Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 1

Women and Crucifixion
I had earlier corrected "person" to "man" on the grounds that crucifixion was a method of execution for males only. Was I mistaken? Can anyone cite cases of women being crucified? S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.202 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 August 2002


 * It appears that there might be some evidence suggesting females were also crucified, though at the very least this was far less often. Just based on the article at http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html, which cites a case of 70 or 80 sorceresses crucified in Ashkelon. Wesley 07:24, 30 August 2002 (UTC)


 * In reference to the discussion at the top of the page, it looks as if women were indeed crucified, but facing the cross http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/Nt/NT21.html Rhesusman 18:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Women were crucified. Consider the tale of Ide, a freed-woman, crucified for her role in the scandal of the Temple of Isis (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Ch. 3). The reference to special positions accorded women on the cross for the sake of dignity is unsubstantiated by contemporary sources. tarq 07 Mar 2006


 * Pedanius Secundus, Rome Prefect in AD 61, kept 400 slaves (Tac. Ann. 14.43.4) and all of them - men and women - were crucified according to an ancient custom, after he had been murdered by a slave man. Viator; 20 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Nudity and Crucifixion
I don't think being naked was required for men, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't for women. As with other forms of execution, the guest of honor was generally stripped down to undies -- some kind of breechclout and/or tunic for men and the contemporary equivalent of a shift for women. -- isis 30 Aug 2002

A Closer Look at Crucifixion
Have you seen the page at http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/risen/risen3.htm ? I found it very interesting. -- isis 30 Aug 2002


 * Nice background info, although I notice at the end they seem to confuse adoration with worship. Me, I'm looking forward to "The Universal Exaltation (Elevation) of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross" on September 14. ;-) Wesley 14:42 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

Stripping for crucifixion?
The Oxford Classical Dictionary (1970), article "Crucifixion", states:

" ... the general practice was to begin with flagellation of the condemned, who was then compelled to carry a cross-beam ... to the place of execution ... He was stripped and fastened to the cross-beam by nails or cords."

Karl Bruno Leder, Todesstrafe ["The Death Penalty"], Vienna & Munich 1980, a work with extensive notes and bibliography, stresses that crucifixion, practised by the Romans, was not of Roman origin, and that it may once have had a sacrificial character. On page 98 he says:

"Noch stärker deutet die bei den Römern obligatorische Entkleidung des Verurteilte auf den ursprünglichen Opfercharacter hin." ["Even more clearly does the stripping, obligatory with the Romans, point to the original character of sacrifice" (my italics).]

New Testament scholars admit this, but suggest that in Palestine, in consideration of the Jewish abhorrence of public nudity, the Romans let the crucified keep a garment covering the genitals.

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.202 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 August 2002


 * I read something about this long time ago. I remember that crucifixion originally was a not Roman torture meant to expose the victim, deprived of defense, until death by insects and hunger - torture was obtained by blocking his body and injuring him (like for Jesus) in order to have him bleeding, thus attracting insects. In this sense - and with such a degree of cruelty - it is more probable that the victim had to be completely naked: I wouldn't be able to imagine a "delicate" mildening of the torture in a similar mentality.
 * On the point of garments, as they are commonly depicted or described, we ought to reflect that all what was transmitted to us today by the Roman Church (the major source for crucifixion, as a matter of fact), could have been somehow... "filtered" by obvious respectful little "edits" for minor details (Jewish religion might have had similar interests in an eventually corrected "official version"). See Michelangelo for some notes on the Fig-Leaf Campaign 15 centuries after...
 * We should also ask ourselves - IMHO - why Rome should have had to adhere to Jewish habits, given that the kind of punishment (and its cruelty) should have needed to show the power of the Roman system in its overwhelming strengh, and not its respectful... diplomacy toward conquered peoples --G 03:12, 31 August 2002 (UTC)


 * That's right: If you don't extend their arms, they die of exposure (a good old Roman method of execution), not crucifixion. And the article isn't about what we can speculate or deduce about what happened at the Crucifixion but what facts we can assert about crucifixion in general.  -- isis 31 Aug 2002


