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 priest’s palace where he was falsely accused of blasphemy, spit on, and beaten. He was then taken to Pilate, and here was Pilate’s 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 ¼ 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?

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #8]

When one reads the encyclopedias on Christmas, they find plenty of additives straight off the table of demons were added to it- Thus in Gods view and Jesus' view=100% unacceptable-1Cor 10:21
Jesus started a new religion= his Fathers will( Matt 7:21)--One MUST be taught by these( Matt 24:45) or they remain in darkness and do NOT know Jesus.

I never read the encyclopedia on Christmas but am aware of its origin. I have never thought of Christmas as something evil but as the setting aside of one day in the year, be it in January, March, June etc. to remind the pagan world that there is "Christ" who is our King and High Priest. I don't celebrate Christmas anymore, but not for the reasons you state above.

We remind people about Jesus EVERY DAY of the year. Not just one day.

Yes, but Jehovah's Witnesses remind people of Jehovah every day, not Jesus. Islamists remind people of Allah and Mohammad every day, not Jesus. Mormons, who knows what they remind people of every day. I sat at a table with six Jehovah's Witnesses every day, their prayer began with Jehovah, and when they finished, they (casually) ended with, "in the name of your son Jesus." Almost like a passing thought.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #8]

When one reads the encyclopedias on Christmas, they find plenty of additives straight off the table of demons were added to it- Thus in Gods view and Jesus' view=100% unacceptable-1Cor 10:21
Jesus started a new religion= his Fathers will( Matt 7:21)--One MUST be taught by these( Matt 24:45) or they remain in darkness and do NOT know Jesus.

I never read the encyclopedia on Christmas but am aware of its origin. I have never thought of Christmas as something evil but as the setting aside of one day in the year, be it in January, March, June etc. to remind the pagan world that there is "Christ" who is our King and High Priest. I don't celebrate Christmas anymore, but not for the reasons you state above.

We remind people about Jesus EVERY DAY of the year. Not just one day. We take to people's homes the message of our King, Jesus, and we are doing it in over 200 lands, even where it is banned.

So do millions of others, Baptists, Independents, Methodists, Catholics, the Church of Christ, Lutherans, etc. etc. Most of us who do work at spreading the word are not looking for a pat on the back, neither are we looking for others to join an organization and then pin a nametag (I belong to---) on their shirt of blouse.

Do all those religions go to people's doors specifically to tell them about Jesus? If so, do they do it every day? JWs literally speak about Jesus throughout the world every day. We don't look for a pat on the back from people. Jesus said that we would be hated by all men. He sends us out as lambs among wolves. We don't speak to people about joining our organization unless they are interested. We don't wear name tags except on convention days. You've got us confused with Mormons, unfortunately.

I do, here on this forum, on my website, and in my conversations. And millions and millions of others do the same. Who do you think evangelized America? who do you think established hospitals, and schools? Christians brought the Bible and Christianity to America, Canada, and South America. Not Witnesses, Mormons, but those who taught from the Bishop's Bible or the King James.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #8]

When one reads the encyclopedias on Christmas, they find plenty of additives straight off the table of demons were added to it- Thus in Gods view and Jesus' view=100% unacceptable-1Cor 10:21
Jesus started a new religion= his Fathers will( Matt 7:21)--One MUST be taught by these( Matt 24:45) or they remain in darkness and do NOT know Jesus.

I never read the encyclopedia on Christmas but am aware of its origin. I have never thought of Christmas as something evil but as the setting aside of one day in the year, be it in January, March, June etc. to remind the pagan world that there is "Christ" who is our King and High Priest. I don't celebrate Christmas anymore, but not for the reasons you state above.

We remind people about Jesus EVERY DAY of the year. Not just one day.

Yes, but Jehovah's Witnesses remind people of Jehovah every day, not Jesus. Islamists remind people of Allah and Mohammad every day, not Jesus. Mormons, who knows what they remind people of every day. I sat at a table with six Jehovah's Witnesses every day, their prayer began with Jehovah, and when they finished, they (casually) ended with, "in the name of your son Jesus." Almost like a passing thought.

