Crucifixion misconceptions in medicine studies
- PDF / 184,120 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 84 Downloads / 193 Views
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Crucifixion misconceptions in medicine studies Ruben van Wingerden 1 Accepted: 20 February 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Over the last few decades, the field of medicine has paid significant attention to the causes of death by crucifixion. This medical interest parallels renewed interest in crucifixion in New Testament studies (albeit from a predominantly historical perspective). Unfortunately, there is little interaction between the medical and historical branches of academic research. In both fields (New Testament studies and, more generally, historical studies and medicine) however, erroneous assumptions about the practice of crucifixion remain. Looking to some recent medical articles on crucifixion, the historian must conclude that there are some misconceptions and some outright errors in the (mostly brief) descriptions of crucifixion. To start with the question of the nature of crucifixion, quite recently, Byard defined crucifixion as “suspending a victim by his or her arms from a cross beam until death occurs” [1]. However, according to major crucifixion scholars, such as Chapman [2, 3], Samuelsson [4] and Cook [5], the phrase “from a cross beam” is too specific, and based on historical sources, it is questionable whether crucifixion always implies suspension from a crossbeam. This concept is particularly clear in the first century writings of Seneca (Dial. 6.20.3) and Josephus (Bell. 5.449–51); soldiers were inventive when it came to the method of crucifying their victims. Some medical researchers claim that emperor Constantine the Great abolished crucifixion in AD 341 [1, 6]. This year is incorrect, however, as Constantine died in 337, and the last authorized crucifixion was in 335 [5]. This misconception can be traced back to the article by Holoubek and Holoubek [7], which refers to the crucifixion study by Hengel [8]. Hengel, however, does not mention AD 341 at all. In fact, nowhere does he state that crucifixion was outlawed or banned by
* Ruben van Wingerden [email protected] 1
School of Catholic Theology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands
Constantine. He states only that hanging was gradually imposed instead of crucifixion after Constantine [8]. Many articles about crucifixion tend to generalize wellknown aspects of crucifixion. For example, Roman law specified that victims were scourged [1, 7, 9, 10]. Flagellation often occurred, but there is no record of a law specifically requiring scourging before crucifixion [5, 11]. There is, in fact, only one law in which crucifixion figures, but this law concerns the responsibilities of undertakers/executioners, not the standardized practice of crucifixion; other forms of punishment (or no punishment) could precede the crucifixion as well [11]. Some aspects of extant crucifixion accounts are overblown, such as that the tongue may have been cut out [1]. We only have evidence of this practice from one ancient source, and hardly any evidence exists for a standardized or widespread p
Data Loading...
