Christ, Cross Experiments
Friday March 25, 2005
I was just reading on MSNBC about new experiments performed to test how Christ was crucified. Apparently the actor playing the Christ part couldn’t lift a traditional Latin cross, which at 380lbs was simply too heavy. They hypothesize that convicts carried the T-bar only, and the roman soldiers on site fitted it on the main pole and hammered the poor victim into place. This is supported by graffiti found from 1st century Rome (can you believe that still exists?!) which suggests the T cross. The article finishes with saying that the National Geographic team is now moving on to the mysteries of the Holy Grail. Here’s my take…
According to Wikipedia, the Holy Grail was the item that captured Christ’s blood as he died on the cross. This was confused many times over the years with the Holy Chalice, the item Christ drank from at the Last Supper. But all of this is STILL Christian Mythology. The stories rose to legendary proportions during the 12th and 13th centuries, especially connected with Arthur and his Knights. We all know of those stories, but even then, Arthur is mythical.
There are some literary points where the Grail is mentioned that we need to cover though, so let’s run through them.
- A two-handled silver chalice was kept in Jerusalem, the pilgrim Arculf saw it, ca 680, as well as the Lance.
- A 13th century reference to a copy of the Grail kept in Constantinople, captured during the Fourth Crusade and taken back to France. It was recorded to be there in 1610 but disappeared in the French revolution. It should be noted that this was a richly adorned item.
- Two survive to this day, one in Genoa, an Egyptian glass dish accepted as a prize of war by the Genoans, this was only identified to be the Grail later on. The other, an agate cup in the Cathedral of Valencia, with an Arabic inscription, first mentioned in 1399.
Ok so I diluted all the evidence down to the basic facts but I think I have established a pattern here. We all know the Catholic church reached the zenith of its power during the Middle Ages, the fact that the Genoans took a glass bowl in lieu of massive amounts of gold tells you something about this.
But what this really is is the adulation of Christ. Christ being King in Heaven, the Catholics of that age believed He was Kingly in real life. Massive arguments have occurred over this, how many church councils were called to discuss minutiae like this? This is codswallop (don’t you love that word?) - mythological sentiment only.
Christ was a carpenter, He was not rich, He had the clothes on His back and the power of His convictions, and that’s pretty much it. Treated as a criminal, He was one of the few that were “buried” after crucifixion. So it is likely His friends and family were in similar positions. Any bowl, plate, chalice they owned would not be made of emerald, agate, gold, encrusted with jewels or written with arabic inscriptions. They had simple materials, wood, clay, stone.
And let us not forget that Jerusalem in the 60’s-70’s AD was not a pleasant place to be, the Romans sacked it after a brutal war. It changed hands many times afterwards, how many Crusades came and went? How many Overlords did they endure? Let’s be realistic here, the Wailing Wall is the retaining wall of the Temple, and it only survived because the blocks of stone are so damned massive!
The likelihood is, IMHO, that the “Grail” was lost, destroyed or thrown away as inconsequential. The Church leaders, even as greedy and self-involved, self-important, and narrow-minded, as some were, were not ALL stupid. Some realized that they needed something to inspire faith - thus the stories of the Holy Grail started to circulate. Popes, Bishops, Priests, did nothing to stop them, because they needed something for everyone to focus on, and something to preach about.
I don’t believe it exists. I believe it might have. But there is the crux of the matter isn’t it? Belief. Belief in the Lord, and belief in His suffering, and that that suffering spared the rest of us from Hell on Earth. And if you want something else to compare it to, try this: how many beds exist from the time of the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne? Probably made of wood, they would have been used a lot, maybe passed down to children, but I doubt any still exist. The early Christians were concerned about preserving the Church, their beliefs, not with enshrining a cup or chalice, and oh yes - escaping the clutches of Romans would wanted to put them on crosses and use them as torches in Rome.










