The Historical Background of Crucifixion Reconsidered: A Critical Use of Classical Greek Texts in Search of Crucifixions

The Historical Background of Crucifixion Reconsidered A Critical Use of Classical Greek Texts in Search of Crucifixions GUNNAR SAMUELSSON University of Gothenburg Dept. of Literature, History of Ideas and Religion Box 200, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden Abstract The prevailing opinion about crucifixions is that they were carried out in approximately the same way as the crucifixion of Jesus, i.e., that the condemned were attached by their limbs to crosses in order to be executed. In search of the historical background of this punishment, scholars often referred to ancient Greek texts containing the verb anastauroun or anaskolopizein. The present paper suggests that conclusions drawn from these texts may be unsatisfactory – if not erroneous. This suggestion is based on the fact that the absolute majority of the texts share the same weakness, which disqualifies them in such a study. In order to create a firm textual basis for the study of crucifixion, other intra- and extra-textual features are needed. The result of the reading proposed by the present paper is that it significantly reduces the number of relevant texts (the hitherto studied) and takes some new (hitherto neglected) texts into consideration. Introduction What do we know about crucifixion in the ancient Mediterranean literature? The subject of the present paper is some problems connected to the study of crucifixion in the ancient literature. Often when scholars write about the crucifixion of Jesus, or sometimes about the theology of the cross, they generally spend one or a few pages on the preChristian texts that contain references to crucifixions. The method of execution is assumed to closely resemble the crucifixion of Jesus, mainly known to us through the Gospels. That is, the condemned was nailed (or tied) to some kind of vertical construction in order to be executed. As defined by H.-W. Kuhn. Für die Zwecke unserer Darstellung muß aufgrund der antiken Quellen eine abgrenzende Bestimmung dafür versucht werden, was hier unter Kreuzesstrafe im eigentlichen Sinn verstanden wird: Gemeint ist eine durch jegliche Art von ‘A u f h ä n g e n ’ vollzogene (oder beabsichtigte) H i n r i c h t u n g an einem P f a h l oder Ähnlichem (weithin ‐1‐ in unserer Zeit wohl ein Pfahl mit einem Querbalken), für die das A n d a u e r n der Todesqual im Gegensatz zu einem Erhängen durch Strangulation, aber auch zur Pfählung wesentlich ist (das Kreuz mit Querbalken war in urchristlicher Zeit wohl am ehesten als crux comissa, also wie ein großes T, gestaltet).1 Kuhn delivers four characteristics of what in his opinion constitute a crucifixion. • First, it is a suspension. • Second, it is a completed or intended execution. • Third, the execution tool was a pole, with or without a crossbeam. • Fourth, it resulted in an extended death struggle. These characteristics cohere well with the common perceptions of the English designation “crucifixion”.2 Another common assumption is that the Persians invented this punishment, or at least, that they are is strongly connected to them.3 The primary sources for knowledge of execution by crucifixion in the pre-Christian era are texts from the Greco-Roman world, such as the Greek authors Herodotus, Thucydides, Ctesias, Xenophon, Polybius and the Latin authors Cicero and Tacitus. These authors occur frequent in specialized articles such as Martin Hengel’s Crucifixion or Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn’s “Die Kreuzstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit”.4 However, on what basis do we determine that an ancient text refers to the execution form that subsequently struck Jesus? 1 KUHN, ” Die Kreuzstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit,” 679. S.v., OED; WNID; MED. 3 E.g., BLINZLER, JOSEF, Der Prozess Jesu. 4 erneut rev. aufl. (Regensburg, 1969) 357; SCHNEIDER, JOHANNES, “staurÒj, ktl.“ Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 7.573 (edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromily. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976); HEID, STEFAN, Kreuz, Jerusalem, Kosmos : Aspekte Frühchristlicher Staurologie, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband ; 31. (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2001) 7 (Heid also mentions the Medes as an alternative). 