A Historical View of Christ's Crucifixion

7/28/2019 A Historical View of Christ's Crucifixion

1/4

A Historical View of Christ's Crucifixion

The crucifixion is one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity. For me, it is one of the

most interesting aspects of the life of Jesus. It is also one of the events of the life of Jesus

that we can be sure that actually happened.

One can be certain that the crucifixion occurred for a few reasons. The first is that wehave multiple independent attestation to the event. The four canonical Gospels all include

the event. In addition to the Gospel accounts, we have Paul mentioning the crucifixion ofJesus as well.

More convincing though, in my opinion, is that the crucifixion story is embarrassing.

Crucifixion, as according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, was considered a curse. This is abelief that was also held by Jews in the first century as well. We know this from Paul,

Galatians 3:13, who makes the belief clear: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law

by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree '[emphasis mine].

In addition, Jesus being crucified, and thus dying, ruled him out as being the Messiah.

Before Christianity, the idea of a suffering Messiah that would die for the sins of otherswas not, as far as we know, had no place in the Jewish belief system. Jesus dying ruled

him out as the Messiah for them. Since he did not overthrow the Romans, and could not

since he died, for most Jews, it was beyond laughable, and was blasphemy towards theirGod, to call Jesus the Messiah..

The historical fact of the crucification and resurrection of Jesus Christ remains

untouchable even to this day. Pliny the Younger, Josephus Phlegon, Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion and many others along with over five hundred of that day have witnessed or

spoken of this fact. (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) Now, unto the actual methods employed in the

torture and crucification of Christ.

Flogging was a common precursor to crucifixion. This may be another reason that Lukedid not feel it necessary to state specifically that Jesus underwent flogging. People during

the time the Luke wrote his account would have known that flogging was a precursor tocrucifixion.

We are not told much about the flogging of Jesus. It has been assumed that he received

thirty-nine lashings as the Jewish practice was to give forty lashed minus one(Deuteronomy 25:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:24). There is no suggestion that this was true in

the case of Jesus though. Instead, we know that Jesus was flogged by the Romans. Under


2/4

the Romans, there was no limit as to how many lashes could be administered. This was

left up to the decision of those who administered the lashings; the lictors (typically there

were two lictors, but there are some accounts of up to six lictors). Normally, the lictorswere not suppose to kill the victim; however, we do know that in certain cases, death did

occur as a consequence.

As to the severity of the flogging of Jesus, we can not be completely sure. There is areasonable chance that is was quite severe though. This would explain why Jesus died

after only a relatively short time on the cross. However, we do have little to go on as

Mark, Matthew, and John only tell us that he was flogged, and do not expand on that.

After the flogging, Jesus would have been expected to carry the cross to the place that

was designated for crucifixion, Golgotha (Mark 15:21-22, Luke 23:26, Matthew 27:32-

33, John 19:16-17). Contrary to popular depictions though, Jesus would not have beenexpected to carry the entire cross. Instead, only the crossbeam was carried.

In the accounts of Mark, Luke, and Matthew, (Luke and Matthew most likely havingborrowed from Mark), we are told that a man named Simon from Cyrene was forced to

carry the cross for Jesus. If Jesus truly had a severe flogging, this may have been apossibility as Jesus would have been weak. To support this idea, tradition has been

created which states that during the journey to Golgotha, Jesus fell three times. However,this is not attested to in the Biblical account, and is later tradition.

The account in John tells us that Jesus carried the cross himself. Various apologetics havetried to reconcile the two differentiating accounts by explaining that Jesus first carried the

cross, was weak from the flogging, and thus fell. After that, the Romans forced Simon to

carry the cross.

It's a fact that Simon would have been forced to carry the cross of Jesus. The brief excerpt

that we have of the instance (Mark 15:21- A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father

of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced

him to carry the cross) gives us little reason to assume that it was added for anysuperficial reason.

As mentioned above, only the crossbeam would have been carried to Golgotha. Populardepictions of Jesus have shown him carrying the entire cross; however, that would be

highly unlikely. A full cross would weigh well over 300 pounds. Even for a person who

had not undergone flogging would have had difficulty carrying the mass of an entire

cross. In contrast, the cross beam would have weighed between 75-125 pounds, whichwould have been manageable.

Once Jesus arrived at Golgotha, he would have been crucified (Mark 15:24, Luke 23:33,Matthew 27:35, John 19:18). In all four accounts, we are simply told that Jesus was

crucified. During the first century, Roman crucifixion did vary slightly depending on theindividuals performing the crucifixion.

Of the thousands of crucifixions that happened under Roman authority, only one victim's

remains have been discovered. We have been lucky enough that his remains were taken

from the cross and placed in an ossuary. This individual's (Yehohanan) remains werefound in a cave at Giv'at Ha-Mivtar. From his remains we have learned some interesting

facts. What was noticed was that his legs had not been broken, and that his arms had not

been pierced nails. Instead, he had his arms tied to the crossbeam, and his heels had been


3/4

nailed separately to the cross.

Yehohanan's remains can suggest to us aspects of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is very likelythat Jesus had his arms tied to the cross. If the individuals crucifying him were

exceptionally cruel, nails could have been hammered through his hands or wrists. The

only reason this would have been done would have been to increase suffering in the

victim. However, the account of the crucifixion never states that his hands were pierced.Mark and Matthew are silent about the wounds to Jesus's hands/wrists. Luke briefly

mentions Jesus having wounds in his hands (Luke 24:39), while John mentions them

slightly more (John 20:20; 20:25; 20:27).

The mentioning of wounds to Jesus's hands only comes up in regards to the resurrection.

As to whether or not Jesus truly had his hands/wrists nailed to the cross then is not for

sure. We do know from Josephus that some victims did have their hands/wrists nailed tothe cross, so we know that it is possible in the case of Jesus. Yet, we can not be

completely sure.

Upright beams would have been in place at Golgotha as crucifixions were quite common

place in Palestine. It was more economical, as well as simpler to have the upright beamsin place. Once Jesus was attached to the crossbeam, it would have been raised and

attached to the upright beam. At that point, Jesus's heals would have been nailed, possiblyseparately, to the upright beam. By doing so, it allowed Jesus some support in which to

lift himself up, allowing him to expand his lungs, facilitating the breathing process.

Crucifixion was designed to be a form of execution that first tortured the victim, as well

as humiliate them. Death from crucifixion could take days. In the case of Jesus, we see a

relatively short period of time before death. Mark relates that the time was so short that

Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead (Mark 15:44). Whether or the incidentwith Pilate is factual, the message it relates is valid. The author of Mark wanted to

convey that Jesus truly did die, even though it was in a relatively short time.

According to Mark, we see that Jesus was on the cross for six hours (Mark 15:25; 15:33-34). A death from crucifixion in six hours is possible though. If Jesus had a severe

flogging, a relatively short amount of time on the cross would be possible.

The cause of death from crucifixion is debated to a point. It has long been held that the

cause of death was from asphyxiation (a condition arising when the body is deprived of

oxygen, causing unconsciousness or death; suffocation). However, experiments

conducted by Dr. Frederick Thomas Zugibe suggests that is not the case. Death fromcrucifixion can most likely be attributed from a combination of causes ranging from

infection to dehydration.

Since crucifixion was also intended as a warning to other potential criminals, as well as a

means of humiliation, a crucified body would usually remain on the cross well after thevictim had died. This would be quite an effective deterrent for other potential

insurrectionists or criminals. The body would later be left to be devoured by scavengingdogs and birds.

In the case of Jesus, the Biblical account differs from what normally occurred. Instead ofhis body being left on the cross, and later being devoured by dogs, we are told that a man

named Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and requested the body of Jesus. We are told

that he placed the body in a tomb (Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, Matthew 27:59-60, John


4/4

19:42).

Works Cited

Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Mediterranean Jewish

Peasant. [San Francisco]: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. Print.

Crucifixion. History Channel, 2008. DVD.Ehrman, Bart D.Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible

(and Why We Don't Know about Them). New York: HarperOne, 2009. Print.

National Geographic's Quest for the Truth: The Crucifixion. National Geographic. DVD.

Zugibe, Frederick T., and Frederick T. Zugibe. The Crucifixion of Jesus: a Forensic

Inquiry. New York: M. Evans and, 2005. Print.

Zugibe, Frederick T. The Cross and the Shroud : a Medical Examiner Investigates the

Crucifixion. New York: Paragon, 1988. Print.

Documents

A Historical View of Christ's Crucifixion