Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Anglicanism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Mid-importance).


What exactly IS a crucifix? I'm not Christian, sorry for my ignorance. But is it the cross WITH the body of Christ? That's what I thought. --Dmerrill

Yep, in the technical usage of the Roman CAtholic church a cross is a cross, while a crucifix has a corpus (Latin, 'body') fixed to it. The entry needs to be disambiguated. --MichaelTinkler.

Have you noticed that Cross has a link to Christian cross, which redirects to this article? There should probably be some actual text at the Christian cross article, instead of redirecting straight here. I didn't set up the redirects, but I've been wondering when someone would notice and object. Guess that would be me now.... --Wesley

Just out of curiousity, if someone wants to make their own crucifix is there any place where a corpus may be obtained? I ask because I had a hard time finding one when I went to make a crucifix last year, only one store had one and it was about three feet tall and was several hundred dollars. I couldn't find any on the internet either in the size or cost range I wanted. I wound up carving the corpus myself - easier said than done because at the time I had very little experience carving stuff.
JesseG 19:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Irish Penal Cross[edit]

I have a replica of what is called, in Ireland, a Penal Cross, the word "cross" being used, rather than "crucifix." This cross takes its name from the days of the Penal Laws (at their worst in the early 18th century). The Penal Laws was the name given to a body of extremely harsh repressive legislation, aimed at reducing the Catholic Irish to abject misery. In practice, even if the niceties of legal terminology put it otherwise, the Catholic Church was outlawed. Priests found in Ireland faced death as did Bishop (now Blessed) Oliver Plunkett.

My carved bog-oak replica is about 9 inches long, the crossbeam 3 inches wide and the upright, which is slightly curved, varying from 1 and a half to 2 inches wide. Note that it bears no resemblance to Celtic Crosses, although an expert in the field might point out similarities in carving styles. Irish lore has it that its peculiar elongated shape allowed the carrier to slip it up his sleeve when necessary.

The Cross, which is representative, or stylized, rather than realistic, is carved with:

the letters INRI at the top
a hammer and 3 nails below the letters
the sun, moon and stars, presumably referring to the unusual meteorological events reported at the time of the Crucifixion
the crucified Jesus
under Jesus's right arm is what I take--perhaps wrongly--to be a fish
under His left arm are two streaks, which I take--again, perhaps wrongly--to represent a flow of blood
to Jesus's right, roughly parallel with the legs of the victim, are a spear and a whip, the whip curling around below his feet--4 curved cords
to Jesus's left, again roughly parallel, is a primitive ladder
below the feet (and the curled whip) is a stylized representation of a cock, poised just above a cooking pot--perhaps a little irony in this grim representation.

I wish to stress that:

1) I am no art historian, I am unfamiliar with the technical terms of this discipline and I make no claims to any specialized knowledge in this field
2) This item is sold as a replica and is available in many Irish shops for tourists.

If anyone can correct my errors, or give more detailed explanations, I will be happy to read it!--PeadarMaguidhir 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little addendum: In the Irish language, a cross is generally called a "cros," whereas a crucifix is generally called a "cros céasta."--PeadarMaguidhir 21:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Hi Peadar, The cock and pot were symbols for the resurrection, probably a secret symbol? See my Penal Cross at http:// for illustration. Colm Mc Cann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

when did this happen?[edit]

In the beginning of the second section, it says "Also, in the Old Testament, Moses lifted up a snake crucified on a pole-- a kind of symbolic crucifix". This didn't happen in the Torah, which is the original old testament. Could someone please clarify how they got this from the old testament? It's obviously Christian, but which version of the bible is it? Could someone please clarify this for me? thanks. Ilikefood 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is from the Torah -- Numbers 21:9. (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the Crucifix a Catholic Thing?[edit]

I am just wondering why were references to Oriental Orthodox (and Anglican churches) have been removed. A large Crucifix is used in all Coptic Orthodox Churches above the altar. Furthermore the Crucifix is used in processions on various major feasts. I am just trying to make a point that it is used extensively in the Oriental Orthodox Church. (Mike Morgan 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

It is used in most of the European protestant churches, as well. See for a reference. -- (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quote at the top of the article says "It is primarily used...", that doesn't mean exclusively used. In addition to orthodox, many "high-order" protestant denominations use the crucifix. If varies denomination to denomination, but many protestant denominations prefer just the cross. By the way I reverted the edit dealing with atheists using the upside down cross as a protest. It was actually added by an atheist based on a cite. Not a church going "hate monger" Please refrain from attacks. Marauder40 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random comment[edit]

Anyway -- it should be mentioned that they used to have daggers embedded in their crucifixes. I'd like to know if that was for self-defense, forceable conversion, both, or neither :) ClintJCL (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonsense, I have never heard that. References please?Tarheelz123 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controversies in other religions[edit]

I gather that many other religions find the crucifix to be offensive, especially among muslims, jews, seculars and evangelicals, who claim it to be an idol. There should be information on this, since in many occasions crucifixes have been banned in public because of controversies surrounding them.[1] ADM (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

which is the essential bit?[edit]

A crucifix (from Latin cruci fixus meaning "(one) fixed to a cross") is a cross with a representation of Jesus' body....

Given the etymology, might it not be a bit more more accurate to say a crucifix is a representation of Jesus' body (on a cross)? When Jesus is displayed in the same position but without an explicit image of the cross itself, wouldn't that also be a crucifix? —Tamfang (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In order to qualify as a crucifix there must be both a cross and the image of the crucified Christ. If either is missing then it isn't a crucifix, it is just a cross or a picture of the Risen Christ. Marauder40 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, I wouldn't think it represents "Risen" if he has his arms out in cross position. —Tamfang (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually it depends on what the artist of the image intended. If you have seen the San Damiano cross, it is called a cross as opposed to a crucifix because of the fact that Jesus is not actually attached to the cross in the image. It is because of the fact the artist wanted to represent that Jesus had risen. When the term crucifix is used, both Jesus (in a crucified image) and the cross must be present. Marauder40 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stil Suffering?[edit]

The article states, "depictions of the still-suffering Jesus ... are more typical of Western churches". While there are many famous Western crucifixes which show Christ still suffering, I think the majority show him with his eyes closed and his head down to the right (inclined towards St. Dismas). MishaPan (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have rewritten this. It has varied over the centuries, & many larger paintings show the moment of death (with the spear), but not crucifixes normally of course. The presence or absence of the spear wound would traditionally be the mark of whether he is alive or dead, though I wonder how many Catholics today, or artists, are aware of that (now added). "Popular culture" depictions generally show him alive, I think, as did early Western ones (before about 1000). The Baroque, following Michelangelo, often showed him alive too. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman Catholic vs Orthodox use of "Crucifix"[edit]

The use of three dimentional religious figures is of ROMAN CATHOLIC origin. Although Rome claims Apostolic Succession from the early Church, the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH started after the in 1054 AD, when Rome split from THE CHURCH in Constantinople, now Instanbul. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses only an "image" of Jesus on the cross, and an image of Jesus and Saints on icons. That image may be raised like the "profile" on a coin, usually only on metal crosses or icons, but never three dimensional, thereby eliminating any claims of practicing IDOLTRY.

Treckoj (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thats what the article says. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early history of this page[edit]

The early history of this page from December 2001 is at the article cross. Graham87 11:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any items on the veneration of the Crucifix? Seems missing. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Good Friday article has the following quote with references. It could be put here. "The Veneration of the Cross, has a crucifix, not necessarily the one that is normally on or near the altar at other times, solemnly displayed to the congregation and then venerated by them, individually if possible and usually by kissing the feet of the Corpus, while hymns and the Improperia ("Reproaches") with the Trisagion hymn are chanted.[24]" Maybe add something about the fact it is done on Good Friday throughout the Catholic Church and other times as local custom dictates. It's up to you. Marauder40 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just did not do enough of a search, hoping someone knew. The question was, is there an official Crucifix version of Eucharistic Adoration, even without a ceremony? History2007 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haven't heard of anything official outside of the Good Friday service. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. If you are talking is there a Church-wide one in the rubrics, I don't think so. Is there a local devotion that has been approved, probably. Marauder40 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I will have to do more searching. Alas Google books seems to be cutting back on free material, so life on that front will be less easy. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about the bent crucifix?[edit]

This is a very odd motive, and I would like to see it explained and discussed somewhere. __meco (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a crucifix that the artist who created it decided to create bent. What is there to explain and discuss?Farsight001 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you said not much to discuss for the article, but the reasoning I have heard for the reasoning behing the bent crucifix is the implication that nothing could hold the "spiritual" weight of Jesus without bending.Marauder40 (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terminology in "Usage" section[edit]

Just need to point out that the initial phrase stating "Roman Catholic (Eastern and Western Rite Catholics)" is a hideous error. The logical and proper terminology for referring to the Church at large, particularly when specifying both East and West is simply the Catholic Church, as Wikipedia does. For a period in history RCC and CC were interchangeable due to the East(Greek)-West Schism where the ROMAN or Western section was considered to be the lone remnant of the Catholic Church.[Albiet Italo Greek and Maronite Eastern Catholics never broke union with the Holy See] However it should be understood and respected that if not all Catholics belong simply to the "Roman" Latin Rite- there are now reunified co-equal representative Eastern Catholic churches per every post-Schismatic orthodox church - then you should not refer to Eastern or Greek Rite Catholics as "Roman". Thus it is factual, liturgical, and historically erroneous to make such a statement as "Roman Catholic (Eastern and Western Rite Catholics)" and may implicate a pejorative against Eastern Catholics.

Please make the appropriate changes: Catholic (Eastern and Western Rite Catholics). Thank you. Micael (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Roman Catholic (term)... If I had an electron for every time I have said that the world's energy problems would be over. I will link to in in the article now. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History'07 that is a terrible alibi (wonder why it is a recurrent theme?), the article is about the Crucifix, not about the historical reasons for variations in terminology.

The article referenced says it all:

"The term Roman Catholic appeared in the English language at the beginning of the 17th century, to differentiate specific groups of Christians in communion with the Pope from others... It has continued to be widely used in the English language ever since, although its usage has changed over the centuries. The church widely known as the Catholic Church consists of 23 autonomous churches... "

The article is not about historical nuances within the English language (and consequently the convoluted misnomers it creates) or English theological-socio-political changes introduced by the English Reformation. This is a generic article about an ancient Christian symbol, the Crucifix. The more this "less than widely known" and particularly its awkward use within the article is rammed upon wikipedia readers - the more evidence there must me some subliminal ulterior motive behind its stubborn inclusion. Additionally, I don't know why "Roman Catholic" must be used when to refering to the widely known Catholic Church (Eastern and Western..) when you never see Eastern Churches refered to as the "Easterm Roman Catholic" Church : Because its a laughably ridiculous and silly statement. Hence Roman Catholic (Eastern and Western Rite Catholics) should be made history, History!!!

Lastly, the use of a link does not help it only serves the ulterior motive to attempt to substantiate the obtuse use of such a term. Micael (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooooh, are we not getting upset now. Actually, you were right about one usage, now that I have read the page more carefully, and I changed that. However, if you read the RC term page, you will see that popes have used that term in the 20th century, etc. But let us let that be the cause of a heart attack another day, not today. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Roman Catholic (term)" article says the first known occurrence in English of the term "Roman Catholic" was at the beginning of the 17th century. (A slightly inaccurate statement, since some instances of its use in English have been found in the late 16th century.) It was in use in Latin and other languages earlier, even, it seems, before the Protestant Reformation: according to section 423 of this source, the Church "outside which we believe no one is saved" (and so the Catholic Church as a whole) was called Roman at latest by the year 1208. This church, "widely known as the Catholic Church" - nobody denies that - is also widely known as the "Roman Catholic Church". The Popes repeatedly call it by this name, as well as by the name "Catholic Church". Are they laughable, ridiculous, silly and obtuse? As for the application of "Roman Catholic" to Eastern Catholic Churches, search the Internet with Google or any other search application, and you will find thousands of instances of the use of "Maronite Roman Catholic". Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree with Esoglou. The term "Maronite Roman Catholic" says a lot. Now, in order not to let this page become the site of the new debate I will say no more. I am however, thinking of calling the Pope to issue an encyclical on this, because this issue just does not want to die. History2007 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Esoglou/History it IS a ridiculous, silly and obtuse just don't find such a phrase as "Roman Catholic Eastern and Western Rite" in any respectable literature, period. Cherry picking the rare Eastern Catholic church that might advertise itself as "Roman Catholic- Maronite Rite" to help many ignorant Latin Rite Catholics understand that they are welcome and are in union with the Holy See does not help your argumentation. But, this issue is not merely a religious argument, it is self evident that phrase sounds awkward regardless and the more you all try to deny it the more it is apparent you have a hidden agenda. The phrase plain and simply flows much better and is understood without any problem by just stating "Catholicism (Eastern and Western Rites) or just "Catholicism". What is the problem with that? What irks you so much about keeping it simple!!! Micael (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should say no more so that my hidden agenda about the use of that term on the Grassy knoll may become apparent here - just kidding. But Micael, please do calm down. It is just a term. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just trying to help out...I do not understand why you all get so worked up about keeping things on the simplest terms. If it is sincerely "just a term" then keeping things straighforward should be the matter here and would certainly be greatly appreciated. Micael (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reiterate to the benefit of Wikpedia readers, can we end this terminology issue and just keep things to the simplest of terms? Thanks. Micael (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying not to prolong this discussion, but I will give some examples. Esoglou knows a lot about this issue and his opinion will also be appreciated. But the fact is that there are many differences with the Eastern Catholics anyway, so the distinction needs to be maintained at that level, e.g. the Wiki-article on Sacred Heart correctly states:
  • Devotion to the Sacred Heart is sometimes seen in the Eastern Catholic Churches, where it remains a point of controversy and is seen as an example of Liturgical Latinisation.
Moreover, as the case for many scapular shows, there are many devotional differences, so the term "Roman" needs to be maintained to avoid errors when making statements. One can not just say: "Catholics follow the devotion to TopicA" because the Eastern may not follow it. On another front, as the examples on the Roman Catholic (term) page show, the popes have used the term Roman Catholic Church to refer to the whole Church. So who am I to disagree? I assure you that I have almost no hope of getting elected as the next pope, so I will not second guess their usage. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry History'07, what are you talking about? ... " the term "Roman" needs to be maintained to avoid errors when making statements. One can not just say: Catholics follow the devotion to TopicA because the Eastern may not follow it. " You need not express this as "errors" but points of view and regardless the words E."Catholic" and E."Orthodox" clearly differentiate the two. In claiming that Eastern implicates strictly an Eastern Orthodox definition and that all else is "error" you make a clear and unfortunate presumption. You need to respect that Eastern Christianity contains various POV including Eastern Catholics.

Because of such bias, you and others fail to recognize that devotionals, though initiated in particular churches are not restrained to liturgical rites. Even within Latins! You see though I am a Latin RITE Catholic it does not exclude me from expressing my Catholicity (in addition to the Latin Rite) in my devotions or prayers. For example: I frequently pray the Jesus prayer, an Eastern devotion, before receiving communion and am avid devotee of certain Eastern saints as St. Nickolas regardless of ultimately we are united in the same faith: Catholicism.

Lastly just because in the past the Church has refered to itself as the Roman Catholic Church in a general sense (albeit rare) does not mean that NON-Catholics use it or understand the term in the same sense [[2]]... in fact some use the ROMAN term PEJORATIVELY emphasizing the ROME, thus mis-characterizing the church in a highly insultive manner.[[3]] Since, many if not most here are not Catholic and some show significant resistance to such a simple term as just Catholic it can be presumed that some though not all may use this additional and unnecessary term to apply (even in an incorrect and inappropriate sense)to belittle Eastern Catholics and Catholics in general just to get their point across. NOTE:You will never see such a silly term as RC Eastern Church in any official church document...which I remind you is required by proper Wiki standards.

Similarly, the church allows all Catholics to satisfy the Sunday obligation -Divine Liturgy/Mass regardless of Rite (Roman, Byzantine, Chaldean) without making one any less Catholic regardless of rite...actually its what makes us Katholic(greek) for UNIVERSAL. we are not restricted by liturgical rite in our devotionals whether Eastern or Western.[[4]][[5]] Micael (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So is the devotion to Sacred heart a Catholic or Roman Catholic devotion? History2007 (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent question History'07! The Sacred Heart devotion is a Catholic devotion developed via the Western Church (aka, Roman Catholic/Latin Rite - small "c"- church), but to myopically focus on the region of development really diminishes its Universal character, its very Catholicity{Katholic=Greek for universal} For example, the concept and devotion to iconography though developed in the East is a venerable practice of the entire Catholic Church, regardless of liturgical rite . With icons being displayed on alters of many Latin Rite Churches despite of whether it is an eastern or western devotion (ie, my own local parish church).

