Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Islam and the Crucifixion of Jesus

This page is about the crucufixion as a method of the execution. We need not get into a religious discussion about the fate of Jesus Christ if He was Crucified or not.

For the purpose of this article I need its fair to mention the Cross significance to the Christians. But its not this place to mention other religions point of view regarding the cross. These points of view can be expressed in the Jesus article. --Thameen 15:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross. Nor do they believe that he was crucified. Instead, the Qur'an states that his death and crucifixion was only an illusion (done by God) to deceive his enemies, and that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven.[15]
That they said (in boast) "We killed the Messiah Isa the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for, of a surety they killed him not. (Qur'an 4:157-158)
See the wikipedia article on Jesus for more on the Islamic view of Jesus. [1]--Thameen 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
About crucifixion of Jesus in Islam (so including also Bible, older Holy Book) and Qur´an:
That they said (in boast) "We killed the Messiah Isa the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for, of a surety they killed him not. (Qur'an 4:157-158)
Interpretations about meanings of words in Qur´an have produced many theories during centuries, here is just one (justified by Bible in this cited article, written by editor of this article, from this link: [2]):
Abdul-Rahman Karim Omar S. (”Kai”, Finland), 2003-2004. On this (Islamic) theory Jesus was understood to be dead for all but God as he said that he will be "gone", so "dead" for disciples f.ex., and so came true prophecy about his "death" (human-view), and also words of Holy Quran about him not dying into crucifixion by Jews (what Allah knows). Possible in both ways, as that (Quran 4:157) “…but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them...” meant possibly that they (Romans/Jews) did not KILL him by crucifixion, as crucifixion is supposed to end up to death (and so there actually were no crucifixion at all in fact), as it was God that took life of Jesus before broking of feet-bones that caused death of crucified, or possible also in a way that God took “soul” of Jesus out before/from cross leaving someone else into body of Jesus (“resembling” or “similarity” to Jesus, “so it was made to appear to them”).
“Kai” claims that Matt.7:7-11, Matt.26:39 and Luke11:9-13 give evidence that neither Jesus/God wanted/allowed crucifixion to take place, neither Deut.13:5/21:22-23+Hosea 6:6+Matt.9:13+Matt.12:7 connected. And he also claims that parallel referring to Jonah in the belly of the whale for 3 days as alive, and Jesus connecting himself into it, is meaning similarity to disappearing of Jesus for 3 days (alive too meanwhile as Jonah), and that it is “only sign given to this generation” by Jesus to confirm message of Quran.
He also proposed that John 20:14-16 and Luke 24:30-31 could refer to new body he received, as he was not recognized by disciplines, and that “doubtful Thomas” were not said to have touched his wounds, only asking to show them (and then collapsed because there were none). Jesus appearing in flesh that could be touched is final proof in Luke 20:36-37+24:36-43 about his “death”. So resurrection could even be in 2nd coming. (source:[3], written by editor of this article)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul-Rahman Karim Omar S. (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 November 2006

Sources

Modern crucifixion section and part of famous crucifixion needs sources. In particular, the World War I crucifixion story was almost certainly just a propaganda. Taw 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Alot of missing Crucifixion data?!

Why not add these unfortunate folks and gods?

Why not add this list? What do you think? Is there any compelling reason why we shouldn't? H0riz0n 17:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why these aren't listed is because most of them never happened. Quezalcoatl? Seriously? I'm not sure where that date of Prometheus came from since he was supposed to be a Titan and should have been around way before that. "Zeus then punished him for his crime by having him bound to a rock while a great eagle ate his liver every day only to have it grow back to be eaten again the next day." For, Hesus "According to the Berne Commentary on Lucan, human victims were sacrificed to Esus (Hesus) by being tied to a tree and flailed." I got those two quotes from their respective pages. Attis's situation is a funny one. One story he died under a tree, the other story he died and turned into a tree, and then other one was about a Satyr who got tied to one and got cut up or flailed. (Flayed or flailed?)There is a celebration in Roman times from the mid fourth century that has Attis tied to a tree and paraded around because... well how else are they going to show Attis and a tree? What this looks like is you got this list from Christ-myther site. I'm not denying that a lot of people in the ancient world were crucified. They certainly were. I've read the article. Anyway, the reason this list was created was not to accurately report what actually happened, but in order to further some certain nonsense (they are, look it up) ideas. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Because the article is about Crucufixtion as a means of execution, and the cultural significance of the practice to Roman, Christian, and Islamic cultures (add others if the form of execution is culturally significant to them), and not a comprehensive list of everyone who was, might have been, or should have been crucified. Heck - even though christianity is mentioned in the article (and it has been discussed whether it should be - maybe crucifixion and "The Crucifixion" should be seperate articles) not all the prominent christians who were crucified because it was significant to their religion are mentioned. If you want to go off and write List of people who have been crucified, go ahead. - Vedexent 17:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't some of those in the list pre-date when crucifixion existed an execution method? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.182.211 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 January 2007
Add the survivors of the Third Servile War to the list. Tom129.93.17.213 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Scourging

