- This topic has 7 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Here is a story in the mainstream news that just came out. A documentary examining whether or not they have found the nails that were used in the Crucifixion:Film claims discovery of nails from Jesus's crossI really would have thought that these would have been found sometime in the Middle Ages. As relics, they would have been highly sought after.
Bad historical research… Publicity stunt for sure…1. Crucifixions were pretty common. And while most were not nailed I would be willing to bet some nails were used. So what makes these Jesus' nails?2. Why would Caiaphas have nails in his tomb? He was a Jew and most certainly never believed in Christ as God. They can't even be sure this was his tomb.3. Just because the only crucifixion in historical documents in which Caiaphas is mentioned is with Jesus, the guy says "put two and two together" and it has to be Jesus' nails? That couldn't be flimsier.Add this one to the Noah's Ark, Ark of the Covenant, Holy Grail, yadda, yadda, yadda....
I agree the evidence is weak that they have told us about, but I would think he must have something more substantial, right?
Yeah, substantial, like a book or movie to sell. Did they find Atlantis in Spain yet? Because this is the same guy who propsed that theory.
Here is a story in the mainstream news that just came out. A documentary examining whether or not they have found the nails that were used in the Crucifixion:Film claims discovery of nails from Jesus's crossI really would have thought that these would have been found sometime in the Middle Ages. As relics, they would have been highly sought after.
Interesting Phidippides. I like the documentary, but I agree with skiguy that the evidence seems weak.
I'm mostly skeptical of how they would've lasted so long and so well. But if they did find them, I would be ecstatic to see them in person. I think seeing artifacts that were found and preserved would really reinforce my faith.
Nailing someone to the cross during Crucifixion was the merciful way to do it. When nailed the condemned lived for at most 24-48 hours, the more common method of crucifixion was to tie someone to the cross, that could take 7-14 days to kill them. Only prominent people or those they wanted to show mercy to that were condemned to crucifixion were nailed.
While some scholars have argued that crucifixion was a bloodless form of death, with the victims tied to the cross (Brandenburger 1969, Jeremias 1966), Martin Hengel, who wrote perhaps the definitive scholarly report on ancient crucifixion (1977), agrees with Hewitt (1932) that nailing the victim by both hands and feet was the rule and tying the victim to the cross was the exception. During the first revolt of the Jews against the Romans in 66-73 CE, Josephus mentions that during the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE) “the soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different postures” (JW 5.11 and 451).So among historical scholars, there is no consensus that "most were not nailed" or "the more common method was to tie someone."It's possible that the form in which a prisoner was fastened to the cross may have depended on the number of individuals being crucified. In the case of the 6,000 prisoners of the Spartacus rebellion who were crucified on the Via Appia between Rome and Capua (Bella Civilia I.120), the most quick and efficient manner would have been to simply tie the victim to the tree with his hands suspended directly over his head and his feet unsecured.A victim fastened in that manner would die within 20 minutes to an hour because the increasing pressure on the diaphragm would rob him of the ability breathe. If his feet were secured, he could last much longer (up to several days) because he could use his feet to push up and relieve pressure on the diaphragm.
