonably safe from persecution.
spin wrote:These two references point away from a christian interpretation of the graffito, which springs from the 3rd c. during the reign of S.Severus, based on the location where it was found. Crucifixion was a subject of mime performances (see eg AJ 19.94), as is dressing up. Someone might have been using mime imagery to have a shot at this Alexamenos. The thing that I should add is that christians were supposed to have been persecuted at that time, so it is strange that such a graffito was left intact if it referred to a christian. As soon as the victim saw the parody, he would have attempted to destroy it. It is certainly not clear that we are dealing with a christian image.
andrewcriddle wrote:The parody is is all probability an attack on one member of the imperial household by another.
spin wrote:The location of the graffito find should quash that probability. It served as living quarters for servants and slaves and the walls were covered in hundreds of graffiti.
I may have been unclear.
By imperial household I didn't mean a member of the emperor's family or anything like that. I meant the slaves and freedmen working for the emperor. Members of the imperial household in this sense, were probably reasonably safe from persecution.
Ancient Rome worked on things being unstated. If they got expressed publicly, there could be a problem.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
spin wrote:Ancient Rome worked on things being unstated. If they got expressed publicly, there could be a problem.
One of the issues, is whether there were more Jews or Christians in the imperial huusehold c 200 CE. My suspicion is that at this period there weren't many practising Jews working for the Emperor, but I may be wrong.
spin wrote:Ancient Rome worked on things being unstated. If they got expressed publicly, there could be a problem.
One of the issues, is whether there were more Jews or Christians in the imperial huusehold c 200 CE. My suspicion is that at this period there weren't many practising Jews working for the Emperor, but I may be wrong.
This suspicion sounds like you're dipping into your usually bottomless probability well, Andrew.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
