Crucifixion in Rome

[Divus Filius]

Hello everyone. I've read Gunnar Samuelsson's book Crucifixion in Antiquity and trying to get my brain around John Granger Cook's Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World.  Samuelsson's work from 2010 was very well presented and he paints a sceptical picture whether crucifixion by the dictionary definition ever happened. Cook's tome from 2014 is very annoying to me: he presents in his introduction how he believes the Romans really crucified, then keeps referring to two-beam crosses, or to horizontal and vertical beams -- as though he still believes Romans nailed people to the dictionary definition of crosses: two-beamed lap-jointed constructions we are all so familiar with (because they're at the front end of each church).  He also thinks crucifixion goes back to Persia.

Any thoughts on the matter?

[Divus Filius]

Note to Admin: I realised that this is not a subject that's not congruent with Roman religion. If you please, could you scoot this over to the Imperium Romanum subforum? Thanks!

[Viggen]

12 hours ago, Divus Filius said:

Note to Admin: I realised that this is not a subject that's not congruent with Roman religion. If you please, could you scoot this over to the Imperium Romanum subforum? Thanks!

done!

[caldrail]

Evidence of crucifixions has been found in Israel. One skeletal foot still had the remains of a hefty iron nail embedded in it, and it appears that these nails were recycled after death of the unfortunate victim. In this case, a knot in the wood seems to have deflected the point of the nail such that the nail could not be removed, so they buried the victim with the nail still attached. Further, the traditional crossbeam was only viable in areas with plentiful lumber. In ancient Judaea there seems to have been rather less wood to be had, so the victim was nailed to a more lightly constructed 'X' frame closer to the ground - which probably would have been the correct form of crucifixion for jesus, thus the story of carrying the cross to the execution site has somewhat disappointing ramifcations.

[Divus Filius]

Yes, like wearing a patibulum (transom), dragging an 'X' to the 'job' site is so much less glamorous than dragging a whole Latin Cross (tropaeum).  The transom itself was much lighter in section i.e. flimsier than the main pole of the stouter device.  And when the stouter suspension device--which was more akin to the US-style telephone/power pole than a Cross--was used, the condemned never dragged whole assemblies there anyway!  Another Gospel myth exploded, utterly. 

[caldrail]

However, it is very important to underline that my information is based on a single archeological find now in a Jerusalem museum. Whilst it conforms with the known tree/timber availability in ancient Judaea and accounts of crucifixions in the sources, it is drawing conclusions from one find, and that can never be certain.

[CrucifixionGuy]

See the related review:

https://www.academia.edu/30597716/Review_of_Cook_Crucifixion_in_the_Mediterranean_World_in_ThLZ_141_2016_4

[indianasmith]

Artistic interpretations to the contrary, it seems most likely that Jesus simply would have carried the crossbeam to Golgotha rather than the whole cross.  I doubt a man who had been used as savagely as he had up to that point would have been capable of lifting/dragging the upright AND the crossbeam.  I do think it likely that the Romans re-used the crosses as often as they could, given the relative paucity of lumber (although my trip to Israel showed me that the land is much more "green" than the traditional movie depictions!).

[caldrail]

Of course the suffering of Jesus is accentuated in biblical tales to induce a measure of human sympathy. Nonetheless, he was sentenced as a criminal, rightly or wrongly, and the idea that he 'died for our sins' is merely a Christian attempt to cover the judicial aspects with religious significance that was unlikely in the event to say the least. Jesus had pretty much doomed himself by becoming a popular preacher - authorities in the ancient world and particularly the hotbed of the middle east did not like popular preachers because they represented a potential threat to civil order. After all, Jesus was supposed to have been claiming his royal credentials, which would have been a damning statement of intent to rebel in Roman minds.