Servile Supplicium : Shame and the Deuteronomic Curse—Crucifixion in Its Cultural Context

Crucifixion under the Romans

Descriptions of crucifixion are rare in antiquity. Members of the cultured literary elite were hesitant to dwell on such a horrific and brutal act and the deep social antipathy towards it precluded, for the most part, any mention on inscriptions or in the works of Greek and Roman historians. Though information is scant, certain Latin texts do provide information regarding the detail and procedure of crucifixion and, collectively, provide more information than the literature of any other ancient culture (see Hengel: 33–38; Brown: 947; Samuelsson).

It appears that the origins of Roman crucifixion go back to early Rome, when it was used as a penalty for incest and treason. By the time of the first-century ce it was numbered among the most aggravated methods of execution known collectively as the summum supplicium, which were employed for the most serious penalties by offenders of low status. These covered several forms of the death penalty, and included, in order of increasing severity: decapitation (decollatio), burning (vivus uri or crematio), and crucifixion (crux). At times, the throwing of victims to wild beasts (damnatio ad bestias) took the place of decapitation (but the requirement of wild animals and an arena to organize such a form of execution precluded, for the most part, its widespread use (Suetonius Caligula. 27.3–4; Claudius 14; Dio Cassius, History 59.10.3). Occasionally, a criminal was given a life sentence to hard labor in the mines (metallum).

Essentially, crucifixion, as the most severe punishment, was an instrument of both execution and humiliation and its very nature as a degrading public spectacle was employed by the state as an overt instrument of fear. Quintillian (c. 35–95 ce) approved of crucifixion as a penalty for low-status criminals, and noted that its use as a (psychological) deterrent was best employed when the crosses were set up along the busiest roads (Declamations 274). Crucifixion was later banned by Constantine I (after 314 ce), and replaced by the ‘fork’ (furca), whereby the criminal was hung by the neck from a horizontal wooden shaft until dead.

Roman crucifixion was inflicted upon a number of different people groups: the lower classes (the peregrine); the inhabitants of foreign provinces; and those considered most threatening to the state and its internal interests (especially for treasonable offences considered potentially dangerous to state security). It was also used to break the will of conquered peoples, and to wear down rebellious cities under siege. Dangerous and violent robbers and murderers could be crucified—often near or at the scene of their crimes. But the Romans used crucifixion above all as the servile supplicium (“the slaves' punishment”), and this was a precedent that was set perhaps as early as the third century bce. Certainly, Plautus, in his play Miles Gloriosus (written around 205 bce), confirms that slaves had been punished by crucifixion for generations when he has the character Sceledrus state, “I know the cross will be my grave: that is where my ancestors are, my father, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, great-great-grandfathers” (Miles Gloriosus 372–73). During the first and second centuries bce, crucifixion was used to deter rebellions among the large number of slaves who lived in Rome or worked on the great estates in Italy. The most significant of these came after the final defeat and death of Spartacus and the revolt that he had instigated between 72 and 71 bce, for the Roman general Crassus had more than 6000 gladiators and slaves crucified along the Via Appia between Capua and Rome (Appian, Civil Wars 1.120).

By the time of the late Republic and early Empire, slaves were treated with such contempt that a slave owner had the right to scourge and crucify his slaves almost at will. Horace (65–8 bce) writes of a master having his slave crucified merely for taking a lick of his “half-eaten fish and lukewarm soup” while removing it to the kitchen (Satires 1.3.80–83; Glancy), while during the principate of Nero, a decree of the senate revived the custom of executing (often by crucifixion) all the slaves of a household if the master was killed (Tacitus, Annales. 13.32.1). A slave called Mithridates was crucified for “having damned the soul” of the emperor Gaius, and slaves who questioned astrologers about the future of the emperor, of the state, or even that of their own masters faced peremptory crucifixion (Petronius, Satires. 53.3; Paulus, Sentences 5.21.3–4). Suetonius confirms that even the emperors capriciously crucified imperial slaves and sometimes freedmen (Caligula 12.2; Domitian 11.1). Many other writers recognized that crucifixion was an atrocious form of execution. Cicero referred to it as a “most cruel and disgusting penalty” (Against Verres 2.5.165); Seneca spoke of the “accursed tree” (Epistle 101.14); and Josephus called it “the most wretched of deaths” (War 7.6.4). Yet Varro (116–27 bce) was practically alone in protesting against this practice—most simply took it for granted that this form of execution was needed to deter the lower classes from committing serious crimes (Menippean Satires 24).

Since crucifixion was associated with the lower classes, especially slaves, the Romans refrained, under most circumstances, from crucifying Roman citizens, considering it too shameful and ignominious a death. But this was not without precedent. In one of his speeches against Gaius Verres (the notoriously corrupt proconsul of Sicily, 73–71 bce), Cicero reflects horrified disgust at Verres' crucifixion of Gavius, a Roman citizen,

Equally, in 63 bce, Rabirus, a Roman nobleman and senator was threatened with the penalty of crucifixion, and in defending him Cicero argues that this was intolerable for a respectable Roman citizen (Pro Rabirio Perduellionis 16). So too, Galba, while governor of Baetica in Spain, crucified a Roman citizen for an act of poisoning. Ignoring the man's invocation of the law and his cry that he was a Roman citizen, Galba determined to “console” him with a cross that would stand higher than all the rest and would be painted white (Suetonius, Galba 9). The fact that the victim pleaded both to the law and to his citizenship may indicate that the use of the penalty against citizens was irregular, but appeal could be made only to tradition, not to established legal redress. Certainly, the disapproval which colors the narratives of Cicero, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius suggest that the events they describe were unusual, but the implication is not that there was a law prohibiting the crucifixion of citizens, but rather that the punishment was properly and normally employed against slaves and perhaps lower-class aliens. The comparative respect which the younger Pliny on one occasion showed for Roman citizenship may have been more typical of the attitude of governors—in his pogrom against Christians he separated those who were citizens from the rest, and had the non-citizens arbitrarily executed (Epistle 10.96; MacMullen: 204–06).

The Shame of Crucifixion

It would appear from the writings of many Greek and Latin authors, i.e. in the perspective of the cultural elite, that the horror and disgust of crucifixion lay as much in the public shame that was involved more than the physical torture itself. In addition to the many humiliating aspects that this form of punishment employed, the primary reason for this would appear to be the immeasurable dishonor which lay in its association with that of a slave and of the utter shame that such an association would bring. As noted above, crucifixion was, after all, the slave's death. Even as early as the writing of the Greek historian Polybius (c. 200—after 118 bce) it is the humiliation of crucifixion that comes to the fore. Polybius writes of the death of one Achaeus, whose body was mutilated, his extremities severed, and his head cut off and sewn up in an ass's skin. But the narrative then surprisingly details that the body was subsequently crucified. As this final action was obviously disconnected to any concerns for physical torture or capital punishment it would appear to demonstrate that, psychologically, crucifixion was a prerequisite in the final and total humiliation and degradation of an enemy (History 8.21.3; cf. Gen 40:19; 2 Sam 4:12).

As a warning to other potential offenders, crucifixion was a highly public execution. Certainly, the Roman procedure for crucifixion was more efficient and routinized than elsewhere. The victim was publicly scourged with the flagellum (a whip with leather thongs) immediately prior to condemnation (or at the site of the crucifixion), and after his legal conviction it was the custom for him to be handed over to a four-man execution squad who would parade the convict through the streets to the site of crucifixion (see Cohn; Zias & Sekeles; Green). He would bear a sign detailing the reason for the execution and was compelled to carry the cross-beam (patibulum) to the designated site. The place of execution was normally in a public place outside a town or city where the victim was easily visible to passers-by. There, he was stripped of all his clothing and crucified naked. (Although in Greco-Roman thought nakedness was not considered shameful in and of itself, the humiliation involved in this context involves a reaction towards the total loss of power of the sufferer; see Williams: 219–23.)

The victim was fastened to the cross-beam with nails and/or cords, and the beam was then drawn up by ropes until the feet were clear of the ground. The crux humilis, “low cross,” raised the body ten to eighteen inches above the ground, while the crux sublimis, “high cross,” raised it three feet. The low cross would have been used more for common criminals so that they could more easily be devoured by wild animals (Rousseau & Arav: 75). Some support for the body was provided by a ledge (sedile) which projected from the upright, and the feet were sometimes tied or nailed (Haas; Strange: 199–200; Fitzmyer 1978; Kuhn). Whilst affixed to the cross, the victim might be the object of taunts and indignities from passers-by, and, according to Seneca, executioners could vary the form of crucifixion, further adding to the humiliation that this form of punishment brought:

Nero's persecution of Christ-followers in Rome exemplified a similar cruelty, and the New Testament expression “to bear the cross” was thus a symbolic description of the horrendous punishment typical for a slave, rebel, or those considered the lowest of society (Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Brandenburger: 392; J. B. Torrance: 253).

Death by crucifixion could be slow or swift, depending upon a variety of factors: the victim's physical constitution, prior sleep deprivation, degree of torture, and whether the arms were nailed rather than tied. But, irrespective of time, since crucifixion damaged no vital organs, death would come after extraordinary agony. The exact cause or causes of death in the crucifixion process have been disputed over the past century, but may be a combination of asphyxiation/suffocation and hypovolemic shock (see Zugibe; Hanson & Oakman: 92). Death was sometimes hastened by crurifragium (the breaking of the legs), but otherwise the healthiest victims may have remained on the cross for days. The victim's disgrace was compounded by his nakedness, his bodily defecation, and the fact that wild beasts (wolves, bears, lions) or birds may have attacked the victim at vital parts of the body (Lucan, Civil War 6.545–53; Juvenal, Satires 8.188).

The dead body was frequently left unburied and normally remained on the cross until it was completely devoured by rats or vultures (Juvenal, Satires 14.77f.; Horace, Epistles 1.16.46–48; cf. Gen 40:19). Judeans were sometimes allowed to remove and bury the corpses of crucified friends and relatives (Philo, Against Flaccus 82–85). Seneca, writing to Lucilius (Epistle 101), argues that it is better to commit suicide than face such extreme and drawn-out suffering as death by crucifixion. The utter disgrace of crucifixion prompted Cicero to speak of the “tree of shame” (In Defence of Rabirius 4.13), and encouraged Celsus to dismiss derisively the redemptive role of Christ, who had been “bound in the most ignominious fashion” and “executed in a shameful way” (Origen, Against Celsus 6.10). Equally, Trypho challenges Justin: “Prove to us that he [the Messiah] had to be crucified and had to die such a shameful and dishonorable death, cursed by the law. We could not even consider such a thing” (Dialogue 90.1; cf. 32.1; 89.2).

In Judean thought nudity was relentlessly censured. The male genitalia were frequently denoted by the euphemism “shame” (in such phrases as “he covered his shame,” Jubilees 3:27, 30; cf. Isa 58:7; Ezek 16:22, 35–39; Job 26:6), and Paul, too, spoke of the “shameful” parts of the body, meaning the sexual organs (1 Cor 12:23). Josephus spoke of the dishonor that accrued if one's private parts were allowed to “offend the rays of the deity” (Josephus, War 2. 148f), and at Qumran a censure was placed on a man who allowed “‘the hand’ [i.e. the penis] to protrude from beneath the garment … and reveal his nakedness” (1QS 7:13–14). In Judean propaganda, although a man's circumcised penis may be called his “glory” (Phil 3:19; Hawthorne: 166–67 and cf. Gal 6:13), he was shamed if stripped of his clothes by an aggressor and his penis displayed (see Acts 19:16). Hence, those prisoners who were stripped naked before scourging and crucified naked in public places, suffered as much from the shame of involuntary nakedness as from the lash (4 Macc 6:2; Matt 27:28, 31; cf. Neyrey). In Palestine especially, crucifixion was a public reminder of Judean servitude to a foreign power, and was thus a sign and demonstration of extreme national humiliation (Heb 12:2).

Crucifixion from a Judean Perspective

Within the general purview of the Hebrew Bible, the crucifixion of live criminals by Judeans does not appear to be evident. Execution was normally by stoning (Lev 20:2; Num 15:35–36; Deut 13:9; Josh 7:25; 1 Kgs 21:13), by burning (Gen 38:24; Lev 20:14; 21:9; Num 16:35), or by the sword (Deut 13:15; Exod 32:27; Josh 10:26; 2 Sam 18:14ff). The few unambiguous accounts of crucifixion detailed in the Hebrew Bible are those of dead convicts, for it appears that crucifixion was employed more as a sign of disgrace, as well as a very visible public warning against criminal activity. (Such bodies were impaled on a tree—Deut 21:22f; Josh 10:26; 2 Sam 4:12, a procedure which may have derived from Egyptian usage, Gen 40:18.) The Septuagint does contain the possibility of live crucifixion in a small number of texts, but exegesis of these does not permit an unambiguous interpretation (see Cohn; Chapman). Hence, one could reasonably suggest that ancient Israel did not make use of the cross as a means of torture or execution (Brandenburger: 393); more typically, execution was by stoning, by burning, or by the sword.

The earliest use of live crucifixion against Judeans appears in the accounts by Josephus of the reign of the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164 bce). The attempt by Antiochus to proscribe much of Judean tradition and religion led to the crucifixion of those faithful Judeans determined to adhere to their ancestral customs (Josephus, Antiquities 12.256). Although the use of crucifixion was prevalent in the nations that surrounded Israel during the Maccabean period, the reign of terror imposed by Antiochus introduced the Judean people all too clearly to the horror of this form of execution, and less than eighty years later the Hasmonean king Alexander Janneus (in office, 103–76 bce), ordered a mass crucifixion of some 800 Pharisees in terms strikingly similar to those employed for Antiochus (Josephus, Antiquities 13.380–383; cf. War 1.97–98; Schürer I.223–224). After the death of Alexander, Simon ben Shetah, brother of Queen Salome Alexandra, hanged or crucified eighty so-called “witches” near Ashkelon (Hengel: 77–78). Within the same period, it appears that the community at Qumran held open the sanction of death by crucifixion for perpetrators of certain crimes. These included those who informed against the people, betrayed the people to a foreign nation, did evil to the people, committed a capital offence, fled away to the Gentiles, or cursed the people (11QT 64.7, 9b–10a). It is uncertain, however, whether such means of execution was ever used.

During the New Testament period the crucifixion of Judeans at the hands of the Romans became widespread—Rome believed that the maintenance of law and or der in what was considered a troubled land was incumbent upon a strict military regime. Indeed, over the period 4 bce– 150 ce incidents of crucifixion are rarely documented outside of Judea (except for those of Christ-followers in Rome under Nero, Brown: 946). A typical example of Roman attitudes to the Judeans can be found in the reaction of Rome to the widespread social unrest throughout Palestine following the death of Herod the Great in 4 bce (an action in response to Herodian policy on taxation, political oppression and promotion of both Hellenism and Roman imperialism). The unrest was quashed quickly and ruthlessly by Varus, the legate of Syria, who crucified some 2,000 Judeans in the process (Josephus, Antiquities 17.295; War 2.75). Later in the first-century ce, Philo describes a pogrom in Alexandria under the prefect Flaccus (38 ce), whereupon many Judeans were tortured and crucified in the city's amphitheatre to entertain a mob of pagan agitators (Against Flaccus 72, 83–85). Additional incidents involve the crucifixion of Judeans by Quadratus, the governor of Syria, during a troublesome disturbance in the procuratorship of Cumanus (48–52 ce; Josephus, Antiquities 20.129; War 2.241), and the crucifixion of numerous Judean bandits by Cumanus' successor, Felix (52–60 ce; Josephus War 2.253; Antiquities 20.160).

The worst excesses of Judean crucifixion came during the period of the first Jewish war. Prior to its outbreak in 66 ce, the Roman procurator Gessius Florus flogged and crucified some Judeans of equestrian rank in Jerusalem without trial. As Roman citizens, and, in particular, as members of the elite they should have been safe from the possibility of crucifixion (especially as having committed no discernible crime). The action of Florus was considered a scandal because his victims suffered penalties which were customarily inflicted on men of considerably lower status (Josephus, War 2.306–308). At the beginning of the war, Vespasian crucified at least one prisoner who resisted torture at Jotapata (Josephus, War 3.321), Titus crucified another prisoner before the walls of Jerusalem as a warning (Josephus, War 5.289), and thereafter executions became more frequent (Josephus, Life 75f). Mass crucifixions increased during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 ce, where 500 or more were crucified daily (Hengel: 25, 26 n.17; Green: 147). It is hardly surprising then, that, under the Roman administration of the frst-century ce, crucifixion became an “abomination in Jewish eyes” (Schürer; III.417).

Crucifixion and the Deuteronomic Curse

Traditional interpretation of crucifixion from a Judean perspective has considered the hanging or impaling of a body upon a tree or cross to be particularly repugnant, for this very act was seen as sanctioning a divine curse from Yahweh (Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13; Bruce: 164–66; Martyn: 318; Jervis: 91; Longenecker: 142). Consequently, the crucified body had to be removed and buried before nightfall lest the land be polluted and defiled (Josh 8:29, 10:26; John 19:31). More recently, however, doubt has been placed on such a perspective by Paula Fredriksen, who claims that the curse was not a corollary of crucifixion per se but came upon the individual as a result of the crimes committed (and for which he was originally executed). Hence, the hanging itself was not the reason for the curse. Within a wider perspective, Fredriksen makes two similar points: the curse mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QT 64:6–13), which falls upon one who is executed by hanging/crucifixion for betrayal of the community, comes as a result of the specific crime, not for the mode of execution; and the curse falling upon the impaled or crucified Haman in Esther is for his insidious role in the story and not because of the manner of his death. Fredriksen also points to the numerous incidents of crucifixion described by Josephus, none of which carry any mention of a curse, and claims that a Judean crucified under the imperialistic might of Rome would appear to his contemporaries “more like a fallen hero” (552). Fredriksen concludes by asserting that “Nothing in first-century Judaism … seems to require that a crucified man ipso facto be seen as cursed of God, and we have no evidence of Jews having done so” (552). Because of the import of the traditional perspective of the Deuteronomic curse upon Pauline theology, Fredriksen's suggestion requires suitable analysis.

The Hebrew text of Deut 21:23 (qllt'lhym “the curse of God;” RSV: “accursed by God”) is ambiguous, for the phrase could be interpreted as understanding 'lhym as subject, i.e. God does the cursing (so, Targum Neofiti; Vulgate; 11QT6:12), or as object, i.e. someone cursing God (so, Syriac; Targum Onkelos.; mishna Sanhedrin 6.4; Sifre Deut 221: 254). Some translations remain ambiguous (cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan). The Septuagint clarifies the Masoretic Text by interpreting the phrase as “everyone hung upon a tree is accursed by God” (Wevers: 347; cf. Wilcox: 29ff). But uncertainty remains, for it is indeterminate where the precise point lies at which the divine curse is imposed. Does the text claim that the criminal is accursed by God for the crime committed (so, Fredriksen), or that impaling/crucifixion per se brings the curse (or, indeed, that it may even be a combination of the two)?

The problem for exegetes is that the Deuteronomic text is the only point within the Hebrew Bible where the conjunction of divine curse, capital crime, and hanging/impaling occurs. And within a wider purview of curse and crucifixion in the first-century ce, the problems are further compounded by a number of interrelated points: the imposition of a divine curse in the Hebrew Bible is made as often upon incidents unrelated to a capital crime (Gen 3:14; 12:3; 2 Sam 16:5ff; 2 Kgs 2:24; Jer 48:10; Mal 1:14; 2:1, 2; 3:9), as it is upon those crimes warranting capital punishment (Gen 4:11, 8:21; Num 5:11ff; Deut 11:26ff; Prov 3:33; Isa 24:6; Jer 11:8). The impaling/hanging of a body in certain texts was unconnected to a capital offence—a practice employed by both Judeans and Gentiles (on Judeans, Gen 40:19; 1 Sam 31:10; on Gentiles, Josh 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam 4:12). And whereas the Hebrew Bible appears not to endorse the impaling of live victims, the Temple Scroll 11QT 64:6–13 sanctions the live crucifixion of those who commit certain crimes (Fitzmyer 1981; Wilcox). In addition, it appears that Hellenistic Judeans of the New Testament period tended to interpret passages from the Hebrew Bible that originally referred to impalement as referring to live crucifixion (see Josephus, Antiquities 2.73 on Gen 40:19; Antiquities 11.208 on Esther 2.23; Philo, Special Laws 3.152 on Deut 21:22–23; and see further, Thornton: 1972; 1986).

An additional observation involves Christ's crucifixion itself. If Paul, in his post-conversion state, believed that Christ was crucified as Messiah, the corollary must be that he was convicted unfairly and crucified as an innocent man (Dunn: 209–10). Prov 26:2 (“Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest”) would appear to be pertinent in this context but appears to have been overlooked by all, despite the fact that Paul is obviously conversant with this section of Proverbs (cf. Prov 24:12/Rom 2:6; Prov 25:21–22/Rom 12:20). The Proverb may also show an allusion to Deuteronomy 23:5, and in the context of Proverbs 25:27–26:2, replete with honor terminology, the curse may allude to its converse, that of shame. For the apostle to then insist upon the Deuteronomic curse falling upon the crucified Christ (Gal 3:13), implies that Paul believes this to derive ipso facto from the crucifixion. Similarly, a concern of the disciples after Jesus' death was the removal of the body before sunset in accordance with the directive of Deuteronomy 21, for impalement/hanging constituted a polluting of the land, which in the Hebrew Bible normally derived from a divine curse (Gen 3:17; 4:11f; 5:29; 8:21; Deut 28:18ff; Job 24:18; Ps 106:38; Isa 24:6; Jer 23:10; Zech 5:3; Mal 4:6). The only texts referring to the pollution/desecration of the land independent of the divine curse are found in Numbers 35:33; Ezra 9:11; and Ezekiel 39:12ff. If the disciples believed in the innocence (messiahship aside) of Jesus, then the polluting of the land must arise from the curse attached to the crucifixion itself. Consequently, there are numerous subtleties and complexities here, with which Fredriksen does not engage and which need to be more adequately addressed.

Fredriksen's proposition that the cursing of Haman in the story of Esther is due to his guileful role and not to his subsequent hanging/crucifixion is somewhat anomalous and will not be covered in depth. Neither the Masoretic Text nor the Septuagint uses the terminology of “cursing” (or its cognates) towards Haman for his deceitful political machinations; there is no mention of Haman being cursed in Josephus (who gives a narration of the entire story of Esther); and mishna Megillah (4.1–7) makes no reference to Haman, even though the concern of the tractate is with the correct reading of Esther and the citing of benedictions which accompany it (cf. 3.6 on blessings and curses). The earliest extant references to the cursing of Haman appear in Esther Rabba 10.9 (second-century ce) and Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 7b, both of which may have linked such “cursing” to an anti-Christian polemic and to the cursing of Christ (so, Thornton 1986: 423–26). In both of these texts, ambiguity remains over whether Haman is cursed for his crime or for his hanging. Hence, the cursing of Haman in (much) later Judean tradition tells us little about the Hebrew Bible's perception of a divine curse upon hanging/crucifixion, and Fredriksen's attempted retrojection of the “cursing” from such late texts into the Hebrew Bible narrative appears to be unconvincing.

It is without doubt that the Judeans who were put to death for their ancestral traditions under the tyranny of various oppressors were construed as the great heroes of the Judean faith. This is most perspicuous in the Second Temple literature dealing with the Hasmonean period where the works of 2 Maccabees 6–7 and 4 Maccabees 5–18, in particular, detail graphic evidence, albeit markedly polemical, of the horrendous manner in which certain Judean martyrs supposedly suffered and died. These texts also present such Judeans as having died with great honor (2 Macc 6:19, 23, 31; 7:20, 40; 4 Macc 5:35–36; 6:30; cf. 1 Macc 2:49–52, 64). Fredriksen is certainly correct in suggesting that such martyrs were seen as fallen heroes and the narratives may have been conducive to the war of social attrition between Judeans and Gentiles. However, in all of the accounts which specify a particular method of punishment and death, none come by means of crucifixion—the mention of this form of punishment is singularly absent from all of these texts.

Equally, in a comparison of parallel accounts between Josephus and 1 and 2 Maccabees, of the proscription of Judean traditions by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 bce, and the subsequent punishments of those Judeans who reject the king's commands, an interesting perspective emerges. Josephus clearly refers to the live crucifixion of such Judeans,

The parallel account in 1 Maccabees, however is ambiguous on the form of punishment employed:

Here, of those put to death, it is the infants alone who are killed in a way specified by the author (death by hanging). The women, their families, and the “many in Israel” are killed in ways undisclosed to the reader. It is also of interest that, in the wider context, the martyrological or honor-based terminology employed elsewhere (noted above) is markedly absent. Indeed, the account is concluded, simply, by the phrase, “Very great wrath came upon Israel” (1 Macc 1.63).

In 2 Maccabees a slightly different account is presented (perhaps of a single specific incident):

In this text, the punishment for the women is specified as casting down; while death by burning is employed for those Judeans who keep the Sabbath (the babies are possibly killed by hanging—cf. Bauer: 450). Once again, martyr/hero language is absent, and the author's conclusion is simply, “Now I urge those who read this book not to be depressed by such calamities” (2 Macc 6:10–12).

The comparison among the three texts is striking. Josephus presents the use of crucifixion for faithful Judeans, whereas the other accounts, although detailing death by a variety of other means, preclude any mention of crucifixion and omit any reference to such deaths being construed as those of martyrs/heroes. The context of the passage of 2 Maccabees 6:10–12 is of particular interest, for it stands as a prelude to the deaths of Eleazar (6:18–31) and others (7:1–42), all of which are narrated in martyr/hero terminology, but none of whom die by crucifixion. If Fredriksen's thesis were correct, one would surmise that all of the accounts in 2 Maccabees would be treated in a similar way; that is, extolling the virtues and determination of the fallen heroes as examples to be emulated. That they are not, and that they contain striking differences may lead one to assume that the author of 2 Maccabees and the authors of the other works are unprepared to use martyrological language for those faithful Judeans killed by crucifixion. If so, then death by crucifixion may not have been seen positively as a symbol of Judean resistance and it was to be distinguished from all other forms of punishment.

Martin Hengel's analysis as to whether there is any evidence in the ancient Roman world for a non-Christian positive interpretation of death by crucifixion (as in the case of a national martyr or philosopher) leads him to the conclusion that there was not. He writes, “I have not been able to discover a real historical instance … the imagery of crucifixion left no room for a positive interpretation, apart from the admonition which was widespread in antiquity, that each man had to bear his own fate; here too the metaphor was one of horror and abomination” (64, 67–68). Further, he claims,

This is contrary to a number of statements made in a recent monograph by Pickett, who writes:

Pickett goes on to say that

As shown above, death by crucifixion would never be seen in such a positive light.

