Good Documentaries About Ancient Rome

[ShadowWolf]

During my years of doing research to get my bachelor's and master's degrees I was taught that their has to be a sound premise supported by other research that would make my premise sound. Of course not every bit of research done can be proven entirely correct because their is always the slightest chance that a piece of information in either the research done or research done by someone else can disprove what is perceived to be fact. This is one reason why I have trouble believing what the Bible points out because of the many variations of the story involving Jesus. You could look at the historical information regarding crucifixion that does not involve Jesus and probably get a better picture. From what I have read it seems to me crucifixion came long before Jesus and the use of the t shaped cross was in use for over 500 years. Another thing to take into account I think would be the perspective of Mary Magdalene. She is not mentioned much but there is a belief of her being Jesus' wife and being present at the crucifixion. Since their is not much information on this to be found more research would have to be done to see where this possibility could lead to regarding how Jesus was crucified.

 

[montycrusto]

One thing to remember is that our "New Testament" (and the "Old Testament") are all distillations of a much wider literature. The "apochryphal" gospels which came to light with the ancient texts discovered in jars in Egypt in 1947 are all over the map. For over 300 years people debated the divinity of Christ, and there was violence among various sects who called each other "heretics". There's a rather brilliant guy name Origen (184-253 AD) who was a biblical scholar, theologian, and eventually a priest and martyr (his father was a martyr too). According to what I've read (I haven't actually read his stuff, although I have some of it, and probably should have paid at least a little attention to it instead of concentrating on the "Federal Cavalry in the Civil War") he thought Christ was the one loyal soul God could turn to after the fall of man. He didn't think Christ was divine. So, he's a heretic and--most importantly--his works were therefore not copied and preserved as extensively as those of others. There was massive controversy about the divinity of Christ and his relationship to the "Father" before one side won around 450 AD or so. The "canon" of gospels and other books was set only in the 4th century (300's). A good source for all this is a guy named Jenkins who teaches at Baylor (which is a Baptist university in America). So, it should not be a surprise that in an age with no printing press in a polyglot empire which was by and large tolerant of various religions as long as the Emporer got his due a "sect" which arose from a Judaism which itself had factions might have trouble fixing on a coherent message. You can see that in Paul. First he's a red hot zealous Jew out to destroy the Church. Then he has a vision, and he's Christ's servant to the Gentiles. He fights with people--he falls out with Barnabas over taking John Mark on a missionary journey, his II Corinthians is a bitter rejoinder to critics in the church he founded at Corinth who feel Christians should also be Jews, he falls out with Peter when the latter refuses to eat with Gentile converts after his Jewish colleagues criticize him for doing so. Paul is dedicated and full of love and what not, but you didn't mess with him. He felt (and says as much) that what he taught about Jesus (whom he never quotes) was revealed to him by God himself and he was going to stick to it. Luke is his partisan. The Church had to grow in both confidence and power before (with state backing) it was able to enforce a coherent orthodoxy. If you look at "Christianity" even today it is split into many competing factions, and there were heresies throughout Church history (and governments which wanted to use the Church to enhance power). So, it shouldn't be surprising that you find discrepancies in the Gospels based on the views of those who wrote them (and some of them may have been edited by later authors). Jesus himself is buried in all this, and it is really hard to come up with what he believed (it seems initially he was a follower of John the Baptist)--he may in fact have changed things as he went along--and what he actually said and did.

Very illuminating!! I’ve heard the gospels described as “fan-fiction” in the sense that they’re attempts by various writers to add their own gloss on to a pre-existing narrative; one written to appeal to the Greeks, one for the Romans, etc. Plus I totally ship Jesus and Mary Magdalene, they are SOOO cute together uwu

 

[Eulalia]

so didn't get it hammered into me

and you didn't get hammered onto it!

 

[montycrusto]

I can’t see why anyone would bother to make an X-cross back in the iron-age.. wouldn’t a door or a table-top do just as well, and be much more readily available, especially if it doesn’t need to be self-supporting because it is going to lean against a wall.. I’m just thinking of practicality; of course if it was decided for aesthetic reasons or whatever to make crosses in an X shape it could be done.. but I think these biblical scholars are grasping at straws...

