A quick question on this Bible quote - what’s the significance of water? I’ve read that apparently the most likely explanation is pleural effusion and mistaking serous fluid or lymph as water. Is this likely?
Saying the Council of Nicea 'pretty much launched Christianity" is laughable. It was very well established in many parts of the empire by that point, and had already had a number of councils.
Furthermore, all of the scriptures in the modern canon were composed two to two and a half centuries before Nicea, so by then it was far, far too late too late for scripture to be the result of a retroactive re-imagining of Jesus’ message.
Haven’t you all ever heard of souvenirs? In many parts of history after an event happened there were always people ready to jump in and grab what they felt was important.
Jesus was an significant person of his era. He would be unique among others crucified because he was not a rebel in the literal sense. He had affected the lives of many including some Romans after all, he did heal people including making the blind see and even raising the dead. In the bible it says the Roman soldiers gambled for Jesus’s clothes. The bible also mentions a storm and earthquake occurring right when Jesus died.
So I have no doubt some persons would have gathered “souvenirs” which might well have been the cross.
That’s the same explanation that I heard for the medical significance.
The religious significance is blood = the Eucharist and water = baptism.
Regards,
Shodan
The Romans weren’t Jewish and would not care about keeping kosher.
And I also can’t imagine that they gave much of a darn if some Jewish criminal complained that the cross he was about to be crucified on wasn’t fresh or ritually pure.
The Roman soldiers gambled for Jesus’ robe, which was of one piece, not several pieces sewn together. They didn’t want to rip it, because that would ruin it. This implies they wanted the cloth as much as anything, to pull the garments to pieces and have somebody re-sew them into new clothing. (See also Matthew 9:16.) Cloth was expensive before the development of automated looms. If they are eager to recycle the blood-stained clothing of the latest victim, I doubt they would throw away a perfectly good piece of wood.
Regards,
Shodan
See my earlier remark.
Things connected with death would be considered tainted, impure, unclean, whatever. I don’t think a cross or its wood would be used ever for anything else than more crucifixion.
And at the Eucharist, the wine is mixed with water, symbolizing that event on the cross, the idea that Christ probably diluted the wine with water at the Last Supper, and the idea of Christ (wine) and His people (water).
I’m saying a couple of different things and you muddled them together. Nicea was clearly a major foundation of modern Christian orthodoxy, I don’t think anyone disputes that, nor that other forms of Christianity certainly existed much earlier. The real point I’m making is that the synoptic gospels and the Q source were in fact even less factual than just revisionist history, they weren’t history at all. They were articles of faith orally passed on and eventually written down by true believers who in that time and culture wouldn’t have even understood what “history” was. They weren’t intended to record history, they were intended to reinforce belief. Serious and objective religious scholarship reveals not just astounding inconsistencies and contradictions between different parts of the Bible, but inconsistencies with what we know of the historical events and the life and times of the day. All of which was really just in support of my point that it appears from such studies that Jesus really existed and really was crucified, but was a very different man than the deity that he was later made out to be by his followers, though perhaps no less remarkable, and was prosecuted by the Romans as the political threat that he really was.
Then why did they re-use Jesus’ clothing? That was certainly associated with death.
Regards,
Shodan
The incident in question was the scene in which a mob of men is preparing to stone an adulteress to death (the famous, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” scene). My pastor humorously suggested that Jesus was perhaps writing the names of the men’s own mistresses 
Not true. Jesus was just another rabble rouser trying to topple the (corrupt, Herod-and-Roman-appointed) temple hierarchy that was an abomination to the zealously devout. He entered Jerusalem after wandering the countryside for years attracting ever-larger throngs following him and listening to his message. The fact that people from the established temple authorities were constantly testing him with trick questions (“render unto Caesar”, “Let him without sin…”) indicates he was making them nervous.
He entered Jerusalem to massive acclaim surrounded by adoring crowds, then proceeded to trash the stalls of the moneychangers and animal vendors who provided the temple income. During the confusion, he walked away unchallenged. He was definitely a threat to the established order.
By the way (according to Aslan in Zealot there were plenty of Messiahs around in those days. He named a half-dozen or more mentioned by Josephus in the decades of Jesus’ life. Before the term was co-opted by the church, it meant deliverer, specifically in that time an context delivery from Roman and pseudo-Jewish oppression of Herod. Most of the other messiahs were leaders of guerilla groups marauding the countryside in the decades.
As a result anyone who appeared to threaten the established order, seemed to be claiming to deliver the kingdom from the Romans and seemed to be claiming the title King of the Jews, was obviously eligible for crucifixion.
The other two executed with him - the Greek translation, as I recall, was something like “bandit”. This is what the Romans called any of those caught being part of the guerilla independence movement, since essentially that’s what they were - robbing rich households in the countryside to provide for their cause and their bands. (Very similar, for example, to what the IRA or several other independence movements degenerated to.)
Note that after the whole Jesus fiasco was over, the temple hierarchy tolerated a band of his apostles and disciples wandering a corner of the temple compound, accosting the locals on their annual visit to expound on the message that the Messiah had come and gone and was coming again Real Soon Now. Without their leader the troublemaker they were irrelevant.
That is the obvious inference. They ask “should she be stoned in accordance with the laws?” He writes something and says “Let him who is without sin…” The logical inference, he wrote the sins of the accusers, presumably almost as serious as her sin. I’m sure it’s not difficult to find something in the old testament they too had violated.
Or… this may be a Just So Story like the Magi or the loaves and the fishes.
