• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Sponge On a Stick/Spear

Go to CruxDreams.com
mp5stab said:
Just humbly requesting that this thread continue. We have far too little sponge-sucking going on here
Click to expand...

Please feel free to plug the gap. Less talk, more sucking, I want to see that posca/vinegar/piss/whatever dripping off the tips or your nips!

mp5stab said:
The humiliation is more important than what’s actually in the drink.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, a key element of crucifixion is helplessness, and a key demonstration of this is the awkward efforts of the condemned to drink anything that is offered to them, whether on a filthy sponge or even a cup. To be forced to lap from a proffered cup or sponge like some animal, completely at the mercy of the drink bearer, this is very powerful. The nature of the drink only adds to this fundamental humiliation.

Sir Henry said:
The Nestle-Aland editions are considered very reliable and are even regarded as an official source in the Vatican (which does not mean much, however).
Click to expand...

?
 
supplice said:
Yeow! You German Burschenschaften are so evil!! :eek: :)
Click to expand...
Not at all! Just an eye for relevant details! :roto2cafe:

bavaria8.jpg (Favourite eye-view from the viewpoint of a German crucified. Of course the beer on the sponge should be brewed according to the Reinheitsgebot!):Saeufer:

Barbaria1 said:
Hanging naked on a cross is always Moore bearable when one can have an intellectually stimulating conversation with a very good friend nailed to a neighboring cross.
Click to expand...
Thats the spirit! :thumbsup:
 
mp5stab said:
Since it seems like sponge-sucking is destined to be one of my sub-kinks during the crucifixion, up there with raising and fucknailing, I think it is worth it to do a deep dive on this act, be it ritual or routine.

The most complete case study we have for crucifixion in the ancient world is Jesus. Unfortunately it seems like he is treated as prototypical rather than a single piece of data. Fortunately the writers of the gospels and contemporarious works made sure to record the crucifixion in far more detail than was usually afforded to such a gruesome event, but that means that the majority of information about crucifixion comes from a single execution.

It is only during the crucifixion of Jesus that the “sponge on a stick” and “vinegared wine” are mentioned. There seems to be a common misconception about these events, though. It was certainly supposed to be humiliating, but how and why are often missed. It’s worth elaborating and putting those in their historical context.

First thing that is worth explaining is the sponge on a stick. It is called a xylospongium in Latin. Creative, I know, literally wooden-spongy-thing. It was probably used to clean latrines; it’s modern equivalent would be a toilet brush. Well, for our reference in the Gospel, we are not reading in Latin, we are reading in Greek.

In the original Greek, Matthew 27:48 reads:


So in this passage they get a sponge, soak it in vinegar, and give it to him on a reed or stick. Typically that might be brought up by your typical podunk preacher who didn’t remember seminary too well as another point of torture. “He asked for water and they gave him vinegar” but, uh, not quite. There is other context within the gospel to suggest that it is not straight vinegar, frequent mention of sour wine and wine mixed with gall accompany this sole passage referencing vinegar. So it could have been one type of drink, two, or several.

But odds are what it was, was posca.

So what is posca? It is a mixed drink. Wine, diluted with water, braced with vinegar, and often spiced. (In the case of Jesus, with “gall”, which could have been any number of things). Posca would have been available to the soldiers as part of their standard ration, much more available than water; watered down and mixed with vinegar was the cheapest way for the common folk to get access to otherwise expensive wine.

Posca would have been the most available option to Roman soldiers to give to the crucified for hydration.

But why vinegared? And what was it “braced”? well, bracing refers to the acidity of the mixture; vinegar in its basic molecular form is acetic acid.

Vinegar was very much a byproduct of wine production; in order to store wine, it would have to be stored in sealed containers called “amphorae” for long periods of aging, the container had to be airtight; otherwise it would spoil to sour wine as it was oxidization that caused the reaction from alcohol to acid. The process could be done deliberately to produce vinegar as well, with a deliberate seller of yeast called “Mustum”.

