Porphyry said
Since I joined the forum, I have been struggling to find a category for what the evangelists, especially Mark, understood themselves to be doing as they wrote. 
Rather out of nowhere, it occurred to me that Mark might not have been writing to convince non-believers. Maybe he was writing something like devotional literature for believers. 
What I mean by "devotional literature" is something like what you see in Gibson's Passion of the Christ: it is based on the sources, but it consciously takes lots of artistic liberties, both big and small, to make the story and the theology come alive.  Though "based on a true story", it isn't meant as a strict historical representation; everyone understands that he has added things to drive, what he took to be, the salient points home. 
It isn't primarily meant to convince skeptics or non-believers. It is meant to make the story come alive and *feel* real for people who already believe it, just like any other devotional art. 
This struck me as a rather profound hermeneutical shift, that makes a lot of things fall into place, but I'm curious how it hits you. 
  

Interesting point. I do notice that Jesus quotes the Old Testament in all of the Gospels, but from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. This seems to imply that the Gospels were written not to evangelize to Pharisees but were writing to the Hellenic audience that comprised most early Christians.

But her fundamental insight to me is that the gospels are acts of literature.  Of course this wasn't a new idea but she has interestingly sketched out some of the implications of that view based on what we know about ancient literary practices. 

I do retain some old fashioned notions.  I still favor the idea that the gospels are something other than Greek bios.  Especially Mark.  They are unique and their relation to each other is unique in ancient literature. 

I agree that Mark was not written to evangelize outsiders.  It seems to be designed for the internal use of some kind of community.  (Here I would argue with Walsh.) 

What I mean by “devotional literature” is something like what you see in Gibson’s Passion of the Christ: it is based on the sources, but it consciously takes lots of artistic liberties, both big and small, to make the story and the theology come alive.  Though “based on a true story”, it isn’t meant as a strict historical representation; everyone understands that he has added things to drive, what he took to be, the salient points home. 

An example I would suggest.  The historical tradition/memory would have been that Jesus was arrested and crucified sometime during the Passover.  Mark puts it on the day he does for his own theological agenda. John does the same. 

I like the idea of characterizing the gospels as "devotional literature".    

Rather out of nowhere, it occurred to me that Mark might not have been writing to convince non-believers. Maybe he was writing something like devotional literature for believers. 

What I mean by "devotional literature" is something like what you see in Gibson's Passion of the Christ: it is based on the sources, but it consciously takes lots of artistic liberties, both big and small, to make the story and the theology come alive.  Though "based on a true story", it isn't meant as a strict historical representation; everyone understands that he has added things to drive, what he took to be, the salient points home. 

It isn't primarily meant to convince skeptics or non-believers. It is meant to make the story come alive and *feel* real for people who already believe it, just like any other devotional art. 

This struck me as a rather profound hermeneutical shift, that makes a lot of things fall into place, but I'm curious how it hits you. 

heavymetalfan872 said
In John 18:10, Simon Peter draws his sword and severs a slave's ear to defend Jesus. This is a bit puzzling, because I imagine that the Roman authorities would not have wanted Jewish peasants possessing deadly weapons. Would Peter have acquired it illegally? Did he even have a sword at all? Is this implying that Peter had dissident affiliations?
I can't help but wonder if this story is a later addition, since it seems to conflict with the background of Jesus's early followers.

Welcome, heavymetalfan.

I imagine Jesus had a variety of followers, varying degrees of commitment, and a variety of views and perspectives. In the original version of the story (gospel of Mark), it is not even said that the person wielding the sword was a disciple, let along Simon Peter. I would not be surprised if some followers were opposed to Roman rule, perhaps some would have even favored violent opposition. Simon the Zealot, for example. If they expected the Messiah to liberate Israel from the Rome, some may have thought of God alone would do so, but wouldn't many have presumed that they were to fight alongside the Messiah? This is clearly the view portrayed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So I would not rule out the possibility that there is a grain of truth to the story. How did Jesus think the Son of Man would destroy the Roman empire when the time came? I'm not so sure he didn't envisage a violent overthrow, possibly with the Son of Man leading the uprising. But the 'sword' mentioned in this story is probably not a military type sword. More likely it would be a knife used in the preparation of the Passover lamb.

I think it is also possible that the sword is purely a literary device, introduced to illustrate the fulfilment of scripture, namely Zechariah. If you're interested, I presented this view in a thread a few years ago (** you do not have permission to see this link **). If you like, I can combine these threads so more viewpoints can be considered together.

heavymetalfan872 said
In John 18:10, Simon Peter draws his sword and severs a slave's ear to defend Jesus. This is a bit puzzling, because I imagine that the Roman authorities would not have wanted Jewish peasants possessing deadly weapons. Would Peter have acquired it illegally? Did he even have a sword at all? Is this implying that Peter had dissident affiliations?
I can't help but wonder if this story is a later addition, since it seems to conflict with the background of Jesus's early followers.
  

A brief google search suggests that the primary Roman restrictions on carrying of sidearms by freeman was in the city of Rome and the surrounding territory that formed the heart of the Roman republic, rather than out in the provinces ... the area famously bounded to the north by the Rubicon (rules which Julius Caesar made so famous by violating them), which is what later on made the preferences of the Praetorian Guard so famously importance in determining some Imperial successions.

I can't help but wonder if this story is a later addition, since it seems to conflict with the background of Jesus's early followers.

dabowers said

I had a response to a comment I had about John claiming Jesus was crucified a day before Matt/Mark/Luke claimed he was. The commenter said it was due to the "high Sabbath". I was unaware of a "high Sabbath".
John 19:31 Reference: The mention of a "high day" Sabbath during Jesus' crucifixion indicates the weekly Sabbath coincided with an annual feast day, specifically a Passover Sabbath.
Is this for real, and does this explain the discrepancy?

It's close to being for real, but IIUC, it misses on one key point ... a "high Day Sabbath" is the Sabbath associated with the high day ... it's a high day Sabbath whether it coincides with the weekly Sabbath or not.

But Robert is quite right ... the three closely synoptic gospels and the arguably "quasi-synoptic" gospel simple disagree about the timing of the crucifixion relative to Passover.  In John, the Last Supper is a meal together the day before Passover, not the Passover meal, which is either dueling symbolisms or one of the two sides better understanding Judean practices.

Under the dueling symbolisms, the Last Supper as the extension of the Passover meal is dueling with the Crucifixion being a new Passover covenant with the preparation of the Lamb being the crucifixion and Jesus in the tomb being what enables the Angel of Death to pass over believers in Jesus.

Under the "better understanding Judean practices", the whole side of the passion narrative where High Priests are rushing to get the trial and the crucifixion done "in time" would be silly if the Passover Sabbath had already started ... there is no time to regain ritual purity before the start of Passover if Passover started at the previous sundown.

There is also "three days / three nights" language which doesn't line up with the conventional synoptic passion to finding the empty tomb timeline, but which can be made to line up with John's narrative if the Passover Sabbath starts Thursday Evening ... Crucifixion during Thursday Day / Thursday night / Friday Day / Friday Night / Saturday Day / Saturday Night, and on Sunday shortly after dawn it is discovered that the tomb is empty and so the metaphorical Temple has been rebuilt in three days and three nights.

But that doesn't help anything, really, in terms of sorting out who has the "real" story and who has the corrupted version.

Maybe John realizes that three days / three nights doesn't work with the material he has, so he "fixes" it. Maybe three days / three nights is a later interpolation into the synoptics, so they weren't "wrong" about it until the interpolation contradicted them after the fact. Maybe what we are reading are 2nd century redactions of the synoptics by people who don't understand purity laws and the high Sabbaths versus the weekly Sabbaths as well as the original 1st century authors, so their focus is on upgrading the importance of the Eucharist by moving the Last Supper to coincide with Passover despite the contradictions it introduces in the story.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

** you do not have permission to see this link **
x .com/i/grok/share/04fe6901b8e944b7b8e2dc1c1658e81b
**Several texts from the ancient Greco-Roman (and related Hellenistic Jewish) world specifically discuss crucifixion—not merely as a named punishment, but by describing its forms, procedure, physical effects, variations, or cultural horror.**

Crucifixion (Latin *crux*/ *crucifigere*; Greek *stauros*/ *stauroō*/ *anastauroō*) was a Roman penalty typically reserved for slaves, rebels, and non-citizens, often preceded by flogging and involving carrying a crossbeam (*patibulum*), attachment to a vertical post (sometimes with nails or ropes), and prolonged exposure.
Ancient authors rarely give step-by-step manuals, but key passages detail variations, the agony involved, or procedural elements.
The most comprehensive modern survey of these sources is John Granger Cook’s *Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World* (2014/2019), which systematically catalogs Latin, Greek, and other texts chronologically alongside inscriptions and archaeology.

