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 11:39 AM
    • 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]
    • 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 2 of 12 , Aug 2 12:32 PM
      • 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 3 of 12 , Aug 2 12:34 PM
        • 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
        • 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 4 of 12 , Aug 2 12:56 PM
          • 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 5 of 12 , Aug 2 1:05 PM
            • 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.