Why the BBC thinks Christ did not die this way

[EveningStar]

Jonathan Wynne-Jones
The Telegraph
March 16, 2008

With his arms outstretched, his legs straight and his hands nailed to the cross, it is the image of Jesus's crucifixion held dear by Christians for centuries.

But now the producers of a BBC drama about Christ's final days have challenged the traditional representation, saying they believe Jesus probably did not die that way.

Instead of portraying Christ with his arms out wide and his legs straight down, The Passion will show him nailed to the cross in a foetal position, with his arms above his head and nails through his arms - the way, the producers claim, he may well have been crucified by the Romans...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/03/16/ncross116.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/03/16/ncross116a.gif

More (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/16/nrowan216.xml)

[DeclinetoState]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was nailed to just a single piece of wood (http://www.soulright.com/cross.html), not a two-piece cross. That's not quite the same as what the BBC article purports to show, but it is at variance with traditional teachings and beliefs.

[Maggie_T]

Why make such a mountain out of a mole hill? Does it really matter what position Jesus was on the cross? IMHO, the important thing is WHY He died, not how.

[DeclinetoState]

However many pieces of wood were used, crucifixion has to have been one of the most sadistic methods of execution ever devised.

[DoctorDoom]

Ancient evidence shows that in this respect, the BBC was was probably right.

An Archaeological Note On Crucifixion (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html)

IAC, this sort of thing pops up every year as Easter approaches.

However many pieces of wood were used, crucifixion has to have been one of the most sadistic methods of execution ever devised.Medical Aspects of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ (http://www.new-life.net/crucify1.htm)

For all He did for us, there's nothing we can do for Him that would begin to repay Him. Thank God He only asks for our souls and our lives.

And thank God for the blessed morning ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Christian/HeIsRisen-1.jpg

[CzechPrince]

Why make such a mountain out of a mole hill? Does it really matter what position Jesus was on the cross? IMHO, the important thing is WHY He died, not how.

Exactly.

[Lazarus]

The subtle, but very real problem with this is that the BBC doesn't know any better than anyone else who WASN'T THERE... The BBC certainly has not done the kind of serious scientific research that is required by serious scientists to make such a claim... The BBC is the grandfather of Tabloid Press - They set the standard - And FACTS were never an issue that the BBC has ever been all that familiar or concerned with...

Note their own comments:
While acknowledging that his ideas are likely to upset Christians, Mr Elliott argued that the position so familiar to churchgoers was only one of a range of methods used by the Romans in crucifixions.

"It is a minefield, as everyone has such strong feelings about it. Our portrayal is based on lengthy research." In particular, he said they had been influenced by the discovery of a crucified skeleton, which was found near Jerusalem in 1968 and is the only such archaeological find.A single skeleton - Sample of ONE from a population of THOUSANDS of recorded cases, in an historic setting where even the BBC admits the Romans used a RANGE of crucifixion methods... Even the undergraguate Statistics class that I took in college would have issued me an "F" if I had offered a conclusion on a statisitical analysis based on a single sample from a population of thousands... Such is the science the BBC bases their conclusions on...

It is irrelevant that they claim that this is the only skeletal remains that has ever been found of a crucifixion victim - It is still a sample of one, when we have plenty of recorded historical evidence of thousands who were in fact crucified, and the final conclusion is NOT justified by a sample of ONE...

Here's a hint to the BBC... This isn't new information... Acheaologists have known that there were a range of crucifixion positions for Decades - even Centuries... The reason why the "traditional" image of Christ on the cross was never challenged before is because it CANNOT be determined historicaly with any REASONABLE CERTAINTY that any single crucifixion position was the one used on Christ... And PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS don't make efforts to tear down traditional beliefs if there is no reasonable evidence to back the effort or justifiable reason to do so...

So...... What IS the BBC's intent here?

The end result of the argument is that the BBC has not taken this position becasuse of some "extensive research" that has not before been done - The BBC hasn't got a clue what the definition of extensive research is - They are Tabloid Press... If anyone doubts my assessment of the BBC's lack of ability along these lines I need only point out to you their own gross ignorance in this statement:
"The Victorian image of Jesus doesn't tie in with the historical evidence"...Im sure that this will come as a shock to the BBC, but that traditional image of Christ on the cross has been portrayed in art and religious images all the way back to at least the Byzantine Empire... Im sure I don't have to explain to anyone here that the Byzantine Empire predates the Victorian era by several hundreds of years, and in fact those early images were created from traditional beliefs that were MUCH CLOSER chronologically to the actual event...

This demonstrates the extent of the BBC's "extensive research" - They have become so detached from actual historical facts, that they have succumbed to the false belief that the rest of human culture is as ignorant as themselves - IOW, they have begun to believe their own bullshit... The BBC doesn't do extensive research - They do pop culture media searches for junk science to support the latest agenda they are driving...

The BBC has taken this position BECAUSE it bucks traditional beliefs... Because taking such a position only serves their on-going agenda of tearing down all things traditional, especially when it applies to Christianity...

The real fact is that NO ONE can determine with any reasonable certainty which crucifixion method was used with Christ... Certainly there are SOME inacrruacies with some traditional ideas - these MINOR inaccuracies have already been proven with reasonable certainty by PROFESSIONAL historians and archeaologists, as well as linguistic analysis of the original scriptural texts, but none of those inaccuracies have been pressed on the public because doing so SERVES NO HONEST PURPOSE...

