Did Jesus actually carry the Cross Itself? and other oddities of that day.

[Antiquarian]

Not wanting to hijack a thread in the Cafe about Mel Gibson’s new movie Passion (the trailer is what set me off) I thought I’d discuss it with you nice people here in GD.

Cross variations came in many a different form. Being absolutely sure one would need to make several deductions and inferences to come up with the most logical scenerio for the place, time and identity of the accused, who in this case is Jesus of Nazarene.

Discussed here will be the form of cross most likely utilized and the whole theory about the wrist being the best place to nail someone to the cross.

The ancient Phoenicians were the first to use the Crux Immissa (+) which was a singular stake with a cross beam. Other examples of crosses are:

The crux simplex (I), a single beam without a cross bar.
The crux decussata (X), or St. Andrew’s cross
The crux commissa (T), or St. Anthony’s cross.
The crux immissa (+), or Latin cross
**The crux orthodoxus (¨®) ** or Russian cross

Romans copied from the Phoenicians and most likely used the Immissa or orthodoxus. The Orthodoxus was a form that the Romans liked to use for execution of rebelious Jewish slaves, because there was a foot rest, and seat or sedile was instituted to prolong the agony by adding support for the body.

Initially the cross was used as a punnishment rather than a execution. According to Greek archeologist Vasilius Tzaferis who wrote the Jan/Feb Article in Biblical Archaeology Review:

At the end of the first century B.C., the Romans adopted crucifixion as an official punishment for non-Romans for certain limited transgressions. Initially, it was employed not as a method of execution, but only as a punishment. Moreover, only slaves convicted of certain crimes were punished by crucifixion. During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave’s neck and bound to his arms.

…When the procession arrived at the execution site, a vertical stake was fixed into the ground. Sometimes the victim was attached to the cross only with ropes. In such a case, the patibulum or crossbeam, to which the victim’s arms were already bound, was simply affixed to the vertical beam; the victim’s feet were then bound to the stake with a few turns of the rope.

If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the crossbeam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the crossbeam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam. The victim’s feet were then nailed down against this vertical stake.

In order to prolong the agony, Roman executioners devised two instruments that would keep the victim alive on the cross for extended periods of time. One, known as a sedile, was a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about halfway down. This device provided some support for the victim’s body and may explain the phrase used by the Romans, “to sit on the cross.” Both Eraneus and Justin Martyr describe the cross of Jesus as having five extremities rather than four; the fifth was probably the sedile. (p. 48,49)

While it appears that Jesus carried the crossbeam, or patibulum to Golgotha. There, the patibulum was affixed to an upright stake, perhaps having a seat or footpiece, and Jesus was nailed onto the whole structure. Above him was placed the title, JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. **Why then would modern and some antiquated material cite him as carrying an actual crux immissa in it’s entirety? Why the widly accepted historical innaccuracies? **

And what about the hands. Surly the palm of the hand can not hold the weight of a human being for and length of time. Or can it.? A 1989 article in the Bible review states some interesting results for this assertion.
Medical research for the article was done by Frederick T. Zugibe, who is adjunct associate professor of pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

“Two Questions About Crucifixion” reads the title of a fascinating article in the April 1989 issue of Bible Review. Below it were two subheadings, “Does the Victim Die of Asphyxiation,” and “Would Nails in the Hand Hold the Weight of the Body?”

Some of the findings dispute the 1925 popularized findings of Dr. Pierre Barbet who said Jesus died of asphyxiation due to not being able to raise himself up to breath. And that the nails were driven through the wrists or forearm because the palm of the hand could not hold a body.
The 1989 article says:

(1) Jesus did not die of asphyxiation, but rather from shock and trauma. Additionally, an impaled man with arms stretched straight over his head would suffocate in minutes, whereas a man with hands outstretched to the side at an angle of 60 70 degrees (as on a cross) could live for hours without suffocating.

(2) There are two locations in the PALM of each HAND that will allow a nail to penetrate and carry the full body weight up to several hundred pounds, making the “wrist theory” unnecessary to explain how Christ’s arms were attached to the cross.

Jesus had a terrible day to say the very lease the day of his crucifixion. Beaten, whipped, stabbed, demoralized. As a human being, he must have been in shock when he was finally placed up on the cross. Trauma and shock are the leading theories for his eventual demise. I wonder with the contemporary views refuting antiquated theories, how will this be looked at in another hundred years? Will historical data be changed in such a way to depict the events of that day differently? It would be interesting to know.

[FriarTed]

btw, I’ve recently read comments from a Messianic “rabbi” (who is also a C’tian Universalist) claiming that Jesus was probably blinded (perhaps by being struck in the eyes during the flogging),
perhaps even emasculated (also in the flogging), pelted with stones, had “King of the Jews” carved in his forehead as well as on the sign, and- most controversial of all- gang-raped by the Roman soldiers (based on the Psalm 22 passage “dogs have assailed me”). I will say that for we Christians who are so familiar with the Crucifixion that it no longer carries that strong an emotional punch, these additions- especially the gang-rape idea- pack a wallop

[Svt4Him]

What you’re talking about is why men have constructed different views based on extra-Biblical info? Cause that’s a human trait. Let me go beyond that…most think Samson is a huge guy, most think the inn keeper said something to Mary, most think the three wise men visited Jesus when He was first born, most think Noah only took two of every animal on the ark, but these stories are not Biblical. Why do men add to the word? Don’t know, but Eve was the first to do it, when she said ‘God said we can’t eat or touch from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’

[Svt4Him]

Oh, I should clarify, Noah did take two of each animal, but some he also took more of, so it wasn’t just two of each animal.

[if6was9]

Just MHO…didn’t The BIBLE say that the OP was correct? He carried his cross thru the streets of Jerusalem and (much) more? I THINK this is PROOF!!!

[newcrasher]

I think part of the problem is with poor translations. For example the Greek word for “hand” actually refers to the forearm as well.

[London_Calling]

Not being remotely religious but having been the route suggested he must have followed, I can only say the cross couldn’t have been very big cos you ain’t getting anything too wide or too high through those old Jerusalem lanes.

One has to think that, being as organised as the Romans tended to be, the cross would already be in situ, or else they didn’t go through the old City streets.

[Antiquarian]

No doubt jesus went through hell that day. Of course he did. Why the rampant additions among many scholars and laymen I am still not sure of. Seems people like to make up their fair share of history. As a historian and archaeologist, I find this decidedly bad. I’ve oft found that even physical evidence shown to people still does not sway opinion. I wonder if I were to dig up a large vessle in turkey fully capable of carrying hundreds and hundreds of animals, if some would still say it couldn’t be the ark.

[Antiquarian]

One has to think that, being as organised as the Romans tended to be…

Romans were brainwashed thugs for the most part. Not getting tops wages, but being allowed to reside in nice areas and other fringe benefits were main motivators for some acts. But they wanted to particularly harm the man called Jesus. Their hate for jews was encompassed in one man, and they thoroughly brought him through hell. Don’t forget Jesus wasn’t alone carrying a crossbeam. Simon was recruited by the romans to bear it for Jesus for a time, I’d imagine because Jesus would have been constently passing out. He was most likely unconscious when the brought him up onto the cross, or at least flittering in and out.

[Shodan]

Assuming that Christ carried only the crossbeam to Golgotha, is there consensus on the actual mechanics of crucifixion?

I was told that the upright part of the cross was permanently affixed to the ground. How did the two parts of the cross fit together? Did the crossbeam slide down over the top of the upright, or just fit into a notch and then get tied there?

One Gospel mentions the inscription “King of the Jews” that was posted over Christ’s head. This is why I assume the upright part of the cross projected over Jesus’ head.

I am handicapped in discussions like this by the fact that crucifixion gives me the absolute creeps. The Romans put so much thought into making this the most hideous death they could manage, and it lasted for hours or days.

Jesus was unusual in that He only lasted a few hours on the cross before dying. One Gospel says He was crucified around nine AM, another at around noon. So He only lived for, at most, six hours after crucifixion. The thieves on either side of Him had to have their legs broken (another chilling detail - imagine hanging there and watching the soldiers approaching your legs with a club) so that they would suffocate, and the Jews could get them safely buried before the Sabbath. Pilate was surprised that Jesus was dead already, and had to check with the soldiers in charge of the executions to verify that He was no longer breathing.

