Bede

Crucifixion was the lowest form of death reserved as a public chastisement of slaves, rebels and the lower classes. Consequently, it was not an image that early Christians wanted to have in their worship. It was banned by Constantine who took the view that as Jesus died that way, it was too good for slaves (he preferred burning them). Once the cultural memory of the practice had faded it spread into iconography as it was no longer associated with the lower orders but with Jesus. Also, when it wasn't actually happening for real it was easier to stomach the images.

Magic is less squeamish. Right up until the nineteenth century, the hangman's rope and bits of execution victims were thought to have special properties that made them useful for magicians. Likewise, crucifixion nails were said to be powerful charms. Consequentkly, seeing a crucifixion image on a magical charm is not terribly surprising.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

joedad

Bede,

From my humble perspective your asserting a disconnect between magic and religion, especially in the case of Roman Catholicism, is just not there. My personal experience with Roman Catholicism seventeen or so centuries after Constantine was still filled with charms and incantations and "magical amulets" and relics, all used to achieve an end, to have some effect. Do you disagree? The only difference between magic and religion, between a magic wand or amulet and a rosary or rosary card, is that religion asserts that its own magic is real, but that other, perhaps secular magic, is not.

The ancients possessed their magical amulets that supposedly contained and conveyed certain powers. But how is this any different than walking into a catholic church today and seeing where a relic, perhaps a piece of bone, a remnant of clothing or a personal possession from a long dead saint or martyr, is stored. And when you get right down to it, the front wall of every catholic church where the crucifixion is depicted, is nothing less than an object of veneration and power. It is a giant amulet in a very real sense. It makes a connection for the believer and that connection gives power.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the colonies the use of "holy cards" is still alive and well. I've never been to a catholic funeral where they were not readily available. In use, how are they substantially any different than magical amulets used by the ancients? They contain writing and prayers, images, and are certainly used in the same sense. People are possessing and exchanging them for a reason. Is not this reason the same reason the ancients possessed amulets?Do you have a source for your conclusion that early christians avoided crucifixion iconography as a matter of personal choice? I can see how you would come to that conclusion today, but is there anything in the historical record that would bolster this position?I did not know this about Constantine. Again, do you have a source?

As far as burning goes, I always attributed this to Augustine, but thought that the burning of heretics and dissidents and other enemies of state didn't begin until the eleventh century. Were executions by burning carried out earlier?

Burning is also interesting because burning a witch supposedly destroyed her powers by having her blood consumed by fire. If the church favored burning, it seems like the church was fighting magic with magic, and we're left with the conclusion that crucifixion was simply a form of torture and execution that went out of style because something more powerful came along, something that destroyed the magic as well as the magician.

Also, as torture, and depending upon the type of crucifixion, the victim could be kept in agony for minutes, hours, or days. Culturally, torture continued to be used by Constantine's successors in the church for centuries. So when you say,I think you're making a stretch about crucifixion. But I'll reserve final judgement on that one and await your source concerning Constantine's banning crucifixion.

Rick Sumner

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Regards,
Rick

joedad

Thanks Rick.

I'm looking for something with more information ... what edict?... the wording ...etc. Do you have a link for that? I keep coming up empty. I continually find it mentioned but I just want to see for myself exactly what Constantine decreed and when.

Peter Kirby

Where can I find photos of the Christian amulets featuring Jesus on the cross?

best,
Peter Kirby

ex-xian

The thread seems to have veered a little. I would be interested in hearing someone else's opinion regarding the crucifiction of Dyonisis. Or does everyone agree that it's a myth about a myth?

Bede

Peter, page 23, Richard Kieckhefer "Magic in the Middle Ages (or via: amazon.co.uk)"

Joedad,

Your reply disappointed me as it shows little effort to understand the subject at hand.

On Constantine - check out the Theodosian Code and you will find that crucifixion is not featured as a punishment. As I understand it, we can see that where crucifixion was previously stipulated, it is replaced in Constantine's reign by other penalties. Burning was the punishment for heresy as it was the punishment for treason under Roman law. See p48 Edward Peters "Inquisition".

