some documentary being summarized wrote:Both the ✝ and the T found to be unsatisfactory. The T being worse and death would be very quick re heart problems. In the ✝ shape, in particular, the body is in danger, because of its weight, of pulling itself down from the execution instrument.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the physics and geometry of this claim, but I'm not there yet.
In what meaningful respect are they distinguishing between hanging a body from the ✝and from the T shape?
My untrained eye sees these as being functionally equivalent, so far as the hanging of the body is concerned. The only difference here concerns the (essentially decorative) top of the alleged ✝shape, which top is not connected to the body anywhere. The body's weight does not change depending on the shape of the object to which it becomes attached. Does, perhaps, this emperor have no clothes?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:The fact that the nails were associated with the fingers might suggest that this person could have been on an "X" shape, if they were hung from nails at all, due to the fact that they would have been ripped out of the hands if the body was being suspended without support for the arms (as in a "T" or pole shape). But it's just one body. All it might do--and it appears that scholars aren't even ready to accept that yet, generally--is suggest that the "X" shape could have been used (for hanging, not even necessarily to kill, given the indications of beheading) sometimes, and that this person was one of those "sometimes."
We'd need at least 5 bodies to be anywhere near statistical significance, and most would want ~8 or more. It's some kind of math thing.
Nope - Maths is not going to further the historicist vs ahistoricist debate....remember the role the outlier plays in economics as well as in life - it's that one black swan that changes the game......
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
maryhelena wrote:Yes, Elitzur does not investigate the type of instrument used to which he thinks Antigonus was nailed to - his focus, after all, is the identification of the remains of the Abba Cave with Antigonus. It is the Biblical Conspiracies Secrets of the Crucifixion documentary that has attempted, re both sets of bones, to identify the type of cross used.
Thank you. That was my point.
Professor Israel Hershkovitz was a major participant in the documentary and was involved with the demonstrations re the type of cross that the bones are suggesting - a X cross.
My other point is that none of the difficulties in interpreting this evidence were mentioned in the O.P.
My third point, buried in a single sentence, is that a sample of one is useless.
But, referring back to the previous point, do we even have a sample of one? On which to make inferences about the exact shape of ancient crucifixion instruments? You've questioned the manner of crucifixion of the other guy (which doesn't flip it over to the other side--if anything, it'd just remove it from the data that can be used), and a large number of scholars have questioned anything and everything regarding the claim of crucifixion for this guy/girl.
But thanks for your exacting cross-examination of my post, all the same... Not that there was much point to it, in the context of the "X" cross claim, i.e.:
From the physical evidence available, re Roman crucifixion, a X cross could be used. Sure, discard this as having no relevance to the gospel crucifixion story. I'd rather see this physical evidence and the bones from the Abba Cave as being relevant to the gospel crucifixion story. Like everything in this historicist vs ahistoricist debate one makes ones choices - and then see where they take one....
I just got done saying that it has relevance, at best (due to the ambiguities--some would not even be that charitable--that really do exist in this evidence, even when taken as evidence just for this one case), in showing that the St. Andrew's Cross could have been used. What's this rhetoric for? Le sigh....
The fact that the nails were associated with the fingers might suggest that this person could have been on an "X" shape, if they were hung from nails at all, due to the fact that they would have been ripped out of the hands if the body was being suspended without support for the arms (as in a "T" or pole shape). But it's just one body. All it might do--and it appears that scholars aren't even ready to accept that yet, generally--is suggest that the "X" shape could have been used (for hanging, not even necessarily to kill, given the indications of beheading) sometimes, and that this person was one of those "sometimes."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:The fact that the nails were associated with the fingers might suggest that this person could have been on an "X" shape, if they were hung from nails at all, due to the fact that they would have been ripped out of the hands if the body was being suspended without support for the arms (as in a "T" or pole shape). But it's just one body. All it might do--and it appears that scholars aren't even ready to accept that yet, generally--is suggest that the "X" shape could have been used (for hanging, not even necessarily to kill, given the indications of beheading) sometimes, and that this person was one of those "sometimes."
We'd need at least 5 bodies to be anywhere near statistical significance, and most would want ~8 or more. It's some kind of math thing.
Nope - Maths is not going to further the historicist vs ahistoricist debate....remember the role the outlier plays in economics as well as in life - it's that one black swan that changes the game......
Poetry. There. Refuted.
I said nothing about "the historicist vs ahistoricist."
