Possumblog

A more serious topic.

I read this article just now, and it just struck me wrong--Image of Jesus' crucifixion may be wrong, says study .

Read it yourself first. In my own reading of it, it seems to imply that since crucifixions were carried out in a variety of ways, that the traditional image was somehow just made up out of whole cloth with no basis other than wild speculation. Crucifixions were indeed a widely varied type of thing, and the article rightly notes that sometimes the person was upside down (as Peter was traditionally executed), and there's also the X-shaped cross, as Andrew was supposedly crucified using.

I realize that some scientists are loathe to accept anything other than actual evidence, and seeing that the faithful believe in Jesus' bodily resurrection, and seeing further how the art of photography wasn't quite fully mature at the time of his death, I suppose it's pretty much impossible by any see-it-to-believe-it standard to say exactly how Jesus' body was killed, but the traditional image does, in fact, have a basis in something other than just someone just coming up with something off the cuff.

Although I'm sure that science might not approve, the image of Christ's crucifixion has a rational basis, if you do as early Christians might have done and carefully read the New Testament. Now, you might not believe it's true, but the "tradition" does make sense if you read the Gospels with even the slightest bit of credulity.

To start--head up?

1) Well, in Matthew 22:37, it specifically notes that the sign that Pilate wrote about Jesus being king of the Jews was hung over his head. Not a detail that's likely if his feet had been over his head.

2) In Matthew 27:48, Mark 15:36, and John 19:29, when Jesus is near death and says he's thirsty, someone gets a sponge full of vinegar, puts it on a reed, and puts it up to his mouth. If his head was down, seems unlikely it would be necessary to use a sponge, nor to put it on a stick. Doing so seems to indicate that his head was higher than arm's reach.

3) In John 19:31-33, it recounts the method used to insure the victims were dead, namely to break their legs. This would only make sense if they had been crucified head up. If they had any strength, they could push up with their legs to get a breath of air, but if their legs were broken, they would expire much quicker, not having a way to push up. If they were hanging by their legs, it wouldn't make much sense to break them since they wouldn't have nearly the strength needed to pull up, and pulling up wouldn't make make them live longer anyway.

As for nailing, the most obvious clue is found in John 20:24-28, where Thomas (who hadn't been with the rest of the disciples when Jesus came to visit), said he wouldn't believe unless he could put his fingers in the nail hole in Jesus' hands, and the spear wound in his side. (And thereby giving us the term "doubting Thomas.") Jesus feet aren't mentioned as having nail holes, but the implication is understood that his feet would have had to have been secured to the cross in some manner, and since nails were already being used elsewhere, it's not unreasonable to assume they were used on his feet as well.

As a matter of faith, it really doesn't make a difference as the exact manner of Jesus's crucifixion, but the article's main point seems less about that, than in trying to imply that not only is the faith-based portion of the story wrong, so are the supposed reality-based details of it. Well, faith is faith, but our common image of the historical act itself is based in something other than unfounded and ignorant supposition--it is based upon what the Gospel texts say.

Posted by Terry Oglesby at March 30, 2006 09:49 AM