I was aware of the crossbar theory. I mean, it seems practical and obvious that victims of crucifixion wouldn’t actually carry the whole cross and that the authorities wouldn’t dig up the post every time there was an execution when they could leave it in the ground as a constant reminder of the cost of transgression. I was unaware of the whole nailing laterally through the heel bit. Worth the read: Biblical archaeology review article on historical Roman crucifixion methods. Happy Lent.
Follow up question: Knowing that the crossbar was likely carried alone, does the imagery of Christ carrying the full cross continue to have merit outside of historicity, or should there be an emphasis on factual representations in the stations of the cross? My answer is to stick with the full cross. The personal meaning outweighs the necessity of accuracy. We are not changing minds here, people. The audience would be confused.
