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

Re: [XTalk] Tomb of Christ ?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
      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 2 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
        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 3 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
          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 4 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
            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 5 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
              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 6 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                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 7 of 12 , Aug 2, 2001
                  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.