The Roman Crucifixion

[placebofactor]

The Crucifixion:
I wrote the following some 25 years ago. I do not recall the name of the doctor who did the research concerning the human body when put through the torture of crucifixion. But I remember how it moved me. We read casually about the punishment and crucifixion, not fully getting the impact and degree of suffering.

The Persians between 539 B.C. and 335 B.C. were the inventors of the Crucifixion. They tied their victims to a single stake and left them there to die a slow and agonizing death. Eventually, around 100 B.C., the Romans picked up on this form of torture and death, then brought it to a new level of pain and eventual death. The word excruciating did not exist until Christ was crucified. Excruciating interpreted means, "Pain out of the cross."

Jesus' suffering began in earnest at Gethsemane. It was the day before the Jewish Passover, in early April of 31 A.D. Luke 22:44, "And being in agony he (Jesus) prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood." because blood may have been mixed with his sweat, he would have been under great physiological stress.

He was then blindfolded and then taken to the high priests palace where he was falsely accused of blasphemy, spit on, and beaten. He was then taken to Pilate, and here was Pilates offer to the people.
Matthew 27:17, "Who will you that I release unto you? Barabbas or Jesus which is called Christ? And the crowd answered "Barabbas." They also cried out, "Let his blood be on us, and on our children."

Barabbas means "son of the Father." The people called for the "son of God, so they called for Barabbas. The Roman soldiers mocked him, stripped him, put a scarlet robe on him, then made a crown of thorns and placed it on his head. The thorns that grow in that area are two inches in length. The soldiers would have pressed the thorns down on his head cutting deeply into the flesh. They then bowed down mocking him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

Isaiah gives further details concerning Jesus' punishment. Isaiah 53:3, He was despised, rejected," --- Verse 4, "Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten"--- wounded, bruised, and "with his stripes" we are healed."

The Roman whip consists of three braided pieces of rawhide, attached to a round wooden handle, the last 12 inches were not braided. At the ends of the three lashes were tied pieces of sheep bone and iron lead balls. The iron balls would cause deep contusions in the skin tissue, and the bone would cause deep lacerations in the skin, tendons, and muscles under the skin.

The victim was tied to a post, and the Roman soldier doing the lashing would whip the upper back and work their way down the legs. He would move to the other side and repeat his work. When finished, there would be deep cuts and trauma to the back and legs. The blood loss would be significant, causing a significant drop in his blood pressure. Normally 39 lashes were required by law, but the Romans were not obligated to Jewish law, and depending on their mood no count was necessary.

The crossbeam Jesus carried is estimated to weigh 75 to 100 lbs. When they arrived where the sentence was to be carried out, the crossbeam was nailed to the vertical beam that lay on the ground. He was then laid down on top of the vertical beam his arms in a horizontal position before being nailed to it. The nails used were about 6" long and inch square. They were driven into the wrist just below the carpal bones, considered part of the hand back then. The nails crushed the median nerve and carpal tunnel causing a great deal of excruciating pain. Then the feet were nailed down into the vertical beam. But before they were nailed down, the knees would have to be bent to bring the feet down flat on the beam. The driven nail would crush the medial plantar nerve causing great pain throughout his body.

When finished, the vertical beam was lifted and set in place. When this happened, the weight of Jesus' body would be pulled downward, placing a great deal of pressure on the elbow and shoulder joints, as well as the nails in his feet being driven up into the bones of the feet. It is estimated that the load on his elbow and shoulder joints was between 150 to 200 lbs. on each arm. This would cause the bones of his joints to separate, lengthening his arms six inches. What prevented the arms from tearing off were the tendons and muscles.

In this position, breathing out was much more difficult than breathing in. To exhale, the Lord had to push down on the nails holding his feet to the beam to raise himself. Each time he would make this move, the open flesh on his back would rub up and down on the beam.

