Further testimony to the courage of PIUS XII

http://blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/2010/07/lauds-for-pope-pius-xii-and-catholic.html

http://edwardsliteracylog.blogspot.com/2009/02/mit-brennender-sorge.html

This is a very convincing and credible accolade by Einstein and must refer to the Papal Bull I have alluded to under Pius XI possibly Mit Brennender Sorge







Lauds for Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in WWII
Albert Einstein on the Catholic Church:"Only the Catholic Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly

ANOTHER ACCOLADE

Dr Joseph Nathan, representing the Hebrew Commission in September 1945."We express our heartfelt gratitude to those who protected and saved us during the Nazi-Fascist persecutions. Above all, we acknowledge the Supreme Pontiff [Pope Pius Xll] and the religious men and women who, executing the directives of the Holy Father, recognised the persecuted as their brothers and with great abnegation, hastened to help them, disregarding the terrible dangers to which they were exposed."

Jesuit Honored as 'Righteous Among Nations' for Saving 3 Jewish Children

Pair of Brothers, Cousin Hid Among Catholic School StudentsBy Anita S. BourdinROME, DEC. 15, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Graziano Sonnino and Marco Pavoncello remember Jesuit Father Raffaele de Ghantuz Cubbe for his courage and goodness. It was that courage and goodness that saved their lives, along with the life of Sonnino's brother Mario.The Sonninos and Pavoncello, as young Italian Jews, were saved from the Holocaust when Father Cubbe hid the children at his Jesuit school. Their surname was changed to Sbardella, a southern name of the region of Cassino, which had been bombed by the Allies, meaning their identity was impossible to verify.Father Cubbe (1904-1983) was recognized Tuesday in Rome with the honor of Righteous Among the Nations, the title bestowed by the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.Mordechay Lewy, Israel's ambassador to the Holy See, presented the honor to Father Cubbe's nephew, Francesco de Ghantuz Cubbe.Pavoncello and Graziano Sonnino took part in Tuesday morning's ceremony; Mario Sonnino died last July, as did his sister Virginia.Their children and grandchildren were present, as were their nieces and nephews.
MIT BRENNENDER SORGE

http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge#cite_note-Vidmar327-1
The encyclical was written in German and not the usual Latin of official Roman Catholic Church documents. It was addressed to German bishops and was read in all parish churches of Germany. Pope Pius XI credited its creation and writing to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII. There was no pre-announcement of the encyclical, and its distribution was kept secret in an attempt to ensure the unhindered public reading of its
contents in all the Catholic Churches of Germany.
The next paragraphs condemn event the notion of national gods as idolatrous and out of sync with divine order.:
8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds...10. This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.11. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xl, 15).
Note the Nazi reaction and reprisal due to the reading of this document:
^ Chadwick, A History of Christianity (1995), pp. 254–5
After Mit Brennender Sorge was disseminated throughout German Catholic parishes, Nazi persecution of the Church in Germany began by "outright repression" and "staged prosecutions" of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity. In Poland, the Nazis murdered over 2500 monks and priests while scores more were sent to concentration camps.
http://http//www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
Note this text from Mit Brennender Sorge and the clear implication of unmistakable references to the juggernaut of ongoing Nazi tyranny.
If, then, the tree of peace, which we planted on German soil with the purest intention, has not brought forth the fruit, which in the interest of your people, We had fondly hoped, no one in the world who has eyes to see and ears to hear will be able to lay the blame on the Church and on her Head. The experiences of these last years have fixed responsibilities and laid bare intrigues, which from the outset only aimed at a war of extermination. In the furrows, where We tried to sow the seed of a sincere peace, other men - the "enemy" of Holy Scripture - oversowed the cockle of distrust, unrest, hatred, defamation, of a determined hostility overt or veiled, fed from many sources and wielding many tools, against Christ and His Church. They, and they alone with their accomplices, silent or vociferous, are today responsible, should the storm of religious war, instead of the rainbow of peace, blacken the German skies.

The role of Pontius Pilate

THE ROLE OF PILATE IN JESUS' DEATH
Pilate in the canonical Gospel accounts
He is a pivotal character to legalize the sentence of death by the Sanhedin whereby the sentence and charges were converted to sedition in preference to blasphemy on the basis of Mosaic law insufficient fo condemnation before this Roman prefect. He was impressed by the stance of Jesus and been warned to not meddle in this case by a dream of his wife, a devout believer in the gods.
Note the role of Claudia Procula his wife http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

Not surprisingly, Pilate is eulogized or made into the stuff of legends, or are legends full of the kernels of truth(?), in the minor literature as attested in this following excerpt:

• Acts of Peter and Paul and Actsof Pilate are non canonical letters the former to the Emperor Claudius.The latter is 4th dentury with no relation to the former,
• Pseudo-Marcellus Passio sanctorum Petri et Pauli ("Passion of Saints Peter and Paul"). Report of Pilate inserted herein
• Mors Pilati Latin tradition -Pilate a monster
• The narrative of the Mors Pilati set of manuscripts is set in motion by an illness of Tiberius, who sends Volusanius to Judaea to fetch the Christ for a cure. In Judaea Pilate covers for the fact that Christ has been crucified, and asks for a delay. But Volusanius encounters Veronica who informs him of the truth but sends him back to Rome with her Veronica of Christ's face on her kerchief, which heals Tiberius-The narratives have successive embellishments not present in the canonical accounts of Pilate.
• Tiberius then calls for Pontius Pilate, but when Pilate appears, he is wearing the seamless robe of the Christ and Tiberius' heart is softened, but only until Pilate is induced to doff the garment, whereupon he is treated to a ghastly execution. His body, when thrown into the Tiber, however, raises such storm demons that it is sent to Vienne (via gehennae) in France and thrown to the Rhone. That river's spirits reject it too, and the body is driven east into "Losania", where it is plunged in the bay of the lake near Lucerne, near Mont Pilatus — originally Mons Pileatus or "cloud-capped", as John Ruskin pointed out in Modern Painters — whence the uncorrupting corpse rises every Good Friday to sit on the bank and wash unavailing hands. These are further embellishments in the Pilate cycle of stories.
• de Voragine's Golden Legend
• Spurious texts : In the Cornish cycle of mystery plays, the "death of Pilate" forms a dramatic scene in the Resurrexio Domini cycle. More of Pilate's fictional correspondence is found in the minor Pilate apocrypha, the Anaphora Pilati (Relation of Pilate), an Epistle of Herod to Pilate, and an Epistle of Pilate to Herod, spurious texts that are no older than the 5th century
• The Jews saw him in a different portrait as violent, cruel and a robber of the temple treasuy. When the citizens of Jerusalem discovered these the following day, they appealed to Pilate to remove the ensigns of Caesar from the city. After five days of deliberation, Pilate had his soldiers surround the demonstrators, threatening them with death, which they were willing to accept rather than submit to desecration of Mosaic law. Pilate finally removed the image. The incident proved to be an early example of effective resistance to tyranny by aggressive, nonviolent means.[22
• Josephus recounts another incident in which Pilate spent money from the Temple to build an aqueduct. When Jews again protested his actions, Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them. After giving the signal, Pilate's soldiers randomly attacked, beat, and killed scores of Jews to silence their petitions.[24]
• Josephus recounts another incident in which Pilate spent money from the Temple to build an aqueduct. When Jews again protested his actions, Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them. After giving the signal, Pilate's soldiers randomly attacked, beat, and killed scores of Jews to silence their petitions.[24]
• Main article: Responsibility (Does Pilate succumb to the vuile Jewish mobs?)
  for the death of JesusIn all gospel accounts, Pilate is reluctant to condemn
  Jesus, but is eventually forced to give in when the crowd becomes unruly and the
  Jewish leaders remind him that Jesus's claim to be king is a challenge to Roman
  rule and to the Roman deification of Caesar. Roman magistrates had wide
  discretion in executing their tasks, and some readers question whether Pilate
  would have been so captive to the demands of the crowd. Pilate was later
  recalled to Rome for his harsh treatment of the Jews.[18][19] Pilate
  was cruel to Galileans in Luke 13:1-2 and Jesus was considered by Pilate to be a Galilean
  in Luke 23:5-7 since he sent him to Herod and Herod was upset with
  Pilate up until then Luke 23:11-12 because of his bad treatment of Galileans. Also
  see Acts 4:24-28
• Skeptical scholars consider the various trials of Jesus as described in the Gospels to be largely invention rather than historical record.[20] Skeptical scholars also see an authors' agenda behind the descriptions of a reluctant Pilate.[20] These scholars argue that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews.[20]
  
  
  

Minor Pilate literature

Bronze coin of Pontius Pilate, Jerusalem mint, 26-36 AD.
There is a pseudepigrapha letter reporting on the crucifixion, purporting to have been sent by Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, embodied in the pseudepigrapha known as the Acts of Peter and Paul, of which the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "This composition is clearly apocryphal though unexpectedly brief and restrained." There is no internal relation between this feigned letter and the 4th-century Acts of Pilate (Acta Pilati).
This Epistle or Report of Pilate is also inserted into the Pseudo-Marcellus Passio sanctorum Petri et Pauli ("Passion of Saints Peter and Paul"). We thus have it in both Greek and Latin versions.
The Mors Pilati ("Death of Pilate") legend is a Latin tradition, thus treating Pilate as a monster, not a saint; it is attached usually to the more sympathetic Gospel of Nicodemus of Greek origin. The narrative of the Mors Pilati set of manuscripts is set in motion by an illness of Tiberius, who sends Volusanius to Judaea to fetch the Christ for a cure. In Judaea Pilate covers for the fact that Christ has been crucified, and asks for a delay. But Volusanius encounters Veronica who informs him of the truth but sends him back to Rome with her Veronica of Christ's face on her kerchief, which heals Tiberius. Tiberius then calls for Pontius Pilate, but when Pilate appears, he is wearing the seamless robe of the Christ and Tiberius' heart is softened, but only until Pilate is induced to doff the garment, whereupon he is treated to a ghastly execution. His body, when thrown into the Tiber, however, raises such storm demons that it is sent to Vienne (via gehennae) in France and thrown to the Rhone. That river's spirits reject it too, and the body is driven east into "Losania", where it is plunged in the bay of the lake near Lucerne, near Mont Pilatus — originally Mons Pileatus or "cloud-capped", as John Ruskin pointed out in Modern Painters — whence the uncorrupting corpse rises every Good Friday to sit on the bank and wash unavailing hands.
This version combined with anecdotes of Pilate's wicked early life were incorporated in Jacobus de Voragine's Golden Legend, which ensured a wide circulation for it in the later Middle Ages. Other legendary versions of Pilate's death exist: Antoine de la Sale reported from a travel in central Italy on some local traditions asserting that after death the body of Pontius Pilate was driven until a little lake near Vettore Peak (2478 m in Sibillini Mounts ) and plunged in. The lake, today, is still named Lago di Pilato.
In the Cornish cycle of mystery plays, the "death of Pilate" forms a dramatic scene in the Resurrexio Domini cycle. More of Pilate's fictional correspondence is found in the minor Pilate apocrypha, the Anaphora Pilati (Relation of Pilate), an Epistle of Herod to Pilate, and an Epistle of Pilate to Herod, spurious texts that are no older than the 5th century

Pilate in Jewish literature
According to Philo, Pilate was "inflexible, he was stubborn, of cruel disposition. He executed troublemakers without a trial." He refers to Pilate's "venality, his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, endless savage ferocity."[21]
According to Josephus, Pilate repeatedly almost caused insurrections among the Jews due to his insensitivity to Jewish customs. While Pilate's predecessors had respected Jewish customs by removing all images and effigies on their standards when entering Jerusalem, Pilate allowed his soldiers to bring them into the city at night. When the citizens of Jerusalem discovered these the following day, they appealed to Pilate to remove the ensigns of Caesar from the city. After five days of deliberation, Pilate had his soldiers surround the demonstrators, threatening them with death, which they were willing to accept rather than submit to desecration of Mosaic law. Pilate finally removed the image. The incident proved to be an early example of effective resistance to tyranny by aggressive, nonviolent means.[22][23]
Josephus recounts another incident in which Pilate spent money from the Temple to build an aqueduct. When Jews again protested his actions, Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them. After giving the signal, Pilate's soldiers randomly attacked, beat, and killed scores of Jews to silence their petitions.[24]

RESPONSIBILITY FOR JESUS' DEATH

Responsibility for Jesus' Death
Main article: Responsibility for the death of Jesus
In all gospel accounts, Pilate is reluctant to condemn Jesus, but is eventually forced to give in when the crowd becomes unruly and the Jewish leaders remind him that Jesus's claim to be king is a challenge to Roman rule and to the Roman deification of Caesar. Roman magistrates had wide discretion in executing their tasks, and some readers question whether Pilate would have been so captive to the demands of the crowd. Pilate was later recalled to Rome for his harsh treatment of the Jews.[18][19] Pilate was cruel to Galileans in Luke 13:1-2 and Jesus was considered by Pilate to be a Galilean in Luke 23:5-7 since he sent him to Herod and Herod was upset with Pilate up until then Luke 23:11-12 because of his bad treatment of Galileans. Also see Acts 4:24-28.
With the Edict of Milan in AD 313, the state-sponsored persecution of Christians came to an end, and Christianity became officially tolerated as one of the religions of the Roman Empire. Afterwards, in AD 325 the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea promulgated a creed which was amended at the subsequent First Council of Constantinople in 381. The Nicene Creed incorporated for the first time the clause was crucified under Pontius Pilate (which had already been long established in the Old Roman Symbol, an ancient form of the Apostles' Creed dating as far back as the 2nd century AD) in a creed that was intended to be authoritative for all Christians in the Roman Empire.
Skeptical scholars consider the various trials of Jesus as described in the Gospels to be largely invention rather than historical record.[20] Skeptical scholars also see an authors' agenda behind the descriptions of a reluctant Pilate.[20] These scholars argue that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews.[20]

According to the canonical Christian Gospels, Pilate presided at the trial of Jesus and, despite stating that he personally found him not guilty of a crime meriting death, handed him over to crucifixion. Pilate is thus a pivotal character in the New Testament accounts of Jesus.
According to the New Testament, Jesus was brought to Pilate by the Sanhedrin, who had arrested Jesus and questioned him themselves. The Sanhedrin had, according to the Gospels, only been given answers by Jesus that they considered blasphemous pursuant to Mosaic law, which was unlikely to be deemed a capital offense by Pilate interpreting Roman law.[14] The Gospel of Luke[15] records that members of the Sanhedrin then took Jesus before Pilate where they accused him of sedition against Rome by opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar and calling himself a king. Fomenting tax resistance was a capital offense.[16] Pilate was responsible for imperial tax collections in Judaea. Jesus had asked the tax collector Levi, at work in his tax booth in Capernaum, to quit his post. Jesus also appears to have influenced Zacchaeus, "a chief tax collector" in Jericho, which is in Pilate's tax jurisdiction, to resign.[17] Pilate's main question to Jesus was whether he considered himself to be the King of the Jews, and thus a political threat. Mark in the NIV translation states: "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "It is as you say," Jesus replied. However, quite a number of other translations render Jesus' reply as variations of the phrase: "Thou sayest it."(King James Version, Mark 15:2); "So you say." (Good News Bible, Mark 15:2). Whatever degree of confirmation modern interpreters would derive from this answer of Jesus, according to the New Testament, it was not enough for Pilate to view Jesus as a real political threat. In the same Gospel of Mark, 15 verse 5 of King James Version we read, that "Pilate marveled" ("was amazed" in Good News Bible).
Following the Roman custom, Pilate ordered a sign posted above Jesus on the cross stating "Jesus of Nazareth, The King of the Jews" to give public notice of the legal charge against him for his crucifixion. The chief priests protested that the public charge on the sign should read that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. Pilate refused to change the posted charge, saying "What I've written I've written", as if weary of legalistic nit-picking. This may have been to emphasize Rome's supremacy in crucifying a Jewish king; it is likely, though, that Pilate was quite irritated by the fact that the Jewish leaders had used him as a marionette and thus compelled him to sentence Jesus to death contrary to his own will (according to Mathew 27:19, even Pilate's wife spoke to him on Jesus' behalf).
The Gospel of Luke also reports that such questions were asked of Jesus; in Luke's case it being the priests that repeatedly accused him, though Luke states that Jesus remained silent to such inquisition, causing Pilate to hand Jesus over to the jurisdiction (Galilee) of Herod Antipas. Although initially excited with curiosity at meeting Jesus, of whom he had heard much, Herod (according to Luke) ended up mocking Jesus and so sent him back to Pilate. This intermediate episode with Herod is not reported by the other Gospels, which appear to present a continuous and singular trial in front of Pilate. Luke, however, made further reference to this involvement of Herod along with Pilate in Jesus' execution and linked it with the prophesy about the Messianic King found in Psalm 2, as we can read in Luke's other book, Acts 4:24-28. This explains why he counted this episode important.
Unlike the synoptic gospels, the Gospel of John gives more detail about that dialog taking place between Jesus and Pilate. In John, Jesus seems to confirm the fact of his kingship, although immediately explaining, that "[his] kingdom [was] not of this world"; of far greater importance for the followers of Christ is his own definition of the goal of his ministry on earth at the time. According to Jesus, as we find it written in John 18:37, Jesus thus describes his mission: " [I] came into the world ... to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to [my] voice", to which Pilate famously replied, "What is truth?" (John 18:38)...

Nikolai Ge "Christ and Pilatus" (What is truth?), 1890.
Whatever it be that some modern critics want to deduce from those differences, the end result was the same for Jesus and Pilate, as it was in all the other three Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke). In the same chapter of John 18 verse 38 (King James Version, compare with other versions) the conclusion Pilate made from this interrogation: "I find in him no fault at all".
The Synoptic Gospels and John then state that it had been a tradition of the Jews to release a prisoner at the time of the Passover. Pilate offers them the choice of an insurrectionist named Barabbas or Jesus, somewhat confusing because Barabbas had the full name Jesus Barabbas, and bar-Abbas means son of the father. The crowd may not have understood whose release they were asking for and were particularly susceptible to suggestions from the Jewish leaders. The crowd states that they wish to save Barabbas.
Pilate agrees to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, after the Jewish leaders explained to him that Jesus presented a threat to Roman occupation through his claim to the throne of King David as King of Israel in the royal line of David. The crowd in Pilate's courtyard, according to the Synoptics, had been coached by the Pharisees and Sadducees to shout against Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew adds that before condemning Jesus to death, Pilate washes his hands with water in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; you will see."

Tacitus :Annals The fire of Rome, the Christians and Nero

The response to the fire in Rome was oh so predictable recourse to propitiation of the gods and creation of the Christian scapegoat by Nero to deflect blame, and even yet, the people sensed the underpinnings and the Christians drew compassion. Even the temples were looted by these savages.


http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/roman/tacitus/annals/bookxv.html




