crucifact or crucifiction? (NON-religious argument)
Dirk Pellett
This is not intended to be a discussion of religion, but rather
an inquiry into a commonly-accepted belief about what is either
historical fact or is fiction. It is just coincidence I'm posting
this now, really. I recently read the following, in a translation
of the works of Voltaire ("Philosopher's Dictionary" I believe),
and I'm wondering whether Voltaire was mistaken or whether everyone
*else* I know is mistaken.
The quote:
"Neither the Jews nor any other people have ever thought of
fixing persons to the cross by nails; there is not even a
single instance of it. It is the fiction of some painter,
built upon an opinion completely erroneous." -- Voltaire
I don't doubt Voltaire's intelligence, however I doubt he was an
expert on this particular subject, so I'd like a second opinion.
I did my best to search the web for the subject, but there were just
too many web pages with a completely different focus, using the words
I used in the searches. (I hope that was phrased neutrally enough.)
I found nary a word of skepticism about the mode of attachment, other
than Voltaire's own comment that got me wondering to begin with. With
no exceptions whatsoever, one web page after another *assumed* nails,
as do song lyrics, poems, and a zillion figurines.
My own thinking is that at the time of the Roman empire, iron would
not have been common enough to be worth the considerable expense in
using it for something that could be done much more cheaply with rope.
But I could be wrong. Does anyone have any reliable cites?
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dirk Pellett, http://www.armory.com/~dlp, d...@armory.com
E-mailed replies without "AFU-6B14" in the subject will be
instantly and automatically deleted, unseen by any human.
James Pruitt
"Dirk Pellett" <d...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:ZbFI4.7331$l7.14...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
According to Britannica(TM) on-line edition, nailing was in fact used to
affix the condemned person to the cross.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,28494+1+28045,00.html
Maybe some of the confusion comes from where the nails were placed. It
would be impossible (or so I've been told) for a body to be supported on a
cross if the nails were in the palm. The Roman method placed the nails
through the wrist.
James Pruitt
John D. Goulden
> an inquiry into a commonly-accepted belief about what is either
> historical fact or is fiction. It is just coincidence I'm posting
> this now, really. I recently read the following, in a translation
> of the works of Voltaire ("Philosopher's Dictionary" I believe),
> and I'm wondering whether Voltaire was mistaken or whether everyone
> *else* I know is mistaken.
Victims of crucifixion were usually lashed to the horizontal crosspiece by
the arms with the trunk left unsupported. It was not unusual for the
condemned to also be nailed into whatever position amused the soldiers at
the time (Gibbons, "Decline and Fall..." and others; sorry, my bookshelf is
elsewhere so no additional cites). Iron was common enough at that time and
in that place, and at any rate if iron nails had any value they would be
recovered and recycled. The Bible implies that Christ was nailed to the
cross, as though that were not particularly unusual (John 20:25). It is
possible that He was lashed to the cross in the usual fashion and his hands
and/or feet nailed for additional torture, or to amuse the crowd, or
whatever. Medieval depictions of crucifixion with nails only are often held
to be incorrect; the claim is that nails in the hands and feet alone
wouldn't support the weight of a crucified prisoner. Oddly enough, the
prisoners executed on either side of Christ are invariably shown as lashed
to their crosses in what was presumably the typical mode of crucifixion.
--
Please reply by email as well as to the group.
John D. Goulden
jgou...@snu.edu
Gerald Belton
<jdgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>in that place, and at any rate if iron nails had any value they would be
>recovered and recycled. The Bible implies that Christ was nailed to the
>cross, as though that were not particularly unusual (John 20:25). It is
>possible that He was lashed to the cross in the usual fashion and his hands
>and/or feet nailed for additional torture, or to amuse the crowd, or
>whatever.
A paper "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" by William D. Edwards,
MD and others was published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463). It is also available on the
web at http://www.kgnet.com/jesus/ . It includes a sound historical
overview of crucifixion practices, including this:
"The criminal was then thrown to the ground on his back, with his arms
outstretched along the patibulum. The hands could be nailed or
tied to the crossbar, but nailing apparently was preferred by the
Romans. The archaeological remains of a crucified body, found
in an ossuary near Jerusalem and dating from the time of Christ,
indicate that the nails were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7
in (13 to 18 cm) long with a square shaft 3/8 in (1 cm) across.
Furthermore, ossuary findings have documented that the nails commonly
were driven through the wrists rather than the palms (Fig 4)."
References for the ossuary findings are:
23. Tzaferis V: Jewish tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem.
Israel Explor J 1970;20:18-32.
24. Haas N: Anthropological observations on the skeletal remains from
Giv'at ha-Mivtar. Israel Explor J 1970;20:38-59.
Gerald "very interesting reading" Belton
Dirk Pellett
Thank you for the excellent replies. About the time the Berlin Wall
fell, I was reading something by Bertrand Russell, in which he made
some dire prediction about the ultimate triumph of communism (he was
not advocating it, merely predicting it). I decided that philosphers
should not try to be prophets. Now I must add: philosophers should
not try to be historians. Sorry, Voltaire!
[excellent replies trimmed for space]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:11:53 -0400, James Pruitt (JPru...@aol.com) wrote:
> According to Britannica(TM) on-line edition, nailing was in fact used to
> affix the condemned person to the cross.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:27:22 -0500, John D. Goulden (jdgo...@yahoo.com)
wrote:
> Victims of crucifixion were usually lashed to the horizontal crosspiece by
> the arms with the trunk left unsupported. It was not unusual for the
> condemned to also be nailed into whatever position amused the soldiers at
> the time (Gibbons, "Decline and Fall..." and others; sorry, my bookshelf is
> elsewhere so no additional cites). [...]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:53:17 GMT, Gerald Belton (gbe...@interpath.com) wrote:
> A paper "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" by William D. Edwards,
> MD and others was published in the Journal of the American Medical
> Association (JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463). [...]
Chris Vail
>
> This is not intended to be a discussion of religion, but rather
> an inquiry into a commonly-accepted belief about what is either
> historical fact or is fiction. It is just coincidence I'm posting
> this now, really. I recently read the following, in a translation
> of the works of Voltaire ("Philosopher's Dictionary" I believe),
> and I'm wondering whether Voltaire was mistaken or whether everyone
> *else* I know is mistaken.
>
>
> "Neither the Jews nor any other people have ever thought of
> fixing persons to the cross by nails; there is not even a
> single instance of it. It is the fiction of some painter,
> built upon an opinion completely erroneous." -- Voltaire
>
> I don't doubt Voltaire's intelligence, however I doubt he was an
> expert on this particular subject, so I'd like a second opinion.
>
> I did my best to search the web for the subject, but there were just
> too many web pages with a completely different focus, using the words
> I used in the searches. (I hope that was phrased neutrally enough.)
> I found nary a word of skepticism about the mode of attachment, other
> than Voltaire's own comment that got me wondering to begin with. With
> no exceptions whatsoever, one web page after another *assumed* nails,
> as do song lyrics, poems, and a zillion figurines.
>
> My own thinking is that at the time of the Roman empire, iron would
> not have been common enough to be worth the considerable expense in
> using it for something that could be done much more cheaply with rope.
> But I could be wrong. Does anyone have any reliable cites?
A recent issue of _Biblical Archeology Review_ (sorry, its
on the back of the toilet at home--I don't remember which
issue) mentions the discovery of an ossuary in Jerusalem
dating to about the time of Christ. The archeologists
discovered an ankle bone penetrated by an iron spike--
both quite intact. Crucifiction was not a rumor, it was
very real to its victims.
Chris
------------------------------------------------------
No dogs in my email address.
Phil Edwards
Belton) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:27:22 -0500, "John D. Goulden"
><jdgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The Bible implies that Christ was nailed to the
>>cross, as though that were not particularly unusual (John 20:25).
>A paper "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" by William D. Edwards,
>MD and others was published in the Journal of the American Medical
>Association (JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463). It is also available on the
>web at http://www.kgnet.com/jesus/ . It includes a sound historical
>overview of crucifixion practices, including this:
>
>"The criminal was then thrown to the ground on his back, with his arms
>outstretched along the patibulum. The hands could be nailed or
>tied to the crossbar, but nailing apparently was preferred by the
>Romans. The archaeological remains of a crucified body, found
>in an ossuary near Jerusalem and dating from the time of Christ,
>indicate that the nails were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7
>in (13 to 18 cm) long with a square shaft 3/8 in (1 cm) across.
>Furthermore, ossuary findings have documented that the nails commonly
>were driven through the wrists rather than the palms (Fig 4)."
If you were trying to support the weight of a human body on a pair of
nails, you wouldn't drive them through the palms.
Phil "astigmatic" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"I will be the first to admit that polyethylene is not quite
the same thing as polyethylene, but they are very close." - CWD
Rich Tintera
also allowed him to be suspended by nails through the palms. Just another
miracle...
Rich
Phil Edwards wrote in message ...
Simon Slavin
"James Pruitt" <JPru...@aol.com> wrote:
> Maybe some of the confusion comes from where the nails were placed. It
> would be impossible (or so I've been told) for a body to be supported on a
> cross if the nails were in the palm.
Correct. The weight of the body would simply make the nails
tear through the flesh of the hand. But nails could be used to
keep the hands in place if the weight of the body was supported
by pieces of wood built-into the cross itself. The crosses
featured in some pictures of Christ wouldn't have worked anyway:
in order to have a cross short enough that Christ could
convincingly carry the artist has drawn one with no support. I
suspect that a real wooden cross would have been bigger and have
had pieces sticking-out to support the weight of the body apart
from the little platform to place the feet on which is featured
quite often.
> The Roman method placed the nails
> through the wrist.
More precisely, through the interosseous space: nailing in the
gap between radius and ulna, with nails in the legs going
between tibia and fibula, meaning that the nail would have to
tear though bone instead of just flesh. Iron was no problem:
the Romans used iron nails in construction. Given how corpulent
some people are, the Romans must have had nine-inch nails.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | _Microsoft_ is going to write the software
No junk email please. | that spies on me? I feel better already.
| -- John D. Goulden
Becca Ward
> >If you were trying to support the weight of a human body on a pair of
> >nails, you wouldn't drive them through the palms.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Rich Tintera wrote:
> Maybe the same miraculous power that allowed him to walk on the water
> also allowed him to be suspended by nails through the palms. Just another
> miracle...
From the perspective of the crucifier, though, there's no reason to
believe, ahead of time, that some miraculous power will keep the
crucifi-ee (any crucifi-ee, not just this particular crucifi-ee up on the
cross). Having nailed up various non-miraculous poor bastards through the
palms only to have them slide right off -- and Sergeant Flavius sure was
pissed about that -- the crucifiers reasonably might have concluded that
wrists would be a better option. Or ropes.
Becca Ward
--
Everyone I used to know who can swear in French
is now dead. -- James Pruitt
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> The crosses
> featured in some pictures of Christ wouldn't have worked anyway:
> in order to have a cross short enough that Christ could
> convincingly carry the artist has drawn one with no support.
It has been suggested that the condemned criminal did not
carry the entire cross, but only the "cross" piece of the
cross. The base would already be firmly embedded in the
ground at the site of crucifiction. The condemned would
be tied or nailed to the cross-piece, which would then be
lifted and placed on top of the vertical pole. The result
would have the appearance of a Tau-cross.
Charles Wm. "fit to a T" Dimmick
Rambler III
> [snip]
> . I
> suspect that a real wooden cross would have been bigger and have
> had pieces sticking-out to support the weight of the body apart
> from the little platform to place the feet on which is featured
> quite often.
Why is it necessary for the upright member to be more than a little more than
the height of a man - plus enough to plant in the ground, and the crossmember
to be more than a span? As the nailing was done on the flat, any excess length
would have made the raising more difficult. [Try putting a 20 pound weight on
the end of a pole ten feet long and then raise it to a vertical position. Weight
on top, of course.]
A low limb was sufficient to hang a man - and it saved a lot of rope.
--
Rambler III
“Each person who tries to see beyond his own time would face questions to which
there cannot be absolute answers.” Felicia, The Illustrated Man, Ray Bradbury
bs
Rich Tintera <tin...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OMDHLuKp$GA.304@cpmsnbbsa04...
> Maybe the same miraculous power that allowed him to walk on the water
> also allowed him to be suspended by nails through the palms. Just another
> miracle...
>
Now that is snide, Rich.
Just to jump in with another data point:
The figure on the "Shroud of Turin" shows wounds at the base of the palm -
i.e. through the wrist at the point where it joins the hand.
Those who believe in the shroud's authenticity consider this as evidence in
it's favor, the feeling is that a forger would have depicted wounds in the
palms, as that was what most people would expect to see.
Another data point:
For most crucifixions, the vertical post would have been permanently or
semi-permanently installed at the place of execution - solidly fixed in the
ground. The prisoner was lashed or nailed to the cross-piece, which was
then hoisted into place so it rested on top of the vertical post. So the
usual cross was shaped like a "T".
When JC was forced to carry his "cross" to Golgotha, it was probably not the
entire thing, as is popularly depicted, but the cross-piece (the vertical
post was already installed at its' customary place). Heavy enough, anyway.
Sometimes a short vertical piece was tacked onto the top of the cross, in
order to display a placard stating the reason for the execution, for the
edification of the spectators. This is what was done in JC's execution,
resulting in the "t"- shaped cross.
Apparently, prisoners were frequently nailed, rather than lashed, to the
cross. Iron was common enough, and in any case, after the prisoner's death
the spikes could be removed and re-used. Nailing the prisoner increased the
suffering, but the trauma of having spikes driven through flesh and bone
also had the effect of shortening the time of the suffering, the prisoner
died quicker. So the choice between nailing and lashing was a choice
between hurting worse, for a shorter time; or hurting a little less, but
making it last longer.
The "two thieves" are often depicted in popular art as being lashed, rather
than nailed, but the Bible doesn't say which method was, in fact, used.
Even the Gospels of Luke and John (which provide the most of the gory
details) simply state that "...two others were crucified with him...", not
specifying any particular method.
One consideration in JC's execution was that it took place on the eve of the
Jewish Sabbath. So the Roman authorities wanted it to be over with before
the Sabbath started. Having an execution to be still taking place on the
Sabbath itself would have been offensive to the Jews. For that reason, late
in the afternoon the officer in charge had the guards break the prisoners'
legs - so they'd hurry up and die before the start of the Sabbath. But when
they went to do it to JC, he had already died.
This might argue that JC was nailed, the others lashed (he died quicker),
but then, the soldiers had beaten the crap out of him the night before (the
"scourging" and "taunting"), he was already in pretty bad shape before he
got nailed onto the cross. Remember, he had been a carpenter before he
started preaching, and was still a relatively young and vigorous man at the
time of his death. Carrying timbers around was something he routinely did
every day of his working life. That morning he had been unable to perform
what should have been, for him, an ordinary task, and had to be helped.
Fred Simons
Phyllis M. Gilmore
>
> > [snip]
>
> > . I
> > suspect that a real wooden cross would have been bigger and have
> > had pieces sticking-out to support the weight of the body apart
> > from the little platform to place the feet on which is featured
> > quite often.
In the early 80s, I read a book called (if I recall correctly) _A Doctor
at Calvary_. The author analyzed the historical records of Roman
crucifixion practices generally and the Biblican descriptions of Jesus's
execution--and performed an assortment of experiments with cadavers.
In his medical opinion, the whole point of this method of execution was
that most of the weight was carried by the arms. Death was not caused by,
say, exposure, starvation, or thirst (which is what one would assume if
the victim were well supported). Rather, death came by rather slow and
painful asphyxiation. Hanging by the arms makes breathing difficult in
the first place; in addition, fluid begins to fill the lungs (I'm not sure
why any more).
The "little platform" merely makes the process take longer--and,
especially when nails are the attachment method, even more painful.
IIRC, the author believed that, regardless of whether the description of
crucifixion in the Bible is "really" an eyewitness account of that
particular execution, it clearly originates from an eyewitness account of
a crucifixion of someone--not at all unlikely, given probable the time(s)
and place(s) of writing.
Phyllis "I didn't write it, I just report it, maybe edit it a bit here and
there for effect" Gilmore
Chris Brent
>
> Sabbath itself would have been offensive to the Jews. For that reason, late
> in the afternoon the officer in charge had the guards break the prisoners'
> legs - so they'd hurry up and die before the start of the Sabbath. But when
> they went to do it to JC, he had already died.
>
Didn't they jab him in the side with a spear to finnish him of?
Chris "non practising" Brent
--
Chris Brent
UNIX Systems Administrator
ORIX Australia Corporation Ltd
bs
Susan Fine <nos...@nothere.net> wrote in message
news:dssbfs8ug3ocb4kij...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:51:30 GMT, "bs" <fsi...@junonospam.com> wrote in
> alt.folklore.urban:
>
>
> :One consideration in JC's execution was that it took place on the eve of
the
> :Jewish Sabbath. So the Roman authorities wanted it to be over with
before
> :the Sabbath started. Having an execution to be still taking place on the
>
> Going around killing all the prisoners who hadn't already died just before
> the Sabbath is even more offensive to the Jews.