In the end, this action on the part of the BBC serves only to raise questions as to the credibility of Christian traditions - If they can create enough questions in the minds of the masses as to the traditional story of the crucifixion of Christ, they can distract them with these meaningless, purposeless questions, and ultimately they will question the legitimacy of the Gospels themselves - You can take THAT to the bank...

Anyone who believes that the BBC is interested in portraying the crucifixion of Christ in an accurate way for the edification of Christianity is living in a bubble of utter foolishness... This is just one more cog in their pop culture agenda that is dedicated to the ultimate erasure of Christianity from human culture... Nothing more - Nothing less...

No doubt they get their scientific advice from the same pool of scientific integrity that feeds them their Global Warming agenda - No doubt they keep this man on their staff for just such occasional requirements for "scientific research"...

In the end, this has nothing to do with historical accuracy - It has everything to do with a long-term, ongoing agenda to tear down Christianity and revise all history in the image of the godless left... Anytime the BBC dabbles in the business of Christianity, one is best served by becoming immediately skeptical as to their motives...

[DesertFox]

A minor point: HOW Christ died is germane to WHY He died. In God's mind, it took dying in gruesome agony to expunge the sins of mankind.

Either method of crucifixion would have done the trick.

[Lazarus]

And for the record, I can easily tear down the BBC's suggested image of Christ on the cross from established historical and scriptural evidence, if anyone cares to hear it...

[DesertFox]

The BBC just wants to attack Christianity's credibility. If it can impugn the way Christ's death has been depicted all these centuries, it makes Christianity look like a myth.

[DesertFox]

Luss hear what you got, Laz.

[Lazarus]

Late in the day of the day of the crucifixion, after they have made sure that Christ had in fact been executed, the Sanhedron went to Pilate and demanded that he remove all three bodies from the crosses before 6 pm because that was the beginning of Passover and their religious snobbery would be offended by the crucifixions remaining in place during the spiritual holiday... And Pilate, in an attempt to keep them placated, agreed...

So Pilate sent orders to the crucifixion squad to break the legs of all three men so as to hasten their deaths... The most horrible component of the crucifixion process, beyond the nails thru the flesh, was the fact that the weight of the body would begin to pull the joints of the shoulders and arms from their sockets - The pain of this mechanism was excruciating...

So it was a natural practice of the victims to PUSH UP with their legs to relieve the shoulders of the weight of the body pulling them apart from gravity... This is the reason why the soldiers took clubs to the legs of the two thieves - It is not only recorded in the scripture (John 19:31-33), but there is plenty of historical evidence to support this as a regular procedure of the Romans if the victim remained alive longer then they wished for them to...

Normally the Romans would leave the victims to die over several days, but even then there were occasions when the victim lasted langer than even the Romans wanted them to... So the clubs applied to the legs was the method of stopping the victim from relieving the stress on his shoulders...

In the image proposed by the BBC, this particular method, although it MAY be one of several methods that was imployed by the Romans, doesn't "tie with the scriptural evidence" as the method used with Christ, if I may paraphrase the BBC... Any reasonable person can see that a victim in this fetal position would not be able to relieve the stress on the shoulders by pushing up with his legs... Many of the muscle groups in the legs are rendered virtually useless in the position that they are proposing - And most certainly no one would be able to sustain any measurable support of the body with one's legs in that position for even a minute or two, much less the HOURS that were recorded involved in the event... The two thieves remained alive by supporting their body weight for many hours - In fact from some time in the morning before noon until almost sundown... I challenge anyone to try it using the BBC method...

In the end analysis, the BBC has clearly done very LITTLE research into the scriptures, much less into actual history... All the evidence one needs is recorded by John in the scriptures - The Apostle John, who was an actual witness to the event...

[DesertFox]

If the intent was to inflict max pain, your thinking makes sense.

[2thePoint]

I've read that the ultimate reason they pushed up with their legs was simply to breathe:
Hanging by His arms, the pectoral muscles are paralyzed and the
intercostal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs,
but cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise Himself in order to get even
one short breath. Finally carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in
the blood stream and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, He is
able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen.
(Source (http://www.csun.edu/%7Ehbeng151/icc/studies/account.html))

It makes no sense to say they would break the victim's legs to make them suffer more pain; that would be no guarantee of swift death. It only makes sense if the victim would be unable to breathe without the legs, and thus die of suffocation.

However, in Jesus' case, death happened not by pain nor suffocation, but by a ruptured heart:
Apparently to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his lance
through the fifth interspace between the ribs, upward through the
pericardium and into the heart. The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the
Gospel according to John: And immediately there came out blood and water.
Thus there was an escape of watery fluid from the sac surrounding the
heart and blood from the interior of the heart. We, therefore, have
rather conclusive post-mortem evidence that Our Lord died, not the usual
crucifixion death by suffocatin, but of heart failure due to shock and
constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

And while this ruptured heart can be explained medically, I believe scripture tells us Jesus stopped his own heart:Matthew 27:50 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=50&version=72&context=verse)

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.</pre>

[Maggie_T]

The BBC just wants to attack Christianity's credibility. If it can impugn the way Christ's death has been depicted all these centuries, it makes Christianity look like a myth.

Exactly!

[DesertFox]

I've read that the ultimate reason they pushed up with their legs was simply to breathe:That makes sense to me. You can't exhale properly with your arms up over an extended period.

Well, I can't.