J-D

Alf, thanks for your response.

I think you're right that alternative hypotheses to explain the Davidic descent story and the virgin birth story are possible. I don't see, however, that that makes Graves and Podro's story impossible.

About the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke: Graves and Podro agree that they are both distorted, but it is also part of their story that there were originally two genealogies, one of Jesus's biological (Davidic) family and one of his adoptive (Levite) family.

Diogenes the Cynic

Both genealogies trace through Joseph. The argument that one of them runs through Mary is a Christian apologetic and a groundless ome at that. They are contradictory because they were composed independently. Neither author had any awareness (it is believed) of the other.

J-D

Yes, that's a possible alternative explanation.

Amaleq13

They seem to be as conclusive as one can get short of an actual crucifixion.

I guess it would depend on how secure the arms were. An unconscious body secured so that it could still slump down toward the sort of position where the arms were more over the head would seem to keep asphyxiation a possibility.

I've found that happens a lot when studying the Bible.

Julian

I assume that crucifixtion happened on a pole, not a cross. Is there any reason at all to think that a cross was ever involved? The bible says pole and not cross. The hands would be nailed to the post above the head of the victim. There is no reason to add a crossbeam that I can see. It is extra wood, extra cost and entirely unnecessary. It would also mean that the victim would be leaning away from the cross, hanging at an angle that would cause tearing at the wrists, whereas having the hands nailed above the head, the force would be directed up to the wrist bones, not only more solid but also keeping the victim in better contact with the pole.

Until I see some evidence I can see no reason to believe that a cross was ever involved in crucifiction. Unless I have missed some evidence...? Which is entirely possible, of course.

Julian

Amaleq13

But that would mean all that art and sculpture I've seen in churches is entirely wrong!!

andrewcriddle

IMO the references to Jesus (or Simon of Cyrene) carrying Jesus' cross must mean carrying the crossbeam to the pole at Golgotha.

I don't think it would be practical for the condemned man to carry the pole itself to the place of execution.

Andrew Criddle

J-D

I haven't checked the evidence yet, but if it was always done on a pole and never on a cross, how did it get to be called crucifixion?

J-D

This is the description Graves and Podro give. They cite Cicero and Horace in favour of a description of crucifixion as taking place on a permanently fixed pole/stake at the execution ground with a crosspiece carried there by the victim.

Looking at it again, I notice that they also refer to a peg being inserted to support the crotch so that the weight wouldn't be borne only by arms and feet. Is it possible that such pegs would provide support to victims who lost consciousness, preventing them from sagging downwards and permitting them to continue breathing enough to postpone death?

Julian

Why 'must?' Why couldn't it be the actual pole. And why is the word σταυρος?
I doubt that they decided on this ritual for practical purposes.

Julian