Apparently not, at least according to John (the other three evangelists do
not go into the gory details to the extent that John does): [from the
Jerusalem Bible] "It was Preparation Day, and to prevent the bodies
remaining on the cross during the sabbath - since that sabbath was a day of
special solemnity - the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken, and the
bodies taken away." (Jn 19:31-32)
I'm speculating a little here (since I'm not Jewish), but as I understand
it, the Jews at that time placed great importance on the proper and
respectful treatment and burial of the dead. To leave the bodies just
hanging on the cross, untended and unburied, during the sabbath would have
been disgraceful. On the other hand, taking the bodies down from the
crosses, carrying them down off the hill, etc. would have involved violating
the rules against doing work on the sabbath, and these were rules that
people also placed great importance on. And remember, this wasn't just any
"ordinary" sabbath, it was Passover.
The whole dilemma would be avoided if the prisoners would have the decency
to die so that the bodies could be removed and cared for before the start of
the sabbath.
After all, these guys had been "killed" earlier in the day when they were
hung up on the cross in the first place. Once that was done, they were as
good as dead, nothing was going to save them. Hastening their deaths would
save everybody a lot of trouble, and shorten their suffering as well. This
last was quite possibly a consideration of the Jewish leaders, who tended to
find the Roman idea of execution by torture-and-public-spectacle to be
distasteful, at the least. Finding a good excuse to get them to put a quick
end to the display probably seemed like a pretty Good Idea.
Fred Simons
bs
Chris Brent <chris...@orix.com.au> wrote in message
news:38F660F5...@orix.com.au...
> bs wrote:
> >
> > Sabbath itself would have been offensive to the Jews. For that reason,
late
> > in the afternoon the officer in charge had the guards break the
prisoners'
> > legs - so they'd hurry up and die before the start of the Sabbath. But
when
> > they went to do it to JC, he had already died.
> >
>
> Didn't they jab him in the side with a spear to finnish him of?
Yabbut he was already dead.
From the Gospel of John (the only one that goes into all the gory details):
"It was Preparation Day, and to prevent the bodies remaining on the cross
during the sabbath - since that sabbath was a day of special solemnity - the
Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken away.
Consequently the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man who had
been crucified with him and then of the other. When they came to Jesus,
they found he was already dead, and so instead of breaking his legs one of
the soldiers pierced his side with a lance;..." (Jn 19: 31-34)
Guess one of the guys was just especially conscientious and wanted to make
sure.
Fred Simons
Larry Palletti
[...]
>> Didn't they jab him in the side with a spear to finnish him of?
>
>Yabbut he was already dead.
[...]
>
>Guess one of the guys was just especially conscientious and wanted to make
>sure.
Supposedly a standard procedure, if my early religious instruction is
any guide. The spear shot in the chest was to see if any bleeding
would take place. No blood = pretty good indication that the guy was
dead. Somewhat more definitive than holding a mirror against the
victim's nose, I guess.
Larry Palletti East Point/Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.palletti.com http://www.booksonscreen.com
--
Opinionated, but lovable
"Never did I see him ack like this before,
Offisa Pupp. I fear he is ill." -- K. Kat
Binyamin Dissen
:>Susan Fine <nos...@nothere.net> wrote in message
:>news:dssbfs8ug3ocb4kij...@4ax.com...
:>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:51:30 GMT, "bs" <fsi...@junonospam.com> wrote in
:>> alt.folklore.urban:
:>> :One consideration in JC's execution was that it took place on the eve of
:>the
:>> :Jewish Sabbath. So the Roman authorities wanted it to be over with
:>before
:>> :the Sabbath started. Having an execution to be still taking place on the
:>> :Sabbath itself would have been offensive to the Jews.
:>> Going around killing all the prisoners who hadn't already died just before
:>> the Sabbath is even more offensive to the Jews.
:>Apparently not, at least according to John (the other three evangelists do
:>not go into the gory details to the extent that John does): [from the
:>Jerusalem Bible] "It was Preparation Day, and to prevent the bodies
:>remaining on the cross during the sabbath - since that sabbath was a day of
:>special solemnity - the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken, and the
:>bodies taken away." (Jn 19:31-32)
In Judaism one does not abuse a dead body. Even the various death sentences
are done in such a way to minimize disfigurement unless the minimization would
increase pain.
:>I'm speculating a little here (since I'm not Jewish), but as I understand
:>it, the Jews at that time placed great importance on the proper and
:>respectful treatment and burial of the dead. To leave the bodies just
:>hanging on the cross, untended and unburied, during the sabbath would have
:>been disgraceful. On the other hand, taking the bodies down from the
:>crosses, carrying them down off the hill, etc. would have involved violating
:>the rules against doing work on the sabbath, and these were rules that
:>people also placed great importance on. And remember, this wasn't just any
:>"ordinary" sabbath, it was Passover.
The Sabbath has the highest holiness. The fact that it would be a holiday as
well does not increase the restrictions on work.
There is no Jewish death sentence that involved being placed on a cross.
The Jewish death sentence translated as hanging is more properly translated as
strangulation. There is no gallows.
After certain death sentences there was an obligation to hang the body as a
warning to the populace. The body was hung and immediately taken down and
buried.
Should a person die on the Sabbath (or holiday) the burial is deferred until
afterwards. One may not bury a body on the Sabbath.
:>The whole dilemma would be avoided if the prisoners would have the decency
:>to die so that the bodies could be removed and cared for before the start of
:>the sabbath.
Any Jewish death sentence has (almost) immediate death.
:>After all, these guys had been "killed" earlier in the day when they were
:>hung up on the cross in the first place. Once that was done, they were as
:>good as dead, nothing was going to save them. Hastening their deaths would
:>save everybody a lot of trouble, and shorten their suffering as well. This
:>last was quite possibly a consideration of the Jewish leaders, who tended to
:>find the Roman idea of execution by torture-and-public-spectacle to be
:>distasteful, at the least. Finding a good excuse to get them to put a quick
:>end to the display probably seemed like a pretty Good Idea.
There are so many technical and procedural flaws in the description of the
"trial" of jesus so that no Jewish court could have been involved.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Swotl3
[snip]
>In Judaism one does not abuse a dead body. Even the various death sentences
>are done in such a way to minimize disfigurement unless the minimization
>would
>increase pain.
Hmm, would this include death by stoning?
[snip]
>There are so many technical and procedural flaws in the description of the
>"trial" of jesus so that no Jewish court could have been involved.
What "trial" are you referring to? His appearance before Pilate, or the chief
priests and the Sanhedrin? Neither of these were actually trials, and had no
real legal standing. So, what's your point?
Simon Slavin
Simon Slavin
Rambler III <Walker...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Simon Slavin wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > . I
> > suspect that a real wooden cross would have been bigger and have
> > had pieces sticking-out to support the weight of the body apart
> > from the little platform to place the feet on which is featured
> > quite often.
>
> Why is it necessary for the upright
> member to be more than a little more than
> the height of a man - plus enough to
> plant in the ground, and the crossmember
> to be more than a span?
The crossmember would be fine, but the upright has to be quite a bit
taller than a man if it is not to fall down. I'd suggest at least
two feet. The only way it could be less is if they had ready-built
square shafts to take the uprights.
Simon Slavin
swo...@aol.com (Swotl3) wrote:
> From: post...@dissensoftware.com (Binyamin Dissen)
> [snip]
> >In Judaism one does not abuse a dead body. Even the various death sentences
> >are done in such a way to minimize disfigurement unless the minimization
> >would increase pain.
>
> Hmm, would this include death by stoning?
Stoning is not particularly disfiguring: no detatched limbs, no
wound big enough to let lots of blood out, no crushed skull.
Binyamin Dissen
:>From: post...@dissensoftware.com (Binyamin Dissen)
:>[snip]
:>>In Judaism one does not abuse a dead body. Even the various death sentences
:>>are done in such a way to minimize disfigurement unless the minimization
:>>would
:>>increase pain.
:>Hmm, would this include death by stoning?
Skeelah, which is translated as "stoning", has as step one the witnesses
pushing the criminal off a ledge at least 8 meters high. That was enough to
typically kill. There was a very large stone prepared that would be dropped on
the criminal if he didn't die from the fall.
This, although it does disfigure the body somewhat, does reduce pain.
:>[snip]
:>>There are so many technical and procedural flaws in the description of the
:>>"trial" of jesus so that no Jewish court could have been involved.
:>What "trial" are you referring to? His appearance before Pilate, or the chief
:>priests and the Sanhedrin? Neither of these were actually trials, and had no
:>real legal standing. So, what's your point?
I thought that Xians claimed that it did have legal standing.
As Emma Littella would say, "never mind".
Chip Taylor
>bs wrote:
>>
>> Sabbath itself would have been offensive to the Jews. For that reason, late
>> in the afternoon the officer in charge had the guards break the prisoners'
>> legs - so they'd hurry up and die before the start of the Sabbath. But when
>> they went to do it to JC, he had already died.
>>
>
>
>
>
If I remember correctly from the dim past of my Southern Baptist youth, this
was in accordance with prophesy that said that no bones of the Messiah would
be broken.
-- Chip Taylor
Hukt on fonix werkt fer me!
bs
Chip Taylor <ch...@xwb.com> wrote in message
news:Ft5x9...@news.boeing.com...
Gospel of John points this out, end of the chapter I quoted. Just didn't
want to quote the whole darned chapter, already.
John does a lot of pointing out of events that are fulfillments of earlier
prophecy. Moreso than the other evangelists. I think.
Fred Simons
Kim
Binyamin Dissen wrote, among other things:
<snip of attributions>
<snip of comment that the Trial Before the Sanhedrin and
the Trial at Pilate's House had no legal standing>
>
>I thought that Xians claimed that it did have legal standing.
Actually, they were both LEGAL trials, in that they involved
points of law.
The proceedings were...irregular.
The Trial Before the Sanhedrin was irregular in that, according
to Jewish Law, they had to have at least two people provide
testimony that agreed / corroborated before they could sentence
someone to death.
Therein lies the sticky points:
1) They finally DID find two that agreed ... sort of. But only
after much yanking and manipulating of the data, so to speak.
2) The Sanhedrin were no longer allowed to sentence death and
actually carry out the sentence. (They could pronounce the death
sentence, but it was up to The Roman Officials, in this case
Pilate, to actually ALLOW the death sentence to be carried out.)
The Trial Before Pilate resulted in Pilate finding Jesus not
guilty of a crime. It was a legal trial, all right, but the
sentence was not just.
So, technically, they were both LEGAL trials...but the result
was born out of the Politics Of The Time, rather than out of
Justice.
Kim "been studying" Wilkinson
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
bs
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:9sdhfso8jgpb7llvo...@4ax.com...
[I snipped a whole bunch]
> I thought that Xians claimed that it did have legal standing.
Not anybody who's ever been serious about studying it, I would hope.
Seems pretty evident that it was politics, pure and simple (and about as
down and dirty as politics can get). Apparently JC's preaching and the
attention he was getting threatened to throw a monkey wrench into plots and
schemes that other people were running and/or hatching, so these other
people decided to run a little skullduggery to do away with him. These
other folks had some political/social influence, also the ability to twist
Pilate's arm to some extent.
Pilate was, after all, an ignorant furriner, and didn't know shit from
shinola about Jewish Law and proper Jewish legal procedure. So when a bunch
of what he recognized to be local leaders (members of the ruling council)
showed up on his doorstep (along with a rowdy mob of supporters), and
pompously announced that "This man has been /justly/ condemned by our laws,
and must die for his /crimes/," he was dumb enough to believe them.
Swallowed the whole story, he did, hook, line and sinker - heh heh heh. And
the neat part was, /they/ hadn't harmed JC a bit - it was the /Romans/,
after all, who had him scourged and executed - heh heh heh. Let them get
blamed.
Had about as much relationship to a real judicial trial as any other lynch
mob, and I would think (hope?) that most people can recognize that.