 

[Eulalia]

I don't think St Andrew's cross has been mentioned? Essentially, there's no early evidence that he was martyred on an X cross: he 'is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras (Patræ) in Achaea, in the year 60.Early texts, such as the Acts of Andrew known to Gregory of Tours,describe Andrew as bound, not nailed, to a Latin cross of the kind on which Jesus is said to have been crucified; yet a tradition developed that Andrew had been crucified on a cross of the form called crux decussata (X-shaped cross, or "saltire"), now commonly known as a "Saint Andrew's Cross" — supposedly at his own request, as he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified on the same type of cross as Jesus had been.The iconography of the martyrdom of Andrew — showing him bound to an X-shaped cross — does not appear to have been standardized until the later Middle Ages.' (Wiki) Indeed, I don't think there are any images of him (in sculpture, glass, illuminated mss etc.) earlier than around 1200, so clearly not based on any knowledge of actual crucifixions, of the apostle or anyone else.

When I think about it, an X cross is good for binding a body to, and the wrists could be nailed to it easily enough, but nailing the feet would be possible but awkward (presumably they'd be turned outwards, with the nails through the ankles)

 

[montycrusto]

I don't think St Andrew's cross has been mentioned? Essentially, there's no early evidence that he was martyred on an X cross: he 'is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras (Patræ) in Achaea, in the year 60.Early texts, such as the Acts of Andrew known to Gregory of Tours,describe Andrew as bound, not nailed, to a Latin cross of the kind on which Jesus is said to have been crucified; yet a tradition developed that Andrew had been crucified on a cross of the form called crux decussata (X-shaped cross, or "saltire"), now commonly known as a "Saint Andrew's Cross" — supposedly at his own request, as he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified on the same type of cross as Jesus had been.The iconography of the martyrdom of Andrew — showing him bound to an X-shaped cross — does not appear to have been standardized until the later Middle Ages.' (Wiki) Indeed, I don't think there are any images of him (in sculpture, glass, illuminated mss etc.) earlier than around 1200, so clearly not based on any knowledge of actual crucifixions, of the apostle or anyone else.

When I think about it, an X cross is good for binding a body to, and the wrists could be nailed to it easily enough, but nailing the feet would be possible but awkward (presumably they'd be turned outwards, with the nails through the ankles)

Sounds almost as if you’re suggesting that a full-size wooden St. Andrew’s Cross was Not a feature of every Scottish broch, croft, hovel and castle since the Late Stone Age.

.. next you’ll be telling us that the Greatest Englishman in history, Saint George, was a Syrian who never visited England which didn’t exist in his lifetime anyway...

 

[cynthia the inocent]

I don't think St Andrew's cross has been mentioned? Essentially, there's no early evidence that he was martyred on an X cross: he 'is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras (Patræ) in Achaea, in the year 60.Early texts, such as the Acts of Andrew known to Gregory of Tours,describe Andrew as bound, not nailed, to a Latin cross of the kind on which Jesus is said to have been crucified; yet a tradition developed that Andrew had been crucified on a cross of the form called crux decussata (X-shaped cross, or "saltire"), now commonly known as a "Saint Andrew's Cross" — supposedly at his own request, as he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified on the same type of cross as Jesus had been.The iconography of the martyrdom of Andrew — showing him bound to an X-shaped cross — does not appear to have been standardized until the later Middle Ages.' (Wiki) Indeed, I don't think there are any images of him (in sculpture, glass, illuminated mss etc.) earlier than around 1200, so clearly not based on any knowledge of actual crucifixions, of the apostle or anyone else.

When I think about it, an X cross is good for binding a body to, and the wrists could be nailed to it easily enough, but nailing the feet would be possible but awkward (presumably they'd be turned outwards, with the nails through the ankles)

Like I said befor, I am not an authority on this. The program I watched, the biblical scholars had investigated some tombs. The bone were commonly placed in limestone carved boxes. They had found ankle bones with nails thru the sides and showed them to some expert. That was how they concluded that the person was crucified on an X cross. They didn't identify the person. Some of those boxes actually have names and some don't. I just found it to be an interesting discovery and appropriate to this site. I actually thought devout Catholics would be very vocal in denying this possibility. The remarks have been thoughtful and educating

