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

Naked on the cross

Go to CruxDreams.com
Trex said:
I might get flamed for this, but I seriously doubt many woman were crucified.
Click to expand...
I'm not a moderator, but one should not get flamed or trolled or insulted on here for expressing an opinion. And that should be true whether that opinion turns out to be true or untrue.
But for what it is worth, I think more men were crucified than women, but there were more women crucified than we think to be the case. I think that the reason why we don't know about many and therefore tend to assume that it was rare for any female to be crucified (which was simply not the case) is for two reasons. One is that they just didn't care. A group of people, men and women were being crucified today and so why worry how many were men or women, why record their details just crucify them they are criminals or rebels or slaves. The only record is the sign above them. The second reason is that they didn't know about the future having the internet and this website and that we in the future would be fascinated about how many crucified people were women and how exactly they were crucified compared to men, because if they knew, I feel sure that they would have left us some form of register and some information. But they were unaware of this so they just went about their duty crucifying the days victims, more men than women for sure, but plenty of women on the crucifixion list each day for sure.
 
Crucified Life said:
I'm not a moderator, but one should not get flamed or trolled or insulted on here for expressing an opinion. And that should be true whether that opinion turns out to be true or untrue.
But for what it is worth, I think more men were crucified than women, but there were more women crucified than we think to be the case. I think that the reason why we don't know about many and therefore tend to assume that it was rare for any female to be crucified (which was simply not the case) is for two reasons. One is that they just didn't care. A group of people, men and women were being crucified today and so why worry how many were men or women, why record their details just crucify them they are criminals or rebels or slaves. The only record is the sign above them. The second reason is that they didn't know about the future having the internet and this website and that we in the future would be fascinated about how many crucified people were women and how exactly they were crucified compared to men, because if they knew, I feel sure that they would have left us some form of register and some information. But they were unaware of this so they just went about their duty crucifying the days victims, more men than women for sure, but plenty of women on the crucifixion list each day for sure.
Click to expand...
All very interesting reading.
 
Eulalia said:
In context (a long time ago!) I was referring to the later Empire when - under the influence of Christianity, and 'Middle Eastern' (Jewish, Persian etc.) cultures more generally, there was a marked swing against nudity, and fear/ revulsion at the sight of the nude body.
Click to expand...
Eulalia, I've often cussed the cultural legacy of Judeo-Christian nudity taboos. But then I remember the violation of said taboos is central to sexual arousal in contemporary Western cultures, by which I mean "for me." :rolleyes:
 
Crucified Life said:
I'm not a moderator, but one should not get flamed or trolled or insulted on here for expressing an opinion. And that should be true whether that opinion turns out to be true or untrue.
Click to expand...
Opinions are just that … opinions … they’re fine so long as they don’t violate site rules. Discussions, after all, so long as they are civil, are a big part of what this site is all about.
 
Eulalia said:
under the influence of Christianity, and 'Middle Eastern' (Jewish, Persian etc.) cultures more generally, there was a marked swing against nudity, and fear/ revulsion at the sight of the nude body.
Click to expand...
I didn't get that memo :D
 
regarding nudity in the crucifixion, and nudity in general in the ancient world, I am not here to give answers but some food for thought that can be used as a key to interpreting it as a historian.
Rome was a reality that lasted for more than 2200 years, from the first village of brigands (yes, brigands) on the Tiber to the fall of Constantinople, habits and customs have changed quite a lot, if you imagine how our grandparents dressed and what relationship they had with nudity and instead the boys and girls of today, much freer and more uninhibited.
Furthermore, Rome's dominions extended over very different peoples, with very different ideas about what was or was not vulgar.
What was or was not offensive.
Taking the example of the peoples of the Aegean sea who saw in nudity a form of beauty and strength, the athletes were naked, the gods were naked, in the traditional Minoan female dress the breasts were on display.
The Italians have inherited this use and the Romans of the central part of the Empire had roughly three types of nudity: Heroic Nudity, the hero, the god is naked: the emperor Commodus (that of the Gladiator) descended into the arena dressed as Hercules , i.e. naked in a lion's skin, in front of all of Rome.
But nudity could also be functional, Roman citizens went to the baths every day, there were free public baths, there were luxury ones and personal ones inside the villas.
In the Baths you were naked and not everyone had separate spaces for males and females, but you can't wash in your clothes.
Then there was the humiliating nudity, that of the slave, of the one who was humiliated and mocked, who was weak.
We don't know how to grasp the subtle difference between these three nudities, because the Emperor is naked in the arena and everything is fine, indeed, it's cool, while a guy who is stripped naked in the forum as a humiliation is not fine.
As for the crucifixion of which we have more news, that of Jesus the Nazarene took place in Palestine among the Jewish peoples, who instead had a profound shame.
Simon known as Peter was fishing half naked because he was on the boat and did not want to wet his clothes (a Palestinian was never naked) but when the master approaches he gets dressed, an Athenian would have given a damn.
In the biblical tradition we speak of someone who was disinherited because entering his tent he had seen the sex of his father who had undressed in his sleep.
Probably showing a naked Jew during a crucifixion would have been unacceptable and would have led to further friction between the Romans and the local population.
While the same thing for a German or a Celt would not have been a problem.
 
