Specifically the cross on which they crucified the eccentric Rabbi Yeshua bar-Joseph, aka Jesus Christ. Later historians maintain that they found the true cross buried, or found it intact in a sepulchre.
What did Rome usually do with crosses after the victim had expired? Why they hell would they bury it - wouldn’t they just leave it as a reminder not to screw with Caesar? Or re-use it on other uppity provincial types?
Wiki notes that the Romans tended to leave the corpse on the cross as a rotting reminder against whatever crime was committed. They also note that, if the deceased family cared or had the means, they could take the corpse down and bury it. Presumably nothing in particular was done with any specific cross - it was just left there to decay.
Seems like a waste of a perfectly good cross - why wouldn’t they tie the next guy on to it?
Sure, maybe you could bribe someone to get a new cross if you wanted, but I’m sure the average lout had to make do with what was available.
I would’ve thought they’d just reuse it for the next guy. Wood probably would’ve been somewhat valuable in an urban area like Jerusalem, so its hard to imagine they’d toss it. But reading it for another purpose seems kinda ooky. And there wouldn’t be any shortage of rebels that needed crucifying over the following 40 years.
Presumably that means having to take the last guy down. Which would probably be unpleasant if they had been there for, oh, a couple of weeks in the middle eastern summer.
I think it’s possible they’re reuse the uprights and have a new crossbeam for each new victim.
I think they only true answer to the OP is that we don’t know what happened to it, assuming it ever existed in the first place.
Whether it was buried, reused or destroyed is pure speculation since it’s not definitively documented anywhere. If someone claims to have found it how would anyone prove it was “the cross”? There may be thousands of crosses buried in what is now Israel, but that doesn’t prove anything.
As far as I know there is no credible evidence of what happened to it.
My understanding is that the post were buried into the ground, and the the crucified were responsible for carrying the cross beam from their place of sentencing to mount Calvary were they would be hammered to the cross beam and then lifted up and attached to the post.
It is reasonable to assume that there were more cross beams than posts. And that after death, the whole thing was used again. There would have been no reason to save Jesus’ cross beam as to the Romans he was a menace that the local Jewish leaders wanted rid of.
I thought part of the deterrent effect of crucifixion was leaving the bodies to rot on the cross and not giving them a proper burial. Which makes the “Pontius Pilate took pity on Jesus’s followers and gave them his body to entomb” part of the gospels pretty unbelievable, let alone what they did to the specific cross.
Although Wikipedia told me this:
There’s a common misconception that I’m reading into the OP - that crucifixion was a rare, unusual or even unique-to-Jesus punishment. (And therefore the cross would have somehow been special.)
Obviously, that assumption isn’t correct, and we might as well wonder what happened to the jail cells various martyrs were held in.
How could there be a misconception like that, when the Gospels themselves (well, several of them) mention at least 2 other criminals being crucified at the same time as Jesus (that, and the crowds yelling out “Crucify Him” a few versus before) - seemed almost like that was the default punishment.
Maybe a theory could be that some of Jesus’s followers obtained the crossbeam for themsleves (by whatever means: purchasing it, asking for it, stealing it), although that’s probably unlikely as well.
The cross would have been disposed of by i) the Romans or ii) the family members. At the time of occurrence, no one would have given any though to what to do with it, Roman or Jew.
Yes, the crucified carried the cross beam, called a patibulum, the upright part was called the stipe and was already mounted in the ground at the crucifixion site.
A pretty good step by step of the usual method is described here:
It’s like the alcohol swab before the lethal injection; you wouldn’t want to use someone else’s unsanitary old crossbeam.
It’s one of those vague assumptions that won’t withstand a moment’s analysis, but you’d be surprised how many people you can surprise by referring to crucifixion in non-Jesusical terms. Many people, even those who should know better, have the two terms perma-linked, exclusively so.
It was SOP for the corpses to be displayed as a warning to others, with guards posted to prevent the deceased’s friends from retrieving and properly burying the body. This shows up in one of the stories in Petronius’ Satyricon: A guard at a crucifixion site hears a widow mourning at a nearby tomb and befriends her, eventually getting very friendly indeed. This distraction allows the crucified body to be stolen. The soldier decides to commit suicide to avoid execution for dereliction of duty, but is saved by the widow giving him her husband’s corpse to replace the other one. Thus we see that the crucifixion and long-term exposure afterwards was sufficiently well known to show up in the Roman equivalent of a sitcom plot.
He was not a rabbi. He lived before rabbinical Judaism; while it’s true the title is retroactively applied to some commentators who lived before rabbinical Judaism (Hillel, for example), it’s specifically because they left commentary, which is used as teaching material. We don’t even know if Yeshua ben Yosef uMiryam was literate. (Assuming he existed at all.)
I am Spartacus.
There was an old Punch cartoon of a group of crusaders, sitting on benches around a table in a tavern in the Levant, toasting the True Cross. One of the Saracen waiters starts to say (before his companion stops him) “The True Cross? The fool is sitting on…”
It’s extremely interesting (to me, at least) that we have no extant writings by someone who was supposed to be the most important historical figure in Christianity (discounting such obvious forgeries as his letter to the king of Armenia).
For what it’s worth, the Gospel of Luke cites him reading from Isaiah in the Synagogue (4:14 - 21).