Jalen Booker
Instructor Benjamin Sorenson, MA
Western Civilization
10 November 2017
Misconceptions Behind the Methodology of Roman Crucifixions: The Brutal Truth
For centuries and centuries on end now, mankind has come to recognize crucifixion as one of the most vulgar, and brutal forms of execution that the world has ever known. Whenever we think of the numerous iconic figures who met their fates on the cross (including St. Peter the Apostle, St. Andrew the Apostle, and even Jesus Christ of Nazareth), we instantly begin to visualize the gruesome torture that they were set to endure. However, I am still convinced that many do not fully understand the extent of pain, and suffering that the cross distributed upon its victims. Although our …show more content…
Although much of the information we have obtained about crucifixion stems from Roman history, we know that crucifixion originated with the Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Persians, as an extent to humiliate condemned slaves, rather than to execute them. Archaeologist Vassilios Tzaferis states that, “During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave’s neck and bound to his arms. The slave was then required to march through the neighborhood proclaiming his offense. This march was intended as an expiation and humiliation. Later, the slave was also stripped and scourged, increasing both the punishment and the humiliation.” However, according to Tzaferis, the methods of Roman crucifixion in particular were designed for the purpose of inflicting much more than a bit of humiliation. According to The Nazarene Way of Essenic Studies, “ A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He conjectured that when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the victim would have severe difficulty exhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the lungs. The victim would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. Indeed, Roman executioners were said to break the victim's legs, after he had hung for some time, in order to hasten his …show more content…
The two researchers attempted to re-analyze the fossils found in the ossuary of the Jerusalem tomb to determine Yehohanan’s position on the cross, in the same manner as Vassilios Tzaferis and Nico Haas less than 50 years earlier. Although the two separate studies were conducted with a very similar process, Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles came to a wildly different conclusion. The Biblical Archaeology Society Staff stated in 2011 that, “Zias and Sekeles suggest that the man’s legs straddled the cross and that his arms were tied to the crossbeam with ropes, signifying the method of crucifixion in antiquity.” This is almost a direct contrast of the hypothesis offered in 1968, stating that Yehohanan had been attached to the cross by three nails (one nail that attached both heels to the vertical piece of the cross, and one additional nail to attach each hand to the horizontal piece of the cross). So the question inevitably arises. How could two separate studies, flawlessly conducted in an almost identical manner, possibly yield such drastically dynamic
Instructor Benjamin Sorenson, MA
Western Civilization
10 November 2017
Misconceptions Behind the Methodology of Roman Crucifixions: The Brutal Truth
For centuries and centuries on end now, mankind has come to recognize crucifixion as one of the most vulgar, and brutal forms of execution that the world has ever known. Whenever we think of the numerous iconic figures who met their fates on the cross (including St. Peter the Apostle, St. Andrew the Apostle, and even Jesus Christ of Nazareth), we instantly begin to visualize the gruesome torture that they were set to endure. However, I am still convinced that many do not fully understand the extent of pain, and suffering that the cross distributed upon its victims. Although our …show more content…
Although much of the information we have obtained about crucifixion stems from Roman history, we know that crucifixion originated with the Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Persians, as an extent to humiliate condemned slaves, rather than to execute them. Archaeologist Vassilios Tzaferis states that, “During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave’s neck and bound to his arms. The slave was then required to march through the neighborhood proclaiming his offense. This march was intended as an expiation and humiliation. Later, the slave was also stripped and scourged, increasing both the punishment and the humiliation.” However, according to Tzaferis, the methods of Roman crucifixion in particular were designed for the purpose of inflicting much more than a bit of humiliation. According to The Nazarene Way of Essenic Studies, “ A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He conjectured that when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the victim would have severe difficulty exhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the lungs. The victim would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. Indeed, Roman executioners were said to break the victim's legs, after he had hung for some time, in order to hasten his …show more content…
The two researchers attempted to re-analyze the fossils found in the ossuary of the Jerusalem tomb to determine Yehohanan’s position on the cross, in the same manner as Vassilios Tzaferis and Nico Haas less than 50 years earlier. Although the two separate studies were conducted with a very similar process, Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles came to a wildly different conclusion. The Biblical Archaeology Society Staff stated in 2011 that, “Zias and Sekeles suggest that the man’s legs straddled the cross and that his arms were tied to the crossbeam with ropes, signifying the method of crucifixion in antiquity.” This is almost a direct contrast of the hypothesis offered in 1968, stating that Yehohanan had been attached to the cross by three nails (one nail that attached both heels to the vertical piece of the cross, and one additional nail to attach each hand to the horizontal piece of the cross). So the question inevitably arises. How could two separate studies, flawlessly conducted in an almost identical manner, possibly yield such drastically dynamic