People end up at the hospital everyday with nail puncture wounds. It does not mean they were crucified. I am sure that people were as clumsy back then as now and dozens of people died from nail accidents every year. There were also any number of reasons people might nail a dead body - transporting it a long distance by wagon or ship - some kind of superstition that nails protected or harmed the soul of the dead -- magic potions or medicine made from the nails or rust on the nails... One cannot assume bone + nail = crucifixion.
Jay Raskin
maryhelena wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi All,
In researching crucifixion, I have never found any evidence of anybody being actually nailed to a cross. I don't count the idiotic nonsense of the foot found with a nail in it as evidence of anything.
How about nails through a hand?
Cold case: Did archaeologists find the last Maccabean king, after all?
After reading Elitzur's paper, Hershkovitz re-examined the remains. He analyzed the nails using an electron microscope, determining that they did break the bones of the hand, as would occur in crucifixion.
People end up at the hospital everyday with nail puncture wounds. It does not mean they were crucified. I am sure that people were as clumsy back then as now and dozens of people died from nail accidents every year. There were also any number of reasons people might nail a dead body - transporting it a long distance by wagon or ship - some kind of superstition that nails protected or harmed the soul of the dead -- magic potions or medicine made from the nails or rust on the nails... One cannot assume bone + nail = crucifixion.
Jay Raskin
Indeed, nails in a hand don't equate to crucifixion.....however, in the case reference in the link, scholars are viewing this particular nail as being from a crucified body....
As to nails being used in crucifixion:
GUNNAR SAMUELSSON
Crucifixion in Antiquity
ι. Answers to the Basic Questions of the Investigation
Firsty what is the ancient -pre-Christian - terminology of crucifixion? The
answer is that there was no such terminology. There was only a terminology
of suspension - a group of words and idioms that were used more
or less interchangeably when referring to various forms of suspension
(both human and nonhuman suspensions in several cases). Within this
group there is a group of suspension punishments, and within the latter is
a group of executionary (ante-mortem) suspension punishments, and
within the last is a group of punishments that were carried out by a limb
suspension, in which sometimes nails were used, and which sometimes
resulted in an outdrawn suffering on some kind of suspension tool. The
problem is that no specific terminology is linked to this particular form
of execution - before the execution of Jesus.
mybolding
As to the gospel Jesus figure having nails used in the crucifixion story - gJohn infers that they were.
As to pictures of Jesus nailed to a cross being late to appear: I would not find that ususual at all - who wants a picture of the execution of anyone to carry around. I have always found it bizarre that christians wear that cross around their necks. Whoever it was, down the line from the Jesus story, that decided looking at a nailed man on a cross was somehow beneficial and a worthwhile thing to be doing was simply crazy.....
maryhelena wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi All,
In researching crucifixion, I have never found any evidence of anybody being actually nailed to a cross. I don't count the idiotic nonsense of the foot found with a nail in it as evidence of anything.
How about nails through a hand?
Cold case: Did archaeologists find the last Maccabean king, after all?
After reading Elitzur's paper, Hershkovitz re-examined the remains. He analyzed the nails using an electron microscope, determining that they did break the bones of the hand, as would occur in crucifixion.
As far as modern findings, one has to be sceptical. a nail from ancient Rome would be relatively common and worth perhaps $50, but a nail from a crucifixion would be extremely rare and worth perhaps $500,000. There are all kinds of pressure on archeologists and institutions to inflate the importance of their findings. One has to look carefully at what is actually found and not take the word of the the people who have an interest in inflating its value.
In this case when one scientist examines a nail and finds it is just a nail and another scientist comes along years later and declares that he has put it under the microscope and found evidence that it was from a crucifixion, on, has to be very skeptical indeed that the first scientist missed it as opposed to the second scientist adding something.
As far as Samuelson is concerned, I am skeptical. I remember that he debunked the use of nails in all but a couple of cases and those could have alternative explanations. I will examine his claims in another post when I find the time.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
maryhelena wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi maryhelena,
People end up at the hospital everyday with nail puncture wounds. It does not mean they were crucified. I am sure that people were as clumsy back then as now and dozens of people died from nail accidents every year. There were also any number of reasons people might nail a dead body - transporting it a long distance by wagon or ship - some kind of superstition that nails protected or harmed the soul of the dead -- magic potions or medicine made from the nails or rust on the nails... One cannot assume bone + nail = crucifixion.
Jay Raskin
Indeed, nails in a hand don't equate to crucifixion.....however, in the case reference in the link, scholars are viewing this particular nail as being from a crucified body....
As to nails being used in crucifixion:
GUNNAR SAMUELSSON
Crucifixion in Antiquity
ι. Answers to the Basic Questions of the Investigation
Firsty what is the ancient -pre-Christian - terminology of crucifixion? The
answer is that there was no such terminology. There was only a terminology
of suspension - a group of words and idioms that were used more
or less interchangeably when referring to various forms of suspension
(both human and nonhuman suspensions in several cases). Within this
group there is a group of suspension punishments, and within the latter is
a group of executionary (ante-mortem) suspension punishments, and
within the last is a group of punishments that were carried out by a limb
suspension, in which sometimes nails were used, and which sometimes
resulted in an outdrawn suffering on some kind of suspension tool. The
problem is that no specific terminology is linked to this particular form
of execution - before the execution of Jesus.
mybolding
As to the gospel Jesus figure having nails used in the crucifixion story - gJohn infers that they were.
