Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[XTalk] Tomb of Christ ?

Expand Messages
  • Richard Mallett
    Reply to : Jason Gosedsky ... discourse of the learned, but I seem to remember a passage in Josephus which claimed that Jews in Palestine were customarily
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Reply to : Jason Gosedsky

      >> Presume my presumption, imposing myself, a mere student, into the
      discourse of the
      learned, but I seem to remember a passage in Josephus which claimed that
      Jews in
      Palestine were customarily buried, in compliance with the law in
      Deutoronomy about
      hanging bodies past sundown, as part of the general Roman policy
      of accomodation
      to Jewish law. Or am I gravely mistaken in this? Unfortunately, I can't
      seem to
      find the reference again, so perhaps it was only ever in my head!
      <<

      Josephus War 4:310 'The chief priests Ananus and Jesus were killed [by
      the Idumaeans], and their bodies thrown out without burial, although the
      Jews are usually so careful about funeral rites that even felons who have
      been crucified are taken down and buried before sunset.'

      Ricbard.


      E-mail from: Richard Mallett, 31-Jul-2001
    • Richard Mallett
      Reply to : James C. Barlow ... that day in year 33. -jb
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 31, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Reply to : James C. Barlow

        >> There is established astronomical evidence there was a solar eclipse
        that
        day in year 33.
        -jb
        <<

        19th. March AD 33. Only visible from the Southern hemosphere. Only total
        for parts of Antarctica and the Southern Indian Ocean. A solar eclipse can
        only occur at New Moon, whereas passover occurs 14-15 days after New Moon.

        Richard.


        E-mail from: Richard Mallett, 31-Jul-2001
      • Barlow, James C. DOC
        Alas! -jb ... From: Richard Mallett [mailto:100114.573@compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:47 PM To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com Subject:
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 31, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Alas!
          -jb

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Richard Mallett [mailto:100114.573@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:47 PM
          To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@...
          Subject: [XTalk] Tomb of Christ ?


          Reply to : James C. Barlow

          >> There is established astronomical evidence there was a solar eclipse
          that
          day in year 33.
          -jb
          <<

          19th. March AD 33. Only visible from the Southern hemosphere. Only total
          for parts of Antarctica and the Southern Indian Ocean. A solar eclipse can
          only occur at New Moon, whereas passover occurs 14-15 days after New Moon.

          Richard.


          E-mail from: Richard Mallett, 31-Jul-2001


          The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org

          To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
          crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

          To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          List managers may be contacted directly at:
          crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Richard Mallett
          Reply to : Ed Tyler ... wounds inflicted by crucifixion would necessarily lead to gangrene in the hands and feet unless the person were removed from his cross
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Reply to : Ed Tyler

            >> I do remain skeptical of the third's long-term survival, because the
            wounds inflicted by crucifixion would necessarily lead to gangrene in the
            hands and
            feet unless the person were removed from his cross within minutes of the
            suspension. Throw in other complications like tetanus and other infections

            and the prognosis would not be good. <<

            Could you explain how the wounds inflicted by crucifixion would
            'necessarily' lead to gangrene in the hands and feet, along with 'tetanus
            and other infections' for a non-medical man like me ? I understand that
            many scholars believe that Jehoanan (sp ?) had his hands tied to the cross,
            and that those who were crucified after the Spartacus rebellion were nailed
            through the fore-arm. Would this have still produced gangrene in the hands
            ?

            Richard.


            E-mail from: Richard Mallett, 01-Aug-2001
          • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
            In a message dated 8/2/2001 12:04:50 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Sure: When one is suspended from the wounds in the wrists, a weight several times that of
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 8/2/2001 12:04:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
              100114.573@... writes:


              >
              >
              > Reply to : Ed Tyler
              >
              > >> I do remain skeptical of the third's long-term survival, because the
              > wounds inflicted by crucifixion would necessarily lead to gangrene in the
              > hands and
              > feet unless the person were removed from his cross within minutes of the
              > suspension. Throw in other complications like tetanus and other infections
              >
              > and the prognosis would not be good. <<
              >
              > Could you explain how the wounds inflicted by crucifixion would
              > 'necessarily' lead to gangrene in the hands and feet, along with 'tetanus
              > and other infections' for a non-medical man like me ? I understand that
              > many scholars believe that Jehoanan (sp ?) had his hands tied to the cross,
              > and that those who were crucified after the Spartacus rebellion were nailed
              > through the fore-arm. Would this have still produced gangrene in the hands
              > ?
              >
              > Richard.
              >
              >

              Sure: When one is suspended from the wounds in the wrists, a weight several
              times that of the body is placed upon the points of suspension (I'm still out
              of town and don't have the resource with the precise figures on that handy).
              Whether the nails are driven through the forearms or through the carpal
              interstices (the nails were certainly not through the palms, which would tear
              away under the weight), sufficient displacement of the bones and tendons
              occurs to cut off almost all blood supply to the hands. (That happens
              whether any blood vessels are ruptured or not, and since veins and arteries
              are pretty durable and flexible it would be quite possible to drive nails in
              such a manner as to avoid their rupture.) So, after considerably less than
              an hour, gangrene would start to develop in the hands; and of course gangrene
              is irreversible. The same situation applies to the feet, but to a lesser
              extent because there was considerably less weight placed upon the wounds.
              Gangrene of that degree is still a virtual death sentence. Just not much to
              be done about it once it goes systemic. Of course, this fact did not
              influence the method of crucifixion, since the whole point was to kill the
              victim in as miserable a manner as possible.

              Tetanus and other infections in association with such wounds were also a
              certainty in those days; in fact they remained so until shortly after the
              First World War, when antibiotics began to be mass-produced. Tetanus alone
              was typically fatal, although other infections might not be. But when you
              couple them with the poison of gangrene, the trauma of the crucifixion and
              its attendant beatings, and the dehydration and fever accompanying the whole
              ordeal, it's not likely at all that the fellow Josephus mentioned survived
              for long. It is not utterly impossible, but I for one would have to see it
              to believe it.

              best,

              Ed Tyler


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • expcman@aol.com
              Ed, Did you miss what I take to be the point of the inquiry? Namely that Jesus not was attached to the cross by nails (through hands or fore-arms or feet) but
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Ed,

                Did you miss what I take to be the point of the inquiry? Namely that Jesus
                not was
                attached to the cross by nails (through hands or fore-arms or feet) but
                rather by being bound by ropes as the means of attachment. Thus, there would
                be no wound. I have understood that such a method of execution is in effect
                "death by dehydration," which takes a long, long time in effecting death.
                With this revision/clarification in mind, would you please try again in
                responding to the prior question?

                Thanks,

                Clive


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                In a message dated 8/2/2001 1:46:53 PM Central Daylight Time, ... There was an exhaustive study done in the late 1800s by a French surgeon, whose name I
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 8/2/2001 1:46:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
                  sblack@... writes:


                  > Ed, thanks for the helpful medical insights on crucifixion!
                  > Firstly, I would like to know (as a future resource) where you got
                  > this information.
                  > As to Richard's question, your explanation only would refer to those
                  > who have been nailed to the cross - many were only tied, and the
                  > symptoms you describe would not seem to apply.
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  There was an exhaustive study done in the late 1800s by a French surgeon,
                  whose name I believe was Pierre Barbet. He used cadavers. I'll post his
                  bibliographic info upon my imminent return to sivilization.

                  You know, I've often heard it said that many people were tied to their
                  crosses, but that's also something of which I'm skeptical. For one reason, I
                  don't see the point in tying anyone to a cross. Is that a "kinder, gentler"
                  form of execution? The whole point of crucifixion was to create the most
                  hideous punishment a cruel age could provide, and tying a fellow to a couple
                  of logs doesn't fill that bill. Driving iron spikes through his carpals and
                  hanging him up by them, on the other hand.... Gives me shivers.

                  But the main reason I doubt it is that one never finds any contemporary
                  reference to tying people to their crosses. Although there are very few
                  accounts of actual crucifixion, the punishment of crucifixion gets mentioned
                  a lot, especially by Roman writers. They usually mention nails, and never
                  mention ropes. For example: Cicero writes that he gets more joy out of
                  seeing the reputations of his enemies slandered than he would from seeing
                  them "nailed to a cross;" you never read anyone writing about people "tied to
                  a cross." The one exception I can think of is St. Andrew, but then he was
                  supposed to have been tied to a horizontal cross on the ground so that wild
                  animals could eat him; so that's not an execution by crucifixion. I think
                  the assumption that people were tied to crosses is pretty weak.

                  But of course you're right: If a person were tied to a cross, gangrene of
                  the hands might not be the inevitability it would be if he were nailed. But
                  then again, it'd still be pretty likely after a few hours. You'd have to tie
                  a fellow mighty tight in order to make him stay put.

                  best,

                  Ed Tyler


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Barlow, James C. DOC
                  Yes. A Doctor Looks At Calvary, still avlb. from Catholic bookhouses (TAN out of Rockford, Ill., I believe.) -jb ... From: LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes. "A Doctor Looks At Calvary," still avlb. from Catholic bookhouses (TAN
                    out of Rockford, Ill., I believe.)
                    -jb

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: LeeEdgarTyler@... [mailto:LeeEdgarTyler@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:17 PM
                    To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Tomb of Christ ?


                    In a message dated 8/2/2001 1:46:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
                    sblack@... writes:


                    > Ed, thanks for the helpful medical insights on crucifixion!
                    > Firstly, I would like to know (as a future resource) where you got
                    > this information.
                    > As to Richard's question, your explanation only would refer to those
                    > who have been nailed to the cross - many were only tied, and the
                    > symptoms you describe would not seem to apply.
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    There was an exhaustive study done in the late 1800s by a French surgeon,
                    whose name I believe was Pierre Barbet. He used cadavers. I'll post his
                    bibliographic info upon my imminent return to sivilization.

                    You know, I've often heard it said that many people were tied to their
                    crosses, but that's also something of which I'm skeptical. For one reason,
                    I
                    don't see the point in tying anyone to a cross. Is that a "kinder, gentler"

                    form of execution? The whole point of crucifixion was to create the most
                    hideous punishment a cruel age could provide, and tying a fellow to a couple

                    of logs doesn't fill that bill. Driving iron spikes through his carpals and

                    hanging him up by them, on the other hand.... Gives me shivers.

                    But the main reason I doubt it is that one never finds any contemporary
                    reference to tying people to their crosses. Although there are very few
                    accounts of actual crucifixion, the punishment of crucifixion gets mentioned

                    a lot, especially by Roman writers. They usually mention nails, and never
                    mention ropes. For example: Cicero writes that he gets more joy out of
                    seeing the reputations of his enemies slandered than he would from seeing
                    them "nailed to a cross;" you never read anyone writing about people "tied
                    to
                    a cross." The one exception I can think of is St. Andrew, but then he was

                    supposed to have been tied to a horizontal cross on the ground so that wild
                    animals could eat him; so that's not an execution by crucifixion. I think
                    the assumption that people were tied to crosses is pretty weak.

                    But of course you're right: If a person were tied to a cross, gangrene of
                    the hands might not be the inevitability it would be if he were nailed. But

                    then again, it'd still be pretty likely after a few hours. You'd have to
                    tie
                    a fellow mighty tight in order to make him stay put.

                    best,

                    Ed Tyler


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org

                    To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                    crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    List managers may be contacted directly at:
                    crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    Joe Zias is inclined to think that some victims were tied to the cross and that some were tied & nailed. See his excellent (illustrated) article Crucixion in
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Joe Zias is inclined to think that some victims were tied to the
                      cross and that some were tied & nailed. See his excellent
                      (illustrated) article "Crucixion in Antiquity: The Evidence", available
                      on-line at the Century One site:

                      http://www.centuryone.com/crucifixion2.html

                      And also available on Tabor's site:

                      http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html

                      See also the bibliography cited there.

                      Also available on-line is James Charlesworth's article on Jesus and
                      Jehohanan, at the PBS From Jesus to Christ site:

                      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html

                      More links to historical Jesus articles available at:

                      http://www.ntgateway.com/Jesus/biblio.htm

                      Mark
                      -----------------------------
                      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                      Birmingham B15 2TT
                      United Kingdom

                      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                      Homepage
                      http://NTGateway.com
                      The New Testament Gateway
                    • Steve Black
                      Ed, thanks for the helpful medical insights on crucifixion! Firstly, I would like to know (as a future resource) where you got this information. As to
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ed, thanks for the helpful medical insights on crucifixion!
                        Firstly, I would like to know (as a future resource) where you got
                        this information.
                        As to Richard's question, your explanation only would refer to those
                        who have been nailed to the cross - many were only tied, and the
                        symptoms you describe would not seem to apply.


                        > >
                        >>
                        >> Reply to : Ed Tyler
                        >>
                        >> >> I do remain skeptical of the third's long-term survival, because the
                        >> wounds inflicted by crucifixion would necessarily lead to gangrene in the
                        >> hands and
                        >> feet unless the person were removed from his cross within minutes of the
                        >> suspension. Throw in other complications like tetanus and other infections
                        >>
                        >> and the prognosis would not be good. <<
                        >>
                        >> Could you explain how the wounds inflicted by crucifixion would
                        >> 'necessarily' lead to gangrene in the hands and feet, along with 'tetanus
                        >> and other infections' for a non-medical man like me ? I understand that
                        >> many scholars believe that Jehoanan (sp ?) had his hands tied to the cross,
                        >> and that those who were crucified after the Spartacus rebellion were nailed
                        >> through the fore-arm. Would this have still produced gangrene in the hands
                        >> ?
                        >>
                        >> Richard.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >
                        >Sure: When one is suspended from the wounds in the wrists, a weight several
                        >times that of the body is placed upon the points of suspension (I'm still out
                        >of town and don't have the resource with the precise figures on that handy).
                        >Whether the nails are driven through the forearms or through the carpal
                        >interstices (the nails were certainly not through the palms, which would tear
                        >away under the weight), sufficient displacement of the bones and tendons
                        >occurs to cut off almost all blood supply to the hands. (That happens
                        >whether any blood vessels are ruptured or not, and since veins and arteries
                        >are pretty durable and flexible it would be quite possible to drive nails in
                        >such a manner as to avoid their rupture.) So, after considerably less than
                        >an hour, gangrene would start to develop in the hands; and of course gangrene
                        >is irreversible. The same situation applies to the feet, but to a lesser
                        >extent because there was considerably less weight placed upon the wounds.
                        >Gangrene of that degree is still a virtual death sentence. Just not much to
                        >be done about it once it goes systemic. Of course, this fact did not
                        >influence the method of crucifixion, since the whole point was to kill the
                        >victim in as miserable a manner as possible.
                        >
                        >Tetanus and other infections in association with such wounds were also a
                        >certainty in those days; in fact they remained so until shortly after the
                        >First World War, when antibiotics began to be mass-produced. Tetanus alone
                        >was typically fatal, although other infections might not be. But when you
                        >couple them with the poison of gangrene, the trauma of the crucifixion and
                        >its attendant beatings, and the dehydration and fever accompanying the whole
                        >ordeal, it's not likely at all that the fellow Josephus mentioned survived
                        >for long. It is not utterly impossible, but I for one would have to see it
                        >to believe it.
                        >
                        >best,
                        >
                        >Ed Tyler
                        >
                        >
                        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
                        >
                        >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                        --
                        Peace

                        Steve Black
                        Vancouver, BC
                      • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                        In a message dated 8/2/2001 2:34:07 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Yes, Zias is one of the scholars I had in mind when I expressed doubts that the Romans did in
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 8/2/2001 2:34:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
                          M.S.Goodacre@... writes:


                          > Joe Zias is inclined to think that some victims were tied to the
                          > cross and that some were tied & nailed. See his excellent
                          > (illustrated) article "Crucixion in Antiquity: The Evidence", available
                          > on-line at the Century One site:
                          >
                          > http://www.centuryone.com/crucifixion2.html
                          >

                          Yes, Zias is one of the scholars I had in mind when I expressed doubts that
                          the Romans did in fact tie victims to their crosses. (There are accounts of
                          Persians doing so, as I recall.) Several scholars discuss it as if it were a
                          given, but I remain puzzled about this assumption when the contemporary
                          evidence seems to weigh against it. If tying were at all a common practice
                          among the Romans, one would expect it to be mentioned at least once or twice
                          in all the references to crucifixion. But it isn't.

                          best,

                          Ed Tyler


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                          In a message dated 8/2/2001 2:49:18 PM Central Daylight Time, expcman@aol.com ... Two points: As I have mentioned, I doubt very much that the Romans crucified
                          Message 12 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 8/2/2001 2:49:18 PM Central Daylight Time, expcman@...
                            writes:


                            >
                            > Ed,
                            >
                            > Did you miss what I take to be the point of the inquiry? Namely that Jesus
                            > not was
                            > attached to the cross by nails (through hands or fore-arms or feet) but
                            > rather by being bound by ropes as the means of attachment. Thus, there
                            > would
                            > be no wound. I have understood that such a method of execution is in
                            > effect
                            > "death by dehydration," which takes a long, long time in effecting death.
                            > With this revision/clarification in mind, would you please try again in
                            > responding to the prior question?
                            >
                            > Thanks,
                            >
                            > Clive
                            >
                            >

                            Two points: As I have mentioned, I doubt very much that the Romans crucified
                            in any way other than nailing their victims to their crosses.

                            Second: The Gospel accounts of Thomas take for granted that Jesus was
                            nailed, otherwise there'd be no holes in hands and feet for him to examine.

                            If you are referring to the crucifixions described by Josephus, as I recall
                            he mentions that the Roman garrison entertained themselves by inventing new
                            positions in which to nail their victims. In any case, Josephus never
                            mentions any method of crucifixion other than nailing. He never talks about
                            anyone being tied to a cross and neither does any contemporary who writes of
                            Roman crucifixion.

                            So if I might return the ball to your court: If you would first care to
                            establish that the men of whom Josephus wrote were tied, not nailed to their
                            crosses, I'd be delighted to change my mind. As it stands, I remain quite
                            skeptical of the man's survival.

                            best,

                            Ed Tyler


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.