• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Crown Of Thorns? Discussion

Go to CruxDreams.com
PhilX

PhilX

Governor
I've just been looking at Ramon's great stills from his new film that he has posted in cruxfoundation, they look great but a shame about the loincloth.

The point being the crown of thorns that the lovely lady has been forced to wear, it looks good & the blood is great, but I still find any Jesus link disturbing on the whole, my interest in this crux subject has no connection with Jesus or religion at all, & from all I've read here it seems the same for most of you.

However was the Crown of Thorns unique to Jesus' crucifixion? I have read somewhere (though there's certainly a lot of myth written as truth - & how are we to know anyway) that dressing victims up for ridicule was normal, & even crowning them with thorns if they were accused of being the leaders of groups of criminals or insurgents, or if they were fraudulently posing as a higher social status than they actualy were. So quite possibly the sight of thorns rammed onto a the heads of crux victims was not unusual. I believe such a thing would cause enormous bleeding as well as looking ridiculous, apart from the agony & inability to rest one's head back against the stipes.
An alternative cruelty would be to have knotted thin strips of raw hide wound tightly round the temples & then wetted (pissed on?), this would shrink as it slowly dried & bite into the skull.

A final point, most of you favour the victim carrying the platibulum through the streets totally naked after the scourging. I prefer the build-up to them being stripped once they reach the place of execution, after all one would see plenty of their nakedness once they were crucified. I imagine that the dressing-up in a ridiculous or suggestive way would follow the naked scourging, so the victim had to put up with the mockery & laughter of the crowd so dressed as they bore their platibulum through the streets knowing also that it would all be ripped off them very soon.
 
Good points. I always wonder why, with all of the thousands of people who were crucified, and especially in a community such as ours where we are probably more aware of that fact than anyone else on earth, some can only view a crucifixion scenario in the context of Jesus' crucifixion. Ramon has produced some stunning images with his beautiful models, but his website is very clear about these being representative of a female version of the Christ. I do not agree that biblical figures are sexually interchangeable.

Regarding the crown of thorns, I always thought it was a one-off thing that was done to Jesus to mock him specifically as "king of the jews". However, I have read of some Christians who were crucified wearing crowns of thorns to ridicule the fact that they worshipped a man who wore one at his crucifixion. I wish I could point to a reference for this, but it seems to me that the episode I read about took place in Asia Minor or Greece. The point is that it is quite possible that others besides Jesus wore the crown of thorns, but he may have been the first to do so.

I like the idea of having the victim wear at least a loincloth on the way to the cross. I think it would be more likely to pull the crowd along who would anticipate seeing the victim stripped naked either before or while being crucified.

Jedakk
 
And yet another possibility:

When the criminal gets tired, their head is going to slump down, chin on chest. If they have long hair, their face is not seen.

A band around their head at their forehead (rope or thorns or whatever), and looped around the stipes post, could be used to hold their head up, and hold their hair from in front of their face. The criminal's face could be seen. Also no hidden face: more shame, or more entertainment for the spectators.

Yusebby Deliny
 
There is no written historical evidence that anyone other than Jesus had to wear a crown of thorns to his crucifixion. However, it can be inferred, from the writings of the New Testament authors, that a crown of thorns may have been standard practice for anyone condemned as the leader of a criminal group, or, alternatively, as a claimant to a throne.

In the same way that the gospel writers provide no detail about crucifixions in their writings--because they didn't need to, the audience they were writing for being personally very familiar with crucifixions--there is also just a simple, terse statement that Jesus was crowned this way, with no details or explanations. This would infer that it was common practice for someone, like Jesus, who lay claim to a throne, and whose claim was rejected by the Romans.

Also, trying to make a crown of thorns would be, in itself, a painful experience, and not one to be undertaken frivolously. I can only imagine it being done by a soldier under a direct order fom a commanding officer.

That being said, I think a crown of thorns adds a delicious touch to a crucifixion scene. My drawings of crucified women quite frequently include a crown of thorns--or, if a modern-day crucifixion scene, a crown of barbed wire.
 
Welcome Hammerlock, I see you have only just joined us. I appreciate your knowledgeable input.
 
Thanks for the welcome, PhilX. I've been fascinated by crucifixion since I was a young child, and you can't believe how relieved I was to find others with the same interest. I've had a great time browsing thru this website, and I'll be putting in my two cents worth from time to time.
 
I have to agree that I don't really like the CoT issue...I think it was a one time deal for Jesus personally (although as was stated it may have found favor afterward). I also would like to add; I don't favor the scorging prior to either for the same reason. It was a one time deal by Pilate to try to get out of the job...

Scorging was a death sentence. The 40 minus 1 (39) issue is Hebrew law not Roman although they most likely would have adopted it (no need to fuss the end is the same). As the flesh swells after the beating and blood loss the inability to breath becomes excruciating. Death usually followed as the victim tried to sleep or from hypovolemia (blood loss) over the next 48 hours. those who survived most likely suffered life-long debilitation from the ordeal. The criminal sentenced to both would die rather quickly which was not the purpose of crucifixion.

