Toto

Ev - nice effort trying to dig yourself out of that hole. Sure you always meant to say that the PN was historical. And based on Scripture. Which just happen to coincide.

You say:Do you have some support for this statement? Did Paul ever say, "oh, and there were a bunch of things that happened that were not foretold in the scriptures. . ." which would have implied that the Scriptures were deficient?

Your "essentials" include Christ dying, rising on the third day, etc. They do not include the particular details of the Passion Narrative that show a dependency on other sources - the mockery scene with a royal robe, the trial before the Sanhedrin turning Jesus over to the Roman authorities, etc.

I emphasize this because the interest in the Passion Narrative by Crossan and Leidner comes out of the historical use of that narrative by the Christian church to justify anti-Semitic policies.

I said: You said:
Lucian, a satirist of the 2nd c., is probably repeating Christian propaganda.

And I did not ignore your Jewish commentators. I gave you a better source for understanding them. And I would point out that none of the Talmudic references mention the Romans or Pilate. Isn't this strange? Don't you think that the Jews would want to shift the blame for Jesus' death onto the Romans if there were any historical accuracy to it? They might have avoided a few pogroms. You will also notice that most of the other details of the PN are missing.

I said You said
Clearing the Temple may not be a part of the PN, but it is the only motive that modern historians can come up with to provide any motivation for the Romans to crucify Jesus. Otherwise, you just have the Sanhedrin trying Jesus for things that are not a violation of Jewish Law (claiming to be the Messiah), and turning him over to the Romans to be executed for things that would not have violated Roman Law. Due process was probably lacking in ancient Palestine, but this still makes little sense.

I don't know why you think I "mismanaged" Justin Martyr. He shows familiarity with the sayings of Jesus and the bare facts of the crucifixion (assuming a later editor didn't add those details), but not the Passion Narrative. Yuri Kuchinsky has just posted an excellent essay
Evolutionary View of the Gospels . I suggest that you read it. Leidner's view was that the PN was a later stratum added to the original gospel stories and sayings.

The rest of your attempted justification of the historicity of Jesus dying after a mere three hours on the cross and his body being taken down immediately is just apologetics. I certainly know the rationalization that the gospels use to explain this extraordinary event, but it still doesn't fly.

I'll have to get back to this later, with more details.

joedad

Here's a decent link and a taste of what's there.Christianity evolved over many centuries, as evidenced by its iconography, and was undoubtedly influenced by other religions and culture. It is astounding to me anyway – okay, last time I'll say that! – that the central image of christianity, their crucified – or "impaled" redeemer/savior, didn't occur until 600 years after the supposed fact! Why did this take so long? Why the early iconography of a shepherd and young teacher, and no crucifixion? I can understand there being these other images along with the central image of the crucifixion, but for images of the crucifixion to be entirely absent for six centuries while these other images flourished is a pretty revealing piece of evidence against.

joe

Celsus

Evangelion,

That JAMA article is pseudoscientific rubbish. We do not have a clue how Jesus died, and the authors took the Biblical accounts as literary facts in deriving the model for crucifixion. Frankly we're still not even sure how the masses of people died by crucifixion (although they most certainly died), or the extent of variation in crucifixion types. In other words, that JAMA article would be like a paleoanthropologist using Genesis to reconstruct human origins and deserves no place in scientific inquiry.

Joel

Evangelion

Toto -

False.

• There is no "hole" in the first place.
  
• I'm saying the same thing I've always said.
  
• You still haven't answered my questions.

Deal with it.

ROTFL! Hello, Mr Fallacy! You're asking me to prove a negative now?

Read it again:

• Nobody (not even the 1st Century Christians) claimed that all of the details of the Passion Narrative are found in the OT.

So the onus is on you to show me a place where they did claim such a thing.

Duh.

Uh... no, why the hell would he do that? And in any case why would the Scriptures need to have every single detail? That's just some stupid rule you've invented. "The Scriptures must say what Toto demans, otherwise they are deficient."

Yeah, right.

Yep. That's what Paul claimed and that's what they show.

These do not show "a dependency on other sources." That's a totally ludicrous claim.

Oh yes, I was forgetting Mr Leidner and his hastily-cobbled mishmash of various unrelated facts from an arbitrary source.

If he didn't believe it to be true, we'd expect to see him deriding it as a lie. But he does no such thing. So now you're merely trying to second-guess his motives in order to avoid the force

Well yes, you did, actually.

Well no, you didn't, actually.

Who cares?

Nope. They were concerned with the person of Jesus, not the Romans. It's a polemic against a heretical preacher, remember?

Well no, not really. Because (a) the pogroms didn't start until much later (the Jews - who possessed the upper hand until the rise of Constantine in the 4th Century - actually spent a bit of time persecuting the Christians) and (b) if there was any historical accuracy to the claim that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, they'd be fools to deny it anyway!

It would be like trying to claim you hadn't invaded Iraq...

Irrelevant. Why do you persist in this wild claim that unless somebody repeats every single detail of an event, there is no evidence that they (a) were aware of it in the first place, or (b) were aware of it and believed it to be true? That's just another arbitrary "rule" on your part.

It's like saying "Well, my old mate Colonel Hackham claims to have been in WWII, but when I ask him about it, I never actually receive a full account of the war itself. I only ever hear bits and pieces. Obvious, Colonel Hackham must be a fraud."

It amazes me that you can't see how stupid this argument is. It doesn't even make any sense.

I see this as a rather facile interpretation, since the Romans had no interest whatsoever in the religious affairs of the Jews except when they came into conflict with Roman law. That's the whole point. That's why Pilate sendt Jesus to Herod and eventually washed his hands of the matter. As far as the Romans were concerned, Jesus was innocent of all charges. There was nothing which might convict him under Roman law.

Pilate crucified Jesus to appease the mob and avoid a political mess.

Ummm... the whole point of the story is that Jesus was unfairly judged during a blatant mistrial and executed without good reason. You are correct when you say that he had not broken any Jewish law. That is perfectly true.

That is precisely why it was found necessary to bring false witness against him (as the Gospels inform us) in the first place. And when this failed, they Sanhedrin simply pushed their case until it went through.

You seem to have a great deal of faith in human nature. It does not appear to have occurred to you that Jesus' trial may indeed have been deliberately contrived in order to derive the required result. You have this absurd view that "it couldn't have happened that way because this would result in a breach of justice." IOW, your argument is predicated upon the unlikely assumption that a miscarriage of justice simple wasn't possible. Yours is indeed a touchingly simple faith.

I find this rather amusing.

*snip*

How about "You said he's not familiar with the Gospels", when in fact he quotes them word for word. You also said "He makes no mention of Pilate", when in fact he does. You have shown that you are not even familiar with Martyr's work (having obviously taken no time to read it in the first place), just as you are unfamiliar with the Gospel records (having not read them either.)

Think about it.

*snip*

Since the timeframe was actually more like 6 hours (not 3) this objection is both meaningless and irrelevant. Jesus was brought to the cross somewhere around 9am and died at about 3pm.

Evangelion

Celsus -

Why?

If the Biblical account is true, we have crucifixion as the cause of death.

They may have done. Alternatively, they may simply be treating it as a hypothetical case. (And what's wrong with that?)

The issue here is "If Jesus actually was a historical figure, and if he was indeed crucified, how would he have died while on the cross?" The question concerns the nature of crucifixion and its effects upon the human body. Whether Jesus actually existed or not, is another question entirely - but even if he didn't, this does not invalidate the medical analysis of crucifixion.

There is, in fact, a wealth of knowledge on the first count, and a considerable body of knowledge on the second.

Adrian Barnett's Website provides the following information, which Adrian himself considers to be perfectly valid:

• In the case of crucifixion you very slowly drown as the chest and abdominal muscles tire and fluid collects in the lungs. This can take any where from several hours to several days. This, coupled with the heat stress and dehydration, it makes for a very bad day.
  
  Coupled with the above, it is stated that jc was stabbed in the chest with a spear; it is assumed this was done to speed up the process of his death. There are three major organs in the area where tradition states he was stabbed (i.e. the heart, liver and lungs). It can be assumed that since he lingered for more than about 10 minutes, he was not stabbed in the heart or the liver.
  
