Dearth Of Information About Christ's Crucifixion Makes It Impossible To Render Accurate Account

WSVN ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

JERUSALEM -- The dearth of information about Jesus' Crucifixion makes it impossible to describe the event in accurate detail, as Mel Gibson attempts to do in his new film, "The Passion of the Christ," biblical scholars and anthropologists say.

The Crucifixion is the centerpiece of the movie, set to open in U.S. theaters Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday on the Roman Catholic calendar.

People who have seen the movie say it adopts standard Christian imagery in excruciating detail: Jesus being pinioned to a Latin cross -- a T-shaped device with a short upper extension -- with one nail driven through both feet and one through each palm.

In a December e-mail sent to The Associated Press, Gibson said he did "an immense amount of reading" to supplement the Bible's relatively unadorned account of the Crucifixion in the four Gospels.

"I consulted a huge number of theologians, scholars, priests, spiritual writers," Gibson wrote. "The film is faithful to the Gospels but I had to fill in a lot of details -- like the way Jesus would have carried His cross, or whether the nails went through the palms of His hands or his wrists ... Since the experts canceled each other out, I was thrown back on my own resources to weigh the different arguments and decide for myself."

Some scholars say even the most widely recognized features of the crucifixion, such as the shape of the cross and the use of nails, are open to debate.

James F. Strange, professor of religious studies at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said 1st century historian Josephus provided only general information, probably because crucifixion was so common that details seemed superfluous.

Crucifixion was first used in the 5th century B.C., and was a widely used form of execution in Asia, Europe and Africa for the ensuing eight centuries, said Israeli anthropologist Joe Zias. Depending on technique, death could be swift or take days.

"If you suspended people by their hands and left their feet free you would kill them within an hour," Zias said. "If you suspended them in a way they couldn't exhale they'd be dead within minutes."

Zias said the question of whether Jesus was nailed to the cross or simply tied to it remains a mystery. "There is no evidence whatsoever he was nailed," he said. "The Gospels say he was crucified and leave it at that."

Zias criticized "The Passion of The Christ" for accepting the standard version of three nails being used. He said experiments on cadavers carried out by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages have shown that people hanging with nails through their hands will fall to the ground within a relatively short time, pulled by gravity.

The Gospels suggest it took Jesus three to six hours to die.

"All this is Crucifixion 101," Zias said. "People who study these things understand them. But Gibson ignored them in his film."

John Dominic Crossan, emeritus professor of religious studies at DePaul University in Chicago, agrees with Zias that little is known about Jesus' execution.

"Early Christians believed that Jesus was nailed to the cross," he said. "But there is absolutely no proof of this. The only skeleton of a crucified person ever recovered indicated that the two arms were tied to a crossbar, and two nails were used in either shinbone. There was no standard procedure in any of this. The only common feature in the different types of crucifixion is intense sadism."

The type of cross in Jesus' execution is also in question, Crossan said. First century Romans are known to have used both a T-shaped device, without an upper extension, and the Latin cross that is standard in Christian iconography.

Each of the four Gospels says an inscription mocking Jesus as the "king of the Jews" was affixed to the cross. Crossan said this would have made sense "because the whole point of crucifixion was to warn people through alluding to a specific crime."

Two of the Gospels say the inscription was mounted above Jesus. This presumably would strengthen the argument for a Latin cross, which would have provided space for writing about the condemned man's head.

However, the other two Gospels don't give a locator. "It (the written warning) could just as easily have hung around his neck," Crossan said.

Crossan is also uncertain whether the cross on which Jesus was crucified was carried to the execution grounds -- either by Simon of Cyrene, as three of the Gospels report, or by Jesus himself, according to John's account.

It is possible that the vertical part of the cross was kept at Golgotha, the place of Jesus' death, and that the condemned person carried the crossbar, Crossan said.

"The point is we simply don't know," he said, "not in general cases and not in the case of Jesus either." (AP)

[Taliesan]

a position held by 95% of all New Testament scholars

Only if you don't count the others.

[holden]

James 2:19   You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe--and shudder.   (NASB)

HF

[KriegerGeist]

"This discussion has to do with historical reliability. And one of the criteria for determing if set of data is reliable is the existnce of multiple and independent sources of information. IF Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were independent of one another as written texts, then yes one would agree with you. But it is much more likely--and this is a position held by 95% of all New Testament scholars--that Matthew and Luke have based their accounts on Mark. And thus, the 4 Gospels at this point really present 2 independent sources."

Matthew and John were Jesus disciples [companions, friends]. [John] Mark was historically a close companion of the disciple Peter, so got his informattion from Peter. And Luke was a close companion of the Appostle of Paul and also wrote Acts, so, got his information from Paul and the disciples and his own experiences journeying with Paul. All four gospels were written within the first 70 to 100 years of Jesus' life.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

If the nails were in his palms, his hands would have been ripped apart in a matter of minutes.>>

Unless a small piece of wood was nailed through first for support and THEN nailed through His, a detail the Bible didn't give....but never mind.

[AmishDude]

Bottom line: Mel Gibson is not Michael Moore. He's not pretending it's a documentary.

[Jaded]

Talk about splitting hairs. I see today is full of new stories condemning the movie.

[ffusco]

I assume you refer to Caesar. Your statement would be true for any historical figure. However Caesar did write a book or two.

[tiamat]

Ronly Bonly Jones wrote:



Check out the Shroud of Turin (which has NOT been "discredited" as the left likes to pretend). It's portrayal is, ahem, "as it was" (although the holes are in His wrists, not the palms of His hands).

---

Standard Roman MOS for a crucifixion was to drive the nails through the wrists, as the palms of the hands will not support the weight of a human body by themselves.


The Romans were sticklers for records and detail and wrote EVERYTHING down... bunch of that stuff is in the Vatican Library even today.

So if these people need an "unbiased" description, perhaps they should check some old Roman military manuals.

[ffusco]

Historical Jesus refers to things like birth certificates and legal records which were recorded by impartial Roman civil servants at that time.

[Chris Talk]

How I wish what you say were true, but it is not. It refers to the apostate work that Crossan and Diane Sawyer and others are involved with it.

When I hear it, I hear the Serpent of Eden: "Hissss-s-torical Jesusss-s-s-s."

[aruanan]

Remember, the letters of Paul (as well as the experience of the writer of the book of Acts who was a traveling companion of Paul) antedate the Gospels and corroborate that Jesus was crucified, was resurrected, and was seen by hundreds. There are other sources as well. See The Historical Jesus : Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary R. Habermas.

[Romish_Papist]

I remember seeing something about crucufixion on television some years back. They were talking about how no one could have remained hanging if nailed through the palms of their hands. The kicker was that a then recent find was that of a skeleton, it's owner known to have been crucified, with nails through the skeletal palms. It surprised me there was not more talk about it after the find, but it does show that a skeleton was found, the owner known to have been crucified, with the nails still in it's palms. Now whether the arms were also tied is open to speculation, but does it matter? Not a whit. It was proof that nailing through the hands did in fact happen.

And this article is proof that the rabid Left will do anything to discredit anything that does not fall in line with their sanctioned views. Disguting.

[johnb838]

One thing to consider -- nails were not a common commodity in those days. They had to be painstakingly hammered out by a blacksmith. I'm guessing that nails were probably used when available, but if not a length of rope would serve nicely.

[johnb838]

There is NO documentation on Buddha, or Muhammed. There is more documentation on Jesus than the founder of any other major religion. For instance, it is documented that the crucifixion occurred, and for those who don't want to believe the apostles, there is the testimony of the historian Josephus.

[johnb838]

It's Christ's Shroud. Believe me on this. I know.

[johnb838]

Very good point. You could easily nail someone's hands to the cross and then tie at the wrists to keep them from ripping out. We got the symbol from somewhere, what would be the point in just making it up?

[Remole]

My comment had to do with the historical reliability of the accounts of the crucifixion in the 4 gospels, not the reliability of the entire ministry of Jesus. Yes, Paul makes many allusions to the suffering and death of Jesus, especially in Romans 12-15, and so that evidence can be used to support the general claim that Jesus was crucified. But the question on the table for much of this thread is: how historically reliable is Gibson's film, especially in matters of detail?

[ffusco]

Right... so you deny that there was once a child, a boy, and an adolescent named Jesus Christ who lived in the Roman era.
He is the son of God, but he was also a man.

[Chris Talk]

You are ignoring what I say.

The term "historical Jesus" refers to a specific committee of apostates who debunk the New Testament story as it stands and have written several books.

This is a TERM OF ART.

As you already know, I am fully aware that Jesus was a historical figure. Finding out FACTS, however, is not what "HJ" is all about.

[ffusco]

Mea Culpa. I did misunderstand you. You are right, term HJ is used to discredit Christian theology