Passion Podcasts 2: The Horror of Crucifixion

The second Passion Podcast this year is NT Pod 54: The Horror of Crucifixion  It looks at the archaeological and literary evidence and reflects on its relevance to the Passion Narratives in the Gospels.

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

The Horrors of Crucifixion and Amnesty International

This week in my Historical Jesus class we came to one of the topics that I never particularly enjoy teaching, not because it is lacking in interest but because it is such a profoundly disturbing topic.  If there is one thing that we know about the Historical Jesus with a degree of certainty, it is that he died by crucifixion.  If we don't know that, we really don't know anything.  But if we do know that, what are the details of what we know about crucifixion in general?

When discussing Jesus' crucifixion, I like to explore the archaeological and the literary evidence for ancient crucifixion.  That means drawing attention to the blood-curdling accounts from Seneca, Cicero and Josephus, among others, with help from Martin Hengel's little book, and adding to those Joe Zias's work on Crucifixion in Antiquity.  When I showed the students a picture of the heel bone of Jehohanan, the sole archaeological evidence of a crucifixion victim, with the nail still embedded, there was an audible sense of horror at what must have been involved in that crucifixion.  It brings home to students the unspeakably cruel nature of the punishment.

If, like me, you are a sensitive person, discussing forms of ancient torture with some degree of detail is not a pleasant experience.  There is an anxiety in drawing attention to something so horrible from the past.   When I was teaching this a few years ago, I found myself making some kind of remark about the cruelty, the sadism of the ancient figures we were discussing.  And then I paused for a moment.  The conceit of the academic who studies antiquity allows the indulgence of separating oneself from the past.  The distancing is, of course, necessary and often desirable if one is to understand the past.  But appreciation of the horrors of antiquity can at the same time awaken us to similar horrors in the contemporary world.  And here there is something we can do about it.   Why not use the reminder of evil in antiquity to stimulate us to action about the evil in the contemporary world?

Like 2.2 million others, I am a member of Amnesty International and I attempt, often inadequately, to make my small contribution to ending human rights abuses around the world.  

I don't often discuss politics on this blog.  It's not the blog's topic, and I am not expert enough to provide incisive political comment.  I leave that to those who are more skilled and knowledgeable than I.  But on occasions like this, with the reminder of such inspeakable human cruelty, I break with protocol, as I do in the classroom too,  and share my own commitment to joining those who campaign for internationally recognised human rights for all.  

BBC Passion website new content: Crucifixion and Questions Answered

More material has been added to the BBC's The Passion website. New today is an article on the crucifixion, discussing the topic by using the Telegraph and Daily Mail articles as a springboard:

BBC Portrayal of the Crucifixion

The piece is pretty well done, I think. Also new on the articles page is a section in which Nigel Stafford-Clark (producer) and Frank Deasy (writer) answer viewers' questions. There are lots of interesting comments here, and I strongly recommend it:

Your questions answered

The questions answered include one about the lack of miracles in the story, one about the use of regional accents, one about the use of animals, one about the casting of Jesus, one about the shooting of the drama, one about the research for the drama, and lots more.

The new content seems to have knocked off my article, The Passion and Its Historical Context, I hope by accident!

The Passion: Reviews and Comments begin to come in

It is Monday morning and the papers are full of reviews and comments on The Passion. I hope to blog some more about this at the week goes on. In the mean time, here are some comments on this morning's selection, beginning with a somewhat annoying contribution in the Daily Mail. Further to my previous post on the Telegraph article on the crucifixion, now updated with a comment from Paula Gooder (which, unlike the Telegraph, I did not edit), the Daily Mail now attempts to weigh in on the same topic:

Row over BBC drama which shows Jesus crucified in a foetal position
By PAUL REVOIR

The article appears simply to be a rehash of the Telegraph piece. The idea that there is a "row" is, I think, difficult to sustain. Indeed, the article only quotes one person apparently hostile to the BBC on this topic, and his comments appear to have been drawn from the Telegraph article. I am quoted, but I have not talked to them -- the quotation also comes from the Sunday Telegraph. The article continues the pattern of joint Telegraph / Daily Mail reporting of The Passion (BBC exonerates Judas, etc.). Both papers have been looking for controversy for the last three weeks, and they are still struggling to find it.

I should not be too harsh on them, though. The Telegraph's own TV reviewer clearly loved it, and was unable to find grounds for complaint:

Last night on television: The Passion (BBC1), Gavin and Stacey (BBC3)
By James Walton

. . . In particular, The Passion strikes an impressive balance between being faithful to the gospel stories and being unafraid to flesh them out, when required, with recognisable human motives. It also supplies (helpfully, if not always subtly) the theological, historical and political background to what we’re seeing.

One objection from those Christian groups is apparently that Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a good guy. Well, again – and leaving aside the question of whether this would necessarily be an outrage anyway – I can’t see it myself. As played by James Nesbitt, Pilate isn’t a complete psychopath. Nonetheless, in his career politician’s determination to show the Jews who’s boss, he often might as well be . . . .

. . . . The Passion does perhaps suggest that, in its absence of doubt, Jesus’s is essentially a young man’s gospel (which, I suppose, is mildly controversial, but also interesting). Yet, for the same reason, the programme proves deeply stirring too – as his message of love for God and neighbour slices straight through all the realpolitik around him . . .

The Times also reviews The Passion (again, along with Gavin and Stacey):

The Passion; Gavin and Stacey
Weekend TV
Andrew Billen

It's a mixed review, but I liked this line:

The virtue of Nigel Stafford-Clark's Passion is that it looks historically real but not historic: no one knows, aside presumably from Jesus, that this will be the week that changes the West for ever.

The Herald quite liked it; Michael Barnes, SJ in Thinking Faith (British Jesuits journal) is pretty thrilled with it:

This is brilliant story-telling, carefully plotted and visually superb. One shot, in which Jesus is showered with blood-red poppy petals scattered from windows above, makes for a perfect counterpoint to the traditional waving of palms. Jerusalem, with its narrow alleyways and cramped corners, and the Temple stained by blood sacrifices and burnt offerings, looks just like the provincial backwater which the Romans profess to hate. Apart from the clichéd mood music as Jesus walks through a desolate landscape marked by ominous crosses and smoking fires, the production scarcely puts a foot wrong.

And The Scotsman too lines up to find a lot that it liked in the opening episode:

A very British Passion for Judea
By Andrea Mullaney

. . . . But as a drama, this certainly worked, with an unusual amount of tension for such a familiar story.

Over on reJesus, Matt Page's review is up, and it's encouraging reading for the programme makers. Matt, who runs the Bible Films Blog, knows more than anyone about Bible films and his opinion is worth hearing.

Other bloggers, so far, are a bit luke warm in their comments. Michael Bird offers reflections in Euangelion and, like Doug Chaplin on Metacatholic, he objects to "The endless references to the "kingdom of God is within you"", which, he says, "over emphasizes a minor Lucan theme". Well, I rather like Luke, but I would add that the line in fact comes only once in the episode, when Jesus is talking to Mina as she clings to his feet. I am not sure if I would agree with Michael about the "Borgesque" theology, though I think he rightly perceives that sacrifice is a major theme in Deasy's scripts, and it is a theme that will continue to be worked out in the forthcoming episodes. Doug is not keen on the "rewriting of Jesus' teaching", something I regard as one of the strengths of the writing -- it is fresh and interesting and, I find, pretty powerful. I particularly like Jesus' line to Mary Magdalene, "Before the end of the week, Mary Magdalene, I promise you that you will know God like never before". It may take a little getting used to, though, and I have had a couple of years to get used to a lot of this, and I do realize that my own appreciation of the drama proceeds from my familiarity with it, so I am interested to hear these first impressions. Nevertheless, I am pleased that people are finding so many positives in The Passion, not least because the best is definitely still to come. Episode 2 is on BBC1 tonight at 8.30pm.

How Jesus was crucified: Sunday Telegraph's negative spin on The Passion

On Thursday afternoon, I had a fifteen minute chat with a reporter from the Sunday Telegraph about the way that Jesus' crucifixion is portrayed in The Passion. You can see the way that it is done in a shot in the trailer. It is somewhat different from traditional depictions, but I explained that there is no actual description of the way that Jesus is crucified in the Gospels, and the traditional depiction, with arms outstretched, is not derived from the Gospels. I drew the reporter's attention to a passage in Josephus, War 5.11, which describes victims being crucified in a variety of poses. When he asked me about John 20.24-29, which mentions wounds in Jesus' "hands", I pointed out that the Greek word χείρ, used here, can refer to the arm or the forearm. I also talked a bit about Jehohanan, the one crucified victim we have archaeological evidence of. Little of this conversation actually appears in the article in this morning's Sunday Telegraph, which attempts to put a particular negative spin on the way that Jesus' crucifixion is depicted:

Why the BBC thinks Jesus did not die this way
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent

There are several problems with the article and I would like to draw attention to some of them here. Wynne-Jones writes:

But now the producers of a BBC drama about Christ's final days have challenged the traditional representation, saying they believe Jesus probably did not die that way.

Instead of portraying Christ with his arms out wide and his legs straight down, The Passion will show him nailed to the cross in a foetal position, with his arms above his head and nails through his arms - the way, the producers claim, he may well have been crucified by the Romans.

Leading theologians accused the BBC of "misleading" the public and said it was ignoring the Biblical account of the crucifixion. But the makers of The Passion insist their ideas are based on new historical evidence.

This is not carefully worded. The makers of The Passion are not saying that they "believe Jesus probably did not die" in the way traditionally depicted; they are presenting a drama in which an alternative possibility is presented. After the quotations from me, Wynne-Jones adds:

He added that he thought the Bible did not actually explain in any detail the form of crucifixion employed.

I don't think that; I know that. Anyone who looks at the Gospel accounts will see it to be the case. The article goes on to quote my friend Paula Gooder, though putting a somewhat negative slant on her remarks too:

"They have clearly decided to go for this option because it's unusual and will jolt viewers and challenge them about their assumptions," she said.

"Their portrayal causes a problem as it seems to ignore what the Bible says."

In the Book of John, Jesus says to Thomas: "Put your finger here; see my hands."

I think that it is easy to over-interpret the reference in John 20 and I don't see it as contradicting the way that Jesus is crucified in The Passion (see above). The article goes on:

The Reverend George Curry, who is the chairman of the Church Society, said: "They are misleading people by distorting the facts.

"That's a serious and dangerous thing to do, but sadly utterly predictable and regrettable. Jesus's nails went through his hands, not his forearms. We should be true to history and the events that occurred."

This too is somewhat overstated. It is incorrect to speak of "distorting the facts", not is there anything "utterly predictable" about this. On the contrary, the BBC have gone to great lengths to think seriously about the history in The Passion and it is a shame that this article does attempt to take that seriously.

Update (16:05): Doug Chaplin has some very helpful comments on Metacatholic. I have also been chatting to Paula Gooder this afternoon and, as I suspected, this is a case of selective and misleading quotation. Paula writes:

It is the best portrayal of the crucifixion and resurrection that I have seen for a long time. The drama as a whole including the crucifixion scene draws on some of the best scholarship available. I simply said to the Telegraph that I supposed that some people who didn't like new ideas might find it challenging, they shouldn't but they might!

Update (24 August 2014): URL for the Telegraph article updated.

The Trial and Death of Jesus

This book is new from Peeters. My copy arrived today:

The Trial and Death of Jesus
Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark

Series: Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 45

Editors: Van Oyen G., Shepherd T.

Year: 2006
ISBN: 90-429-1834-9
Pages: XI-268 p.
Price: 40 EURO


What is the significance of the trial and death of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark? In its annual meetings the Mark Group of the Society of Biblical Literature studied the trial of Jesus in 2003 and the death of Jesus in 2004. Both speakers and audience expressed the desire to bring some of the papers together in book form. The current volume fulfills this wish. The contributions presented here represent an up to date expression of one of the most important themes in Markan exegesis. The editors use the metaphor of a prism to illustrate the two sections of the book. Like a concave prism spreading light, the first section presents a range of understandings of the meaning of the death of Jesus. Like a convex prism focusing light, the second section uses multiple methodologies to focus attention on the trial of Jesus, particularly the charge of blasphemy. The papers together raise questions, challenge common views, and interrelate themes that push Markan scholarship forward.
---
I have an essay in the volume called "Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative". Here's the full list of contents:

Section One
The Meaning of Jesus’ Death

Sharyn DOWD and Elizabeth Struthers MALBON
The Significance of Jesus’ Death in Mark: Narrative Context and
Authorial Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Mark GOODACRE
Scripturalization in Mark’s Crucifixion Narrative . . . . . . . . . 33

Geert VAN OYEN
The Meaning of the Death of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: A Real
Reader Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Jocelyn MCWHIRTER
Messianic Exegesis in Mark’s Passion Narrative . . . . . . . . . 69

William SANGER CAMPBELL
“Why did you abandon me?” Abandonment Christology in Mark’s
Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Stephen P. AHEARNE-KROLL
Challenging the Divine: LXX Psalm 21 in the Passion Narrative
of the Gospel of Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Section Two
The Trial of Jesus

Adela YARBRO COLLINS
The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Jeffrey B. GIBSON
The Function of the Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64 . . . . 171

Michael E. VINES
The “Trial Scene” Chronotype in Mark and the Jewish Novel . . 189

Kelli S. O’BRIEN
Innocence and Guilt: Apologetic, Martyr Stories, and Allusion in
the Markan Trial Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Tom SHEPHERD
The Irony of Power in the Trial of Jesus and the Denial by Peter –
Mark 14:53-72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Index of Ancient texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Ancient Narratives of Crucifixion

It is encouraging that the E-Lists still have the ability to generate lively and intelligent discussion and so to help out with one's research. I've been working on the crucifixion narrative in Mark for the short term goal of an SBL Mark Group paper in November and the longer term goal of my book on the Passion Narrative. I began wondering when re-reading Mark's Passion Narrative recently whether this might be not only the first extant ancient narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus but also the first extant ancient narrative of any crucified hero. Members of the Xtalk list have provided many useful thoughts, references and further avenues to chase down, and the thread was generating responses last night at an enjoyably rapid rate.

The gist of my query is that we do not think enough about the challenge that Mark was facing in his attempt to construct the first narrative a crucified hero. How does one turn the instinctive shame and revulsion that the ancients felt concerning the very idea to a proclamation of good news? We have some idea of what might have been considered an honourable death, e.g. that which Florus (Epitome 2.8) reports for Spartacus, "Spartacus himself fell, as became a general, fighting most bravely in the front rank". Likewise, Spartacus gets depicted as dying fighting with his army. Jesus, on the other hand, dies abandoned and alone, his followers having fled. Now there are only some women watching from afar off. It is this utterly abject, lonely, shameful death, characterised by an eery silence, which provides the invitation to Mark to scripturalize the tradition, and thus to construct the first narrative of crucifixion by subverting the readers' expectations, to say that here, where you would least expect it, honour, glory and vindication are found.

The thread has thrown up several interesting thoughts and suggestions, Peter Kirby notes that though not exactly "crucifixion", the binding of Prometheus comes to mind.