My medical friend once told me that nailing the palm isn't "fail-safe" because the nail could eventually tear through the flesh. Nailing the wrist between the radius and ulna is more secure.
Other theories support nailing through the palms of the hands IF the victim's arms are bound tightly to the cross piece of the cross. So if the nails tear through the flesh of the hands he will still remain crucified. Although one does not see this method of crucifixion in works of religious art (created centuries later) does not mean it did not happen .Nobody knows the exact way Jesus was crucified. It was a common method of execution centuries old, and I do not believe the Romans ever wrote the one definitive "Crucifixion For Dummies" instruction manual.
@@Frank-mm2yp If the victim is tied to the cross, rather than nailed, death takes most of a week, rather than three days with nails as Spartacus' army was on the Apppian Way. Also, the "definition" of the hand, back then, included the wrist and just above, so you could get a secure nailing site. Dying within the first day was rare, though, sufficient that they had to test it with the spear to the side.
@@Frank-mm2yp Well i guess the Romans had plenty of surplus rope and "cost savings" wasn't a concept back then. The businessman in me thinks all those rope could be better used elsewhere, and I'm sure in those times rope had a lot of daily practical value.
I went to a Catholic school in the 70s and I remember being taught about the mechanics of crucifixion , in all its horrific detail , by a sweet faced old nun in the second or third grade . Neither I or my classmates were particularly shocked or traumatized , in fact her presentation was followed by an enthusiastic question and answer session .
Anthony Mcdonald, Go to the Philippines during Holy Week. They still volunteer to be crucified. ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=philippines%2C+crucifixion
I want to express my appreciation for your unbiased analysis of Biblical and other ancient subjects. While, as a devout Christian I certainly have my bias, I find that a lot of secular sources opinions boil down to "Josephus didn't mention it, so it didn't happen". (for all you subcommenters, I am exaggerating to prove a point. Yet it is closer to the truth than many are willing to admit)
I'm pretty convinced the whole 'Josephus' passage about Jesus is an out and out forgery anyway. I remember once going through it, taking out everything I reckon it was impossible he would say, being a Jewish historian in the pay of the Romans, and I was left with "There also lived at this time the man called Jesus. He preached to the Jews and to the gentiles, and the tribe of Christians, which was named for him, is still in existence today." (Terrible paraphrasing but if you know the passage I'm sure you'll follow me.) It wouldn't even be worth putting down. Also seems clear the text around it makes much more sense when the whole thing is cut out. Right now I would take some very strong convincing that 'the man Jesus' ever existed at all. He was a mythological figure whose story was set in an earthly place and time for alegorical purposes, which text then was either unwittingly or willfully mis-interpretted... probably a bit of both.
@@dan4lau I wasn't referring to that, and in fact agree with you that Josephus didn't write that particular passage. I was instead referring to the secular habit of dismissing any particular event mentioned in the New Testament simply because it was not corroborated, which at the time and place could only be Josephus. Dismissing something, (that admittedly, should be considered biased) because it isn't mentioned by the only other source (that happens to have the opposite bias) is bad science.
@@dan4lau You literally just proved superdupergrover's point by dismissing Jesus's existence after only bringing up Josephus, there are other sources (which Metron has conveniently collected into one video about it) that you would have to disprove to say Jesus never existed as a person.
Thank you so much! I really am grateful for your relentlessly objective approach to history. I appreciate the attempt to put history on a fully scientific basis, difficult as that is to achieve!
I do wonder by how much the reality differed from what we imagine. Imagine the time and the manpower needed, not to mention all the wood, rope, nails. The romans did crucify people who were already dead, since the "warning" was just as important as the death. It would be much more efficient to crucify dead people. So, for example, they could have put up the healthiest prisoners near Rome where they would garner the most attention, but once away from Rome it would be easier to deal with dead people, and you would not need to guard them so closely. It's pure speculation, but we have zero information on the event.
@KKmies Soldiers may not adhere to the law 100%, as is the case with hastening death. Dead people don't resist unlike live prisoners. They do not need guarding. How did the romans supervise 6000 crucifictions? Is it not possible that the exceptional circumstances led to exceptional measures? We have literally one sentence that describes the event in question. All it says is that the 6000 survivors were crucified along the road from Capua to Rome. Since they were battle survivors, I find it hard to believe that none of them were injured or died subsequently. Would those who died of their wounds escape being put on display with the others? There are many instances of bodies being put on display after death, even of people being executed after death. It is not hard to imagine that someone who died before crucification would still be hung up, and I believe the bible and Greek histories mention crucifixion simply as a means of presenting the dead as a warning to others. My earlier comment was speculative, and I said as much. You can dispute that it happened because neither of us have evidence one way or the other. My entire point is that we have no specifics, so I wondered how the reality of the situation may have differed from what we imagine.
Yep, you’re correct, the word excruciating does come from crucifixion. Honestly if crucifixion was still around today, I think I would rather have a bullet, something quick other than crucifixion, I would not want to go out that way
I think important thing you did not mention, is that "victim" of crucifiction was whipped before crufiction with flagellum I think. This whipping was usually severe and left back of victim severely damaged. This could cause blood loss.
@@rohancooray194 He could be meaning to say that he was not a victim. He chose and allowed His death. If you have the ability to resist and fully overpower your aggressor and willingly and purposely choose not to, you are not a victim.
The flogging instrument was constructed of leather thongs, with lead tips, in Jesus' case. The Romans were afraid of insurrection by the Jews. At this particular time of year on the Jewish Calendar was the Passover and Unleavened Bread celebration. This meant, that Jews from all over came to Jerusalem to observe the Jewish Festival, making the Jewish population rise. The Romans therefore, had brought into their numbers additional soldiers. Some of these soldiers were expert crack units for crowd control. Nonetheless. were the Roman torturers i.e. floggers. These floggers knew their craft well and were there to send a message to those, who decided that rioting would bring to them their desired results. Jesus was front and center of all of this. He was the focus and high-lighted after doing the miraculous reresection of His friend, Lazarus, from the dead. Jesus' fame had spread and people wanted to see Him and the Jewish Big Boys wanted him out of the way, permanently because He posed a threat to their power hold over the Jewish people. They hated Him because He [Jesus] meant change to a much, better way to the Father. The Jewish leaders knew that the party was over for them had Jesus been allowed to live. Religion murdered Jesus whereas, Christianity gives life.
Important to note that in most texts, religious (And while religious texts are no less a viable historical source than non religious texts, this appears in secular texts as well) that the sign "king of the Jews" was placed above his head, supporting the traditionalist depiction of a + shaped cross, as opposed to the T shape also used in the era. Not sure how you'd mount it over his head in a T shape.
@@Kilopapa-116 Is there any evidence that Romans used Y-shaped crosses? X-shaped and T-shaped ones are attested, as well as the typical latin cross, but I've never heard of Y-shaped ones.
Mad respect to you man, looking at the historical truth, not being a fundamentalist believing the bible without question, not being an ”internet atheist” denying the truth of the scriptures completely. All thumbs up! 👍👍
I think you might have accidentally left out a line when discussing the Spartacus crucifixions about where Capua is, as it's not actually on the maps shown. Viewers may not know that it's just north of Naples.
Another superb, brilliantly outlined analysis, Raff !! Might I just add that a subtle distinction could be made; as far as I can see, that the Persians seem to have used crucifixion to display corpses of criminal victims that had already been executed, whereas the the Carthaginians inflicted it upon living criminals - and it was that "method" that the Romans then in turn adopted.
My father is a doctor and I remember him being in Chicago and a man was walking around with his arms tied to a cross and my dad had to tell him how crucifixion works and how it would affect his breathing with his arms like that and then he finally stopped wearing a cross. I know God tells us to bear our cross but ideally not in a literal sense if you have a choice
As we navigate through life, let's hold onto the comforting truth that God is our constant companion. With Him, we can overcome any obstacles and find strength in the midst of uncertainty. Stay confident, stay blessed. 🌺🙏
Question. Crucifixion was used by the Persians. the Deuteronomy bit mentioned at 2:44 mentions hanging. The Book of Esther takes place at the Persian court and mentions gallows and hangings. Do we know if those 'hangings' were what we call that way, hung by the neck, of if they actually mean something where the victim would be hanged out in a different way, like, say, impaling or crucifying?
The word used in the Book of Esther for gallows is עץ, ‘etz, literally “tree” or “wood”. It gives no details at all how Haman was executed, whether crucifixion, impalement, or hanging by the neck. (The first two are more likely, in the Persian context.) Note also that after being killed in the street fighting in Susa, the bodies of Haman’s sons were also “hanged”; so it’s even possible Haman was executed in some other way and hanged afterwards.
@Mr. Rich B.O.B, the hanging mentioned in Deuteronomy was done _after_ execution in another manner. Our host here is wrong when he said (2:30) that it was a manner of execution itself.
Your voice and distinctive diction is superb 👌...your knowledge is very useful 👌..the idea of carrying the entire Cross is steeped in religious iconography. It represents a metaphor for the weight of sin...hence the whole Cross being carried I really appreciate this video
Oddly today before finding this video I asked the question about how Jesus was crucified. After which I found this video. This is a harsh thing to listen to as anyone would suffer horrific pain. Regardless of my internal state of being about this, this was the best answer I have ever heard.
Pastor John Macarthur has a wonderful breakdown of the crucifixion, as well as the history of pilus, the pressure he hsd from Rome, etc. I highly suggest it.
About the end of the second part, I would like to remind that the jews in that time were expecting a Messiah who would overthrow every authority who were oppressing his people. It is mentioned in multiple occasions in the New testament. In that case, Jesus saying He was the Christ did have political implications in the perspective of the Pharisees, because that would mean a rebellion against Rome
I don't know if you're religious, but if you're not, you certainly did a fair and objective take on this. I think a lot more could be said about the physiological aspects of crucifixion. I've heard that there are nerves running through the places where the nails went, and the person being crucified would be in continual agony as a result, but especially when they tried to pull themselves up with their arms or push themselves up with their legs. Could it come down to how thick the nails were? I've heard that the nails used would have been crude and thick, about as thick as a finger. I've heard that the water that came out of Jesus when He was speared indicates that His heart basically was torn in pieces under the cardiac strain that you briefly touched on, but could have elaborated regarding. I've heard that most crucifixions were done using trees rather than poles or scaffolding. I've heard that the feet were more often affixed sideways through the ankles rather than downwardly through the middle of the foot. I've also heard that normally a person being crucified was stripped naked, to increase their shame. Can you confirm any of this? I would be interested to hear more about the political situation Pilate was in at the time. I've heard that his predecessor was executed by Caesar for failing to keep peace in Jerusalem, or I might be thinking of a different governor in a different province. Suffice to say, I've heard that it's likely that the only reason Pilate agreed to have Jesus crucified was his fear of a riot if he didn't appease the Sanhedrin, and how Caesar would respond. I'm confident that you could provide more insight. Could you be persuaded to do a part two of this video?
I have run into so many confusing references concerning crusification. Thank you for making sence of it all. The way you describe the raising of the criminal onto the cross, suggests there was a socket in the beam being carried. Once lifted would securely sit down onto a plug atop the upright post.
@@julietfischer5056 the historical references say the post was set into the ground, meaning it was a perminate fixture and the victim was raised with the crossbar. Which makes sence from a pain point of view.
"They will say that the just person in such circumstances will be whipped, stretched on a rack, chained, blinded with a red-hot iron, and, at the end, when he has suffered every sort of bad thing, he will be impaled, and will realize then that one should not want to be just, but to be believed to be just." (("Impaled", is translated as "crucified" in other editions)) [The Republic, Plato, Book 2]
I noticed something in the words used to describe crucifixion. *"Fastened to a patibulum. They are fastened and led around and then nailed to the cross."* They were forced to parade around with the crossbar (patibulum) first before the nails are mentioned. I would think the Romans would delay any incapacitating pain until the condemned person had made it to the upright post. The word "fastened" may well mean "tied" with rope. The executioners wouldn't have wanted to carry or drag someone if they could make him walk. All they needed was to make sure the patibulum stayed on his shoulders. Many paintings, in fact, show the two thieves tied to the crossbar and only Jesus nailed through both hands and feet (not that these painters would know). I was surprised that you didn't mention the two burials of crucified men that have been found, one in Israel and one in Italy with nails and/or holes through the sides of the heel bone. These are our only two examples and they show the same thing: some people were crucified with their feet nailed to the sides of the upright. This doesn't mean all were, of course. Evidence shows that Roman practice of many things varied widely with circumstances.
This video did one thing that answered the question many asked for a long time. Yes, the Romans did crucify Jesus. Yes, anyone who did get crucified without question died *before* they got off it. Like many have consistently said, it would have been easier to truly believe Jesus had raised from the dead after being nailed to the cross then had somehow survived. Thanks, Metatron. I have received +10 Faith.
@@JROD082384 I'm gonna just not respond since this is a debate waiting to happen for two reasons. One: Telling me my statement based off the information is somehow wrong by saying "it should not be the take away" Two: Stating nothing informative to verify what he said is skewed, just made a random fallacious comment saying I'm wrong and he's wrong, message over. It won't go well from here.