 

[Eulalia]

l'bogo has mentioned to me that he saw a programme on Italian tv some years ago that argued, he says in quite a serious way, that an X cross might have been used. Apparently it was also claimed that the chi-rho symbol reflects the actual style of cross used for crucifixion


I must say I'm doubtful. That symbol certainly represents the first two letters of 'Christ', Greek Christos ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. It doesn't appear in Christian iconography until after the time of Constantine, in the 4th century - in his time, the 'staurogram' began to be used as a 'badge' of Christians, the chi-rho cypher first appears a generation later, on the sarcophagus of Domitilla, where it's surrounded by a wreath, a symbol of triumph, not a representation of the crucifixion. And Constantine put a stop to crucifixion as a means of execution, so any later portrayals or descriptions are not from first-hand observation.

Certainly it was noticed that the first letter of ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ is a cross - Isidore of Seville's 'Etymologies' in the 6th century (the Wikipedia of the early middle ages) commented that 'it is fitting that [X] makes the sign of the cross', but at V xxvii 31 he describes crucifixion as 'hanging from a patibulum', a beam, he clearly didn't think Christ, or common criminals, were actually crucified on an X.

 

[Frank Petrexa]

One of my programmer colleagues had a poster of Isidore of Seville, who is the patron saint of the internet. Supposedly that's because he excerpted a bunch of ancient works and referenced them in his own magnum opus. This thrilled all the copyists because there was no longer a need to make copies of many works--good ol' Isidore had preserved the key elements. This of course is a major loss to history.

 

[Eulalia]

I regard him as a patron saint too, a great collector of useless information!

 

[Frank Petrexa]

I regard him as a patron saint too, a great collector of useless information!

One of my other friends is a fan of an LA DeeJay called "Dr. Demento", who helped the careers of Weird Al Yankovitch and Tom Lehrer. My friend catalogs all his playlists for every show on a web site. People actually use it. There is this, however.
Here's what the press has to say about this site: "I've seen some pointless information on the Web before, but the Dr. Demento page takes the cake." - Deb Richardson, The Net, volume 2, issue 12 (May, 1997)

 

[Apostate]

This maybe probably belongs over on the Aesthetic Component, but I find this erroneous reconstruction of the crucifixion,



later refined to a more likely configuration,



remains the basis of one of the more erotic crux positions.

 

[mp5stab]

I've always loved the imagery of the adutera literally having her legs nailed shut. It's a powerful message.

That being said here's my 2 cents:

There was no one exact crucifixion method, there couldn't have been, because standardization is a result of the industrial revolution, and milling everything to a certain tolerance to ensure that every cross was identical just wouldn't have been possible. or practical. I think that outside of important crucifixions, crosses were largely ad-hoc, spur of the moment things, determined by the whims of the carnefix and the materials available. That being said, it is pretty likely that most crosses were T shaped with a patilbulum and stipes in some kind of mortice and tenon joint, and the condemned was nailed through the wrists and the sides of the feet to this device.

 

[Apostate]

I've always loved the imagery of the adutera literally having her legs nailed shut. It's a powerful message.

That interpretation never occurred to me. Ever.

 

[Frank Petrexa]

I've always loved the imagery of the adutera literally having her legs nailed shut. It's a powerful message.

That being said here's my 2 cents:

There was no one exact crucifixion method, there couldn't have been, because standardization is a result of the industrial revolution, and milling everything to a certain tolerance to ensure that every cross was identical just wouldn't have been possible. or practical. I think that outside of important crucifixions, crosses were largely ad-hoc, spur of the moment things, determined by the whims of the carnefix and the materials available. That being said, it is pretty likely that most crosses were T shaped with a patilbulum and stipes in some kind of mortice and tenon joint, and the condemned was nailed through the wrists and the sides of the feet to this device.

σταυροs is the Greek word the gospels use, and it can mean an "upright stake". So the shape is not implied--one could hang with wrists and feet nailed to the sides of a pole.

 

[Eulalia]

As in this new image by MoRtEn5 on Deviant Art

 

[Apostate]

σταυροs is the Greek word the gospels use, and it can mean an "upright stake". So the shape is not implied--one could hang with wrists and feet nailed to the sides of a pole.