Eventually, in his condition, the blood became filled with carbon dioxide causing him to suffocate. Also, from the loss of blood, he would become very thirsty as his tongue would cleave to the roof of his mouth. Due to the loss of blood, he would go into bulimic shock and eventually die of heart failure.

The Roman guard then plunged a spear into the right side of his heart causing blood and water to come out through the wound, proving that he was dead. If he had been alive, they would have broken both of his legs.
So, the next time you look at, or speak of the man hanging from the cross, understand fully what he suffered for every one of us. Also, have you ever considered how the Lord feels when we fail him in words, deeds, motives, and love?

[onewithhim]

QUESTION #1. Which of the specific published quoted references above are inaccurate?

Perhaps I can lend a hand here.

First, let's start with the quotations that are, from my point of view, not innacurate:

The bible uses the word "Xylon" which simply means "timber, and by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance --The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Strong.

"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors ware nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." - --Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

"Even amoungst the Romans the crux {Latin from which our cross is derived} appears to originally been an upright pole". -- The Imperial Bible-Dictionary

While this is true, as far as it goes, it also doesn't tell us much.

Words often have an original meaning that changes over time as language evolves. And practices evolve over time, as well, as cultures and situations change. The ancient practice of affixing someone to a pole or tree (crucifixion) itself likely evolved from the earlier practice of impaling.

So the fact that these words originally referred to either timber generally or a single upright pole does not entail the further conclusion they always meant that. That's a common word study fallacy. In fact, we know that by the 1st Century AD, the Romans were crucifying people on wooden instruments of various shapes, including those with crossbeams. People at the time also referred to these as a crux or, in Greek, a stauros.

If the argument here, instead, is that xylon, stauros, or crux could refer to either a single upright stake or a pole with a crossbeam, then that point is certainly well taken. But, again, that doesn't tell us much, as it just restates the question under consideration.

Now, these next quotations are far more problematic. And, per your request, I've highlighted in red the parts that are inaccurate.

"There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . ." --The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896)

The Romans did not have lumber yards to make 4x4 or 6x6es. They were tree trunks; they were heavy, and the vertical post was at least 10 feet in length. Go in your backyard and try lifting a 10-foot log. When I was in the Marines, it took four of us to lift one 15-foot log. The Jews were small in stature, one man could never carry the weight of both the horizontal and vertical post. Come on, Think!

Jesus was very strong. He was perfect, as well as exercising regularly and previously working as a home builder, etc. He could have handled a stauros, a single pole, dragging it along, but since he had been beaten within an inch of his life and he hadn't slept in many hours, he weakened and had to have help.

[historia]

Consider Raymond Brown's magisterial two-volume work on the crucifixion, The Death of the Messiah (1994).

On pages 947-49 he treats the question "On What Type of Cross was Jesus Crucified?" Speaking of Roman crucifixion in the first century, he notes:

Occasionally just an upright stake was used, and the condemned's hands were raised vertically and nailed extended above his head. (This is not what happened in Jesus' case, since he carried a cross[beam] to the place of execution.)

I would be interested in the actual evidence Mr Brown presented

I'm just curious. Where do you get the idea that Jesus carried his "cross-beam" to his execution?

Okay, let's get into the details here.

First, a note on methodology: What we are trying to do in any historical analysis is to determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence in light of our background knowledge.

That last part -- our background knowledge -- is where we have to start. We have to first determine what was common or typical in a given time and place before we look at the evidence for the specific event in question.

Historical accounts are sometimes ambiguous, so, unless the evidence clearly shows that what happened was out of the ordinary, we would have to say that what was common or typical best explains the evidence. It is, in that way, our default explanation.

Second, the Latin language had precise terms to describe the various elements of Roman crucifixion.

(Greek, on the other hand, did not -- more on that later.)

In particular, in Latin, there were separate terms to describe the vertical beam (crux) and the horizontal crossbeam (patibulum) that were often used in Roman crucifixion.