@@QwertyUiop-bs2zr Actually this is not correct. Universally those who saw him stated he specifically looked like him, and had identical flesh wounds from his crucified body. No one back then championed special FX and gore, and no one could survive with those kinds of injuries. Therefore your statement is false.
As always. Very knowledgeable, and interesting. I try to follow your readings in Latin. I haven't been successful, yet. I find you to be an amazing wealth of knowledge. Thank you!
I think it's because he's unbiased. He isn't there to make an epic takedown of Christianity to rub it into your faces and yell "TAKE THAT! CHRISTIANITY IS SOLELY BUILT UPON LIES!". Nor is he here to prove that the Christian Bible is 100% accurate.
The fact that Jesus was a real person and that he was crucified is nearly uncontested among scholars. They’re actually accepted as historical facts with over 90% consensus among the scholars. His resurrection and the empty tomb are the less well established facts which are the current focus of scholars today. But the evidence for the resurrection and empty tomb are so strong that they cannot be denied outright; most of the scholars have to give alternative explanations such as “mass hallucinations from drug use” or “the swoon hypothesis”. The idea that it was a mass hallucination seems to be the most accepted alternative theory as “the swoon hypothesis” has largely been abandoned and has become what the scholars label a “fringe theory”. The mass hallucination theory doesn’t hold much water scientifically speaking because it hasn’t ever been observed and it is unlikely to have the exact same auditory and visual hallucinations in multiple people. But this theory is the last option for many scholars that have completely ruled out the possibility of supernatural events in explaining history.
Empty tomb theory means nothing, since body snatching was such common place in that era that laws were put in place to deal with the problem...as for resurrection , Flav. Josephus records (3) Jews being crucified by Rome , but taken down before death.
@@r0ky_M Hey, 2009 called looking for an edgy internet atheist - they want their fedora back. And they also said not to repeat unintelligent, canned lines like a cookie-cutter atheist. Did anyone that knew Elvis claim they saw him alive after his death? No. It’s random people. Does anyone claim Elvis was resurrected? No. They claim he didn’t die. The fact that Jesus died on the cross is nearly incontrovertible. Scholars consider the swoon theory to be a fringe theory and relegate it to “pseudohistory”. In the case of Jesus, scholars feel the need to explain why people who were familiar with Jesus claimed to see him alive from the dead. These are people that followed him for years and had close, personal relationships with him such as his brother, James. The “stolen body theory” is unlikely. He was placed in a sepulcher and the common practice was to dig a ditch in front of the opening, then roll a giant stone into the ditch so it cannot be removed, and sometimes they would drive a metal rod on both sides of the stone into the sepulcher as a secondary measure against the stone being rolled away. The “stolen body theory” also doesn’t account for the well established historical fact that he appeared after his death. The “doppelgänger theory”doesn’t account for the well established historical fact of an empty tomb.
@@derschafer1012 No such "historical" "fact" a Jesus appeared after death. Such stories are mere word of mouth tales recorded by non-witness No name authors...it would get laughed out a modern courtroom.
@@r0ky_M So… all you’re telling me is that you haven’t even read any literature on the historicity of the Bible. There are different standards of proof for historical claims, scientific claims and for court cases. Hell, there’s different standards between criminal courts and civil courts. You have no idea at all how historical facts are established. The claim that Jesus was seen after his death by people that could identify him is an established fact among mainline scholars, including the majority of atheist scholars. That’s why they must posit theories such as the “swoon theory” or “doppelgänger theory” - they cannot reject the claim that people saw him alive after his death and still maintain any credibility among the mainline scholars. It also reveals your own bias that you don’t consider the Bible a credible source. You reject it, despite the fact that most of it is the accounts of first-hand witnesses. Only the Gospel of Christ according to Mark appears to be a second-hand account, but probably used Peter as a source. It’s also the Gospel that mentions the most names of people who would be living witnesses and where they reside, as if Mark is telling his readers “Just go and ask them yourselves.” which lends credibility to the account. This is an early account of Jesus, albeit secondhand - he wouldn’t encourage people to find these living (at the time it was written) witnesses if he was lying. You may not think this helps make the case because you want to believe it’s false, but unbiased historians consider this to lend credibility to the account. The earliest book of the Bible appears to be Paul’s first Epistle to the Church at Corinth which was written only 20 years after the crucifixion of Christ by the latest estimates. This is contemporary documentation which is almost NEVER found for historical events that far back. Documentation within 300 years of an event for the period is considered to be credible if it meets other criteria (which the Bible does). Do you know there isn’t a single original, contemporary documentation of Alexander the Great? The closest we have are possible fragments and a full accounting 200 years after his death. But the historicity of Alexander is not disputed. The majority of atheist scholars agree that Jesus was seen alive after his death. They also consider the Bible to not only be a source of the claims, but also one of many proofs of the claims. They simply discount the miraculous events of the Bible and evaluate the historically verifiable claims. The evidence for these claims rises to the standard of proof historical fact requires. Your rejection of the Bible as a valid source material is solely based on a bias, not based on logic, reason or evidence. That’s between you and your conscience.
I once had a nightmare about being crucified during a school play where I played the part of Jesus. It was hard to tell when play transitioned into an actual execution but I realized the other actors had planned to crucify me from the start and I was the only one who didn't know.
did anyone saw the movie "The Miracle Maker"? apart of being wonderful piece of animation, having beautiful music, i'm always impressed how well researched it is.
Yes Jesus as God's truth teaches, was crucified , He visited hell, on Third day God resurrected Him. As a believer God warns of false teachers. As a believer, we believe by faith as God teaches not man. Jesus was out to death o the cross. , Rose and as ordained , rose to the heavens. To our salvation. No other name
The trouble with Christians is they are void quality control. Everyone in his right mind understands God is a tool of fiction. What quality-controls do you have when Theologians grant doctorates to each other based on literally, nothing whatsoever?. Trust but verify. Gods have a perfect record of doing nothing. That is why we say, God helps those helping themselves. You gather together to talk about it, using Jesus-lingo like every Alex Jones in the country. Christians are the wolves in sheep's clothing, the hypocrites making a scene of prayer in the temple, those fascist insisting they are authorized, weighing-in as if Earth had gravity-free zones, that wicked generation seeking signs, then declaring what is sacred scripture, with magic in every chapter. Who wants a country where everyone votes & that is your quality control? There is forever a Christian, authorized by himself, boasting certainty about directions from fantasyland. The calls for prayer are about numbers, not quality. The reason why Christians gather around Greg Laurie is the sharing of delusion. Outside. they are politely avoided like the old woman with 400 pet cats. No one having a sound mind would suggest we travel with his map of fantasyland. The only difference between a Republican & Democrat is how fast the knee hits the floor when a donor walks in the room. There is no plan, not for greenhouse gases, as long as energy is needed to keep the show on the road. Who wants a country where everyone votes & that is your quality control? There is forever a Christian, authorized by himself, boasting certainty about directions from fantasyland. Gods go without exception, on a perfect record of doing nothing. That is why we say, god helps those helping themselves. Render to Caesar by all means, who in Rome do you think licenses the temples & controls publications?
Wow... What a great explanation. I just had a debate with Jehovah's witnesses about this subject. Now I have some knowledge and a better way to explain.
The Greek word is actually "stau'ros" which simply means an upright stake or pole, like a fence post. The word many scholars use is translated from Latin word crux. Do some more research
Well according to the myth it lets him become king of literally everything so seems like a fairly small price in comparison that plenty of people would take
If the Romans wanted the crucification to end early or to stop pain for more for minor, but still bad enough crimes, they would spear the lungs and heart. If it was more middle ground, the breaking of the knees would occurs. This still made the dying longer
Intriguing exposé, thank you. You had mentiomed in one of your videos about the pilot letter...I searched for it but was unable to locate it...did you in fact do a video on the Pilot lettr to Tiberius and if so where could I find it? Thank you
The only thing I could add to this excellent presentation is that Crucifixion and other forms of Roman capital punishment were usually accompanied by extreme torture prior to the cross itself. While it technically isn't Crucifixion, they were often used together as a efficient process, breaking down the victim's humanity long before they made it on to the patibulum.
Sometimes, but we do not know how common this was. There was likely not much incentive to treat slaves well, to feed them, but outside of regular brutality most people did not have the time or inclination to do much else. Whipping people, for example, was mostly just a way to get them to hurry up. There was a strong sense of what you do will reflect back on you in the ancient world, so many people were wary of tempting fate by being excessively cruel. It all depends on the crime, the criminal, the executioners, the place, the time. Also, when people write about some of these events they want to make either the criminal or the executioners look good or bad, depending on motives. Plus, of course, people only tend to write about the most famous (or infamous) events.
@@davethebrahman9870 Posted a reply linking to a 2003 study. If the link didn't show (auto spam blocked by YT) then search South African Medical Journal Crucifixion study. Under Roman Crucifixion section of the paper, see "Preliminary Procedures"
As my mom's dad was both a medical doctor and a preacher, I learned far more of the medical details of crucifixion than I ever wanted to just by hearing his Good Friday sermons on the topic.
@Phoenix 𝙾𝚙𝚎𝚗 𝙼𝚢 PROFILE Kudos on recognizing that the Carthaginians who emigrated to Tyre and environs were hardly 'colonizers,' but more akin to American ex-pats who 'return' to England. This has implications in the history of the purple dye trade and other several other elements. Not really chicken-and-egg, but most folks don't know this. 'Cheers.
@@metatronyt Thank you for this great lecture! I learnt a lot. However, I've been quite surprised to not hear about the traditional supplicia canum, but instead, about a supposed importation from the Persian Empire, via Alexander the Great's empire and Carthago. Wouldn't it be more probable to suppose that crucifixion already belonged to ancient Roman traditions by the time of the Punic wars? 14:46 Where does the picture come from? Are the mistakes made to be realistic? 😉
The "politically correct" term? Screw PC I don't give a damn about them. But nor am I a Christian. How's this for political correctness, Abrahamic religions all suck and they just push their crap bronze age ideologies on others then threaten them with a fable of hell for those who don't buy stories of talking snakes and water walking wizards. Christianity and Islam specifically. They have a history soaked in blood and nobody should take their mythology seriously. They did it to themselves. Karma.
@@LisaAnn777 I'm sorry, perhaps you aren't aware of this, but I wasn't talking to you. Neither you nor your opinion are really that important. So tell someone who cares.
If you haven’t covered it previously, would you consider doing an episode on the specifics of Vlad The Impalers methods? Regardless, thank you for today’s content!
In fact, those were methods he learned from Turks being a prisoner/hostage in Constantinople. And the Ottomans learned that probably also from Persians, as for the steppe nomads they were, using long wooden poles in non-forrested steppe would be rather problematic.
There is an audiobook on youtube called 'Children of the Night' by Dan Simmons. It is a novel about Vlad still being alive in the present day and a mysterious child in a Romanian orphanage with a strange blood disorder. The interesting part is the occasional chapter where Vlad recalls his earlier life, describing in first person the things he did and his motivation for doing them. In these chapters, it describes how men and women were impaled on staves about 2-3 inches in diameter and these were blunt ended and heavily lubricated with grease. Men or women would be held spreadeagled, and the tip inserted into either the anus or vagina, slowly working the stave until it followed as far as possible the innards, at which point it would be forced through the walls of the obstructing innards until the stave emerged either through the victims mouth or neck/shoulder. The stave was diverted around heart and lungs so as to delay death. Once the stave emerged, it would be elevated to the vertical and displayed.
As a physician, just to clarify a little your explanation, the bending position would first impair the diaphragm which is our main respiratory muscle. This is achieved by raising abdominal pressure and restricting chest expansion. Then the person would increase their auxiliary respiratory muscles' work, which were already limited by the positioning on the cross. All of this while the hypovolemia and acidemia, both lactic, ketonic and respiratory were increasing the respiratory muscles' workload, creating a cycle. The rest you explained is on point. I loved the video
I remember reading from a doctor that having the spike through the hands would cause them rip out between your fi gers due to body weight, and the more likely place to put the spike are between the forearm bones near your wrist
Unless the victim is standing on a wooden platform, his arms and legs bound to the cross by ropes and the nails beaten through small pieces of wood or other relatively hard material.
I'm a Greek Orthodox Christian and my theologian teacher in senior high school, who also happened to be a priest, taught my entire school that the Orthodox Church agrees that medically the spike would have pierced the wrist area, but they allow the portrayal of the piercing to instead be directly on the palms of the hands due to two reasons: the first being artistic license , and the second being to lessen the shock value of the portrayal as it is considered more humane when portrayed on the hands instead of wrists.
I heard that this was because the original Greek considered anything below the elbow as the hand. The Greek was then translated into languages that had the hand below the wrist.
from what Ive read of "nine inch nails" used for this purpose .. they could probably mash your entire fist under the head of such a nail .. so where exactly you nailed him might not be all that relevant. And if it did rip out .. no biggie, whack a few more nails into the arm or something eh? cant be that hard to nail a guy to wood with these giant nails right?
