The Non-Christian Cross | Page 8

much stress has been laid by us upon what we allege to
be a caricature of the crucifixion of Jesus and of much earlier date. The
drawing in question was discovered in 1856 to be scrawled upon a wall
of the Gelotian House under the Palatine at Rome; and as no Christian
representations of the alleged execution upon a cross-shaped instrument
of even a reasonably early date exist, it would of course be greatly to
our interest to be able to quote this alleged caricature, which is said to
be as old as the third and perhaps even as old as the second century, as
independent evidence of the truth of our story. But can we fairly do so?
The drawing in question is a very roughly executed representation of a
figure with human arms, legs, and feet; but with an animal's head. The
arms are extended, and two lines, which are said to represent a cross
but appear in front of the figure instead of behind it, traverse the arms
and trunk. In the foreground is a man looking at this grotesque figure;
and an accompanying inscription is to the effect that "Alexamenos
adores his God."
Tertullian relates that a certain Jew "carried about in public a caricature
of us with this label, An ass of a priest. This figure had an ass's ears,
and was dressed in a toga with a book; having a hoof on one of his
feet."[10]
It is upon the strength of this passage and the two lines traversing the
figure, that we, ignoring the fact that the figure is standing, claim this
much-quoted graffito as conclusive evidence of the historical accuracy
of our story. But it may be pointed out that even if this was a caricature
of the execution of Jesus made at the date mentioned, a caricature,
made certainly not less than two hundred years after the event, is not
altogether trustworthy evidence as to the details.
And, was it a caricature of the execution of Jesus? It would appear not.
To commence with, the two lines or scratches--for they are little
more--which we call a cross, need not necessarily have formed a part of
the original _graffito_; and, even if they did, of themselves prove
nothing. There is no reference to a cross in the inscription, nor is there

anything to show that an execution of any kind is what is illustrated.
Moreover, the hoof upon one foot, mentioned by Tertullian, is not to be
seen; a remark which also applies to the toga and the book he mentions.
And even what Tertullian referred to was not a caricature of the
execution of Jesus.
It should also be noted that the head of the figure in this famous graffito,
is more like that of a jackal than that of an ass; and appears to have
been a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis, who is so often to be
seen upon relics of the past as a figure with a jackal's head, with human
arms extended, and with human legs and feet, as in this drawing.
Upon all points, therefore, our claim concerning the graffito is an
ill-founded one; and it cannot be considered evidence regarding either
cross or crucifixion.
There thus being no opposing evidence of any weight, it is quite clear
from the fact that as late as the third century after Christ we find a
Christian Father who venerated the sign or figure of the cross
denouncing it as a symbol, that no material representations of that sign
or figure were recognised as Christian till an even later date. And such
a conclusion is borne out by the striking fact that when Clement of
Alexandria at the beginning of the third century made out a list of the
symbols which Christians were permitted to use, he mentioned the Fish
and the Dove but said nothing regarding the Cross.[11]
As to the sign or figure of the cross referred to by the Fathers of the
second and third centuries, even so high an authority as the Dean of
Canterbury admits, as we shall see in the next chapter, that it was not
"mainly" as reminding them of the death of Jesus that the Christians of
the second and third centuries venerated it. If, therefore, not in the main,
and, it would follow, not originally as a representation of the
instrument of execution upon which Jesus died, what more likely than
that the early Christians venerated the sign and figure of the cross as the
age-old and widely accepted symbol of Life and of the Sun-God we
know it to have been?
Anyway Minucius Felix may be said to stand alone in denouncing the
symbol of the cross as non-Christian. And as even he expresses
veneration for the figure of