 * I don't doubt that, but that wasn't the point I was making: Leaving aside the issue that "strip" or "entkleiden" can mean either to remove all clothes or to remove the outer clothes, and leaving aside that the Romans (like the Greeks) didn't have the taboos about public nudity that a lot of other peoples had (and the Jews had those taboos in spades), the fact remains that the article is about "crucifixion," and you're just as crucified if they nail/hang you up in your overcoat.  At the same time, the article leaves out the crucial point that they had to have their arms extended for the process to work effectively.  It would be better for "naked" in the first sentence to be replaced by "spread-eagle" and to add a sentence saying the Romans generally stripped the person naked, leaving open the question of what other peoples did, which we're not sure about.  As it stands, the article is confusing "crucifixion" with "the Crucifixion" and not disclosing that. -- isis 31 Aug 2002


 * We're imposing our modern sense of nudity as a sexual condition in a time when nakedness could be an economic attribute. The Roman executioners stripped the crucified obviously as booty (corroborated by the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth). However, the cross was a highly effective tool of state sponsored terror which simultaneously maximized not only the shame and suffering of the victim but also the implied message to any witnesses that this could happen to you if you didn't follow the rules.  Niceties such as loincloths simply did not occur.  tarq 07 Mar 2006

Crucifixion of Jesus versus crucifixion in general
The Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is a too important and difficult matter to treat as just an example of (Roman) crucifixion. It would need an article of its own, and there should then be a distinction between what can be concluded from the historical sources, and what is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. (As for the gospels, their accounts of the Passion are heavily influenced by the Old Testament, believed to foretell in detail the career of Jesus.) S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.202 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 August 2002


 * I think that if we want to treat the Crucifixion of Jesus in greater detail, it would probably be sufficient to do it as a subsection of the present article. That would avoid duplication of information between the two articles. Drawing such a sharp contrast between the teaching of the Church, the Gospels and "historical" sources, reflects a tremendous anti-Christian bias. The Gospels and Church traditions are every bit as historical as other sources you'll find. Were they trying to make a theological point? Of course. But any non-Christian source you find from a similar time frame who troubled to write much about the event at all, was probably just as biased in the other direction. Anyone without a vested interest would have found it unworthy of mention at the time, especially since so many Jews were being crucified at the time. Wesley 21:11, 31 August 2002 (UTC)


 * Amen to that.  Or the subsection on the Crucifixion could be in the Jesus Christ article, with links both ways to/from this one. -- isis 1 Sep 2002


 * I'm not sure on the details of reorganization, but many pages related to Christianity link here. The impression might be that this page is about the Crucifixion, not crucifixtion in general. 59.104.85.200 8 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)


 * Would this be the time to say "disambiguation page" (we also have a number of musical items of the same or similar name)? --Lord Matt 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

La Minerva
Gianfranco: Is there not, in the church strangely called La Minerva, a naked Christ by Michelangelo?

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.202 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 August 2002


 * Yes, it is the "Redentore" that Michelangelo had to paint after a contract that (due to the exclusive he had previously granted to Julius II) he should not have accepted; he however started it, then stopped his work because marble showed to be irregular (a black vein), then he finished it delivering the statue to a noble man of a village around Rome (sorry, I don't remember which one) from whom he had accepted a similar contract. During the years (seven or eight, I think) in which he completed this work, he always officially denied he was working at it. In the end, the statue was brought there, alla Minerva.
 * The church was a sort of private property of Cardinale Carafa's family, so it was this Christ the first artwork to be covered with a bronze fig-leaf (from which the name of the censorship campaign).
 * BTW, the "strange" name, "Santa Maria sopra Minerva" (Saint Mary above Minerva) is because on this site there was a temple to the pagan goddess. --G 11:55, 31 August 2002 (UTC)

Not being nailed to the cross
"Contrary to popular religious depictions of crucifixion, victims were never nailed to the cross through the palms of the hands but rather through the wrists, as the flesh of the hands cannot support the victim's entire body weight; the person would simply fall off." Does anyone actually have a source for this? I once saw some information that stated, if memory serves, that they actually calculated the weight and tension, and tested it using a non-damaging simulated technique, which indicated they very well could have been spiked through the hand. This seems to be a common assumption, though. -- Hroefn 00:54, 6 July 2003 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember an article by a physician, perhaps in Reader's Digest, decades ago, confirming this. Not just by calculation, but by trial, someone had used a cadaver to research and found nails through what we call hands would not hold. They had to go between the bones of the arm near the wrist.  He also postulated that the scourging caused inflamation and swelling by buildup of fluid in the sack (pericardium) around the heart causing pain and eventual death.  That the careful cutting of Jesus, by the point of the lance by the roman guard, actually eased the pain.  That article or a similar one may have also mentioned that there were several violations in Roman Law in the most famous cruixification.  Although some of these may have been mentioned in propagandistic ways to sow hatred for the Romans. WonderWheeler (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think beginning the paragraphs on nails as follows is misleading.
 * "Contrary to popular religious depictions of crucifixion, victims were never nailed to the cross..."
 * This reads more like POV claiming that no one (read "Jesus") was ever nailed to the cross.
 * I suggest we reword the paragraph so a casual or peremptory reading doesn't give the reader the impression the The Wikipedia is denying anything about Jesus' crucifixion. There's a better way of emphasizing that "only nails through the palms" wouldn't work... --Uncle Ed 13:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I see no insinuation whatsoever that Jesus was never nailed to the cross. It is a factual observation that the Romans nailed their victims to a cross through their wrists rather than through their hands. mightyafrowhitey 207.157.121.50 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Mani
Wasn't the prophet Mani crucified? -- Error 04:52, 25 July 2003 (UTC)

Is there archialogical evidence of "t" shaped crosses?
From reading the greek word rendered "cross" Stauros means stake or fence. I have seen some examples of literary descriptions of odd congamerations of wood poles that more resemble a fence than the "cross" as it is commonly seen depicted.

On the other hand, go back a hudred or so years and Stauroo and it's many derivations refers to impaling on a pole which was how the Assyrians were described as exicuting people.

The first mention I have heard of a "cross" as a torture/execution device is when Constantine used it.

If anyone has referances that could clear this up it'd be appreciated.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.206.115 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 October 2003


 * This would be the proper way to inflict death being that the body would hang down eventualy Suffocating the victim. Since Christ died before constantine rule, it should be considered that he died this way, on a stake, not a cross!
 * With his{Constantines} "so called" conversion to Christianity, he also brought in many "Pagan Customs" into Christianity to ease the transition for the rest of the Roman community. This would include Idolotry whice is something the bible speaks against[Ten Commandments]. But now that the cross was born it is the #1 idol used around the world.
 * The question now is if Christ did not die on a Cross, but a Stake, WHO INSPIRED THE CROSS?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.162.66 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 February 2007


 * Who inspired the cross? What kind of question is that? While they certainly weren't the first to impale people as a form of punishment, the Romans where the ones who employed crucifixion as a form of punishment during the time of Jesus. Therefore, you could say that the cross was a Roman invention. However, I must disagree with your statements about idolatry and Constantine bringing pagan customs into Christianity. Aside from making Christianity legal and declaring it as the official religion of the Roman Empire, Constantine dedicated huge sums of money for the building of churches and basilicas, but he had no direct influence in the development of Christian doctrine or the growth of the early Christian Church. Now, as to your statement on idolatry. The cross is for Christians a symbol of faith in Christ as the Saviour of mankind, not an idol of worship.....Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.80.107 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 March 2007


 * Jay... As the information above shows, a crucifixtion was done on a torture stake, not a cross. God said dont use any symbols or Idols in use of praise of him. Is obvious that satan had a roll in devevloping the cross as a form of false worship!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.162.66 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 March 2007


 * Who really cares whether or not Jesus was actually crucified on a stake or not. It is irrelevant. Jesus died and rose again, that's what's important. As to the other point, Exodus 20:4-5 says "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them" Christians do not worship the cross... we use the cross to symbolise the faith that we have in Jesus Christ, the one we do worship. YesusHristova 09:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yesus, Please! Christains that use any form of the cross are idolizing it. The whole idea behind Exodus is that the Jews in the wilderness and those onward would not use or need any symbol but there faith in God. Therefore any object or symbol (Golden Calf) would be rejected by God.!!!MH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.168.111 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 July 2007


 * Let me emphasize that Wikipedia discussion boards are for the sole purpose of discussing and improving the article. This is not a web forum. There is no small number of places you can take your theological discussion, this page is not it. Trusilver 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Victims taken down alive
I removed this sentence:

"In ancient Rome, crucified persons known not to be already dead were sometimes taken down from the cross (after having both of their legs broken) and then thrown alive into an open burial pit; in these cases death could have ultimately come from starvation, exposure, or even tetanus from the nail wounds."

because it may be fantasy; a source citation seems required. Besides, death from tetanus seems rather surrealistic...

Jorge Stolfi 09:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Victims of crucifixion under the Roman Empire were never taken down alive. They had their legs broken, causing death within a few minutes; exceptionally, as in the case of Jesus, they would have a spear thrust into their vitals. Usually they would be left on the cross until they rotted. If a Roman Centurion failed to ensure that an execution victim was dead, he himself would be crucified immediately. Unsurprisingly, centurions on execution detail made very sure that their victims were well and truly dead.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any sources indicating that spear to the side was an alternative form of speeding the death, nor for that mater that breaking the legs was common outside Palistine. The Biblical account of both seems to indicate exceptions to the rule (legs broken because a holy day was coming up to keep the religiouse leaders appeased.  Same appeasment that was the cause of the crucufuxian of Jesus in the first place).  The spear thing (admitedly I should go dig up a source) would more likely be used as a test of life.  As Anthony.bradbury says (and which I have no reason to doubt): "If a Roman Centurion failed to ensure that an execution victim was dead, he himself would be crucified immediately." - the same was also true of a jailer letting the prisionors escape (I understand).  So a spear tot he side up and in just to be doubly sure would follow logically.  We should however be carefull not to use the death of Jesus as a standard as there were many irregularities (by Roman and Hebrew Law) surrounding the entire event. --Lord Matt 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A few points. It is a mistaken belief that crucifixion was always fatal. The Romans also used crucifixion as a criminal punishment not meant to be fatal and would take the victim down after they became unconscious. This fact alone requires the lead to mention that it was not always a fatal punishment. Also in Judea the law required that any people crucified had to taken down by sunset on Friday whether they were dead or alive. That must have resulted in many survivors as, because it took up to four days to die, being crucified on only three days of the week guaranteed death. The spear is not likely to have been an attempt to cause death as bleeding would not have been serious enough and (in the case of Jesus) was not in a part of the body that would normally be fatal. It was used by a soldier (trained to use a spear) so if meant to kill the spear would have entered under the rib cage not through it. The only logical explanation is it was used to determine if the victim was unconscious (if it was used as a common practice). Wayne (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Location of the nails.
Hi. I noticed the statement in this article that nails using in a crucifixion could not have been placed in the hands of the victim because the hands could not support the weight of the body. But I recall seeing a TV documentary some time ago which demonstrated that if the feet were drawn up and fixed to the cross so that the knees were bent, with the feet higher than the knees, bent in front (I think the program may also have given some historical evidence that that was in fact the way that people were crucified) then the hands would not have to take the whole weight of the body, thus making it possible for the nails to go through the palms rather than the wrists. Does anyone have any information about that, and could it be added to the article, if the source can be found?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.236.66 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 September 2004


 * There has been some controversy about this over the years. Dr. Pierre Barbet (early 20th century) in experiments using cadavers found that nails through the palms could not support the body weight.  Bear in mind also, that this is not a static situation where the forces are constant; a struggling victim introduces many unknown factors.  Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who has done some research into this in recent years, does not agree with all of Barbet's findings.  I'm skeptical of Zugibe's findings because of his reliance on the Shroud of Turin as evidence of a crucifixion.  The most likely placement of the nails from the standpoint of load bearing and security would be between the two rows of bones in the wrists (carpals) or between the radius and ulna just above the wrist.  Note that the carpals are actually in the base of the palm, so a nail placed there would appear to be in the hand, just not through the center of the palm.
 * The reference in the article to a nail being driven through the victim's penis should be removed. While I have no doubt that some executioner could have done and did do this and worse among the thousands of crucifixions that took place, there is no reference to it in any of the classical works we have.--Jedakk 14:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a brief contribution: It is a constant source of amusement for me that we are all so influenced by visual taditions. The debate over the location of the nails seems to be "wrist vs. hand," as though there was only one nail used per arm. After decades of experience with this cruel form of execution, the Romans likely learned to use several nails, as required. Wrist and/or hands. If there wasn't enough substance to the arms of the condemned to support the weight, then surely ropes could be used to augment the nails. The answers are not so elusive when other possibilities are allowed. Mbanak 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop Joachim of Nizhny Novgorod
Archbishop Joachim of Nizhny Novgorod -- can anyone provide a cite for this? -- The Anome 15:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is reasonably well known in Russia that Archbishop Joachim died an unnatural death, but the details are disputed. One version of his death states that he was hung upside down outside of the gates of the Sevastopol cathedral in 1920. The other version, references to which I find to be more credible because they are present in the letters of Joachim's friends from the early 1920's, simply states that he was murdered by unknown bandits during a robbery in 1921. Vseznayka (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Positional asphyxia again
From the article:

"However, experiments by Frederick Zugibe indicated that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly increasing discomfort and pain."

Did Zugibe speculate on what the cause for, and endpoint of, this continued "rapidly increasing discomfort and pain" might have been? If this discomfort and pain consisted of the experimental volunteers holding themselves steady in a position where they could comfortably breathe, what would be the result when the muscles used to maintain this posture tired? -- The Anome 13:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My skepticism with Zugibe's research has always been its reliance on the Shroud of Turin as his basis for many of his assumptions. While it is significant as a religious relic and venerated by many, its provenance is uncertain.
 * Regarding the pain experienced by his test subjects, of that I have no doubt. With the arms spread at 60 degrees to the vertical, the tension on each arm would be equal to the entire weight of his body, whereas each arm would carry one-half of the body weight if they were fastened so that they extended straight overhead.  Spreading them further than that rapidly increases this force and puts the person in danger of shoulder damage.  There is the additional consideration of whether wrought-iron nails would carry this kind of stress without bending, ripping apart wrist joints, etc.
 * Regarding the question of difficulty in breathing and asphyxiation as the cause of death in crucifixion, I believe that this effect is due to two separate conditions that combine to ultimately make it impossible for the person to exhale. The first of these is the extension of the arms overhead, an effect that is more pronounced as the arms are extended nearer to the vertical.  This produces an extension of the secondary muscles of inspiration, the ones used to supplement the action of the diaphragm when a person breathes more deeply than normal for whatever reason.  The best example of this mechanism in action that I have been able to find is the Holger Nielsen method of artificial respiration - the old arm raise/back pressure method.  Studies of its efficiency that I've read show that it actually provides very good ventilation.  Based on this, one could assume that a person hanging by his arms would always have his lungs partially inflated, with only a portion of their capacity available for actual respiration.
 * The second factor is the weight of the victim's lower body pulling downward on his diaphragm, so that his diaphragm muscles have to lift this weight with each breath. Since his breathing is shallower and more rapid due to the reduced lung capacity, this would tend to fatigue his diaphragm muscles over time.  Simply shifting his weight onto his feet would likely relieve this condition to the extent that he could resume the same rapid, shallow breathing as before.  But in order to breathe normally, he would need to raise himself higher and relieve the stress on his shoulders and chest.
 * This would be a very slow process, which goes along with Seneca's description of crucifixion as "wringing the life from a victim drop by drop". The last drop might not be reached for several days.--Jedakk 00:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

sharia and cruxifixion?
Anon User:129.215.45.150 ([|contribs]) added a claim that crufixion is part of sharia and added the same claim to Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Any reliable proofs of this? - Skysmith 10:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding crucifixion as part of the Muslim Sharia law, I researched this a few years ago and gathered some information on it. Crucifixion is listed as an optional punishment for certain classes of offenses under the Sharia.  There are three classes of crimes, with the "hadd" or "hudud" crimes - crimes for which no specific punishment or payment is defined - being punishable in a number of ways at the discretion of the court.  These options include death, exile, humiliation, and crucifixion, although I know of no verified reports of instances of its use in modern times.
 * There are a number of unverified reports of crucifixions in Sudan in recent years. In addition, Sudan has added crucifixion to its criminal code as a punishment for brigandage. - --Jedakk 23:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Deposition
Don't you think that Deposition hasn't nothing to do with crucifixion? --Chicco 14:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

taking off of the cross
what is the term for an artistic depiction of the taking off of Jesus off the cross (parallel to pietà as the term for a depiction of Mary mourning after the taking off)? dab (&#5839;) 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * never mind, it appears it's just called Descent from the Cross . dab (&#5839;) 21:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's also known as the "Deposition". rubinia 04:34, 7 January 2007 Rubinia (UTC)

Crucifixion in Egypt
This article mentions Egyptian Crucifixion, but doesn't go into detail. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.50.173 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 September 2005

Tammuz?
"The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz, being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name. By the middle of the 3rd century A.D. the churches had either departed from, of had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were recieved into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the 'cross' of Christ.(Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament.)"

Why would Chaldeans, who had their own writing system, be using the Greek alphabet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.145.181 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 30 September 2005


 * The Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians, who in turn got their alphabet from their Chaldeans. --Hieronymus 10:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and Crusifixion
I'm not sure that Jesus was really crusified, but actually married Marry Magdolin and began children with her and King Arther of Scotland was one of his decendents. It seems to have been someone elses immagination that Jesus was acually crusifieied. 144.139.89.202 13:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, brother! It's the DaVinci Code all over again! The whole notion of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene comes from speculation on obscure Gnostic writings stating that Jesus used to kiss Mary Magdalene. Most if not all of these ideas are inspired by Gnostic scriptures which were very unreliable sources to begin with. Let's remember that the Gnostics themselves taught that the corporeal body itself (along with the material universe) was corrupt and evil having been created by an imperfect, malicious Demiurge and thus believed that Jesus never had a physical body. That said, if one is to entertain the Gnostic belief on Jesus, then how could he possibly marry and father any children if he never had a physical body? Check your info before you post such nonsense.....Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.80.107 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 March 2007


 * Where did you learn to spell? JackofOz 13:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest English as a second language, but that IP is from Australia. -Etoile 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that the spelling is verging on the illiterate, is this really the place for someone to air his atheism?--Anthony.bradbury 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Separate "Crucifixion of Jesus" from "Crucifixion"?
I think the mingling of the general subject of "Crucifixion" with the specific subject of the "Crucifixion of Jesus" is undesirable. I suggest that this article be rewritten as two with those titles. Being a Wikipedia newbie and someone who doesn't know much about crucifixion, I don't think I'm the one to do that.

The "Crucifixion" article would discuss historical and technical aspects of crucifixion. Jesus would only be mentioned as one notable victim and some of the details of his death, e.g. legs broken, might be cited along with other historical references regarding the details of crucifixion.

The "Crucifixion of Jesus" article would compare and contrast his death with other accounts of crucifixion and could discuss the implications of the mode of his death for Christianity and it's representation in Christian symbology and art.

About the time The Passion of the Christ came out, I read online an account (literally an account) of the expenses involved in an ancient crucifixion. If it can be found (sorry, I have no idea where I read it), it would provide an interesting anecdote, if not some insight to the process. The account detalied what was to be paid for various materials to be used.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.142.50 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 February 2006


 * I would agree that a seperation of "crucifixion" and "The Crucifixion" is warrented.
 * Something else that this article suffers from is lack of of references. The section on "Modern Crucifixtion" for example, is very interesting, but makes reference to no supporting evidence or references. I think it's time to start footnoting, or removing, points. - Vedexent 14:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with separiting the articles, and the need for references, especially in the "Modern Crucification" section. Paul August &#9742; 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree also. Does someone want to do something about it? --87.82.24.140 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree too. It's important to mention Jesus in passing, as his crucifixion hugely impacted the way it is seen today and the modern connotation of the cross. But someone should remove the section about the portrayal of his crucifixion in film. It might be merged into the article on passion (christianity) or Jesus. [anonymous]

Have to disagree, it's a bit like talking about eggs but NOT chicken eggs: most references and study pertain to Jesus' crucifixion, so you would have to double most general information into the passion parallel. Fastifex 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? How often have you seen Main article at...? Have a look at Passion (Christianity) and you'll see all sorts of information about Jesus's crucifixion, not just the nailing on the tree part but the before and after. The problem is that people want to add information about omelettes on the same page that discusses reptile eggs. We don't need thorough treatment of Jesus's death on the same page that describes the historical use of crucifixion. They're (not completely but) highly separable concepts. Davilla 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)