The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed. Meanwhile Italy was thoroughly exhausted by contributions of money, the provinces were ruined, as also the allied nations and the free states, as they were called. Even the gods fell victims to the plunder; for the temples in Rome were despoiled and the gold carried off, which, for a triumph or a vow, the Roman people in every age had consecrated in their prosperity or their alarm. Throughout Asia and Achaia not only votive gifts, but the images of deities were seized, Acratus and Secundus Carinas having been sent into those provinces. The first was a freedman ready for any wickedness; the latter, as far as speech went, was thoroughly trained in Greek learning, but he had not imbued his heart with sound principles. Seneca, it was said, to avert from himself the obloquy of sacrilege, begged for the seclusion of a remote rural retreat, and, when it was refused, feigning ill health, as though he had a nervous ailment, would not quit his chamber. According to some writers, poison was prepared for him at Nero’s command by his own freedman, whose name was Cleonicus. This Seneca avoided through the freedman’s disclosure, or his own apprehension, while he used to support life on the very simple diet of wild fruits, with water from a running stream when thirst prompted.
PRODIGIES PRESAGING EVILS AND THE CONSPIRACY TO ASSASSINATE NERO
At the close of the year people talked much about prodigies, presaging impending evils. Never were lightning flashes more frequent, and a comet too appeared, for which Nero always made propitiation with noble blood. Human and other births with two heads were exposed to public view, or were discovered in those sacrifices in which it is usual to immolate victims in a pregnant condition. And in the district of Placentia, close to the road, a calf was born with its head attached to its leg. Then followed an explanation of the diviners, that another head was preparing for the world, which however would be neither mighty nor hidden, as its growth had been checked in the womb, and it had been born by the wayside.
Silius Nerva and Atticus Vestinus then entered on the consulship, and now a conspiracy was planned, and at once became formidable, for which senators, knights, soldiers, even women, had given their names with eager rivalry, out of hatred of Nero as well as a liking for Caius Piso. A descendant of the Calpurnian house, and embracing in his connections through his father’s noble rank many illustrious families, Piso had a splendid reputation with the people from his virtue or semblance of virtue. His eloquence he exercised in the defence of fellow-citizens, his generosity towards friends, while even for strangers he had a courteous address and demeanour. He had, too, the fortuitous advantages of tall stature and a handsome face. But solidity of character and moderation in pleasure were wholly alien to him. He indulged in laxity, in display, and occasionally in excess. This suited the taste of that numerous class who, when the attractions of vice are so powerful, do not wish for strictness or special severity on the throne.
The origin of the conspiracy was not in Piso’s personal ambition. But I could not easily narrate who first planned it, or whose prompting inspired a scheme into which so many entered. That the leading spirits were Subrius Flavus, tribune of a praetorian cohort, and Sulpicius Asper, a centurion, was proved by the fearlessness of their death. Lucanus Annaeus, too, and Plautius Lateranus, imported into it an intensely keen resentment. Lucanus had the stimulus of personal motives, for Nero tried to disparage the fame of his poems and, with the foolish vanity of a rival, had forbidden him to publish them. As for Lateranus, a consul-elect, it was no wrong, but love of the State which linked him with the others. Flavius Scaevinus and Afranius Quintianus, on the other hand, both of senatorian rank, contrary to what was expected of them, undertook the beginning of this daring crime. Scaevinus, indeed, had enfeebled his mind by excess, and his life, accordingly, was one of sleepy languor. Quintianus, infamous for his effeminate vice, had been satirised by Nero in a lampoon, and was bent on avenging the insult. So, while they dropped hints among themselves or among their friends about the emperor’s crimes, the approaching end of empire, and the importance of choosing some one to rescue the State in its distress, they associated with them Tullius Senecio, Cervarius Proculus, Vulcatius Araricus, Julius Augurinus, Munatius Gratus, Antonius Natalis, and Marcius Festus, all Roman knights. Of these Senecio, one of those who was specially intimate with Nero, still kept up a show of friendship, and had consequently to struggle with all the more dangers. Natalis shared with Piso all his secret plans. The rest built their hopes on revolution. Besides Subrius and Sulpicius, whom I have already mentioned, they invited the aid of military strength, of Gavius Silvanus and Statius Proximus, tribunes of praetorian cohorts, and of two centurions, Maximus Scaurus and Venetus Paulus. But their mainstay, it was thought, was Faenius Rufus, the commander of the guard, a man of esteemed life and character, to whom Tigellinus with his brutality and shamelessness was superior in the emperor’s regard. He harassed him with calumnies, and had often put him in terror by hinting that he had been Agrippina’s paramour, and from sorrow at her loss was intent on vengeance. And so, when the conspirators were assured by his own repeated language that the commander of the praetorian guard had come over to their side, they once more eagerly discussed the time and place of the fatal deed. It was said that Subrius Flavus had formed a sudden resolution to attack Nero when singing on the stage, or when his house was in flames and he was running hither and thither, unattended, in the darkness. In the one case was the opportunity of solitude; in the other, the very crowd which would witness so glorious a deed, had roused a singularly noble soul; it was only the desire of escape, that foe to all great enterprises, which held him back.
THE DEATH OF SENECA AND THE EXECUTION OF SUBRIUS FLAVUS
Seneca meantime, as the tedious process of death still lingered on, begged Statius Annaeus, whom he had long esteemed for his faithful friendship and medical skill, to produce a poison with which he had some time before provided himself, same drug which extinguished the life of those who were condemned by a public sentence of the people of Athens. It was brought to him and he drank it in vain, chilled as he was throughout his limbs, and his frame closed against the efficacy of the poison. At last he entered a pool of heated water, from which he sprinkled the nearest of his slaves, adding the exclamation, “I offer this liquid as a libation to Jupiter the Deliverer.” He was then carried into a bath, with the steam of which he was suffocated, and he was burnt without any of the usual funeral rites. So he had directed in a codicil of his will, when even in the height of his wealth and power he was thinking of his life’s close.
There was a rumour that Sabrius Flavus had held a secret consultation with the centurions, and had planned, not without Seneca’s knowledge, that when Nero had been slain by Piso’s instrumentality, Piso also was to be murdered, and the empire handed over to Seneca, as a man singled out for his splendid virtues by all persons of integrity. Even a saying of Flavus was popularly current, “that it mattered not as to the disgrace if a harp-player were removed and a tragic actor succeeded him.” For as Nero used to sing to the harp, so did Piso in the dress of a tragedian.
The soldiers’ part too in the conspiracy no longer escaped discovery, some in their rage becoming informers to betray Faenius Rufus, whom they could not endure to be both an accomplice and a judge. Accordingly Scaevinus, in answer to his browbeating and menaces, said with a smile that no one knew more than he did, and actually urged him to show gratitude to so good a prince. Faenius could not meet this with either speech or silence. Halting in his words and visibly terror-stricken, while the rest, especially Cervarius Proculus, a Roman knight, did their utmost to convict him, he was, at the emperor’s bidding, seized and bound by Cassius, a soldier, who because of his well-known strength of limb was in attendance.
Shortly afterwards, the information of the same men proved fatal to Seneca meantime, as the tedious process of death still lingered on, begged Statius Annaeus, whom he had long esteemed for his faithful friendship and medical skill, to produce a poison with which he had some time before provided himself, same drug which extinguished the life of those who were condemned by a public sentence of the people of Athens. It was brought to him and he drank it in vain, chilled as he was throughout his limbs, and his frame closed against the efficacy of the poison. At last he entered a pool of heated water, from which he sprinkled the nearest of his slaves, adding the exclamation, “I offer this liquid as a libation to Jupiter the Deliverer.” He was then carried into a bath, with the steam of which he was suffocated, and he was burnt without any of the usual funeral rites. So he had directed in a codicil of his will, when even in the height of his wealth and power he was thinking of his life’s close.
. Silius Nerva and Atticus Vestinus then entered on the consulship, and now a conspiracy was planned, and at once became formidable, for which senators, knights, soldiers, even women, had given their names with eager rivalry, out of hatred of Nero as well as a liking for Caius Piso. A descendant of the Calpurnian house, and embracing in his connections through his father’s noble rank many illustrious families, Piso had a splendid reputation with the people from his virtue or semblance of virtue. His eloquence he exercised in the defence of fellow-citizens, his generosity towards friends, while even for strangers he had a courteous address and demeanour. He had, too, the fortuitous advantages of tall stature and a handsome face. But solidity of character and moderation in pleasure were wholly alien to him. He indulged in laxity, in display, and occasionally in excess. This suited the taste of that numerous class who, when the attractions of vice are so powerful, do not wish for strictness or special severity on the throne.
The origin of the conspiracy was not in Piso’s personal ambition. But I could not easily narrate who first planned it, or whose prompting inspired a scheme into which so many entered. That the leading spirits were Subrius Flavus, tribune of a praetorian cohort, and Sulpicius Asper, a centurion, was proved by the fearlessness of their death. Lucanus Annaeus, too, and Plautius Lateranus, imported into it an intensely keen resentment. Lucanus had the stimulus of personal motives, for Nero tried to disparage the fame of his poems and, with the foolish vanity of a rival, had forbidden him to publish them. As for Lateranus, a consul-elect, it was no wrong, but love of the State which linked him with the others. Flavius Scaevinus and Afranius Quintianus, on the other hand, both of senatorian rank, contrary to what was expected of them, undertook the beginning of this daring crime. Scaevinus, indeed, had enfeebled his mind by excess, and his life, accordingly, was one of sleepy languor. Quintianus, infamous for his effeminate vice, had been satirised by Nero in a lampoon, and was bent on avenging the insult. So, while they dropped hints among themselves or among their friends about the emperor’s crimes, the approaching end of empire, and the importance of choosing some one to rescue the State in its distress, they associated with them Tullius Senecio, Cervarius Proculus, Vulcatius Araricus, Julius Augurinus, Munatius Gratus, Antonius Natalis, and Marcius Festus, all Roman knights. Of these Senecio, one of those who was specially intimate with Nero, still kept up a show of friendship, and had consequently to struggle with all the more dangers. Natalis shared with Piso all his secret plans. The rest built their hopes on revolution. Besides Subrius and Sulpicius, whom I have already mentioned, they invited the aid of military strength, of Gavius Silvanus and Statius Proximus, tribunes of praetorian cohorts, and of two centurions, Maximus Scaurus and Venetus Paulus. But their mainstay, it was thought, was Faenius Rufus, the commander of the guard, a man of esteemed life and character, to whom Tigellinus with his brutality and shamelessness was superior in the emperor’s regard. He harassed him with calumnies, and had often put him in terror by hinting that he had been Agrippina’s paramour, and from sorrow at her loss was intent on vengeance. And so, when the conspirators were assured by his own repeated language that the commander of the praetorian guard had come over to their side, they once more eagerly discussed the time and place of the fatal deed. It was said that Subrius Flavus had formed a sudden resolution to attack Nero when singing on the stage, or when his house was in flames and he was running hither and thither, unattended, in the darkness. In the one case was the opportunity of solitude; in the other, the very crowd which would witness so glorious a deed, had roused a singularly noble soul; it was only the desire of escape, that foe to all great enterprises, which held him back.
Meanwhile, as they hesitated in prolonged suspense between hope and fear, a certain Epicharis (how she informed herself is uncertain, as she had never before had a thought of anything noble) began to stir and upbraid the conspirators. Wearied at last of their long delay, she endeavoured, when staying in Campania, to shake the loyalty of the officers of the fleet at Misenum, and to entangle them in a guilty complicity. She began thus. There was a captain in the fleet, Volusius Proculus, who had been one of Nero’s instruments in his mother’s murder, and had not, as he thought, been promoted in proportion to the greatness of his crime. Either, as an old acquaintance of the woman, or on the strength of a recent intimacy, he divulged to her his services to Nero and their barren result to himself, adding complaints, and his determination to have vengeance, should the chance arise. He thus inspired the hope that he could be persuaded, and could secure many others. No small help was to be found in the fleet, and there would be numerous opportunities, as Nero delighted in frequent enjoyment of the sea off Puteoli and Misenum. Epicharis accordingly said more, and began the history of all the emperor’s crimes. “The Senate,” she affirmed, “had no power left it; yet means had been provided whereby he might pay the penalty of having destroyed the State. Only let Proculus gird himself to do his part and bring over to their side his bravest soldiers, and then look for an adequate recompense.” The conspirators’ names, however, she withheld. Consequently the information of Proculus was useless, even though he reported what he had heard to Nero. For Epicharis being summoned and confronted with the informer easily silenced him, unsupported as he was by a single witness. But she was herself detained in custody, for Nero suspected that even what was not proved to be true, was not wholly false.
The conspirators, however, alarmed by the fear of disclosure, resolved to hurry on the assassination at Baiae, in Piso’s villa, whither the emperor, charmed by its loveliness, often went, and where, unguarded and without the cumbrous grandeur of his rank, he would enjoy the bath and the banquet. But Piso refused, alleging the odium of an act which would stain with an emperor’s blood, however bad he might be, the sanctity of the hospitable board and the deities who preside over it. “Better,” he said, “in the capital, in that hateful mansion which was piled up with the plunder of the citizens, or in public, to accomplish what on the State’s behalf they had undertaken.” So he said openly, with however a secret apprehension that Lucius Silanus might, on the strength of his distinguished rank and the teachings of Caius Cassius, under whom he had been trained, aspire to any greatness and seize an empire, which would be promptly offered him by all who had no part in the conspiracy, and who would pity Nero as the victim of a crime. Many thought that Piso shunned also the enterprising spirit of Vestinus, the consul, who might, he feared, rise up in the cause of freedom, or, by choosing another emperor, make the State his own gift. Vestinus, indeed, had no share in the conspiracy, though Nero on that charge gratified an old resentment against an innocent man.
At last they decided to carry out their design on that day of the circus games, which is celebrated in honour of Ceres, as the emperor, who seldom went out, and shut himself up in his house or gardens, used to go to the entertainments of the circus, and access to him was the easier from his keen enjoyment of the spectacle. They had so arranged the order of the plot, that Lateranus was to throw himself at the prince’s knees in earnest entreaty, apparently craving relief for his private necessities, and, being a man of strong nerve and huge frame, hurl him to the ground and hold him down. When he was prostrate and powerless, the tribunes and centurions and all the others who had sufficient daring were to rush up and do the murder, the first blow being claimed by Scaevinus, who had taken a dagger from the Temple of Safety, or, according to another account, from that of Fortune, in the town of Ferentum, and used to wear the weapon as though dedicated to some noble deed. Piso, meanwhile, was wait in the sanctuary of Ceres, whence he was to be summoned by Faenius, the commander of the guard, and by the others, and then conveyed into the camp, accompanied by Antonia, the daughter of Claudius Caesar, with a view to evoke the people’s enthusiasm. So it is related by Caius Pliny. Handed down from whatever source, I had no intention of suppressing it, however absurd it may seem, either that Antonia should have lent her name at her life’s peril to a hopeless project, or that Piso, with his well-known affection for his wife, should have pledged himself to another marriage, but for the fact that the lust of dominion inflames the heart more than any other passion.
It was however wonderful how among people of different class, rank, age, sex, among rich and poor, everything was kept in secrecy till betrayal began from the house of Scaevinus. The day before the treacherous attempt, after a long conversation with Antonius Natalis, Scaevinus returned home, sealed his will, and, drawing from its sheath the dagger of which I have already spoken, and complaining that it was blunted from long disuse, he ordered it to be sharpened on a stone to a keen and bright point. This task he assigned to his freedman Milichus. At the same time sat down to a more than usually sumptuous banquet, and gave his favourite slaves their freedom, and money to others. He was himself depressed, and evidently in profound thought, though he affected gaiety in desultory conversation. Last of all, he directed ligatures for wounds and the means of stanching blood to be prepared by the same Milichus, who either knew of the conspiracy and was faithful up to this point, or was in complete ignorance and then first caught suspicions, as most authors have inferred from what followed. For when his servile imagination dwelt on the rewards of perfidy, and he saw before him at the same moment boundless wealth and power, conscience and care for his patron’s life, together with the remembrance of the freedom he had received, fled from him. From his wife, too, he had adopted a womanly and yet baser suggestion; for she even held over him a dreadful thought, that many had been present, both freedmen and slaves, who had seen what he had; that one man’s silence would be useless, whereas the rewards would be for him alone who was first with the information.
Accordingly at daybreak Milichus went to the Servilian gardens, and, finding the doors shut against him, said again and again that he was the bearer of important and alarming news. Upon this he was conducted by the gatekeepers to one of Nero’s freedmen, Epaphroditus, and by him to Nero, whom he informed of the urgent danger, of the formidable conspiracy, and of all else which he had heard or inferred. He showed him too the weapon prepared for his destruction, and bade him summon the accused. Scaevinus on being arrested by the soldiers began his defence with the reply that the dagger about which he was accused, had of old been regarded with a religious sentiment by his ancestors, that it had been kept in his chamber, and been stolen by a trick of his freedman. He had often, he said, signed his will without heeding the observance of particular days, and had previously given presents of money as well as freedom to some of his slaves, only on this occasion he gave more freely, because, as his means were now impoverished and his creditors were pressing him, he distrusted the validity of his will. Certainly his table had always been profusely furnished, and his life luxurious, such as rigid censors would hardly approve. As to the bandages for wounds, none had been prepared at his order, but as all the man’s other charges were absurd, he added an accusation in which he might make himself alike informer and witness.
He backed up his words by an air of resolution. Turning on his accuser, he denounced him as an infamous and depraved wretch, with so fearless a voice and look that the information was beginning to collapse, when Milichus was reminded by his wife that Antonious Natalis had had a long secret conversation with Scaevinus, and that both were Piso’s intimate friends.
Natalis was therefore summoned, and they were separately asked what the conversation was, and what was its subject. Then a suspicion arose because their answers did not agree, and they were both put in irons. They could not endure the sight and the threat of torture. Natalis however, taking the initiative, knowing as he did more of the whole conspiracy, and being also more practised in accusing, first confessed about Piso, next added the name of Annaeus Seneca, either as having been a messenger between him and Piso, or to win the favour of Nero, who hated Seneca and sought every means for his ruin. Then Scaevinus too, when he knew the disclosure of Natalis, with like pusillanimity, or under the impression that everything now divulged, and that there could be no advantage in silence, revealed the other conspirators. Of these, Lucanus, Quintianus, and Senecio long persisted in denial; after a time, when bribed by the promise of impunity, anxious to excuse their reluctance, Lucanus named his mother Atilla, Quintianus and Senecio, their chief friends, respectively, Glitius Gallus and Annius Pollio. Nero, meanwhile, remembering that Epicharis was in custody on the information of Volusius Proculus, and assuming that a woman’s frame must be unequal to the agony, ordered her to be torn on the rack. But neither the scourge nor fire, nor the fury of the men as they increased the torture that they might not be a woman’s scorn, overcame her positive denial of the charge. Thus the first day’s inquiry was futile. On the morrow, as she was being dragged back on a chair to the same torments (for with her limbs all dislocated she could not stand), she tied a band, which she had stript off her bosom, in a sort of noose to the arched back of the chair, put her neck in it, and then straining with the whole weight of her body, wrung out of her frame its little remaining breath. All the nobler was the example set by a freedwoman at such a crisis in screening strangers and those whom she hardly knew, when freeborn men, Roman knights, and senators, yet unscathed by torture, betrayed, every one, his dearest kinsfolk. For even Lucanus and Senecio and Quintianus failed not to reveal their accomplices indiscriminately, and Nero was more and more alarmed, though he had fenced his person with a largely augmented guard. Even Rome itself he put, so to say, under custody, garrisoning its walls with companies of soldiers and occupying with troops the coast and the river-banks. Incessantly were there flying through the public places, through private houses, country fields, and the neighbouring villages, horse and foot soldiers, mixed with Germans, whom the emperor trusted as being foreigners. In long succession, troops of prisoners in chains were dragged along and stood at the gates of his gardens. When they entered to plead their cause, a smile of joy on any of the conspirators, a casual conversation, a sudden meeting, or the fact of having entered a banquet or a public show in company, was construed into a crime, while to the savage questionings of Nero and Tigellinus were added the violent menaces of Faenius Rufus, who had not yet been named by the informers, but who, to get the credit of complete ignorance, frowned fiercely on his accomplices. When Subius Flavus at his side asked him by a sign whether he should draw his sword in the middle of the trial and perpetrate the fatal deed, Rufus refused, and checked the man’s impulse as he was putting his hand to his sword-hilt. Some there were who, as soon as the conspiracy was betrayed, urged Piso, while Milichus’ story was being heard, and Scaevinus was hesitating, to go to the camp or mount the Rostra and test the feelings of the soldiers and of the people. “If,” said they, “your accomplices join your enterprise, those also who are yet undecided, will follow, and great will be the fame of the movement once started, and this in any new scheme is all-powerful. Against it Nero has taken no precaution. Even brave men are dismayed by sudden perils; far less will that stageplayer, with Tigellinus forsooth and his concubines in his train, raise arms against you. Many things are accomplished on trial which cowards think arduous. It is vain to expect secrecy and fidelity from the varying tempers and bodily constitutions of such a host of accomplices. Torture or reward can overcome everything. Men will soon come to put you also in chains and inflict on you an ignominious death. How much more gloriously will you die while you cling to the State and invoke aid for liberty. Rather let the soldiers fail, the people be traitors, provided that you, if prematurely robbed of life, justify your death to your ancestors and descendants.”
SENECA'S APPROACH TO THE SENTENCE OF DEATH
Unmoved by these considerations, Piso showed himself a few moments in public, then sought the retirement of his house, and there fortified his spirit against the worst, till a troop of soldiers arrived, raw recruits, or men recently enlisted, whom Nero had selected, because he was afraid of the veterans, imbued, though they were, with a liking for him. Piso expired by having the veins in his arms severed. His will, full of loathsome flatteries of Nero, was a concession to his love of his wife, a base woman, with only a beautiful person to recommend her, whom he had taken away from her husband, one of his friends. Her name was Atria Galla; that of her former husband, Domitius Silus. The tame spirit of the man, the profligacy of the woman, blazoned Piso’s infamy. In quick succession Nero added the murder of Plautius Lateranus, consul-elect, so promptly that he did not allow him to embrace his children or to have the brief choice of his own death. He was dragged off to a place set apart for the execution of slaves, and butchered by the hand of the tribune Statius, maintaining a resolute silence, and not reproaching the tribune with complicity in the plot. Then followed the destruction of Annaeus Seneca, a special joy to the emperor, not because he had convicted him of the conspiracy, but anxious to accomplish with the sword what poison had failed to do. It was, in fact, Natalis alone who divulged Seneca’s name, to this extent, that he had been sent to Seneca when ailing, to see him and remonstrate with him for excluding Piso from his presence, when it would have been better to have kept up their friendship by familiar intercourse; that Seneca’s reply was that mutual conversations and frequent interviews were to the advantage of neither, but still that his own life depended on Piso’s safety. Gavius Silvanus, tribune of a praetorian cohort, was ordered to report this to Seneca and to ask him whether he acknowledged what Natalis said and his own answer. Either by chance or purposely Seneca had returned on that day from Campania, and had stopped at a countryhouse four miles from Rome. Thither the tribune came next evening, surrounded the house with troops of soldiers, and then made known the emperor’s message to Seneca as he was at dinner with his wife, Pompeia Paulina, and two friends.
Seneca replied that Natalis had been sent to him and had complained to him in Piso’s name because of his refusal to see Piso, upon which he excused himself on the ground of failing health and the desire of rest. “He had no reason,” he said, for “preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery. No one knew this better than Nero, who had oftener experienced Seneca’s freespokenness than his servility.” When the tribune reported this answer in the presence of Poppaea and Tigellinus, the emperor’s most confidential advisers in his moments of rage, he asked whether Seneca was meditating suicide. Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks. He was accordingly ordered to go back and to announce sentence of death. Fabius Rusticus tells us that he did not return the way he came, but went out of his course to Faenius, the commander of the guard, and having explained to him the emperor’s orders, and asked whether he was to obey them, was by him admonished to carry them out, for a fatal spell of cowardice was on them all. For this very Silvanus was one of the conspirators, and he was now abetting the crimes which he had united with them to avenge. But he spared himself the anguish of a word or of a look, and merely sent in to Seneca one of his centurions, who was to announce to him his last doom.
Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion’s refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship. At the same time he called them back from their tears to manly resolution, now with friendly talk, and now with the sterner language of rebuke. ? W“Where,” he asked again and again, “are your maxims of philosophy, or the preparation of so many years’ study against evils to comeho knew not Nero’s cruelty? After a mother’s and a brother’s murder, nothing remains but to add the destruction of a guardian and a tutor.”