4 HENGEL, MARTIN, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. (Philadelphia, Pa: Fortress Press, 1977); KUHN, H.-W., “Die Kreuzstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.25.1.648-793 (Part 2, Principat, 25.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 198. 2 ‐2‐ The Greek texts which are referred to in investigations, such as those mentioned, usually contain the verb ¢nastauroàn or ¢naskolop…zein. But the question raised in the present paper is whether that method is sufficient. My suggestion is a negative answer. Behind this suggestion is the fact that several of the texts in focus contain references to impaling or various post-mortem suspensions, or that it in many cases is impossible to determine the kind of suspension to which the texts refer. I will exemplify this with some texts from the Greek historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus. Crucifixion in the Texts of Herodotus Herodotus uses both ¢nastauroàn and ¢naskolop…zein in his texts. As a rule he uses ¢nastauroàn to describe the suspension of a dead person and ¢naskolop…zein to describe that of a living.5 An example of this is the suspension of the corpse of the tyrant Polycrates in 3.125.2. Hdt. 3.125.2. Having killed [Polycrates] in a way not fit to be told Oroetes ¢nestaÚrwse [him].6 The tendency is the same in Hdt. 6.30.1; 7.194.1; (9.78.3); the suspension objects are corpses. Thus, the texts in which Herodotus uses ¢nastauroàn are of less importance if we are looking for texts which refer to executions by crucifixion. The verb ¢naskolop…zein as used by Herodotus refers to executions by suspension almost consequently. An example of Herodotus’ use of the verb is 3.132.2. Hdt. 3.132.2. When the Egyptian physicians, who earlier had treated the king, were about to be ¢naskolopie‹sqai for being less skilful than a Greek physician, [Democedes] rescued them by interceding with the king.7 They were apparently alive; the planned suspension was connected to the execution act. But, the texts are still silent about what kind of antemortem suspension act they depict. The tendency is the same in Hdt. 5 As noticed by, e.g., HENGEL, O’COLLINS and CHAPMAN, DAVID W., “Perceptions of Crucifixion among Jews and Christians in the Ancient World” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 2000). 6 Hdt. 3.125.2. ¢pokte…naj dš min oÙk ¢x…wj ¢phg»sioj 'Oro…thj ¢nestaÚrwse: 7 Hdt. 3.132.2. kaˆ toàto młn toÝj A„gupt…ouj „htroÚj, o‰ basilša prÒteron „înto, mšllontaj ¢naskolopie‹sqai Óti ØpÕ “Ellhnoj „htroà ˜ssèqhsan, toÚtouj basilša paraiths£menoj ™rrÚsato. ‐3‐ 1.128.2; 3.159.1; 4.43.2, 6; 4.202.1; the verb is used in connection to executions by an undefined suspension. However, Herodotus offer an exception to the rule of using ¢nastauroàn for post-mortem suspensions and ¢naskolop…zein for ante-mortem suspension in the proposed impaling of Mardonius, described in Hdt. 9.78.3 and the following section. Hdt. 9.78.3-79.1. “When Leonidas was killed at Thermopylae, Mardonius and Xerxes cut of his head and ¢nestaÚrwsan it. Pay him back the same way and you will receive praise foremost from all Spartians, and then from all other Greeks. If you ¢naskolop…saj Mardonius, you will be avenged for your uncle Leonidas.” This is what [Lampon] said with the intention to please [Pausanias]. But [Pausanias] answered this: “Oh, [my] Aeginetan friend, I am admired of your friendliness and forethought, but you have missed the mark of good judgment. [First,] you have lifted me, my fatherland and my deeds up to the skies, then you cast me down to [mere] nothingness when you advise me to maltreat a dead, and say that I shall be better spoken of if I do so.”8 It appears as if Herodotus in this text uses ¢naskolop…zein when he refers to the suspension of a dead person, or at least to a recommendation to suspend, in that text. So while it appears not to be possible to maintain a solid distinction between ¢nastauroàn and ¢naskolop…zein, it is safe to say that the verb ¢nastauroàn has a more limited usage than ¢naskolop…zein; in the texts of Herodotus it refers only to suspensions of corpses, not to executions by suspension. If this assumption is correct a whole series of references to executions by crucifixion become problematic. One example is the article “Crucifixion” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. In his History, Herodotus notes that the Persians practiced crucifixion as a form of execution (1.128.2; 3.125.3; 3.132.2; 3.159.1).9 8 Hdt. 9.78.3-79.1. “Lewn…dew g¦r ¢poqanÒntoj ™n QermopÚlVsi MardÒniÒj te kaˆ Xšrxhj ¢potamÒntej t¾n kefal¾n ¢nestaÚrwsan: tù sÝ t¾n Ðmo…hn ¢podidoÝj œpainon ›xeij prîta młn ØpÕ p£ntwn Spartihtšwn, aâtij dł kaˆ prÕj tîn ¥llwn `Ell»nwn: MardÒnion g¦r ¢naskolop…saj tetimwr»seai ™j p£trwn tÕn sÕn Lewn…dhn.” •O młn dokšwn car…zesqai œlege t£de, Ö d' ¢ntame…beto to‹sde: “’W xe‹ne A„ginÁta, tÕ młn eÙnošein te kaˆ proor©n ¥gama… seu, gnèmhj mšntoi ¹m£rthkaj crhstÁj: ™xae…raj g£r me Øyoà kaˆ t¾n p£trhn kaˆ tÕ œrgon, ™j tÕ mhdłn katšbalej parainšwn nekrù luma…nesqai, kaˆ Àn taàta poišw, f¦j ¥meinÒn me ¢koÚsesqai.” Cf. Paus. 3.4.10. 9 E.g., O’COLLINS, ABD 1.1207. ‐4‐ The majority of texts in Herodotus refer to a series of undefined suspensions, using both ¢nastauroàn and ¢naskolop…zein.10 The mentioned suspensions may end up quite close to the events we label as “crucifixion,” but it is not possible determine when a text does that only on basis of the sole occurrence of a verb or a noun. One single word is not a sufficient indication for a crucifixion. It takes some contextual features to support the verb or the noun to determine a text to be a crucifixion reference. A Critical Reading of other Texts If this critical view of the source material is applied to the corpus of pre-Christian Greek literature the number of relevant texts decreases. The texts from the Archaic Period seem to lack references to crucifixions. The texts of the historians from the Classical Period, besides Herodotus, show the same tendency as the texts of Herodotus. Some of the texts mentioned in the reference literature describe punishments that appear to be various forms of impaling. Thucydides, for instance, has one text of interest, in which he describes the fate of the Libyan king Inaros. The text itself does not reveal what kind of punishment it describes. Thuc. 1.110.3. Inaros, the Libyan king, who caused everything concerning the Egyptian [revolt], was captured through a betrayal and ¢nestaurèqh.11 The execution method is unknown due to the uncertainty regarding Thucydides’ use of the verb. This is the only time Thucydides uses the verb ¢nastauroàn; he never uses ¢naskolop…zein. However, elsewhere Thucydides uses verbs related to ¢nastauroàn in connection with the construction of fortifications, where pointed poles often were used, which could make the interpretation of ¢nastauroàn lean towards impalement.12 10 With ¢naskolop…zein: Hdt., 1.128.2; 3.159.1; 4.43.2, 6 and 4.202.1. With ¢nastauroàn: 3.125.2 and 6.30.1. 11 Thuc. 1.110.3. 'In£rwj dł Ð LibÚwn basileÚj, Öj t¦ p£nta œpraxe perˆ tÁj A„gÚptou, prodos…v lhfqeˆj ¢nestaurèqh. 12 E.g., peristauroàn in 2.75.1; prostauroàn in 4.9.1; diastauroàn in 6.97.2 and maybe the first known occurrence in the Greek literature of the plain verb, stauroàn, in 6.100.1 (cf., 7.25.7). When Thucydides describes the Syracusan defense of the harbor under an Athenian assault, he mentions the hazardous pointed poles in the water outside the old dockyard (Thuc. 7.25.5-8). This defense line prevented the Athenians from ramming the Syracusan ships. Anyone who approached the stockade carelessly was in immediate danger of having his ship “impaled” (™staÚrwsan). These observations are nothing but circumstantial evidence and do not close the case regarding Thucydides’ use of ¢nastauroàn, but ‐5‐ Ctesias, the Greek itinerant history writer on the Persian side of the conflict, has one text that describes the same event that Thucydides referred to above, indicates that the punishment was an impaling. Ctesias, FGrH 3c, 688 F 14.39. [Amestris] ¢nestaÚrisen [Inarus] on three stakes.13 In this text Ctesias appears to use the verb ¢nastaur…zein in connection with an impaling; it is difficult to imagine that Inarus was crucified on three crosses simultaneously. He appears simply to have been impaled on three stakes. Thus, if the Ctesian texts lean in any direction, it ought to be towards impaling. Xenophon also uses the verb ¢nastauroàn when he refers to an impaling. The text describes the aftermath of the death of Cyrus II. According to the seemingly Persian custom of treating slain rebels, the head and right hand of Cyrus were cut off and brought to King Artaxerxes II. The speech by Xenophon refers to this defiling of Cyrus’ corpse. Xen. An. 3.1.17. Who, even in the case of his full brother, when he already was dead, cut of his head and hand and ¢nestaÚrwsen [them].14 It is obvious that the impaling occurred post-mortem. The most logical conclusion is that Cyrus’ head and hand were impaled – simply stuck on a stake. This tendency is the same in later Greek texts. The notion that Polybius has references to assumed crucifixions in his Histories is well-known.15 The reason for this is the common assumption that the Romans imported the crucifixion punishment from the Carthaginians. However, all texts from Polybius refer to undefined suspensions.16 One of the texts distinguishes itself slightly from the other on the terminological level. The text deals with the suspensions of they indicate that impaling is a more plausible reading of the verb than crucifixion. Cf., Ctesias’ description of Inaros’ fate below (FGrH 3c, 688 F 14.39), which points in the same direction. 13 Ctesias, FGrH 3c, 688 F 14.39. kaˆ ¢nestaÚrisen młn ™pˆ trisˆ stauro‹j. Cf., FGrH 3c, 688 F 26.7 (Plut. Artax. 17.5), a text which also mentions an impaling upon three stakes. 14 Xen. An. 3.1.17. Öj kaˆ toà Ðmomhtr…ou ¢delfoà kaˆ teqnhkÒtoj ½dh ¢potemën t¾n kefal¾n kaˆ t¾n ce‹ra ¢nestaÚrwsen. Ctesias refers to the same event but he does not mention the impaling (FGrH 3c, 688 F 16.66. Cf., Xen. An. 1.10.1). 15 E.g., SCHNEIDER, TDNT 7.573; O’COLLINS, ABD 1.1207 16 Polyb. 1.11.5; 24.6; 79.4; 86.4-7; 5.54.7;8.21.3; 10.33.8. ‐6‐ Spendius, in the company of ten of his mercenary leaders, and Hannibal II.17 Polyb. 1.86.4-7. After this they took the captives around Spendius to the walls and ™staÚrwsan them openly. And those around Mathos having noticed that Hannibal behaved with negligence and overconfidence, attacked [Hannibal’s] palisade and killed many of the Carthaginians, and drove everyone out of the encampment. All baggage came under their dominion, and they seized the general Hannibal alive. They led him at once to Spendius’ staurÒn and harshly took revenge. They took down [Spendius’ corpse] and then placed [Hannibal] still living [on Spendius’ staurÒn] and slaughtered thirty of the Carthaginians of highest rank around the corpse of Spendius. Thus Fortune purposely gave both sides alternately an opportunity of outdoing the other in mutual vengeance.18 Both the suspensions and the suspension tools in the text are undefined. This is the only time Polybius uses the plain verb stauroàn and the noun staurÒj. The question is if this is enough to determine whether the text refers to crucifixion. All that could be said is that they suspended Hannibal alive. A Critical Reading and the Reference Literature So far, so good. The last minutes will be spent on some problems that occur after this kind of reading. First, this method will certainly exclude texts, which describe suspension punishments but lack intratextual or extra-textual indications of that the punishment at hand is a crucifixion. Second, if we regard this critical approach to the source texts as plausible, and apply it to the reference literature, a methodological problem will be visible. I will exemplify this by referring to a well-known title from the reference literature used in the study of the New Testament. 17 Hannibal II was the son of the Carthagian general Hannibal I, and grandson of Gisco, a Carthaginian general during the first Punic war. 18 Polyb. 1.86.4-7. met¦ dł taàta prosagagÒntej prÕj t¦ te…ch toÝj perˆ tÕn Spšndion a„cmalètouj ™staÚrwsan ™pifanîj. oƒ dł perˆ tÕn M£qw katano»santej tÕn 'Ann…ban ·vqÚmwj kaˆ katateqarrhkÒtwj ¢nastrefÒmenon, ™piqšmenoi tù c£raki polloÝj młn tîn Karchdon…wn ¢pškteinan, p£ntaj d' ™xšbalon ™k tÁj stratopede…aj, ™kur…eusan dł kaˆ tÁj ¢poskeuÁj ¡p£shj, œlabon dł kaˆ tÕn strathgÕn 'Ann…ban zwgr…v. toàton młn oân paracrÁma prÕj tÕn toà Spend…ou staurÕn ¢gagÒntej kaˆ timwrhs£menoi pikrîj ™ke‹non młn kaqe‹lon, toàton d' ¢nšqesan zînta kaˆ perikatšsfaxan tri£konta tîn Karchdon…wn toÝj ™pifanest£touj perˆ tÕ toà Spend…ou sîma, tÁj tÚchj ésper ™p…thdej ™k paraqšsewj ¢mfotšroij ™nall¦x didoÚshj ¢form¦j e„j Øperbol¾n tÁj kat' ¢ll»lwn timwr…aj. ‐7‐ For instance, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) has a paragraph on “¢nastaurÒw”.19 ¢nastaurÒw (s. staurÒw Hdt. et al.) always simply crucify (¢n£=up; cf. Pla., Gorg. 473C; Hellen. Oxy. XV, 5; Polyb. 1, 11, 5; 1, 24, 6; Diod. S. 2, 1, 10; 2, 44, 2; 13, 111, 5; 14, 53, 5; Plut., Fab. 177 [6, 5], Cleom. 823 [39, 2]; Chariton 4, 2, 6; Aesop., Fab. 152 P. [=staurÒw 264H.]; POxy. 842, col. 18, 22; Jos., Bell. 2, 306; 5, 449, Ant. 2, 73; 11, 246, Vi. 420); hence Hb 6:6 ¢nastauroàntaj ˜auto‹j tÕn uƒÕn t. qeoà may mean since, to their own hurt, they crucify the Son of God, of apostate Christians; but the context seems to require the fig. mng. crucify again (¢n£=again), and the ancient translators and Gk. fathers understood it so; cf. L-S-J-M s.v., and Lampe s.v. 2.—AVitti, Verb. Dom. 22, ’42, 174-82.—TW.20 The lexicon says that the verb always means simply crucify, that is, not crucify again as the verb mainly is understood in Heb 6.6. In order to show that this is the case, the lexicon refers to a series of texts. It is correct that these texts do not indicate any meaning in the direction of “crucify again”. But having identified the problem, the lexicon itself becomes problematic when it suggests a solution – that the verb simply means “to crucify”. The following texts are mentioned as support: • Plato, Gorgias, 473c • Hellen. Oxy. 15.5 (POxy 842) • Polybius, 1.11.4-7; 1.24.3-7 • Diodorus Siculus 2.1.8-10; 2.44.1-3; 13.111.3-6; 14.53.1-5 • Plutarch, Fabius Maximus, 6.1-6; Cleomenes, 39.1-4. • Chariton, De Chaerea et Callirhoe, 4.2.4-9 • Aesop, Fab. 152 P. [264 H.] • POxy 842 (Hellen. Oxy. 15.5) • Josephus, Ant. 2.70-73; 11.244-47; Bell. 2.305-308; 5.446-5;Vita 419-21 The designation “crucify” is not defined in any particular way, and thus has to be understood in the normal English sense. “The action of 19 S.v., Bauer, Walter, and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3. ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000). 20 S.v., BDAG. ‐8‐ putting to death on a cross.”21 The problem is that the majority of the texts proposed to support the reading “crucify” are problematic to define when it comes to the punishment form. Of the eighteen mentioned references thirteen are simply too unspecific. It is not possible to define what punishment they refer to, other than it is some kind of suspension. By that, they ought to be rejected. The text in Plato’s dialog Gorgias (Pl. Grg. 473c) is not possible to determine as far as the suspension method concerns. Plato uses the staur-stem only in this one text, where Polus exemplifies some unjust actions for Socrates. The reference to the papyrus Hellenica Oxyrhynchia suffers a similar weakness; it mentions only that a general was suspended (¢nestaÚrwsen) in some way. A few lines later, the lexicon mentions a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (P Oxy 5.842). This one is however identical to the Hellenica papyrus mentioned above. They are simply two fragmentary copies of the same text and should not be mentioned separately. All references to Polybius (1.11.5, 24.6), Plutarch (Plut. Fab. Max. 6.3; Cleom. 39.1)22, the reference to Aesop (152) and the majority of the references to Diodorus Siculus (2.1.10; 2.44.2; 14.53.5) ought to be rejected on the same basis: They are simply too vague in their description of the punishment. Their only contribution is the use of the verb. They do not reveal in what sense the author use the verb. The five remaining texts are slightly more informative. One of the mentioned texts by Diodorus Siculus (13.11.5) could be labeled as a kind of ante-mortem – executionary – suspension, although not which kind. The references to Josephus, with one exception (AJ 11.246),23 end up rather close to the aim of the BDAG, i.e., to show that ¢nastauroàn means, “simply crucify”. Two texts mention nailing in connection to the suspension of either dead or living victims (AJ 2.306-08; 5.449-51) and two texts implies living victims suspended in some way (AJ 2.73; Vit. 420-21). However, none of these texts is explicit enough to be determined as references to crucifixions. The reference to Chariton (Chae. Call. 4.2.6) is although relevant. The mentioned text does not show what kind of suspension it refers to, but the other suspension accounts of the novel show that the suspension at hand was a suspension that was possible to survive. A limb-suspension fits the picture better than an impaling, which kills instantly since it damages vital organs. Thus, the suspension of the text – or rather 21 E.g., “the action of crucifying, or of putting to death on a cross” (The Oxford English Dictionary). 22 The references in BDAG do not cohere with the references in the LOEB-edition. The latter is used by the present investigation. 23 AJ 11.246 only mentions the advice of Haman’s wife to suspend Mordecai on the tall xÚlon. ‐9‐ Chariton’s other texts not mentioned by the BDAG – has similarities with a crucifixion according to a traditional view.24 Having read the paragraph in the BDAG, one major question is left: Is it possible to label “some kind of suspension” as “crucifixion” without an elaborate (re)definition of the designation “crucifixion”? The answer ought to be negative. As a consequence, only one out of the eighteen references from the BDAG could with some satisfactory level of plausibility be labeled as some kind of crucifixion account and be used as support for the proposed meaning “simply crucify”. Summary and Conclusion When this critical reading, applied on the search for crucifixion accounts in the pre-Christian Greek literature, is combined with a traditional understanding of crucifixion, it leads to a significant drop in the numbers of texts. Many texts previously mentioned in various studies of crucifixion are ruled out. This approach comes to a different, and sometimes contradictory, conclusion than some of the well-known exegetical lexica. The connection to Persia is weak, due to the fact that most of the texts that constitute the connection describe an undefined suspension. This makes Ethelbert Stauffer’s suggestion that “die Perser hatten eine Vorliebe für die Hinrichtung am Kreuz” errouneous.25 It is safe to say that “die Perser hatten eine Vorliebe für die Hinrichtung“ but not “am Kreuz”. We do not have reliable knowledge about how the Persians suspended their condemned. The biblical texts Fig. 2. Impaling under the Assyrian in Ezra 6.11; Esther, 2.23, 5.14, 6.4, siege and capture of the Judean city of 7.10, 8.7, 9.25, refer also to Lachish. Relief of Sennacherib from undefined suspensions. The only Nineveh. real evidence we have from the east shows that, in this case the Assyrians, executed captured enemies through impaling (see fig. 2). What do we know then about crucifixion in the ancient Mediterranean literature? Maybe not as much as we are tempted to think. 24 25 See, the introduction for a definition of ”a traditional view”. STAUFFER, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 123. ‐ 10 ‐ The designation “crucifixion” may have its linguistic origin in the years before the Common Era (Seneca the Elder) but got its present denotation from Calvary. The designation “crucifixion” is just as much off target in describing an impaling or a suspension of a corpse as it is to describe a hanging in a snare. The reason behind this is the connotation the word has for the contemporary reader. Crucifixion is that which happened to Jesus. A common and widespread opinion is to trace the origin of “crucifixion” to Persia, or at least to the husky areas of the Eastern part of the ancient world.26 The connection to Persia is commonly found in some texts from Herodotus, Thucydides and not least the Old Testament.27 A better way is to acknowledge the impact of the death of Jesus, also on this field. We use the label “crucifixion” for that which according to our traditions happened to Jesus on Calvary. So the origin of crucifixion is connected to Calvary – or rather the Christian interpretation of the event on Calvary. Thus, the origin of crucifixion is not to be found in Persia, but in the church. 26 E.g., BLINZLER, Der Prozess Jesu, 357; FULDA, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, 49 (cf., 54); HENGEL and SCHWEMER, Jesus und das Judentum, 611; HEID, Kreuz, Jerusalem, Kosmos, 7 (Heid mentions the Medes as an alternative); SCHNEIDER, “staurÒj, ktl.“ TDNT 7.573. 27 Hdt. 1.128.2; 3.132.2, 159.1; 4.43.2, 7; Thuc. 1.110.3; Ezra 6.11 (and the book of Esther). ‐ 11 ‐