Here are the most notable primary ancient texts that discuss the practice in detail (focusing on non-Christian/Greco-Roman sources; dates are approximate):

### Latin/Roman Authors
- **Plautus** (c. 254–184 BCE), comedies such as *Carbonaria* (frag. 2) and *Menaechmi*:
Early references to the procedure, including the condemned carrying the *patibulum* (crossbeam) through the city before being fastened (*affigere*) to the *crux* (vertical post).
These comedic contexts treat it as a slave’s punishment and deterrent.
- **Cicero** (106–43 BCE), *In Verrem* (Against Verres) 2.5.165 (and related orations):
Strongly condemns crucifixion as “the most cruel and ignominious punishment” (*crudelissimum taeterrimumque supplicium*), arguing the very word “cross” should be kept far from Roman citizens’ thoughts, eyes, or ears.
He describes it as the ultimate penalty for slaves and non-citizens, emphasizing its degrading nature.

- **Seneca the Younger** (c. 4 BCE–65 CE):
- *Moral Letters to Lucilius* 101: Vividly portrays the prolonged suffering:
“Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain, dying limb by limb... rather than expiring once for all?
Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long-drawn-out agony?”
He calls the victim
“the most pitiable thing in the world.”
- *Dialogue to Marcia on Consolation* 6.20.3:
Explicitly notes multiple forms:
“I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways:
some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet [*patibulum*].”

- **Suetonius** (c. 69–after 122 CE), *Life of Julius Caesar* 74.1:
Describes Caesar crucifying pirates after cutting their throats first as an act of mercy, highlighting crucifixion’s extreme cruelty (throat-slitting was preferable).
- **Quintilian** (or Pseudo-Quintilian, 1st–2nd cent. CE), *Declamations*:
References to burial exceptions if the victim was “pierced” (likely a final blow to confirm death), implying standard denial of burial.

### Greek and Hellenistic Authors
- **Philo of Alexandria** (c. 20 BCE–50 CE), *In Flaccum* 83–84 and *De Specialibus Legibus*:
Discusses Roman allowances for taking down crucified bodies before festivals for burial rites, as an act of mercy by “good rulers.”
He also addresses the overall horror and Jewish customs around exposure.
- **Flavius Josephus** (37–c. 100 CE), *Jewish War* (Bellum Judaicum) 5.451 (and 5.11, 6.5.3):
Describes mass crucifixions during the siege of Jerusalem, with soldiers nailing victims “one after another... in different ways... by way of jest” due to overcrowding.
Notes prior flogging (“whipped until his bones showed”) and use as a deterrent.
Also recounts his own intercession for three acquaintances taken down from crosses (*Life* 420–421).
- **Chariton** (1st cent. CE), *Chaereas and Callirhoe* 4.2.7 (Greek novel):
Depicts 16 men paraded chained, each carrying his own cross, as a “grim public spectacle” and deterrent.

- **Plutarch** (c. 46–after 119 CE), *Moralia* (e.g., *Sera Numinis Vindicta* 554) and *Pericles* 28.2:
Notes that “each criminal who goes to execution must carry his own cross on his back.”
Describes binding to planks (possibly a euphemism for crucifixion) lasting days before further killing.
- **Artemidorus of Daldis** (2nd cent. CE), *Oneirocritica* 1.76:
Interprets dreams involving crucifixion; describes the cross as made “from posts and nails” like a ship’s mast, with arms outstretched.
Dreaming of it (or dancing high up) presages criminal execution.
- **Lucian** (c. 125–after 180 CE), *Prometheus* and *Trial of the Court of the Vowels* (*Judicium Vocalium*):
Satirically likens Prometheus’ binding to crucifixion (“hang over this precipice, with his arms stretched across... a sweet spot for a crucifixion”).
Accuses the letter tau (Τ) of modeling the cross shape used by tyrants.

### Other Notable References
- **Legal/inscriptional**: The *lex Puteolana* (Puteoli law, Augustan era) details contracts for public executioners, including crucifixion services (nailing/fastening to *crux*).
Roman jurists (later compiled in *Digest of Justinian* 48.24) discuss official discretion over bodies.
- Earlier or peripheral: Herodotus (*Histories* 3, 6; 5th cent. BCE) describes post-mortem suspension (sometimes translated “crucifixion”) of bodies, but this is more impalement/exposure than living Roman-style crucifixion.

These texts emphasize crucifixion’s deterrent value, extreme pain (asphyxiation, exposure, variations in attachment), and social stigma.
Variations in form (*crux compacta* with transverse beam vs. simpler stakes) are noted, but the *patibulum* carried by the condemned is common.
Many more passing references exist (e.g., in Livy, Polybius, Tacitus *Annals* 15.44 on Jesus, or novels), but the above specifically elaborate on the mechanics or experience.
Cook’s work remains the standard reference for exhaustive analysis.