Augustine never suggested heretics should be executed. He went no further than allowing some form of corporal punishment and even then, his opinions are debatable. Constantine was the secular Roman Emperor. He had no successors in the church. The Roman Catholic Church allowed torture in the thirteenth century after it had banned trial by ordeal in Lateran IV.

As for magic, I explained that a magician will say that their techniques will work if they are properly carried out. A religious prayer has no guarantee of success in God isn't willing. This distinctio is discussed at length by Keith Thomas in 'Religion and the Decline of Magic (or via: amazon.co.uk)'. While you may not be able to tell the difference, that is simply your anachronistic judgement. At the time, people knew perfectly well which was which. Notice the highly defensive tone of such maguses as Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandolla in the fifteenth century and the dire warnings by theologians like Martin del Rio. We see this right the way through the Middle Ages with spells attributed to Pelagius and Solomon dressed up precisely because their users knew exactly what canon law had to say about them. Kieckhefer (see above) has a lot more on this as does the first half of Frances Yates - Giodarno Bruno. While the sources for late antiquity are scarcer, Augustine's City of God is quite clear about the matter as it Aqunias in Summa contra Gentiles. Bk 10, ch 11 of the former tells us that figures and models are forbidden deom ic magic.

Even if religion is simplt licit magic that does not make the distinction any less clear cut from a cultural point of view. If people knew the difference they were different and no amount of rational retrospective analysis can change that.

On early Christians finding the crucifixion adhorrent we need look no further than St Paul describing it as stumbling block.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

joedad

Bede,

I've got that book coming through the local library.

On another note, and if I can accurately summarize your position, you are stating that within christianity there are no religious amulets, no objects worn, carried or used as charms and/or protection against harm, injury or just plain old bad luck?

I'm not going to argue that point, as I think it's obvious that christians do indeed engage in the above practice. Maybe someone else cares to share a perspective, but imho you're taking an extreme position, even an apologetic position.The Theodosian Code dates to 100 years after Constantine's death and codifies all his changes and introductions.Okay, crucifixion is not listed in the Theodosian Code.

But I cannot locate a source that spells out Constantine's edict, though it seems to be attributed to the writings of Eusebius. So, do you have a source that spells out Constantine's abolishing crucifixion in deference to his christian leanings, or as you sayI'm very curious because Constantine enacted a lot of change that was favorable to both christian and pagan. Perhaps you are stating that Constantine was no more pagan than christian, or vice versa, but simply extending religious tolerance to christianity. In any case, if you have a primary source I would sincerely appreciate it, as I keep coming up empty.

Bede

joedad,

Really research will have to take place off the net but some sources are available on line. The Theodosian Code is on the net in Latin. Each edict it contains is dated so we know which ones come from the reign of Constantine. I'm not about to read through it to pick out those that stipulate the punishment for a rebel or slave, but if you did so you'd find, I expect, that some date from the reign of Constantine.

Constantine was a Christian through and through. He held paganism in contempt but allowed it to continue as he did not believe in forced conversion. His edicts are quoted in full by Eusebius in HE 10:5 (on the net). A highly detailed and up to date analysis of his religious beliefs is in the chapter Constantine and the Church in Robin Lane Foxe's Pagans and Christians.

On magic, you have misunderstood me. Very many Christians do use magic and the amulet I mentioned was certainly manufactured and utilised by them. However, this does not make that magic either licit or part of religious observance. The church turned a blind eye to a good deal of stuff but the lines were always clear - if you thought that the important thing was the ritual/amulet itself rather than God's grace, then you were off piste. The area is complicated and has been further clouded by modern anthropologists who like to tar all religion with the same magical brush however anachronistic this is.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

joedad

Bede,

So then as far as Constantine's abolishing crucifixion, what I'm going to find is that this was recorded by Eusebius and then later incorporated into the Theodosian Code?

Well, as a skeptic, and knowing, as we all do, that a biased Eusebius freely engaged in forgery, I could never accept that Constantine abolished crucifixion if Eusebius is the source. I suppose we'll have to leave it at that.

Should have Kieckhefer's book in a couple days. And thanks for the help.