Yusebby calls it the"crux simplex."

 

[Apostate]

For those just tuning into this paraphilia, the best collection of Yusseby/Yusebby's work may be found here:

Yusseby

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the work of Yusseby. Its nearly perfect.

www.cruxforums.com

 

[Frank Petrexa]

Agreed.. unless... (and I know I’m playing devils advocate ) one was concocting a narrative in which the uttermost form of suffering and humiliation was the whole point.. in which case perhaps one would indeed choose crucifixion. I think that’s a possibility that can’t quite be ruled out. However I think you’re almost certainly correct, and there was a real act of crucifixion that took place and fed into the legends. I strongly doubt that it involved an X cross though

One other thing to remember is that crucifixion was often a punishment for sedition. So, the followers of a crucified man would have to answer for WHY he was crucified. So the gospels (at least three of which were written after the Jewish revolt in 70 AD, and were all written when tensions in Judea against Roman rule were high) make a point of blaming the Jewish authorities--they conspired against Jesus and forced the hand of good ol' PP, who really could find nothing Jesus did that warranted crucifixion. This is explicit in the gospels. So, the crucifixion was a real problem for Christians and if it didn't happen there would have been zero incentive to make it up.
In Romans (if I recall) Paul is very careful to lay this position of respect for Roman authority out. "Respect those in authority. All authority comes from GOD. The man in authority has a sword for a reason." Now Julius Caesar came to power in a military coup. His "adopted" son Augustus came to power like Stalin did--he won out (militarily in this case) over an uneasy coalition of rulers cobbled together after Caesar's assassination. So it's pretty clear Paul's God held his nose, realizing that Christianity had to demonstrate loyalty to the state and messing around judgmentally in politics was a road to disaster. (Paul really didn't care much about that anyway since he clearly thought the "second coming" would occur in his lifetime and what the Roman authorities did didn't really matter.) As it was, the "persecution" under Nero in which Paul probably died was really just Nero trying to find a scapegoat for his failures during the "great fire" that destroyed much of Rome, and Christians were strange, not so popular, and an easy target. All subsequent persecutions centered around Christian refusal to accept the rites attendant on the deification of the emperor, and one could get out from under the penalty simply by making the requisite sacrifice rite.
It is worth noting that Claudius (Nero's predecessor and Gaius'--Caligula's--successor) banished "the Jews" from Rome because of disturbances, apparently over "Chrestus". Some things I read said that only one synagogue was banished, and that activities in others were curtailed until things calmed down. Two people who Paul teamed up with in Corinth, Priscilla and Aquila, were apparently refugees from this banishment. Everywhere Paul went "the Jews" made trouble, stoning him, beating him, driving him off at times. One wonders whether it was only the "Jewish" side that stirred things up. I guess I would be very leery of getting into an argument with Paul. And it is very clear that other Christians opposed a lot of what Paul did. So maybe the Romans had some justification in worrying about instability caused by these religious conflicts. Christians were in the thick of a lot of controversy.
But, "history is written by the winners".

 

[Frank Petrexa]

Sorry, this is a topic of interest for me, so I'll make one more comment.
Socrates, the hemlock, the evil ones in Athens who condemned him! There was a formal trial and a vote to condemn him to death. The vote was not unanimous. The method of execution was not cruel or demeaning. Plato, his pupil, wrote a scathing denunciation, dripping with sarcasm, which survives. (I admit to not having gone into this in detail--maybe someone else has and can fill in. There is a book by I.F. Stone on the topic, which I have not read.) OK, whether the execution was just or not, nothing happened to Plato, so Socrates himself must have done something that set some people off, and the followers he had were of lesser concern. Because of the fact that documentation had to be copied by hand over many centuries, and that the literacy rate in any event was low, we only have a partial picture skewed heavily toward Plato's view. So it is hard to know what really happened, what Socrates' enemies were really concerned about. It is also true that the people on the other side were less inclined to relive the episode than Plato was--they had other things to deal with, while Plato was devastated and it was a major event in his life. I would assume Socrates had something of an ego, and was fairly opinionated. You don't have to think he was a total jerk to realize that there may have been some valid concerns on the other side, and that "history is written by the winners". I think this has some relevance to the Jesus story.