Did the Romans crucify women? Howard Lifshitz of Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem, Israel, writes:
Crucifixion was widely practiced in the ancient Mediterranean and Babylonian worlds by most of these civilizations, except the Greeks and the Jews. The laws regulating crucifixion had been codified by the king and lawgiver, Hammurabi 1700 years before Jesus. Men and women were crucified for a wide variety of misdemeanors, from adultery to insurrectionary activity. Since traditionally women have been punished preeminently over men for adultery, Babylonian women no doubt bore the brunt of this punishment for sexual misdemeanor. In the history of torture techniques, crucifixion remains among the cruelest because of the protracted and incremental agony of the victim. Death on the cross took three and a half days to complete. The victim died of multiple causes: broken bones, lacerated limbs, asphyxiation when the weight of the hanging body crushed the lungs, strangulation and exposure. Often, while left hanging in this decaying state, the victim’s organs were dragged from his body by roaming animals and eaten in front of him. But the final cause of death was dehydration, and after three days without water, the victim descended into madness.
…In the reign of the Roman procurator, Gessius Florus, during the years 64-66 C.E., when the revolt against Rome began and Judea, crazed with pain, descended into madness, 3600 Jewish men, women and children were crucified.
If it is painful to imagine a grown man on the cross, imagine a pregnant woman or a child! Crucifixion was introduced into Judea by Varus, the legate of Syria, on his own responsibility; and shortly after the death of Herod he crucified 2,000 Jews. Such conduct he repeated in Germany in 9 CE against the Druids, when he served as consul there. He provoked a revolt of such magnitude for his behavior, the entire Roman army in Germany was destroyed by the uprising. The emperor Augustus declared it a “day of disaster,” and marked it with yearly mourning.
http://www.shlomohsherman.com/literary/essays/passion/mikecook.html
—Michael Cook, “The History of Crucifixion,” Passion of the Christ Essays
%20by%20Alm%C3%BCth%20Lutkenhaus-Lackey%203.JPG) |
| Crucified Woman (1976) by Almüth Lutkenhaus-Lackey, University of Toronto, Canada |
 |
| In the Name of God (2007) by Jens Galschiøt, Nairobi, Kenya |
 |
| Saint Wilgefortis (n.d.), Museum Hof van Busleyden, Mechelen, Belgium |
 |
| Crucifixion of Saint Eulalia of Barcelona (1564) by Pedro Villar, Barcelona Cathedral, Spain |
%20by%20Giovanni%20Carra.jpg) |
| Crucifixion of Saint Julia of Corsica (17th century) by Giovanni Carra |
 |
| Christa (1975) by Edwina Sandys |
Photos are posted on this website according to principles of fair use, that is, they are posted for the purposes of information and education. Commentary directly refers to the photos.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this blog is, among others, to advance knowledge and to create culture, for public benefit.
Gonzalinho
All visual art is objectification because the artist creates a visual object for aesthetic contemplation. Therefore, objectification is not in itself objectionable. The nude in art treats the human body as an object—not a pornographic object but an intentionally aesthetic object. The dividing line between the two types of objectification is hotly debated. It is a gray area ambiguously demarcated.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
Here’s a stab at a definition—pornography is the gratuitous production and exploitation of prurient or sexually explicit imagery. Gratuitousness indicates intention, which is always at least somewhat implicit.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
Depending on where you locate yourself, the depiction of the nude in art is either pornographic or it isn’t.
ReplyDeleteMerriam-Webster defines pornography as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography
—“pornography,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2022
In 1986, the Attorney General Commission Report on Pornography declared that “not all pornography is legally obscene.”
What is not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which sanctions freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is obscenity and child pornography.
In 1973 the US Supreme Court in Miller v. California ruled that material is not legally obscene if it fails to satisfy all of the following criteria taken together:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
- Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
Notably, in 1974 the court in Jenkins v. Georgia ruled that “nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene under the Miller standards.”
In 1982 the court in New York v. Ferber declared that states could ban child pornography even if somehow the material did not satisfy the Miller obscenity criteria.
See:
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/adult-entertainment/pornography-obscenity/
—David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment Center, “Pornography & Obscenity,” Freedom Forum Institute, July 2009
To be continued
Gonzalinho
Continued
DeleteThe US Supreme Court may have come to a laborious series of decisions on the question of what constitutes illegal and in this respect socially unacceptable sexual content, but in a place like the Roman Catholic Church, the issue of what isn’t socially acceptable isn’t all that settled.
All the genitalia in the nudes of the Sistine Chapel’s Last Judgment by Michelangelo, for example, have been painted over. Untouched, however, are the genitalia of Adam, Noah’s three sons, several ignudi.
Where do we draw the line? You won’t get a consistent answer in the Roman Catholic Church. Sparks fly.
Among Roman Catholics we will encounter vehement, impassioned condemnations of practically all nude art.
Yet exceptions will be made for Michelangelo, so that the inconsistency comes across as hypocritical. Why are you going to exempt Michelangelo yet condemn everyone else? Is it because he is acknowledged as one of the towering geniuses of the Renaissance and who painted the interior of the Sistine Chapel?
The long tradition of the nude in art originates with the Greeks and rises to common depiction in the art of the West. You won’t find the same tradition in Chinese art, for example, which in modern times has accustomed itself to the Western custom of depicting the nude.
Ancient Christian doctrine teaches us that because of original sin humanity has lost mastery over their passions. We are susceptible to the enticements of sin, not only the sins of the flesh but also of every sort.
It’s not surprising therefore that Christian art treads gingerly about depictions of the nude, shying away from the practice.
I am concerned that Roman Catholicism lacks a consistent and coherent position on this question. It should be addressed by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church to the satisfaction of the faithful.
Is the depiction of the nude in art immoral or not? Under what conditions is it morally licit, if at all?
They have their work cut out for them.
Gonzalinho
MOST STIGMATISTS ARE WOMEN
ReplyDeleteHow many stigmatists have existed since the time of Christ? Truly, only God knows. To my knowledge, the Vatican itself maintains no running list. To have a definitive list of authentic stigmatists would be impossible in retrospect (numerous alleged cases in centuries past were never investigated) and would today require the Church to thoroughly investigate every claimed case. But we do have some data based on studies and a few books. I’ve attempted to arrive at some sort of general estimate. Perhaps the best we can say is that there seem to have been hundreds of cases since the time of St. Francis, probably about 400 to 500. Interestingly, though the two most famous cases are men, Francis and Padre Pio, the vast majority of stigmatists (nearly 90%) have been women. Nearly all have been Catholic. And among countries, Italy has produced far more than any other (about 70%).
https://www.ncregister.com/features/meet-the-stigmatists
—Paul Kengor, “Bearing the Wounds of Christ: Meet the Stigmatists,” National Catholic Register (September 3, 2024)
Gonzalinho
It’s significant that women stigmatists exist, because they bear the wounds of Christ and thereby represent Christ, especially Christ Crucified, even though Christ himself is not female but male.
DeleteNotably, by far the majority of stigmatists are women.
The existence of women stigmatists admits of various theological interpretations. I would say that it shows the identification of Christ with women but not in exactly the same way as with men.
Scripture testifies that women are made in the image of God, although they evidently do not represent God in exactly the same way as men do, because Christ, who is God, was male.
God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)
Gonzalinho