The article says that it was common practice to scourge the condemned prior to crucifixion. This is the first I've heard of it. Jesus of Nazareth was scourged beforehand but that was Pontious Pilate's attempt to appease the Sanhedrin and their mob. Anyone got any sources to say that scourging or flogging was a common preamble to nailing to the cross? If not, then I think that bit should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.108.117.3 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 April 2006

I have a Taschen photography book depicting a crucifixion in Japan in the 1800s. The individual doesn't appear to have been scourged. I think the entire topic is written in way too christian-centric a manner and ought to be rewritten from a neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfelia (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I also heard that the scourging on Jesus is illegal (in the view of Roman's law) at the time Jesus was crufixed. And, how can a scournged person carry a cross which is over 150 lb in weight? This is really impossible! So, I support that scourging before crufix to be removed if there is no evidence to support that.--Jacob grace 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Going on nothing but the Christian Bible one would know that Roman Law forbad both the scourging on Jesus and the crucifixion. Being born in a Roman controlled area to registered parents Roman considered him a citizen. This same law was used by Paul (Saul) to get out of a tight spot with Roman goveners after he outraged the Jews (book of Acts, he was later beheaded in Rome, as befitted his station in life. See article for more on that topic.). There is no evidence that scourging prior to crusifixion was common Roman practice (that I know of). Perhas a "citation needed" tag needs to go arround that bit.
Additionally the later paragraphs appear to do the old trick of almost starting the topic again lower down and they contradict the earlier paragraph with thier NPoV. The only christian that the (potential) error could be centric to would be a very badly educated one (the most vocal I find but that is another story). --Lord Matt 07:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not every locally-born inhabitant of the Roman Empire was a Roman citizen: "That character ... placed (Paul) amid the aristocracy of any provincial town. In the first century, when the citizenship was still jealously guarded, the civitas may be taken as a proof that his family was one of distinction and at least moderate wealth" (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/paul_roman.v.html Paul's Nationality). (For those who do not know Latin, it may be necessary to explain that the word "civitas" means the quality of being a "civis", a citizen.) Jesus was not thus privileged.
I do not understand Lord Matt's second comment (or indeed the occasion for his first comment). The article is about crucifixion in general, with only passing references to the most famous recounted crucifixion, that of Jesus. Lima 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the article be reworded to say that, while it's not clear that ALL people who were crucified by the Romans were flogged, the following links contain passages by writers from the ancient Roman period indicating that scourging was in at least some cases a prelude to a Roman crucifixion:
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/revolt.html (Josephus: "For Florus dared what none had done before: to scourge before the tribunal and nail to a cross men of equestrian rank, who---even if born as Jews---were Roman (citizens) at least in status.")
http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/00098353/sp050529/05x2543u/0.pdf?backcontext=page&dowhat=Acrobat&config=jstor&userID=827d3c7b@unine.ch/01c0a80a6700501b92f42&0.pdf

("Acilius Glabro... scourged and crucified the ringleaders..." (on the 5th page of the pdf file))

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/crossfacts.htm (cites a few sources mentioning scourging before crucifixion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.125.60.123 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria - very misleading

Other reports suggest that crucifixion has been making a comeback in such fundamentalist Muslim nations as Nigeria and Yemen.