As to pictures of Jesus nailed to a cross being late to appear: I would not find that ususual at all - who wants a picture of the execution of anyone to carry around. I have always found it bizarre that christians wear that cross around their necks. Whoever it was, down the line from the Jesus story, that decided looking at a nailed man on a cross was somehow beneficial and a worthwhile thing to be doing was simply crazy.....
maryhelena wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi All,
In researching crucifixion, I have never found any evidence of anybody being actually nailed to a cross. I don't count the idiotic nonsense of the foot found with a nail in it as evidence of anything.
How about nails through a hand?
Cold case: Did archaeologists find the last Maccabean king, after all?
After reading Elitzur's paper, Hershkovitz re-examined the remains. He analyzed the nails using an electron microscope, determining that they did break the bones of the hand, as would occur in crucifixion.
I have been reading Samuelson methodically regarding nails and nailings in crucifixions. I am not quite finished, but he so far shows about a dozen possible cases. Some I can show straight out problems with, but some seem to suggest that the expression "nailed to the cross" or more properly "nailed to the stake" was used by Josephus and perhaps a few others. I think I can show that this was a literary metaphor as opposed to an actual practice.
Samuelson has done all the heavy lifting for me and we all should be grateful to him. Hengel wanted to show that crucifixions were ubiquitous in Rome and Jesus' crucifixion was just one of hundreds. Samuelson wants to prove the uniqueness of Jesus' specific crucifixion. Both wanted to prove the historical nature of it. Samuelson has shown it to be so unique, that I only need to prove why it was so unique: it was so unique because it was a literary crucifixion constructed from bits and pieces of many other accounts. Jesus was nailed to the cross only because the metaphorical expression "nailed to the cross" was popularized by Josephus. Having never seen a real crucifixion, the Christian Church fathers, unlike the gospel writers who do not talk about the type of crucifixion, just used their imaginations to literally invent a type of crucifixion that never took place anywhere.
It is a harder task than I expected, but I hope to prove it or disprove it in a few more days.
I have been reading Samuelson methodically regarding nails and nailings in crucifixions. I am not quite finished, but he so far shows about a dozen possible cases. Some I can show straight out problems with, but some seem to suggest that the expression "nailed to the cross" or more properly "nailed to the stake" was used by Josephus and perhaps a few others. I think I can show that this was a literary metaphor as opposed to an actual practice.
Samuelson has done all the heavy lifting for me and we all should be grateful to him. Hengel wanted to show that crucifixions were ubiquitous in Rome and Jesus' crucifixion was just one of hundreds. Samuelson wants to prove the uniqueness of Jesus' specific crucifixion. Both wanted to prove the historical nature of it. Samuelson has shown it to be so unique, that I only need to prove why it was so unique: it was so unique because it was a literary crucifixion constructed from bits and pieces of many other accounts. Jesus was nailed to the cross only because the metaphorical expression "nailed to the cross" was popularized by Josephus. Having never seen a real crucifixion, the Christian Church fathers, unlike the gospel writers, just used their imaginations to literally invent a type of crucifixion that never took place anywhere.
It is a harder task than I expected, but I hope to prove it or disprove it in a few more days.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
Hi PhilosopherJay
Sure, the gospel Jesus crucifixion is a literary construct. Thus, what Samuelson decides re this issue is only of secondary interest. But as to crucifixion itself - I'm not sure one can rule out nails being used.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
outhouse wrote:
The unknown Hellenist authors writing to a Roman audience so they are not labeled as pesky trouble making Jews ARE NOT going to highlight brutal Roman punishment.
Have you thought about how loaded with unsupported assumptions this statement is?
"writing to a Roman audience"
"so they are not labeled pesky trouble making jews"
"are not going to highlight brutal Roman punishment"
cienfuegos wrote:
Have you thought about how loaded with unsupported assumptions this statement is?
Im sorry, you may need to do some homework as you do not understand what is happening here. Every statement is supported and common knowledge not in any real dispute.
He wrote in Greek for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians, probably in Rome
Lets put you in the fire and see if you run, or answer.
#1 Who was Marks audience?
#2 Did the movement factually separate themselves from Jews making the Jews guilty of murdering their Messiah?
#3 Romans were not brutal in their punishment of cultural Jews?
Generically, a Galilean is an inhabitant of Galilee. Galileans (or Galilæans) were also the members of a fanatical sect (Zealots), followers of Judas of Galilee, who fiercely resented the taxation of the Romans, and whose violence contributed to induce the latter to vow the extermination of the whole race.
Some of his closest disciples were said to be Zealots
Rebel? what do you call being arrested for sedition and crucified for it? The perceived trouble in the temple is described as violence
But I did qualify my statement to any generic Galilean, did I not?