Fredriksen's point regarding Josephus is an argument from silence and cannot be used to validate her thesis. More usefully, however, one may attempt to ascertain what Josephus recognized as the perception of crucifixion in the minds of Judeans, and one text in particular, allows an interesting perspective on this. After the capture of Jerusalem in 70 ce, the task of subduing the three remaining rebel fortresses (Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada) was given to Lucilius Bassus, and of these it is Josephus' account of the surrender of Machaerus which is of most relevance here. The Judean decision to surrender the city involved an incident surrounding the capture of a young man named Eleazar who had distinguished himself in the city's defense. Josephus writes,

The text is illuminating. It demonstrates the repugnance and horror felt by both the Judean rebels within the city and Eleazar himself towards the impending crucifixion, and it also demonstrates that the Roman general knew this to be the case. On Fredriksen's thesis one may have expected the rebels to have simply refused to surrender the city and, after Eleazar's subsequent crucifixion, to elevate his status into one of martyr/hero. But the opposite is true. Hence, once again, it appears that the cross was not seen positively as a symbol of Judean resistance, and that this was a perception known by the Romans and, perhaps, other Gentiles. Certainly, the peremptory removal and burial of crucified victims before sunset was a Judean tradition well established by the first-century ce (cf. Deut 21:23; Josh 8:29; 10:27; Ezek 39:12ff; John 19:31; 11QT 64:11f.) And later Judean reaction to the crucifixion of Christ, observed in Justin's dialogue with Trypho the Judean, appears to associate it unambiguously with a divine curse. Trypho's piercing criticism of the ignominious death of Christ also remarks upon its shame and lack of honor:

There is, too, the text under contention: Paul's remark to the Galatians (Gal 3:13), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree.’” On this, Georgi (120) writes,

Likewise, Hengel notes,

In sum, Fredriksen presents little substantive evidence for her thesis and does not engage sufficiently enough with the primary texts presented above. There is simply no indication, either in Josephus or in Second Temple literature, that demonstrates that the concept of Judean martyrology applies to those faithful Judeans executed by crucifixion. Rather, it is the sheer horror of the cross that comes to the fore and that precludes any premise of linking it to martyr/hero terminology. Hence, the cumulative evidence of these texts appears to suggest that Fredriksen's basic supposition is incorrect and that the proposition which fits best the evidence is one in which the dimension of the divine curse falling ipso facto upon the crucified holds.

Conclusion

This article has demonstrated the antipathy and social revulsion towards crucifixion. It was considered the most abhorrent method of execution known—an instrument of supreme humiliation, torture, and death. Yet, although many writers recognized that crucifixion was an atrociously cruel form of execution, most simply took it for granted that it was a necessary deterrent to ensure the stability of the Empire. Equally, it was regarded by the Romans, above all, as the servile supplicium, a stark reminder for the humiliores of their ultimate fate should they choose to forget or ignore their social status in life, or make any attempt to undermine the pax Romana (the peace of Rome). But within the categories of honor and shame, crucifixion was also an instrument of unqualified degradation. The stripping naked of the victim, the public spectacle of a slow physical torture to the point of death, the bodily defecation, and the mutilation and devouring of the body by wild animals, were all part of the total and absolute shame imposed upon the victim—all of which would appear to be the primary category of social revulsion. The above texts, which, it must be remembered, present a perception of crucifixion from the view of the cultural elite, say very little of the physical pain of crucifixion but focus, instead, upon the psychological terror and utter humiliation of being publicly put to death in a manner associated with a slave. For many, even the mention of crucifixion or the cross may well have been offensive. To mention the cross regularly, as, for example, the apostle Paul does, and to envisage it as the instrument of God's glory would perhaps have sounded monstrous and detestable.

It is difficult with an encrustation of two thousand years of Christian cross-centred theology to perceive the disgust of Paul's proclamation of the cross to his first-century audience. But such a proposition was so offensive and preposterous as to invite outrage and persecution. And, of course from a Judean perspective the disgust with crucifixion was compounded further by the fact that the crucified had the horror of falling under a divine curse. In short, within a first-century ce milieu dominated by the lust for honor and status, the cross represented, for both Gentile and Judean, the public degradation of an individual to the limits of cultural imagination. Little wonder that Artemidorus in the mid/late 2^nd century ce could write, “Thoughts of crucifixion seemed to have caused nightmares even for those who ran no risk of such punishment” (Oneircritica 152.4, quoted in MacMullen: 207).