So it was not the vinegar wine or galled wine that was part of the torture. That’s just what they had to drink back then. It was drinking it off of a latrine scrubbing xylospongium that was the humiliation.

Now just because it was posca in one execution doesn’t mean it always had to be. It’s just the most historically likely. It could have been water, brackish saltwater for washing, posca, mostly vinegar, or even perhaps something more obscene and humiliating like breast milk, urine, or cum. Urine, in particular may have simply remained on the sponge since the last time that they cleaned a latrine with it. It almost certainly was not a clean instrument. As for those other options, they seem to be largely in the realm of erotic fantasy. (Well, erotic for some, I doubt I would find stale cum or piss all that satiating or erotic, personally.)
Click to expand...
So there is all this stuff around--a reed, a sponge (I assume that is from an animal plucked from the sea). There is a carved stone tablet from Italy (lex puteolana, don't remember the date) describing what executioners contracted to execute slaves needed to have, including wax(?), but that is from Italy. One of the gospels says the drink was offered BEFORE the execution (and declined). John says that the "I thirst" was a fulfillment of the scriptures. So it is not clear to me just how much of this detail actually occurred and how much is based on lore handed down.
 
"So it is not clear to me just how much of this detail actually occurred and how much is based on lore handed down."

It is ALL lore handed down! The Gospels were all written many years later; there are no eyewitness accounts.
 
Frank Petrexa said:
So it is not clear to me just how much of this detail actually occurred and how much is based on lore handed down.
Click to expand...
And there is the crux of it, right?

Histories, especially ancient histories, are sparse in detail, mythologized, or downright fabricated. Much of what is written down is not from eyewitness but from secondary hearsay. We get lucky if we get anything at all. So piecing it all together is a ex-post facto affair. All of the other sources are like “nailed to a plank”, “cruxed”, or “hung up” with no elaboration or explanation. So we don’t really know much about it historically outside of the long shadow of Christian tradition and art. You’ve got four accounts, with a number of subtle differences in the telling, all considered authoritative, and they all describe a crux in some detail. Biblical criticism will go on and on about the criteria of embarrassment or the criteria of concordance or whatever, but that’s not the arguments I would use in this instance.

It’s very simple; to a contemporary audience there would be no reason to fabricate details about crucifixion, as they were already known. So it’s an accurate enough case study, especially if you know what was unique about it vs the average historical crux.
 
mp5stab said:
And there is the crux of it, right?

Histories, especially ancient histories, are sparse in detail, mythologized, or downright fabricated. Much of what is written down is not from eyewitness but from secondary hearsay. We get lucky if we get anything at all. So piecing it all together is a ex-post facto affair. All of the other sources are like “nailed to a plank”, “cruxed”, or “hung up” with no elaboration or explanation. So we don’t really know much about it historically outside of the long shadow of Christian tradition and art. You’ve got four accounts, with a number of subtle differences in the telling, all considered authoritative, and they all describe a crux in some detail. Biblical criticism will go on and on about the criteria of embarrassment or the criteria of concordance or whatever, but that’s not the arguments I would use in this instance.

It’s very simple; to a contemporary audience there would be no reason to fabricate details about crucifixion, as they were already known. So it’s an accurate enough case study, especially if you know what was unique about it vs the average historical crux.
Click to expand...
Well, some of the details of the story are for theological reasons. I wouldn't trust any of the "sayings". The synoptic gospels say that the women who "had followed him from Galilee" were watching "afar off", and the disciples had fled. John says there were people, including his mother and a disciple, right next to the cross. Mark says the crucifixion happened at the third hour on the day after the passover meal, and darkness obtained from the sixth to ninth hours. In John, Pilate is still dithering at the sixth hour, and passover is yet to happen. In Matthew and Mark the "bandits" mock him, but in Luke they are "evildoers" and one of them respects Jesus and asks for salvation. In John, the "two others" say nothing. Jesus is crucified "in the center". In John there is no Simon of Cyrene--Jesus doesn't need any help in John. Even the "casting of lots" for the robe is to fulfill something from Isaiah.
But I think the nails and the nudity are probably accurate. The fact that he was crucified is certainly accurate--they had too much trouble explaining that he was really a good guy who was framed and anyway he rose from the dead for it not to have been. The leg-breaking and piercing are only in John. Whether there was a burial or not is an open question for me. Even here, Joseph is in the synoptics and Nicodemus shows up to help him only in John. Spices at the burial only show up in two of he gospels--the women who discover the empty tomb are bringing spices in a third. Nails are only mentioned in John, but they don't seem to have any deep theological purpose so that's probably accurate--the others don't contradict it. I have always found it curious that in art the bandits/evildoers/two others are tied to the crosses, and only Jesus is nailed.
 
