Few would dispute the claim that Jesus died, since we know of no first-century exceptions to that fate. To claim that Jesus died by crucifixion is also not controversial; as we noted above, Jesus’ followers had to work hard to present his execution positively, and would not have invented it. Following a leader crucified for treason made the followers themselves liable to the same charge.276
Jesus’ crucifixion by the Romans outside Jerusalem is, as Sanders notes, an “almost indisputable” historical fact;277 Christians would not have invented the crucifixion. Whereas rhetorical historians would elaborate on sufferings at length,278 the Gospels keep to the point and avoid such elaboration. The full horror of that mode of execution279 remained vivid enough in the first century that all four evangelists hurry by the event itself quickly.280
Nevertheless, what they do report would likely have been seared deep into their communal memory (especially through the testimony of the women bystanders, which, as we note below, is likely historical). Events most readily remembered, according to memory research, are those in which the eyewitness “is emotionally involved”;281 for any sympathizers of Jesus, the crucifixion would constitute a major psychological trauma.
Although some features of crucifixions remained common, executioners could perform them in a variety of manners, limited only by the extent of their sadistic creativity.282 Executioners usually tied victims to the cross, but in some cases hastened their death by also nailing their wrists (Jn 20:25).283 Modern depictions of the crucifixion typically sanitize it. Romans crucified their victims naked;284 Jewish leaders probably would not have demurred,285 but even if they had,286 it is unlikely that Pilate’s soldiers would have accommodated them in such details.287 Public nakedness could generate shame,288 especially for Palestinian Jews.289 One being executed on the cross could not swat flies from one’s wounds, nor withhold one’s bodily wastes from coming out while hanging naked for hours and sometimes days.290 The victim would be elevated enough for crowds to see, though the cross was not normally as high as in modern symbolic portrayals; animals sometimes assaulted the victim’s feet.291
The writing posted above Jesus’ head292 announces the charge: Jesus was executed as king of Israel (Mk 15:26), a charge that is historically quite probable. 293 As we have noted, reports about Jesus’ triumphal entry (Mk 11:8-10) would mark him as a potential royal aspirant (to those so wishing to interpret them); the priestly aristocracy would arrest and the Romans execute anyone who offered the slightest grounds for suspicion of treason against Rome. The title is not a traditional Christian confession; Jesus’ “you say” (Mk 15:2) suggests that it is not the title he would have emphasized, and Romans crucified many self-proclaimed kings and their followers on the charge of treason.294 Other Jewish rebels apparently hoped for kingship,295 but unless they desired repression Christians would have hardly invented the claim that Jesus was crucified on these grounds.296
A further datum supports the plausibility of the posting of this charge: on some other known occasions a member of the execution squad apparently would carry in front of or beside the condemned a small tablet (tabula) declaring the charge (titulus), the cause of execution (causa poenae), which he might later post on the cross.297 That Matthew and Luke (perhaps Q; “this is”) and Matthew and John (“Jesus”) share some common elements against Mark suggest the prominence of this memory in the common passion tradition.