Fred Simons
Phil Edwards
>John does a lot of pointing out of events that are fulfillments of earlier
>prophecy. Moreso than the other evangelists. I think.
Yeesh. If you're going to talk religion at least get it right.
Phil "begins with M, rhymes with Gath U" Edwards
HWM
> So, technically, they were both LEGAL trials...but the result
> was born out of the Politics Of The Time, rather than out of
> Justice.
Wasn't it also that the Sanhedrin (and Herod A) wanted to keep the
status quo and were afraid that JC preaching would start riots and the
Romans' reprisals (as happened then in 75) would rip them of their power
totally. Or if the hotheads would somehow succeed and as they might be
seen as collaborating with the Romans they would loose their power as
well. So either way JC is not a welcome figure during Easter with all
the crowds being there. Then Pilatus does not want to make any more
waves as he already has and though letting JC off would have been in his
interests if not else than to shuffle the pack, he also has only a small
garrison and if JC does not cause the riots someone in the Sanhedrin
might get peeved and the help he gets from there controlling the public
is gone. Hmmm... seems the only guy in a win-win situation is
Barrabbas.
Cheers, | De ore leonis libera me, Domine, et a |
HWM | cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam. |
hen...@iobox.fi & http://www.kuru.da.ru
Swotl3
[snip]
>the neat part was, /they/ hadn't harmed JC a bit - it was the /Romans/,
>after all, who had him scourged and executed - heh heh heh. Let them get
>blamed.
Not quite. At least not according to the accounts given in Matthew 26:65-67,
Mark 14:64-65, Luke 22:63-64 and John 18-22. Additionally, it was the Jewish
leaders who asked Pilate to put Jesus to death, since they had no authority to
do so under Roman rule. Pilate found no cause for a death penalty, and had the
scourging administered in an apparent effort to appease the Jews. I will not
dispute the idea that the beating administered by the Romans was likely much
worse than any the Jews inflicted, but your statement above is quite
inaccurate.
>Had about as much relationship to a real judicial trial as any other lynch
>mob, and I would think (hope?) that most people can recognize that.
That's pretty close to the truth.
Chip Taylor
>Kim wrote:
>
>> So, technically, they were both LEGAL trials...but the result
>> was born out of the Politics Of The Time, rather than out of
>> Justice.
>
>Wasn't it also that the Sanhedrin (and Herod A) wanted to keep the
>status quo and were afraid that JC preaching would start riots and the
>Romans' reprisals (as happened then in 75) would rip them of their power
>totally. Or if the hotheads would somehow succeed and as they might be
>seen as collaborating with the Romans they would loose their power as
>well. So either way JC is not a welcome figure during Easter with all
>the crowds being there. Then Pilatus does not want to make any more
>waves as he already has and though letting JC off would have been in his
>interests if not else than to shuffle the pack, he also has only a small
>garrison and if JC does not cause the riots someone in the Sanhedrin
>might get peeved and the help he gets from there controlling the public
>is gone. Hmmm... seems the only guy in a win-win situation is
>Barrabbas.
>
Pontius Pilate does not make the decision. He leaves it up to the crowd. It
was customary in those days (or so I have heard) to free one jailed Jew during
Passover. The crowd chose Barabbas. Pilate washed his hands of the whole
affair. Yes, he was manipulated by the Sanhedrin, who, I suspect, planted
rabble rousers in the crowd to rail against the carpenter and start the chant
to release Barabbas instead. All-in-all a very interesting story, whether
fact or fiction or any combination.
Chip "interesting parallels to modern-day corporate leadership as well" Taylor
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> So either way JC is not a welcome figure during Easter with all
> the crowds being there.
Um, er, uh, Henry. What is Easter doing in the above?
> seems the only guy in a win-win situation is Barrabbas.
Let's see now...Barabbas..."son of the father". Yes, you
could say that.
Further discussion should perhaps be directed to e-mail.
Charles
Viv
<kfwilkins...@cooperstandard.com.invalid> wrote:
:Binyamin Dissen wrote, among other things:
:<snip of attributions>
:<snip of comment that the Trial Before the Sanhedrin and
:the Trial at Pilate's House had no legal standing>
:>I thought that Xians claimed that it did have legal standing.
:
:Actually, they were both LEGAL trials, in that they involved
:points of law.
:The proceedings were...irregular.
:2) The Sanhedrin were no longer allowed to sentence death and
:actually carry out the sentence. (They could pronounce the death
:sentence, but it was up to The Roman Officials, in this case
:Pilate, to actually ALLOW the death sentence to be carried out.)
The Sanhedrin seemed to be rather less observant of Roman hegemony
when they condemned James the Just to death a few years later (related
in Josephus) - they dragged him up to the top of the temple, threw him
off and then completed the job of stoning him to death. (A similiar
story is related in Acts regarding the death of Stephen)
I wonder why they were so deferent in one instance but not the
other(s)? There could possibly be a bit of confusion between the
narrative thrusts of tales spread in early days which emphasised Roman
brutality at a time of rampant Jewish nationalism/rebellion, and then
later redactions which wanted to emphasise the separation of the
Christian tradition from the Jewish so they downplayed the power of
the Romans and built-up the 'guilt' of the Jews.
Perhaps this is about the time we take this thread to email.
:Kim "been studying" Wilkinson
Vivienne "Me too" Smythe
--
"I feel as if I'm arguing about whether the angels dancing on
the head of the pin are doing the waltz or the watusi" - Bruce Tindall
_.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._~:*'*:~._
Fight gullibility now: see www.urbanlegends.com
Lyle Craver
wrote:
>From the Gospel of John (the only one that goes into all the gory details):
>
>"It was Preparation Day, and to prevent the bodies remaining on the cross
>during the sabbath - since that sabbath was a day of special solemnity - the
>Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken away.