Jesus had been through a lot, which may explain His relatively quick death. He had not slept since Wednesday night, not eaten since the Last Supper, been beaten by the Romans and the Herodian guards, flogged, crowned with thorns, and walked all over the city (the high priest’s house to Pilate to Herod to Pilate to Golgotha). No wonder they had to get Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross for Him.

Nasty business. I am not sure I will be able to watch the film that Mel Gibson is making about Jesus’ last hours on earth.

Regards,
Shodan

[Phlosphr]

The mechanics of crucifiction I believe varried for different crimes. The OP says the cross beam was slid up the stake and Jesus was positioned after that.

That is an interesting take on the wrist thing, I always thought the nail had to go through the wrist.

[dropzone]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
The thieves on either side of Him had to have their legs broken … so that they would suffocate

Interesting! I had always assumed it was to put them in shock to kill them faster but, with the legs no longer providing support…and the feet would still be where they had been lashed in place so their legs would…yeesh, remind me to stay out of the first century when I get my time machine working!

[APB]

*Originally posted by Antiquarian *
Why then would modern and some antiquated material cite him as carrying an actual crux immissa in it’s entirety? Why the widly accepted historical innaccuracies?

There is no mystery about this. Christ is conventionally shown carrying the whole Cross because this scene began to be depicted in Western art long after anyone had any first-hand knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices but also long before historians and archaeologists began to look for evidence as to what those practices might have been. It was an assumption which seemed to make the most sense of what little evidence there was then available.

Some artists and filmmakers continue to depict the scene in that way because (a) they are unaware that historians and archaeologists have since questioned that assumption or (b) they prefer to follow the well-established artistic convention for aesthetic or symbolic reasons.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Antiquarian *
**. But they wanted to particularly harm the man called Jesus. Their hate for jews was encompassed in one man, and they thoroughly brought him through hell. **

Nah, its just another crucifixion…nothing special. And if the boys want to have a little fun with the condemned, who’s it hurt? He’s going to die anyway.

[Antiquarian]

…Christ is conventionally shown carrying the whole Cross because this scene began to be depicted in Western art long after anyone had any first-hand knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices …

Actually, depictions found in the 1st and second century indicated the beam crux immissa. So we actually knew it was one the beam and not the entire cross, at least for some crucificxions.

And Captain - it’s pretty well known Jesus’ crucifixion was especially bloody…not the run of the mill.

[Tarantula]

…And Captain - it’s pretty well known Jesus’ crucifixion was especially bloody…not the run of the mill. **

I think Captain’s point was that the Romans would have been pretty blazé about the whole affair. Mistreatment of condemned prisoners would not have been unusual.

I would also be interested to see a cite to support your comment. I always viewed the crucifixion of JC as pretty much the norm… bar the gang-rape (as if…)

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Antiquarian *
**Romans were brainwashed thugs for the most part. **

And what does that comment mean?

[RoundGuy]

Antiquarian

But [the Romans] wanted to particularly harm the man called Jesus. Their hate for jews was encompassed in one man,

You just pulled this out of your arse, right? Cite, please. I’ve never heard this before.

Seems people like to make up their fair share of history. As a historian and archaeologist, I find this decidedly bad.

Something smells…

[Svt4Him]

The reason they broke the legs of the others with Jesus was so they could no longer lift themselves up on their legs to allow their lungs to take in air, and relax the muscles, therefore they would suffocate quicker. It was a horrible way to die, and equally horrible in the fact that to a Jew, hanging on a tree was a curse. That’s why it says Jesus took the curse of the law and became a curse for us.

But with regards to a comment about 9 AM and noon, this is a common misquote of the Bible. They are both accurate, and the one reference has to take into account the Jewish day and when it starts. There is no contradiction as to the time Jesus was killed

[Antiquarian]

Roundguy - this may answer some of your question.

Sweat like blood “And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground,” (Luke 22:44).

He was struck "And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, “Is that the way You answer the high priest?” 23Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” (John 18:22-23).

He was beaten with fists “And some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to say to Him, “Prophesy!” And the officers received Him with slaps in the face,” (Mark 14:65).

He was scourged “Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he delivered Him to be crucified,” (Matt. 27:26).

Crown of thorns on head and beaten "And after weaving a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they kneeled down before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews! 30"And they spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head. 31And after they had mocked Him, they took His robe off and put His garments on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him,” (Matt. 27:29-31).

linky

I do not think the Romans thought Jesus was just another criminal.