"Jesus did not die on the cross" (Gunnar Samuelsson) (page 5)

PSacramento

WHat I mean is, IF Jesus was nailed to a beam why not say it, use the word beam and nailed.

Then there is the logistics of nailing someone to a vertical beam, like I mentioned in the beginning of this thread.

Leolaia

Is there any reason to believe that Jesus did NOT get crucified on a cross? I mean, it was the typical way of the romans crucifing people wasn't it?

Well, I am half-anticipating Samuelsson to claim that the literary evidence is inconclusive, certainly WRT the generality of the use of crossbeams in crucifixion, and maybe he might even go so far as to claim that the evidence is inconclusive that crossbeams even existed at the time (which is what may be needed to sustain the definitive claim that "Jesus did not die on a cross", if that is Samuelsson's claim). I can see a number of ways the traditional consensus can be problematized, such as asserting that the term patibulum did not necessarily denote crossbeams and could refer more loosely to the crux itself, although this fails to account for the clear distinction between the patibulum and the crux (with the patibulum brought to the crux by the prisoner) found in Plautus, Clodius, and the Lex Puteoli inscription. From what was posted on the blog, it is clear that Samuelsson asserts that our knowledge of crucifixion is woefully incomplete and most of the references found in ancient sources are laconic. Certainly true. But I would disagree if he concludes that there is nothing we could say about the procedures of crucifixion, or that there are no grounds for making generalizations. If several ancient writers made generalized references to the form of the stauros as including a crossbeam (however it was arranged), then that would indeed indicate that this form at least was quite common.

PSacramento

Leo,

Yes I agree with your points, how could I not? ;)

I am not sure HOW incomplete our knowlege is of crucifixtions is, I mean, we KNOW the different ways that a person CAN be and which would be the better ways depending on what we wanted to do, not sure hoe much more one needs to know.

We can assume that the Romans, being the ingenious and engineering types that they were, would have figured these things out too.

Looking at it from the POV of a roman "crucifier" I must say that, nailing someone to a vertical stake to make them die a slow and painful death was probably harder than a "t" shaped cross, even more so if the condemed had to carry the monstrousity.

Of course if supply was scarce I can understand that, but even then.

Mary

I remembered a post I did a few years ago on this. Mine is nowhere near as good as the thread Leolaia did, but I offered evidence that from a medical point of view, the evidence is more compelling that Jesus would have died on a cross, not a single upright stake. Although you'll have to forgive the title. I should have called it "Evidence that Jesus died on a cross", not "proof":

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/120465/1/PROOF-JESUS-DIED-ON-A-CROSS

Leolaia

The multiple references to carrying or bringing of the patibulum to the crux suggests that the stake was not carried but remained a fixture of the execution site, with the condemned forced to bear the patibulum through the city (per urbem) to the execution site. This is also suggested by the fact that this practice is derivative of a much earlier practice of humiliating slaves by forcing them to carry a piece of wood through the city while being whipped (Dionysius of Harlicarnassus). Greek did not have a word like patibulum and so stauros was used to the refer to the crucifixion apparatus either in whole or in part. This is why I regard the references to stauros-bearing in the gospels as the most convincing evidence that the evangelists construed Jesus' crucifixion as involving a crossbeam. But there are still to many unknowns for me to regard the evidence as definitely conclusive.

PSacramento

Leo,

I see what you mean and it goes back to what I mentioned, one would be able to carry a smaller beam, but the vertical one would be way to heavy.

While I agree that it is not 100% conclusive and I don't think that Samuelsson even mentiosn this, but the impalment = nailed to a stake is out there in left field.

So I am curious to see WHAT He thinsk Jesus was nailed to.

Titus

Leolaia, interesting points. I will translate that in my language when I find some time....

However, what about Simon of Cyrene? He helped Jesus to bear - WHAT? CRUX or PATIBULUM?

moshe

we have evidence from the Gospels that NAILS were used to NAIL his HANDS

Evidently, anything written down in the Bible (no evidence needed), is considered to be a fact by many, when in reality it is nothing more than opinion. We might as well be arguing about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

PSacramento

Titus,

If Jesus was "just" carrying the cross beam, it probably still weighted a go 50 lbs or more, he would have need still needed help at some point.

Titus

And 50 lbs is how much kilograms?

OK, maybe he would have need help.

But, I am not curious about the technical issue (could he or could not bear that), but what the scriptures and context say.

"Jesus did not die on the cross" (Gunnar Samuelsson)

Share this