crucifixion in antiquity conslusion

7/31/2019 Crucifixion in Antiquity CONSLUSION

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crucifixion-in-antiquity-conslusion 1/3

Chapter Seven

Conclusion

1.Answers to the Basic Questions of the Investigation

First, what is the ancient - pre-Christian - terminology of crucifixion? The

answer is that there was no such terminology. There was only a termi-

nology of suspension - a group of words and idioms that were used more

or less interchangeably when referring to various forms of suspension

(both human and nonhuman suspensions in several cases). Within this

group there is a group of suspension punishments, and within the latter is

a group of executionary (ante-mortem) suspension punishments, and

within the last is a group of punishments that were carried out by a limb

suspension, in which sometimes nails were used, and which sometimes

resulted in an outdrawn suffering on some kind of suspension tool. The

problem is that no specific terminology is linked to this particular form

of execution - before the execution of J estis.

When it comes to the individual terms, some conclusions can be

drawn. A "taupo, is a pole in the broadest sense. It is not the equivalent

of a "cross" (t). In some cases, it is a kind of suspension device, used for

th i f t t i f ti



there was no crucifixion proper. There was a whole spectrum of suspen-

sion punishments, which all shared terminology. What is described as

happening on Calvary was, so to speak, crucifixion in the making, if it is

allowed to allude to a famous book suite.

Sixth, how has the punishment of crucifixion been described, and how

st)(mld it be described in the light of the present investigation? It could

without exaggeration be said that the punishment of crucifixion has been

vividly depicted. It docs not require a lengthy search to find a full-blown

description of how a crucifixion was carried out in antiquity. It seems on

Fifth, how do the insights from the present study of the ancient texts co-

here with the contributions of the major lexica and dictionaries? The out-

come of the comparative study is that they are incoherent. At the heart of

the discrepancy is the usage of the labels "cross" and "crucifixion" in the

lexica and dictionaries. The label "cross" is commonly applied to many

1I10retexts which contain (>taupo, than those which - with at least a de-

cent amount of certainty - can be determined to contain a reference to the

punishment tool used in a crucifixion in a traditional sense. In the sameway, the label "crucifixion" is applied to a large number of texts where

the only qualifier is the occurrence of, e.g., (ava)cr"xupo\iv or ava-

crKOAOltll;;£1V.In short, a lot of texts are identified as references to "cruci-

fixion" on the basis of a simple conjecture.

3°5I, Answers to the Basic Questions of the Investigation

Fourth, how is the punishment of crucifixion defined by previous scholars?

The theme of definition occurs sparsely among the studied scholars. With

one major exception (Kuhn), the opinion of what a crucifixion is has to

be read more or less between the lines. The scholars may offer some

words in the ongoing discussion that indicate what is on their minds.

When nothing else is said, the conclusion that they use the designation

"crucifixion" in the normal English sense must be drawn. Taken together,

in view of the absent definition and the normal usage of the term, the ab-

solute majority of scholars have held the opinion that the designation

"crucifixion" is coherent with the punishment that struck Jesus according

to the main Christian traditions. But it would be of great benefit for this

often implied definition to be spelled out. The label "crucifixion" as it is

commonly understood comes from the description of the groundbreak-

ing event on Calvary. Thus, Calvary should be the beacon for which fea-

tures the label "crucifixion" shall contain. This is level one of the defini-tion. Level two is to label all other human suspensions as - "suspen-

sions.» Human suspensions that lack one or more features (i.e., post-

.mortem suspension or impaling) must not be labeled «crucifixions.»

Conclusion

man Era, and its usage is hard to define beyond denoting "to attach insome way to a crux. U

i1 ? n is mainly used in connection with human post-mortem suspen-

sions, especially when combined with r D . "~n is translated with KpE-

flavvUvat, which rather surprisingly is used only in that way. The elusive

D P ' is also used for human suspension; of what kind is, however, un-

known. In the clear majority of the texts, the Vulgate applies what,

through the execution of Jesus, had become a crucifixion terminology.

