Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Crucifixion in modern Saudi Arabia

Why is there no mention of crucifixion in present day Saudi Arabia?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,,1797622,00.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.217.50 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 July 2006

images => Jesus

The images in this article imply that it is about Jesus, which of course it is not directly. If this is not changed then contributors will continue to add information here about Jesus, in bits and pieces, including for instance the whole section [#Crucifixion of Jesus in the movies], which would be more relevant in an article about the crucifixion of Jesus rather than crucifixion in general. Davilla 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

kkk crucifiction

I remember seeing in a new york photo gallery an old picture of a black guy crucified on a tree somewhere in the south of the US. Does that ring a bell for someone ? I am totally unable to find the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.72.61 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 October 2006

Jesus's genitals

Alvin easter contributed the following (boldfacing added): (Since the Romans designed crucifixion to be an especially humiliating and agonizing form of death, it is logical to assume that nudity was a standard part of the procedure, especially considering that nudity would also expose the victim's genitals to all manner of flying and crawling insects.

Alvin easter, it is never "logical to assume" anything when you're contributing to an encyclopedia. Your speculations about "flying and crawling insects" reveal more about you than they do about the practice of crucifixion. --ForDorothy 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some passing criticisms

An interesting article, though very poorly footnoted. If I may offer the following criticisms: • I do not see the reason for treating Roman crucifixion twice, in two separate sections: Details of Crucifixion, and History of crucifixion/ Roman Empire. I should think these two ought to be merged somehow. • In Details of crucifixion, paragraphs 1 & 2, it is not at all clear what exactly is the difference, if any, between method 1 and method 2. Also, paragraph 2 states that Jesus was crucified by "the other method", and then in paragraph 3, that it is not known how Jesus was crucified. Paragraph 3 then goes on to give the "more prevalent opinion" about the matter, but it should be pointed out that the gospels all say merely that, "..they crucified Him." They give no details of the crucifixion itself, and while it may be appropriate to discuss prevailing representations of Jesus' crucifixion, there really isn't enough evidence to state any opinion.

Darentig 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling

Given all the historical and mythical crucifixions not mentioned in this article, are three paragraphs on mock crucifixions in professional wrestling really necessary? There are lots of other allusions to crucifixion in popular culture--Nas' "Hate Me Now" video, Tupac's Don Killuminati album cover, Stephen King's The Stand--but I'm not sure that listing them all, let alone discussing them at length, adds much to the article.

At the very least I think the "Parody" subheading should be moved out from under the "Modern crucifixions without death" heading, and possibly renamed to something like "Crucifixion in popular culture"; but I also wonder if the discussion of wrestling should be shortened substantially. Seventhsaint 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the wrestling bit is totally out of place and drags the whole article down. I say it should be removed entirely. Objections? Darentig 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Actually, I mean, the whole "Parody" section should be removed altogether. Pointless and very tasteless.) Darentig 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite the inappropriate method that several public accounts took to edit it, how is it that the In Anime section escaped removal as well? At the very least, this merits a mention earlier in the pop culture section, and at the very most it should be moved to its own page, relating more to anime, or completely removed. Good on however it is that knows that much about crucifixion in anime, but it's all completely irrelevant and, like the pro wrestling section, ends the article with a groan. Hellointernets (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

More recently than in this section, there has been an active and ongoing discussion of that question at Talk:Crucifixion#In Popular Culture, which you can see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish "crucifixion"

This subject should have been taken to the talk page some time ago.

Honestly, no version of this segment has any business in the article simply because it is not cited at all. Both versions are quite speculative. No one has established any reason even to begin speculating on jewish use of crucifixion. Darentig 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. the quote from St. Paul is in itself a cited reason, the quote is obviously significant to the subject of this article, and should not be suppressed. Also, please don't blank stuff out from the talk page unless you are going to paste it here for discussion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume that by "blank stuff out from the talk page" you mean removing material from the article? If so, I can agree with putting it on the talk page to be clearly seen. Here it is then in it's current form:

Some Christian theologians, beginning with St. Paul, have intepreted an allusion to crucifixion in Deuteronomy 21:22-23. This reference is to being hanged from a tree, and may be associated with lynching or traditional hanging. The connection with this Deuteronomy verse is alluded to as early as St. Paul, who quotes it in [Galatians 3:13], writing "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." However, later Jewish law allowed only 4 methods of execution: stoning, burning, strangulation, and decapitation. Crucifixion was thus implicitly forbidden by ancient Jewish law.

Now, that having been established; even if we assume that Paul is saying that the passage in Deutoronomy refers to literal crucifixion, which I would not, since he himself does not say so, that still does not answer the question of who are these "christian theologians" (plural) that have made this "interpretation of an allusion", and why should an "interpretation of an allusion" be considered in an article about the known facts of crucifixion? Material in Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, not speculative. Darentig 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite obviously Paul is clearly referring to the manner that Christ died, i.e. crucifixion, in this verse; I don't understand why you are picking it to pieces just to try to keep it out of the article, when it is 100% on topic. As I have amended it to read, Paul is only the first of the Christian theologians to quote the verse in Deuteronomy in this regard, is it really necessary to list all of them? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, first of all let me state that I am a committed Christian and name the name of Christ above all names, and hold the Bible in highest regard, including the writings of Paul. So I have no sinister anti-Bible plan of opposition to this section, if that's what you are thinking.

I am not "picking it to pieces just to try to keep it out of the article", I am trying to point out that it is not up to snuff. It might possibly be brought "up to snuff," but to do so requires a few things. 1. What is the relevance to the article as a whole? Or, more specifically, to this section? I agree that Jesus was crucified, but this article is not about Jesus. I agree that Paul referenced the Law here to emphasize that Christ became a curse for us. I do not at all see that Paul then asserts that the pre-Roman jews practiced crucifixion, and that is the point of this section, "Pre-Roman practice of crucifixion." Unless you can clearly demonstrate that this is the case, it has no relevance to the larger article. 2. If you are going to assert that "christian theologians" have made this "interpretation of an allusion", then yes, you do need to be able to cite them. At least enough to qualify as plural. Otherwise it looks like Codex Sinaiticus has made an interpretation of an allusion, and original findings are not to be published in Wikipedia. (But even if you can do that, an "interpretation of an allusion" would seem to me to be of very questionable encyclopedic value.) Darentig 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you profess your own beliefs to be is not relevant here. What is relevant is that there is a group of editors that cruises wikipedia groundlessly blanking out any reference to the New Testament wherever possible, and you appear to be one of them regardless of how high regard you say you hold for it. There is no reason not to mention Galatians in this article somewhere, if not this section then move it to another section, but censoring it when it is a direct reference to crucifixion / Jesus' death is pure censorship, closely akin to vandalism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, the relevance of my stated beliefs is to assure you that I have no "anti-New Testament" motive. If you ignore my statement about my motive, and then ascribe that very motive to me, you are not assuming good faith, which is Wikipedia policy.

The only reason not to mention Galatians somewhere in the article is that the article is not about Paul's letter to the Galatians. If you take a look at the article as a whole you should notice two things: 1, That it suffers from an abysmal want of proper references for all the assertions contained in it, and 2, that the New Testament is certainly given it's fair share of time. If you can demonstrate the clear relevance of the quote from Paul to this segment, i.e., "Pre-Roman Crucifixion", then it obviously does belong. However, to do this, you are going to have to demonstrate that Paul clearly states here that the ancient Hebrews did practice crucifixion. So far you have made little effort to demonstrate that, mostly engaging in ad hominem arguments instead. Not only so, but the end of this text in question then turns around to argue that the ancient Hebrews certainly did not practice crucifixion, thus leaving the point of the entire thing very unclear. To put it another way, what exactly is the value to the article of including a very questionable assertion that the ancient Hebrews practiced crucifixion only to then point out that the ancient Hebrews obviously did not actually practice crucifixion after all? Darentig 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is a pretty poor pretext for not allowing the Galatians quote. The article is about crucifixion, and the Galatians quote gives Paul's view on the subject, which was demonstrably formative in Christian thought. I concede it may well belong in another section, since it is indeed doubtful that Jews practiced crucifixion or that Paul believed this. But it is still on topic, a cited quotation about crucifixion. I think the cited statement proving that Jews did not practice crucifixion is also relevant and important. Obviously if Deuteronomy says this is a curse, that alone is proof that it was not to be done by Jews. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims removed

I have removed the following claims of use of crucifixion in modern times, as they were completely without any reference. Please do not reinsert them without citing a Wikipedia:Reliable source in support. Palmiro | Talk 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Execution by crucifixion, while rare in recent times, was used at the Dachau concentration camp during the Holocaust and in a number of wars, such as in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and during the Sino-Japanese war, where it was among the many methods of torture and execution used by Japanese soldiers against Asian civilians - largely in emulation of medieval Japanese military practices.

• Photographic evidence exists positing that some victims of the Armenian Genocide were crucified by Ottoman soldiers.

• There are persistent stories that crucifixions continue to occur in certain parts of Africa, particularly in Sudan. According to reports, many Sudanese -like animists, Christians are 'naturally' suspect of separatism against the predominantly Islamic republic- have been nailed to crude crosses in remote areas on the plains, where access by reporters and Western witnesses is limited. Al Jazeera reported in 2002 the crucifixion of 32 Christian priests and other males, some still in their early teens. They were allegedly whipped severely and affixed to crosses with six-inch nails through their hands, ankles and genitals.

Contradiction

At present this article definitely asserts that Christ was crucified on a cross of the type traditionally identified with his crucifixion, while immediately underneath casting doubt on this. mgekelly 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic Evidence (of the method of the crucifixion of Christ)

The word "Stauros" which has become translated as "cross" in the New Testament refers to "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one." This comes from the base word "Histemi," meaning to stand upright. (Both words originating in the word "stao") At no point in the Bible is there any reference to a cross-beam of any kind, nor of any shape other than a stake. I therefore can see no possible way our current conception of a 'cross' (†) could have been the one used.

All information here provided found in New Testament and Lexicon.

71.33.212.224 13:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your statement makes you sound like a follower of the Watchtower Bible Society. It is plausible that some criminals in antiquity were executed by being nailed to an upright stake or tree; however, from the early days Christian tradition held that the Roman method of crucifixion was in employing two crossed beams forming either a Latin cross or Tau cross. The Latin word for cross "crux" is where the terms cross and crucifixion come from. Let's not forget that the Romans were experts in the art of crucifixion and used it as a means of capital punishment even into the 4th century. The notion that Jesus was crucified "specifically" on an upright stake is currently taught by Jehovah's Wittnesses based on their own interpretations of the Bible. They teach that the Latin cross, Tau cross or any cross used as a symbol of Christianity is of pagan origin and therefore cannot be accepted. Well folks, the English names used for the days of the week are of pagan origin too, so does that mean JW's can't accept their use either? Yes, the cross is of pagan origin since it was employed by pagan Romans to execute criminals. That early Christians adopted the crucifix or cross as a symbol of faith has nothing to do with paganism. Not accepting the cross as a symbol of Christian faith is like saying that you can't wear trousers because they were invented by pagans.....Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.80.107 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2007

I completely agree... to add to that, Christmas is the day when Christians traditionally celebrate the birth of Christ, but the date was originally a pagan festival. If there were sheep out in the fields then it would have been winter, so Jesus was probably born somewhere from May-August. December 25th was selected because it was the date of the Midsummer festival, a holiday already in place. They just changed the name and meaning of it. So not accepting the cross is like refusing to celebrate Christmas.YesusHristova 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So if what you are saying is correct, then Jesus was not born December 25th, then my question is what DO you celebrate in Christmas? If it is not Jesus' birthdate then what? Certainly nothing based on the bible, thus pagan. By the way it is believed Jesus' ministry lasted 3 1/2 yrs. Since he died from mid March - mid April he must have been born from mid Sept - mid October. -Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.194.184.29 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 July 2007

Separate into two pages?

It would seem as though the contention regarding the significance of Christ's death upon a 'cross' or 'pole' has deeper meaning than that of actual historical happenings. Christianity or Christendom views the 'cross' as the means for salvation (how God atones for our sins through Christ's blood). Where faiths such as Jehovah's Witnesses take exception to the 'Roman Catholic Cross' because the cross has become a symbol of the Trinity. No one today was there to witness the way in which Jesus was crucified and although science can provide us clues as to how this remarkable moment in history took place, the debate is futile as it is one of faith and not of fact. The prudent description of crucifixion in the encyclopedia forum should be factual to history and science, but Holy Crucifixion should be described as such separately and include all faith based view points and the basis for each.

A response by an avid fan of the online encyclopedia. MD70.189.148.184 17:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to this in some form if i'm understanding correctly, I think the major problems with this article stem from its mixing of crucifixion in the context of Christianity and crucifixion as an ancient method of punishment. I feel that perhaps separating the two along with a redirect or disambiguation page may be the best way to go about helping this article. I can get to work on some of this if there are others who agree this is a good idea. I will do nothing until then. GTMusashi 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses take exception to the 'Roman Catholic Cross' only in part because the cross has become a symbol of the Trinity. They also reference the pre-Christian use of crosses in many pagan religions also depicting trinities of pagan deities. They point to the fact that the cross as a symbol of worship was inherited from the pagans and was integrated into the church as pagans were converted in large numbers after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as state religion much like other customs such as Christmas and Easter, just to name two. On a historical and etymological basis, they point out that the ancient Greek word used in the Biblical accounts (stauros) has a meaning of "stake" or an upright pole with no crossbeam, which is what they choose to depict Christ's instrument of execution. They at no time, however, use this or any other symbol, icon, or idol as an object of or aid in their worship. BibleTeacher89 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles Passion (Christianity) and Stations of the Cross already exist I really don't think we need a second article entitled Crucifixion. Velps 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems good to have an article on (lower-case) crucifixion, with only passing references to the (upper-case) Crucifixion (of Jesus), which as Velps says, should have Passion as its main article. Lima 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I was not aware of this, those pages look good, I would be fine with Lima's suggestion as the key intent of my split proposal was to have a Crucifixion article that was focused primarily on the concept of Crucifixion in general rather than the specifics of Jesus' Crucifixion, it may be worth comparing the article on the passion and the stations in order to preserve unique information from this page however. I also think that there should definitely be links from this page to both of those articles since they are slightly more esoteric than Crucifixion to the "masses" as it were. If we did not this would probably only happen again. GTMusashi 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, apparently I had not read clearly enough, the latest version is much more in line with what I envisioned when i made the split page so I will remove the tag, mostly disregard the previous post. GTMusashi 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems in the introduction

this entire section:

Since Jesus Christ was the most notable figure to be crucified, a crucifix, often bearing an icon of Christ, became the main symbol of most Catholics. Some denominations or individual churches prefer to use only a cross without crucified body, or corpus.

despite the fact that i tried to fix some of the more outrageous NPOV problems seems horribly vague and its tone does not convey that this is an encyclopedia, for instance "most catholics" is it relevant to call them catholics? is it correct? i just don't like this whole bit but i don't want to take it out because the main points in that paragraph are important, just very poorly worded, i would fix it myself but i don't have the information necessary to do so. GTMusashi 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm deleting this part about the Ichthys because it has absolutely nothing to with the act of crucifixion. It was obviously written by a Christian. ForestAngel 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, although incomplete, to note that Roman Catholics use the crucifix as a symbol more than other Christians, but only insomuch as this paragraph is properly part of a discussion of crucifixion instead of crucifix. (For the argument that the description is incomplete, see Usage under crucifix. The fact that the word "catholic" is not capitalized is, I suspect, a typo. But if not, the author's argument about usage is actually more accurate.) The word "crucifix" is commonly misunderstood to mean any large cross on display, but the presence of Jesus' body on the cross, either dying or triumphant, is making a specific theological statement that can, in fact, be associated with some branches of Christianity more than others. Lhensley 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

North Korea section is dubious at best

In the North Korea section of the article, all the 'proof' for the existence of crucifixion-style torture and execution comes from a single movie. Other sources are mentioned as the sources used by that movie, but apparently no effort has been made to verify this. While I'm perfectly willing to believe that this method was used, Wikipedia needs a bit more than a Hollywood movie as source. Unless of course we want to add "and the old lady threw the necklace into the sea" as a permanent part of the RMS_Titanic article. Robrecht 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

the victim/the condemned

I cannot make up my mind whether to object to the change from "the victim" to "the condemned" or to accept it. For me, "victim" does not necessarily have a religious meaning: newspapers repeatedly speak of the number of "victims" of an explosion or an earthquake. So I do not understand why Shadowlink1014 thought the word in some way POV. Be that as it may, my only difficulty really with Shadowlink1014's change is the use of "the condemned" as a singular verb. To my mind, "the condemned" refers to several condemned people; the singular should be "the condemned person" or the like. But perhaps I am mistaken. Lima 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the standard practice across capital punishment articles. For an example, see Electric chair. There is also some discussion of "victim"/"the condemned" on that article's talk page. I was not involved in it, but the consensus across all the capital punishment pages has been to use "the condemned". The issue is not related to religion as much as it is related to pro- or anti- death penalty. --Shadowlink1014 06:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate this comment with its reference to the Electric chair article. I take it as an answer, which I appreciate, to my request for assurance that there is really nothing jarring, from the point of view of English usage, in the repeated combination here of "the condemned" with a singular verb. I find the same combination in the other article. Thanks. Lima 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Condemned is not really appropriate as crucifixion was not always fatal nor always intended to be even in ancient times. Today we have people who are crucified as part of their religious devotions and we dont call them "condemned". Wayne (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tree rather than cross?

The early jewish wirters talk about "being fastened to the tree" rather then a cross in reference to Jesus death. Admitedly there is reason for bias but it is one detail that in twenty years I have not found a reasonable answer for. There is also a lot of talk here of non use of the cross shape which actually lines up better with the texts in question (for me). Does anyone have access to additional information on this subject? --Lord Matt 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction 2

The section on pre-Roman states says the first known crucifixions were in Persia, from the time of Darius I, but it also says that the Assyrians practiced crucifixion. But the Neo-Assyrian Empire had been destroyed by Darius' time. So - ? --91.148.159.4 19:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In view of the section about Ancient Egypt below, I suppose this may be due to the terminological mess, as the article doesn't distinguish between crucifixion in the sense of impalement (which was, of course, VERY common in Assyria), and "crucifixion proper" (whatever that would be).--91.148.159.4 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In view of the original text by Herodotus, available in Perseus Digitable Library, and copied above on this talk page, it's clear that Darius I practiced impalement in that case. But even if we regard this as synonymous with crucifixion, it is certainly not the earliest case - e.g. the Assyrians also used impalement. No reason to single out that particular case. So I removed the sentence altogether.--91.148.159.4 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Crucifixion in Ancient Egypt

Crucifixion was a common method of punishment in Egypt; however, unlike in other areas, it was done by cutting the opposite limbs of a person and using the palm tree as a stake according to "Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch", a concise Egyptian-German dictionary" [1]

The article cites an entry from the dictionary, but that contains no info concerning a palm tree or "the opposite limbs of a person". Rather, it speaks of impalement, and the Muslim authors of the article argue that since the word "crucifixion" could also refer to impalement, it is accurate to speak of crucifixion in Ancient Egypt, as the Qur'an does.--91.148.159.4 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sharia law and crucifixion.

File:Taliban execution of Hazara man Herat May 1999.jpg

Public execution of a Shi'ite ethnic Hazara, May 1999

It is interesting to note that whilst it has been addressed and expounded verbosely in the discussion page[2] [3] yet however has not been properly addressed in the article. Whilst it is a common form of punishment under Sharia law, and there is much credible first hand and primary source evidence that it is carried out very frequently as a punishment (most typically using a straight beam gibbet rather than a cross), I believe that we are robbing this article of it's academic merit by not including both in the header that 'this practise is still carried out in', as well as having in the 'modern usage' section a large portion on explaining the frequency of it and the usage of it in modern middle eastern countries.

Thus I wish to re-address this issue, and re-raise the points addressed above that were not acted on. It appears previous attempts to add this were removed and censored by pro-islamic editors who believe that somehow addressing the form of punishment used is 'anti-islamic' or taking a shot at them, which is quite unfortunate. We really need to address this issue as it's a common practise and isn't going to go away anytime soon.

As an aside, I do not endorse nor recommend anyone utilise the image above for a front-article post as it has it's source URL on it which would amount to advertising of a website and thus equate to removal. Jachin 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether it ought to be defined as crucifixion. The ancient meaning was apparently as broad as to include even impalement, yet we wouldn't classify impalements as crucifixions today, and we wouldn't do it in this article. --91.148.159.4 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Was Jesus cured by the soldier’s spear when he was crucified?

It was repeatedly speculated that Jesus of Nazareth did not really die when he was crucified (1) or the he might have been successfully resuscitated (2). Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross (3).However the resurrection of Jesus is still a matter of debate. From the citation in the bible “... 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe (John 19:34-35)” it is evident that Jesus must have had any sort of hydrothorax and/or hemothorax at the time he was crucified. In the new testament of the bible the tortures and crucifixion of Jesus is well described. According to this Jesus was struck and flogged “... 26Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. 27Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. 28 They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said.30 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him (Matthew 27:27-31)” . According to the current opinion it is believed that the torture produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha and that Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side (3). This interpretation however seems speculative whereas there is evidence that Jesus suffered from some kind of pleural effusion evidence (John 19:34) probably resulting from being flogged. It is well known that refractory hypoxaemia is frequently present in the chest injured patient (4) (5) and the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar to Golgotha is suggestive for some kind of hypoxemia. At the site of crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and, after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations and it was suggested that death resulted primarily from exhaustion asphyxia (3). The fact that Jesus had not his legs broken “ ... 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:33)” gave him the advantage that asphyxia could be delayed. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side (3). However considering that mangement of hydrothorax and/or haemothorax in modern medicine is the establishment of chest drains (4) one can speculate that the “thrust of the soldiers spear into his side” did not ensure Jesus’ death but was a sort of therapeutic intervention resulting in the relief of hypoxemia which eventually lead to the recovering of consciousness after some time.

Reference List

1. Ytrehus K. [Was Jesus dead after the crucifixion?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2002; 122(8):833.
2. Lloyd DM, Lloyd Davies TA. Resurrection or resuscitation? J R Coll Physicians Lond 1991; 25(2):167-170.
3. Edwards WD, Gabel WJ, Hosmer FE. On the physical death of Jesus Christ. JAMA 1986; 255(11):1455-1463.
4. Hardman JG, Mahajan RP. Anaesthetic management of the severely injured patient: chest injury. Br J Hosp Med 1997; 58(4):157-161.
5. Mizushima Y, Hiraide A, Shimazu T, Yoshioka T, Sugimoto H. Changes in contused lung volume and oxygenation in patients with pulmonary parenchymal injury after blunt chest trauma. Am J Emerg Med 2000; 18(4):385-389.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.50.157 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 July 2007

...So you're suggesting that after torture, whippings, thorns through the head, nails through the wrists, being hung on a cross, having a spear pierced in his side, and being locked in a air-tight cave for three days/nights, that Jesus was strong enough to roll away a bolder from the inside of the tomb and beat up however many soldiers were guarding him? And all without medical care?

He would still have to been God-on-earth to perform such a feet. --96.247.80.232 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)