Interesting article claims the cross was Y shaped, not T shaped. Some Catholic visionaries like Anne Katherine Emmerich claimed the same!
Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position, With Arms Over Head
I hardly think the exact shape matters. The ‘shape’ is something some Christians will use as a tactic to dodge the greater issue which is… what happened ON the Y or T shaped cross.
They may argue that all Catholic imagery is wrong because the cross wasn’t T shaped but the imagery is just meant to help us focus on Christ’s sacrifice, the exact details therein hardly matter.
Everything I’ve read and images I’ve seen of a Roman crucifixion was that it was a “T” shaped cross. I would think Jesus’ body would have taken the form of a “Y” as he began to slump downward. Is it possible that Jesus’ crucifixion was done differently than others?
Don’t care. Don’t understand why anyone does. Sorry
Because we all have an image of Him in our minds, which is all we can have since He is not with us in human body.
Just think of all the arguments over artistic representations of Him, and His hair, skin, eyes, bodybuild, etc. Perfectly useless because when we see Him we will see not His natural self but His glorious Heavenly body!
ICXC NIKA !
Obviously, the shape and / or manner of the crucifixion is not exactly a dogmatic Church teaching, so it’s irrelevant to the deposit of faith.
However, every new insight to the Passion gives us something else to gnaw on in our own meditations, so always welcome to learn little tidbits here and there!
I agree. It is just a distraction to spend a lot of time considering such things.
Looks like a Y shape to me.
It seems the article addresses only Jesus’ hands being higher than his head, not the shape if the wooden cross. It seems a Y shaped cross would be far too arduous to make when a T is simple.
Exactly and I can imagine some atheists laughing at some Christians possibly trying to change the way they bless themselves. :o
This is also the reason a crossed tee was probably made instead of the more recent idea of the Capital T because in older carpentry, strength was obtained by joinery;
That is, a simple cross lap joint would have been strongest, easiest to make and easiest to bolt or even tie together.
I assumed (and perhaps incorrectly) that the evidence takes that into account, but still concludes the beams had to be in a Y shape.
It just seems odd to me that experts studying this wouldn’t have considered that very basic observation.
I don’t know.
A morticed Tau shape would have been simplest, particularly if the upright were permanently in place.
Well my search indicates that you’re probably right:
[quote=http://jesusisnomyth.com/Crucifixion/Crucifixion.htm]Fig. 3. The Tau Cross, named Tau because it resembled the Greek letter t. Archaeological evidence indicates that this is probably the type of cross on which the Romans crucified Jesus.
Except imho although I did consider that a mortise and tendon joint would be necessary for that “Tau” (i.e. “T”) design, I don’t see how it would have been easier and less time consuming to craft;
Although admittedly a cross lap joint would probably require that it be bolted or tied;
Whereas the mortise and tendon joint could probably have stood alone;
So I guess it may have been the “T” design after-all. :shrug:
The mortise-and tenon joint (“tendons” are the cords inside your body) would indeed be simpler, if the notch were placed in the top of a permanent upright. Then the crossbeam would simply be slotted in on top.
Yes, I did misspell “tenon” (although it’s still getting a red line ?);
But anyway, aside from spelling errors, a “notch” at the top of the “permanent upright” instead sounds like a misuse of terminology unless you mean there is a V shaped groove at the top of the upright serving as a sort of combination lap type mortise;
And/so, unless your *V" shaped groove is intended as the “mortise” and the “crossbeam” is intended as the “tenon”, that is, with a V shaped male part cut/slotted into the middle of the “crossbeam” so that it can be received by the V shaped “notch”/female part at the top of the “permanent upright”, then I don’t understand you. :rolleyes:
If that’s not how it would be done which doesn’t sound easier imho, then I think you worded it wrong.
Possibly you meant that the “permanent upright” should have a V shaped top-end with the “crossbeam” having a centered V shaped *notch" to receive the V shaped top-end of the “permanent upright” which imho would be more easy?
I hope you realize that this test was done by 2 people who are are members of European version of cicsop which is a well known atheist organization which whose primary goal is to debunk Christian relics and any claims of the supernatural as well as miracles.
Matteo Borrini is a well known shroud skeptic
And Luigi Garlaschelli was the atheist scientist that was funded by the Italian organization of atheists to try to replicate the shroud in 2009 which made global headlines, but when his replica was allowed to be viewed by scientists it turned out that it possessed almost none of the unique qualities that the shroud possesses.
Here is a great article on Stephen Jones shroud of turin blog that talks about this latest article
I think I once own a rosary that had a y-shaped cross. However all my other rosaries have the t-shaped cross.
Some groups of people would like us to get so hung up on details that we miss the main point…all the truths that the Lord revealed to us through His revelation.
Thanks for the very interesting link. It could be a traditional T shape, and his evidence . is scientific. There is an interesting pamphlet that uses the Shroud and various Catholic visionaries to understand the image. It also touches on the concept of a Y shaped cross.
I think of a true “T” shaped cross to be like the Franciscan Cross.
The shape of our traditional crucifix I would think of being a “Traditional Cross” I would surmise.