Those terms were also used to describe the resulting "cross" that the two beams would form when put together -- which by itself shows how common the "cross" shape was in Roman crucifixion. But it's usually clear, in context, whether the author is referring to just the vertical beam (crux), just the horizontal crossbeam (patibulum), or both together.

Third, we have a number of sources that tell us about this practice that was sometimes used in Roman crucifixion where the person condemned to die was first tied to a wooden beam and then usually whipped or scourged before being forced to carry that beam through the streets of the city to their eventual crucifixion site.

Here are some examples of that with the original Latin text and an English translation. I've also noted the date of the text to show this was common well before the first century AD, so not just typical of later Roman crucifixion practices.

Titus Maccius Plautus, Mostellari, 55-57 (c. 225185 BC):

O butcher's sieve, which I believe it will become, they will pierce you through and through as you carry the crossbeam through the streets, with goads from the executioners, if the old man returns here.

O carnuficium cribrum, quod credo fore, ita te forabunt patibulatum per vias, stimulis carnufices, si huc reveniat senex.

Titus Maccius Plautus, Carbonaria fr. 2 (c. 225185 BC):

Let him carry the crossbeam through the city, then let him be affixed to the vertical beam.

Patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde adfigatur cruci.

Lex Puteolana II.8-10 (c. 27 BC to 14 AD)

Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male or female slave at private expense, as he [the owner] who wants it to be inflicted, he [the contractor] exacts the punishment in this manner: if he wants him to lead the crossbeam to the vertical beam, the contractor will have to provide wooden posts, chains, and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the crossbeam and for the floggers and also for the executioner.

Qui supplicium de seruo seruaue priuatim sumere uolet uti is qui sumi uolet, ita supplicium sumet; si in crucem | patibulus agere uolet redemptor asseres uincula restes uerberatoribus et uerberatores praebere debeto, et | quisquis supplicium sumet pro operis singulis quae patibulum ferunt uerberatoribusque item carnifice HS IIII dare debeto

Clodius Licinus, Libri rerum Romanarum 21 (c. 50-70 AD), quoted by Nonius in De compendiosa doctrina:

One fastens to crossbeams. People are fastened and led around and then are nailed to a vertical beam.

deligat ad patibulos. deligantur et circumferuntur, cruci defiguntur.

Notice that in all of these examples, the author explicitly tells us that what the condemned person carried to the site of their crucifixion was the patibulum, the horizontal crossbeam. When they get to the crucifixion site, the crux, the vertical beam, is already there.

As several scholars point out, there are no classical Latin sources that say condemned individuals carried a crux, or vertical beam, to their crucifixion.

Fourth, material science seems to indicate it would be unlikely one person could carry the vertical beam for any significant distance.

placebofactor and servant1 have already addressed this point above:

The Romans did not have lumber yards to make 4x4 or 6x6es. They were tree trunks; they were heavy, and the vertical post was at least 10 feet in length. Go in your backyard and try lifting a 10-foot log.

Science says a cross would have been much to heavy for 1 man to carry along. over 400 lbs.

Now, I don't know exactly how tall or exactly how heavy the vertical beam typically was, but these seem like reasonable estimates to me.

(servant1 is, of course, talking here about a "cross," but doesn't seem to realize that the vast majority of the weight in a "cross" is in the vertical beam, not the horizontal crossbeam, so this is as much an argument against the plausibility of carrying a vertical beam as a "cross.")

The vertical beam would have to be not only taller than the individual being crucified, in most cases with their arms stretched above them -- otherwise their feet would touch the ground -- but several feet taller than that, since part of the goal of crucifixion was to raise the person up off the ground for display. But it has to be even taller than that, since the vertical pole was likely sunk into a hole in the ground so it could stand upright on its own. If the average adult male at that time was 5 feet tall, 10 feet for the vertical beam seems entirely reasonable.

The vertical beam would also have to be sturdy enough to hold the weight of an individual, usually for several days. And these poles were most likely reused for many crucifixions. We're talking here about a heavy piece of timber -- probably a roughly hewn tree trunk, as placebofactor suggested.