>Consequently the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man who had
>been crucified with him and then of the other. When they came to Jesus,
>they found he was already dead, and so instead of breaking his legs one of
>the soldiers pierced his side with a lance;..." (Jn 19: 31-34)
>
>Guess one of the guys was just especially conscientious and wanted to make
>sure.
Heh heh. I had the good or bad fortune(depending on your point of
view) to attend a Sunday School class in my teens which examined
this passage and was told that the fact that it was recorded that
mixed "blood and water" came out when he was speared proves he
was dead at the time given that death comes almost immediately
when the pericardium is ruptured and that this is anatomically
the only way you get that particular mixture. There was an MD
present at the time who said nothing so presumably the teacher
had his facts straight.
Supposedly the reason for breaking legs causing death is that
when one falls with one's arms behind him (like on a cross if you
have nothing supporting your legs) is that one's chest is
constricted to the point of asphyxiation. Otherwise, if the hands
and feet are not pierced one can continue for days on a cross
before death - which as you correctly state would have been a
VERY BAD THING for a Jew on a High Holy Day like Passover.
In any case, if the Romans didn't know everything there was to
know about crucifixion before the Spartacus revolt (c. 80 BC)
they certainly learned given they crucified over 20000 slaves
afterwards. It is said the entire road from Rome to Ostia had a
slave on either side every 10 paces.
Who said Rome wasn't barbaric?
------------------------------------
To reply to me remove 1 from address
Lyle Craver
(Binyamin Dissen) wrote:
>There are so many technical and procedural flaws in the description of the
>"trial" of jesus so that no Jewish court could have been involved.
Well, from the Christian point of view that's the whole point:
the New Testament speaks of the trial of Jesus before the
Sanhedrin as basically breaking every rule in their own code.
Ditto for the Roman trial. The idea being that the religious
significance of his death being greater by virtue of being a
'kangeroo court' in both the Jewish AND Roman legal systems as
opposed to being a trial anyone would recognize as fair. The
whole point of the New Testament accounts is that it was a
legalized lynching.
I do believe many Jews and Romans who were present in Jerusalem
1900+ years ago were responsible but it's irrelevant now since
those responsible have been dead nearly 2000 years and anyone
blaming anyone's descendants umpteen times over is just not
playing with a full deck or is operating with much more sinister
motives. The whole concept of 'Blood Guilt' is one of the most
evil concepts of the last two millenia.
You wish me a Happy Easter and I'll wish you a Happy Passover (or
whatever the appropriate adjective is) and we'll leave it at
that, ok?
bs
Lyle Craver <lcr...@home1.com> wrote in message
news:38fc24ee.28744297@news...
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:27:42 +0300, post...@dissensoftware.com
> (Binyamin Dissen) wrote:
>
> >There are so many technical and procedural flaws in the description of
the
> >"trial" of jesus so that no Jewish court could have been involved.
>
> Well, from the Christian point of view that's the whole point:
> the New Testament speaks of the trial of Jesus before the
> Sanhedrin as basically breaking every rule in their own code.
> Ditto for the Roman trial. The idea being that the religious
> significance of his death being greater by virtue of being a
> 'kangeroo court' in both the Jewish AND Roman legal systems as
> opposed to being a trial anyone would recognize as fair. The
> whole point of the New Testament accounts is that it was a
> legalized lynching.
>
> I do believe many Jews and Romans who were present in Jerusalem
> 1900+ years ago were responsible but it's irrelevant now since
> those responsible have been dead nearly 2000 years and anyone
> blaming anyone's descendants umpteen times over is just not
> playing with a full deck or is operating with much more sinister
> motives. The whole concept of 'Blood Guilt' is one of the most
> evil concepts of the last two millenia.
[snip]
Thanks Lyle.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say, but you explained it a lot more
clearly than I was able to.
Just kinda for information:
The earliest Christians considered themselves to be Jewish, but there were
just too many disputes with other Jewish groups and the two (Judaism and
Christianity) eventually separated.
This wasn't a civil process (some of it got recorded in "Acts of the
Apostles"), there was a lot of name-calling, hard feelings, bitterness, and
some downright childish behavior at times.
According to what I was taught and have read, the Gospel of John was written
during the middle of this dispute, and some of the bitterness is reflected
in the writing. When John wrote about "the Jews", he was referring to
"those mumblety mumblety frackenbracken so-and-so's in the leadership who
were agin' us then, and who are trying to get us kicked out of the
congregation now". Presumably this was perfectly clear to his contemporary
audience, who would have known just exactly who he was talking about.
It's really unfortunate that /some/ people have chosen to interpret John
literally (i.e. "the Jews" = /everybody/), without considering the
circumstances he was in while he was writing, and using their flawed
interpretations to resurrect all the hard feelings and revive a dispute that
was settled ages ago.
(Settled childishly, perhaps:
"You aren't /really/ Jewish! Nya nya nya. Quit telling everybody you are!
Go get lost!"
"Fine! Be that way. We'll go make our /own/ church. And it'll be bigger
'n' better than yours, too. So there! Nya nya nya yerself!"
But it /was/ settled.)
I know this is straying off-charter for the group (and I'm gonna shut up
about it now), but I don't want to be responsible for being misunderstood
and reviving some of those hard feelings that are still lurking around. I
only quoted from John because, of the four Gospels, John's is the one that
goes into all the neat gory technical details about nails, leg-breaking,
stabbing and other stuff that was being discussed about a crucifixion.
Fred Simons
Joe Boswell
writes
>Who said Rome wasn't barbaric?
Errr.. I think that was the Romans.
--
Joe 'Barbarian at the gate' Boswell * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
[spam block - take the micky from the address or it won't work]
HWM
>
> HWM wrote:
>
> > So either way JC is not a welcome figure during Easter with all
> > the crowds being there.
>
> Um, er, uh, Henry. What is Easter doing in the above?
Now that I look on the net KJV says Passover. The Finnish translation in
my hand I used calls both Passover and Easter with the same name
'Pääsiäinen', which is next Sunday in the calendar. I suspect a case of
TWIFOBT[1] here, o pharisee.
[1] the world is full of bible translations (in different languages)
HWM
>
> In article <38fc22b9.28179592@news>, Lyle Craver <lcr...@home1.com>
> writes
> >Who said Rome wasn't barbaric?
>
> Errr.. I think that was the Romans.
I hear the Greek orkhestra chanting "We've been saying it all time
long!"
--
Lee Rudolph
>Joe Boswell wrote:
>>
>> In article <38fc22b9.28179592@news>, Lyle Craver <lcr...@home1.com>
>> writes
>> >Who said Rome wasn't barbaric?
>>
>> Errr.. I think that was the Romans.
>
>I hear the Greek orkhestra chanting "We've been saying it all time
>long!"
While Santa Claus, upon his Japanese cross, tries to keep up with
the karaoke.
Lee "what a long, strange etymology it's been" Rudolph
Joseph Michael Bay
>Skeelah, which is translated as "stoning", has as step one the witnesses
>pushing the criminal off a ledge at least 8 meters high. That was enough to
>typically kill. There was a very large stone prepared that would be dropped on
>the criminal if he didn't die from the fall.
>This, although it does disfigure the body somewhat, does reduce pain.
Following this, the witness says "meep meep!" and sticks out his tongue.
--
Joseph M. Bay Boy Genius
Putting the "harm" in the "Molecular Pharmacology" since 1997
(Oo) Someone you love is One of Us. (oO)
/{|\ What Would Cthulhu Do? /|}\
Joseph Michael Bay
>Apparently, prisoners were frequently nailed, rather than lashed, to the
>cross. Iron was common enough, and in any case, after the prisoner's death
>the spikes could be removed and re-used. Nailing the prisoner increased the
>suffering, but the trauma of having spikes driven through flesh and bone
>also had the effect of shortening the time of the suffering, the prisoner
>died quicker. So the choice between nailing and lashing was a choice
>between hurting worse, for a shorter time; or hurting a little less, but
>making it last longer.
I recall from somewhere (probably part of my religious education) that
there were certain strong-willed people who, having been crucified by
nailing and not ropes, were able to work free of their attachments. If
such a thing were done, of course, it would result in a great deal of
physical injury (although less than say death by asphyxiation) and would
be excruciatingly, as it were, painful.
Joe "I'm Nailed Right In" Bay
Joseph Michael Bay
>:>Apparently not, at least according to John (the other three evangelists do
>:>not go into the gory details to the extent that John does): [from the
>:>Jerusalem Bible] "It was Preparation Day, and to prevent the bodies
>:>remaining on the cross during the sabbath - since that sabbath was a day of
>:>special solemnity - the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs broken, and the
>:>bodies taken away." (Jn 19:31-32)
>In Judaism one does not abuse a dead body. Even the various death sentences
>are done in such a way to minimize disfigurement unless the minimization would
>increase pain.
>Any Jewish death sentence has (almost) immediate death.
>There are so many technical and procedural flaws in the description of the
>"trial" of jesus so that no Jewish court could have been involved.
I hear that Romans may have been involved.
Joe "just a rumor" Bay
Joseph Michael Bay
>Swallowed the whole story, he did, hook, line and sinker - heh heh heh. And
>the neat part was, /they/ hadn't harmed JC a bit - it was the /Romans/,
>after all, who had him scourged and executed - heh heh heh. Let them get
>blamed.
Keep in mind that the audience for whom this was being written
was primarily Gentile and would thus be more amenable to seeing
non-Romans (Jews) take the blame. You have to know your audience,
especially when you're going to tell them a bunch of stuff that
might be difficult to believe and would require serious changes
in how they live.
Lara Hopkins
> I had the good or bad fortune(depending on your point of
>view) to attend a Sunday School class in my teens which examined
>this passage and was told that the fact that it was recorded that
>mixed "blood and water" came out when he was speared proves he
>was dead at the time given that death comes almost immediately
>when the pericardium is ruptured and that this is anatomically
>the only way you get that particular mixture.
Vectored at great length at
<http://www.custance.org/incarnation/7ch2.html>
At a first glance, there seems to be a fair bit of dodgy science
hidden in the jargon on this page. I admit to extreme scepticism about
the purported phenomenon of isolated heart rupture due purely to
emotional distress. I also find it somewhat difficult to believe that
there would be enough separated serum in a recent pericardial
tamponade to give the mixed-blood-and-water appearance.
In addition, the average age of the medical references on the custance
page is 149 years.
We'll never know for sure, but the detailed account at
<http://www.cga94.com/stuff/crucifixion/> [1]
is more plausible, mixing pleural (lung) fluid with pericardial
effusion.
>There was an MD
>present at the time who said nothing so presumably the teacher
>had his facts straight.
There's an ObThreadTieIn here, yes?
Lara "debunking factoids, not arguing religion" Hopkins
[1] On The Physical Death of Jesus Christ
William D. Edwards, MD; Wesley J. Gabel, MDiv; Floyd E Hosmer, MS, AMI
Reprinted from JAMA - The Journal of the American Medical Association
March 21, 1986, Volume 256
HWM
lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph) wrote:
> HWM <henry.wEGGS_&_S...@iobox.fi> writes:
>
> >Joe Boswell wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38fc22b9.28179592@news>, Lyle Craver
<lcr...@home1.com>
> >> writes
> >> >Who said Rome wasn't barbaric?
> >>
> >> Errr.. I think that was the Romans.
> >
> >I hear the Greek orkhestra chanting "We've been saying it all time
> >long!"
>
> While Santa Claus, upon his Japanese cross, tries to keep up with
> the karaoke.
Singing "Always look on the bright side of life..."
--
Cheers, | De ore leonis libera me, Domine, et a |
HWM | cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam. |
hen...@iobox.fi & http://www.kuru.da.ru
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.