He has a pretty extensive back catalog of content that, in one way or another, is incredibly educational AND fascinating. Something not easily done, IMHO. Not just on the titles he chose to use in describing the general topic of the video. I've really enjoyed them when I'm in the shop. Hit play and hours of the more mundane work goes just a bit faster.
As a Christian I must say that I love how unbiased you are, I certainly appreciate it. I’m willing to listen to someone that doesn’t come with the intention of destroying my religion like some Atheist do, I’m more willing to listen to someone unbiased like you that doesn’t have any agenda behind their intention except the agenda of telling history from an unbiased point of view. Again I appreciate it very much bc I LOVE history and wouldn’t want it to be changed just to fit my perception of the world.
Quran (5:15): In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. (O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book [i.e., the Qur’ān]) Allah Almighty is Truthful
Certainly with a name like “metatron” this guy is likely some borderline sociopathic wannabe gnostic so I’d re evaluate the whole “unbiased” point. This man likely despises Christ in truth and is instead a proxy for the theosophical fraternal mystery cults. To whom damnation is just.
@@ZZz-vh4cf path of gold only leads to a single destination that said i havent really noticed metatron being a gnostic, other than ranting how in medieval czechia they didnt use religious talk much
Great video. Love the historicity of Jesus Christ videos, keep them coming. You present them in a very unbiased way which makes it enjoyable for those of us of the Christian faith. All the best to you.
@@dalenixon1947 There is no "my truth" or "your truth" or even "their truth". There is only THE truth, and that doesn't change, no matter how much faith and belief you have.
I think he's covered that as sub-point on another video. The phalanx wasn't a complicated formation or battle Strategy, which is why I think he hasn't made a video dedicated to it. (Edit: I think I lied, I looked for the video and couldn't find it. It might have been by shad or skall and it's just been long enough since I watched it for me to get it confused.)
Ivorybow People continue to make the same mistake; judge with today morals what happened centuries ago, it's something that doesn't make sense, we don't have to understand anything, it would be already a great thing to know it (avoiding any judgment). Sorry for my "eng".
@@lazios I understand the point you're attempting to convey, but Claiming angst against the crucifixion is nothing more than chronological snobbery is completely ignorant though. There's a plethora of things your argument wouldn't pertain to, this is one. It's unquestionable. I can't even believe you're attempting to make this argument.
@@tomjjackson21 I agree, because time and culture would be irrelevant in that moment if the one saying it was different "then" because of time and culture, was raised himself upon the cross to suffer the horror of that fate. The anguish and magnitude of suffering would be immediate, timeless, and the same for all of us.
I studied this as part of my degree in Biblical Theology. The first thing I found was a mind boggling number of different ways to do a crucifixion. One author claimed near 200. We know that very occasionally for example some were crucified upside down. There is one account of someone being crucified sideways. The issue here though is the position of the nails. Sometimes they did go through the top of the foot but sometimes the ankles from the side which vastly increased pain. It is however the nails through the "hands" that are in question. If nailed through the centre of the hand they would rip out hastening death from blood loss. Not by a great deal but in both hands it could kill you in 12 hours on its own. There is also the issue that anything below the elbow to a Hebrew was "hand" so when "passim" is used in Hebrew which translated means "to the wrist" it meant "elbow" to a westener. So a nail through the fore-arm would fit from a cultural perspective and would not have ripped out. There is also one other possibility which I personally believe is likely (though not proven). Contrary to popular belief there are some muscles in the hands. Some of these would have been very strong in someone like Yeshua as he would have been used to manual work like Yoseph was. The muscles between the thumb and forefinger are pretty strong in an average adult male (100kg capacity) you can probably double that for Yeshua. The Romans would have often placed the nails to take advantage of this.
Is it plausible that St Peter was crucified upside down then? The story goes he demanded to be crucified upside down to not disrespect Christ or something along those lines (I believe that description is wrong). Edit: that mention of the misunderstanding of “hand” in Hebrew is appreciated. It reminds me of “they pierced my hands and feet” (Psalm 22:16) and how one argument against it is the fact that Jesus was pierced through the wrist, not the hands. But that’s just flaw of English as we don’t exactly have a word for what you mentioned.
Seneca (4 AD - 65 AD) recorded some first hand detail of crucifixion: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with their head down to the ground, some impale their private parts, others stretch out their arms"
Tertullian (born 155 AD) Christian author - Chapter 4: .."Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside, he endured so many crucifixions."
Flavius Josephus (born 37 AD) Antiquities - chapter 11: "So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies."
As per usual, you handled a very risky topic with great skill and precision. Although I suspect we ultimately disagree on some things, I cannot fault your reasoning, research, or presentation. Brilliant video.
@@bigzed7908 Risky because it's very easy to say something that you think is neutral and then have both Christians and atheists and every other religion under the sun screaming at you for not being fair to their perspective, or not being accurate, or not even putting up an argument and calling you stupid. It's terribly easy to not be sensitive and end up offending people, or be too sensitive and then end up being inaccurate.
@@chenoaholdstock3507 what do you mean by "their perspective"? History means to analyze sources and come up with a reasonable explanation that's as objective as possible. If someone doesn't like it, well tough luck, try giving a better explanation.
@@chenoaholdstock3507 It is a sad reality that so many people act without maturity and react with rudeness to the facts. Facts don't care about feelings, and mature people adapt to that and strive for clarity rather than "winning" the debate.
@@bigzed7908 Well, let's put it this way: I firmly believe that Jesus was real, died, and rose again. My proof is miracles. However, I understand that you may not agree with me. Ultimately, we can both sight our sources, both disagree with the evidence the other presents, supposing that there is a flaw in the other's logic. Thus, we can argue over what I will affectionately termed 'opinions'. One of us is correct, but the internet is not an effective way to debate who.
*Metatron talking about the medical aspects of someone dying to crucification* "Okay, nobleones. I hope you enjoyed..." Not really. Very interesting, but saying I *enjoyed* this would definitely be the wrong term
*several minutes of extremely graphic and technical descriptions of one of the most horrible methods of execution* immediately followed by "I hope you enjoyed this video" lol it was amazing and extremely educational but "enjoyment" may be the wrong descriptor. 😅
Many westerners debate whether he was put on a cross or a "tree." Your excellent presentation shows how the patibulum Jesus carried when put on the "tree" makes a cross. Not hard to understand or imagine but people do get sidetracked debating this detail due to translations.
Hey Metatron! Just wanted to say I love your videos. I've had a huge passion for learning about history from a very young age, and your videos are always a pleasure to watch. My family is a little divided when it comes to matters of religion and history, and sometime we can end up butting heads when the two subjects meet in a conversation. However, these videos that you've done on Jesus and the crucifixion have proven to be an incredible common ground for us to come together and learn about the things that interest us. Just wanted to know that the hard work you put into this and all your videos is both inspiring and appreciated! We'd love to see more content with your historical dissections of this time period. Thanks for all the work you put into entertaining and educating us! Keep up the excellent work!
I really like how metatron makes these "documentaries". It may be because of his clear shouthern italian blood, but his obvious respect for the subject matter of christianity historically is very pleasant
With all respect to your work Metatron... In the Latin texts is said they were tied/fastened to the patibulum and then nailed to the cross. Given that the patibulum is the horizontal part of most probably T-shaped structure, isn't it logical to think that the patibulum hs been nailed to the vertical pole with the human already on it? On the documents you quoted I didn't see nails through human body. Let alone the fact that if you put a nail in the middle of someone's hand without breaking bones, then hang them on those nails, the tissue would just rip off due to the weight. Thank you even if you decide not to reply. Great video as usual.
Your pathophysiology on death by crucifixion is top notch. Well simplified for easy understanding even for those with little medical knowledge. Keep it up brother.
Hey there. This video sparked my interest in researching the topic and while I’m nowhere near to the point where I could present evidence for anything, I think I have found some discrepancies regarding the meaning of the word _patibulum_ , especially in different languages. My native tongue is Spanish, and it seems that the word patíbulo, meaning the structure meant for executions (sometimes referred to as “tablado” in the sense of “made from tablas” [planks]) was derived from the word _patibulum_ . In English though the default seems to be the transversal part of the cross. Again, not ready to present anything, as this seems to be a really large topic, but some other sources like The Non-Christian Cross seem to directly differ from the interpretation that the patibulum could be transversal part from the _stauróō_ , as that one translates more to something like post. And in my preliminary research in Spanish about the topic there seems to be much debate about the traditional meaning and use of the word _patibulum_ . So, I have a question. Is there a particular reason why the gospels have been excluded from these Jesus examinations? I get why it might be controversial for many people that don’t consider them to have any historical value, but most of the etymological studies regarding these topics really revolve around the gospels and I think examining only Roman or non-Christian writings limits the potential for cross-examination of sources. At the very least, as in-period books written in Greek I think they could provide more points of discussion.
The Gospels were written decades after Jesus died. They are interpretations of his life story. There's nothing they can add. He was tried, convicted, and executed under Roman law. Romans wrote about law and punishment. Romans were also crucified. What could Christian sources written decades or centuries later contribute to objectively understanding that?
@@julietfischer5056 Hi! It has been some time since that video. First some points: I apologize for the long reply, I could not make it shorter. Also, I want to contextualize what I said: “why the gospels have been excluded from these Jesus examinations?” I was including the previous Is Jesus Historical? What Do The Romans Say About Him? video as well. (ruclips.net/video/A41Tm5FDKns/видео.html) I also said that “I get why it might be controversial for many people that don’t consider them to have any historical value” but that nevertheless they could provide more data points. By now I am confident that the stauros’ and xyʹlon, the Greek words used in the gospels referring to the implement used to kill Jesus, are not translated as “cross” but as a pole or stake. The execution of Jesus could be better described as impalement rather than a crucifixion, according to the language used in the gospels. Many sources like The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, The Catholic Encyclopedia, and A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament support this idea. My point was that all these resources deal with the gospels directly, and thus excluding them leaves out a crucial point. I later found out that the Cambridge article does deal with the gospels directly but, in my opinion, leaves out some other points. Another one of the references, The history and pathology of crucifixion, also mentioned that “In Persian times crucifixion was originally performed on trees or simple pole structures rather than a formal cross”. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary also mentioned that “staurosʹ properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground… Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole”. Also on this reference, AD MARCIAM DE CONSOLATIONE from Seneca (another contemporary source) is cited. He describes different stake execution methods used by different people, ones that used only one pole and ones using more. I find it a bit frustrating that the dictionary does not provide a reference for the claim that “There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood” when this is where the whole controversy lies. I don’t know if you are implying this or not, but I would differ from the idea that the roman sources are reliable and sufficient enough to close the case. I disagree with the point that the gospels have nothing to add because they were later sources. Metatron himself said something about that kind of argument in the previous video: ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxw7DzGN_ZytmNn5LN9-mLbvjv0kt4d7K2. This concept also applies to the discussion about the crucifixion. It is true that the gospels were written some decades after the death of Jesus (Matthew c. 41, Mark c. 60-65, Luke c. 56-58, John c. 98) but still around the time Annales and Historiae. According to the gospels themselves, they were written by people who claimed to have witnessed the events or had access to those claiming to be eyewitnesses. If the point is that so much time had passed that even the ones writing did not remember what happened or could not know for certain, I would argue that most biographies, autobiographies, and most of history have the same issue. Now if the point is that the Bible is all myth, all forged, all apocryphal and so not useful to the discussion in any way whatsoever, I was aware that people with that viewpoint would disagree with adding the gospels in the first place. Again, the point is that, historically, many of the scholars dealing with this issue did not think the gospels were useless in understanding the ancient world, Roman and Jewish customs, etc. As I said before “At the very least, as in-period books written in Greek I think they could provide more points of discussion.”
@@Creavend- The iconography is always either a T or cross. Unless later converts simply modified their cruciform holy symbols, I think we can safely presume Jesus wasn't literally shafted to death---allowing those converts to rebrand their old symbols.
@@julietfischer5056 Oh! I don’t mean impalement in the Vlad the Impaler sense, going through the rectum out their mouth, (Although Seneca does mention that one as something he had seen) but rather that his hands would have been nailed together over his head (I), instead of spreading them out separately (T). The iconography is an example of a much later addition. These Wikipedia articles (I know) explain how you won’t even find relevant enough religious art in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and no mainstream church images of the crucifixion until the 5th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_arts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture The second article, explains how the early Christians would have had a much stronger Jewish influence, and thus “The Old Testament restrictions against the production of graven (an idol or fetish carved in wood or stone) images (see also Idolatry and Christianity) may also have constrained Christians from producing art.” Interestingly, by the 5th century, the Church would be under much more Greco-Roman influence. The cross as a religious symbol could be traced back to the Egyptian Ankh and other symbols used by Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. Similar to how the stake itself was adopted from culture to culture (Assyrian/Babylonians > Persians > Greek/Macedonians > Successor kingdoms > Carthaginians > Romans), religious ideas, cultural ideas, and iconography would be adopted from culture to culture. The Babylonian sun-god Shamash was depicted wearing and using crosses. A connection can be established between Shamash and Sol Invictus, the roman sun-god. Examples of crosses can be found on roman coinage (Julius Caesar, Augustus). Constantine was also a Sol Invictus worshipper. For example, the idea of the Trinity can be clearly traced back to earlier triads from ancient, Ptolemaic, and Roman Egypt, 3rd century Alexandria and the Platonic trinity being the bridge between those ideas. I mention the trinity for its relevance regarding the cross as an icon. Constantine, famous for painting the Chi Rho ☧ symbol onto his soldier’s shields (a cross of sorts), was also the one who played a key role in the Nicaea council, where the decision to make Jesus equal to YHWH was made. This paved the way for the later introduction of the holy ghost into the mix and voila! You have your new trinity and cross as the icon. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words and the Vine's Expository Dictionary explain how the connection between Chi Rho and the later Tau (T) that resembled more the Sol Invictus cross happened. All this religious syncretism is embedded in the iconography and thus makes it not that reliable as a data point. Sorry, it was not my intention to do a long reply again. It just goes to show these topics are much larger than one might initially think. That is why many data sources are needed to find the truth.
The gospels were written 30 to 80 years after the fact which is amazing as far as ancient historical figures go as most things were passed down through word of mouth and oral tradition back then. For example The earliest (fragmented) manuscripts of Plato’s Dialogues date from the 2nd to 4th century AD. But the complete manuscripts date from about 900 AD. Plato died in 437 or 348 AD. That's a 1250 year gap. the manuscripts of Aristophanes was written in the 4th or 5th c. AD. The best and earliest full manuscripts date from the 10th-11th c. AD. He died in c. 386 BC, so that is a spread of almost 1400 years. Same with figures like sun tzu, King Arthur, Aristotle, and many others. We also have 10s of thousands of biblical manuscripts with around 6 thousand being from the new testament. The typical number of manuscripts for any other figures like cesar, Plato, Aristotle, etc is anywhere from 1 to 20 compared to thousands and thousands of biblical manuscripts. This puts many other ancient historical claims to shame. So I do not see why the gospels could not be used for cross examination/ evidence. They exceed what is required to accept ancient historical claims. To think otherwise is being biased.
17:20 According to experiments with cadavers, the tissues of the hand aren't strong enough to support a human body with nails driven through them, and the skeleton of a person who was crucified by the Romans has scratches on the bones which show that the nails (I think that American carpenters would call them spikes) were driven between the radius and the ulna.
I don't think, that there was one common method at all, but a wide range of different techniques and - that's important - professionalism of the executor. I'm pretty sure, you would see a different technique by a regular legionary, to a professional executor working for the palace ;)
I understand that there were many ways that crucifiction could be conducted, but my understanding of what the Romans did is tie someone to a piece of wood (I guess this is the patibulum) and then have them walk to the execution site. The person walking with their arms out sideways is the cross. Their body forms the cross. Then, once at the execution site the horizontal beam was nailed to the post (which was probably a tree originally, or in places where there were trees). So the nails did not necessarily go through the body. The advantage of this is that the dead body would stay in place for some time, and was easy to remove. It also spares the participants any guilt for causing physical harm to the person, since all they did was tie him to a beam. If you look at ancient executions, many of them stem from religious ceremonies and do not inflict damage directly. Even something like burning is seen as not inflicting damage directly since if you put someone in a big stack of wood and set fire to it you are not touching the person. This prevents the people carrying out the execution from being judged guilty of murder by the gods. So, when we say Jesus was nailed to the cross, what we are actually might be saying is that his patibulum was nailed up, and the text describing nails in his body may be just an embellishment. All that said, there is the problem of people who are crucified escaping due to being helped by friends. There is a certain set of ancient punishments where being helped to escape is actually allowed, since if you are helped it shows you have merit and value to someone, but if you are not then you are worthless. It's kind of like an ancient method of dealing with uncertainty over your guilt: if someone helps you then maybe you were not guilty. It also lets people of means buy their way out. But it will not always be the case where the powers that sentenced you want you to escape. This is why soldiers sometimes had to guard the crucified. However, escape may also be the reason why nailing people up was sometimes practiced: it's harder to free someone who is nailed up, and even if they escape they are likely to die. Obviously you can nail someone as well as tie them, the nails just being there for added security. It's also worth noting that nailing someone may not have been seen as worse, since you are likely to die faster if you are nailed, and part of the idea was the spectacle of you dying, which is diminished if you die before enough people see you. The nails also convey that you were killed by man, whereas the original intention was more that you were killed by the gods. Overall, since crucifixion was used for hundreds of years over a wide area, there is obviously scope for a lot of variation. It likely changed from being mostly a religious practice to being just capital punishment, particularly when the military got hold of it, and like everything else that becomes normal, changes were made to increase efficiency and reduce cost. Soldiers, who deal with killing people as a job, probably saw the whole thing as a waste of time and effort, and likely made it much more of a production line kind of affair.
I thought the same. There was no direct reference to nailing the actual body to the cross. Just described in a more brief and ambiguous way that leaves both interpretations open. And even if the laws did say that no one left the crucifixion alive, it doesn't mean it never happened. Jesus being helped in secret or through some other subversive action might've been the origin of the resurrection claim.
Yes, it also bothers me. With four open wounds and in this highly uncomfortable position, a VERY strong and healty person would survive a couple of hours. No way anyone, if nailed, could have endured a day.
@@AnotherDuck Actually there is. Though i do realise that many will consider it a pollluted source. Even when many of the sources they do consider reliable are less traceable. In the gospel of John, Thomas states the following: But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.” (John 20:25b) So there is expectation of nail marks. Combined with the non biblical quote in this video, where they speak of affixing the victim with nails, it is likely that nails were used.
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 That's probably a fair claim. I was talking about what was presented in the video. There just isn't much evidence either way, so it comes down to whether you'd accept that source or consider it too polluted to be reliable. For me it doesn't matter, as I don't have any personal beliefs that are contradicted either way. That also means I'm not inclined to disbelieve what's written in religious sources (although I am inclined to doubt). In the end, I don't see enough of a reason for why it couldn't have been the case, so while I don't think there's proof for the belief to be correct, there's also no proof to the contrary. If that makes sense.
Maybe stop calling it "Palestine" when that name did not apply to the region or the people until much later (and many of us still outright reject it). You''re a scholar, you should know better. Jesus and Josephus didn't live in Palestine, they lived in Judaea.
Pharisees were smart men, they actually twisted Jesus's work quite well making him look like a political rebel leader. Btw, interesting fact, the script written above Jesus after crucifixion was written In tree languages: Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but the interesting thing in it is that the writer of script left the symbol usually placed on the titles of Kings - it was done with Greek and Hebrew title, only Latin one was written as ordered.
The irony is that if you believe the Gospel accounts, it appears that a lot of Jesus' followers were frustrated that he *wasn't* a political rebel leader.
@@doomkitty8386 indeed because by the word of Torah, Jews believed that the Messiah will be a new rebel leader who will break the Roman empire and make the Israel powerful again when Jesus had a very different approach and even criticised corrupt Jew religious and political leaders for being morally blind, deaf and selfish. That's when they saw Him as an enemy but they were not able to place death sentences, so they made whole case as political affair from the religious one. I mean, Jews were the first who prosecuted Christians, together with Romans of course, but first apostle died by the hand of pharisee. What's most interesting that Jesus was in fact the new king, the new human Torah talked about, Jew just really missed the target with interpretations.
@@doomkitty8386 absolutely, during Medieval era, Christianity got so involved in secular politics that Kings were just buying and throwing popes around causing massive explosions. I mean, it won't be a very scientific claim but I suspect the infamous human nature has a play in such things, you know. We can grasp the pattern that more good system goals are and more it is based on honesty, truth and other objective things we all valued cross culturally in every era, more easily exploitable it is because its good. And taking a philosophical/theological view out of this - it is stated that better thing is worse it could become, smarter the person is, more evil he could become. That cannot be grounded by sophisticated scientific data but those patterns just exist as axioms in our civilization and I truly believe Jesus showed that, pharisees didn't like that, people didn't like that, they killed Him.
My medical friend once told me that nailing the palm isn't "fail-safe" because the nail could eventually tear through the flesh. Nailing the wrist between the radius and ulna is more secure.
Other theories support nailing through the palms of the hands IF the victim's arms are bound tightly to the cross piece of the cross.
So if the nails tear through the flesh of the hands he will still remain crucified. Although one does not see this method of crucifixion in
works of religious art (created centuries later) does not mean it did not happen .Nobody knows the exact way Jesus was crucified. It was a common method of execution centuries old, and I do not believe the Romans ever wrote the one definitive "Crucifixion For Dummies" instruction manual.
@@Frank-mm2yp If the victim is tied to the cross, rather than nailed, death takes most of a week, rather than three days with nails as Spartacus' army was on the Apppian Way. Also, the "definition" of the hand, back then, included the wrist and just above, so you could get a secure nailing site.
Dying within the first day was rare, though, sufficient that they had to test it with the spear to the side.
@@Frank-mm2yp Well i guess the Romans had plenty of surplus rope and "cost savings" wasn't a concept back then. The businessman in me thinks all those rope could be better used elsewhere, and I'm sure in those times rope had a lot of daily practical value.
Nails were not used, Immanuel died by Jewish Law, not Roman Law.
@@davidweihe6052 A Cross was not used. Nails were not used. He hung by rope on his wrists from an Olive tree according to Jewish Law.
I went to a Catholic school in the 70s and I remember being taught about the mechanics of crucifixion , in all its horrific detail , by a sweet faced old nun in the second or third grade . Neither I or my classmates were particularly shocked or traumatized , in fact her presentation was followed by an enthusiastic question and answer session .
Most kids are able to handle really dark stuff. We are carnivores after all
Anthony Mcdonald, Go to the Philippines during Holy Week. They still volunteer to be crucified.
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=philippines%2C+crucifixion
I attended Catholic school and they sure don't teach that anymore.
Kids like gory details.
Same here.
I want to express my appreciation for your unbiased analysis of Biblical and other ancient subjects. While, as a devout Christian I certainly have my bias, I find that a lot of secular sources opinions boil down to "Josephus didn't mention it, so it didn't happen".
(for all you subcommenters, I am exaggerating to prove a point. Yet it is closer to the truth than many are willing to admit)
I'm pretty convinced the whole 'Josephus' passage about Jesus is an out and out forgery anyway. I remember once going through it, taking out everything I reckon it was impossible he would say, being a Jewish historian in the pay of the Romans, and I was left with "There also lived at this time the man called Jesus. He preached to the Jews and to the gentiles, and the tribe of Christians, which was named for him, is still in existence today." (Terrible paraphrasing but if you know the passage I'm sure you'll follow me.) It wouldn't even be worth putting down. Also seems clear the text around it makes much more sense when the whole thing is cut out. Right now I would take some very strong convincing that 'the man Jesus' ever existed at all. He was a mythological figure whose story was set in an earthly place and time for alegorical purposes, which text then was either unwittingly or willfully mis-interpretted... probably a bit of both.
@@dan4lau the owner of this video also did another video on the historicity of Jesus.
@@alecbunting8116 One of his best too.
@@dan4lau I wasn't referring to that, and in fact agree with you that Josephus didn't write that particular passage.
I was instead referring to the secular habit of dismissing any particular event mentioned in the New Testament simply because it was not corroborated, which at the time and place could only be Josephus. Dismissing something, (that admittedly, should be considered biased) because it isn't mentioned by the only other source (that happens to have the opposite bias) is bad science.
@@dan4lau You literally just proved superdupergrover's point by dismissing Jesus's existence after only bringing up Josephus, there are other sources (which Metron has conveniently collected into one video about it) that you would have to disprove to say Jesus never existed as a person.
Thank you so much! I really am grateful for your relentlessly objective approach to history. I appreciate the attempt to put history on a fully scientific basis, difficult as that is to achieve!
Thank you very much
4:44 "Hey, which way to Rome?"
"Just follow the stench."
Edit: It's one dead man every 33m. For 200km. You would take a detour to Rome, if you can...
At the beginning of the way at Brindisi, I had excellent pizza.
@KKmies Thank you for pointing that out!
I do wonder by how much the reality differed from what we imagine. Imagine the time and the manpower needed, not to mention all the wood, rope, nails. The romans did crucify people who were already dead, since the "warning" was just as important as the death. It would be much more efficient to crucify dead people. So, for example, they could have put up the healthiest prisoners near Rome where they would garner the most attention, but once away from Rome it would be easier to deal with dead people, and you would not need to guard them so closely. It's pure speculation, but we have zero information on the event.
@KKmies Soldiers may not adhere to the law 100%, as is the case with hastening death. Dead people don't resist unlike live prisoners. They do not need guarding. How did the romans supervise 6000 crucifictions? Is it not possible that the exceptional circumstances led to exceptional measures? We have literally one sentence that describes the event in question. All it says is that the 6000 survivors were crucified along the road from Capua to Rome. Since they were battle survivors, I find it hard to believe that none of them were injured or died subsequently. Would those who died of their wounds escape being put on display with the others? There are many instances of bodies being put on display after death, even of people being executed after death. It is not hard to imagine that someone who died before crucification would still be hung up, and I believe the bible and Greek histories mention crucifixion simply as a means of presenting the dead as a warning to others.
My earlier comment was speculative, and I said as much. You can dispute that it happened because neither of us have evidence one way or the other. My entire point is that we have no specifics, so I wondered how the reality of the situation may have differed from what we imagine.
I believe the word "excruciating" came from the practice of crucifixion. It's a painful way to die.
Yep, you’re correct, the word excruciating does come from crucifixion. Honestly if crucifixion was still around today, I think I would rather have a bullet, something quick other than crucifixion, I would not want to go out that way
Easily the most entertaining channel I’ve found
You are a fascinating story teller!
Thank you very much
I think important thing you did not mention, is that "victim" of crucifiction was whipped before crufiction with flagellum I think. This whipping was usually severe and left back of victim severely damaged. This could cause blood loss.
Why did you put "victim" in quotation marks?
@@rohancooray194 because it was capital punishment aka : execution for criminals
@@rohancooray194 Because all who are condemed by the glory of Roman law are guilty! Every plebian knows this. Lol
@@rohancooray194 He could be meaning to say that he was not a victim.
He chose and allowed His death. If you have the ability to resist and fully overpower your aggressor and willingly and purposely choose not to, you are not a victim.
The flogging instrument was constructed of leather thongs, with lead tips, in Jesus' case. The Romans were afraid of insurrection by the Jews. At this particular time of year on the Jewish Calendar was the Passover and Unleavened Bread celebration. This meant, that Jews from all over came to Jerusalem to observe the Jewish Festival, making the Jewish population rise. The Romans therefore, had brought into their numbers additional soldiers. Some of these soldiers were expert crack units for crowd control. Nonetheless. were the Roman torturers i.e. floggers. These floggers knew their craft well and were there to send a message to those, who decided that rioting would bring to them their desired results. Jesus was front and center of all of this. He was the focus and high-lighted after doing the miraculous reresection of His friend, Lazarus, from the dead. Jesus' fame had spread and people wanted to see Him and the Jewish Big Boys wanted him out of the way, permanently because He posed a threat to their power hold over the Jewish people. They hated Him because He [Jesus] meant change to a much, better way to the Father. The Jewish leaders knew that the party was over for them had Jesus been allowed to live. Religion murdered Jesus whereas, Christianity gives life.
Thank you for all the research you and associates put into this very informative video. You sir, have one of the most intelligent channels on RUclips.
Important to note that in most texts, religious (And while religious texts are no less a viable historical source than non religious texts, this appears in secular texts as well) that the sign "king of the Jews" was placed above his head, supporting the traditionalist depiction of a + shaped cross, as opposed to the T shape also used in the era. Not sure how you'd mount it over his head in a T shape.
Or an X.
Edit: with a T, you could mount the sign directly over his head if his arms were at a 45 degree angle.
@@jwhippet8313 do you mean a Y
You could stick a sign on a small post attached to the crossbar, tied or nailed.
@@Kilopapa-116 Is there any evidence that Romans used Y-shaped crosses? X-shaped and T-shaped ones are attested, as well as the typical latin cross, but I've never heard of Y-shaped ones.
@@ArkadiBolschek Y yes, X no. But most crosses where T’s
Being in the biological field I appreciate the mix of historical context and anatomy/physiological explanation!
Mad respect to you man, looking at the historical truth, not being a fundamentalist believing the bible without question, not being an ”internet atheist” denying the truth of the scriptures completely. All thumbs up! 👍👍
So the thief on the cross was more likely a bandit. I always thought subjecting a mere thief to crucifixion was a bit harsh.
So the crux of the matter is that you shouldn't cross the Romans. Great vid Metatron, you really nailed it this time!
I think you might have accidentally left out a line when discussing the Spartacus crucifixions about where Capua is, as it's not actually on the maps shown. Viewers may not know that it's just north of Naples.
Capua is about 120 miles south of Rome, I believe, and at the other end is inland and a bit north and west of Venice
Another superb, brilliantly outlined analysis, Raff !!
Might I just add that a subtle distinction could be made; as far as I can see, that the Persians seem to have used crucifixion to display corpses of criminal victims that had already been executed, whereas the the Carthaginians inflicted it upon living criminals - and it was that "method" that the Romans then in turn adopted.
My father is a doctor and I remember him being in Chicago and a man was walking around with his arms tied to a cross and my dad had to tell him how crucifixion works and how it would affect his breathing with his arms like that and then he finally stopped wearing a cross. I know God tells us to bear our cross but ideally not in a literal sense if you have a choice
As we navigate through life, let's hold onto the comforting truth that God is our constant companion. With Him, we can overcome any obstacles and find strength in the midst of uncertainty. Stay confident, stay blessed. 🌺🙏
Question. Crucifixion was used by the Persians. the Deuteronomy bit mentioned at 2:44 mentions hanging. The Book of Esther takes place at the Persian court and mentions gallows and hangings. Do we know if those 'hangings' were what we call that way, hung by the neck, of if they actually mean something where the victim would be hanged out in a different way, like, say, impaling or crucifying?
The word used in the Book of Esther for gallows is עץ, ‘etz, literally “tree” or “wood”. It gives no details at all how Haman was executed, whether crucifixion, impalement, or hanging by the neck. (The first two are more likely, in the Persian context.) Note also that after being killed in the street fighting in Susa, the bodies of Haman’s sons were also “hanged”; so it’s even possible Haman was executed in some other way and hanged afterwards.
@Mr. Rich B.O.B, the hanging mentioned in Deuteronomy was done _after_ execution in another manner. Our host here is wrong when he said (2:30) that it was a manner of execution itself.
Your voice and distinctive diction is superb 👌...your knowledge is very useful 👌..the idea of carrying the entire Cross is steeped in religious iconography. It represents a metaphor for the weight of sin...hence the whole Cross being carried
I really appreciate this video
Pre-Historic: ? - 4004 B.C.
Ancient History: 4004 B.C. - A.D. 476
Middle Ages: A.D. 476 - 1492
Modern Times: 1492 - 2001
Contemporary Era: 2001- ?
Oddly today before finding this video I asked the question about how Jesus was crucified. After which I found this video.
This is a harsh thing to listen to as anyone would suffer horrific pain.
Regardless of my internal state of being about this, this was the best answer I have ever heard.
Pastor John Macarthur has a wonderful breakdown of the crucifixion, as well as the history of pilus, the pressure he hsd from Rome, etc. I highly suggest it.
Shooting a poor innocent courier in the head and leaving them for dead all because you wanted the poker chip they had is worthy of crucifixion.
Fallout New vegas they said...
@@SANDfr78 Tryin to avoid that scenario, 'membr... 😉😇🤩🔥🙏👏💪
About the end of the second part, I would like to remind that the jews in that time were expecting a Messiah who would overthrow every authority who were oppressing his people. It is mentioned in multiple occasions in the New testament. In that case, Jesus saying He was the Christ did have political implications in the perspective of the Pharisees, because that would mean a rebellion against Rome
I don't know if you're religious, but if you're not, you certainly did a fair and objective take on this.
I think a lot more could be said about the physiological aspects of crucifixion. I've heard that there are nerves running through the places where the nails went, and the person being crucified would be in continual agony as a result, but especially when they tried to pull themselves up with their arms or push themselves up with their legs. Could it come down to how thick the nails were? I've heard that the nails used would have been crude and thick, about as thick as a finger. I've heard that the water that came out of Jesus when He was speared indicates that His heart basically was torn in pieces under the cardiac strain that you briefly touched on, but could have elaborated regarding.
I've heard that most crucifixions were done using trees rather than poles or scaffolding. I've heard that the feet were more often affixed sideways through the ankles rather than downwardly through the middle of the foot. I've also heard that normally a person being crucified was stripped naked, to increase their shame. Can you confirm any of this?
I would be interested to hear more about the political situation Pilate was in at the time. I've heard that his predecessor was executed by Caesar for failing to keep peace in Jerusalem, or I might be thinking of a different governor in a different province. Suffice to say, I've heard that it's likely that the only reason Pilate agreed to have Jesus crucified was his fear of a riot if he didn't appease the Sanhedrin, and how Caesar would respond. I'm confident that you could provide more insight.
Could you be persuaded to do a part two of this video?
I have run into so many confusing references concerning crusification. Thank you for making sence of it all. The way you describe the raising of the criminal onto the cross, suggests there was a socket in the beam being carried. Once lifted would securely sit down onto a plug atop the upright post.
Or laid into a notch on the upright, secured with rope, pegs, or nails, and then the whole thing raised to the vertical.
@@julietfischer5056 the historical references say the post was set into the ground, meaning it was a perminate fixture and the victim was raised with the crossbar. Which makes sence from a pain point of view.
Maybe add timestamps to your vids man! Since you already have sections
"They will say that the just person in such circumstances will be whipped, stretched on a rack, chained, blinded with a red-hot iron, and, at the end, when he has suffered every sort of bad thing, he will be impaled, and will realize then that one should not want to be just, but to be believed to be just." (("Impaled", is translated as "crucified" in other editions))
[The Republic, Plato, Book 2]
I noticed something in the words used to describe crucifixion. *"Fastened to a patibulum. They are fastened and led around and then nailed to the cross."* They were forced to parade around with the crossbar (patibulum) first before the nails are mentioned. I would think the Romans would delay any incapacitating pain until the condemned person had made it to the upright post. The word "fastened" may well mean "tied" with rope. The executioners wouldn't have wanted to carry or drag someone if they could make him walk. All they needed was to make sure the patibulum stayed on his shoulders. Many paintings, in fact, show the two thieves tied to the crossbar and only Jesus nailed through both hands and feet (not that these painters would know).
I was surprised that you didn't mention the two burials of crucified men that have been found, one in Israel and one in Italy with nails and/or holes through the sides of the heel bone. These are our only two examples and they show the same thing: some people were crucified with their feet nailed to the sides of the upright. This doesn't mean all were, of course. Evidence shows that Roman practice of many things varied widely with circumstances.
This video did one thing that answered the question many asked for a long time.
Yes, the Romans did crucify Jesus.
Yes, anyone who did get crucified without question died *before* they got off it.
Like many have consistently said, it would have been easier to truly believe Jesus had raised from the dead after being nailed to the cross then had somehow survived.
Thanks, Metatron. I have received +10 Faith.
That shouldn’t be the rational takeaway at all…
The information presented in this video is skewed.
@@JROD082384 I'm gonna just not respond since this is a debate waiting to happen for two reasons.
One: Telling me my statement based off the information is somehow wrong by saying "it should not be the take away"
Two: Stating nothing informative to verify what he said is skewed, just made a random fallacious comment saying I'm wrong and he's wrong, message over.
It won't go well from here.
@Judy 21 y.o - check my vidéó Not that it mattered because they usually tied the arms to the cross anyway so you couldn't pull yourself off.
And yet it is said that when he came back no one recognized him, so he could just be another bloke
@@QwertyUiop-bs2zr Actually this is not correct. Universally those who saw him stated he specifically looked like him, and had identical flesh wounds from his crucified body.
No one back then championed special FX and gore, and no one could survive with those kinds of injuries. Therefore your statement is false.
As always. Very knowledgeable, and interesting. I try to follow your readings in Latin. I haven't been successful, yet. I find you to be an amazing wealth of knowledge. Thank you!
you are incredibly intelligent i love watching your videos
As a Catholic, you did a Great Job explaining this I love how accurate it was compared to scripture
Wonderful isn't it?
@@apologiaromana4123 it truly I amazing how accurate our Bible is God bless you
@@Meleeman-lj5id and God bless you!
I think it's because he's unbiased. He isn't there to make an epic takedown of Christianity to rub it into your faces and yell "TAKE THAT! CHRISTIANITY IS SOLELY BUILT UPON LIES!". Nor is he here to prove that the Christian Bible is 100% accurate.
Beautifully thorough, and very interesting. Thanks for your efforts.
Great presentation as always.
Thanks
The fact that Jesus was a real person and that he was crucified is nearly uncontested among scholars. They’re actually accepted as historical facts with over 90% consensus among the scholars. His resurrection and the empty tomb are the less well established facts which are the current focus of scholars today. But the evidence for the resurrection and empty tomb are so strong that they cannot be denied outright; most of the scholars have to give alternative explanations such as “mass hallucinations from drug use” or “the swoon hypothesis”.
The idea that it was a mass hallucination seems to be the most accepted alternative theory as “the swoon hypothesis” has largely been abandoned and has become what the scholars label a “fringe theory”. The mass hallucination theory doesn’t hold much water scientifically speaking because it hasn’t ever been observed and it is unlikely to have the exact same auditory and visual hallucinations in multiple people.
But this theory is the last option for many scholars that have completely ruled out the possibility of supernatural events in explaining history.
Empty tomb theory means nothing, since body snatching was such common place in that era that laws were put in place to deal with the problem...as for resurrection , Flav. Josephus records (3) Jews being crucified by Rome , but taken down before death.
Anyone who believes sightings of a resurrected Jesus , should also be gullible enough swallow all the alleged sightings of Elvis since his death.
@@r0ky_M Hey, 2009 called looking for an edgy internet atheist - they want their fedora back. And they also said not to repeat unintelligent, canned lines like a cookie-cutter atheist.
Did anyone that knew Elvis claim they saw him alive after his death? No. It’s random people. Does anyone claim Elvis was resurrected? No. They claim he didn’t die. The fact that Jesus died on the cross is nearly incontrovertible. Scholars consider the swoon theory to be a fringe theory and relegate it to “pseudohistory”.
In the case of Jesus, scholars feel the need to explain why people who were familiar with Jesus claimed to see him alive from the dead. These are people that followed him for years and had close, personal relationships with him such as his brother, James.
The “stolen body theory” is unlikely. He was placed in a sepulcher and the common practice was to dig a ditch in front of the opening, then roll a giant stone into the ditch so it cannot be removed, and sometimes they would drive a metal rod on both sides of the stone into the sepulcher as a secondary measure against the stone being rolled away.
The “stolen body theory” also doesn’t account for the well established historical fact that he appeared after his death. The “doppelgänger theory”doesn’t account for the well established historical fact of an empty tomb.
@@derschafer1012
No such "historical" "fact" a Jesus appeared after death.
Such stories are mere word of mouth tales recorded by non-witness No name authors...it would get laughed out a modern courtroom.
@@r0ky_M So… all you’re telling me is that you haven’t even read any literature on the historicity of the Bible. There are different standards of proof for historical claims, scientific claims and for court cases. Hell, there’s different standards between criminal courts and civil courts. You have no idea at all how historical facts are established.
The claim that Jesus was seen after his death by people that could identify him is an established fact among mainline scholars, including the majority of atheist scholars. That’s why they must posit theories such as the “swoon theory” or “doppelgänger theory” - they cannot reject the claim that people saw him alive after his death and still maintain any credibility among the mainline scholars.
It also reveals your own bias that you don’t consider the Bible a credible source. You reject it, despite the fact that most of it is the accounts of first-hand witnesses. Only the Gospel of Christ according to Mark appears to be a second-hand account, but probably used Peter as a source. It’s also the Gospel that mentions the most names of people who would be living witnesses and where they reside, as if Mark is telling his readers “Just go and ask them yourselves.” which lends credibility to the account. This is an early account of Jesus, albeit secondhand - he wouldn’t encourage people to find these living (at the time it was written) witnesses if he was lying. You may not think this helps make the case because you want to believe it’s false, but unbiased historians consider this to lend credibility to the account.
The earliest book of the Bible appears to be Paul’s first Epistle to the Church at Corinth which was written only 20 years after the crucifixion of Christ by the latest estimates.
This is contemporary documentation which is almost NEVER found for historical events that far back. Documentation within 300 years of an event for the period is considered to be credible if it meets other criteria (which the Bible does). Do you know there isn’t a single original, contemporary documentation of Alexander the Great? The closest we have are possible fragments and a full accounting 200 years after his death. But the historicity of Alexander is not disputed.
The majority of atheist scholars agree that Jesus was seen alive after his death. They also consider the Bible to not only be a source of the claims, but also one of many proofs of the claims. They simply discount the miraculous events of the Bible and evaluate the historically verifiable claims. The evidence for these claims rises to the standard of proof historical fact requires. Your rejection of the Bible as a valid source material is solely based on a bias, not based on logic, reason or evidence. That’s between you and your conscience.
Crucifixion was not transmitted to Egypt by Alexander. It was practiced in the bronze age and the new kingdom.
Excellent work, although I would've appreciated more detailed description of both legal background and the medical
I once had a nightmare about being crucified during a school play where I played the part of Jesus. It was hard to tell when play transitioned into an actual execution but I realized the other actors had planned to crucify me from the start and I was the only one who didn't know.
did anyone saw the movie "The Miracle Maker"? apart of being wonderful piece of animation, having beautiful music, i'm always impressed how well researched it is.
You forgot to answer an important question, did the crucified ever sing "always look on the bright side of life"?
It is a Historical fact with references in history books that Jesus of Nazareth was a real life person and he was put to death by the Romans
As far as Arminius (Hermann), apparently died, in 21 AD, murdered by opponents within his own tribe who felt that he was becoming too powerful.
Yes Jesus as God's truth teaches, was crucified , He visited hell, on Third day God resurrected Him. As a believer God warns of false teachers. As a believer, we believe by faith as God teaches not man. Jesus was out to death o the cross. , Rose and as ordained , rose to the heavens. To our salvation. No other name
The trouble with Christians is they are void quality control.
Everyone in his right mind understands God is a tool of fiction. What quality-controls do you have when Theologians grant doctorates to each other based on literally, nothing whatsoever?. Trust but verify. Gods have a perfect record of doing nothing. That is why we say, God helps those helping themselves.
You gather together to talk about it, using Jesus-lingo like every Alex Jones in the country.
Christians are the wolves in sheep's clothing, the hypocrites making a scene of prayer in the temple, those fascist insisting they are authorized, weighing-in as if Earth had gravity-free zones, that wicked generation seeking signs, then declaring what is sacred scripture, with magic in every chapter.
Who wants a country where everyone votes & that is your quality control?
There is forever a Christian, authorized by himself, boasting certainty about directions from fantasyland.
The calls for prayer are about numbers, not quality.
The reason why Christians gather around Greg Laurie is the sharing of delusion.
Outside. they are politely avoided like the old woman with 400 pet cats.
No one having a sound mind would suggest we travel with his map of fantasyland.
The only difference between a Republican & Democrat is how fast the knee hits the floor when a donor walks in the room.
There is no plan, not for greenhouse gases, as long as energy is needed to keep the show on the road.
Who wants a country where everyone votes & that is your quality control? There is forever a Christian, authorized by himself, boasting certainty about directions from fantasyland.
Gods go without exception, on a perfect record of doing nothing.
That is why we say, god helps those helping themselves.
Render to Caesar by all means, who in Rome do you think licenses the temples & controls publications?
What does the Easter bunny have to say on the matter?
Wow... What a great explanation. I just had a debate with Jehovah's witnesses about this subject. Now I have some knowledge and a better way to explain.
The Greek word is actually "stau'ros" which simply means an upright stake or pole, like a fence post. The word many scholars use is translated from Latin word crux. Do some more research
The nail went between the radius & ulna in order to carry the load.
So they wear and carry the horizontal bit, tied around the wrists, which is then nailed to the vertical bit...which is already there?
At the end the guy says "I hope you enjoyed this video"...Well... Enjoyed isn't quite the word I'd use.
It's also very interesting to learn why would someone willing to, with full conciousness, undergo such painful experience without a single objection
Well according to the myth it lets him become king of literally everything so seems like a fairly small price in comparison that plenty of people would take
To go along with this, maybe go over Roman scourging. The Cat was a pretty devastating tool and from what I understand most didn't survive it.
If the Romans wanted the crucification to end early or to stop pain for more for minor, but still bad enough crimes, they would spear the lungs and heart. If it was more middle ground, the breaking of the knees would occurs. This still made the dying longer
Intriguing exposé, thank you. You had mentiomed in one of your videos about the pilot letter...I searched for it but was unable to locate it...did you in fact do a video on the Pilot lettr to Tiberius and if so where could I find it? Thank you
So the crux of the matter is that you shouldn't cross the Romans. Great vid Metatron, you really nailed it this time!
Jesus lol
Let me open the door for you
@@tinoderyanto7668 Open the door? Nah
@PhantomIX come grab your platubalum you're going up
@@tinoderyanto7668 By door you mean pearly white gates
The only thing I could add to this excellent presentation is that Crucifixion and other forms of Roman capital punishment were usually accompanied by extreme torture prior to the cross itself. While it technically isn't Crucifixion, they were often used together as a efficient process, breaking down the victim's humanity long before they made it on to the patibulum.
Like the scourging
@@karlbrady5453 Exactly
Sometimes, but we do not know how common this was. There was likely not much incentive to treat slaves well, to feed them, but outside of regular brutality most people did not have the time or inclination to do much else. Whipping people, for example, was mostly just a way to get them to hurry up. There was a strong sense of what you do will reflect back on you in the ancient world, so many people were wary of tempting fate by being excessively cruel. It all depends on the crime, the criminal, the executioners, the place, the time. Also, when people write about some of these events they want to make either the criminal or the executioners look good or bad, depending on motives. Plus, of course, people only tend to write about the most famous (or infamous) events.
I would like to see some evidence for all this.
@@davethebrahman9870 Posted a reply linking to a 2003 study. If the link didn't show (auto spam blocked by YT) then search South African Medical Journal Crucifixion study. Under Roman Crucifixion section of the paper, see "Preliminary Procedures"
As my mom's dad was both a medical doctor and a preacher, I learned far more of the medical details of crucifixion than I ever wanted to just by hearing his Good Friday sermons on the topic.
Mind sharing?
Why didn't you just say grandpa lol
@@cevcena6692 moms dads mother dads mothers by the 3nd ec_3m square 100 dads 21 mothers dads ayayayyayayayae dad!
My mom's dad's grandson is leaving comments on RUclips videos
@@cevcena6692because he'd have to say "my grandpa from my mothers sade" which is extensively longer.
Metatron has way more credibility than any show on The History Channel.
@Gabryjel stop spamming
Considering how low that bar is, you aren't saying much.
Yeah! The “history channel” has recently become trash w/ dreck like pawn stars and ancient aliens 😒
Dude, that's a horribly low bar....
I get where you're coming from, but that's a very low bar to reach. lol
Once again, the teacher I wish I'd had during my wasted youth.
I appreciate your words
Absolutely
As a physician, myself, I appreciated your clinically-accurate discussion.
Thank you very much!
@Phoenix 𝙾𝚙𝚎𝚗 𝙼𝚢 PROFILE Kudos on recognizing that the Carthaginians who emigrated to Tyre and environs were hardly 'colonizers,' but more akin to American ex-pats who 'return' to England. This has implications in the history of the purple dye trade and other several other elements. Not really chicken-and-egg, but most folks don't know this. 'Cheers.
Heal thyself.
@@bradchervel5202 😂
@@metatronyt Thank you for this great lecture! I learnt a lot. However, I've been quite surprised to not hear about the traditional supplicia canum, but instead, about a supposed importation from the Persian Empire, via Alexander the Great's empire and Carthago. Wouldn't it be more probable to suppose that crucifixion already belonged to ancient Roman traditions by the time of the Punic wars?
14:46 Where does the picture come from? Are the mistakes made to be realistic? 😉
Thank you for resisting the politically correct terms BCE and CE. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BC and AD.
The "politically correct" term? Screw PC I don't give a damn about them. But nor am I a Christian.
How's this for political correctness, Abrahamic religions all suck and they just push their crap bronze age ideologies on others then threaten them with a fable of hell for those who don't buy stories of talking snakes and water walking wizards. Christianity and Islam specifically. They have a history soaked in blood and nobody should take their mythology seriously.
They did it to themselves.
Karma.
@@LisaAnn777 I'm sorry, perhaps you aren't aware of this, but I wasn't talking to you. Neither you nor your opinion are really that important. So tell someone who cares.
@@mecurian485 yet you read it already. Ad and bc are dead with or without "PC" lol don't like that? Pray to your imaginary friend.
@@LisaAnn777 😴😴😴
@@mecurian485 👍
If you haven’t covered it previously, would you consider doing an episode on the specifics of Vlad The Impalers methods? Regardless, thank you for today’s content!
In fact, those were methods he learned from Turks being a prisoner/hostage in Constantinople. And the Ottomans learned that probably also from Persians, as for the steppe nomads they were, using long wooden poles in non-forrested steppe would be rather problematic.
Count dankula has recently done a good video on glad the impaler that you may like
@@bloochoo2870 Thank you kindly! 🍻
@@bloochoo2870 yeah, but that was more biographical and comedy focused than technical or about impalement methods.
There is an audiobook on youtube called 'Children of the Night' by Dan Simmons. It is a novel about Vlad still being alive in the present day and a mysterious child in a Romanian orphanage with a strange blood disorder. The interesting part is the occasional chapter where Vlad recalls his earlier life, describing in first person the things he did and his motivation for doing them. In these chapters, it describes how men and women were impaled on staves about 2-3 inches in diameter and these were blunt ended and heavily lubricated with grease. Men or women would be held spreadeagled, and the tip inserted into either the anus or vagina, slowly working the stave until it followed as far as possible the innards, at which point it would be forced through the walls of the obstructing innards until the stave emerged either through the victims mouth or neck/shoulder. The stave was diverted around heart and lungs so as to delay death. Once the stave emerged, it would be elevated to the vertical and displayed.
As a physician, just to clarify a little your explanation, the bending position would first impair the diaphragm which is our main respiratory muscle. This is achieved by raising abdominal pressure and restricting chest expansion. Then the person would increase their auxiliary respiratory muscles' work, which were already limited by the positioning on the cross. All of this while the hypovolemia and acidemia, both lactic, ketonic and respiratory were increasing the respiratory muscles' workload, creating a cycle. The rest you explained is on point. I loved the video
Metraton.
You're a guy I'd certainly like to be friends with. No boring talks ever and a ton of interesting stuff.
I remember reading from a doctor that having the spike through the hands would cause them rip out between your fi gers due to body weight, and the more likely place to put the spike are between the forearm bones near your wrist
That is what I learned as well. Properly applied, it would even avoid major blood vessels.
Unless the victim is standing on a wooden platform, his arms and legs bound to the cross by ropes and the nails beaten through small pieces of wood or other relatively hard material.
I'm a Greek Orthodox Christian and my theologian teacher in senior high school, who also happened to be a priest, taught my entire school that the Orthodox Church agrees that medically the spike would have pierced the wrist area, but they allow the portrayal of the piercing to instead be directly on the palms of the hands due to two reasons: the first being artistic license , and the second being to lessen the shock value of the portrayal as it is considered more humane when portrayed on the hands instead of wrists.
I heard that this was because the original Greek considered anything below the elbow as the hand. The Greek was then translated into languages that had the hand below the wrist.
from what Ive read of "nine inch nails" used for this purpose .. they could probably mash your entire fist under the head of such a nail .. so where exactly you nailed him might not be all that relevant. And if it did rip out .. no biggie, whack a few more nails into the arm or something eh? cant be that hard to nail a guy to wood with these giant nails right?
These videos on Jesus are brilliant! Really deeply researched, that's something to admire in them :)
Please tackle how the legions actually fought in formation (did they stay in blocks or did they form a solid line? How did the maniple swap work?)
He has talked about it before, and at the time said the sources were not specific enough to say.
He has a pretty extensive back catalog of content that, in one way or another, is incredibly educational AND fascinating. Something not easily done, IMHO. Not just on the titles he chose to use in describing the general topic of the video. I've really enjoyed them when I'm in the shop. Hit play and hours of the more mundane work goes just a bit faster.
As an MP in the army was surprised we use to this day their shield and and forward shuffle to this day to push back crowd's .
@@neilstern1694 That tactic came from the Phalanx that preceded the Roman testudo.
@@GTRNights thanks, I'm glad I didn't have to use it.
As a Christian I must say that I love how unbiased you are, I certainly appreciate it. I’m willing to listen to someone that doesn’t come with the intention of destroying my religion like some Atheist do, I’m more willing to listen to someone unbiased like you that doesn’t have any agenda behind their intention except the agenda of telling history from an unbiased point of view. Again I appreciate it very much bc I LOVE history and wouldn’t want it to be changed just to fit my perception of the world.
Megatron is a Christian or a Catholic
Quran (5:15):
In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.
(O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book [i.e., the Qur’ān])
Allah Almighty is Truthful
Certainly with a name like “metatron” this guy is likely some borderline sociopathic wannabe gnostic so I’d re evaluate the whole “unbiased” point. This man likely despises Christ in truth and is instead a proxy for the theosophical fraternal mystery cults. To whom damnation is just.
@@ZZz-vh4cf path of gold only leads to a single destination
that said i havent really noticed metatron being a gnostic, other than ranting how in medieval czechia they didnt use religious talk much
@@ZZz-vh4cf Ooh, you're so edgy. Damnation for you is just.
Great video. Love the historicity of Jesus Christ videos, keep them coming. You present them in a very unbiased way which makes it enjoyable for those of us of the Christian faith. All the best to you.
Keep enjoying the made up lies.
I know you won't want to hear any actual truth.
@@jusfugly yawn
@@dalenixon1947 Yep, looks like you're definitely satisfied with the lies.
@@jusfugly I'll keep on living my truth, you keep on living yours.
@@dalenixon1947 There is no "my truth" or "your truth" or even "their truth".
There is only THE truth, and that doesn't change, no matter how much faith and belief you have.
Metatron please tackle the detailed methods of how a phalanx formation operated, just a suggestion, love your videos my man- keep it up !
I think he's covered that as sub-point on another video. The phalanx wasn't a complicated formation or battle Strategy, which is why I think he hasn't made a video dedicated to it.
(Edit: I think I lied, I looked for the video and couldn't find it. It might have been by shad or skall and it's just been long enough since I watched it for me to get it confused.)
Mass crucifictions resembled roadside utility poles in our day
I bet that you convert to Christianity soon. Not a bad thing.
It's hard to comprehend the savagery of crucifixion. One can understand why his followers fled that night in terrror.
Ivorybow People continue to make the same mistake; judge with today morals what happened centuries ago, it's something that doesn't make sense, we don't have to understand anything, it would be already a great thing to know it (avoiding any judgment). Sorry for my "eng".
@@lazios I understand the point you're attempting to convey, but Claiming angst against the crucifixion is nothing more than chronological snobbery is completely ignorant though. There's a plethora of things your argument wouldn't pertain to, this is one. It's unquestionable. I can't even believe you're attempting to make this argument.
@@tomjjackson21 I agree, because time and culture would be irrelevant in that moment if the one saying it was different "then" because of time and culture, was raised himself upon the cross to suffer the horror of that fate. The anguish and magnitude of suffering would be immediate, timeless, and the same for all of us.
I studied this as part of my degree in Biblical Theology. The first thing I found was a mind boggling number of different ways to do a crucifixion. One author claimed near 200. We know that very occasionally for example some were crucified upside down. There is one account of someone being crucified sideways. The issue here though is the position of the nails. Sometimes they did go through the top of the foot but sometimes the ankles from the side which vastly increased pain. It is however the nails through the "hands" that are in question. If nailed through the centre of the hand they would rip out hastening death from blood loss. Not by a great deal but in both hands it could kill you in 12 hours on its own. There is also the issue that anything below the elbow to a Hebrew was "hand" so when "passim" is used in Hebrew which translated means "to the wrist" it meant "elbow" to a westener. So a nail through the fore-arm would fit from a cultural perspective and would not have ripped out. There is also one other possibility which I personally believe is likely (though not proven). Contrary to popular belief there are some muscles in the hands. Some of these would have been very strong in someone like Yeshua as he would have been used to manual work like Yoseph was. The muscles between the thumb and forefinger are pretty strong in an average adult male (100kg capacity) you can probably double that for Yeshua. The Romans would have often placed the nails to take advantage of this.
Hold on... no muscles in the hand is a "popular belief"??? Where exactly??
@@Symonch_ i think he ment the middle of the hands
@@boku5192 i mean, in which country is it common to think the friking hand doesn't have muscles
Is it plausible that St Peter was crucified upside down then? The story goes he demanded to be crucified upside down to not disrespect Christ or something along those lines (I believe that description is wrong).
Edit: that mention of the misunderstanding of “hand” in Hebrew is appreciated. It reminds me of “they pierced my hands and feet” (Psalm 22:16) and how one argument against it is the fact that Jesus was pierced through the wrist, not the hands. But that’s just flaw of English as we don’t exactly have a word for what you mentioned.
@@Symonch_ no idea
I do not think anyone ❤ this guy more than me. In a platonic way 😄 🍻. If you do, then thank you for supporting Metatron as much as I do 🙏
Thanks I appreciate
Thank You For that History Leston Meditron. You Really do a Wonderful Teaching of it!!
Seneca (4 AD - 65 AD) recorded some first hand detail of crucifixion:
"I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different
ways: some have their victims with their head down to the ground,
some impale their private parts, others stretch out their arms"
Tertullian (born 155 AD) Christian author - Chapter 4:
.."Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner
by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large
number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be
given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort
of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from
the outside, he endured so many crucifixions."
Flavius Josephus (born 37 AD)
Antiquities - chapter 11:
"So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore
the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way,
and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest,
when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting
for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies."
I'd be more interested when he returns.
2000 years and still waiting.
What they said ^^^. Lol, just look around you, when has the earth been in such turmoil.
@@renaissanceredneck3695 The XIVth and XVIIth centuries, for example.
ruclips.net/video/T4Tl35Qz8uo/видео.html
Ronny Milsap - Any Day Now
Jesus about to see the clown world we live in and jump back In heaven "Yeah... Not gonna happen"
If Jesus was crucified and came back that means he’s immortal which means he’s alive which means stop waiting for him to come back he’s already here
SUCH A GOOD VIDEO, omg! ✨✨
very kenzie!
Hey, look who's here... 😁
Hanging sounds a lot more humane now 😅
Metatron looking especially like a Sicilian Dürer self portrait in this episode.
Talking about Jesus while looking like Jesus. 😄
As per usual, you handled a very risky topic with great skill and precision. Although I suspect we ultimately disagree on some things, I cannot fault your reasoning, research, or presentation. Brilliant video.
Why is it risky? Marte protect us if history is now considered risky.
@@bigzed7908 Risky because it's very easy to say something that you think is neutral and then have both Christians and atheists and every other religion under the sun screaming at you for not being fair to their perspective, or not being accurate, or not even putting up an argument and calling you stupid. It's terribly easy to not be sensitive and end up offending people, or be too sensitive and then end up being inaccurate.
@@chenoaholdstock3507 what do you mean by "their perspective"? History means to analyze sources and come up with a reasonable explanation that's as objective as possible. If someone doesn't like it, well tough luck, try giving a better explanation.
@@chenoaholdstock3507 It is a sad reality that so many people act without maturity and react with rudeness to the facts. Facts don't care about feelings, and mature people adapt to that and strive for clarity rather than "winning" the debate.
@@bigzed7908 Well, let's put it this way: I firmly believe that Jesus was real, died, and rose again. My proof is miracles. However, I understand that you may not agree with me. Ultimately, we can both sight our sources, both disagree with the evidence the other presents, supposing that there is a flaw in the other's logic. Thus, we can argue over what I will affectionately termed 'opinions'. One of us is correct, but the internet is not an effective way to debate who.
*Metatron talking about the medical aspects of someone dying to crucification*
"Okay, nobleones. I hope you enjoyed..."
Not really. Very interesting, but saying I *enjoyed* this would definitely be the wrong term
Yeah, I was thinking the same.
Not every important thing is enjoyable.
*several minutes of extremely graphic and technical descriptions of one of the most horrible methods of execution* immediately followed by "I hope you enjoyed this video" lol it was amazing and extremely educational but "enjoyment" may be the wrong descriptor. 😅
"Appreciate" would be the more apt term, here. Fascinating material, nonetheless. BTW, an atheist wrote these words.
@@GrizrazRex 😃👍
Many westerners debate whether he was put on a cross or a "tree." Your excellent presentation shows how the patibulum Jesus carried when put on the "tree" makes a cross. Not hard to understand or imagine but people do get sidetracked debating this detail due to translations.
Could you make a video about the True Cross? I think it would be a nice followup to this one.
Hey Metatron! Just wanted to say I love your videos. I've had a huge passion for learning about history from a very young age, and your videos are always a pleasure to watch.
My family is a little divided when it comes to matters of religion and history, and sometime we can end up butting heads when the two subjects meet in a conversation. However, these videos that you've done on Jesus and the crucifixion have proven to be an incredible common ground for us to come together and learn about the things that interest us. Just wanted to know that the hard work you put into this and all your videos is both inspiring and appreciated! We'd love to see more content with your historical dissections of this time period.
Thanks for all the work you put into entertaining and educating us! Keep up the excellent work!
I really like how metatron makes these "documentaries". It may be because of his clear shouthern italian blood, but his obvious respect for the subject matter of christianity historically is very pleasant
With all respect to your work Metatron... In the Latin texts is said they were tied/fastened to the patibulum and then nailed to the cross. Given that the patibulum is the horizontal part of most probably T-shaped structure, isn't it logical to think that the patibulum hs been nailed to the vertical pole with the human already on it? On the documents you quoted I didn't see nails through human body. Let alone the fact that if you put a nail in the middle of someone's hand without breaking bones, then hang them on those nails, the tissue would just rip off due to the weight. Thank you even if you decide not to reply. Great video as usual.
Your pathophysiology on death by crucifixion is top notch. Well simplified for easy understanding even for those with little medical knowledge. Keep it up brother.
Love that you present the Latin not just the translation.
Hey there. This video sparked my interest in researching the topic and while I’m nowhere near to the point where I could present evidence for anything, I think I have found some discrepancies regarding the meaning of the word _patibulum_ , especially in different languages.
My native tongue is Spanish, and it seems that the word patíbulo, meaning the structure meant for executions (sometimes referred to as “tablado” in the sense of “made from tablas” [planks]) was derived from the word _patibulum_ . In English though the default seems to be the transversal part of the cross.
Again, not ready to present anything, as this seems to be a really large topic, but some other sources like The Non-Christian Cross seem to directly differ from the interpretation that the patibulum could be transversal part from the _stauróō_ , as that one translates more to something like post. And in my preliminary research in Spanish about the topic there seems to be much debate about the traditional meaning and use of the word _patibulum_ .
So, I have a question. Is there a particular reason why the gospels have been excluded from these Jesus examinations? I get why it might be controversial for many people that don’t consider them to have any historical value, but most of the etymological studies regarding these topics really revolve around the gospels and I think examining only Roman or non-Christian writings limits the potential for cross-examination of sources. At the very least, as in-period books written in Greek I think they could provide more points of discussion.