The crossbeam, by comparison, is much shorter: probably only three or four feet long. That is also a rather heavy piece of wood, and difficult to carry if you had not eaten for days or had been heavily scourged before being forced to carry it. But it is much more plausible that one could carry a beam of that size through the streets.

This is, as we saw above, also what the historical sources say people carried to a crucifixion site. So that all makes perfect sense.

Fifth, if someone was carrying a crossbeam to their crucifixion, then they were most likely crucified on a "cross," not just a vertical beam.

The whole point of carrying the crossbeam to the place of crucifixion is to use it as part of the crucifixion. The condemned individual would have their hands tied or nailed to the crossbeam, before being placed or hoisted onto the vertical beam, to which their feet would then be nailed or bound.

Conclusion:

Given our background knowledge, if we come across a first century account of someone being scourged and forced to carry a beam of wood as part of a Roman crucifixion -- regardless of who that is -- we would have to say, a priori, that what is likely being described in that account is that the person was carrying a crossbeam, since that is by all accounts what was common or typical, and so that person was likely crucified on a "cross."

When we look at the actual accounts of this event -- we'll look at the gospels and other early Christian sources next -- we may find that they tell us something different. But, unless those accounts clearly show that what happened in that specific crucifixion was out of the ordinary, we would have to say that what was common or typical best explains the evidence.

Agreed?

[servant1]

[Replying to historia in post #32]


There is 0 proof he was killed on a cross. Only a Greek word-Stauros which has various meanings.
And why would Jesus who represents a God who is love, have a pagan torture death device fronting his religion of Love?
Many false religions have a form of a cross fronting their religions.

[JehovahsWitness]

So if I understand your points correctly

1. Roman latin writers were likely to have specified if they were talking about a cross beam => but we are not speaking about Roman latin writers but judeo-christian Greek writers

**Further if Jesus execution did NOT involve a cross beam, then the fact that Romans always used the word "crossbeam" to describe "crossbeam" executions is irrelevant. The only relevant argument is if you are claiming this vertical execution did not exist at the time. Is that what you are suggesting?

** It seems to me from the text (Licinus ) that the cross beam was used for scourging and exhibition but the victim was nailed to a vertical beam for execution but perhaps I misunderstood that quote .

** Judeo-christisn Greek writers did not choose to transliteration the word "crossbar" which they were surely familiar with from the latin or explain, (Mark style) a foreign word for anaccurate descrption. The ABSENCE of any indication in their writings of the notion of "crossbeam" even though it surely was at their disposal surely indicates they were not trying describe a crossbeam execution.


2. The gospel accounts do indicate the beam proved too heavy for Christ and assistance was needed. For more details I would have to see methodology (ie how heavy would the beam be and what distance is considered "significant". In any case since upright executions existed (and I doubt they were done in the city centers) SOMEBODY must have physically transported the beams to the execution sites so it was obviously possible.

( I'd need historical verification of a 10ft pole, do you have any? In fact the second half of your post seem somewhat lacking in historical evidence and heavily reliant on speculation).


There is nothing that renders the carrying of an execution stake physically or historical impossible. The gospel writers were describing in Greek an execution in the Judean religious capital , instigated by their religious leaders (see Deut 21:23; Ga 3:13; ). Had they wanted to indicate that a crossbeam execution had taken place it seems reasonable they would have used the appropriate language or indicated that to be the case.


CONCLUSION The words in the text do not indicate anything other than a single execution beam. The gospel writers did not leave us in a void they used a greek word that left their readership with no doubts what they were referring to. To disregard what they wrote in favor of what they could have written seems at the very flawed approach.

[onewithhim]

So if I understand your points correctly

1. Roman latin writers were likely to have specified if they were talking about a cross beam => but we are not speaking about Roman latin writers but judeo-christian Greek writers

**Further if Jesus execution did NOT involve a cross beam, then the fact that Romans always used the word "crossbeam" to describe "crossbeam" executions is irrelevant. The only relevant argument is if you are claiming this vertical execution did not exist at the time. Is that what you are suggesting?