Director Wolf said:
regarding nudity in the crucifixion, and nudity in general in the ancient world, I am not here to give answers but some food for thought that can be used as a key to interpreting it as a historian.
Rome was a reality that lasted for more than 2200 years, from the first village of brigands (yes, brigands) on the Tiber to the fall of Constantinople, habits and customs have changed quite a lot, if you imagine how our grandparents dressed and what relationship they had with nudity and instead the boys and girls of today, much freer and more uninhibited.
Furthermore, Rome's dominions extended over very different peoples, with very different ideas about what was or was not vulgar.
What was or was not offensive.
Taking the example of the peoples of the Aegean sea who saw in nudity a form of beauty and strength, the athletes were naked, the gods were naked, in the traditional Minoan female dress the breasts were on display.
The Italians have inherited this use and the Romans of the central part of the Empire had roughly three types of nudity: Heroic Nudity, the hero, the god is naked: the emperor Commodus (that of the Gladiator) descended into the arena dressed as Hercules , i.e. naked in a lion's skin, in front of all of Rome.
But nudity could also be functional, Roman citizens went to the baths every day, there were free public baths, there were luxury ones and personal ones inside the villas.
In the Baths you were naked and not everyone had separate spaces for males and females, but you can't wash in your clothes.
Then there was the humiliating nudity, that of the slave, of the one who was humiliated and mocked, who was weak.
We don't know how to grasp the subtle difference between these three nudities, because the Emperor is naked in the arena and everything is fine, indeed, it's cool, while a guy who is stripped naked in the forum as a humiliation is not fine.
As for the crucifixion of which we have more news, that of Jesus the Nazarene took place in Palestine among the Jewish peoples, who instead had a profound shame.
Simon known as Peter was fishing half naked because he was on the boat and did not want to wet his clothes (a Palestinian was never naked) but when the master approaches he gets dressed, an Athenian would have given a damn.
In the biblical tradition we speak of someone who was disinherited because entering his tent he had seen the sex of his father who had undressed in his sleep.
Probably showing a naked Jew during a crucifixion would have been unacceptable and would have led to further friction between the Romans and the local population.
While the same thing for a German or a Celt would not have been a problem.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree, but as I've pointed out a few times, the problem for people in those times (and in many cultures to this day) is not the shame that nudity might cause to the naked person, but the moral pollution caused by seeing one. That's the reason for the rules in Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc. etc. concerning female dress - it's the fear of the sinful thoughts and feelings the sight of (especially) female bodies arouses in males, and the danger that presents to their souls. The sight of a wholly naked person, especially though not only female, would of course be much more dangerous. Such 'gymnophobia' was and is very deep-rooted in middle eastern and south Asian cultures, and spread to the Western Empire as the Eastern became increasingly dominant in wealth, trade and population. Christianity was a vector, but there were many other factors.
 
Eulalia said:
I pretty much agree, but as I've pointed out a few times, the problem for people in those times (and in many cultures to this day) is not the shame that nudity might cause to the naked person, but the moral pollution caused by seeing one.
Click to expand...
Eul has a good point. One can imagine the crowd getting impure thoughts seeing her displayed naked on the cross while she is being executed!!!
crux 497.jpg
 
Eulalia said:
I pretty much agree, but as I've pointed out a few times, the problem for people in those times (and in many cultures to this day) is not the shame that nudity might cause to the naked person, but the moral pollution caused by seeing one. That's the reason for the rules in Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc. etc. concerning female dress - it's the fear of the sinful thoughts and feelings the sight of (especially) female bodies arouses in males, and the danger that presents to their souls. The sight of a wholly naked person, especially though not only female, would of course be much more dangerous. Such 'gymnophobia' was and is very deep-rooted in middle eastern and south Asian cultures, and spread to the Western Empire as the Eastern became increasingly dominant in wealth, trade and population. Christianity was a vector, but there were many other factors.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there was this subtle difference between seeing a naked person in public (moral pollution is spreading among society) and the same person seen naked while being judicially executed, which was part of a purifying process of society?
 
Loxuru said:
Perhaps there was this subtle difference between seeing a naked person in public (moral pollution is spreading among society) and the same person seen naked while being judicially executed, which was part of a purifying process of society?
Click to expand...
It's an interesting idea, but I can't think of any examples that might support it. Societies with stringent laws against 'indecency' even if they held public executions, seem to have kept the condemned covered up. I think that was true across pretty well the whole of Asia, from the Levant to Japan. Again, it's not moral pollution in quite the sense that we'd understand it in the modern west - it's rather a fear that seeing a naked person would do serious harm to you - to your spirit - like catching some dangerous 'spiritual illness' as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom