www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Face of Jesus/History Channel

Observant Jews to this day will go through extraordinary efforts to recover every last drop of blood and every last bit of tissue from the body of a Jew who died by violence. To ensure that none is lost, the body is not washed, but simply wrapped.

In the first century, a Jew who died violently would have his body and whatever detached tissues and spilled blood could be recovered, wrapped in a simple shroud and placed in a niche in a rock tomb. The body would be anointed with spices to keep down the smell of decomposition (these tombs had multiple niches and were frequently reused); after a number of months, or even years, the tomb would be reopened, the bare bones would be collected, and placed in an ossuary. The tomb would then be resealed. In some tombs we find five or six niches, but more than a dozen ossuaries.

By the way, the Epitaphion of Edessa was discovered in 564; the famous Icon of Christ from St. Catherines in Sinai dates from only a few years after that. When the two are compared side-by-side, it is impossible to deny that the latter was copied from the former. More significantly, Byzantine epitaphia began to emulate the Shroud at this time, and the iconic depiction of Christ stabilized around a prototype that shares many features with the Shroud image. The Jesus we know today is the Jesus on the Shroud of Turin, because from the sixth century onward, all icons of Christ tended to be based on that one image.

Some years ago Pierre Barbet, MD wrote a most compelling book on the crucifixion called, "A Doctor at Calvary" in which he examines the known details of Roman crucifixion and the details seen in the Shroud of Turin. The shroud reveals details that could not have been known by any medieval forgerist. The nail wounds on the shroud, for instance, are at the ankles and at the wrists of the crucified figure; exactly where they would have to have been if the person were hung in the Roman fashion. This stands in contrast to the way the crucifixion has been commonly depicted. In any case, it's a fascinating book that still has much relevance even if written before carbon dating. I recommend this classic.

The other compelling point brought by the person in the documentary who brought Jesus' face to life, is that the shroud shows *both* crucifixion and flogging..and that it was extremely, extremely rare for someone to have been sentenced and subjected to both.

It's really amazing how history tends to confound the skeptics--and how the skeptics resist accepting historical facts. John Dominic Crossan, for instance, insists that there was no empty tomb--no tomb at all--because, as a condemned criminal, Jesus' body would have been tossed in a ditch and eaten by dogs.

He wrote this after the discovery of a first century ossuary containing the remains of a young man who had been crucified--one of the nails, together with an olive wood washer (to prevent the nail from pulling free) was still fixed in the ankle bone, along with a bit of the upright itself, in which the nail had become stuck.

The Romans were savages but not barbarians; they respected the burial rites of subject peoples, and would typically allow them to dispose of remains in accordance with local custom. This courtesy, of course, applied only to free people. Slaves, being property ("talking tools", in the memorable phrase of Cato the Elder) would have been excepted.

Utroque:

When I studied anatomy in school, the professor showed us where the nails would have been driven so as to hold the weight of the body. If you flex your hand, there is a little notch at the base of the hand and at the juncture of the wrist where there is a space in the writst bone formation. That's the place where a nail could go through and hold the weight without tearing free. Similarly at the front fo the base of the leg where the foot flexes, there is another such notch that you can feel as an almost trinaglular space where the muscles come together. There is a straight line from that point to the center of the heel bone which would then have been smashed as the nail went through, causing extreme pain since there is also a never that is close by.

Bob

Dr Barbet makes the exact same point in the book that I noted. If you have not read it, I think you would find it fascinating, having studied anatomy. His account is remarkably detailed in describing the excruciating suffering that a victim of Roman crucifixion had to have endured. After all the suffering, the victim ultimately died of suffocation.

There were many forms of crucifixion--apparently the Romans liked variety in their torments--including upside down, facing the upright, spread eagle, etc. In the one verified case of crucified remains that we have--the ankle bone of which I spoke above--the nail was drive in from the side, indicating that the victim's legs were placed on either side of the upright.

Apparently, the legs were nailed last, after dropping or hoisting the crossbar bearing the victim onto the upright. This would allow the legs to be attached in the flexed position, so that the victim could take his weight on his ankles (albeit with pain that was, literally ex-cruciating), relieving pressure on his diaphragm and preventing rapid death from suffocation.

The victim would alternately push himself up, until the pain became too great, then sag to put the weight on his arms, until inability to breathe forced him up on his ankles again, repeatedly, until death would result from a combination of shock, exhaustion, anoxia and exsanguination. Some victims lasted for several days, so no wonder Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus was dead after just a couple of hours.

My parish priest also described this to us...
It is horrible, just horrible...when reading this one can only fear the pain and suffering in thinking of it and to think that Our Lord, the most innocent man that walked the Earth had to endure this for all of us......

And it was each and every one of us that cried 'Crucify Him'.

In a way, I am kind of relieved, on a personal note, that the Eastern tradition doesn't think about the Crucifixion as much as the West...it is just too depressing. I rather look at the cross as a sign of rejoicing -- in the light of the Resurrection--and as a sign of power to conquer evil. No offense meant to those of the Western tradition.

Alice

I am particularly repulsed by some of the Grunewald crucifixion scenes like this one:

[Linked Image]

They seem to dwell on the suffering and brutality in such as explicit manner as to verge on what one Orthodox critic called "sacred pornography".

The Gospel Reading is from Mark 15:43-47; 16:1-8

The Gospel Reading is from Mark 15:43-47; 16:1-8 At that time, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. And he bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

The Markan account is more consistent with first century Jewish practice. John's account is probably a late redaction done in Ephesus, where Jewish burial practices would not be common knowledge. In most other aspects, John reflects a first hand knowledge of Second Temple Jerusalem and its environs, but this part is probably the result of a later editor making John's narrative more comprehensible to gentile readers.

I think Dr. Zugibe has well refuted Dr. Barbet:

http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/

Dr. Zugibe shows how the nails actually went into the palms:

http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/Barbet.htm

The nails went into the palms and out of the wrists like in the photo below:

[Linked Image]

I have Zugibe's book, and while he shows how the nails could have gone through the palms, he does not say that they did go through the palms. The Romans were quite inventive when it came to crucifixion (I imagine the soldiers got bored with executions after a while), and no doubt sometimes nails would be put through palms, other times through wrists (a surer bet), and sometimes not at all (you can just tie someone to the crossbar, same result). I tend to go with wrists, mainly because the thumbs are turned in on the hands of the Shroud image, which is the typical response to the nails impinging on the nerves in the carpal tunnel of the wrist.

I do agree with Zugibe that hypovolemic shock was the proximate cause of death, though shock causing a loss of consciousness would have caused Christ to sag on the cross, constricting the diaphragm and causing asphyxiation. Normally, a strong man could last for two or even three days on the cross, so Pilate was rightly amazed that Jesus died so quickly, and properly asked for confirmation.