Scholars: Crucifixion Portrayal Inaccurate

JERUSALEM (AP) - The dearth of information about Jesus' crucifixion makes it impossible to describe the event in accurate detail, as Mel Gibson attempts to do in his new film, "The Passion of Christ," Bible scholars and anthropologists say.

The crucifixion is the centerpiece of the movie, set to open in U.S. theaters Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday on the Roman Catholic calendar.

People who have seen the movie say it adopts standard Christian imagery in excruciating detail: Jesus being pinioned to a Latin cross - a T-shaped device with a short upper extension - with one nail driven through both feet and one through each palm.

In a December e-mail sent to The Associated Press, Gibson said he did "an immense amount of reading" to supplement the Bible's relatively unadorned account of the crucifixion in the four Gospels.

"I consulted a huge number of theologians, scholars, priests, spiritual writers," Gibson wrote. "The film is faithful to the Gospels but I had to fill in a lot of details - like the way Jesus would have carried His cross, or whether the nails went through the palms of His hands or his wrists ... Since the experts canceled each other out, I was thrown back on my own resources to weigh the different arguments and decide for myself."

Some scholars say even the most widely recognized features of the crucifixion, such as the shape of the cross and the use of nails, are open to debate.

James F. Strange, professor of religious studies at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said 1st century historian Josephus provided only general information, probably because crucifixion was so common that details seemed superfluous.

Crucifixion was first used in the 5th century B.C., and was a widely used form of execution in Asia, Europe and Africa for the ensuing eight centuries, said Israeli anthropologist Joe Zias. Depending on technique, death could be swift or take days.

"If you suspended people by their hands and left their feet free you would kill them within an hour," Zias said. "If you suspended them in a way they couldn't exhale they'd be dead within minutes."

Zias said the question of whether Jesus was nailed to the cross or simply tied to it remains a mystery. "There is no evidence whatsoever he was nailed," he said. "The Gospels say he was crucified and leave it at that."

Zias criticized "The Passion of Christ" for accepting the standard version of three nails being used. He said experiments on cadavers carried out by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages have shown that people hanging with nails through their hands will fall to the ground within a relatively short time, pulled by gravity.

"All this is Crucifixion 101," Zias said. "People who study these things understand them. But Gibson ignored them in his film."

John Dominic Crossan, emeritus professor of religious studies at DePaul University in Chicago, agrees with Zias that little is known about Jesus' execution.

"Early Christians believed that Jesus was nailed to the cross," he said. "But there is absolutely no proof of this. The only skeleton of a crucified person ever recovered indicated that the two arms were tied to a crossbar, and two nails were used in either shinbone. There was no standard procedure in any of this. The only common feature in the different types of crucifixion is intense sadism."

The type of cross in Jesus' execution is also in question, Crossan said. First century Romans are known to have used both a T-shaped device, without an upper extension, and the Latin cross that is standard in Christian iconography.

Each of the four Gospels says an inscription mocking Jesus as the "king of the Jews" was affixed to the cross. Crossan said this would have made sense "because the whole point of crucifixion was to warn people through alluding to a specific crime."

Two of the Gospels say the inscription was mounted above Jesus. This presumably would strengthen the argument for a Latin cross, which would have provided space for writing about the condemned man's head.

However, the other two Gospels don't give a locator. "It (the written warning) could just as easily have hung around his neck," Crossan said.

Crossan is also uncertain whether the cross on which Jesus was crucified was carried to the execution grounds - either by Simon of Cyrene, as three of the Gospels report, or by Jesus himself, according to John's account.

It is possible that the vertical part of the cross was kept at Golgotha, the place of Jesus' death, and that the condemned person carried the crossbar, Crossan said.

"The point is we simply don't know," he said, "not in general cases and not in the case of Jesus either."

Josephus is also an excellent source, writing shortly after the Temple was destroyed around 70 AD. Some "scholars" don't accept the section of The Jewish War dealing with Jesus as genuine, but I have not read a good explanation of why it's not accepted - it seems to come down to the fact that the "scholars" in question are not Christian. The Jewish War contains an account of John the Baptist that is consistent with the Gospels, as well as other events mentioned in the New Testament.

Josephus also has a detailed description of the Temple prior to its destruction. This includes a description of the veil that was split at Christ's death.

Josephus saved his own life by greeting Vespasian with a Jewish prophecy that the ruler of the Earth was coming from the east. Josephus (and Vespasian) interpreted this as being Vespasian, but we can read it now and know that it was Christ.

A final point about Josephus, he gives many instances of miracles at the time. This is consistent with your observation that miracle workers were fairly common.

