capnkirk

The discussion you and Amaleq13 are are having about how the legs were nailed to a cross sounds like a case Crossan cites (at fair length) in Exacvating Jesus based on bones recovered from an ossuary with a nail through one heel and a wooden "washer" directly under the nailhead. I don't recall any more details at the moment.

Is that helpful in any way?

capnkirk

Here is a link showing the manner of leg attachment RE: Roman crucifixion (Univ. of N. Carolina at Charlotte)http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html It looks like graphic illustration of the case cited in my last post.

Amaleq13

Nice work.



Only with the inclusion of Bird on a Wire, Conspiracy Theory, and Tequila Sunrise, would I have felt obligated to bestow a :notworthy

My standards are harsh, I know, but they must be kept.




"The ways of the Lord are often dark but never pleasant."

spin

If I recall the original notice of the material was Joe Zias in a collection of essays edited by Charlesworth hilariously called "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls". One of the few things of interest was Zias's information on crucifixion. But I don't have access to the volume at the moment.

I do wish though that we could get beyond this bloody heel. Too much crapping on about crucifixion has been written apparently with the only "hard" evidence being, to whit, that heel. It's not much to stand on.


spin

spin

I could have given you signs of even worse things, like his Danish blue... something really was rotten in the state of Denmark that time. It would require a brave heart to sit through this maverick's version of the passion. Who wouldn't put a bounty on his head if he were in deed forever young? Frightening. Nearly as frightening as the possibility that he was ever a soldier. I'm sure you could imagine this chicken run. Sadly though, over the last 20 odd years it's been all the way to the bank, because silly women liked his butt.


spin

capnkirk

I agree with Amaleq13. The single heel-bone & nail isn't sufficient to base any standard on. I have read (though I doubt that I could find it now) that there was considerable variation as to method of attachment, orientation of the body, and even presence or absence of a horizontal member. That source also alleged that Roman soldiers someitme entertained themselves by "experimenting" with different ideas, so what scant evidence there is points generally away from any "standard" at all.

In Roman practice, about the most certain thing is that Roman Law prohibited the crucifixion of a Roman Citizen...and that it was applied only to the lower classes of both Romans and foreigners, i.e. slaves, barbarians, and insurrectionists (NOT heretics), though there was one Latin document found that implied the (illegal?) crucifixion of some Roman Generals during the Punic Wars.

As for the movie...it's a non-event. I wash my hands of it.

Amaleq13

I did not know that. My understanding has been that crucifixion was used as punishment only for those convicted of sedition or the murder of a Roman citizen.

What did they do to Roman citizens who were convicted of these charges? I'm going to bet it wasn't pretty.

spin,


Given some of your recent posts, I'm confused whether I should worry you are not getting enough sleep or be curious as to your drug of choice and how I might go about getting some for myself. Either way, you're killing me. :notworthy



“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Facts shmacts.” -- Homer Simpson

spin

Drugs are for loozers.



And, cap'n, it was apparently the Carthaginians who gave the Romans their first taste of crucifixion. However, beside the references to the fact that various people were crucified, I have not come across a single ancient reference to shed light on any specific methods, so talking about variations in method seems to me to be the spilling of hot air.


spin

Pantera

My own understanding was that Roman citizens who were convicted of capital crimes were normally beheaded.

But as that understanding comes from Latin classes at at school ten years ago, it may not be 100% reliable.

capnkirk

This is hardly historical, but in the aftermath of Nero's accusation that the Xtians of setting Rome afire, that Peter was crucified (because he was NOT a Roman citizen) and that Paul was beheaded because he WAS.

Sorry, spin: As for whether there was a "Curcifixion Manual " to standardize Roman crucifixions, or soldiers were left largely to their own devices is not of enough interest to me to care one way or the other. Like the particulars are really that important....in a movie, no less.