If one needs proof again the gospels Leg breaking for the thieves (still hanging around) while Jesus was dead for some time (at least 30 min to an hour) since thats how long it takes blood to congeal in the heart ("blood and water" or more precisely blood and plasma).

Now that I've interjected my opinion; thanks to all who write and draw and paint and photograph. While I have an excellent visual perception a lack of models, time, money and talent prohibit me from endulging in fantisies more than just as a lurker...

very Respectfully
HM3
 
Now that I've interjected my opinion; thanks to all who write and draw and paint and photograph. While I have an excellent visual perception a lack of models, time, money and talent prohibit me from endulging in fantisies more than just as a lurker...


You and me both, HM3.

Talent free guys like thee and me are important, though. We tell the guys and gals who can create what the crux addicts are coming for.

This is crucial.
 
Thanks HM3 you seem to know what you are talking about & it’s good to have such intelligent input here, I have never been that happy with the scourging of victims before crucifixion.

Am I right in thinking the four gospels are the only accounts we have of crucifixion procedure? I know there are a few references to crucifixion & of course we have the famous ankle bone with a nail in it, but as to what actually happened we don’t know that much.

The by now accepted scenario is the stripping of the prisoner, beating with a vicious barbed scourge that ripped the flesh to shreds, then the carrying of the platibulum to the stipes, victim nailed through wrists, platibulum (with victim attached) raised up & fixed to top of short stipes (no higher than 6 ft), victim’s feet nailed through ankles to vertical stipes - & Bob’s your uncle! Later on a choice between legs broken & quick suffocation, or victim left for days until death by exhaustion or septicaemia. All this was to take place either outside a busy gate to the town or city, or else in some smelly area near the rubbish dumps. How much of this can we believe? I suspect we will never be certain.

This picture is based it seems to me from the Turin Shroud, the Gospels & our celebrated ankle bone.

Judging by how much the Romans enjoyed a spectacle I like to believe that they had a pretty good idea as to how to make a good (& entertaining) show of a crucifixion, & dragging up some torn-to-pieces wretch almost dead from blood loss & severe shock would have been too sordid & lacking in any sense of event for them.


I read somewhere that the actual crucifixion wasn’t a means of death - it wasn’t a killing machine as a guillotine is. It had the sole function of displaying the victim in a most public & shameful way to the taunts & ridicule of the whole population of the city. This could be allowed to continue for as long as the authorities wanted. The actual death blow was when the victims legs were eventually broken, & then as we all know suffocation results It’s an interesting idea that would change our whole picture of everything. Is it even possible to suggest that the victims weren’t nailed to the cross, ropes would have sufficed. Maybe it wasn’t as bloody as we think. Certainly if the victim wasn’t weakened by a bloody scourging they would survive several days tied naked to a cross at the receiving end of all the banter, insults, & digusting objects hurled at them by the crowd as they went by. Perhaps a sort of extra-shameful pillory with death at the end if you will. I imagine that watching a fit & unwounded man or woman, fully conscious & aware of all that is happening, struggling & fighting the indignity of their predicament would be much more fun than some half dead carcase. Such a person would show fear, anger, feisty ones would shout back at the crowd. And of course it still would be incredibly painful.

If we believe that the flesh ripping scourging was part of the event, & if the wounds are as vicious as I am told, would there have been too much blood-loss & debility for a victim to actually physically get to where they were to be executed let alone carry a heavy (50 kilo?) beam there? Secondly if such scourges with shards of bone or barbs of lead in them were used on naked victims wouldn’t there be an enormous risk of castration or breasts & other soft tissue being ripped off, & wouldn’t these events cause even greater loss of blood? Surely such violent scourgings were a death sentence in themselves?

A question I would like to put to the medical experts out there is; if a hefty nail is driven through someone’s wrists, ankles, or feet what are the chances of puncturing an artery? I think this is fairly important.

As to the Gospels; Matthew & Mark are not thought to be anywhere near contemporary to events, & Mark just copies narrative in Matthew, both merely say that Pilate had Christ scourged then handed him over to be crucified. John is more comprehensible & states clearly that Pilate scourged Jesus as a punishment, he intended that he be released after that - no suggestion that the scourging was part & parcel to the crucifixion. Luke is even more plain. He says that Pilate was about to have Christ scourged as His punishment (I will therefore chastise Him & release Him.), but the implacable demand from the people that Jesus be crucified made him hand him over there & then. It is implied that Jesus wasn’t even scourged!

The Turin Shroud is a fake, we can’t make any conclusions from it.

However the ankle bone does suggest nailing, but there are many ways to skin a rabbit!
 
The Gospels are fairly clear that Jesus' scourging was not intended as part of the crucifixion ritual, but as a punishment in and of itself. As noted, the Roman method of scourging was pretty damned severe, and often caused the death of the victim by itself. This is probably the reason that Jesus died as soon as he did--probably it took longer than the three hours mentioned in the Gospels, but He was definitely considered dead well before his fellow victims were, and the severity of his scourging was the culprit.

For that reason, I don't believe that scourging was an integral part of the crucifixion ritual, although it is possible that a less-severe whipping was done prior to crucifixion, probably with knotted ropes or something less likely to severely traumatize the individual. The Romans wouldn't have had any problem with adding to the victim's misery in this way, but they wouldn't want to shorten the sentence any more than necessary.

Also, just for the record, someone as severely traumatized as Mel Gibson's depiction, as as bloody, would have died from shock long before he reached the cross.
 
I agree with Hammerlock, it would be an extra act of cruelty to whip the victims buttocks & back before crucifying them, rubbing the raw areas when struggling up & down to ease the breathing difficulty would be very painful.
I read in a story on the Yahoo forum the idea of placing a crown of thorns on all victims heads to prevent them self concussing themselves on the way to their death & also against the timber of the cross; its an interesting & beleivable idea.

Mel's film was ridiculous & very disappointing, pity someone can't now address the subject again & do something believable & accurate.
 
PhilX said:
Mel's film was ridiculous & very disappointing, pity someone can't now address the subject again & do something believable & accurate.
Click to expand...

I still call Gibson's movie "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre," much to the distress of my fundamentalist relatives, who think it's the best film about Christ ever made, which disturbs me on a number of levels. Younger Sister is especially enamored of it. But this is nothing new to me; my folks are into the concept of God as Unmerciful Judge, not the God of Mercy. They may be right, and I'm going to fry in Hell forever.

But I recall the words of an American Indian chief burned at the stake by the Spanish. Offered one last chance to convert, he refused. "Then I would go to Heaven, and find there only Christians."

Back to flogging.

According to scripture, it seems to have been Pilate's intent to limit Christ's punishment to flogging. The mob compelled him to move on to crucifixion. I doubt the entire account, but leave that aside. If the intent of crucifixion was to prolong the victim's suffering, shredding said victim to hamburger from the get-go would make no sense.

I believe Jedakk's renders more realistically portray the way crux victims went to the cross.
 
I don´t think the use of the crown/wreath of thorns was limited to the Jesus of Nazareth incident. I would consider it entirely believable that it was invented on the spur of the moment many times over and may even have been one of the more widespread ideas in crux decoration. After all, both the Greeks and Romans used the laurel wreath as a symbol of honor and victory. A crucified delinquent - one who had arrived at the nadir of shame and defeat - would be deserving of the opposite of the laurel wreath, and why should that not be a wreath of thorns? Also, I don't think its use would be limited to "pretenders to the throne" - you didn't need to be emperor or king to earn the laurel wreath, after all.
Also it really isn't difficult, time-consuming or dangerous to make a wreath of thorns, in fact it's very quick and easy if the thorns are long, straight and spaced more than a fingers width apart on each side of the stem. It's easier to make a wreath of thorns than a wreath from some non-spiny plant as everything will hold together readily. It´s the plants with closely-spaced small spikes or thorns that are a pain to work with :)
 
i am certain the romans invented some sort of special glove to manufacture those crown things

recent discoveries seem to show romans able to think of a lot of brilliant things (some things we consider ahead of their time), why not a crown-making tool? :)
 
Very good points concerning this subject from everyone. I personally feel that the crown of thorns adds immeasurably to the sexiness of a crucifixion scene, and I have no problem with the concepts that it could have been done on any crucifixion victim, not just one with "throne pretensions." Thanks for the responses!
 
Too much of what is written in religious texts is not factual and written for a reason other than historical record.

That being said the crowning of certain victims with thorns has an irony and mocking quality to it to have just enough perverseness to ring true.

Think about it. As the victim you have had pretensions of leadership in opposition to the Roman rule. You were crushed in your attempt and now they are mocking you (and making you suffer) while the execute you showing how all powerful they really were.

The irony is just delicious.

I do however think that this form of enhanced punishment was dished out to those whom did something to make the irony obvious (like leadership). Your average slave girl wasn'tgoing to get a crown of thorns but in an illiterate society symbols were a powerful way of getting your message across.

And I don't think the Roman had to go very far to find adequate tools fo rthe job. Anybody who has worked with barbed wire fencing (and I have) knows a got thick pair of leather gloves will protect you from just about anything.

Leather is something the Romans had plenty of access to and I'm sure a stiff pair of gloves for protecting their hands had a myriad of uses.

kisses

willowfall
 
If the meridian nerve in the victum was damaged by the nails in the wrist, the shock from the pain could bounce their crowned head against the post when they hung low on their cross. The average Roman would love watching that.
 
The only reference to a crown of thorns in crucifixion is in 3 of the Gospels (it's not in Luke). If it did happen, it almost certainly was just an impromptu act of cruelty by the soldiers mocking Jesus's claim of being "King of the Jews". Although something similar may have been done to others who claimed a royal title, I don't think it was ever a formal part of an exectution or a specified punishment.
As an athiest, I don't find the "female christ" image offensive. I just find it a bit silly. But, Ramon has many fans, so there are others who feel differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom