Greek Orthodox Opinions on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"

A Critique of the Greek Orthodox Position on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" by William J Tsamis.

As one who was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church as a child, I was curious to see what the Greek Orthodox Archbishops would say once "The Passion of the Christ" was released. And although I deeply respect the Eastern Orthodox theology of worship and the writings of the Eastern Fathers, the autocephalous churches in particular have been reduced to "ethno-centric" organizations which have unwittingly merged culture (especially the "Greeks") with church-going activities. Nevertheless, I do know some Greek Orthodox "born anew" believers who have decided to remain "in the church," perhaps hoping to be instruments of reform - sadly, I never saw this for myself because the degree of nominalism which plagues the church is simply too great in my view; for this reason I embraced the "evangelical faith" with a strong appreciation for the structures of the three communions of Christianity - Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism - all having their strengths and weaknesses, remembering the dictum of Augustine, In necessary things "unity," in things uncertain "liberty," but in all things "love." Sola Fide and Sola Gratia are the emphatic particulars of the "evangelical faith" to which I humbly submit.

Anyway, when The Passion of the Christ was due to come out, I wondered how some in the Greek Orthodox Church would opine on the film. In researching this a bit I found it a mixed bag, but most bishops and archbishops leaned "against" the film because, in their opinion, the film eclipses the the liturgies of Holy Week, which of course are ascendent in their minds. (I too agree that these liturgies are among the most beautiful liturgical psalms and processions I have ever witnessed in the church, and I will post the "Good Friday" and "Paschal" liturgies here soon.) At the same time, however, I must emphatically state that with regard to "Good Friday," nothing is as powerful as Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

Anyway, I must confess that I did anticipate some "negative" critiques of "The Passion" by Eastern Orthodox hierarchs, partly because the structure of ecclesiastical hierarchy is one where "opinions" are easy to come by, unlike the actual production of a film like "The Passion" which is an immensely difficult production, all the way down to the ancient languages. True to form, though, some bishops came out strongly against Mel Gibson, and in "authoritarian style," much like the ADL or the Simon Wiesenthal Center, these hierarchs expressed that the film is inconsistent with the New Testament or Eastern Orthodox liturgy; therefore, Greek Orthodox worshipers "should" stay away from the film, something which I have happily found to be the opposite.

Before I begin to level my critique against this Greek Orthodox article on the "Greek Orthodox" main page, please read the article so you know why I am so incensed and you can refer to the statements at which I level my complaint. Please see:

http://www.goarch.org/en/news/NewsDetail.asp?id=1084

In the first article from the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America" called, Observations by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America On Mel Gibson's film THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, there is a statement which expresses the concern of the [Very Reverend Leaders] of the Diocese of Chicago which says "our [Very Reverend Leaders] of Chicago criticize the film for including a significant amount of material not found in the Gospel accounts of Christ’s arrest, trial and crucifixion, and expresses regret that the message of Jesus is apparently reduced to His sufferings. It strikes me as strange that the men who are hierarchs in a major archdiocese such as Chicago do not have the discernment to understand that "this film," as the opening words on the screen from Isaiah 53 clearly state, has to do with the suffering of the Servant of God. That these leaders criticize a wonderful, once in a lifetime Christian film and holy experience because it only focuses on the "sufferings of Jesus" and not the "teachings of Jesus" is, to me, an irresponsible and idiotic statement. (I say "idiotic" because these men are supposed to be learned as is "hierarchs" in the church.)

Without a detailed exposition of the whole film, the theme of the "Suffering Servant" (Isa 53) as played out in "The Passion" is full of Jesus's teachings: The Incarnation and Condescension of our Lord and his Exaltation (Phil 2:5-11) is clear. The "protoevangelium" and the crushing of the serpent's head by the willing act of the Son of God is in plain view. Remembering the Eucharist, he commits his body and blood to eternal rememberance. No one takes his life, but he lays down his life of his own accord and conquers death in the resurrection. He proclaims that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus (a message of exclusivism). He commands us to love one another. Without words, he teaches the forgiveness of John 8 in the pericope of "casting the first stone." He tells Pilate that he was born to be a king, and he dies in our stead in order to reconcile us with the Father in order to establish that kingdom. He conquers Satan and makes all things new. And I can go on and on and on . . . but "the gospel" is clearly proclaimed in this film; in fact, it is "played out" as a "Passion Play." There is nothing new about "Passion Plays" and their meaning, is there?

And apart from Jesus's teaching, there is the scene of Simon Peter after he has denied Jesus three times. I nearly sobbed, remembering the words that "we are all Peter" - certainly I am. If this film did not convey adequate teaching to these ecclesiastical hierarchs of Chicago, then either they do not understand the New Testament or they are prone to criticism because they have become "self-exalted" and drunk in their hierarchical position. Yes, there was a school of men like that 2,000 years ago.

And the article says these [very Reverend leaders] criticize the film for including a significant amount of material not found in the Gospel accounts of Christ’s arrest, trial and crucifixion. Like what? Traditions like "Veronica's Veil" and the print of Jesus's face on the veil? Or the torment of Judas by little children? Apart from some of the traditional material that would be expected from a Roman Catholic filmmaker (e.g. Veronica's Veil), everything else consisted of possible scenarios which could have happened, or they were "artistic" renderings such as those "artistic" renderings which are present in the Greek Orthodox Church. Did Jesus ever wear the crown of a king? Of course not, and when we see such iconography in Eastern Orthodoxy we understand the symbolism of Jesus Christ as the "King of Kings." Moreover, since Mel Gibson only had 2 hours to convey the story, he had to be selective, even as any director would be selective in choosing their material. "The Passion of the Christ" is a wonderful piece of art based on the Gospels .... it is nothing more, nothing less.

Then we read about the [hierarchs] of Boston (by the way, Chicago and Boston are cities in which hundreds of thousands of Greek Orthodox parishoners live). Anyway, we read on this "official website," Another statement, from our Metropolis of Boston, acknowledges the possibility that the film may lead the viewer “to reflect deeply on the pain of Christ’s passion.” Elsewhere in the world, Orthodox Christian leaders have expressed dismay at the emotionalism produced by the film, which contrasts with the sobriety of the Orthodox hymnology and art of the Holy Week services. He acknowledges the possibility that the film may lead the viewer "to reflect deeply on the pain of Christ's passion." Is that a bad thing? To contemplate the excessive suffering of the Son of God for my sins had a profound effect not only on me, but on my wife and my ten year old daughter who is knowledgeable about Jesus and his substitutionary suffering and death for her sins, and his resurrection on the third day so that she may have eternal life. And then we read that the emotionalism contrasts the sobriety of the Orthodox hymnology and art of the Holy Week. I was stunned when I read this! I have been to many Holy Week liturgies and I understand everything as a Christian theologian; but when I lift up my eyes during a long Holy Week liturgy, all I see is hundreds of people "going through the motions" not understanding a thing, nor being able to relate to (or understand) "the sobriety" of Byzantine art and hymnology which is over a thousand years old. "Sobriety?" In Greece and in areas where there are many Greeks in the United States (including where I live), "Holy Saturday" leading up to midnight Easter Sunday is actually a fireworks fest with cherry bombs, M-80s, and other illegal fireworks not unlike the Fourth of July. What was that about sobriety?

In "The Passion of the Christ" there is not a sound - everyone is engaged with what is happening on the screen. And even the nominal Christian who would be bored to death by hours of Orthodox liturgy can become a changed person by seeing and experiencing "The Passion." I've seen it over and over with my own eyes, and the film has only been in the theaters for a week and a half.

Finally, with all due respect to the Eastern Orthodox Church, as the article says there is a continuing dialogue which I have noticed is swaying in the direction of supporting "The Passion." This is not "The Last Temptation of Christ" but a powerful film which is faithful to the Gospels and has already had a profound effect on Christian believers all over the world. Hopefully, the main website of the "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America" will choose to place a more positive and encouraging article on "The Passion."

"The Passion of the Christ" - A Review by William J Tsamis

by William J. Tsamis

Chilling ..... Gripping ..... Spiritual ..... Timeless ..... Epic ..... Powerful ..... A True Artistic Triumph !!!

Since there has been much said on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" in the past six months or so, I personally did not intend on saying anything more about the film. However, after I saw the film today - i.e. on opening day (the very first showing), I felt compelled to offer some comments, especially since I have been promoting this film for the past two years. Personally, I feel qualified as a "creative artist" and as a seminary graduate in biblical studies, with a focus on Jesus studies, to make sound artistic and theological judgments. I have read the reviews of many film critics who, in my view, cannot give an adequate critique of this film because they have no understanding of theology, and I have read the reviews of many biblical scholars who cannot give a fair critique of this film because they tend to ignore the "artistic" emphasis in "film," as if what is supposed to be produced on screen is "perfect actual history," something which is impossible.

Thus, in order to grant "The Passion" a fair and just critique, one must have an excellent grasp of art (film, renaissance painting, music) in addition to a thorough knowledge of Christian theology (more specifically "Roman Catholic" theology), the Gospels, Christian mysticism, studies regarding the historical Jesus and first century Roman Judea. "The Passion" is Mel Gibson's "artistic" and "theological" interpretation of the arrest, trial, torture and crucifixion of Jesus. (Prior to the release of the film, Mel Gibson made this clear.) Now, to the film:

First things first: this day of cinema and contemplation has been one of the most profound days of my entire life, a day that I will never forget because it is "the" day when I was actually able to "see" what it cost God to purchase my soul by "the blood" of his Son (Acts 20:28). It will forever affect me in that it has awakened me to become a more sensitive Christian, husband, father, son, friend and citizen.

I had been following the production of this film for about two years and sharing my knowledge of the production with college students and others, keeping them apprised of prodution news as well as discussing the criticism from antagonistic groups who thought the film would be offensive, so I was very excited about seeing the film - finally the day came, February 25, 2004.

Anyway, when I arrived at the theater (the film was playing on three screens in this 20 screen cinema-plex), yet to my surprise, even though I showed up an hour early, the theater was 75% full - I found a prime spot nevertheless. Even though I am an avid film-goer, the last time I went to see a film on opening day was back in my high school days when my friends and I stood in the rain waiting for the doors to open to "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark."

The first thing that surprised me about "The Passion" was this: the media and culture wars over this film prior to its release were far off the mark (in my view). For instance, there was no real anti-Semitism in the film unless one is to assume that Christianity and the Gospels are "anti-Semitic" (which is the real assumption of many Jews and many New Testament scholars - I would like to say there is a difference between "polemics" and "anti-Semitism," but that's for another day). Anyway, the ADL fear that someone like me would see "The Passion" and walk out of the theater as an avid anti-Semite was totally off the mark. Of course everybody sees what he or she wants to see, but personally, I saw many Jewish heroes of faith in this film - the faith of the common man (Simon of Cyrene, Malchus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, John, Peter, Veronica, et al.) Sure, the secret meetings of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night (contrary to their own laws but necessary in this case) presented men who were antagonistic to Jesus of Nazareth. For those who know the Bible (i.e. the target audience of this film), there is no reason for an explanation regarding this antagonism. We all know the story from the Gospels. Nevertheless, the love and universal teachings of Christ come out in this film and Jesus is clear (from the Gospels) that ["No one takes his life, but he lays it down of his own accord. And if he lays it down of his own accord, he can take it up again"].

Simply put, Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah who threatened the religious establishment, and this was regarded as blasphemy and cause for death under the Jewish system, even though the Jews didn't have the power of execution (except in some cases). In the film, as well as in the Gospels, the religious leaders (especially Caiaphas) hand over Jesus to Pontius Pilate and cry out for his crucifixion, all the while prodding the mob to echo their will - but there is no collective guilt upon the Jewish people "of all ages" implied in this film - whether Roman or Jew, there are the guilty and there are the innocent. The "blood libel" charge from the Gospel of Matthew (27:25) was edited by Gibson (because of pressure); nevertheless, the text is there in the Gospels, famous rabbis such as Moses Maimonedes believed that the execution of Jesus was just - that he was a blasphemer and a false prophet.

Note the words of Maimonedes (1134-1204) which simply echo the Gospels and the rabbinical tradition about Jesus:

In Maimonodes's comments on the Torah in his "Letter to Yemen," he wrote, "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, was [rightfully] put to death by the court. [He] interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory (i.e. the Sanhedrin), became aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people [and they] meted out a fitting punishment to him."


Now according to efforts by the Roman Catholic Church in the years since Vatican II (1962-1965) there has been an effort to clear the Jews of any guilt regarding Jesus's crucifixion (for the improvement of interfaith dialogue); yet the Gospels are clear, preceding Maimonedes, that the Jews (Jewish leaders, Jewish mob, etc.) "did" in fact "hand over" Jesus of Nazareth to Pontius Pilate to be executed by crucifixion. Certainly any persecution against the Jews arising from this matter over the centuries is a "monstrous sin," and there is no doubt that a mighty punishment awaits those inquisitors and punishers who were not, in truth Christians, but pseudo-Christians who embraced prevailing ideas about Jews being "Christ-killers" along with other stereotypes.

Nevertheless, turning to logic, "if" Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a "blaphemer" and "false prophet," then according to Jewish law he should have been put to death. Why the attempt by Jewish groups to escape responsibility - apart from fears of retaliation and memories of the Holocaust. Why depart from blessed Maimonedes? Why depart from the condemnations in the "mish-mash" of references to "ben Stada," the "sorcerer who led Israel astray" (the Talmud). For instance, see this entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding Jesus and note how it "unashamedly" places the blame on the Jews:
Jewish Encyclopedia - Jesus's Crucifixion.

Again, apart from fears of another Holocaust (which did not occur because of "Christian anti-Semitism" but because of many other streams of corrupt thought that took root in the mind of Adolf Hitler), why must Jewish groups feel the need to stray from their true belief about Jesus that he was a "blasphemer" and "false prophet? Forget the interfaith "ecumenical correctness" - if Jesus was a "blasphemer" and "false prophet," say it and praise the high priests of the Sanhedrin (like Caiaphas), even as Maimonedes did, and take pride in the fact that the Jewish leadership 2,000 years ago righteously rooted out this Galilean heretic from among the fold. This, I don't understand. Even Alfred Edersheim comments here extensively, the thrust of his argument being If He had been what Israel said, He deserved the death of the Cross; if He is what the Christmas-bells of the Church, and the chimes of the Resurrection-morning ring out, then do we rightly worship Him as the Son of the Living God, the Christ, the Saviour of men (V.13).

But this is "not" happening is it? Why? Because to these Jewish groups it is prudent to abandon (at least in public) what they truly believe and to establish good relations with the Vatican, for instance. To me this is cowardly and devious; thus, it is much easier to attack Mel Gibson and his father. If you really want to know what the Jewish attitudes are regarding "The Passion of the Christ," look to the newspapers in Israel and they will greatly enlighten you.

Here, though, allow me to talk a bit about my feelings (without disclosing too many facts from the film):

First, the kind of anti-Semitism that the ADL was warning us about in this film was negligible to me. I looked for it and I didn't see it. However, this doesn't mean that other viewers would fail to find it if "they" were looking for it. But examples that some Jewish magazines have put forward - e.g. Gibson stereotypes the Jews by portraying them with "hooked noses," etc. is in my view ridiculous. "What's wrong with a hooked nose?" In the film, Peter has a hooked nose. So what!

Second, I thought the Romans were depicted as a bit out of control, but nevertheless well for the artistic purpose of painting them as "brutal sadists who were instruments of the devil's cruelty." Their ignorance of "who" Jesus was, however, was quite consistent with Scripture - i.e. "just another Jew, another criminal to be executed." Historically they were Syrian conscripts in the outpost of Judea in which Pontius Pilate was prefect. As Syrian conscripts perhaps we could expect them to have been undisciplined and ill-tempered compared to the Roman legions who were battle trained -thus, in "The Passion" we see the utter brutality of these Roman soldiers. Only those soldiers immediately surrounding Pilate were from the Roman guard - i.e. professional troops. The "torturers," who are sometimes filmed from the ground up so they look like giants are depitcted by Gibson as the "instruments of Satan" inflicting their cruelty upon our Lord. Indeed, Satan is "the adversary" in this story, so everyone who is part of the execution of Jesus, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. those crying out for Barabbas, led by Caiaphas in this film even though that was an artistic decision made by Gibson), is simply part of the cosmic struggle between good and evil - God versus Satan - and that struggle is being played out definitively in "The Passion." All of this, i.e. the Isaiah 53 text (part of which is shown on the screen at the beginning of the film) is very biblical. And whether some Third Quest historians like it or not the "beating," "punching," "spitting" and "mocking" is all part of the biblical story and the "theology of rejection." (This "beating" begins in the court of Caiaphas by Temple guards and others and then continues when the Romans take the prisoner Jesus into the scourging ground. The passion (suffering) of Jesus in this film simply reflects what the Bible and traditional Christian theology have taught regarding the "Suffering Servant."

Third, the violence was barbaric indeed. Nevertheless, as I have indicated in my article on "The Crucifixion of Jesus" below, Gibson accurately brought to life not only the intense beating and scourging of Jesus, but the "way to the cross" and the crucifixion of Jesus with unparalleled accuracy (see medical article from JAMA below), apart from some theological and artistic impostions (carrying the whole cross, nails in the palms) which were minor, but necessary to reflect the "Roman Catholic" traditional motif of the passion. Frederica Matthews-Green and others have criticized Gibson here because the Gospel accounts actually don't overtly discuss the "blood and gore." But to Frederica Matthews-Green and others I counter by saying that in the first century people were well aware of the practice of crucifixion. In Palestine there was hardly a road you could walk without seeing, smelling, and hearing the brutalities of crucifixion. It is for this reason that the Gospel writers didn't feel it necessary to explain that which was perfectly understood by everyone who lived in that milieu.

Fourth, I disagree with those who claim that Pontius Pilate was not depicted as a "brutal" governor, as history bears out (Philo, Josephus). At the time of Jesus's crucifixion, Pontius Pilate had been reprimanded by Tiberius Caesar and Vitellus (the Syrian Legate i.e. Pilate's superior) two or three times already, once for bringing in standards bearing the image of Caesar into Jerusalem, once for the gratuitous slaughter of hundreds of Jews, and another time for taking money out of the Temple treasury to pay for an aqueduct. Certainly, Pontius Pilate was a brutal prefect, no friend to the Jews, and he was even recalled by Vitellus (and probably Tiberius Caesar A.D. 36 because of these reasons, although the latter died before Pilate reached Rome; however, his barbarism is "not" part of the Passion Narrative, apart from the scourging which was common. Many scholars believe that Pilate, a hater of the Jews, but one who "found no fault in Jesus," ordered Jesus to be excessively scourged in order to satiate the mob's thirst for Jesus's blood during the Paschal Release drama ("Behold the Man") - in other words, "Isn't that enough?" However, when Caiaphas roars to Pilate, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar" (John 19:12), there is an implicit threat that Pilate's position is on the line if he doesn't punish a man who claims to be "King of the Jews." In other words, "Isn't Caesar king of the Jews"? Although this is a blasphemy on the part of Caiaphas (only God and his Messiah can be King of Israel), Pilate must capitulate if he is to retain his position. In my view, the belief that Joseph ben Caiaphas (High Priest in Jerusalem since A.D. 19) and nephew of Annas (who produced five high priests in Jerusalem, presiding over Herod's Temple) - that Caiaphas shuddered in the shadow of Pilate who had been appointed prefect in A.D. 26 is hard to believe. There was a collision of power in Jerusalem, make no mistake about it, and according to the Gospels the Jews (Jewish leadership) made this charge against Jesus, that he "claimed to be king of the Jews," unacceptable to the Sanhedrin and unacceptable to Caesar (both Caiaphas and Pilate knew it). That this account has multiple attestation is demonstrated by the placard that was placed above Jesus's head on the cross.

Finally, I noticed that Gibson's representation of "the apostles" was similar to many of the earlier icons of the apostles that I've seen (short hair). In fact, this is the first "Jesus film" that I've seen where the actors actually resemble such icons which populate different Eastern Orthodox churches where iconography is an ancient tradition, rather than the hippi-ish look of other films. I found this corrective quite refreshing and realistic. Moreover, the actors in this film were not "famous" (at least in the United States), so there are no preconceived notions about who they were or who they would become. Character authenticity was not blinded by associating the actors with other film (except for Jim Caviezel and Monica Bellucci). All the other actors were foreign.

And what can I say about John Debney's film score? It is perfect !!! Not too overbearing, melodic though with an ancient feel. Unlike "Ride of the Valkyries" or something like that, Debney's work really can't be separated from the film so interwoven is his work with the images on the screen.

In closing, let me say that this film is only about 2 hours and 15 minutes, so it was impossible for Gibson to "pack it all in," if you will. Thus, there are some conflations and harmonizations, and the artistic license Gibson pursues includes only "possible" events - his extrabiblical notions make perfect sense OR they are theological impositions, e.g. the appearance of Mary and Mary Magdalene wearing habits like nuns (somewhat) - this is Roman Catholic theology, live with it. I found much of this material simply the expression of genius. At the same time I can hear Bible students and scholars saying, "Well, that's not how it happened." Of course! This is a film! It is a wonderful artistic film which pays close attention to the Gospels while at the same time blending accounts and rescending others in order to unify the film. For instance, Mary Magdelene, of whom it is written was "exorcised of seven demons," plays the role of a former "prostitute" as well (a strong Roman Catholic tradition) - but Gibson puts her in John 8, i.e. in the story of the adulteress who is to be stoned according to the "law of Moses" - the stones drop one by one as Jesus reaches down and grabs her hand. Or in another case, at the foot of the cross we only see Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John. "His mother's sister" and "Mary the wife of Clopas" (John 19:25) are not present. And what about Pontius Pilate and Jesus speaking "Latin" - Pilate spoke Greek, I can hear the biblical scholars already complaining. Well, I am Greek, and Greek is not a dead language. The "artistic" point of using both "Aramaic" and "Latin" (dead languages) was to try and put the entire audience (including Greeks) into antiquity. Secondly, Gibson adheres to the Latin Mass, so once again there is a Roman Catholic imposition, but a good one! Jesus is shown carrying the "whole" cross instead of just the "crossbeam" - this is done for the sake of the "stations" of the cross. Live with it! If you can't watch this film from the perspective of Mel Gibson's artistic vision, then you won't get it.

Again let me emphasize, there are many "minor" conflations and rescensions that are present in the film, but NONE that distract one from the Passion Narratives of the Gospels. Indeed, Gibson uses his brilliant sanctified imagination to provide details that "fill in" many of the blanks and "put you right there" (e.g. the chilling character of the Devil, the tale of Judas, and so on). Is the film a "moving Carravaggio" in the way that Mel Gibson wanted? Very much so! It is beautifully filmed, tight and "in your face," almost like a play (a "passion play"). Is the film a "spiritual experience" in the way that Mel Gibson hoped? Absolutely!!!

The film is amazing ..... I was speechless and stunned as if I had been brought back in time to the most important event in human history. I will forever applaud Mel Gibson for creating an epic of such beauty about Jesus, my Lord and my God, every frame being a renaissance painting and a message to my spirit.

"The Passion of the Christ" is not simply a film; it is a gift to all Christians, a piece of art on par with Michaelangelo, Bach, Handel, and other great artists who have provided Christianity and culture with a timeless masterpieces that transcend their era and live on forever. See it ..... believe it .....

The Crucifixion of Jesus

An Historical, Procedural, and Pathological Approach

by William J. Tsamis

1. Crucifixion in Antiquity

Perhaps the most horrendous form of execution ever known to man, crucifixion was practiced from very ancient times, although in several different forms. In one form or the other, whether "impalement" or "crucifixion proper," it was utilized by the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Assyrians, the Scythians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, the Romans, the SeljukTurks, the Saracens, and even the Japanese.1 It is remarkable how widespread this practice was in the ancient world. According to Herodotus (ca. 485-25 BC), the Greeks probably adopted "crucifixion proper" from the Persians, and in the post-Alexander era (i.e. after 325 BC), it became normative in the Mediterranean world. Accounts of Muslim crusaders crucifying their captives, and non-Christian peoples crucifying missionaries (e.g. the Japanese) have to do with the "mockery" that captive crusaders or missionaries had to incur. For the most part, at least in the Greco-Roman world, "crucifixion proper" was perfected by the Romans as a method of prolonged torture, with profound psychological influence upon the masses. It was used primarily upon peoples of the lower classes, especially criminals and rebels in the provinces, yet sometimes it was also used upon high Roman officials who were accused of "treason."

At any rate, crucifixion had become so perfected as a method of torture and execution that it is was regarded as an "utterly vile death" (Origen), indeed "hideous" and "barbaric." Even the Roman statesman Cicero (106-43 BC) deplored it as "a most cruel and disgusting punishment." And further, he would remark, "To bind a Roman citizen is a crime, to flog him is an abomination, to kill him is almost an act of murder; but to crucify him is what? There is no fitting word that can possibly describe so horrible a deed . . . "2

The brutality of crucifixion is well attested in ancient literature. For instance, after Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 332 BC, he ordered the crucifixion of two-thousand Tyrians, a grave consequence for their seven month resistance. However, Alexander's actions would pale in comparison to the wrath of the Roman general Titus, who, during the seige of Jerusalem in AD 70, stripped the entire Judean hillside of nearly every tree so that the wood could be used for the making of crosses.3 And four years prior, during the governorship of Florus, at the outset of the Jewish War against the Romans, the practice was even imposed upon innocent men and women, while children and infants were subjected to wholesale slaughter.4 So outrageous was the aggressive policy of Florus on the Jerusalemites, that Josephus would comment that Bernice, sister of Herod Agrippa II (fl. AD 40-70), before whom the Apostle Paul testified (Acts 25:14-17), was horrified at the site and immediately sent messengers to Florus, begging him for clemency,5 but the pleas of the Herodian princess fell on deaf ears. Roman military brutality intensified, and crucifixion became prevalent because of its punishing and psychological efficacy. The Roman intolerance of Jerusalem was now final; thus, victims were even crucified on the walls of Jerusalem, and also on various shaped crosses in every position imaginable.

Although the Roman practice of crucifixion was intended to be a method of torturous execution for criminals and political revolutionaries, there was also a profound psychological effect which was to serve as a deterrent. Thus, as the roads of Syria/Palestine were donned with the bodies of dying revolutionaries as they hung on their respective crosses, it is fair to say that no one in that territory was immune from the gruesome vision and stench of a crucified victim. Martin Hengel states it perfectly when he says:

"The chief reason for crucifixion was its allegedly supreme efficacy as a deterrent;
it was, of course, carried out publicly . . . . It was usually associated with other
forms of torture, including at least flogging . . . . By the public display of a
naked victim at at a prominent place -- at a crossroads, in the theatre, on high
ground, at the place of his crime -- crucifixion also represented his uttermost
humiliation, which had a numinous dimension to it."6

Interestingly, one feature of crucifixion that is often overlooked is that the victim, in many cases, provided a feast for the birds of prey, ultimately until the guards would take down the body and throw it to the carrion dogs in the wilderness so that they might consume the remains. This is one of the reasons archaeologists cite for the dearth of crucified skeletons. So, crucifixion was not simply a "just" execution carried out as a consequence of criminal offense; crucifixion was a method of barbaric and heinous torture which ultimately resulted in brutal death. Many Greco-Roman writers would comment on the procedure by using phrases like "grim pickings for the dogs" and "hung alive for the wild beasts and birds of prey."7 So, whenever we posit the idea of "crucifxion" in our minds, we must graphically envision the execution sites with their numerous crosses, the Roman guards standing watch to ensure that families or sympathizers would not try to save their crucified love ones from the endless torture; and we must remember that crucifixion sites were darkened by a host of vultures circling over the site, as well as the carrion dogs waiting patiently at a safe distance for their sustainers to provide them their ration.

Moreover, we must appreciate "what it meant for a man in antiquity to be refused burial, and the dishonours which went with it."8 Although some cultures practiced ritualistic cremation, most cultures in the Ancient Near East practiced burial rituals and funerary rites, which included sacred readings, mourning, preparation of the body, procession, and finally interment. In the Roman era, especially, the subjected peoples perceived crucifxion as an unfair abomination because it was a form of execution used only on the conquered subjects -- Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion. Thus, crucfixion was regarded as an imperial form of oppression -- indeed, a disregard by the suzerain for the peoples of the provinces. Anyway, throughout the Roman period crucifixion was a terror which was reserved for criminals of the worst sort; and after the Jewish War (AD 70) and the rise of Christianity during the persecutions, crucifixion was one of many methods of toruturous exections imposed on Christians. It would not be until the reign of Constantine (306-337) that this horrid method of execution would be abolished. Most likely, it was Constantine's reverence for the cross which moved him to abolish crucifixion from the earth.

2. The Procedure of Roman Crucifixion

After a criminal had been sentenced to the cross, he would be stripped of his clothes and tied to a post in the tribunal. Then, a most cruel and severe form of scourging would begin. The whip, called a "flagrum," was an instrument with many lashes, to which pieces of sharp bone and metal were attached. One expert in pathology describes the torture as such:

"Over an over again the metal tips dug deep into the flesh, ripping small vessels,
nerves, muscles, and skin. The victim writhed, rolled, wrenched and his whole body
became distorted with pain, causing him to fall to the ground, only to be jerked up
again. Seizurelike activities occurred, followed by tremors, vomiting, and cold sweats." 9

Of this gruesome torture, the early Church historian Eusebius wrote: "The veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure." According to the Law of Moses, as stipulated in the Book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites limited the number of lashes to forty (Deuteronomy 25:3). (It is important to note that the Israelites never used any whip-like instrument which resembled the Roman "flagrum.) But since Jesus was subjected to the Roman system of justice, the limitation of forty lashes did not apply. In connection with this, it is interesting to note that many researchers who have examined the "Shroud of Turin"10 have detected over one hundred scourge wounds on the burial cloth. This excessive pre-crucifixion torture seems to be consistent with the Gospel accounts which seem to imply that, Pontius Pilate, in hoping to spare Jesus the cross, had Him severely scourged in order that the wrath of the Jewish mob might be quenched by such an awful spectacle of a "Man." However, Pilate's attempt to incite the pity and sympathy of the crowd were all to no avail. The rabid mob cried out with even more venemous contempt and fury: "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" (John 19:15).

In considering the pre-crucifixion suffering of Jesus, which was, no doubt, more intense that the typical victim, something must be said about the "crown of thorns" that was forced upon the head of Jesus. Many experts agree that the "crown" was made from either the "zizphus spina" or the "paliuris spina," both members of the buckthorn family with thin, one-inch thorns. 11 Medical experts have commented about the nerves with regard to the area of the scalp. Essentially, any laceration of the small blood vessels would result in severe pain and significant bleeding.12 Although the physical pain caused by the "crown of thorns" must have certainly been excruciating, the sorrow, grief, and mockery must have caused Jesus even more pain.

After the fateful sentence was pronounced, "Ibis ad crucem," ("You shall go to the cross"), the victim was forced to carry his cross, or usually just the crossbeam (which could weigh a hundred pounds), to the site of execution, which in Jesus' case would have been just outside the walls of Jerusalem, probably along one of the main roads leading into the city. The purpose for exposing crucified victims to passers-by, as we saw in Hengel's remarks, was to fortify the impression of Roman military power in the minds of incoming Jewish pilgrims. And above the infrastructure of the numerous crosses, vultures would be circling, waiting to pick away at the dying carcasses hanging on the Roman crosses. Outside of Jerusalem, in the nearby wilderness, wild carrion dogs would be waiting in hope that the Roman executioners would dispose of the bodies in the wilderness; thus, providing the carnivorous canines with a ready meal.

Anyway, after the words "Ibis ad crucem" were uttered by the prefect (Roman military governor), the victim would take up his cross (or crossbeam), a herald would sometimes walk ahead of the victim announcing the crime while holding up the placard (i.e. the wooden plate placed above the victim's head on the cross) with the criminal charges written upon it. At other times, the placard would be hung around the victim's neck as he staggered through the streets, all the while being goaded along by the spears of the attending soldiers. Indeed, it was this placard, placed above Jesus' head on the cross, with His crime written upon it: "King of the Jews."

At the site of execution, the victim would be nailed through the wrists (7 inch spikes) to the crossbeam, and then, drawn up by ropes, the crossbeam would be fastened to the vertical beam. Then, with allowing some flexibility at the knees, the executioner would hammer the third spike through the victim's feet, or sometimes a spike would be hammered through each heel. (There was no uniformity or precise methodology with regard to crucifxion.) Interestingly, some scholars believe that the skeleton of a crucified victim named Yohanan, unearthed in 1967, shows that one long spike was driven through the "heel" bones of his two feet which were crossed over. If this is the case, then this particular detail becomes alive with symbolism in the case of Jesus, of whom it was prophesied in the protoevangelium: "You (Christ) shall crush his (Satan's) head; though he (Satan) will bruise your (Christ's) heel" (Genesis 3:15).

3. The Cause of Death - Pathology

In most crucifixions, the victim was "tied" to the cross, instead of being nailed, and he was allowed to hang there for days. Historical records tell us of instances where some victims survived on the cross for as many as nine days. In these cases, the bodies were left to rot on the cross, while the carrion birds feasted on the dead carcasses. During the imperial persecutions of Christians (ca. 64-312), stories were told of women martyrs who were crucified upside-down, naked, and allowed to hang there until their deaths. Eusebius would comment that this was "the most shameful, brutal, and inhuman of all spectacles to everyone watching."

In the case of Jesus, who was "nailed" to the cross, after incurring the previously described pre-crucifixion torture (i.e. the severe scourging), the death process, though swifter than the use of ropes, was excuciatingly more painful. One author describes it as such:

"The lacerating veins and crushed tendons throbbed with incessant anguish;
the wounds, inflamed by exposure, gradually gangrened; the arteries, especially
at the head and stomach, became swollen and oppressed with surcharged blood;
and while each variety of misery went on gradually increasing, there was added
to them the intolerable pang of a burning and raging thirst." 13

Accompanying the overwhelming pain was an extreme complication in the normal respiratory function. One expert pathologist, in researching the medical cause of Jesus' death, temporarily suspended himself upon a model cross, and subsequently stated: "The deltoid (shoulder) and pectoral (chest) muscles promptly assume a state of spasm, and the victim so suspended is physically unable to make use of this thoracic (upper body) muscles of respiration."14 In order for the victim to breathe, he had to push himself up by his feet, which were nailed to the vertical beam, thus taking advantage of the flexibility allotted to him by the executioner. However, the pressure on his feet became unbearable, and he would once again collapse into the hanging position, thus putting an intolerable tearing pressure on the affixed hands (wrists). Also, the intense pain caused by the scourging would become aggravated during this "up and down" motion, due to the frictional contact between the victim's back and vertical beam.

After the victim had endured for several hours on the cross (from the Gospel records we can deduce that Jesus hung on the cross for at least six hours), the Roman soldiers, in order to hasten the death process, would smash the lower leg bones; an action called "crucifragium." Crucifragium made it impossible for the victim to move "up and down," thereby affixing the victim in the collapsed position and inducing death through repiratory malfunction. Interestingly, the skeleton of Yohanan reveals that the legs were shattered by one powerful blow.

Of course the Gospels tell us that crucifragium was not necessary in Jesus' case because He was already dead. This was in fulfillment of the prophecy that not one of His bones would be broken (Psalm 34:20). However, the Scriptures also tell us that one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear (not an unusual practice) to certify in fact that He was truly dead. One expert points out: "If Jesus had been alive after the spear wound, the soldiers as well as others at the site would have heard a loud sucking sound caused by breath being inhaled past the chest wound."15

Modern medical pathology has concluded, therefore, after a careful and intense examination of the facts, that the cause of Jesus' death was "cardiac and respiratory arrest due to cardiogenic, traumatic, and hypovolemic shock due to crucifixion."16 Indeed, these conclusions were affirmed in an intense study by the prestigious "Journal of the American Medical Association" (reference link below). Perhaps the best depiction of Jesus' suffering and death on the cross was best described by the Shroud expert, Frederick Zugibe:

"He was almost totally exhausted and in severe pain. Sweat poured over his
entire body, drenching him, and his face assumed a yellowish-ashen color . . .
The burning, exquisite pains from the nails, the lancinating lightning bolts
across the face from the irritation by the crown of thorns, the burning wounds
from the scourging, the severe pull on the shoulders, the intense cramps in the
knees, and the severe thirst together composed a symphony of unrelenting pain.
Then he lifted his head up to heaven and cried out in a loud voice,
'It is consummated.' Jesus was dead." 17

Endnotes

1. Ian Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud. New York: Free Press, 1998, p. 207.
*In the case of the Seljuk Turks (Muslims) and Japanese, the purpose for crucifixion was one of mockery - i.e. a mockery of the death of Christ. During the Crusades, the Turks would crucify some of the crusaders whom they succeeded in capturing. The ridicule and mockery incurred by these crusaders was simply riotous joy to the Muslim enemy. In the case of the Japanese, there is strong witness that a great number of Christian missionaries were crucified in Nagasaki in 1597.

2. John Stott, The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1986, p. 24. (Quoting Cicero in his Against Verres II. v64, para. 165. (Interestingly, the Apostle Paul was not crucified (but rather, "beheaded," according to tradition) because he was in fact a Roman citizen, and Roman citizens were exempt from crucifixion) -- cf. Cicero., Verr. Act., I, 5; II, 3, 5; III, 2, 24, 26; IV, 10 sqq.; V, 28, 52, 61, 66).

3. Josephus, War 2. 306-08

4. Josephus, War 5.447-51

5. Ibid.

6. Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message
of the Cross. Philadephia: Fortress, 1977.

7. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.
San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994. (Here, Crossan is quoting from Hengel).

8. Hengel, Crucifixion.

9. Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, The Shroud and the Controversy. Nashville: Nelson, 1990, p. 105. *A quote from Frederick Zugibe's, The Cross and the Shroud, NY: Angelus, 1982.

10. *Watch for my coming article on "The Shroud of Turin."

11. Stevenson/Habermas, p. 105.

12. Ibid., p. 105.

13. Ibid.

14. Robert Bucklin, Legal and Medical Aspects, 24.
*Quoted in Stevenson/Habermas, p. 109.

15. Stevenson/Habermas, quoting Frederick Zugibe, p. 113.

16. Ibid., quoting the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

17. Frederick Zugibe, The Cross and the Shroud. NY: Angelus, 1982.