  It can also be assumed that the stab wound did not penetrate the tissue wall that separates the lungs, thereby collapsing only the right lung, leaving one functioning lung (that was filling with fluid). A stab wound to the lung only, would account for the statements referring to the blood and fluid.
  
  A stab wound to the heart would have killed him in not more than 5 minutes, in the liver upwards to an hour or more, to the lung only several hours.
  
  Since the stabbing took place late in the procedure, there is adequate time for fluid to accumulate. It must be remembered that the Romans were very good at this procedure. The average Roman soldier had a surprising knowledge of human anatomy; they knew exactly where and how deep to stab someone to cause the desired effect.
  
  Based on the accounts of how and why Romans crucified people, it [the time taken to die - Adrian] depended on how long they felt like allowing you to die and how much they wanted you to suffer. The intent of crucifixion is an object lesson to the masses.
  
  If their intent was to really show their displeasure with you and your actions, i.e. rebellious people, you would be attached to the cross in either the upright or inverted position (in jc's case he was attached upright). There are two basic methods, either nailing the arms through the wrist or hands (the latter requires the wrist be bound the cross arm to prevent the body weight from tearing the tissue of the hand). These injuries are not in themselves fatal.
  
  In this position, over time it becomes more and more difficult to breathe as you tire the muscles of the chest; the abdomen and the lungs fill with fluid. What also must be considered is the environmental conditions. In the middle east the temperature routinely reaches 100 degrees F even in the spring; this would add the stress of dehydration and heat exhaustion. Also this method can and did take one to five days (a conservative estimate; the actual length of time would depend on your physical condition at the time).
  
  The thighbones were broken to speed the process and increase suffering. Breaking the femur results in a large amount of internal bleeding and pain, as a result of involuntary and voluntary movement of the legs.
  
  The trick was to break the femurs' transversely and not cause a large amount of displacement in the bone ends. This would be very painful in itself, and as the person moved around the bones ends would cause more and more damage and bleeding.
  
  The best you could hope for would be a diagonal fracture, (creating two long and very sharp cutting edges inside the thigh), and hopefully to cut the femoral artery early in the process and bleed out quickly. It must be noted that the Romans were very good at this and were careful not to allow you this option.
  
  Source.

It astonishes me that you would even attempt to argue against the medical evidence. Comments like "We don't know how crucified people actually died" are simply breathtaking in their naivete.

Ummm... no, it's like a pathologist using medical knowledge to determine the cause of death for an individual who has been crucified.

Duh.

Toto

Well, you've chopped this up so it makes it difficult to reply. But you seem to take the issue of anti-Semitism very lightly. (Jews persecuting Christians in the Roman empire? Is your source for this the book of Acts?)

You might want to read up on the issue here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_jesu.htm

My point was that the gospels show at least some Roman responsibility for Jesus' death. (The idea that Pilate would be cowed by a mob is just ludicrous, based on the depiction of him in Josephus.) You would expect, therefore, that Jewish legends, if they did in fact relate to Jesus, would throw some of that guilt onto the Romans. But they don't. They describe a heretic, probably from 100 BC (in that link I gave you that you've missed) who has some vague resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels.

Leidner states that the earliest legends of Jesus blamed his death on the Jews. But these have to be ahistorical, because Jesus was supposed to be crucified, and only the Romans crucified people. He hypothesizes that the gospel writers worked the Romans into the story to make it historically plausible, and that the earlier tales were then labeled apocryphal. But this shows that the entire story is fiction.

you say

You are completely off the wall. The claim is that the gospels invented the story of Jesus at a late date. This is evidenced by the fact that the earliest Christian documents have few or no details of Jesus, and much later documents have lots of details. Do you think this is a frivolous claim? It must be because your faith has blinded you to common sense.

It's like saying your old mate Hackam never mentioned being in the war for years, but suddenly after watching a TV special, he tells you all sorts of detailed stories that bear a suspicious resemblance to what he saw on TV. Would you believe him? You would want a bit more evidence, I think.

One more point before I go to bed (do you have to work for a living?): I am not assuming that because Jesus' trial was not fair, that it didn't happen. But when you add up the details - it happened at night (unheard of), on the Passover eve, it didn't follow procedures, the character of Pilate is ahistorical, the mob is quoted as saying "Let his blood be on us and on our children" - it all looks fairly improbable, more like a Christian fiction than an actual event.

Celsus

Hi Evangelion,

You don't seem to get the point at all. Forensic archaeology is a worthy science, the only problem is, JAMA based that entire article on literary evidence. They forgot to check with archaeologists about the modes of crucifixion common in the ancient world, but instead took the Bible prima facie to reconstruct the crucifixion. And since the textual evidence is exactly what's at stake in your debate with Toto, it is blatantly begging the question to rebut his statement, "The crucifixion itself is unlike any other recorded - Jesus dies too quickly" with what even you admit is a hypothetical reconstruction. And Toto is exactly correct. We have precious few example of crucifixion victims (just one, to be precise), one "Jehohanan" who was tied at the arms, while his feet were nailed to the sides of the cross. I'll point you to a useful reconstruction:

• We know from Josephus that during the first century C.E. wood was so scarce around Jerusalem that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles outside the city to secure timber for their siege machinery (War 5.522-23). From this one account we can reasonably assume that the scarcity of wood may have affected the economics of crucifixion, so that the horizontal bar as well as the vertical beam may have been used repeatedly. Thus the lack of traumatic injury to the forearm and metacarpals of the hand [he is referring to the recovered corpse of Jehohanan--Joel] seems to suggest that the arms of the condemned were tied rather than nailed to the cross. There is ample literary and artistic evidence for the use of ropes rather than nails to secure the condemned to the cross.
  
  In Egypt, where according to one source crucifixion originated, the victim was not nailed but tied. The fact that crucifixion was a common form of capital punishment in the ancient world and that only one archaeological find provides evidence for it may further suggest that tying the victim to the cross was the preferred mode of crucifixion. If this supposition is correct, it becomes obvious why there is virtually no archaeological evidence of crucifixion; such an execution would leave no traumatic effect on the skeleton.
  
  ...
  
  Finally, let us return to the issues raised by the appearance of tlh in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars have wrestled with this verb often presupoosing that crucifixion was be means of nailing a victim to wood. Now, we learn from anthropological examinations of the bones of Jehohanan that he was "hung" by his arms from a horizontal bar or a tree. Any remaining problems with translating tlh to denote crucifixion should now be resolved.
  
  Zias, J. and Charlesworth, J.H., "Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), 1992, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Anchor Doubleday, pp. 283-284.

Toto's point, that "The crucifixion itself is unlike any other recorded - Jesus dies too quickly" stands. Further to that, the JAMA article is pseudoscientific rubbish, because it takes a literary source as physical evidence. Not that that has prevented generations of apologists from using it as "evidence" for the death of Jesus Christ. Who is Adrian Barnett, and why is his source reliable?

Joel

Edit: On the other hand, if you can show that JAMA had Jesus' corpse with them when doing the research, I'll be quite happy to retract everything I've said.

Vorkosigan

• from The Birth of Christianity, JD Crossan, p521, emphasis in original
  
  ...The negative argument is not that such a history remembered narrative could not have happened. Of course it could. The argument is that we lack the evidence for its existence; and, if it existed, we would expect some evidence to be available.
  The second reason is positive, for the position of prophecy historicized. The individual units, general sequences, and overall frames of the passion-resurrection stories are so linked to prophetic fulfillment that the removal of such fulfillment leaves nothing but the barest facts, almost as in Josephus, Tacitus, or the Apostles' Creed. By individual units I mean such items as these: the lots cast and garments divided from Psalm 22:18, the darkness at noon from Amos 8:9; the gall and vinegar drink from Psalm 69:21. By general sequences I mean such items as these: the Mount of Olives situation from 2 Samuel 15-17; the trial collaboration from Psalm 2; the abuse description from the Day of Atonement Ritual in Leviticus 16. By overall frames I mean the narrative genre of innocence vindicated, righteousness redeemed, and virtue rewarded. In other words, on all three narrative levels -- surface, intermediate, and deep -- biblical models and scriptural precedents bave controlled the story to the point that without them nothing is left but the brutal fact of crucifixion itself.

On p522 Crossan goes on to give one example, that of the gall and vinegar drink, and how it is derived from the OT and utilized in the NT.

One thing that worries me, 'vange, is your abusive tone. I do not know whether it connotes insecurity or ignorance, but why not drop it? It only makes it more difficult to respond to you. It would be a shame if this useful thread degenerated into a pissing match. For instance, Statements like this:

• These do not show "a dependency on other sources." That's a totally ludicrous claim.

are unhelpful. They contain only baseless dismissal without useful response. You need to show why two stories with many similar details might in fact be regarded as independent.

In other forms of historical inquiry deductions of dependence based on commonalities is in fact SOP. For example, Suplicius Severus' dependency on Tacitus is deduced from numerous points of confluence of style and events. Similarly, numerous writers on medieval history borrowed events from ancient historians and used them in their own histories; these borrowings are deduced from commonalities like the ones Liedner points to. On XTALK the other day Ted Weeden, a noted Mark scholar, discovered another noted scholar's account of the similarity between the Christian saviour and Josephus' account of the Jesus who predicted the fall of Jerusalem and died during the siege. So such claims are normal among scholars of all types; unless you can provide a solid refutation, I think the lurkers may simply regard abrupt dismissal as reflecting the weakness in your own position....

Regardless of their particular position on the historicity of these narratives, innumberable commentators have noted these similarities throughout the ages, so much so that ancient Christians were forced to argue that Satan had sent copycat saviors ahead of Jesus. This is not an argument that would be necessary unless the attacks had bite. Clearly the ancients knew that Jesus was a figure somehow borrowed and transformed from other religious viewpoints.

You believe apparently that the historicity of the events in the gospels is established so profoundly that you can treat the idea of prophecy historizied or parallels with "the contempt it deserves." Few, I think, would agree with you. For example, Theissen and Merz, who are avowedly pro-historicist, nevertheless concede the power of the prophecy historicized argument. On page 107 of The Historical Jesus, they list some of the prophecy historicized insights, noting that "Psalm 22 runs through the passion narrative." They are attempting to refute this hypothesis for the whole PN (they do not, however, adduce any argument) but even though they are on a mission to refute the skeptics, they must confess that the PN and the OT are closely related. Even where they attempt to decisively rebut it, they still must concede to it: after arguing that the Crucifixion must have occurred because it is a scandalous fact, the state "So we cannot draw conclusions for the whole of the Jesus tradition from the indisputably productive power of the proof from scripture.

In other words, the position you apparently regard as beneath contempt Theissen and Merz regard as "indisputable."

If I have misinterpreted your position, accept my humble apologies.

Vorkosigan

Evangelion

Toto -

I don't see why. After all, I'm simply responding to your posts as you produce them.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not a case of taking it "very lightly", but rather a case of recognising that it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Again: Jewish persecution by Christians did not begin until the rise of Constantine in the 4th Century (at the very least.) The Christians simply did not have any authority before that time, while the Jews most definitely did.

I'm amazed that you don't appear to comprehend this.

Well partly, yes. And also Josephus:

• Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];
  
  and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;
  
  they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;
  
  nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent.
  
  Antiquities, Book 20: chapter IX.

Of course, not all of the Jews were Christian-haters, but there was a strong body of Jewish opposition (as you'd expect) and the Christians suffered as a result.

Good old religioustolerance.org, eh? One of my favourite sites. Glad to see you're familiar with it.

Let's take a look at the material there:

• Throughout most of its history, Christian groups taught that:
  
  All Jews (past, present and future) shared equal responsibility for the killing of Jesus.

Yes, Christian groups have commonly taught this. However, mine does not.

• After the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, they lost their "special status" that was guaranteed to them in the Hebrew Scriptures. They were no longer the covenant people.

Yes, Christian groups have commonly taught this. However, mine does not.

• The Christian church, often referred to as "spiritual Israel," was seen as having displaced the descendents of Abraham, and having taken the place of the Jews. God was believed to have abandoned the Jews. Rev. Bailey Smith, former head of the Southern Baptist Convention, said, at the 1980 Religious Roundtable national affairs briefing in Dallas TX that "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

Yes, Christian groups have commonly taught this. However, mine does not.

In fact, my own sect is known to be a strident ally of the Jews (we contribute regularly to the Youth Aliyah program), whom we believe to be God's chosen people. Indeed, it is only through the Jews that we Christians have any hope of a relationship with God and salvation through Christ.

So none of these objections carry any weight with me, because they attack a position to which I simply do not subscribe.

Oh, and incidentally, this comment by the good folks at www.religioustolerance.org...

• After the victim was dead, the body was typically thrown on a dump to be eaten by scavenging animals. Some theologians believe that this was Jesus' fate. The Gospels give a conflicting story; they record how Joseph of Arimathea obtained permission to bury Jesus in a tomb.

...is sadly mistaken. You see, under Roman law the friends and relatives of the victim were permitted to request the body (if they desired it) and take it away for burial. So again we see that the Gospel record is consistent with the historical facts.

Yes, and I agree with that.

Not at all. You see, he's not just "intimidated by a mob" (a hopelessly simplistic generalisation); he's understandably cautious about Jewish reactionism. He wants to avoid a political disaster; the Jews have already threatened him with an implied accusation of treason ("We have no king but Caesar", which begs the question "To whom do you pledge allegiance, Pilate?") and it was Pilate's job to keep the peace by whatever means possible.

No Roman governor would risk his own job for the benefit of a local Jewish preacher. The very suggestion is absurd. Instead, Pilate takes the path of least resistance.

Well no, I would only expect this if the Jewish accounts were written for the purpose of exonerating the Jews during a time of persecution by Christians. But that's not what we find in the records to which I have referred you. What we find is a list of earlier traditions which began to be compiled in the 3rd Century AD, long before Christianity rose to power and long before the Christians even had the capacity to persecute Jews.

Think about it. Please.

Umm...

• I see no parallels to the story of Jesus in these narratives.
  
• I note with interest that the argument is presented by none other than a branch of the Theosophical Society - hardly an objective source.

So I'm sorry to say that I can't indulge this flight of fancy. You've provided a link to a rather muddled article by a bunch of neo-philosophical mystics, which presents virtually nothing in the way of hard evidence and absolutely nothing in the way of a credible argument.

And of course, the hilarious irony of a atheist relying on Theosophists to support his case is... impossible to miss. Pardon my mirth.

*snip*

This merely begs the question "Were there no circumstances under which a Roman might appease the local Jews by crucifying a criminal?" And to be perfectly blunt, I don't believe that the question is particularly difficult to answer.

I'll take "Yes" for $2,000, Jerry!

But this entire argument is predicated upon the as-yet-unproven assertion that the Gospel records were not among the earliest documents of the Christian community.

*snip*

Well yes, I believe it is, and seeing that it's predicated upon an unproved assertion, I don't understand why you insist on pressing it. Your analogy only holds true if you can prove that the Gospel records are not, in fact, among the earliest Christian documents extant.

As it happens, I'm a shift worker. (I work for the government postal service.) I keep odd hours, and I'm accustomed to staying up late. So yes, I do indeed work for a living, and thanks for asking.

It will no doubt astonish you to learn that this refrain of the Jews finds a direct parallel in their own sacred literature.

Thus:

• Exodus 20:5-6.
  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
  And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
  
• Exodus 34:7.
  Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
  
• Numbers 14:18.
  The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
  
• Deuteronomy 5:9.
  Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

You see, the Jews understood the nature of their God perfectly well. They recognised that if they were indeed committing a dastardly crume, then God would surely punish them for the deed. This is, in fact, a part of their own theology.

But in this case the Jews did not believe that the crucifixion of Christ was a crime; instead, they saw it as both a necessary expedient and a lawful action. With this in mind, they mock the protestations of Pilate, taking full responsibility for their own actions.

Thus:

• Matthew 27:25.
  Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Here they effectively state "If we are wrong in this matter, then God will judge us in accordance with His principles (Exodus 20:5-6; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9) but if not, then we shall be exonerated."

The same principle is found in another Gospel account:

• John 9:1-3.
  And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
  And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind
  Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Such a question was perfectly natural in the minds of men who had been raised on Exodus 20:5-6; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18 & Deuteronomy 5:9.

Marvin R. Vincent (Vincent's Word Studies) comments:

• Joh 9:2 - This man, or his parents
  It was a common Jewish view that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear in the children, and that the thoughts of a mother might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring. The apostasy of one of the greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the sinful delight of his mother in passing through an idol grove.

