Talk:Crucifixion

Qur'an

The crucifixion in the Qur'an is not history. Qur'an is not a historical document. It is religious scripture. And let's be frank: the vast majority of people do NOT hold it to be true. Why is it being presented as history?Wheatsing (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's being presented as a history of what happened, but as a history of what the Qur'an says. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not history. That's religion. And the Qur'an isn't the only scripture that talks about crucifixion - this subject features prominently in the New Testament. I think I'll move it to a separate section called "Religion".Wheatsing (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You know surely that for many states the Qur'an is law and must be followed. You could put the prescription in the Qur'an in the "Crucifixion today" section, if you think that only in modern times has it been adverted to. Esoglou (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you were talking about the section header, but now I see what you mean. Maybe something like "Religious texts"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, indeed that would work. Esoglou, sure we can find modern day examples of crucifixion from the Middle East. But again its the states that crucified the people, not the Qur'an. As far as I know, books don't walk around torturing people.Wheatsing (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

μόνος σταυρός

I would be glad to see some serious and historical references for the usage of the words "μόνος σταυρός". I suspect that this is a rather modern backtranslation. It could be ancient, but not more ancient than the Latin "crux simplex". (The alternative "απλός σταυρός" is not ancient either.) —Mendelo (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. It isn't even a back-translation, but an attempt by some editor to give credence to his or her personal idea by inserting this inexact translation into the Wikipedia article. The correct translation of crux simplex would be, as you rightly indicate, "ἁπλὸς σταυρός". You will find "μόνος σταυρός" here and there on the Internet, but, except where this Wikipedia article has been copied, only in the sense of sola crux (the only cross). I am confident that I am not being excessively bold in removing it. Does anyone object? Esoglou (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not accuse anyone. Could have been a mistake. But now the word σταυρός is no longer mentioned in the article, which is a weird lack of information. —Mendelo (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Greek noun σταυρός, or rather the Greek verb σταυρῶ, is no more needed in this article than the corresponding Phoenician terms. Σταυρός is dealt with extensively in Dispute about Jesus' execution method, to which a link is given in this article, and also in Stauros. Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles on "stauros", "Dispute about Jesus' execution method", "Crucifixion of Jesus", "Cross", "Crucifix", "Christian cross", and "Crucifixion". It's hard to find everything. Maybe one day I'll try to make an index page... —Mendelo (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You could try listing them as "See also" at the foot of one or more articles, just ahead of "References". Esoglou (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nail Placement Sources

Almost the entire section on nail placement uses the Bible as the source, this should not be considered an accurate source, and other sources should be considered, if they do indeed exist. If not the section should be toned down, and left more vague to better coincide with the facts as we actually know them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.0.203 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Amulet

Would someone please explain why anyone is pretending this amulet is authentic? It was declared a fake by the original German Museum which housed it, it has been declared fake by Dr James Hannam, it does not align with any known ancient depictions of crucifixion and there is no known story Orpheus being crucified . It seems the only source that accepts this amulets authenticity is a nobody from Italy who self publishes various books on why Jesus was Julius Caesar. Of course this person in question is not a historian. So again, why is this known fraud being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is pretending anything, just going by what the available sources say. Please see Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 8#Dionysus or Orpheus Crucifixion and then Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 9#Orpheus amulet. About your claim that a recent source is not reliable, please provide sourcing, rather than your personal opinion based on nationality. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh where do I begin with this amulet.

There is no tradition of Orpheus being crucified for one. The crucifixion depicted on this is typical of medieval crucifixion scenes, not ancient ones.

It was declared fake by the German epigrapher Otto Kern and later by W.K.C. Guthrie’s in his 1952 book “Orpheus and the Greek Religion”.

The only person arguing for it's authenticity is Francesco Carotta who also argues Jesus was in fact Julius Caesar.(cite 43 on the article) Needless to say this man is not a historian.

So why is a non historians view points being given priority of the original authorities who declared it to be a forgery. Certainly why is his views given priority over Dr James Hannam who is a historian?

This amulet is questionable at best and is almost certainly a fake. It should not be used in this article for the reasons I have mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Another issue, the amulet as pictured is a CGI recreation of the original. The only picture available of the original is a black and white drawing. Yet another reason this amulet has no business on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I find your comments to be rather strange and hard to take seriously. What is the evidence that this image is a CGI recreation? And where does the Carotta and Eickenberg source actually say that Jesus and Julius Caesar were the same person? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple read the article by James Hannam. Link number 44 on this article. The original was lost after World War II. This is from the article by Dr James Hannam.

" This led Guthrie to add an endnote to the second edition of Orpheus and Greek Religion where he states "In his review of this book in Gnomon (1935, p 476), Kern recants and expresses himself convinced by the expert opinion of Reil and Zahn that the gem is a forgery." Rejected by the experts, the amulet itself was largely forgotten about. Kaiser Friedrich Museum probably removed it from display once it was denounced and it has since been lost, probably when the collection was dispersed after the Second World War. The museum, now called the Bode Museum, reopened only in late 2006 after a major restoration programme. Perhaps now the museum is back in business the amulet will eventually turn up"

So not only was the amulet noted to be a fake, the picture being used of it is not even of the amulet itself.

The source used to defend the the authenticity of this amulet is Francesco Carotta

This from his wiki bio

Francesco Carotta (b. 1946[1] in Veneto, Italy) is an Italian former IT entrepreneur, publisher and engineer,[2] and has been referred to as an independent linguist and philosopher.[3] Carotta is a co-founder of the German newspaper die Tageszeitung.[4] As author he is best known for his theory that the historical Jesus Christ was Julius Caesar. After a few preliminary releases[5] Carotta published his views in the German book War Jesus Caesar? 2000 Jahre Anbetung einer Kopie (1999) and in Italian Il Cesare incognito - Da Divo Giulio a Gesù (2003).[6] His book was also translated into Dutch and English.[7]

I can find nothing on Arne Eickenberg to show his academic background.

In conclusion.

The picture is a CGI, the original amulet has been lost

The original sources declared it to be fake for reasons I have noted.

Modern academics declare it to be a forgery

Only a kook who feels Jesus was Julius Caesar supports it's authenticity. Why is this non academic given priority over all the scholars who have rejected it?

So why is a patently obvious forgery being used in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for pointing me to the page on Francesco Carotta. I hadn't known that we had a page about him, and I agree with you to some extent that it is an eye-opener. The more I learn about this subject (the amulet), the more it turns out to be a complicated one!

Let's look first at what you said about CGI. There is nothing in what you quoted from Hannam (whom I have read) that says the image is CGI. Hannam says the amulet was a forgery, and that it was lost from the museum in the mid twentieth century. There is no evidence that a photograph of the amulet could not have been taken prior to its disappearance. There is nothing in the file history of the image on Wikipedia indicating that the image is CGI. I think that you are doing WP:SYNTH in observing that the amulet was stolen or lost, and concluding from that that somebody created a digital recreation of it for Wikipedia. Even if it were a re-creation (which, I repeat, is unsubstantiated), there is no evidence that the image is not an accurate representation of what the amulet looked like.

Now, for Carotta. You are correct that he is not an academic, and that he is noted for provocative writings. At the same time, I want to be careful about what we do and do not conclude from that. First, per WP:BLP, let's steer clear of using pejorative language about a living person. Second, I'll note that Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory are controversial and emotionally loaded topics in scholarly research, and have been the subjects of serious editorial disputes here on Wikipedia. According to Carotta's Wikipedia page, his writings in this area have gotten mixed reactions, but they have not been universally rejected. According to the footnotes of his paper about the amulet, the paper was originally published in Isidorianum, which appears to me to be a reliable source about writings on some aspects of religious scholarship. As much as I can readily understand how devout Christians can be offended by Carotta's eccentric theories about the historical Jesus, those theories do not seem to have played a role in what he wrote about the amulet, nor do they justify an editorial decision to reject him entirely as a cited source. (It's guilt by association to say that his writings on the amulet are tainted by what some people think about his writings about the historical Jesus.) What we are left with is that earlier work by Hannam and others characterized the amulet as a forgery, a later work by Carotta refuted those earlier studies, and WP:V and WP:RS do not really give us a basis to discount Carotta's findings in favor of that earlier work. Can you find a more recent scholarly paper that refutes Carotta? Absent that, I think it appropriate to revise the page to give Hannam more weight, which I am going to do right now, but we don't have a reason to remove the material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the article to more reflect the questionable nature of this amulet.

I think it is appropriate to basically call a garbage source a garbage source. Carotta is not a historian. He supports a completely pseudo historical view of Jesus that is completely rejected by mainstream historians. While some non historians might have found his ideas to be interesting it does not mean they have academic support. For example some find creationism to be interesting it does not mean creationism is a viable academic position.

I sincerely doubt the journal is a reputable source for the simple fact what historical journal would let non historians publish in it?

The biggest problem with keeping this amulet displayed is that it makes this article support the Pagan Copy Cat thesis( without intending too) which is a thoroughly rejected view by modern historians. The Pagan Copy Cat thesis is a subset of the Jesus Myth theory which is again completely rejected by academia. While wikipedia can note fringe views it should not support them in any way shape or form.

Hannam's article's notes that the amulet being shown is an enhanced version. It is highly unlikely this is a original picture as it was lost around World War II and pictures from that era tend to be black and white.

In conclusion

The amulet is lost, it cannot be properly reevaluated. We do not know if the image being used is an accurate representation of this amulet.

The original evaluations concluded it was a forgery for reasons I have already mentioned.

Modern scholars have rejected it's authenticity

Displaying this amulet helps promote two pseudo historical positions

It's authenticity is supported by a non scholar who supports pseudo history in a journal of unknown merit

Here is a quote from an early Christian apologist that shows yet another reason to think this item is a modern forgery.

"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.” Justin Martyr ’s First Apology LV.

For all these reasons I think this amulet should be removed or at least far stronger weight be given to the position that it is a modern forgery.

I want to note none of these are religious issues, they are simply issues of scholarship and objectivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.52.10 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can see that I really am trying to be fair and consider your point of view. But I've already pointed out that Wikipedia doesn't do WP:SYNTH, and you need to back up your arguments with sourcing in a way that you are not doing here. This page is most definitely not arguing, or even implying, that anything about Christian depiction of crucifixion was done in imitation of pre-Christian portrayals (nor, in fact, does the Carotta source argue that). Instead, it is an historical fact that the Romans and others had been employing crucifixion as a method of execution for centuries before the Christian era, and this practice seems to have been the subject of portrayals in art. Martin Hengel was an entirely credible academic historian about this subject. Look at this book of his: [1], discussing this history. Justin Martyr notwithstanding, I think the page conforms with Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing. I was happy to make the edits I made yesterday in response to what you pointed out to me, but I'm not seeing enough further rationale, outside of your own opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have been fair about this issue though I do not agree with your reasoning. To me the fact alone that something is likely a forgery would be reason enough to remove it, however I do thank you for rewritting the article in a manner that allows others to more easily investigate the very dubious nature of this amulet. So I do thank you for your time and your consideration and have a Merry Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.112.70 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just devout Christians who reject Carotta's theories - they are not accepted by any reputable scholarly source. He is not an academic historian and his views clearly count as fringe theories, and thus need particularly strong support. The only citation in the article is from his own website. This is clearly not an acceptable source by Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, it is easy to find citations to support the mainstream view, and I have added these. Unless substantial citation support can be presented for the Carotta theory, I propose to remove the reference to it.--Rbreen (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to talk, and please don't edit war over this issue. You say that the Carotta source is from his personal website. It is easy to see that this is not true. It was published in a journal called Isidorianum. When I see editors showing up in this talk and basing their arguments for deletion on untruths, I tend to be skeptical of the desire to delete. On the other hand, all of the sources that you now cite as refuting Carotta are actually dated long before Carotta's paper. I accept that they take a different position than he does, but that hardly constitutes a refutation by mainstream scholarship. I'm happy to consider language that goes further to indicate the existence of controversy, but if you want to argue for eliminating the Carotta argument, or for treating it as fringe scholarship, you are going to have to show us a scholarly source that comes, chronologically, after Carotta, and concludes, specifically about the amulet, that his analysis is fringe. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Crucifix as a Symbol for Eastern Orthodox?

In the article it is asserted that "A crucifix (an image of Christ crucified on a cross) is the main religious symbol for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox". As an Orthodox I disagree with this assertion. While there are of course Orthodox icons of the crucifixion, we would not say that it is the religious symbol of the Orthodox Church. While we believe that Christ's death on the Cross was necessary for our salvation, it is the Resurrection which makes our salvation possible (See St. Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15). Therefore we depict Christ on the Cross insofar as we want to depict the historical event of the Crucifixion; otherwise we usually depict the Cross without Christ, as Christ is risen. Ergo, the Crucifix per se does not have the same meaning to us as Orthodox nor does it carry the same spiritual weight as it does with Catholics. That is at least in part due to the varying theologies between the Christian East and the Christian West of Christ's work on the Cross. Whereas the the Roman Catholic Church tends to view Christ's work on the Cross as an atonement and salvation as a juridical transaction (i.e. "Jesus paid the price for my sins), as Orthodox we tend to understand the work of Christ as healing and salvation as a restorative transaction. Hence the West emphasizes the Crucifixion (atonement, paying the penalty), and the East emphasizes the Resurrection (healing, medicinal, restoration of fallen human nature). Hence we do not consider the Crucifix as the symbol OF the Christian Faith but rather as an expression of a critically important historical event of the Christian Faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkatsa (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)