If you happened to see my posting re. the "dream" i had some years ago - is my description of the use of the Gladius consistent with your understanding of how that weapon was employed?

I still have pretty clear recollections as to some of the techniques they used with the short sword, which I had never considered - or even imagined - before.

Using a 17" bladed M-1905 Enfield bayonet and scabbard mounted on my right hip, I have been able to re-create (approximately, in slow motion) what I "saw" in the "dream" and was quite amazed by how well it "worked".

Of course I never actually gutted a man with a gladius - but they sure could - in less time than it took to tell about it, too!

About a year ago I met a Mideival Reenactor who was very much "into" swords and the various historical forms of swordsmanship. Describing my "memories" to him, he confirmed that all the techniques I described to him were consistant with the Roman Martial Arts.

Did the Gladius have an almost religious significance attached to it - as a revered object / symbol?

I got the impression that it did; it was a tremendous rite of passage when a Roman Soldier was issued, with great attendant ceremony, his "real" Gladius (as opposed to the ones used for training), and severe punishment awaited any Soldier who carelessly dropped it.

Now you study the Roman Empire - fascinating subject, BTW - wish I'd studied it more than I have.

But have you ever wittnessed a veteran Legionarre working out / showing off his Gladius-handling skills?

WOW!!!

Have you ever heard one of those things SING?
It still sends shivers up the back of my neck!

In a weird, vivid dream I had some years ago, the scars were about an inch proximal to the position indicated in the photo you posted.

They were hidden under the sleeve until He supinated the hands and extended them about 30 degrees from neutral, as the arms raised slightly towards the doubting Disciple.

Then the cuffs of the sleeves drew back a little and revealed them.

The nails must have been square, as the one in your picture, as the depressed central penetration was about 8mm square, with torn lacerations radiating from each corner for about another 6 to 8m into contused tissue.

Shortly after observing this phenomenon and trying to rationalize as to just how an Actor or impersonator could, or why they would mutilate themselves like this in order to perpetuate what he had thought, of late, to have been a grand deception -

His eyes were drawn from the mutilated yet gently extended wrists almost involuntarily upwards;

Hardly pausing to observe the moist, gaping, almost 2" long wound just under the costal arch on the left side of the thorax;

Untill in an anguished moment which seemed to take a lifetime, his eyes met His eyes.

Needless to say, the sceptic's vision was suddenly and significantly compromised as he slipped off of his seat and fell

...Shuddering; weeping;
at the feet;

which were also terribly mutilated.

He never touched any of the hidious, still open wounds before him...

Despite the invitation presented him to do so;

He didn't have to.

"Ho Kurios Mau Kai;
- Ho Theos Mau!"

"If you happened to see my posting re. the "dream" i had some years ago - is my description of the use of the Gladius consistent with your understanding of how that weapon was employed?"

I'm sorry, I didn't see it.

From what I read, the gladius was a short, double-bladed sword with an acute point. I believe it was used primarily as a giant dagger, i.e. a stabbing weapon rather than a slashing weapon, although it could do both. Stabbing wounds were often more fatal or threatening, especially if delivered towards the face of the attacker, which was a frequnet point of attack. I believe they have found skulls of dead Britons in England at battle sites who were obviously killed this way.

There was a site on the net sometime ago which showed animations from above of how a legionary was presumed to use his gladius and scutum in combat. The scutum was held on the left arm with the arm passing vertically down its length rather than across it like conventional shield. The soldier held the scutum forward, protecting his body with it and using the boss and edge as a shoving weapon. The gladius, held like a dagger or very short spear was used in the right hand in a thrusting motion towards the enemy while he muscled forward with the scutum.

If the barrage of pila thrown before actual contact worked right, a good number of the enemy were shieldless, the pila having hit their shields, bent from its own weight downwards, and having made the enemy's shield so unwieldy as to be useless.

Having said all that, the Romans were nothing if not adaptive and could alter taactics to suit their purposes to their own best advantages, depending on the terrain, enemy, etc.

"Using a 17" bladed M-1905 Enfield bayonet and scabbard mounted on my right hip, I have been able to re-create (approximately, in slow motion) what I "saw" in the "dream" and was quite amazed by how well it "worked"."

One of the sites I am posting for you shows how very effective such a draw can be.

"Of course I never actually gutted a man with a gladius - but they sure could - in less time than it took to tell about it, too! "

Glad to hear that!!! Based on what I have read, stabbing was what it excelled at.

"Did the Gladius have an almost religious significance attached to it - as a revered object / symbol?"