We find an earlier reference to this belief in the record of I Kings:

• I Kings 2:30-33.
  And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the LORD, and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me.
  And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father.
  And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah.
  Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed forever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace forever from the LORD.

Observe the same principle in action. King David was innocent of the blood which was shed by Joab (the captain of his army) because (a) he did not order the slayings, and (b) they were carried out behind his back. But the house of Joab will suffer for the crimes committed by their father.

There is, therefore, a Biblical precedent for the Jews' declaration to Pilate - and it comes directly from the Jewish Scriptures themselves. Far from being an "unlikely" statement, it is perfectly consistent with their own theology.

Evangelion

Celsus -

We shall see.

Um... the literary evidence states that Jesus was scourged, crucified and stabbed in the side with a spear.

Do you believe that these events are unlikely?

Well no, I don't believe they did, and I'll show why in a moment.

Again - just what exactly is wrong with the Biblical account? Do you believe that it presents a misrepresentation of the scourging process? Of the crucifixion process? What, exactly, is your argument?

*snip*

Well I'm so glad you raised "Jehohanan", because he actually constitutes another piece of evidence for the verification of the Gospel account.

Thus:

• Christian art has continuously portrayed Jesus as attached to the cross with his extremities fully extended. Jehohanan's torso was forced into a twisted position with his calves and thighs bent and unnaturally twisted. Since the bent nail did not secure the legs to the cross, a plank (sedecula) was probably fastened to the simplex, providing sufficient support for the buttocks and prolonging torture.
  
  If Jesus had been crucified in a similar fashion, and we cannot be certain of this although it is probable, his contorted muscles probably would have generated spasmodic contractions (tetanizations) and rigid cramps would eventually permeate the diaphragm and lungs so as to prohibit inhalation and exhalation. Jesus could have died after six hours.
  
  [...]
  
  In conclusion, we now have empirical evidence of a crucifixion. Death on a cross could be prolonged or swift. The crucifixion of Josephus' acquaintance who survived should not be projected to the crucifixion of Jesus.
  
  The major extrabiblical paradigm for crucifixion is no longer Josephus; it is the archaeological data summarized above. The crucifixion of Jesus, who did not possess a gladiator's physique and stamina, did not commence but culminated when he was nailed to the cross.
  
  After the brutal, all night scourging by Roman soldiers, who would have relished an opportunity to vent their hatred of the Jews and disgust for Palestinian life, Jesus was practically dead.
  
  Source.

So again, the crucifixion is entirely plausible. Death within 6 hours was, in fact, quite possible.

*snip*

I have no problem with the suggestion that Jesus may have been crucified on a vertical beam as opposed to a beam with a crossbar. The Gospels are not explicit on this point.

*snip*

...there is also ample evidence that nails were used. So all you have done here is to observe (and quite correctly) that various modes of crucifixion were employed - a point with which I do not take issue, since it does not actually constitute a rebuttal to my argument.

Of course, if you want to claim that Jesus must necessarily have been tied instead of nailed (thereby "disproving" the Gospel account) you must give good grounds for such a position.

*snip*

Alas, it does not - as proved by (a) the medical evidence, (b) the analysis of Barnett's source, and (c) our verifiable knowledge of the crucifixion process.

*snip*

Umm... this peculiar objection is quite incomprehensible to me. The record simply states that Jesus was scourged, crucified and subsquently stabbed with a spear. Since we know what scourging, crucifixion and stabbing was likely to involve, how in the world can you claim that the analysis of this process is mere "pseudoscientific rubbish"?

It's not a case of taking "a literary source as physical evidence"; it's a case of knowing what the procedures involved, and presenting a series of conclusions on the basis of that knowledge.

Why, he is one of the proud atheist supporters of IIDB, Celsus. If you'd actually taken the time to click on the link I provided, you'd know that by now.

I suggest you ask Barnett. He seems to place considerable faith in his source, and I see no reason to doubt it. Certainly, his source does not present us with anything but a sensible, medical analysis of crucifixion. Do you take issue with that analysis? If so, on what basis?

But there was no need for this in the first place, Celsus. We all know what crucifixion involved. We know the methods employed, and their effects upon the victim.

It's a fait accompli.