cks69a said:
"So it is not clear to me just how much of this detail actually occurred and how much is based on lore handed down."

It is ALL lore handed down! The Gospels were all written many years later; there are no eyewitness accounts.
Click to expand...
Some people do think that the Gospels may have been based on written accounts that were lost. But Paul, who was writing only a decade or so later, seems to have little interest in or knowledge of any details or written accounts, and clearly never set eyes on the real Jesus. I think you are right to say that none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts.
 
Frank Petrexa said:
Well, some of the details of the story are for theological reasons. I wouldn't trust any of the "sayings". The synoptic gospels say that the women who "had followed him from Galilee" were watching "afar off", and the disciples had fled. John says there were people, including his mother and a disciple, right next to the cross. Mark says the crucifixion happened at the third hour on the day after the passover meal, and darkness obtained from the sixth to ninth hours. In John, Pilate is still dithering at the sixth hour, and passover is yet to happen. In Matthew and Mark the "bandits" mock him, but in Luke they are "evildoers" and one of them respects Jesus and asks for salvation. In John, the "two others" say nothing. Jesus is crucified "in the center". In John there is no Simon of Cyrene--Jesus doesn't need any help in John. Even the "casting of lots" for the robe is to fulfill something from Isaiah.
But I think the nails and the nudity are probably accurate. The fact that he was crucified is certainly accurate--they had too much trouble explaining that he was really a good guy who was framed and anyway he rose from the dead for it not to have been. The leg-breaking and piercing are only in John. Whether there was a burial or not is an open question for me. Even here, Joseph is in the synoptics and Nicodemus shows up to help him only in John. Spices at the burial only show up in two of he gospels--the women who discover the empty tomb are bringing spices in a third. Nails are only mentioned in John, but they don't seem to have any deep theological purpose so that's probably accurate--the others don't contradict it. I have always found it curious that in art the bandits/evildoers/two others are tied to the crosses, and only Jesus is nailed.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to engage in apologetics, sorry if that wasn't clear. I don't want to trigger to much writing in one direction or another; although I have more than a passing familiarity with some ancient history, my focus here is tortured girls. And to that end I've done a lot of reading, and most of it was only a few paragraphs or sentences in a larger work. But the gospels, whatever your opinion of them, have lots and lots of great moments involving crucifixion. We are after the details of crucifixion in the ancient world, after all; inconsistencies between the gospel texts are sorta outside that purview (and mentioned in my original post, which already had a soft critique of the more orthodox schools of biblical criticism that apparently was too subtle). So like, listing out the top ten continuity/narrative errors between the four books is missing the whole point of the topic, and why I dipped into Mathew in the first place. I was getting a reference to the sponge on a stick. The further discussion was historical or fetishistic in nature.
 
Last edited:
And here is my payment of the image tax, for not keeping the thread on topic. Art is, of course by the the master @3DFranco
 

Attachments

  • Injust Justice.jpg
    Injust Justice.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 175
  • Road Side Crucifixion I.jpg
    Road Side Crucifixion I.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 171
  • Road Side Crucifixion II v2.jpg
    Road Side Crucifixion II v2.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 168
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom