The Devil is in the Details

Reader Larry Prososki objects to my remark, in yesterday's review of The Passion of the Christ, that the movie got the mechanics of the crucifixion wrong. Since I actually know nothing about how to crucify people and was relying on an expert's comments as filtered through another reporter -- such is the stuff of which modern journalism is made -- I have no choice but to blink and concede that Prososki might be right. I post his comments here, so that any execution buffs in Reason's readership can let us know whose account is more plausible:

Although I enjoyed your column about Mel Gibson's 'Passion' movie, I thought it should be pointed out that stating "anthropologist Joe Zias told Reuters, 'You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear'" is wrong. I understand you were incorrectly informed and reporting what you were told, but I would like the opportunity to correct it.

As I understand it, when the feet are supported during crucifixion, the weight load is sufficiently reduced as to not tear the hands. Most accounts have Christ's feet supported by a wooden block and nailed into the cross.

Only if the film do not show this aspect, would it then be wrong.

In doing some research on this topic some time ago, I found that Romans used both methods (wrists and hands). There is supposed proof of others being crucified through the hands. Some historians indicate that the hands method was saved for especially wicked men. It was actually more cruel because it delayed the death and thus prolonged the agony.

The wooden block was indeed there in the movie.

I should add that Reuters raised some other objections to Gibson's portrait, notably that "Jesus would not have carried the entire cross to the crucifixion as vertical beams were kept permanently in place by the ever efficient Romans. 'Nobody was physically able to carry the thing (the entire cross). It weighed about 350 pounds,' Zias said. 'He (Jesus) carried the cross-beam, maximum.'" Of course, that could have simply been another miracle.

Comments

[Shady O'Grady]

I'm glad some of these very important historical details can now come to light. I think we should point out, also, that Santa Claus has a green sleigh, not the red one that is depicted in the movies.

[Jean Bart]

Well, there is actually no physical evidence about either forearms or hands being pierced. I went into much of this in a thread below.

[dj of raleigh]

> Of course, that could have simply been another miracle.

[Richard]

350lbs isn't impossible to move, nor would it take superhuman strength to move 350lbs of wood. What everyone is missing is basic mechanical engineering...circa the 3rd grade.

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/elemsci/gr3uhesc.html

In all likelihood no one every carried a cross. It was probably dragged (I think that the movie will support this proposition) and thus was acting as a lever, which would significantly reduce the weight of the full load of 350lbs.

It is funny to watch journalists discuss engineering or physics when almost none of them ever studied it, or paid attention in the 3rd grade.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

I also noticed the last line. Rather than stopping after a thoughtful and lucid point the writer feels compelled to take one final step to scorn those with whom he does not agree. This is how libertarians, an otherwise intelligent bunch, manage to lose elections with astounding regularity.

[Eric]

Yes, that last line was a bit much, I thought, especially when "religionists" are often scorned on this thread and other places for their supposed "intolerance."

[Eric]

Slight correction: should have said "on H&R" rather than "this thread."

[Warren]

Richard,
May I call you dick? (Thank you! I'll be here all week) I've taken a physics course or two. I've even done some empirical investigations on moving heavy crap around. Now while it is easier to drag a 350lb cross, than it is to say, carry it on your back. It's still gonna weigh, Idunno like 350 pounds. That's kinda heavy ya know. I figure I could drag the thing about 10 meters before I passed out. With some strapping young Roman sadist (sporting one of those ache-oh-tee leather kilts) giving me the whip for motivation, maybe ten times that before I dropped dead. Now your average ancient Judean profit is bound to be in much better shape than this couch-potato. So figure 1km tops. I say anything past that is just pure fiction.

[Tom Pearson]

Actually, blood loss would not be the cause of death in a crucifixion. Rather, the crucified person suffocates to death because he is no longer able to push up with his legs or pull up with his arms to inhale.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I find the the "just carrying the crossbeam" theory more plausible. Wasn't this depicted in Jesus of Nazereth?

I never understood why, in Christian art, you see Jesus carrying a cross short enough so the fucking thing in not dragging too much behind him, and then you see him on a huge cross 20 feet off the ground.

My understanding of crucifixions is that they took a very long time. Victims slowly die of many factors, including exposure.. Jesus took a relatively short time because of the huge beating he took, along with the nails (didn't they usually just tie them up?).

Man, our ancestors were some pretty sick mother-fuckers.

[Russ D]

Well I thought Jose's post was pretty damn funny.

[Dreamer]

"...libertarians, an otherwise intelligent bunch, manage to lose elections with astounding regularity."

Anyone here running?

[Eric D. Dixon]

>Actually, blood loss would not be the cause of
>death in a crucifixion. Rather, the crucified
>person suffocates to death because he is no
>longer able to push up with his legs or pull up
>with his arms to inhale.

Yep, when you're hanging in that position, you can't breathe. That's why the Romans broke the legs of people being crucified when they wanted to speed up the death -- so they could no longer push themselves up to take a breath.

[judson]

Are you all talking about LOTR?

[Jesse Walker]

Rather than stopping after a thoughtful and lucid point the writer feels compelled to take one final step to scorn those with whom he does not agree. This is how libertarians, an otherwise intelligent bunch, manage to lose elections with astounding regularity.

Get a grip, Jose. If my mild irony looks like scorn to you, I'd hate to see your reaction to the real thing.

The line was a comment, at my own expense as much as anyone else's, on the absurdity of looking for strict physical plausibility in a movie that ends with a guy coming back from the dead. The only people who could be offended by it are the folks who spend their time hunting for excuses to be offended.

Yes, that last line was a bit much, I thought, especially when "religionists" are often scorned on this thread and other places for their supposed "intolerance."

Eric, could you please cite a single place where I have "scorned" a "religionist" for "intolerance"? I might not believe in God -- hell, I don't even believe in Bridgeport -- but I stopped being militant about it back in high school.

[Eric]

Hi Jesse,
I probably could have been more clear. I was making a semi-serious point about the debates I've enjoyed over several Hit&Run threads, and the attitude about religion that seems fairly common here. Your line just seemed a minor reflection of that attitude.

[Critic]

"...the attitude about religion that seems fairly common here."

Whadayamean? I like Christians,
if they are properly cooked.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

Re: Mr. Walker

The world doesn't need better writers. It needs better readers!

Perhaps the comment was misunderstood because it occurred at the end of an otherwise objective response. The juxtaposition may what might have been intended as a smile seem more like a sneer.

You will note (as a better reader than me) that I did not say I was offended. Mine was a sincerely dispassionate observation. While I generally agree with many libertarian ideas, I have noticed that most libertarians make lousy politicians. On this note, I have observed that free thinkers, the champions of tolerance, often lapse into contempt, particularly towards religion.

I suppose if you are right, it doesn't really matter if you offend anyone... but it may ensure that you will be right while someone else makes public policy.

[richard]

Warren, the Bible states that Jesus fell three times carrying the cross...it never spells out how far he had to drag it, so I really don't know what you are saying, except that you couldn't do it...well, I don't think that I could either, but in present times, we have a different lifestyle and a different motivation...being whipped is no longer allowable motivation by management. And I seriously doubt that any of us has the same kind of motivation that Jesus had; being whipped by people who hated him because he wanted to die for their sins is a motivation that none of us will ever have.

Bottom line is that we can argue until we are blue in the face about whether we could do it today and about the dimensions and distance, but none of us were there, and the only thing that we can do is venture a guess at what happened. My educated guess is that Jesus did not CARRY the cross, but DRAGGED it...unlike Zias assumes in the article.

[nonny nonny]

it never spells out how far he had to drag it

I assume Warren was referring to the depiction in Gibson's movie, not the gospels.

[dj of raleigh]

The KJV of the Bible does say Jesus was nailed ot the cross,
althought doubting Thomas thought there would be nail prints,
and when Jesus arrived, did show Thomas his hands & side.
That would first imply that nails were expected,
and second, that Jesus hands did have nail holes.
The sign "King of the Jews" was nailed above him
according to the King James version.
Nails and chains were expensive items ordinarily,
but were the tools of the trade for jailers, etc.
They were more durable and dependable than rope.

I would think that a leather lash would be used
to hold down the arms while the nails were hammered.

If terror, horror were meant to be imparted by crucifixion,
then the piercing of nails would seem ideal,
and nails would be easier and more fool proof.
I imagine if a workman had one come loose on the cross,
there would be dire consequences to come.
What would be the name of the 'hangman' or 'axman'
when it comes to hanging bodies on teh cross?

[Jean Bart]

The Romans kept the supports buried.

Again, and let me repeat this for the thirtieth time, there is only one known crucifixion victim's remains extant - and he was neither nailed through the hands or the forearms.

Jose,

"...often lapse into contempt, particularly towards religion."

Which is the appropriate response to be frank.

"...I have noticed that most libertarians make lousy politicians."

That's actually a compliment. 🙂

Mr. Nice Guy,

"My understanding of crucifixions is that they took a very long time."

At Dachau Jews and other victims of the Nazi regime were sometimes crucified; they died generally within ten to fifteen minutes if their legs were immobilized. If they were not, then a person could live upwards to a few hours. If the Romans had wanted to extend the profess they would have to have freed up the legs (have a seat on the cross?) to do so; which argues against him being in an immobolized (nailed by the legs to the cross) position.

Of course Christ, if he existed, was one of many thousands of Jews the Romans killed (one of the reasons why the whole Pilate as reluctant executioner notion makes no sense); indeed, one of many religious rabble rousers of his time executed in this way.

[Jean Bart]

dj of raleigh,

Then please do explain the lack of skeletons from the period without any trauma to the hands, forearms or even legs; especially when it is assumed that perhaps several million people over the millenium during which the punishment was practiced died from it. I am sorry, but the gospels are full of holes (indeed, they even disagree and otherwise contradict each other) and so are their claims when placed against the scientific evidence at hand.

[cruciscience]

Now why didn't they teach me this in physics and biology? I would have payed a lot more attention.

[cruciscience]

Erm, "paid".

[Jack Wayne]

Larry may well be right about the details of Jesus's crucifixion. A contemporary method of supporting the weight was to have a hook up the anus. I usually prefer that as an explanation for why the folks died in such a short time on a cross. The internal bleeding would be a major cause. I think that nails through the paolms would not be sufficient to cause death by blood loss. The spear thrust could have happened. Or the story of that event could be politics.

[Warren]

The mechanics of crucifixion aside, this line gave me a giggle.
"his characters trade lines in bad Latin when they ought to be speaking good Greek"

It reminded me of these lines:
Brian (defiantly): It says "Romans go home."
Centurion: No it doesn't.

[Marlin Perkins]

A hook up the anus? Eeewww!
I will never fish again.

[dockins]

350lbs is too heavy? uh, hello, we are talking about a superhero. carrying crosses, walking on water, rescuing damsels in distress... nothing is beyond his legendary abilities.

also there's no way he would have had anything up his anus (if he even had one!). that would be sodomy which makes homosexuals happy and therefore makes the baby jesus cry.

get with the truth, heathens!

[kevrob]

I don't believe in god, but I do believe in Bridgeport. Are the Sound Tigers but a myth? Do ferries that arrive at the dock at Port Jefferson just appear out of the haze over Long Island Sound? I think not.

BTW, I don't know how movie-Jesus does it, but bible-Jesus gets help from Simon (not Simon Peter) in hauling the cross to the execution ground, or so the gospel-writers say.

Kevin

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

I understand the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy is personal freedom. I would expect libertarians to support a person's freedom to practice or not practice a given religion. If one agrees that we ought to this religion freedom, then is not contempt a dangerous indulgence? Disdain makes it much easier to deny a freedom. Women. Homosexuals. Jews. Need we revisit these stories? Discrimination against any race, class, gender or behavior begins with contempt. As such, I think it poor response to any human action that does not interfere with others.

[Jon H]

Seems to me that dragging the whole cross would be easier than just dragging the crossbar, despite being heavier, because the crossbar alone would be ungainly and awkward, while the cross can go over your shoulder, and be dragged.

Which is not to say that a 350lb cross would be easy to drag...

Even if the crossbar was supported at one end and dragged, it'd be awkward to grip.

That said, I wonder if anyone's had the balls to whistle "Always look on the bright side of life" during the crucifixion scene of Gibson's Passion...

[indignant]

Jose,

In a word, bullshit. I respect every person's right to believe or disbelieve in the existence of a higher being, but that does not mean that I have to respect that belief or disbelief. Let's add to your list: Women. Homosexuals. Jews. Fascists. Communists. Child molesters. Cannibals. Need I continue with the ultimate logic of your statements?

[mojo jojo]

Jesus never dragged or carried anything, because he never existed. It's all a myth. This type of "god" story was around 3,000 years before the christians co-opted it.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm

[dj of raleigh]

>Then please do explain the lack of skeletons from the period without any trauma to the hands, forearms or even legs; especially when it is assumed that perhaps several million people over the millenium during which the punishment was practiced died from it.I am sorry, but the gospels are full of holes...

[SM]

Very moving, Jose. But most libertarians don't care about the beliefs of the religious, one way or the other. I suggest you pay more attention to some of the the other threads here ie the ones on gay marriage, cloning, Howard Stern etc, etc. You will find that the religious, as represented by some posters on H&R, don't take your plea to "ignore private behaviors between consenting adults" very seriously. So maybe you should spend more time arguing with them than with "members of the free thinking enlightened".
By the way, i believe the correct usage is "members of the free thinking enlightened elite". That last word is an amazing force multiplier. You should use it more often when belittling your opponents.

[dj of raleigh]

> most libertarians don't care about the beliefs of the religious, one way or the other.

[ABC]

IT WAS A FUCKING MOVIE.

But take a shit in a pizza box, call it art and watch the reasonites hail your artistic glory....

[Jose Ortega]

I see a material difference between the private practice of one's religion (between and amongst consenting adults) and the molestation of children or consumption of human flesh. I don't see where the local Sunday morning services are infringing upon anyone's rights.

Let's say someone's personal diety is a beanie baby. You may find this religion silly, but what point does your contempt serve? Have you found your contempt so powerful as to dissuade the converted believer? I'm not suggesting a person need "respect" the practice of worshipping small bean-filled toy animals... simply ignoring the practice will more than suffice. And I stand by my original point. A precursor to the loss of human rights is contempt. It is a short walk from "that practice is stupid" to "that practice is dangerous." The Holocaust was made possible because a culture came to the conclusion that Jews were less than human. Slavery was possible because of the idea that Blacks were less than human. It is the demonization of drug users that make our current drug laws possible.

A free society must be a civil society where our first instinct is to ignore private behaviors between consenting adults... from tent revivals to rave parties. I realize this may mean a sacrifice for some including members of the free thinking enlightened who enjoy looking down their noses at the religious, but I suggest it is one worth making.

[matthew hogan]

"There are also a fair number of libertarians who find it difficult to say the word "religion" without it sounding like an epithet. In my experience, some libertarians often look at religious belief like some kind of mental defect. Of course, these same people see heroin usage as a perfectly rational act."

That about says it right. I've also always found people with a cult of Ayn Rand unduly disdainful of the cult of Jesus and others.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

DJ:

I really like your rather extensive post in this thread. I find your individualistic take on christianity easy to swallow, and wish it could be the rule.

You're correct that religion is a popular subject here. I think it's because we staunch individualists are very leery of collective morality. Oftimes it is used as a weapon.

I'm watching a truly fascinating documentary called "Hell House". It's about a fundamentalist church in Texas that runs a yearly haunted house during Halloween. You probably know what I'm talking about.. they depict abortions, gays, drugs, etc in an extremely dogmatic and heavy-handed fashion. I'm impressed that the documentary is handled very even-handed. Obviously the filmakers have their point of view, but they allow the fundies to have theirs. I actually felt some compassion towards the fundies. They obviously want to do "what is right", and that should never be scorned. It's their APPROACH that deserves close scrutiny. In the opening tirade, a church leader says something along the lines that "our culture is plaqued by evil. If we don't change it, then the Blood is not only on your heads, but is on ours as well". I find that way of thinking very dangerous and ironic. They want to do Good, but resort to Evil in their tactics.

[Jose Ortega y Gaset]

Re: SM

To argue with the religious would go directly against the very point I am making. And I am not trying to belittle the writers on this forum.

It is my opinion that tolerance (so revered by libertarians) is best applied with equanimity. For a group allegedly "not interested" in religion, libertarians spend an unusual amount of time fretting about what the religious are saying and doing. There are also a fair number of libertarians who find it difficult to say the word "religion" without it sounding like an epithet. In my experience, some libertarians often look at religious belief like some kind of mental defect. Of course, these same people see heroin usage as a perfectly rational act.

I do not expect to persuade anyone who is biased against religion. Contempt of religion is an intellectual vanity, apparently one with considerable appeal. It is more than enough for me to simply point out the inconsistency.

[teena]

What does it matter how he carried the cross or what the cross looked like? The point is he died for us. He went through all that pain for us. He loves us enough to endure the ridicule then and what people are doing now. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves talking about anus' and stuff. Who cares about exact details. What was said of his crucifiction is enough. It is the purpose of it all that counts.