Your claim, taken strongly, is equivalent to looking at the Queen of England's pink underpants and concluding that all underpants are pink.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
some documentary being summarized wrote:Both the ✝ and the T found to be unsatisfactory. The T being worse and death would be very quick re heart problems. In the ✝ shape, in particular, the body is in danger, because of its weight, of pulling itself down from the execution instrument.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the physics and geometry of this claim, but I'm not there yet.
In what meaningful respect are they distinguishing between hanging a body from the ✝and from the T shape?
My untrained eye sees these as being functionally equivalent, so far as the hanging of the body is concerned. The only difference here concerns the (essentially decorative) top of the alleged ✝shape, which top is not connected to the body anywhere. The body's weight does not change depending on the shape of the object to which it becomes attached. Does, perhaps, this emperor have no clothes?
No scientist here - watch the video - it seems there is considerable difference re the positioning the body requires in the T that contributes to an earlier death.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
some documentary being summarized wrote:Both the ✝ and the T found to be unsatisfactory. ........ In the ✝ shape, in particular, the body is in danger, because of its weight, of pulling itself down from the execution instrument.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the physics and geometry of this claim, but I'm not there yet.
In what meaningful respect are they distinguishing between hanging a body from the ✝and from the T shape?
My untrained eye sees these as being functionally equivalent, so far as the hanging of the body is concerned. The only difference here concerns the (essentially decorative) top of the alleged ✝shape, which top is not connected to the body anywhere. The body's weight does not change depending on the shape of the object to which it becomes attached. Does, perhaps, this emperor have no clothes?
No scientist here - watch the video - it seems there is considerable difference re the positioning the body requires in the T that contributes to an earlier death.
That wasn't the part being commented on. (... I didn't think I needed to put an ellipsis in the quote above... there, now there is one... for you 'speed' "readers" ...)
My comment on that part was already stated: " causing health problems is sort of the point here?! "
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:My untrained eye sees these as being functionally equivalent, so far as the hanging of the body is concerned. The only difference here concerns the (essentially decorative) top of the alleged ✝shape, which top is not connected to the body anywhere. The body's weight does not change depending on the shape of the object to which it becomes attached. Does, perhaps, this emperor have no clothes?
No scientist here - watch the video - it seems there is considerable difference re the positioning the body requires in the T that contributes to an earlier death.
That wasn't the part being commented on. (... I didn't think I needed to put an ellipsis in the quote above... there, now there is one... for you 'speed' "readers" ...)
My comment on that part was already stated: " causing health problems is sort of the point here?! "
Animation of the T cross position in the video.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Peter Kirby wrote:
Your claim, taken strongly, is equivalent to looking at the Queen of England's pink underpants and concluding that all underpants are pink.
Nope - white swans remain white while the black swan remains black. No magic tricks.....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Peter Kirby wrote:My untrained eye sees these as being functionally equivalent, so far as the hanging of the body is concerned. The only difference here concerns the (essentially decorative) top of the alleged ✝shape, which top is not connected to the body anywhere. The body's weight does not change depending on the shape of the object to which it becomes attached. Does, perhaps, this emperor have no clothes?
No scientist here - watch the video - it seems there is considerable difference re the positioning the body requires in the T that contributes to an earlier death.
That wasn't the part being commented on. (... I didn't think I needed to put an ellipsis in the quote above... there, now there is one... for you 'speed' "readers" ...)
My comment on that part was already stated: " causing health problems is sort of the point here?! "
Animation of the T cross position in the video.
Tried to find it. I ended up watching 2 minutes of commercials and hearing a little 5-second snippet with the phrase "Simcha Jacobovici" in it.
Videos are pretty useless for information retrieval, and they are not very good compared to print in most other respects as well (including, for whatever reason--can you guess? perhaps the need to be more 'commercial'?--the quality of the information presented and the level of detail provided by way of support and documentation). I'll pass on watching this 42+ minute thingy. Thanks.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Peter Kirby wrote:
Your claim, taken strongly, is equivalent to looking at the Queen of England's pink underpants and concluding that all underpants are pink.
Nope - white swans remain white while the black swan remains black. No magic tricks.....
... and equivalent to pulling a single swan from the population of all swans and concluding on this basis the total distribution of colors for the population of swans (specifically, color of a random swan = Color Of This Sample Swan, with 100% uniformity).
Either you end up ruling out the existence of a black swan, or you end up concluding that all swans are black, on the basis of this kind of "sampling method." But that was obvious, so why are we still having this conversation? ...
(There's also the problem that you didn't really get a good look at the single sample swan... or the Queen's underpants... LOL...)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