Why the Cross?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#cite_note-JInt-4

Here is the reference to Tacitus Bk XV

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/roman/tacitus/annals/bookxv.html

The Crucifixion of Jesus and his ensuing death is an event that occurred during the first century A.D. Jesus, whom most Christians regard as the Son of God as well as the Messiah, was arrested, tried, and sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally executed on a cross. Collectively referred to as the Passion, Jesus' redemptive suffering and death by Crucifixion represent critical aspects of Christian theology, including the doctrines of salvation and atonement.
Jesus' Crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, attested to by other contemporary sources, and regarded as an historical event.[1] Christians believe Jesus' suffering was foretold in Hebrew scripture, such as in Psalm 22, and Isaiah's songs of the suffering servant.[2] According to the New Testament, Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane following the Last Supper with the twelve Apostles, and forced to stand trial before the Sanhedrin, Pontius Pilate, and Herod Antipas, before being handed over for Crucifixion . After being flogged, Jesus was mocked by Roman soldiers as the "King of the Jews", clothed in a purple robe, crowned with thorns, beaten and spat on. Jesus then had to make his way to the place of his Crucifixion.
Once at Golgotha, Jesus was offered wine mixed with gall to drink. Matthew's and Mark's Gospels record that he refused this. He was then stripped, nailed to the beam of his cross and hung between two convicted thieves. According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours, from the third hour [which approximates 9a.m., assuming that Jesus was crucified at a date near the equinox][3] until his death at the ninth hour [which similarly approximates 3p.m.].[4] The soldiers affixed a sign above his head stating "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in three languages, divided his garments and cast lots for his seamless robe. The Roman soldiers did not break Jesus' legs, as they did to the other two men crucified (breaking the legs hastened the Crucifixion process), as Jesus was dead already. Each gospel has its own account of Jesus' last words, seven statements altogether.[5] In the Synoptic Gospels, various supernatural events accompany the Crucifixion , including darkness, an earthquake, and (in Matthew) the resurrection of saints. Following Jesus' death, his body was removed from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea and buried in a rock-hewn tomb, with Nicodemus assisting. According to Christian tradition, Jesus then rose from the dead three days later
According to canonical Gospels, Jesus rose from the dead after three days and appeared to his Disciples on different occasions during a forty day period before ascending to heaven.[34] The account given in Acts of the Apostles, which says Jesus remained with the apostles for forty days, appears to differ from the account in the Gospel of Luke, which makes no clear distinction between the events of Easter Sunday and the Ascension.[35][36] However, most biblical scholars agree that St. Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a follow-up volume to his Gospel account, and the two works must be considered as a whole.[37]
In Mark, Jesus is crucified along with two rebels, and the day goes dark for three hours.[38] Jesus calls out to God, then gives a shout and dies.[38] The curtain of the Temple is torn in two.[38] Matthew follows Mark, adding an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[39] Luke also follows Mark, though he describes the rebels as common criminals, one of whom defends Jesus, who in turn promises that he and Jesus will be together in paradise.[40] Luke portrays Jesus as impassive in the face of his Crucifixion.[41] John includes several of the same elements as those found in Mark, though they are treated differently.[42]
[edit] Other accounts
[show]
Part of a series on
Christianity


Jesus Christ
Virgin birth · Crucifixion · Resurrection · Easter · Christian views of Jesus
Foundations
Church · New Covenant · Creeds · Apostles · Kingdom · Gospel
Bible
Old Testament · New Testament ·Books · Canon · Apocrypha
Theology
Salvation · Baptism · Trinity · Father · Son · Holy Spirit · History of theology · Christology · Apologetics · Eschatology
History and traditions
Timeline · Mary · Peter · Paul ·Early · Constantine · Councils ·Missions · Chrysostom · East–West Schism · Crusades · Reformation ·Counter-Reformation
Movements
[show]Catholic
Roman Catholic · Anglican · Independent Catholic · Old Catholic
[show]Protestant
Lutheran · Calvinist · Anabaptist · Arminian · Baptist · Methodist · Adventist · Evangelical · Holiness · Pentecostal
[show]Eastern
Eastern Orthodox · Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) · Assyrian
[show]Nontrinitarian
Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo
General topics
Preaching · Prayer · Ecumenism · Relation to other religions · Christian movements · Music · Liturgy · Calendar · Symbols · Art · Criticism Christianity Portal
This box: view · talk · edit
Part of a series on the
Death and resurrection of Jesus
[show]Passion
Last Supper
Arrest
Trial
Before Pilate
Flagellation
Crown of Thorns
Via Dolorosa
Crucifixion and Death
Burial
Resurrection