I must say it is very misleading to label Nigeria as a "fundamentalist Muslim nation." On the contrary, Nigeria is sharply divided between Christian and Muslim. The current president is a Christian. If crucifixions are indeed occurring among any particular ethnic or religious groups in Nigeria, it should be further clarified, rather that mistakenly labeling the whole country as "Muslim fundamentalist." rvinall 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If no one else makes a suggestion or has an idea on how to clarify this issue, I'm going to completely remove the reference to Nigeria, as it doesn't work in it's current form. rvinall 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to Nigeria, because the country at a whole does not fit the label of "fundamentalist Muslim." Again, if there is any evidence of crucifixion occurring among certain groups in Nigeria, please cite the evidence and state it in an appropriate way. rvinall 03:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam and crucifixion

One can only conclude that the author of the Qur'an made a grave error when he said this, as crucifixion was still roughly 1400 years away.

The individual who wrote this about the Qu'ran and crucifixion obviously had the intention to degrade Islam! The area of the article that has to do with Islam and crucifixion is not a NPOV and was placed there for the purpose of degrading judging by the way that the editor wrote it.

A link concerning crucifixion in ancient Egypt and in the Qu'ran: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulmajid28 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 20 April 2006

The problem with the islamic-awareness link, is that it's relying heavily on that impaling is the same as crucifying someone.

FYI - Impaling someone on a spike is not the same as crucifying someone, so as far as history is concerned, the ancient Egyptians never crucified anyone, so if the koran or not says that two Pharaoh's are going to crucify someone, before crucifixion was even around (especially the word - perhaps it could mean "impale" rather than crucify?) then in all honesty, it is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swalchy (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2006

I don't want to get into a religious argument, but I have an issue with organization. If these verses don't refer to crucifixion, refering actually to impaling or whatever, then this section does not belong in an article about crucifixion. If the verses do, then the section belongs but the Qur'an is incorrect and I can find nothing wrong with making a conclusionary remark. However, the removed remark was indeed slanderous. The appropriate remark should be factual but not insulting. However, since that's sounds just about impossible, I think the section should just be removed/merged elsewhere. --Ephilei 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, almost all the ancient forms of crucifixions involved some kind of impalement on a stake. Herodotus' famous account of how Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners, involves usage of the word "aneskolopise" which comes from the verb "anaskolopizô" meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale". Martin Hengel in his "The Cross of The Son of God" states that "All attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain" [p. 117] as there exists numerous possibilities depending upon the whims of the executioner. Clearly, this does not exlude the impalement and the Islamic wesbite has clearly shown that crucifixion by impaling people on a stake existed in ancient Egypt. In the literature, crucifixion and impalement are used inter-changeably. --WAP4 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If this is true, then Impalement and Crucifixion ought to be merged. However, as long as we are writing an English encyclopedia, we ought to conform to English definitions, where crucifixion is an upright act causing death by asphyxiation and impalment is simply an object passing through a person's body. Perhaps in ancient lit there are interchangeable, but this not ancient literature. Ultimately, it appears the Islamic section began as a way to discredit Islam which was illigimate to begin with. Just because a holy book uses the word "crucifixion" does not warrant having a whole section devoted to it. Acording to you, the verses have been mistranslated anyway and should read "impalement" which eliminates any reason for their presence here. I think it very appropriate to move teh sectino to Impalment. --Ephilei 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at some of the references on crucifixion and they do not conform to your definition, i.e., "an upright act causing death by asphyxiation". Interestingly, enough Assyrians also practiced crucifixion as cited by encyclopaedias (Encyclopaedia Judaica, for example) and other literature. If you look at their form of crucifixion, it involved putting a stake through a private parts or their chest. The latter one has interesting similarities with the hieroglyph mention at the Islamic website. You can see the pictures of this form of Assyrian crucifixion in Pritchard's "The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament". In any case, the link to the Islamic website on crucifixion in Egypt is quite useful and quite scholarly. They have included a variety of material on crucifixion and have shown that crucifixion and impalement are one and the same.

