> Christ's acceptance of crucifixion, the most heinous Roman form of execution,
> was taken as a sign of His supreme humility. Would not Paul have emulated
> that in accepting beheading?
Once again, the distinction between being a citizen (Paul) or not
(Peter) comes up. Christ's "acceptance" of crucifixion perhaps
reflects his humility, which is also reflected in Peter's wish to be
crucified upside down, to distinguish his death from that of Christ.
Christ's crucifixion was not, in any case, something Christians were
interested in depicting in their art until the 5th century, and
before that, it was a common hook for pagan Romans to mock
Christians, who had taken a "common criminal" for their God (they
were equally disgusted by the Christian adoration of relics, which
the majority Roman culture considered "unclean"). There is a nice
bit of anti-Christian graffiti surviving from c.200 from the Palatine
Hill in Rome depicting someone praying in front of a crucified donkey
with the inscription "Alexamenos worships his god". The early
Christians were understandably more interested in Christ's
resurrection than his death. Anyone can die, but it takes someone
rather special to overcome death. And it was probably in the context
of arguments over Christ's combined human and divine natures that
provoked images of the Crucifixion to begin appearing in the 5th
century.
Cheers,
Jim Bugslag
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|