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
EDWIN M. YAMAUCHIThat the Easter faith in the Resurrection of Christ is the core of Christianity can hardly be denied. Whether that conviction is rooted in myth, in hallucination, or in history has often been debated. Some have maintained that the Resurrection of Christ is a myth patterned after the prototypes of dying and rising fertility gods. Others argue that subjective visions of the risen Christ were sufficient to convince the disciples that their leader was not dead. Even those who do not doubt the historicity of Christ's life and death differ as to how the Resurrection may be viewed historically. Let us examine the evidences for these alternatives.
Easter as MythA. Dying and Rising Fertility GodsJohn H. Randall, emeritus professor of philosophy at Columbia University, has asserted: "Christianity, at the hands of Paul, became a mystical system of redemption, much like the cult of Isis, and the other sacramental or mystery religions of the day" (Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis, 1970, p. 154). Hugh Schonfield in Those Incredible Christians (1968, p. xii) has declared: "The revelations of Frazer in The Golden Bough had not got through to the masses.... Christians remained related under the skin to the devotees of Adonis and Osiris, Dionysus and Mithras."
The theory that there was a widespread worship of a dying and rising fertility god-Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Osiris in Egypt-was propounded by Sir James Frazer, who gathered a mass of parallels in part IV of his monumental work The Golden Bough ( 1906, reprinted in 1961). This view has been adopted by many who little realize its fragile foundations. The explanation of the Christian Resurrection by such a comparative-religions approach has even been reflected in official Soviet propaganda (cf. Paul de Surgy, editor, The Resurrection and Modern Biblical Thought, 1966, pp. 1, 131).
In the 1930s three influential French scholars, M. Goguel, C. Guignebert, and A. Loisy, interpreted Christianity as a syncretistic religion formed under the influence of Hellenistic mystery religions. According to A. Loisy ("The Christian Mystery," Hibbert Journal, X [1911-12], 51), Christ was "a saviour-god, after the manner of an Osiris, an Attis, a Mithra.... Like Adonis, Osiris, and Attis he had died a violent death, and like them he had returned to life...."
B. Reexamination of the EvidencesA reexamination of the sources used to support the theory of a mythical origin of Christ's resurrection reveals that the evidences are far from satisfactory and that the parallels are too superficial.
In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N. Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld, Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90). A line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister take his place for half the year (cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31).
Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult spread from Byblos to the GrecoRoman world, the worship of Adonis was never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D. ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40). Lambrechts has also shown that Attis, the consort of Cybele, does not appear as a "resurrected" god until after A.D. 1 50. ( "Les Fetes 'phrygiennes' de Cybele et d' Attis," Bulletin de l'lnstitut Historique Belge de Rome, XXVII 11952], 141-70).
This leaves us with the figure of Osiris as the only god for whom there is clear and early evidence of a "resurrection." Our most complete version of the myth of his death and dismemberment by Seth and his twofold resuscitation by Isis is to be found in Plutarch, who wrote in the second century A.D. (cf. J. Gwyn Griffiths, Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride, 1970). His account seems to accord with statements made in the early Egyptian texts. After the New Kingdom (from 1570 B.C.. on) even ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death.
But it is a cardinal misconception to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the "resurrection" of Hebrew-Christian traditions. In order to achieve immortality the Egyptian had to fulfill three conditions: (1) His body had to be preserved, hence mummification. (2) Nourishment had to be provided either by the actual offering of daily bread and beer, or by the magical depiction of food on the walls of the tomb. (3) Magical spells had to be interred with the dead-Pyramid Texts in the Old Kingdom, Coffin Texts in the Middle Kingdom, and the Book of the Dead in the New Kingdom. Moreover, the Egyptian did not rise from the dead; separate entities of his personality such as his Ba and his Ka continued to hover about his body.
Nor is Osiris, who is alwaysportrayed in a mummified form, an inspiration for the resurrected Christ. As Roland de Vaux has observed:
What is meant of Osiris being "raised to life"? Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead.... This revived god is in reality a "mummy" god [The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 1971, p. 236].C. Inexact Parallels From Late SourcesWhat should be evident is that past studies of phenomenological comparisons have inexcusably disregarded the dates and the provenience of their sources when they have attempted to provide prototypes for Christianity. Let me give two examples, Mithra and the taurobolium.
Mithra was the Persian god whose worship became popular among Roman soldiers (his cult was restricted to men) and was to prove a rival to Christianity in the late Roman Empire. Early Zoroastrian texts, such as the Mithra Yasht, cannot serve as the basis of a mystery of Mithra inasmuch as they present a god who watches over cattle and the sanctity of contracts. Later Mithraic evidence in the west is primarily iconographic; there are no long coherent texts.
Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west (cf. M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God, 1963, p. 76). The only dated Mithraic inscriptions from the pre-Christian period are the texts of Antiochus I of Commagene (69-34 B.C.) in eastern Asia Minor. After that there is one text possibly from the first century A.D., from Cappadocia, one from Phrygia dated to A.D. 77-78, and one from Rome dated to Trajan's reign (A.D. 98-117). All other dated Mithraic inscriptions and monuments belong to the second century (after A.D. 140), the third, and the fourth century A.D. (M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, 1956).
The taurobolium was a bloody rite associated with the worship of Mithra and of Attis in which a bull was slaughtered on 'a grating over an initiate in a pit below, drenching him with blood. This has been suggested (e.g., by R. Reitzenstein) as the basis of the Christian's redemption by blood and Paul's imagery in Romans 6 of the believer's death and resurrection. Gunter Wagner in his exhaustive study Pauline Baptism and thc Pagan Mysteries ( 1963) points out how anachronistic such comparisons are:
The taurobolium in the Attis cult is first attested in the time of Antoninus Pius for A.D. 160. As far as we can see at present it only became a personal consecration at the beginning of the third century A.D. The idea of a rebirth through the instrumentality of the taurobolium only emerges in isolated instances towards the end of the fourth century A.D.; it is not originally associated with this blood-bath [p. 266].Indeed, there is inscriptional evidence from the fourth century A.D. that, far from influencing Christianity, those who used the taurobolium were influenced by Christianity. Bruce Metzger in his important essay "Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity" (Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (1968), notes:
Thus, for example, one must doubtless interpret the change in the efficacy attributed to the rite of the taurobolium. In competing with Christianity, which promised eternal life to its adherents, the cult of Cybele officially or unofficially raised the efficacy of the blood bath from twenty years to eternity [p. 11].Another aspect of comparisons between the resurrection of Christ and the mythological mysteries is that the alleged parallels are quite inexact. It is an error, for example, to believe that the initiation into the mysteries of Isis, as described in Apuleius's The Golden Ass, IS comparable to Christianity. For one thing, the hero, Lucius, had to pay a fortune to undergo his initiation. And as Wagner correctly observes: "Isis does not promise the mystes immortality, but only that henceforth he shall live under her protection, and that when at length he goes down to the realm of the dead he shall adore her . . ." (op. cit., p. 112).
On the other hand, the followers of Dionysus (Bacchus), the god of wine, did believe in immortality. But they did not hope for a resurrection of the body; nor did they base their faith on the reborn Dionysus of the Orphics, but rather on their experience of drunken ecstasy (cf. M. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, 1957).
In any case, the death and resurrection of these various mythological figures, however attested, always typified the annual death and rebirth of vegetation. This significance cannot be attributed to the death and resurrection of Jesus. A. D. Nock sets forth the most striking contrast between pagan and Christian notions of "resurrection" as follows:
In Christianity everything is made to turn on a dated experience of a historical Person; it can be seen from I Cor. XV. 3 that the statement of the story early assumed the form of a statement in a Creed. There is nothing in the parallel cases which points to any attempt to give such a basis of historical evidence to belief (Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background, 1964, p. 107).
Easter as HallucinationThe Latin word that is the root of "hallucination" meant "to wander in thought" or "to utter nonsense." The modern concept defines "hallucinations" as "subjective experiences that are consequences of mental processes, sometimes fulfilling a purpose in the individual's mental life" ( W. Keup, editors Origin and Mechanisms of Hallucinations, 1970, p. v).
David Strauss in his famous Life of Jesus (1835) suggested that the recollection of Jesus' teachings in the clear air of Galilee produced among some of the more emotional disciples hallucinations of Jesus appearing to them. In a more positive vein, Theodor Keim in his work on Jesus (1867-72) proposed that the basis of the Easter faith resulted from God-given "telegrams from heaven."
Hallucinations do play a major role in religious cultures, but they are induced either by drugs or by the extreme deprivation of food, drink, and sleep (cf. E. Bourguignon, "Hallucination and Trance: An Anthropologist's Perspective," in Keup, p. 188). These factors were not present in the various appearances of the risen Christ to his disciples.
The details of the varied epiphanies of Christ, which in several cases were to more than one individual and on one occasion to more than 500, are not typical of hallucinations. A visual hallucination is a private event; it is by definition the perception of objects or patterns of light that are not objectively present (ibid., p. ] 81 ) . The variety of conditions under which Christ appeared also militate against hallucination. The appearances to Mary Magdalene, to Cleopas, to the disciples on the shore of Galilee, to Paul on the road to Damascus, all l differ in their circumstances. C. S. Lewis suggests:
And any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is invention it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man ) that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus (Luke xxiv. 13- 31; John xx. 15, xxi. 4) [Miracles, 1947, p. 1531.Hugh Schonfield in The Passover Plot (1966) concedes: "We are not dealing in the Gospels with hallucinations, with psychic phenomena or survival in the Spiritualist sense" (p. 159). He further remarks: "What emerges from the records is that various disciples did see somebody, a real living person. Their experiences were not subjective" (p. 173).
Finally, what rules out the theory of hallucinations l is the fact that the disciples were thoroughly dejected at the death of Christ and were not, despite Christ's l predictions, expecting a resurrection of their leader. l H. E. W. Turner remarks:
The disciples to whom they [the women] finally report do not believe for joy. There is here no avid clutching at any straw. Something quite unexpected had happened, rather than something longed for having failed to occur [Jesus, Master and Lord, 1960, p. 368].
Easter as HistoryA. An Existential Concept?It has become common in circles that find the supernatural aspects of the Resurrection incredible to place an existential interpretation on the Easter event. According to Bultmann's thinking, "Jesus ist auferstanden ins Kerygma"-Jesus arose in the faith and the preaching of the disciples. For Emil Brunner the Resurrection is not an event that "can be fitted into the succession of historical events"; it is a fact only if it has taken place "for us." Karl Barth is more positive though still ambiguous in affirming that the Resurrection is a real event though inaccessible to historical investigation. Barth denies any connection between the appearances of Christ listed in First Corinthians 15 and the Resurrection, for if these should be brought within the context of history, the Resurrection "must share in its obscurity and error and essential questionableness."
In a conference held at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Professor Samuel Sandmel of Hebrew Union College made the following suggestion to Christians:
I think, if I understand right, the issue about the resurrection which has preoccupied us this afternoon stems from the fact that what was once readily credible is in our environment not credible.... If I were a Christian, I think I would not be dismayed by the idea of resurrection. I think I would [find simple prose] that would say: Here is a message that has to do with man's potential perfection.... I would not let this array of values suffer because one element--in view of the present environment--has to be interpreted allegorically or be divested of its pristine meaning and given a different meaning. The world too badly needs Christianity at its best [D. G. Miller and D. Y. Hadidian, editors, Jesus and Man's Hope, 1971, p. 324].B. A Historical Question?It is certainly not to be denied that there must be a personal decision for the Resurrection to be meaningful to us as individuals, and that the Resurrection of Christ transcends ordinary history in its significance. But what is at issue is whether the Resurrection of Christ is rooted in history as an objective event or is simply a creation of the subjective faith of the disciples.
Some demur that to make the Resurrection a question of historical research would be to assume that God's ways are open to our observation. But is not this indeed a distinctive feature of God's revelation as recorded in both the Old and the New Testament? Others object that since historical judgments can never achieve absolute certainty, they should not be the basis of our faith.
To this fallacious argument Peter Carnley replies:
The important thing is that it is not legitimate to argue that faith cannot be based on any historical judgments or must be totally independent of historical research and autonomous, because no historical judgment is ever justifiably claimed with certainty [S. W. Sykes and J. P. Clayton, editors, Christ, Faith and History, 1972, p. 189].That is, historians deal not in certainties but in probabilities, but this does not render historical investigation without value for the question of the Resurrection. In his presidential address to the American Historical Association, Kenneth Scott Latourette concluded with these words:
The historian, be he Christian or non-Christian, may not know whether God will fully triumph within history. He cannot conclusively demonstrate the validity of the Christian understanding of history. Yet he can establish a strong probability for the dependability of its insights ["The Christian Understanding of History," The American Historical Review LIV (1949), 276].As J. C. O'Neill has argued:
It will immediately be clear that in asserting that the resurrection is an historical question I have not been asserting that an historian as historian can establish that Jesus rose from the dead. The historian in this case can only show whether or not the evidence makes it at all plausible to assert that Jesus rose from the dead [Sykes and Clayton, op. cit., p. 217].C. Ancient Concepts of the AfterlifeIf the Resurrection of Christ can be investigated as a historical question, one may inquire about the ancient concepts of the afterlife at the time of Jesus and ask whether the Resurrection of Christ was a doctrine that arose from contemporary beliefs.
The ancient Mesopotamians had a pessimistic view of the afterlife, which they conceived as a gloomy, shadowy existence. Gilgamesh sought in vain the secret of immortality. When Ishtar tells the gatekeeper of the Underworld "I will raise up the dead," she utters this as a threat "so that the dead will outnumber the living" -a calamity and not a hope! (cf. S. N. Kramer, "Death and Nether World according to the Sumerian Literary Texts," Iraq, XXII [19601. 59-68; H. W. F. Saggs, "Some Ancient Semitic Conceptions of the Afterlife," Faith and Thought, XC [1958], 157-82).
The Egyptians, as noted in our discussion of Osiris above, did have a more optimistic view of their afterlife. But to call the survival of the Ba and Ka, hovering over the mummified body, a "resurrection" is to obscure. the essential differences in concepts.
The ancient Greek attitude was an essentially tragic outlook. Epitaphs reflect an almost universal pessimism about life beyond the grave. Achilles in Hades says he would rather be a landless peasant on earth than king of the Underworld. After Homer's time a hope for a blissful existence in the Elysian Fields was held out, but only for heroes (cf. Lewis R. Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of ImmortalitY, 1921).
In the classical period the immortality of the soul was stressed in opposition to the body, which was described by the Orphics as soma sema, "the body a tomb." Plato in The Phaedo taught that the body is the chief hindrance to wisdom and truth.
In the Hellenistic age the Greek philosophers varied in their views on immortality but agreed on the undesirability of reviving the body. The Stoics, who were pantheists, believed that souls left the body to ascend to the celestial regions of the moon before being absorbed in the All. A Stoic epitaph reads: "The ashes have my body; the sacred air has borne away my soul" (cf. Franz Cumont. After Life in Roman Paganism, 1922, reprinted 1959, p. 15). Seneca, the Stoic tutor of Nero and Paul's contemporary, spoke of "the detestable habitation of the body, and vain flesh in which the soul is imprisoned."