=================
**The specific reference you asked about is from Pseudo-Quintilian (also called the Major Declamations ascribed to Quintilian), *Declamationes maiores* 6.9 (1st–2nd century CE).**

The Latin text (in standard editions) reads in context:

> “cruces succiduntur, percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat…”

A standard English rendering (with slight variations in modern translations) is:

> “Crosses are cut down, the executioner does not prevent those who have been pierced [or struck/smitten] from being buried…”

(or: “But bodies are cut down from crosses, executioners do not prevent executed criminals from being buried…”).

This appears in a rhetorical exercise (a fictional legal debate) that assumes a scenario involving pirates and a father’s corpse, but the statement about crucifixion and burial is presented as a general observation about Roman practice. The key term *percussos* (from *percutio*, “to strike through/pierce/smite”) is widely understood by scholars to refer to a final blow—typically with a sword, spear, or similar weapon—delivered to confirm or hasten death after crucifixion. This would distinguish it from the routine exposure of bodies on the cross.

John Granger Cook, in *Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World* (2014, pp. 109–111 and 429) and his earlier article “Crucifixion and Burial” (*New Testament Studies* 57, 2011), discusses this passage in detail as one of the rare explicit Greco-Roman references to an exception allowing burial of crucified victims under certain conditions (here, after they had been “pierced”). He notes that the word *percussus* in execution contexts typically implies a lethal final strike, aligning with practices like the spear thrust in John 19:34.

This is **not** from Quintilian’s authentic *Institutio Oratoria* (his major rhetorical handbook) but from the collection of 19 longer rhetorical exercises (*Declamationes maiores*) attributed to him or his school—hence often labeled “Pseudo-Quintilian.” The text survives in medieval manuscripts and modern critical editions (e.g., Håkanson’s Teubner or Shackleton Bailey’s Loeb). It is one of the very few ancient sources that directly links a post-crucifixion “piercing” to permission for burial, contrasting with the more common Roman practice of leaving bodies exposed as a deterrent.

=================
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Prior to Lewis Sussman’s translation of MD [_The Major Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian_], the most recent translation into English was done three hundred years ago by John Warr.
So, if you want a modern translation, a translation which takes into account “the subsequent advances in scholarship, our understanding of the textual tradition of this work, and…the recent appearance of a superbly done Latin text by Hakanson” (MD, p.i), then you will want to consult the translation created by Sussman.
Here is the relevant portion of MD 6, section 9, translated by Sussman:

"But bodies are cut down from crosses,
executioners do not prevent executed criminals from being buried,
and the pirates did no more than throw the corpse into the sea."
(MD, p.75)

John 19:31 Reference: The mention of a "high day" Sabbath during Jesus' crucifixion indicates the weekly Sabbath coincided with an annual feast day, specifically a Passover Sabbath.

Is this for real, and does this explain the discrepancy?

Let us at least admit that as historians we have nothing even close to a document as detailed as we do regarding the crucifixion of a single man.

Well, of the few sources we have, the only ones that don't depict Pilate as a corrupt, brutal thug are those which have a vested interest in moderating our image of him to provide the foundation for the special treatment of their master. 

The paucity of texts from the ancient world that specifically discuss crucifixion is interesting.  It's as if the form of punishment was considered so vile that no one wanted to speak of it.  You'll look in vain for an ancient "How-to" manual. But if you examine cultural artifacts, plays, poems, artistic depictions, there is a definite association with public shaming and body desecration.  In a thread a while back I quoted such sources at length if someone is interested enough to do a search. 

Public shaming and body desecration was really the point.  Otherwise, as a form of execution it was notoriously inefficient.  It took an enormous amount of time and resources.  Why not just cut someone's throat or send them to the archery field for target practice?  

Let us at least admit that as historians we have nothing even close to a document as detailed as we do regarding the crucifixion of a single man.

Let us admit that generalities are exactly that--generalities.

I admit that if we had a case from Tacitus or Livy or whomever in which a Roman official was pressured into crucifying someone whose guilt he had doubts and yet crucified him and threw the body to the dogs, well, then we would have a good historical parallel.

But we don't.

Steefen
Resurrection of the body vs. Salvation of the soul in the afterlife.
Close enough.
Thank you.

= = =

So, nephesh should work with t’chiyat hameitim: resurrection of the body, not, resurrection of the psuche.