** It seems to me from the text (Licinus ) that the cross beam was used for scourging and exhibition but the victim was nailed to a vertical beam for execution but perhaps I misunderstood that quote .

** Judeo-christisn Greek writers did not choose to transliteration the word "crossbar" which they were surely familiar with from the latin or explain, (Mark style) a foreign word for anaccurate descrption. The ABSENCE of any indication in their writings of the notion of "crossbeam" even though it surely was at their disposal surely indicates they were not trying describe a crossbeam execution.


2. The gospel accounts do indicate the beam proved too heavy for Christ and assistance was needed. For more details I would have to see methodology (ie how heavy would the beam be and what distance is considered "significant". In any case since upright executions existed (and I doubt they were done in the city centers) SOMEBODY must have physically transported the beams to the execution sites so it was obviously possible.

( I'd need historical verification of a 10ft pole, do you have any? In fact the second half of your post seem somewhat lacking in historical evidence and heavily reliant on speculation).


There is nothing that renders the carrying of an execution stake physically or historical impossible. The gospel writers were describing in Greek an execution in the Judean religious capital , instigated by their religious leaders (see Deut 21:23; Ga 3:13; ). Had they wanted to indicate that a crossbeam execution had taken place it seems reasonable they would have used the appropriate language or indicated that to be the case.


CONCLUSION The words in the text do not indicate anything other than a single execution beam. The gospel writers did not leave us in a void they used a greek word that left their readership with no doubts what they were referring to. To disregard what they wrote in favor of what they could have written seems at the very most a flawed approach.

[historia]

So if I understand your points correctly

1. Roman latin writers were likely to have specified if they were talking about a cross beam => but we are not speaking about Roman latin writers but judeo-christian Greek writers

**Further if Jesus execution did NOT involve a cross beam, then the fact that Romans always used the word "crossbeam" to describe "crossbeam" executions is irrelevant. The only relevant argument is if you are claiming this vertical execution did not exist at the time. Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm afraid you missed my point.

What I'm trying to do at this initial stage in our discussion is establish what was common or typical in Roman crucifixion. In particular, if we come across a first century account of a person being scourged and forced to carry a wooden beam through the streets to their crucifixion site, what most likely was that beam of wood? Is it a crossbeam or the vertical beam in the crucifixion?

The reason why I focused on Latin sources is because, in Latin unlike Greek, there were separate terms for the crossbeam (patibulum) and the vertical beam (crux), so it is much clearer in the Latin sources what was being carried. In every example the condemned person is carrying a crossbeam. There are no instances where the person is carrying the vertical beam of the crucifixion.

So we would have to say that carrying the crossbeam was the common or typical practice. Agreed?

(Again, we'll come back to the early Christian sources, and the rest of your rebuttal, momentarily. I'm just trying to establish what is common or typical, as that will form our working assumption, or default hypothesis, in our analysis.)

[JehovahsWitness]

. I'm just trying to establish what is common or typical, as that will form our working assumption, or default hypothesis, in our analysis.)

I don't see the point of establishing commonality when the text in question makes explicit statements of fact. Even if a crossbeam was "common"* all that would establish is that Jesus execution as stated by the bible writers, was uncommon, which I would have no problem with. Indeed even if it were unique a one-off and unheard of execution in the history of mankind, all I would need is to be confident of what the bible writers meant based on the word choices they made.

* I have to question how commonality is established with 4 texts , only two of which relate to the period in question but I would be interested in a comparative study of all the available texts from the relevant period, not that it would change what I just stated above, but it would be an interesting read

[historia]

I have to question how commonality is established with 4 texts , only two of which relate to the period in question but I would be interested in a comparative study of all the available texts from the relevant period, not that it would change what I just stated above, but it would be an interesting read

You're welcome to do your own research, of course. But since scholars assure us there are no classical Latin texts that say the condemned person carried the crux, or vertical beam, to their execution site, that simply cannot be the common practice, otherwise we would see it mentioned at least once. We have several sources that say the condemned person carried the patibulum, or crossbeam, to the crucifixion site, so this clearly was the common practice.