Epicurus, whose philosophy was based upon the atomistic cosmology of Democritus, taught that at death the atoms of the body simply disintegrated. There was no immortality but instead freedom from the terrors of the Beyond. The Epicurean indifference to the afterlife is reflected in such epitaphs as: Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo, "T was not, T was, I am not, I do not care," and Es, bibe, lude, veni, "Eat, drink, play, come hither" -(cf. I Cor. 15:32). It is therefore not surprising that the Stoics and the Epicureans at the Areopagus in Athens disdainfully dismissed Paul when he began to preach to them the Resurrection (Acts 17:31, 32). According to Robert Grant ("The Resurrection of the Body," Journal of Religion, XXVIII [1948], 189): "In educated circles only the soul of man is valued. For those who took this standpoint as axiomatic, fulfillment of the Christian hope was impossible and in any event undesirable."
That the concept of bodily resurrection was just as difficult to accept at the dawn of Christianity as it is for some today-for different reasons, to be sure-is shown by the reaction of pagan critics and of the Gnostics. The raising of a corpse was ridiculed as a shameful act by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. Gnostic teachers such as Valentinus taught a Docetic view that the "resurrection" involved only the noncorporal elements of personality (cf. Malcolm Peel, The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the Resurrection, 1969).
If the early apostles of the Gospel had altered their teaching of the resurrection to make their message more palatable to their contemporaries, as we are sometimes advised to do, there would have been no historic continuity of Christianity but only shifting patterns battered to and fro by every passing intellectual fashion.
D. Jewish Concepts of the ResurrectionAs is well known, faith in the resurrection of the dead rose but intermittently and gradually in the Hebrew consciousness, culminating in the declaration of Daniel 12:2 (cf. R. Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, 1960; G. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, 1972). On the basis of Ugaritic lexicography M. Dahood claims that there are more references to the resurrection in the Psalms than we had realized (cf. Elmer B. Smick, "Ugaritic and the Theology of the Psalms," J. B. Payne, editor, New Perspectives on the Old Testament, 1970, pp. 104-16.
Faith in the resurrection, generally for the righteous alone, is clearly expressed in some of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books such as Second Maccabees. Second Baruch, and Fourth Ezra, but is not mentioned in Jubilees or the Book of Enoch. Philo in his Legum Allegoria (JII, 69) holds that the body "is wicked and a plotter against the soul, and is even a corpse and a dead thing."
According to the Pharisaic Mishnah, Sanhedrin X, 1:
All Israelites have a share in the world to come.... And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law, and [he that says] that the Law is not from Heaven, and an Epicurean.The Sadduccees, on the other hand, rejected the resurrection-a division of views that Paul exploited in his trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6).
Despite the rash claims of a few writers that the leader of the Qumran community was believed to have risen from the dead (cf. my article, "The Teacher of Righteousness From Qumran and Jesus of Nazareth," CHRISTIANITY TODAY, X [May 13, 1966], 12-14), it is not at all certain whether the Dead Sea Scrolls affirm, a faith in the resurrection. John Pryke comments: "The bliss of the elect as described in the Manual is much nearer to the 'immortality of the soul' than to the 'resurrection of the flesh' " ("Eschatology in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in W. F. Albright et al., The Scrolls and Christianity, 1969, p. 57). Matthew Black also notes: "It is surprising that no unambiguously clear evidence has so far been produced for any belief by the Qumran sect in the resurrection or in resurrection" ("The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins," ibid., p. 106).
Though there were scattered indications in the Old Testament of a germinating faith in the resurrection and though important segments of Judaism did maintain this conviction, neither in the Old Testament nor in contemporary Jewish tradition was there a belief in the resurrection of the Messiah (cf. P. Grelot, "The Resurrection of Jesus," in P. de Surgy, op. cit., pp. 24, 136). As Merrill Tenney concludes:
The idea was not so essential a part of Jewish theology that it would be read into the phenomena of the life of Jesus or arbitrarily superimposed upon His teachings. His predictions of rising from the dead and His interpretation of the Old Testament were original with Him; they were not the echoes of current theology that He had absorbed and repeated unthinkingly [The Reality of the Resurrection, 1963, reprinted 1972, p. 28].E. The Pauline EvidenceNo one questions the centrality of Christ's Resurrection in Paul's teaching (cf. D. M. Stanley, Christ's Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology, 1961). Nor does anyone deny the genuineness of Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, written but 25 years after the crucifixion of Christ. In First Corinthians 15: 1-8 Paul gives a list of the appearances of the risen Christ to various believers including himself. Moreover, Paul says he received this tradition in a manner that indicates its great antiquity. According to M. Carrez:
Framed by these two words, gospel and kerygma, we find a text and a tradition whose Aramaic tenor, archaic character, and primitive catechetical form have been recently pointed out by B. Klappert.... The appearance to Peter, confirmed by the allusion to Lk 24,34, and the appearance to James . . . show the Jerusalamite character of this tradition. What should we derive from it? That, in any case, this formulation already existed in an established way six years after the events of the redemptive drama at the latest. and that everything concurs in underlining the great antiquity of this formulation ["The Pauline Hermeneutics of the Resurrection," in F. de Surgy, op. cit., p. 40].Of crucial significance is the fact that Paul can claim in First Corinthians 15:6 that of the more than 500 disciples to whom Christ appeared at the same time, most (hoi pleiones, not just "the greater part" as in the King James Version) were still alive at the time Paul wrote. As William Lillie, head of the Department of Biblical Study at the University of Aberdeen, notes:
What gives a special authority to the list as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred . brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, "If you do not believe me, you can ask them." Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago ["The Empty Tomb and the Resurrection," in D. E. Nineham et al. Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, 1965, p. 125].F. The Evidence of the GospelsThe canonical Gospels were all written before the end of the first century A.D. at the latest, and Mark may have been written as early as A.D. 50. Although they differ in details, they concur on the basic point: the two factors that together convinced the disciples that Christ had risen were the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Christ on at least ten occasions. As C. H. Dodd has pointed out, the gospel narratives are free from the legendary embellishments of later apocryphal accounts. They simply recount the surprise of the empty tomb and the gradual realization of its significance after encounters with the risen Christ. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter is not content with such artless narratives. It claims that the soldiers on guard beheld:
...three men come out from the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens [E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha 1, 1963, p. 186].One feature of the Resurrection narratives that indicates they were not late inventions of the Church is the striking fact that the first appearances of the risen Christ were not to the apostles but instead to women. As C. F. D. Moule comments:
Further, it is difficult to explain how a story that grew up late and took shape merely in accord with the supposed demands of apologetic came to be framed in terms almost exclusively of women witnesses, who, as such, were notoriously invalid witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence [C. F. D. Moule, editor, The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ 1968, p. 9].If one rejects the traditional interpretation of the empty tomb as resulting from the Resurrection of Christ, one is obliged to supply a better alternative. Such theories have been often discussed-e.g., Frank Morrison, Who Moved the Stone? (1930, reprinted 1963); Daniel P. Fuller, Easter Faith and History (1965). We may briefly summarize these proposals and the objections to them.
Heinrich Paulus in his Life of Jesus (1828) suggested that Jesus was not dead when he was taken from the cross. The coolness of the tomb revived him. After exchanging his grave wrappings for the gardener's clothes, Jesus spoke to his disciples for forty days and then walked into a cloud on a mountain and went off somewhere to die. The implausibility of this reconstruction was recognized by Strauss, who wrote:
It is impossible that one who had just come forth from the grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in need of medical treatment . . ., and who at last succumbed to suffering, could ever have given to the disciples that impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave . . . [The Life of Jesus 1879 1, 412, cited by Wilbur Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, 1940, p. 208].A modern variation has been proposed by Schonfield in his celebrated work The Passover Plot. Jesus plotted with Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, a Judaean priest, and an anonymous "young man" to arrange a feigned death on the cross by taking a drug. Schonfield seeks to maintain that neither Jesus nor his accomplices were guilty of any fraud. Yet the mysterious young man is mistaken for the risen Jesus on the four occasions of the "appearances" admitted by Schonfield without ever correcting the misapprehension of the disciples. We are asked to believe that the skeptical disciples were confused by the appearance of this young man into believing that Jesus had arisen, and that they were so transformed by this confusion that they turned Jerusalem upside down with their preaching (cf. my review in the Gordon Review, X [1967], 150-60; reprinted in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, XXI [1969], 27-32).
Kirsopp Lake in The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1907) emended Mark 16:6 so that it read: "He is not here, behold (pointing to the right tomb) the place where they laid him." His ingenious theory that the women saw an empty tomb but the wrong one hardly explains their amazement and fear. Nor it is plausible in view of the fact that Jesus was buried in the private garden of Joseph of Arimathea, and that the women noted where he was buried (Mark 15:47). J. Jeremias has demonstrated that about fifty tombs were venerated by the Jews before the time of Jesus. In the view of such interest in the tombs of holy men, J. Delorme asks:
In these circumstances, is it possible that the original community of Jerusalem could have been completely uninterested in the tomb where Jesus was laid after his death? . . . Can the existence of this tradition at Jerusalem, centered around a specific place, in a relatively short lapse of time after the events, be explained as a pure legendary creation? Could one show an ordinary tomb as being the tomb of Jesus? Can one question without foundation known persons, the women designated by name and Joseph of Arimathea? ["The Resurrection and Jesus' Tomb: Mark 16, 1-8 in the Gospel Tradition," in P. de Surgy, op. cit., pp. 88, 101].If the tomb where Jesus was laid was indeed empty, could his body have been stolen away by someone? To assume that the body was stolen one must first of all disregard the story of the guard posted at the sepulchre (Matt. 28:65, 66) . We need then to ask, Who would have stolen the body and why? The Romans had no reason to do so; they had surrendered the body to Joseph of Arimathea. It is illogical to suppose that the Jews stole the body, since they could easily have suppressed the nascent Christian movement and exposed the Christians' claim of Christ's Resurrection by simply producing his body.
Hermann Reimarus, whose works were published posthumously by Gotthold Lessing in the eighteenth century, did suggest that it was the Christians who removed the body and hid it somewhere. But this is psychologically incredible since the disciples would not only be perpetrating a fraud but also be dying for a deliberate deception. The neatly deposited graveclothes and napkin observed by Peter and John (John 20:7) are evidence against tomb robbery by ordinary thieves, as they would not have taken the time to tidy up the sepulchre.
G. The Impact of the ResurrectionNot even the most skeptical can deny the historical attestation of the faith of the early Christians in the Resurrection of Christ. This simple fact is of importance if we accept as genuine the numerous predictions of Jesus concerning his death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 22,23; 20:18, 19; 26:2; etc.). Charlatans such as Theudas (Josephus, Antiquities XX. 5.1), who claimed to have the power to divide the Jordan River, or the Gnostic Menander, who claimed his disciples would remain ageless, were quickly exposed by the failure of their claims. The Qumran community, which has some features in common with the Christian community, did not survive the destruction of its monastery by the Romans in A.D. 68 because the people had no comparable faith to sustain them.
Something earth-shaking must have transformed the despairing disciples. A. M. Ramsey (The Resurrection of Christ, 1946) reminds us: "It must not be forgotten that the teaching and ministry of Jesus did not provide the disciples with a Gospel, and led them from puzzle to paradox until the Resurrection gave them a key" (p. 40).
It should be obvious that the early Christians were completely convinced of the Resurrection. If this were not so, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain. By preaching the Resurrection of Christ they further antagonized the Jewish authorities and in effect accused them of slaying the Messiah (Acts 2:23,24, 36; 3:14, 15, 4:10; etc.). As H. C. Cadbury notes:
The effect of the belief in Jesus' resurrection on the early Christian belief in the wider resurrection experience can hardly be overestimated. It was the kind of assurance, contemporary and concrete, that the most ardent though speculative convictions of Pharisees or other non-Christian Jews could not have equaled ["Intimations of Immortality in the Thought of Jesus," in T. T. Ramsey et al., The Miracles and the Resurrection, 1964, p. 84].Professor Lillie concludes:
The followers of a religious group do not preserve traditions of their leaders forsaking their master and behaving in a cowardly and despairing fashion unless these traditions happen to be true. The fact that the Gospel was boldly and successfully preached by these same followers is attested not only by the New Testament record, but by the historical fact of the growth of the Christian Church. It is indeed one of the few New Testament facts for which we have independent evidence outside the Christians' own traditions. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annals XV. 44) states that "a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment (by the crucifixion of Jesus) again broke out" [in D. E. Nineham et al., op. cit.].I would argue that only the appearance of the risen Christ can satisfactorily explain how Jesus' skeptical brother James (John 7:5) became a leader in the early Church (I Cor. 15:7; Acts 15), how despondent Peter became a fearless preacher at Pentecost, and how a fanatical persecutor of Christians became Paul, the greatest missionary of the Gospel.
A Concluding ChallengeI have tried to show that theories attributing the Resurrection of Christ to the borrowing of mythological themes, to hallucinations, or to alternative explanations of the empty tomb are improbable and are also inadequate to explain the genesis and growth of Christianity. To be sure, the Resurrection of Jesus is unprecedented, but Jesus himself is sui generis, unique. As Tenney remarks, "Although the resurrection was without precedent. it was not abnormal for Christ.... He rose from the dead because it was the logical and normal prerogative of the Son of God" (op. Cit., p. 133).
The historical question of the Resurrection of Christ differs from other historical problems in that it poses a challenge to every individual. Christ said (John 11:25): "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." For the Resurrection of Christ to be more than a beautiful Easter story, each person needs to believe in his heart that God has raised Christ from the dead and to confess with his mouth Jesus as Lord.
Edwin M. Yamauchi is a professor of history at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.
This article, used by permission of the author, first appeared in two parts in Christianity Today on March 15, 1974 and March 29, 1974.
Printer-Friendly Version
See Related Resources
--> Email this to a friend
copyright © 1995-2011 Leadership U. All rights reserved. Updated: 13 July 2002
Appearances
Ascension
[show]Hypotheses
Resurrection
Stolen body
Swoon
Vision
[show]Holy Week
Palm Sunday
Maundy Thursday
Good Friday
Easter
[show]Miscellaneous
Atonement (substitutionary)
Crucifixion eclipse
Empty tomb
Roza Bal
Talpiot Tomb
[show]Other Views
Ahmadi
Islamic
This box: view · talk · edit
See also: Josephus on Jesus
Very few non-Christian sources refer to the Crucifixion. The earliest non-Christian reference to the Crucifixion is likely from Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syriac writer who refers only to a "wise King" executed by the Jews.[43] Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. AD 116), mentions only in passing that "Christus...suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators..."[44] Similarly, Greek satirist Lucian refers to Jesus only as "the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account."[45]
Additionally, 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus (in a disputed passage[46]) records:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
—Josephus , Antiquities of the Jews - XVIII, 3:8-10
Another possible Jewish reference to the Crucifixion ("hanging" cf. Luk 23:39; Gal 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
—Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)
Although the question of the equivalence of the identities of Yeshu and Jesus has at times been debated, many historians agree that the above passage is likely to be about Jesus.[47]
In opposition to the vast majority of Biblical and mainstream scholarship, Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified and that he was not killed by any other means. They hold this belief based on various interpretations of the following verse in the Qur'an:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
—Qur'an 4:157–158

Christians have traditionally understood Jesus' death on the cross to be a holy sacrifice that atones for humanity's sin and makes salvation possible. Christians participate in this sacrifice through the bread and wine of the Eucharist, also referred to as The Lord's Supper or Communion, and many also commemorate the event on Good Friday.

CRUCIFIXION: (print this article)
By : Kaufmann Kohler Emil G. Hirsch ARTICLE HEADINGS: Mode of Execution. Date of Jesus' Crucifixion.
The act of putting to death by nailing or binding to a cross. Among the modes of Capital Punishment known to the Jewish penal law, crucifixion is not found; the "hanging" of criminals "on a tree," mentioned in Deut. xxi. 22, was resorted to in New Testament times only after lapidation (Sanh. vi. 4; Sifre, ii. 221, ed. Friedmann, Vienna, 1864). A Jewish court could not have passed a sentence of death by crucifixion without violating the Jewish law. The Roman penal code recognized this cruel penalty from remote times (Aurelius Victor Cæsar, 41). It may have developed out of the primitive custom of "hanging" ("arbori suspendere") on the "arbor infelix," which was dedicated to the gods of the nether world. Seneca ("Epistola," 101) still calls the cross "infelix lignum." Trees were often used for crucifying convicts (Tertullian, "Apologia," viii. 16). Originally only slaves were crucified; hence "death on the cross" and "supplicium servile" were used indiscriminately (Tacitus, "Historia," iv. 3, 11). Later, provincial freedmen of obscure station ("humiles") were added to the class liable to this sentence. Roman citizens were exempt under all circumstances (Cicero, "Verr." i. 7; iii. 2, 24, 26; iv. 10 et seq.). The following crimes entailed this penalty: piracy, highway robbery, assassination, forgery, false testimony, mutiny, high treason, rebellion (see Pauly-Wissowa, "Real-Encyc." s.v. "Crux"; Josephus, "B. J." v. 11, § 1). Soldiers that deserted to the enemy and slaves who denounced their masters ("delatio domini")were also punished by death on the cross.Read more: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C&search=crucifixion#3123ixzz1BB6q29Sj

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C&search=crucifixion#3123

These facts show that the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of the Roman government. That it was customary to liberate one sentenced to death on account of the holiday season is not corroborated by Jewish sources. But many of the Jews suspected of Messianic ambitions had been nailed to the cross by Rome. The Messiah, "king of the Jews," was a rebel in the estimation of Rome, and rebels were crucified (Suetonius, "Vespas." 4; "Claudius," xxv.; Josephus, "Ant." xx. 5, § 1; 8, § 6; Acts v. 36, 37). The inscription on the cross of Jesus reveals the crime for which, according to Roman law, Jesus expired. He was a rebel. Tacitus ("Annales," 54, 59) reports therefore without comment the fact that Jesus was crucified. For Romans no amplification was necessary. Pontius Pilate's part in the tragedy as told in the Gospels is that of a wretched coward; but this does not agree with his character, as recorded elsewhere (see Süchrer, "Gesch." Index, s.v.). The other incidents in the New Testament report—the rending of the curtain, darkness (eclipse of the sun), the rising of the dead from their graves—are apocalyptic embellishments derived from Jewish Messianic eschatology. The so-called writs for the execution (see Mayer, "Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, und Römer," iii. 428, note 27) are spurious.Bibliography: Ludwig Philipson, Haben die Juden Jesum Gekreuzigt? 2d ed., reprint, 1902; Hirsch, The Crucifixion from the Jewish Point of View, Chicago, 1892; Chwolson, Das Letzte Passamahl Christi, St. Petersburg, 1892; works of Jewish historians, as Grätz, Jost, etc.; Schürer, Gesch.; commentaries on the Gospels.K. ERead more: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C&search=crucifixion#3123#ixzz1BMGBn5JI

^ Frederick Zugibe, 2005, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry Evans Publishing, ISBN 1-59077-070-6

^ Frederick Zugibe, 2005, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry Evans Publishing, ISBN 1-59077-070-6
^ JW Hewitt, The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion Harvard Theological Review, 1932

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. trans. John Bowden. London: Fortress Press, 1977.

F. T. Zugibe, “Two Questions about Crucifixion: Does the Victim Die of
Asphyxiation? Would Nails in the Hands Hold the Weight of the Body?” Bible
Review 5 (1989): 34–43.

31 James Bennett Pritchard, “Law Code of Hammurabi,” No. 153, in Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1969), 172 (hereafter cited as ANET).
32 “Ashurbanipal on the Rassam Cylinder,” ANET, 295.
33 Herodotus 1.128.2; 3.125.3; 3.132.2; 3.159.1
34 It is from this time that we have Herodotus 9.120 mentions that the
Russian king Xerxes “nailed [Artayctes] to boards and hanged him aloft.” The
Greeks of the seventh century b.c. till at least the time of Philip practiced a punishment
called apotympanismos which involved the binding of criminals and
such to boards with “cramp irons” until they expired (Barkan, 63–72). Such an
example is seen in the seventeen skeletal remains found in Athens in which iron
rings were found around their neck, arms, and legs.

Historical Background
It would be helpful to this discussion to overview briefly the
history and purpose of crucifixion. Crucifixion was preceded by
impaling for almost 1,500 years. Impaling goes back at least as far
as the early second millennium b.c., where under Hammurabi
women who had colluded in the death of their husband with
other men would be so punished.31 The Assyrians (distant
successors to Hammurabi and Old Babylon), as well as other Near
Eastern cultures, continued the practice of impaling down
through the seventh century b.c., especially as a punishment for
rebellious peoples.32 The Persians, who dominated the ancient
Near East from the sixth to fourth centuries b.c. seem to have
acquired impaling from the Assyrians and are the people
with whom impaling is often associated.;33 In conjunction with
the practice of impailing somewhere during the Persian period the
earliest manifestations of crucifixion appear.34 There is some confusion
as to the exact time that crucifixion was first employed,
both because it is not often specifically detailed in any ancient

Carthaginians, in addition to its deterrent effects, it was used as a
method of motivating their generals. There are numerous examples
of Carthaginian generals being crucified for making poor
decisions in battle.39 In contrast, crucifixion in the Roman Empire
was used almost exclusively on slaves and rebels. The
overwhelming purpose of crucifixion in the Roman empire was to
maintain law and order, often by intimidating and humiliating
subject peoples. As previously noted, the vast majority of Roman
crucifixions resulted from rebellion or sedition. In fact, the
Romans felt that more than punishing the criminals who were
crucified, the practice had a greater affect as a deterrent upon
further crime and disorder.40 Crucifixion then was made to be the
most heinous and awful of punishments, and everything possible
was done to make it appear as such.

Thus we have reports not
only of people simply being attached to the cross, but also of crucifixions
in horrific postures, private parts being impaled, and
bodies being left on crosses to be ravaged by both bird and beast.41
The use of nails, with their awful piercing, the attendant bleeding
and nerve shattering pain, fits within this context more than does

suffere 4 5 (to be raised on a cross), in crucem tolli 4 6 (to be lifted up
on a cross), σταυρoω (to crucify, to impale), and σκολοπ"ζω (to
crucify, to impale) without ever mentioning the actual details of
the method of attachment. Even when the sources do mention the
method of attachment, there can often be ambiguity due to the
multiple meanings of the words used.47 Absolute clarity is only had
when relatively rarely used words like clavus (nail), alligo (to tie; to
secure with rope), or προσηλoω (to nail, rivet; to nail up) are employed.
Yet, as shall be seen later, there are a number of words that,
while not so definitive in their meaning as those just mentioned,
do strongly lend themselves to a sure interpretation.48
Another problem, alluded to earlier, is that there is no distinct
historical point at which crucifixion replaces impaling.49 In fact,
there is strong evidence that both were being practiced through
and past the second century a.d, though the majority of scholars
favor crucifixion as the more common of the two in the Roman
Period.50
45 Livy 30.43.13
46 Livy 38.48.12–13
47 For instance, Plutarch, Vit. Cleom. 38–9 relates how Ptolemy slew the king
of Sparta, flayed, and then hanged/impaled him. In 38, he says he κρεμ$ (hang)
καταβυρωσανταςhim, and in 39 νεσταυρẃμενον (crucify/impale). Seneca,
Epistulae Morales, 14.5: “The cross (cruces). . . and the stake (stipitem) which they
drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat.” One clear example
of impaling in Persian times is related by Plutarch in Artax. 17.5 concerning
a woman's punishing a eunuch. He says that she, “ordered to flay him alive,
to set up his body slantwise on three σταυρ%ν and to nail his skin to a fourth.”
48The majority of words like these lean toward nailings, as shall be seen. The
major philological problem with many words used, even with words that are
more specific than in crucem, is that they simply mean to “fix” or “secure,” neither
lending themselves toward tying or nailing.
49 Hdt. 7.194 gives us an example that must refer to crucifixion in the time
of Xerxes, and one that most likely involved tying, though this is not definitive.
It is the story of one Sandoces who was νασταuρωσε and yet because of his good
service to Darius he was latter taken down.
50 Plutarch Moralia 499D speaking of vice causing unhappiness states: “But
you will nail him to a cross or impale him on a stake;” Tert. Apol. 12.3: “You hang
Christians on crosses and stakes (crucibus et stipitibus).


