Good Friday

[Jona Lendering]

Slate has an article on the crucifixion of Jesus; nothing really new or shocking, but still interesting.

[Gluteus Maximus]

Slate has an article on the crucifixion of Jesus; nothing really new or shocking, but still interesting.

A second-century anti-Christian graffito from Rome, well-known among historians who study the time period, depicts a crudely drawn crucified man with a donkey's head; under it stands a human figure, and beneath this is a derisive scrawl: "Alexamenos worships his god."

This is considered increasingly to be unrelated to Christianity and a reference to Osiris: 'It is only Christian prejudice that prevents us from seeing this graffito for what it is - a pious depiction by a devotee of the osiris cult who believed that he had overcome Set, the enemy of his god' (Wilson I. [1984] quoted in 'The Jesus Mysteries', Freke and Gandy.)

Oddly enough, many of the Jesus stories - miracles, circumstances he was put to death etc are also linked to Osiris, Bacchus, Dionysus and several other mystery cult figures - in some instances before the gospels were written.

In second century Rome, Christians were a tiny minority, and it is likely they hardly surfaced in the thoughts of most citizens at all. On the other hand, crucifixion was a very common and degrading punishment, and I believe it is with extreme conceit that Christian scholars continue to use this as an example of pagan Roman prejudice towards their religion - or indeed to assume that any depiction of a crucified figure is a reference to Jesus. I find it amazing that the accounts of fourth century Christian writers with an obvious anti-pagan bias still influence the analysis of modern day scholars vis-a-vis the study of early Christianity.

[M. Demetrius]

I believe it is with extreme conceit that Christian scholars continue to use this as an example of pagan Roman prejudice towards their religion - or indeed to assume that any depiction of a crucified figure is a reference to Jesus.

I suppose there must be some Christians who consider all crucifixions to be references to Jesus, as you say, but I don't personally know any. Most understand that thousands of people were crucified in Ancient Roman times, with Jesus of Nazareth just being one of many (from a Roman perspective, of course).

One must be careful of the oft-wielded "broad brush", regardless of the pigment being spread, mustn't one?

[Gluteus Maximus]

One must be careful of the oft-wielded "broad brush", regardless of the pigment being spread, mustn't one?

You are quite correct and I admit that I often fall into this trap :oops: . The word conceit was a bit strong. I am not particularly anti -Christian though it might have seemed so and I get a bit irked when anyone persists with obsolescent historical viewpoints for whatever reason. I suppose I saw red because this particular example (the donkey-headed crucifixion) is even now cited as an example of Roman contempt for Christianity, when it has long been stated that the body of evidence suggests it is not. I often hear theologians and Christian commentators on BBC Radio 4 (to which I listen obsessively) Quoting Eusebius as a reliable source for early Christianity, referring to 'A non stop policy of persecution which ran from Nero's time up to Constantine the Great'. The donkey - headed crucifixion almost always crops up, and I cannot help but to detect a little unwillingness to distance from the traditional view, which may be down to faith more than reason.

I have not heard such commentators state that all crucifixions were influenced by or carried out in the name of Christianity. But I have heard them refer to the many depictions of the crucified Jesus in ancient Rome, when in fact the earliest unambiguous crucifixion depiction of Jesus comes from the late fourth century. The Catholic Encyclopaedia, well researched, distances itself from traditional assumptions about pagan Romans and the early Church.