--WAP4 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I don't care about the Qur'an accuracy in this matter (at least for now); I care only about the organization of this article. However, if you continue to insist they are historically identical, then let's merge the two articles. I'll make the proposal. --Ephilei 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood me too. I am not bothered about the Qur'anic accuracy here either. I am insisting that crucifixion and impalement are identical because of how the scholars have dealt with it in the past; for which I will supplied copious justification. --WAP4 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Details of crucifiction

Can someone provide sources that cliam victims of crucifictions were sourged, or forced to carry their own cross? As far as I know, none of these, beside being attributed to Jesus' execution, were "standard procedures". As for carrying the cross, the victims, in any case, were most likely carrying the main log, and not the "cross" (a misleading term). The cross itself was assembled at the place of execution. Again, I ask for sources on what is the current version. 82.139.47.117 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A problem I have with the details of the remains found in 1968. The article states that fragments of olive wood were found on the nail... The body dates to the roman empire? If that is so they would NOT have used olive wood as a crucifix, as Roman Law states anyone harming an olive tree would be subject to death. (This is due to Roman's heavy reliance on olives and olive oil, as food and renewable energy for oil lamps.) The only way I could see this happening is if the victim was found guilty of cutting down the tree they made the cross from to crucify him... Is there any further documentation of this person's life aside what was written on the ossuary he was found in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.142.89 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Survival

There has recently, especially since the publication of the Fictional story of the da Vinci Code, been raised the possibility that survival of crucifixion was possible. Under Roman law, this is not so. The Military code imposed on crucifixion details stipulated that if a victim of crucifixion was found to be alive, his legs would be broken to ensure his death. If he were taken down from the cross and found to be alive, the Centurion in charge would take his place on the cross. As may well be understood, the Centurions detailed to supervise these executions made very sure that, if their victims were taken down rather than being left to rot, they were definitely dead. Hence the spear through the side of Jesus, even though He was seen to be dead. No-one survived a Roman crucifixion.--Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Split article

It would be helpful if an article existed about crucifixion in general, not just the crucifixion. I propose this article be renamed The Crucifixion and leave Crucifixion to describe soley the Roman execution method (with a disambiguation link, of course.) I'm aware these similar titles could be confusing, so please suggest other possible titles. --Ephilei 21:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenians

File:Armenianwomencrucified.jpg

I added the bit about Armenians being crucified by Turks during the Armenian Genocide. I know this is a sensitive issue for Turks and Armenians and is likely to be edited and expanded to POV or taken out if a biased individual sees it. Not being familiar with the policy of uploading pictures myself, I found this picture on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article and was wondering if it can be used at all to show the modern use of crucifixion as a means of execution. Woogums 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Impalement

This is a sequel of the above conversation Islam and Crucifixion. The crux of the issue (ha ha) seems to be whether crucifixion and impalement are historically identical. Admittedly, I'm no expert on either; I'm just using what I'm reading. Here are what I observe to be differences that make them different and therefore meriting seperate articles:

  • Cause of death Crucifixion causes asphyxiation; impalement causes blood loss and/or rupturing crucial organs
  • Means of support In crucifixion, the victum is bound or nailed by the hands and feet. In impalement, the structure itself is lodged within the body
  • Shape Crucifixion: a "†", "T" or "X"; impalement: a vertical stake "l"
  • Meriam-Webster defines crucifixion as "1 : to put to death by nailing or binding the wrists or hands and feet to a cross" and impalement as: a : to pierce with or as if with something pointed; especially : to torture or kill by fixing on a sharp stake b : to fix in an inescapable or helpless position." They are not listed as synonyms of each other.

What are the opinions of others? --Ephilei 06:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I think they should remain separate. The acts are suitably different from each other to warrant separate articles, and enough historic and cultural literature exists to create adequate and unique articles for both. Woogums 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though I feel that crucifixion and impalement served the same purposes (along with drawing and quartering: they were a slow and gruesome form of public torture and execution), they're different enough that I think they deserve separate articles. Kasreyn 08:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most impalements are on a straight stake, not a cross; most crucifixions lack empalement, so the cause of death is asphixiation rather then wounds Fastifex 10:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I have mentioned it before and I will restate the reasons why crucifixion and impalement should be merged. The reasons are historical. Encyclopaedia Brittanica under "Crucifixion" says: "an important method of capital punishment, particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD... In 519 BC Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon." Herodotus' famous account of how Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners, involves usage of the word "aneskolopise" which comes from the verb "anaskolopizô" meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale". Similarly the Encyclopaedia Judaica says that "there are reports of crucifixions from Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Punic, and Roman sources". If you look at the Assyrian sources in Pritchard's "The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament" crucifixion involved putting a stake through a private parts or their chest. In the Egyptian sources, the crucifixion involved impaling a person through the chest with a stake, as shown by the hieroglyphic determinative (figure 1) at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

As for the actual act of crucifixion, Martin Hengel in his "The Cross of The Son of God" states that "All attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain" [p. 117] as there exists numerous possibilities depending upon the whims of the executioner. He then gives the testimony of Seneca. In summary (I could get more references!), my reasons for including impalement and crucifixion under the same heading are historical. Scholars have treated them this way in the past; and I have already given examples to show that such is the case. WAP4 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I think that this information is relevant to the sources on both articles. But you really don't think that the two differing definitions of impalement and crucifixion imply enough differentiation? I think another section in the article, maybe "historical similarities to other execution methods" could put a lot of this information to really good use. But I think that keeping the articles separate would do no harm, and that merging them would simply cause confusion if someone types in impalement and is redirected instead to crucifixion. In the modern senses of each word, they really aren't the same thing. -- Woogums 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the root of the problem is that the Qur'an translation uses the word "crucifixion" incorrectly and should use the word "impalement." Thus WAP4 feels he must defend the Qur'an by showing the two are synonomous. I support defending one's beliefs, but when such defense gets in the way of creating an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot be expected to take a back seat. The discussion is, however, relevant on Criticism of Islam or something related.

The only evidence I see you giving is that Britannica used "crucifixion" for an event that Herodotus called "impalement." However, if you read the entire entry in Brittanica, you'll read that the entire description given totally contradicts the act of impalement; thus, it is the apparent opinion of Brittanica that "crucifixion" does not refer to impalment. The connection with Herodotus' connection is probably a mistake by Britannica or other authorities disagree with Herodotus. What you really need is a dictionary or scholar saying the two are equivalent in English. --Ephilei 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus, who says that Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon, is a sort of a standard reference when it comes to the discussion of crucifixion in literature. I am surprised that you simply dismissed it by calling it a "mistake" and that too with no evidence at all. What about the Encyclopaedia Judaica? It mentions Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians involved in crucifixion. These people used impalement as a method of execution. Is this a "mistake" too by the Encyclopaedia Judaica? As far as the Britannica is concerned, it is describing the crucifixion in Roman times; a time when a cross-beam was in use. As for when the cross-beam was introduced, nobody knows for sure. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the scholarly literature on crucifixion before embarking on a project like this.

Lastly, I am not here to defend the Quran or the Islamic website and it is not my concern here; but credit to them is due because of their scholarly approach to the issue of crucifixion. In fact, they give more scholarly information on the issue of crucifixion than what you can find on Wikipedia. --WAP4 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's better to have the information given on Darius' "crucifixions" qualified in one or both of the articles by this research rather than merging them entirely. Saying "there is large amounts of archaeological evidence in favor that these people were actually impaled" would serve our purposes better than merging the articles for two acts that differ quite starkly. If they were merged it might even warrant renaming the article to "archaic execution methods" or something. --Woogums 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
But the problem does not end with adding qualifications to Darius' "crucifixions". You still have to account for the "crucifixions" of Assyrians and ancient Egyptians which were impalements, just like the one by Darius. What I suggest is to simply say that the earlier forms of crucifixions were simple impalements and in the Roman times they became more elaborate with a cross-beam. Even in this form of crucifixion, some part of the body has to be impaled to support rest of the body mass. --WAP4 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
WAP4, you misunderstood me. I meant that you have not produced anyone claiming that crucifixion and impalement refer to the same act except Saifullah. Just because Enc. Jud says crucifixions existed in Egypt and another source says impalements existed in Egypt, does not mean they are equalivent! (BTW, Egypt belonged to the Roman Empire, so of course they had crucifixions.) And just because Enc Brit says Darius performed crucifixion and Herodotus says Darius performed impalements, does not Enc Brit believes they are the same. Simply do this: provide a source that says "impalement is a form of crucifixion" or vice versa. So far there is one source, Saifullah. His article clearly has an agenda to show the Qur'an is historically accurate, so I find it hard to believe him. I only skimmed his article, but I could not find a single source that he quotes that says "impalement is a form of crucifixion." He merely mentions it throughout (without references) as if it did not require proving. I admit I'm not a scholar of crucifixion, but I have a keen sense of logic. Saifullah essentially is playing a simple word game, hidden amongst vast and useless quotes. I hope Muslims take articles like his as scholarship.

One good stradegy in word games is to quote other languages to make yourself look smart. However, that is a gross over-simplification since ἀνασκολοπε is translated "crucify" and "impale depending on (apparently) the translator. In all the examples I have read, I have not come across any descriptions of ἀνασκολοπε, only the word itself. Please let me know if you have read any descriptive contexts. Also, I have looked all over and cannot find the primary source of Herodotus' account of these 3000 deaths or even a translation. Can anyone help?

The issue is simple. What do the words mean? I think we agree that impale means "to pierce with or as if with something pointed" and this something is a stake in the ground. Now what does crucifixion mean? Does it ever refer to a stake entering a person's body?

Brittanica: "usually . . . [the prisoner] was bound fast with outstretched arms to the crossbeam or nailed firmly to it through the wrists."
Academic American Encyclopedia: "hung from a crossbar astride an upright peg . . . no vital organs were damaged."
Wiktionary: execution by being nailed or tied to an upright cross and left to hang there until dead.
Princeton Worldnet: the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross
Oxford Companion to the Bible: "The act of nailing or binding a person to a cross or tree, whether for executing or for exposing the corpse."
Anchor Bible Dictionary: "The act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake (stauros or skolops) or a tree (xylon)."

Our job is not to find discover the ancient relation in Classical Greek between impalement and crucifixion. In fact, original research is strictly forbidden. Our job is to read the literature and reproduce it. There is no literature that refers impalement as a form of crucifixion - therefore Wikipedia should not present such an idea. As Woogums said, in modern usage they are not the same. --Ephilei 03:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

According to you, I have not shown any evidence which says that impalement and crucifixion are one and the same. This is rather strange. When I showed you the evidence of Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners, involves usage of the word "aneskolopise" which comes from the verb "anaskolopizô" meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale", your first reaction was to dismissed it by calling it a "mistake" in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica states under "Crucifixion": "In 519 BC Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon." It was also pointed out to you that the Encyclopaedia Judaica also mentions Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians involved in crucifixion. A quick check at the primary references reveals that they all impaled people. Obviously you did not like it and you said tried to deflect the issue by saying that it "does not mean they are equalivent", i.e., crucifixion and impalement. The only excuse (sorry for using this word!) was that a "good stradegy in word games is to quote other languages to make yourself look smart". Let us now turn out attention to Herodotus' account of Darius is the original language and to see where exactly your position stands.

3.159. [1] Βαβυλὼν μέν νυν οὕτω τὸ δεύτερον αἱρέθη. Δαρει̂ος δὲ ἐπείτε ἐκράτησε τω̂ν Βαβυλωνίων, του̂το μὲν σφέων τὸ τει̂χος περιει̂λε καὶ τὰς πύλας πάσας ἀπέσπασε: τὸ γὰρ πρότερον ἑλὼν Κυ̂ρος τὴν Βαβυλω̂να ἐποίησε τούτων οὐδέτερον: του̂το δὲ ὁ Δαρει̂ος τω̂ν ἀνδρω̂ν τοὺς κορυφαίους μάλιστα ἐς τρισχιλίους ἀνεσκολόπισε, τοι̂σι δὲ λοιποι̂σι Βαβυλωνίοισι ἀπέδωκε τὴν πόλιν οἰκέειν.

The transliteration of which is:

[3.159.1] Babulôn men nun houtô to deuteron hairethê. Dareios de epeite ekratêse tôn Babulôniôn, touto men spheôn to teichos perieile kai tas pulas pasas apespase: to gar proteron helôn Kuros tên Babulôna epoiêse toutôn oudeteron: touto de ho Dareios tôn andrôn tous koruphaious malista es trischilious aneskolopise, toisi de loipoisi Babulônioisi apedôke tên polin oikeein.

The translation reads:

[3.159.1] Thus was Babylon the second time taken. Having mastered the Babylonians, Darius destroyed their walls and reft away all their gates, neither of which things Cyrus had done at the first taking of Babylon; moreover he impaled about three thousand men that were prominent among them; as for the rest, he gave them back their city to dwell in. [A. D. Godley (Trans.), Herodotus (In Four Volumes), 1963, Volume II (Books III and IV), William Heinemann Ltd. & Harvard University Press, pp. 193-195]

This is Herodotus' famous account of how Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners. Note that the English translation uses the word "impaled" which is the translation of the Greek word anaskolopise from the verb anaskolopizô meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale". http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lookup=a)neskolo/pise&author=hdt.&embed=2

Perhaps this does not need any further explanation from me. Now let us turn to another of your arguments which says "Egypt belonged to the Roman Empire, so of course they had crucifixions". Of course, you do not have evidence to support your views. The Islamic website mentions the evidence of crucifixion some 1000 years before the advent of Roman Empire in Egypt using primary sources! Interestingly, if we look at the hebrew word "talah" in the "Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture", it says "to hang any one on a stake, to crucify" and gives the evidence of Egyptians in Genesis 40:19 [1881, Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, p. dccclxv]. Genesis 40:19 deals with the story of Joseph in ancient Egypt. Similarly, Smith's Bible Dictionary under "Crucifixion" says http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=sbd&q=crucifixion:

Crucifixion was in use among the Egyptians, (Genesis 40:19); the Carthaginians, the Persians, (Esther 7:10); the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death.

In any case, your Egyptian argument does not appear to favor you either.

What about Assyrians who are also cited frequently in the literature to crucify their enemies? If one looks at the Assyrian sources in Pritchard's "The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament" crucifixion involved putting a stake through a private parts or their chest.

In all the three cases what the scholars have considered as crucifixions are in fact impalements of some sort, either on a stake or with a stake. It certainly shows that you have not studied the primary sources well enough to grasp the issue. You are trying to compensate your illiteracy in the aspects of crucifixion in ancient world with your apparently "keen" sense of logic.

Another issue that you frequently bring is this guy Saifullah as my only source of evidence. Well, you can compare my references with the references which Saifullah has cited and see how closely they are related. You will certainly have a good chance to show your "keen" sense of logic here.

According to Martin Hengel (Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at the University of Tübingen) in his "The Cross of The Son of God" "All attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain" [p. 117] as there exists numerous possibilities depending upon the whims of the executioner. He then gives the testimony of Seneca. So, there exists no perfect definition of crucifixion. In fact, Saifullah and others charge you with hiding "amongst vast and useless quotes" which do not even dwell into the primary sources. At least Saifullah has shown from the primary sources from ancient Egypt of what he is supporting. As for you, you are only left with your "keen" sense of logic. Sorry, but this does not help!

Now we have to make decisions here based on scholarly works and not on ones own whims and fancies. So, let us come to an agreeable conclusion and start the modification. I will make suggestions after others have done so. --WAP4 11:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is all very fascinating, but what does it have to do with the widely understood modern definitions of these terms? Of what notability is this dispute over what Darius did? Put it down as a passing reference in one or the other of the articles. It's not even remotely convincing enough for something so drastic as a merge. Kasreyn 11:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WAP4, please read or reread WP:CIVIL and stop insulting me; it's not helping anything. As Kasreyn pointed out, all these historical insights are irrelevant concerning the title of the page. Accord to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Article naming should give priority to what the majority of English and speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. and Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Hendel and Herodotus don't represent the general audience or majority of English speakers. This is shown by dictionaries and encyclopedias, which I've been quoting since the beginning, and by English speakers, all of whom have identified crucifixion and impalement as different.

Also, since you have so much knowledge on the subject, why don't you edit the article itself, thus doing something constructive? There's certainly enough to warrant an entire section on the relation between crucifixion and impalement! And thanks for the Herodotus reference just because I was looking for it forever. --Ephilei 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose WAP4, first of all, though Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians are all involved in crucifixion, and are all involved in impalement, it does not mean they are the same, just like they all use iron and bronze, but iron and bronze are different. Concluding so is a violation of Wikipedian policy, so you will simply have to find a source that says they are in fact the same. Second, please do not make any personal attacks. Personal attacks will not help improve the article. Third, impalement and crucifixion are clearly different things, at least in modern times. If you crucify someone you also impale him, which explains the sources, but if you impale someone it does not mean you crucified him. Aranherunar 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The straw vote has been 5 to 1 opposing the merge. I think we can call that consensus. Also, information should be added noting the historic similarity between crucifixion and impalement etymology. --Ephilei 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crucifixion/Archive_2&oldid=1002906750"