no sources for either of these assertions, and neither of the two
studies co-authored by Zias cited anyone but Hewitt as a source.60
That Hewitt asserts crucifixion as having originated in Egypt, I
can only think that he is referring to a situation mentioned in
Josephus where the author states that Pharaoh had his baker, from
the famous Joseph story of the Bible, σταυρωθhσαν.61
As to Hewitt’s theory that the Egyptians used only ropes for
crucifixion in Egypt, the lone source I could find was the fictional
“romantic” novel of Xenophon of Ephesus (circa a.d. 160 and long
after crucifixion had become prevalent throughout the
Mediterranean). The hero Habrocomes was sentenced to death by
crucifixion. Near the Nile “they set up their cross and attached
him to it, making his hands and feet fast with ropes; for such was
the procedure in crucifixion among the people of that region.”62 If
this is the source that Hewitt utilizes, there is much to be desired.
A surer source both in regards to historicity and reliability is Philo
of Alexandria (20 b.c–a.d. 50), who lived in Egypt. Speaking of
the inaneness of the human intellect he states: “Thus the mind
60 Zias and Sekeles 1985, 26: “Moreover, in Egypt, where according to one
source crucifixion originated, the victim was not nailed but tied.” Zias and
Charlesworth 1992, 283: “In Egypt, where according to one source crucifixion
originated, the victim was not nailed but tied.” The source that both of these articles
refer to is Hewitt. Brown (949) also relies solely on Hewitt for this data.
61 Joseph. Ant. 2.77; Gen. 40:19–22. I can find no other work that agrees
with Hewitt. Friedrich, 573, believes that it originated in Persia, as does
O'Collins, 1207. Burke, 825–6, implies that crucifixion's antecedent was the
Assyrian practice of impalement, while Harry Thurston Peck, ed., “Crux,” in
Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, 1937, states that there is
some doubt that the Persian form of crucifixion were practiced by the Romans.
He feels that it was more the Carthaginians and Romans who practiced the form
we are familiar with. The only other rationale that I can think of for his statement
is that the Israelites, as they exited Egypt, were given the Law which
included Deuteronomy 21:20–23 injunction of hanging corpses of certain
criminals on trees, yet this by no means shows the practice of crucifixion as
having started in Egypt, especially where many scholars place the writing of
Deuteronomy around the seventh century b.c. at the time of King Josiah.
62 Xenophon, An Ephesian Tale, 4.2.1 (Hadas, 106

stripped of the creations of its art will be found as it were a
headless corpse, with severed neck nailed (προσηλẃμενος) like the
crucified ( νασκολοπiσθεντες) to the tree of helpless and povertystricken
indiscipline.” In another treatise, speaking of the body
and soul of one who loves their body, Philo states that the two are
joined together “like men crucified and nailed to a tree.”63 Philo,
for his arguments to be efficacious, must be stating a practice that
not only he had seen but was at least familiar also to his contemporaries.
At least in the first century a.d. nailing was a method of
affixing persons to the cross in Egypt. An interpretation of
Xenophon, if we accept any historicity in his fictional writing,
should not be considered the norm for all of Egypt any more than
Philo, given the scarcity of sources from that location.
Nails vs Ropes
As has been noted, a number of studies have either indicated
that ropes were the predominate way of attachment or that they
were used as often as nails.64 A thorough study of ancient sources
does not seem to confirm their assessment. The most direct way of
discovering this is to review the actual words used to connote
nailing and tying. For nailing the words used are clavus, figo,
affigo/adfigo, offigo, suffigo, antefigo, and καθηλoω/προσηλoω; for
tying spartum, alligo, sometimes προσδeω, and κρεμaνυμι.
The word clavus means “nail,”65 and it or its counterpart in
other languages is attested to seven times.66 Lucan tells us in a
fanciful tale of Erithco who “purloins the nails (insertum manibus)
63 Philo, De somniis, 2.212ff; Post. 61–62.
64 See Hewitt, 37, 42; Winter, 95; Jeremias, 223; for a middle view see Zias
and Sekeles 1985, 26; Zias and Charlesworth 1992, 282; Brown, 949.
65 Oxford Latin Dictionary (hereafter cited as OLD), 335.
66 Luc. 543–47; Sen. De vita. 19.3, metaphorically of driving in ones own
nails; Plin. HN 28.46; G. of Pet. 6:2, drawing the nails from Christ's hands
(Greek); Shabbath 67a, spikes from crucified bodies as amulets (Hebrew); Apul.
Met. 3.17, spikes from crucified bodies as amulets; Apuleius, Metamorphoses, 4.10
feet, twice his arms are fastened there (ut offigantur bis pedes, bis
bracchia).” The other reference is to one bearing a patibulum
through the street and then being nailed to it at the site of
crucifixion.76
Suffigo also derives from figo, and while it can mean “to
crucify,” the majority of its meanings are vague.77 Thus while it
occurs five times because nothing definitive can be gathered from
the meaning, and each instance is vague enough to not lend itself
to a sure interpretation—these will not be considered further.78
There are two Greek words, both deriving from the same root,
that mean “to nail;” these are καθηλoω and προσηλoω.79 They occur
fourteen times,80 with a possible exception mentioned in Diodorus
of an Indian king who threatens her with σταυρ' προσηλẃσειν.81
This could possibly be “to impale her on a stake,” rather than “nail
her on a cross.” But given the anachronistic nature of his writings
and his use of a similar phrase in 25.5.2 this is not as likely.
Some of the most well known instances of nailing come from
these words. The thousands mentioned by Josephus as being

nailed to crosses in many positions during the siege of Jerusalem;
Herodotus uses this word to describe Xanthippus nailing
Artayctes to planks near the Hellespont; and Ignatius uses this to
describe the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This root is also used
philosophically. As cited above, Philo states that men who love
their bodies are like the crucified nailed to a tree, attached securely
to a dead thing. In another analogy speaking of the human
intellect without creative power is like “a headless corpse, with
severed neck nailed like the crucified to the tree of helpless and
poverty-stricken indiscipline.” Similarly, Ignatius says that our
faith must be as sure as if it were nailed to a cross.82

Nails in Context
This last section will focus on answering questions brought up
by scholars in the first section. The first question to be discussed
is whether there was a usual way in which people were crucified.92
Though both Josephus and Seneca mention that they witnessed
people being crucified in many positions,93 there is some
indication that there was a standard way for people to be crucified,
that is with their arms outstretched; Seneca himself refers to the
crosses with stretched out arms. Eusebius mentions that some
Christians were “crucified, some as malefactors usually are, and
some, even more brutally, were nailed in the opposite manner,
head-downwards (emphasis mine).”94 Seneca, in another passage
speaks of crucifixion as one “hav[ing] his limbs stretched out upon
the cross.”95 In John 21:18, Peter is told that he will die with his
arms outstretched ( κτενειςτaςχεiρας). One ancient source who
gives some indication of the widespread nature of crucifixion with

arms outstretched, speaks of a man receiving a massage as
92 Zugibe's analysis of death by asphyxiation relies upon the person being
crucified upright with arms outstretched. Zias and Charlesworth 1992, 282,
noted that this could not be applied in all cases because of statements found in
Josephus and elsewhere. Also Blinzler's assertion that those who lived more than
a day most have been tied is brought into question by Zias and Sekeles 1985, 26.
There is no way to demonstrate this historically, except that we know that one of
the purposes of crucifixion was to make it as painful and drawn out as possible.
This being the case, and with the heavy attestation of nails, Blinzler's theory
would seem to be questionable.
93 Jospeh., BJ 5.451: “The soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves
by nailing their prisoners in different postures.” Seneca, Dial. Cons. ad Marc.
20.3: “some hang their victims with head toward the ground, some impale their
private parts, others stretch out their arms on a fork-shaped gibbet.”
94 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesia, 8.8.
95 Seneca, Dial. De ira. 1.2.3.

Further, in the case that Zias alludes to, where 6,000 survivors
of the Spartacan revolt were crucified along Appian’s Way, the verb
that Appian uses derives from κρεμaνυμι “to hang,”98 and thus for
Zias “to tie.” There are three other recorded instances where this
verb might also mean “to tie.” Herodotus uses κρεμaνυμι of a man
once crucified some years back, but Darius had him taken down
for his good merit. The story implies that he is functioning well,
and so we can imagine that he was tied.99 Josephus records an
occasion where the Romans, in trying to force a city to surrender
are about to crucify the town hero.100 While there is nothing
definitive in this case, one could imagine that by tying they might
have drawn the melodrama out further. Lastly, Eusebius mentions
Blandia as crucified, but when no beast would touch her, she was
taken down to receive some other torment at a future date.101 This
also seems to indicate tying.

Appendix B:
Secondary Sources
Bammel, E. “Crucifixion as a Punishment in Palestine,” In The Trial of Jesus:
Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, ed. E. Bammel, 162–165. Naperville,
IL: A. R. Allenson, 1970.
Barkan, Irving. “Capital Punishment in Ancient Athens.” Part of a Ph.D. diss.,
University of Chicago, 1935. Private ed., Chicago: Dist. by the University of
Chicago Libraries, 1936.
Blinzler, Joseph. The Trial of Jesus: The Jewish and Roman Proceedings against
Jesus. Translated by Isabel and Florence McHugh. Westminister, Maryland:
The Newman Press, 1959.
Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Brown, W. Adams. “Cross.” A Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1. Edited by James
Hasting. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1903.
Burke, D. J. “Cross; Crucify.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Willaim B.
Eerdmans, 1979.
Charlesworth, J. H. “Jesus and Jehohanan: An Archeological Note on
Crucifixion.” The Expository Times 84 (1972–3): 147–150

“Cross.” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. 1996.
“Cross and Crucifix.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and
the New Testament,” The Catholic Bible Quarterly 40 (1978): 493–514.
Haas, N. “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv‘at ha-
Mivtar.” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970): 38–59.
Harrison, S. J. “Cicero and ‘Crurifragium.’” Classical Quarterly 33 (1983):
453–455.
Hengel, M. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the
Cross. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Hewitt, J. W. “The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion.” Harvard Theological Review
25 (1932): 29–46.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Translated by Norman Perrin
from the German 3d ed., 1960. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Der Gekreuzigte von Giv‘at hat-Mivtar.” In
TheologiaCrucis, Signum Crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70.
Geburtstag,ed. Carl Andresen and Günter Klein, 303–334. Tübingen: Mohr,
1979.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968.
Møller-Christensen, Vilhelm. “Skeletal Remains from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar.” Israel
Exploration Journal 26 (1976): 35–38.
Naveh, J. “The Ossuary Inscriptions from Giv‘at Ha-Mivtar.” Israel Exploration
Journal 20 (1970): 33–37.
O’Collins, Gerald G. “Crucifixion.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Oxford Latin Dictionary. Edited by P. G. W. Glare. 1982.
Peck, Harry Thurston, ed. “Crux.” Harper’s Dictionary of Classical Literature
and Antiquities. 1937.http://http//studiaantiqua.byu.edu/PDF/Studia%202.1.pdf

Further reading
Cousar, Charles B. (1990). A Theology of the Cross: The Death of Jesus in the Pauline Letters. Fortress Press. ISBN 0800615581.
Dennis, John (2006). "Jesus’ Death in John's Gospel: A Survey of Research from Bultmann to the Present with Special Reference to the Johannine Hyper-Texts". Currents in Biblical Research 4 (3): 331–363. doi:10.1177/1476993X06064628.
Dilasser, Maurice (1999). The Symbols of the Church. ISBN 081462538.
Green, Joel B. (1988). The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative. Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 3161453492.
Humphreys, Colin J.; W. G. Waddington (December 1983). "Dating the Crucifixion". Nature 306: 743–746. doi:10.1038/306743a0.
Rosenblatt, Samuel (December 1956). "The Crucifixion of Jesus from the Standpoint of Pharisaic Law". Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 75 (4): 315–321. doi:10.2307/3261265. http://jstor.org/stable/3261265.
McRay, John (1991). Archaeology and the New Testament. Baker Books. ISBN 0801062675.
Sloyan, Gerard S. (1995). The Crucifixion of Jesus. Fortress Press. ISBN 0800628861