The Gospels were written decades after Jesus died. They are interpretations of his life story. There's nothing they can add.
He was tried, convicted, and executed under Roman law. Romans wrote about law and punishment. Romans were also crucified. What could Christian sources written decades or centuries later contribute to objectively understanding that?
@@julietfischer5056 Hi! It has been some time since that video.
First some points:
I apologize for the long reply, I could not make it shorter. Also, I want to contextualize what I said: “why the gospels have been excluded from these Jesus examinations?” I was including the previous Is Jesus Historical? What Do The Romans Say About Him? video as well. (ruclips.net/video/A41Tm5FDKns/видео.html) I also said that “I get why it might be controversial for many people that don’t consider them to have any historical value” but that nevertheless they could provide more data points.
By now I am confident that the stauros’ and xyʹlon, the Greek words used in the gospels referring to the implement used to kill Jesus, are not translated as “cross” but as a pole or stake. The execution of Jesus could be better described as impalement rather than a crucifixion, according to the language used in the gospels. Many sources like The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, The Catholic Encyclopedia, and A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament support this idea. My point was that all these resources deal with the gospels directly, and thus excluding them leaves out a crucial point. I later found out that the Cambridge article does deal with the gospels directly but, in my opinion, leaves out some other points.
Another one of the references, The history and pathology of crucifixion, also mentioned that “In Persian times crucifixion was originally performed on trees or simple pole structures rather than a formal cross”. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary also mentioned that “staurosʹ properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground… Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole”. Also on this reference, AD MARCIAM DE CONSOLATIONE from Seneca (another contemporary source) is cited. He describes different stake execution methods used by different people, ones that used only one pole and ones using more. I find it a bit frustrating that the dictionary does not provide a reference for the claim that “There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood” when this is where the whole controversy lies.
I don’t know if you are implying this or not, but I would differ from the idea that the roman sources are reliable and sufficient enough to close the case.
I disagree with the point that the gospels have nothing to add because they were later sources. Metatron himself said something about that kind of argument in the previous video: ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxw7DzGN_ZytmNn5LN9-mLbvjv0kt4d7K2. This concept also applies to the discussion about the crucifixion.
It is true that the gospels were written some decades after the death of Jesus (Matthew c. 41, Mark c. 60-65, Luke c. 56-58, John c. 98) but still around the time Annales and Historiae. According to the gospels themselves, they were written by people who claimed to have witnessed the events or had access to those claiming to be eyewitnesses. If the point is that so much time had passed that even the ones writing did not remember what happened or could not know for certain, I would argue that most biographies, autobiographies, and most of history have the same issue.
Now if the point is that the Bible is all myth, all forged, all apocryphal and so not useful to the discussion in any way whatsoever, I was aware that people with that viewpoint would disagree with adding the gospels in the first place. Again, the point is that, historically, many of the scholars dealing with this issue did not think the gospels were useless in understanding the ancient world, Roman and Jewish customs, etc. As I said before “At the very least, as in-period books written in Greek I think they could provide more points of discussion.”
@@Creavend- The iconography is always either a T or cross. Unless later converts simply modified their cruciform holy symbols, I think we can safely presume Jesus wasn't literally shafted to death---allowing those converts to rebrand their old symbols.
@@julietfischer5056 Oh! I don’t mean impalement in the Vlad the Impaler sense, going through the rectum out their mouth, (Although Seneca does mention that one as something he had seen) but rather that his hands would have been nailed together over his head (I), instead of spreading them out separately (T).
The iconography is an example of a much later addition. These Wikipedia articles (I know) explain how you won’t even find relevant enough religious art in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and no mainstream church images of the crucifixion until the 5th century.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_arts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christian_art_and_architecture
The second article, explains how the early Christians would have had a much stronger Jewish influence, and thus “The Old Testament restrictions against the production of graven (an idol or fetish carved in wood or stone) images (see also Idolatry and Christianity) may also have constrained Christians from producing art.”
Interestingly, by the 5th century, the Church would be under much more Greco-Roman influence. The cross as a religious symbol could be traced back to the Egyptian Ankh and other symbols used by Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. Similar to how the stake itself was adopted from culture to culture (Assyrian/Babylonians > Persians > Greek/Macedonians > Successor kingdoms > Carthaginians > Romans), religious ideas, cultural ideas, and iconography would be adopted from culture to culture. The Babylonian sun-god Shamash was depicted wearing and using crosses. A connection can be established between Shamash and Sol Invictus, the roman sun-god. Examples of crosses can be found on roman coinage (Julius Caesar, Augustus). Constantine was also a Sol Invictus worshipper.
For example, the idea of the Trinity can be clearly traced back to earlier triads from ancient, Ptolemaic, and Roman Egypt, 3rd century Alexandria and the Platonic trinity being the bridge between those ideas. I mention the trinity for its relevance regarding the cross as an icon. Constantine, famous for painting the Chi Rho ☧ symbol onto his soldier’s shields (a cross of sorts), was also the one who played a key role in the Nicaea council, where the decision to make Jesus equal to YHWH was made. This paved the way for the later introduction of the holy ghost into the mix and voila! You have your new trinity and cross as the icon.
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words and the Vine's Expository Dictionary explain how the connection between Chi Rho and the later Tau (T) that resembled more the Sol Invictus cross happened.
All this religious syncretism is embedded in the iconography and thus makes it not that reliable as a data point.
Sorry, it was not my intention to do a long reply again. It just goes to show these topics are much larger than one might initially think. That is why many data sources are needed to find the truth.
The gospels were written 30 to 80 years after the fact which is amazing as far as ancient historical figures go as most things were passed down through word of mouth and oral tradition back then. For example The earliest (fragmented) manuscripts of Plato’s Dialogues date from the 2nd to 4th century AD. But the complete manuscripts date from about 900 AD. Plato died in 437 or 348 AD. That's a 1250 year gap. the manuscripts of Aristophanes was written in the 4th or 5th c. AD. The best and earliest full manuscripts date from the 10th-11th c. AD. He died in c. 386 BC, so that is a spread of almost 1400 years. Same with figures like sun tzu, King Arthur, Aristotle, and many others.
We also have 10s of thousands of biblical manuscripts with around 6 thousand being from the new testament. The typical number of manuscripts for any other figures like cesar, Plato, Aristotle, etc is anywhere from 1 to 20 compared to thousands and thousands of biblical manuscripts. This puts many other ancient historical claims to shame.
So I do not see why the gospels could not be used for cross examination/ evidence. They exceed what is required to accept ancient historical claims. To think otherwise is being biased.
I'm really enjoying your series. Though I may be a wee bit biased as a Christian. 🤣😅
great video again. precise to the point. no wandering talk around. just information. just how we like it.
17:20 According to experiments with cadavers, the tissues of the hand aren't strong enough to support a human body with nails driven through them, and the skeleton of a person who was crucified by the Romans has scratches on the bones which show that the nails (I think that American carpenters would call them spikes) were driven between the radius and the ulna.
If they were bound by ropes beforehand it wouldn't matter
I don't think, that there was one common method at all, but a wide range of different techniques and - that's important - professionalism of the executor. I'm pretty sure, you would see a different technique by a regular legionary, to a professional executor working for the palace ;)
I understand that there were many ways that crucifiction could be conducted, but my understanding of what the Romans did is tie someone to a piece of wood (I guess this is the patibulum) and then have them walk to the execution site. The person walking with their arms out sideways is the cross. Their body forms the cross. Then, once at the execution site the horizontal beam was nailed to the post (which was probably a tree originally, or in places where there were trees). So the nails did not necessarily go through the body. The advantage of this is that the dead body would stay in place for some time, and was easy to remove. It also spares the participants any guilt for causing physical harm to the person, since all they did was tie him to a beam. If you look at ancient executions, many of them stem from religious ceremonies and do not inflict damage directly. Even something like burning is seen as not inflicting damage directly since if you put someone in a big stack of wood and set fire to it you are not touching the person. This prevents the people carrying out the execution from being judged guilty of murder by the gods. So, when we say Jesus was nailed to the cross, what we are actually might be saying is that his patibulum was nailed up, and the text describing nails in his body may be just an embellishment.
All that said, there is the problem of people who are crucified escaping due to being helped by friends. There is a certain set of ancient punishments where being helped to escape is actually allowed, since if you are helped it shows you have merit and value to someone, but if you are not then you are worthless. It's kind of like an ancient method of dealing with uncertainty over your guilt: if someone helps you then maybe you were not guilty. It also lets people of means buy their way out. But it will not always be the case where the powers that sentenced you want you to escape. This is why soldiers sometimes had to guard the crucified. However, escape may also be the reason why nailing people up was sometimes practiced: it's harder to free someone who is nailed up, and even if they escape they are likely to die. Obviously you can nail someone as well as tie them, the nails just being there for added security. It's also worth noting that nailing someone may not have been seen as worse, since you are likely to die faster if you are nailed, and part of the idea was the spectacle of you dying, which is diminished if you die before enough people see you. The nails also convey that you were killed by man, whereas the original intention was more that you were killed by the gods.
Overall, since crucifixion was used for hundreds of years over a wide area, there is obviously scope for a lot of variation. It likely changed from being mostly a religious practice to being just capital punishment, particularly when the military got hold of it, and like everything else that becomes normal, changes were made to increase efficiency and reduce cost. Soldiers, who deal with killing people as a job, probably saw the whole thing as a waste of time and effort, and likely made it much more of a production line kind of affair.
I thought the same. There was no direct reference to nailing the actual body to the cross. Just described in a more brief and ambiguous way that leaves both interpretations open.
And even if the laws did say that no one left the crucifixion alive, it doesn't mean it never happened. Jesus being helped in secret or through some other subversive action might've been the origin of the resurrection claim.
Yes, it also bothers me. With four open wounds and in this highly uncomfortable position, a VERY strong and healty person would survive a couple of hours. No way anyone, if nailed, could have endured a day.
@@AnotherDuck Actually there is.
Though i do realise that many will consider it a pollluted source. Even when many of the sources they do consider reliable are less traceable.
In the gospel of John, Thomas states the following:
But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.”
(John 20:25b)
So there is expectation of nail marks.
Combined with the non biblical quote in this video, where they speak of affixing the victim with nails, it is likely that nails were used.
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 That's probably a fair claim. I was talking about what was presented in the video. There just isn't much evidence either way, so it comes down to whether you'd accept that source or consider it too polluted to be reliable.
For me it doesn't matter, as I don't have any personal beliefs that are contradicted either way. That also means I'm not inclined to disbelieve what's written in religious sources (although I am inclined to doubt). In the end, I don't see enough of a reason for why it couldn't have been the case, so while I don't think there's proof for the belief to be correct, there's also no proof to the contrary. If that makes sense.
Didnt realize this was an hour old. Ive been researching this very topic heavily in the past few weeks. Very nice coincidence.
Suddenly, Thanksgiving Day looks like Easter.
any hot takes on this?
An extremely well researched and scholarly engaging video. Thanks for the upload.
Maybe stop calling it "Palestine" when that name did not apply to the region or the people until much later (and many of us still outright reject it). You''re a scholar, you should know better. Jesus and Josephus didn't live in Palestine, they lived in Judaea.
Should check out Walter Veith vids.
Pharisees were smart men, they actually twisted Jesus's work quite well making him look like a political rebel leader. Btw, interesting fact, the script written above Jesus after crucifixion was written In tree languages: Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but the interesting thing in it is that the writer of script left the symbol usually placed on the titles of Kings - it was done with Greek and Hebrew title, only Latin one was written as ordered.
The irony is that if you believe the Gospel accounts, it appears that a lot of Jesus' followers were frustrated that he *wasn't* a political rebel leader.
@@doomkitty8386 indeed because by the word of Torah, Jews believed that the Messiah will be a new rebel leader who will break the Roman empire and make the Israel powerful again when Jesus had a very different approach and even criticised corrupt Jew religious and political leaders for being morally blind, deaf and selfish. That's when they saw Him as an enemy but they were not able to place death sentences, so they made whole case as political affair from the religious one. I mean, Jews were the first who prosecuted Christians, together with Romans of course, but first apostle died by the hand of pharisee. What's most interesting that Jesus was in fact the new king, the new human Torah talked about, Jew just really missed the target with interpretations.
@@JazzGinas all true, and despite its radically apolitical outlook Christianity's been dealing with secular politics ever since.
@@doomkitty8386 absolutely, during Medieval era, Christianity got so involved in secular politics that Kings were just buying and throwing popes around causing massive explosions. I mean, it won't be a very scientific claim but I suspect the infamous human nature has a play in such things, you know. We can grasp the pattern that more good system goals are and more it is based on honesty, truth and other objective things we all valued cross culturally in every era, more easily exploitable it is because its good. And taking a philosophical/theological view out of this - it is stated that better thing is worse it could become, smarter the person is, more evil he could become. That cannot be grounded by sophisticated scientific data but those patterns just exist as axioms in our civilization and I truly believe Jesus showed that, pharisees didn't like that, people didn't like that, they killed Him.
@@doomkitty8386 - That is some wrong teaching, unscriptural teaching.