As for the robe - Unless the robe was put back on after the whipping, it was likely carried along or something - minimal blood on it. You have to remember when things like that were made by hand, for anyone except the aristocracy even a decent-sized piece of cloth is something valuable. Wash it once and it’s useful. A quarter of a rough weave cloth is probably not as useful. As others point out, once you cut a woven cloth, it starts to unravel unless you have a needle and can sew a hem right away.
As for the OP’s question about the cross - if the apostles and Joseph were lucky, they could take the crossbeam with them. If not, it got recycled for further executions until it was only good for firewood.
@md2000: thank you, and +1 on an informative post consistent with the objective scholarship – I refer particularly to the first part.
I’m sorry, I meant to say that the Jews would not use the wood, as it was used in an execution, but the Romans might.
I expressed myself poorly.
I highly recommend the book by “Zealot” by Aslan. It’s a different take, and he glosses over a few key points, and I’m not sure I agree with everything he says. He’s a Muslim who became an evangelical Christian, then saw the error of his ways and is now back to being a Muslim. However, he is a scholar and expert who knows the material and gives a good account of the background of the time. For those who can put aside the concept “the bible is the gospel truth” he gives a very good account of what the context was and the likely progression of Jesus’ life. For example, would a day labourer have had the education to write Hebrew, or even Aramaic?
Many of the fantastical elements of the bible are later writer embellishments to “prove” the divinity of Jesus. Given the gospels were written or collected a lifetime or more after the fact, and their purpose was to persuade the followers of the truth of the then current orthodoxy, historical accuracy was less important. For example, the whole Magi story is obviously fiction; more likely, the whole Bethlehem bit is too; the gospel just had to get a Nazarean to be born in the city of David, so they made up the story.
For example - at the beginning of his ministry, someone says in amazement “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” Naming someone’s mother rather than father is a less than subtle dig in a patrilineal culture. This was likely an insult. Why? Was it well-known that he was considered an illegitimate in the circumstances - that Mary showed up preggo and had to get married in a hurry?
I kind of agree that a chunk of wood with blood all over it would likely be used only for more executions, until it was too worn or full of holes even for that -even by the Romans. Then it would only be good for firewood. If it was a traditional crosspiece like the medieval illustrations show, maybe afterwards a carpenter could shave off the top layer with the blood and make something else of it. However, it occurs to me, why would they use the often illustrated massive (and probably heavy) crossbeam when something the size of a 2x4 would do? and if they used something that small, why did it need to be finished, except where it fit into the post? It’s a disposable piece of wood, the less effort the better. It’s a lot of man-hours to fashion a smooth, square chunk of wood from a gnarly branch or a giant piece of imported Lebanese cedar. A convict wasn’t worth the expense.
Cite. Emphasis added.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting - also that they had a scarlet robe handy and didn’t mind getting it all bloody. I presume then, that in the days before sanitary cycle and permanent press cycle, some people would take any clothing they could get their hands on, then wash it (by hand) if it was in need of that.
Probably not some people - any people. Cloth was expensive, because it had to be woven by hand.
The clothes and possessions of the victims were the spoils of the crucifixion squad, which is why they divvied it up, but gambled for the one-piece robe. Plus, as horrifying as it sounds, they were bored waiting for the crucified to die, which usually took a while, and gambling was a way to pass the time. And Jesus’ robe, woven in one piece, was expensive, and made the game more interesting.
The whole incident of Jesus’ crucifixion gives an insight into the casual brutality of the times. Pilate says that Jesus hasn’t done anything wrong, but has Him whipped just for coming to the attention of the Romans. Then, when that doesn’t shut up the crowd, it’s ‘Fine, crucify him with the others - anything for a quiet life’. And then the soldiers sitting around playing games while three people groan their lives away a few feet away.
And then - “it’s getting late. Break their legs and let’s get this over with.”
shudder
Regards,
Shodan
My impression was that at the time of his death he wasn’t considered particularly important - after all, the authorities did not even bother to hunt down and kill his followers, who had as I understand mostly deserted him or denied they were his disciples, like Peter (other than his mom, her sister, Mary Magdelane, and one unnamed disciple, no-one from his following attended the crucifiction).
He was just another religious troublemaker, of which there were plenty at the time in Judea. Only after his death, with the spread of his following, was his significance established.
As for the Romans gambling for his clothes - it has often been the habit of executioners to appropriate the clothes and any other valuables owned by an executed man. The cross itself, though, was owned by the state, and disposing of that would be a more significant matter - wood was valuable, in large beams.
I think this is basically correct - Jesus wasn’t particularly important to the Romans. The Gospels talk about how Pontius Pilate examined Him and found “this man has done nothing worth of death”. It was important to the Jewish authorities that Jesus be killed - He was threatening to the business of the Temple, collecting the temple taxes, keeping the lucrative sacrifice business going, etc. But the Romans didn’t care much - there were lots of Messiahs around, and it appears that Pilate only crucified Jesus because there was a riot beginning from the people the Jewish authorities collected to pester Pilate into getting rid of someone they didn’t want around.
The Jewish authorities saw that Jesus was popular enough that they couldn’t just grab Jesus and kill Him. There was an earlier incident where Jesus was going to be stoned, but that was outside the capital where such an incident could either be ignored, or passed off as a local riot where someone got killed. It was only after Jesus showed up in Jerusalem that He came enough to official notice that they had to have a formal trial and get Him executed somehow.
Then later, when Christianity first began to spread, the Romans cared even less - it was clear at that point that it was a purely religious movement, and didn’t threaten their control of the country. So they ignored it until the later persecutions, when Christians refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods.
Regards,
Shodan