I'm just trying to establish what is common or typical, as that will form our working assumption, or default hypothesis, in our analysis.)

I don't see the point of establishing commonality when the text in question makes explicit statements of fact.

As I mentioned above, the point of establishing what was common or typical is critical to any historical analysis because, unless the sources we are investigating clearly describe the event as being uncommon, we would have to say that the common or typical practice best explains the evidence. Even if the sources are just ambiguous, so they could be interpreted either way, we have to say what was common or typical best explains the evidence, since that is a priori more likely.

Agreed?

[JehovahsWitness]

. ....since scholars assure us there are no classical Latin texts that say the condemned person carried the crux, or vertical beam, to their execution site, that simply cannot be the common practice

Well then Jesus carrying the execution beam was uncommon, as I said that's not particularly significant from a biblical point of view.

. ... the point of establishing what was common or typical is critical to any historical analysis ...

Maybe, but I'm not interested in a "historical analysis" but a biblical one. Granted that might not stand independent of common usage of language but it is the internal evidence which is ultimately decisive.

.,. unless the sources we are investigating clearly describe the event as being uncommon, we would have to say that the common or typical practice best explains the evidence. ...

The bible text doesn't have to say explicitly "this was uncommon" since commonality is rarely relevant to the biblical narrative. If an action is established as historically uncommon (but not impossible) , that just adds to the background information. The best explanation remains the words chosen themselves within the context of the scriptures as a whole. And any perceived ambiguity, is settled by any relevant scripture from any era by any bible writer in any language.

I'm not trying to be awkward or ignorant its just a different approach, one which favors internal harmony over all other considrations.

.,. . Even if the sources are just ambiguous, so they could be interpreted either way, we have to say what was common or typical best explains the evidence, since that is a priori more likely.

Agreed?

No. See above.

[historia]

I'm not interested in a "historical analysis" but a biblical one.

What would you call post #2, if not an historical analysis?

We've touched on this general point in previous discussions. And, trust me, I understand where you're coming from. But I just don't think you can have a "biblical" analysis without any historical analysis. A "biblical" analysis that completely ignores the historical context in which the biblical authors wrote feels divorced from reality, to me.

The bible text doesn't have to say explicitly "this was uncommon"

Of course. What I mean is that, if the details in the text reveal that the event being described was uncommon, then that certainly trumps our background knowledge. It's only in the case where the text is ambiguous that we would naturally assume that what was common or typical is what mostly likely happened.

The best explanation remains the words chosen themselves within the context of the scriptures as a whole.

But words often have multiple meanings, depending on the historical context in which they are used. The Greek term stauros, for example, could refer to either the vertical beam, the horizontal crossbeam, or a "T" or "X" shaped "cross" in crucifixion.

So, when the gospels say that Jesus, after being scourged, carried his stauros to the place of his crucifixion, how do we know which beam he's carrying, since stauros (just by itself) could refer to any of them? Surely, the fact that this beam was -- according to all of our sources -- typically a crossbeam has to be brought to bear on this question. How could it not?

Judeo-christisn Greek writers did not choose to transliteration the word "crossbar" which they were surely familiar with from the latin or explain, (Mark style) a foreign word for anaccurate descrption. The ABSENCE of any indication in their writings of the notion of "crossbeam" even though it surely was at their disposal surely indicates they were not trying describe a crossbeam execution.

This I think is simply mistaken. There are a number of ancient Greek authors who explicitly talk about the crossbar in Roman crucifixion. They call the crossbar a stauros or xylon.

Early Christian authors weren't "transliterating" from Latin, they were just describing Jesus' crucifixion in their own language, Greek. And, in Greek, you would simply call the crossbar a stauros or xylon, which is, of course, what we see in the New Testament.