Comments • [feed]
Comment 1
Well gosh Rich if you’re going to be doing that much thinking about jesus, then let me give you another factor to add into it and think about…
The literal translation from the greek word STAUROS (new testament) wasn’t “CROSS” at all… it was “STAKE”… which was used to describe all kinds of shapes of pieces of wood. Someone changed the translation to cross, whoever translated it… martin luther? Anyway, that’s just one mistranslation of many from the bible. Put that in yer hat and give it a whirl, lol.
mel commented on March 25th, 2005
Comment 2 [ Administrator Reply ]
Greek was used predominantly in the Eastern Roman Empire, and particularly in the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor Constantine, who was the first Emperor to convert to Christianity was a big pilgrim, travelling to the Holy Lands and erecting numerous basilicae and edifices to Christ. If anything the early bibles of the day would be in Greek, then translated later on into Latin as the _Roman_ Empire converted.
If you take a look at the MSNBC article you will find a link to the “graffito” found in Rome from the 1st century AD, showing a T-bar “cross”. So I think, that if that is the case, that the early Greek transcribers simply used a word (like you said) to describe any kind of wood, or stake, or beam, or pole etc., Also, to be fair, the people back then weren’t exactly precise when it came to grammar, and Greek was still evolving a little (take a look at the word “sebete” from that graffito for example).
But, something interesting cropped up a few months back which I should mention. It was about the King James’ Bible. When it was originally written it had been translated from an earlier version, either Greek or Latin. What the scholar who had written the article had found was that the translator “missed” words out because he didn’t think they were “necessary”. In particular, he omitted several “The” words because of inconsistency with his current view of that Christian world at that time (which should be noted was the early Protestant view, trying to separate themselves from the Catholic view). So yes, translators take liberties because of what THEY think things should be
rich commented on March 26th, 2005
Comment 3
For instance…. In the bible where it says that it would be easier to fit a camel into the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven (something like that)… this was translated from hebrew in the old testament… the hebrew word for camel is indeed GAMAL, but the hebrew word for ROPE is also GAMAL with an apostrophe somewhere in there, i can’t remember exactly where but which makes more sense? Camel or Rope? hehe
mel commented on March 26th, 2005
Comment 4 [ Administrator Reply ]
So it would be fitting a rope through the eye of a needle? That makes more sense, that’s for sure!
They are showing something on the Discovery channel right now, fascinating stuff, about the early life of Jesus, what Caesarea looked like and so on. The original greek for manger was “lower room”, not “inn”, so they think that Jesus’ family went to stay with relatives, and there was no room in the upper room, so they stayed in the lower room… that also makes a lot more sense.
rich commented on March 26th, 2005
Comment 5
Yes it sure does. Here’s another one for you. What about his name? Why was the spelling and pronunciation changed from Yeshua to Jesus? I mean think about it, aren’t the other names in the bible still pretty much the same? Moses, Mary, Noah and all the others? Here’s an excerpt from an article I read:
“Yeshua, a variant of Joshua, is the Hebrew name for Jesus, and is the true way his name was spoken. “Jesus” is the warped English pronunciation of the Greek word “Iesous.” And “Jesus Christ,” is a Greek phrase, coined by Paul. To say Yeshua’s name the way his friends, family and students would have spoken it, would be “Yeshua haMoshiach.” Pronounced Ye-SHU-ah ha Mah-SHEE-ock. It means Yeshua the Messiah, or the literal translation: Yeshua the Anointed One. But since he didn’t go about bragging that he was the Messiah, he might have gone by Yeshua the Teacher or Master Yeshua (Rabbi or Rabboni).
In Greek, the name for Jesus– Iesous –is very similar to the name Zeus. When Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire back in the 300’s A.D., the people didn’t want to give up Zeus and other pagan gods. Constantine couldn’t bear to tear down the famous statues of Zeus in the Temples in Rome and Athens. So he instructed his new Christian priests to simply rename them as Jesus. All statues of Zeus were turned into Jesus! Early images of what Jesus looked like were heavily influenced by the traditional bearded appearance of Zeus.”
mel commented on March 27th, 2005
Comment 6 [ Administrator Reply ]
Here’s another little fun tidbit - historians believe that the long haired/bearded image of Jesus is completely wrong. Like you said, they used previous images to fit Him in with them. Being a carpenter, it is unlikely he had long hair anyway, because of the tools and the work involved. But hey, it DOES look good on the medieval paintings…
rich commented on March 27th, 2005
Comment 7
RE: the matter of stake, check out http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/symbol_cross.htm
to see that “stake” is only half the truth.
Tai commented on August 6th, 2005
This blog requires you to login before replying. If you do not have an account you can create one (for free!).