You got me on that one. I think perhaps the barbarians held individual swords in more esteem than the average legionary. The gladius was probably a mass produced item wellsuited to its purpose, but not very personal. Sort of like comparing an M-16 with a custom made Pennsylvania Rifle. But that's only my personal opinion. I knw swords in the middle ages were custom made products and their hilts filled with sacerd relics, etc. The "Sword in the Stone Legend from King Arthur supposedly comes from a sword in a stone which was worshipped by Sarmatian auxilairies who were stationed in western Britain during the later Empire.

An author named Adrain Goldsworthy has come out with some fascinating books recently on the Roman Army. Also check out the follwing sites;

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_sword.htm

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_shield.htm

http://legvi.tripod.com/castroromani/id10.html

http://www.dalton.org/groups/Rome/RMil.html

Notice - the commands are in LATIN, NOT Greek!

"Have you ever heard one of those things SING? "

Not a gladius. But I have an original sword-bayonet for an 1858 Enfield. It does most certainly "sing" when pulled out of its scabbard, and has a effect similar to the sounds of bagpipes - VERY stirring.

Hmmmm. Some food for thought.

Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet--I can count all my bones. (Ps 22:16-17)

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. " (Isaiah 53:5)

Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:24-28)

Thank you for those links - very interesting.

What I seem to recal "seeing" were no doubt the "Pompei" versions, although the article indicates that these did not come into common usage untill around 70AD.

I would estimate the approximate time of my "memories" to have been around 15 - 20 AD, and the Legionarries I "saw" sure had 'em then.

Re. the "draw" of the Gladius; they have the initial grip right; thumb down, palm out on hilt.

But then they show the blade being swung around from the scabbard in a downwards, somewhat out-angled arc.
If you did that in a close order Battle formation / Line, you'd be whacking or sticking your right lineman as you drew. that can lead to dissention in the ranks!

What I "watched" them do, was to extend the right arm / hilt upwards as if in a "salut", and as the point of the blade cleared the scabbard, with a flip of the wrist they would "snap" the gladius into the thrusting position so quickly that you could hardly see the point just clearing his armpit. The blade would pass INside the right arm as it rotated UPwards.

They wore a fairly heavy, studded leather "apron" which the later Scots imitated with the "Sporran"; It might have had a pocket in the backside to stash a few things, a-la haversack. But it also acted as a counterweight to "anchor" the Gladius scabbard so that it would not "follow" the sword upwards as it was drawn. Sort of like the Western Gunfighter who lashed his holster down to his leg to facilitate a fast draw.

They had two basic "draws", and that was one of them.

The other was more defensive, and intended for close quarters.

In this draw, the hand siezed the hilt from the outside, thumb up, palm in.

The Gladius was jerked up and out, with the blade lying flat down the Soldier's palmer forarm, tip just barely overhanging the elbow, and used to block and deflect an incoming blow, much as Karate or Tae-Kwon-Do fighters do, or Aikido fighters block with the Tongfa or nunchukus.

I call this the "Cubital Block", but I don't know what they called it in Latin.

Immediately after deflecting the blow from sword, club, or whatever, the Legionarry stepped quickly inside of the attacker's defenses with the opposite foot from the direction that he'd just delected the blow, spinning as he did to close on the enemy's body facing away from him about 45*. the right arm would be flung accross the chest and back, so the elbow - and the point of the gladius tucked alongside it - pointed to the enemy's exposed flank.

The gladuis would then be thrust backwards into the enemy's abdomen upwards, so as to sever the diaghram and or liver / spleen. If no shield was in the left hand, it would come in on the pommel ball to help shove the blade home. Like a Karate punch, the stab and withdraw were all one quick, violent motion, and the Roman would "kick off" of the enemy with the lunge and spring back to his line or original position, taking his bloodied gladius with him.

As an option, the cubital block could be brought up with the wrist cocked out a little, bringing the edge out over the forarm, slashing a close enemy accross the neck or face as it went up. An option would be to clop the guy in the chops with the pommel ball.

Then the arm was quickly brought down between antagonists to about waist level, shoulders and hips rotating a little to the left, an the wrist extended or "cocked back" a little more to direct the point into the enemy's innards. The right foot came off of the ground to put the body weight into the stab, which if the left hand were clear, could come in to help drive it all the deeper.

The Legionarrie's right foot came down with a decisive stomp as the steel went home and back out. Done correctly, the corpse of the attacker would litteraly be thrown off of the gladius and backwards for several feet - or into the faces of his followers, whichever came first.

The gladius was precisely balanced like a jugglers' pin, and could be thrown with deadly accuracy in a pinch.

I'm not sure but what some of the village patrols could be begged into juggling their gladei by the ragtag little bands of little boys who liked to follow them around, when the Officers weren't watching them, of course.

That could be quite a show.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.