This is an indication that at least the translator(s) of the Vulgate had a

tendency to let the way Jesus died reflect the reading of texts which didnot describe that punishment.

It has been noticed that the ancient languages (i.e., Greek, Latin, He-

brew/Aramaic) lacked a special term for "crucifixion." What has now

been added is that the reason for this might lie in the fact that there was

no specific punishment of crucifixion. The present author cannot see any-

thing that speaks against the assumption that this absence of specificity is

what it is all about: antiquity had no special terminology for crucifixion

because there was no particular punishment called" crucifixion."

\,l.~

Second, what can be said about the punishment that the terms describe?The punishment consists in fact of punishments. There is a large group of

terms and idioms which refer to various acts of suspension, and this is

almost all that can be said about ((the punishment" - it comprises various

acts of suspension. The disparate verbs refer mainly to acts of suspension

upon, or attachment onto, various torture or execution devices, which are',

referred to with various nouns. The variation is the only firm theme. The

message of the texts in which the studied terminology is used appears to

be that a punishment could be carried out in a way that was simply fitting

for the moment. What is described as happening to Jesus on Calvary

might then be only a momentary expression of local caprice. If the previ-

ous and snbsequent executions had been described in texts, they might

have been described quite differently. What has become the solid image inthe center of the Christian faith might be just a freak of fate, not an ex-

pression of a well-defined and long-used execution form.

,

Third, how do the New Testament authors describe the death of Jesus on

the philological level? The New Testament authors are strikingly silent

about the punishment Jesus had to suffer on Calvary. The vivid pictures

of the death of Jesus in the theology and art of the church - and among

"< scholars - do not have their main source here. Perhaps crucifixion as it is

known today did not even come into being on Calvary, but in the Chris-

tian interpretation of the event. Before the death of Jesus, it appears that



2. Conclusion

The frequent and colorful depictions of crucifixions and the death of Je-

sus mentioned in the previous chapter are essentially without support in

the studied text material. Neither biblical nor extra-biblical texts up to the

turn of the first century offer such detailed descriptions as the mentioned

scholars do. These scholars seem to imply that all texts in which the terms

occur are crucifixion accounts from which they can extract information

and, despite the texts' diversity, add it together. The problems connected

with this scholarly procedure have been the topic of the present investiga-tion.

It is not impossible to find references to crucifixion in the ancient text

material, but it takes more than the occurrence of a single term. It is not,

of course, possible to draw the conclusion that crucifixions did not occur.

There were probably suspensions in ancient times that cohered well with

the suspension of Jesus. Yet that is not the problem. The problem is to

determine with a decent level of probability that a text describes such a

punishment. The overwhelming majority of texts are simply not compre-hensible enough for that.

the basis of these depictions that the ancient accounts of crucifixion are

both frequent and clear-cut, but they are not. The ancient texts that with

any likelihood describe crucifixions are both rare and vague. This obser-

vation includes the texts of the New Testament.

The vague and diverse suspension accounts ought to affect the effort to

describe a crucifixion, or rather the crucifixion. An illustration of cruci-

fixion cannot be anything else than a retelling of what can be gleaned

from the New Testament texts concerning the execution of Jesus. First,that it was an executionary suspension. Second, that after being scourged

Jesus (and/or Simon) carried a , , ,aupo , , whatever that might be, to the

execution place. Third, that Jesus was undressed and attached to a "tau-

p o " perhaps by being nailed. Fourth, that a sign probably indicated the

nature of the crime. Features beyond these are not to be found in the

New Testament or the older literature of the Greco-Roman world.

Other punishments should not be characterized further than that they

were some kind of suspension on some kind of suspension device of a

whole human in some condition or a part of a human. A more detailed

account cannot be given on a general level, but must be confined to a spe-

cific text. Such an account is, however, only a description of a single text,

not a presentation of a customary form of punishment.

3°72, Conclusion

The support for colorful depiction of the death of Jesus must thus be

found somewhere else. This "else" will be the topic in a forthcoming in-vestigation by the present author.

Conclusion306

crucifixion in antiquity conslusion

Documents