We remind people of JESUS every day. It is his Kingdom that will bring true peace and security to this world. We are doing what he did---preaching about that Kingdom, of which he is the King. (Luke 4:43; Luke 8:1; Matthew 24:14)

You accuse your JW relatives of using Jesus' name "almost as a passing thought." How can you say what is in their minds and hearts? Closing a prayer with Jesus' name is not an afterthought.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #8]

When one reads the encyclopedias on Christmas, they find plenty of additives straight off the table of demons were added to it- Thus in Gods view and Jesus' view=100% unacceptable-1Cor 10:21
Jesus started a new religion= his Fathers will( Matt 7:21)--One MUST be taught by these( Matt 24:45) or they remain in darkness and do NOT know Jesus.

I never read the encyclopedia on Christmas but am aware of its origin. I have never thought of Christmas as something evil but as the setting aside of one day in the year, be it in January, March, June etc. to remind the pagan world that there is "Christ" who is our King and High Priest. I don't celebrate Christmas anymore, but not for the reasons you state above.

We remind people about Jesus EVERY DAY of the year. Not just one day.

Yes, but Jehovah's Witnesses remind people of Jehovah every day, not Jesus. Islamists remind people of Allah and Mohammad every day, not Jesus. Mormons, who knows what they remind people of every day. I sat at a table with six Jehovah's Witnesses every day, their prayer began with Jehovah, and when they finished, they (casually) ended with, "in the name of your son Jesus." Almost like a passing thought.

We remind people of JESUS every day. It is his Kingdom that will bring true peace and security to this world. We are doing what he did---preaching about that Kingdom, of which he is the King. (Luke 4:43; Luke 8:1; Matthew 24:14)

You accuse your JW relatives of using Jesus' name "almost as a passing thought." How can you say what is in their minds and hearts? Closing a prayer with Jesus' name is not an afterthought.

I've had a thousand conversations with them. Their thoughts of Jesus are no more than those of a high-ranking angel, say an Archangel like Michael. Oh, I forgot, Witnesses believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

[historia]

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)

"Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus' sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers." ---The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda.

I'm happy to support that with historical evidence. But you asked specifically for:

QUESTION #2. Can you provide peer reviewed published documentation in supoort of your response to question #1?

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.)

Brown earned two doctoral degrees and was a prolific biblical scholar and professor at Union Theological Seminary.

By comparison, the two 19th Century authors you've quoted above do not appear to have a single doctoral degree among them, and held no university positions. Parsons, in particular, had some very strange ideas about Christianity being based on ancient astrology that I think you would (rightly) find highly dubious. These are not reliable sources we should be consulting when undertaking a serious historical inquiry.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Emphasis MINE

So, the above are according to you "true" statements? ( what and how much we can deduce from these "true" statements is a matter or debate, but my question was which statements inaccurate, as in untrue)

[JehovahsWitness]

. And, per your request, I've highlighted in red the parts that are inaccurate.

Okay, fair enough....

I'm happy to support that with historical evidence.

And I'd be happy to read it.

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, in support of what amounts to quite a a catagoric parenthetical statement (above in blue).

[servant1]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #3]

There is 0 proof Jesus died on a cross. Just the translated word Stauros- an upright pole or stake.
Science says a cross would have been much to heavy for 1 man to carry along. over 400 lbs.

[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)

"Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus' sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers." ---The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda.

I'm happy to support that with historical evidence. But you asked specifically for:

QUESTION #2. Can you provide peer reviewed published documentation in supoort of your response to question #1?

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.)

Brown earned two doctoral degrees and was a prolific biblical scholar and professor at Union Theological Seminary.

By comparison, the two 19th Century authors you've quoted above do not appear to have a single doctoral degree among them, and held no university positions. Parsons, in particular, had some very strange ideas about Christianity being based on ancient astrology that I think you would (rightly) find highly dubious. These are not reliable sources we should be consulting when undertaking a serious historical inquiry.

I'm just curious. Where do you get the idea that Jesus carried his "cross-beam" to his execution? Does it say that in the Scriptures? Or is it Brown's own opinion?

[placebofactor]

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!