A precise example of this open practice of Catholic devotion is exemplified in the late Blessed Pope John Paul the Great's apostolic letter Orientale Lumen (Light of the East), as follows:

Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ's Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.
Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

This Dominican order has a particular devotion to iconography, DominICON. Thus likewise Eastern Catholics also may be great devotees of such other Catholic devotions as the Sacred Heart as it also forms an integral part of the heritage of Christ's Church! Thus please, I reiterate, clarify the statement to simply say: " Catholic (Eastern and Western Rite Catholics)". Thanks and may God bless you! Micael (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the question still remains: Are all devotions shared among Eastern and Western Catholics? Are there no devotions that take place within one and not the other? Are there no differences whatsoever between Western and Eastern Catholics? History2007 (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge the article "Christian cross" into this article[edit]

The article Christian cross is largely a duplication of this article. As the term "Christian cross" is referring to the crucifix that Jesus was put on, I believe that "Christian cross" should redirect to this article as the single article on the topic of Christian crucifix symbol.--R-41 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The content seems totally different to me - just in case you haven't read the first sentence of this article, it reads: "A crucifix (from Latin cruci fixus meaning "(one) fixed to a cross") is a usually three-dimensional cross with a representation of Jesus' body", Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with John, it is not going to work at all, please see: Coptic ankh Maltese-Cross, Cross crosslet etc. etc. etc. which are not Crucifixes. A Crucifix is a WP:Notable item in its own right and must have a separate article, as does Christian Cross. The issue of any possible overlap in current article texts is in any case a separate issue which may need a separate remedy. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is about the premier Christian symbol that is the crucifix - a cross shaped device of connected wooden boards used in the form of execution utilized by the Romans called crucifixion, Jesus was executed by crucifiction as were other people including other Christians such as Saint Peter. Many images displayed on the Christian cross article are almost all crucifixes, the Coptic ankh has its own article for the symbol of Coptic Christianity - and it has ancient Egyptian origins and appears very different from the standard Christian cross that is a crucifix.--R-41 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, in any case you need WP:RS sources to support your assertions, which are, as is personal commentary, and not correct in any case. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's spell it out very clearly: if there's no figure it's not a crucfifix. A crucifix is a religious image, it is not an "execution device". Jesus was not put on a crucifix (as you say above), but a cross, and a crucifix is not "a cross shaped device of connected wooden boards used in the form of execution utilized by the Romans called crucifixion" - that's a cross. There's no point continuing the discussion until you're clear on that. I suggest you look at a dictionary. Most of the images in the cross article are not crucifixes, though the ones in the text near the top are - which should probably be changed. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright I end my proposal to merge the two articles. Howevever I do have a question for Johnbod. What would you call the form of execution that Jesus and other people went through via being nailed to a cross-shaped device? You say that crucifix exclusively means the specific symbol of Jesus on a cross, but the term crucifixion is a term used for that form of execution existing at back at earliest to the 6th century BC, see here: [6]. The crucifix has been referred to as connection of a body to a cross execution device not only for Jesus, but also including others such as the bishop Geno in the 10th century, see here [7].--R-41 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I'm sure the article explains, crucifixion is derived from a Latin word made up of "crux, crucis" meaning cross and "fix-" meaning fix, so fixed to a cross. In English crucifixion is a method, that uses a cross, and a crucifix is an image of the crucifixion of Jseus taking place. The Gero Cross is a sculpted crucifixion image (of Jesus) commissioned by Bishop Gero, who died in his bed. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually there is no historical record that a cross was used in Calvary. Some people (and I am not among them) argue that it was a straight pole, but they are in a minority. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The new language editing system is not cooperating. So I'll just put this information here in case an experienced editor sees it. The Icelandic Wikipedia page for Róðukross should be language linked to the page for Crucifix.óðukross — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]