Was Jesus crucified body buried -- or just eaten by dogs?

[EdM021]

No, vlunney's facts are mostly right. Digest 48.24.1 states the bodies of those who committed high treason were NOT to be handed over to anyone requesting burial for the executed convict. Now do the gospel writers say Jesus was guilty of high treason? Absolutely! For he let himself be acclaimed "King of the Jews" by his followers. Pilate was not going to overlook that.

What the Romans would have done in Judea was to bury the body by themselves in their own dishonourable burial ground. Properly.

[john1801rambo]

I think there is only one archeological find of a crucified body given a burial in a tomb. Given the number of such executions that took place round this time, this would strongly suggest that most were either left to rot or put in a shallow communal grave - where the wild dogs would have no difficulty....

[TSavage1953]

You didn't listen. ROMAN practice not JEWISH

Both of you are wrong there is no evidence for either form of disposal of the body. To say you know is just speculation based on your personal belief not evidence

[MsPaparatz]

All religious scripts no matter which one... can not fully be explained because everyone interprets the words differently, All I know is... I do believe in a higher power... I know that I definitely don't understand it all. But I know it exists. I know right from wrong...and i try my best everyday to choose the right out of the wrong. no one can be perfect though, but as long as i continue to be the best person i can i know god or whatever you'd like to call the higher power... will except me.

[illini554]

Is there any historical evidence from classical, Jewish, or Roman historians that suggest Jesus of Nazareth was not buried in the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea? Somebody please, produce it; otherwise quit grasping at straws in order to avoid the truth, it looks so pathetic to the dispassionate observer.

[edwardtbabinski]

THIS Byron McCane?

[stephensanchez5271]

its not the worshippers its the one being worshipped. mohamed can't save anyones lives he is dead in a grave. Jesus died and ressurected to free anyone who gives their life to him from sin. All who study and practice the coran tho deligently, is all in vein. the coran is just a book.

[stephensanchez5271]

its not the worshippers its the one being worshipped. mohamed can't save anyones lives he is dead in a grave. Jesus died and ressurected to free anyone who gives their life to him from sin. All who study and practice the coran tho deligently, is all in vein. the coran is just a book.

[durbinjeff]

John Dominic Crossan's remarks are always twisted. He has no use or need for Jesus. If you love and worship Jesus, be very careful of Mr. Crossan and the Jesus Seminar.

[TRUTHvsDECEPTION]

Wacky thinking.

When you elevate Jesus you elevate Him so high that you made Him son of god.

And when you down grade Him you down grade Him so low that you call him to be crucified with humility and eaten by dogs.sick

[MrHass68]

if I have a son, I would never crucify him to save others..I would save others however if I can do it without having to hurt my son. Does the creator of this universe have such powert? can he forgive without hurting anyone? answer: yes and he actually did..no one is born on this erth with sins he or she didnt commit.

[jcr4runner]

You are right YOU would never do this.

Neither would YOU die to save your enemies.

But what love is this: that Jesus died to save us when we were His enemies?

[01frosts]

Agreed

[ataru14]

The plan was not to have Jesus stay dead. Plus, the way the justice system is set up, if the judge wants to forgive someone who stole a car, the judge has to pay the price of the car. I do agree, though, that contrary to popular Reformed opinions, no one is born with any sin they did not commit. Read Ezekiel 18.

[SuperSpiritedaway]

@MrHass68

thats why Jesus wasnt god... god wont allow his messenger or anyone else...to be killed to save humanity... god is stronger then that.

what about ppls?... are we saved of our sins... we can do what ever evil we want!...thats make no sense.

God is unique, powerful. merciful... we all be judged by Allah for our actions... no doubt about it.

[MrHass68]

Jesus never died, read Luke 24:36-41 and then go and read quran 4:157-158

No offense just tring to point to truth. Peace

[jcr4runner]

This is ridiculous. It does not say he didn't die.

Further Luke 23:46 explicitly says Jesus did die. He gave up His spirit to the Father.

[SuperSpiritedaway]

@jcr4runner

i dont agree... Jesus he didnt die... Allah told us in the Coran that he was lifted to the heaven.. and he will be back in the end time to finish his message to the humanity, then he will die like everybody else, because as Allah said every soul will test death.

[jcr4runner]

It's hard to argue with a book that says the Bible is God's Word everywhere except whee the Koran contradicts it.

QUESTION:

If the Bible was God's Word, how did a holy God allow t to become corrupted?

And why could not the Koran also have been corrupted?

The Christian view is that only the Bible is God's Word.

[SuperSpiritedaway]

the problem of the Bible you havent got the original texts... it was writen by the time of the Roman empror constantine, in the Nisea meeting.

About the Coran... it was writen and memorized from cover to cover from the time of Mohamed (saw)... even today there are millions worldwide they can recite by memory to ALL Coran, page by page... no other book is memorised this way.

[jcr4runner]

There are copies of the NT books that are as close to the originals as the Q'uran -- there are actual copies from the second century -- not fourth century Nicene era.

No ancient book has an "original manuscript" or "autograph" -- all are copies.

[ScissorHand26]

@SuperSpiritedaway

It's hilarious watching Christians and Muslims arguing. Most of the arguments both you guys use work against your own religion too. Why trust the bible? Why trust the Koran? Both were written by men who can lie and we know man is fallible. Muslims claim the Koran is completely unchanged, but that doesn't even matter! It was written by people in the first place :P

In summary, you're all silly and I love you all lol.

[uvideosu]

@jcr4runner Muslims are AntiChrist they believe that Jesus was NOT the Son of God- He who denies The Father and The Son

>>> 1 John 2:22 <<<

This is The sign of AntiChrist. So naturally they don't believe in The Gospel Of Jesus Christ. They don't believe that Jesus is The Way to The Father- They replace Jesus with The False Prophet. It is foretold in Bible Prophecy that The AntiChrists would come

[Quirfa]

@MrHass68- Luke 24: 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 - He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

In the future read the entire verse unless you are unable to read !

[vlunney]

what this guy misses is the FACT that the real pilate would NEVER have turned over the body

as he was by genuine accounts a brutal sadist who got off on making people suffer.if there was a real jesus who was crucified he would have been disposed of the same as anyone else as the romans would NOT have given a crap about appeasing jewish burial sensibilities.

[jcr4runner]

It's sort of like saying that since Woodrow Wilson campaigned as a Christian pacifist, he never would have sent 117,000 American soldiers to their death in WWI.

Pacifists sometimes enter wars and tyrants sometimes appease their subjects to avoid trouble.

[jcr4runner]

The problem with your platitudes, Vlunney, is that you take an opinion held by SOME scholars and turn it into something that must be a FACT.

Scholars rely in grant money to get ahead and if a liberal theologian can write something controversial that upsets the apple cart of Christian orthodoxy they get a lot of press and the the pop media will often record that it is a "fact" because an expert said it.

The statements of the Jesus Seminar scholars are calculated with this strategy in mind.

[mysty0]

@vlunney You forget a few details.., Pilates wife had begged him not to crucify Jesus after she had dream. Pilate was deeply troubled in the last few days before.., the whole act of presenting Barabbas to be freed or Jesus to be freed was Pilate discerning the moral intention of the Jews to which he washed his hands of after the fact in front of everyone. You may be confusing Nero with Pilate.., Nero was a true sadist.

[politicaltourist]

@vlunney Your "FACTS" are wrong! Jews consisted of 25%-35% of all Roman citizens and 10%-25% of all Romans were Jews so the Romans cared very much about Jewish sensibilities. Fast forward 100 years to the Bar Kokhba revolt and you will understand why. Not to mention North Africa where a majority of the local population was Jewish as late as the 4th century AD and the last thing on Rome's mind was to give them an excuse for rebellion due to ill treatment in Judea

[EdM021]

@vlunney Exactly, and Josephus said he tried to do away with Jewish Law and Philo said he was corrupt, cruel and possessed of endless savage ferocity. Someone committing high treason like Jesus was said to have committed (let himself be proclaimed King by the masses and interfered with the functioning of a legally established religion) according to the NT would have been crucified naked on top of a seat which was really an impaling stake which the crucified "rode".

[EdM021]

@vlunney Correct (well, almost). It was against Roman Law to release the bodies of those guilty of crimen maiestas like Jesus. In Judea, they would bury those who died on the cross before sunset themselves lest the Jews riot or the Chief Priests send an embassy with a complaint to Tiberius. Elsewhere, the crucified would go to rot.

[ApologistJames]

2:29 - also note Josephus' reference to the tomb-burial as simply "buried" which implies that it was a term commonly implying TOMB burial, hence more reason to believe that when Paul said Jesus was BURIED in 1 Corinthians 15, he was indeed implying the tomb.

[ZeUndertaker15]

look at you christians, look for the truth, start think for yourself, ask yourself a question, why would the creator of everything want a son?? why would he let his son die?? God created everything and hes rich ( free of needs) if u say Jesus is God then why would he die start thinking logically and

say

He is Allah(GOD), the One and Only! Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him

[nunfonseca]

Learn basic Christian doctrine before you start rambling about it. You know nothing about the Trinity, as far as I can tell. Also you ask a pathetic question: why would God have a Son? - as if God did anything out of necessity.

[ApologistJames]

Let me ask you:

If Jesus wasnt really crucified as Islam claims, wouldn't that make Allah a deceiver since He didnt send Jesus back to the disciples when they hallucinated his resurrection to inform them that, not only were they hallucinating, but that he wasnt crucified to begin with (hence they were justified in thinking he died for their sins because he literally appeared to have been crucified according to the Koran).

[curiniul]

Which would be more shameful, buried in someone else's tomb or being eaten by dogs?

[jcr4runner]

Psalm 22 prophecies Jesus being "surrounded by dogs" and some have said this is the Roman soldiers (Gentiles are referred to a s "dogs") but come to think of it, this could refer to the crucifixion since the wild dogs would gather around.

The issue here is that Crossan rejects the account simply to get his sensationalist message across.

Josephus records that the Jews would take the bodies down before the Sabbath.

Crossan has no corroboration; it is just what he thinks MIGHT have happened.

[99minerkc]

Be eaten by dogs for sure!

[jcr4runner]

But where is the documentation for this? Every biblical account has Jesus being buried, including those from later Christian, Jewish and pagan source.

[Tomkins10]

Josephus was not a fraud. It is believed by most scholars that a paragraph about Christ in his account "antiquities of the Jews", was added to sometime in the fourth century by those in authority, wanting to promote christianity.

[jcr4runner]

Twenty five percent of Josephus scholars surveyed think the longer passage is a total interpolation ... not most.

Virtually all Josephus scholars state that Josephus contained Jesus material.

[Redfingers]

Do we have the original manuscripts of Josephus' work and the relevant passage?

What is the earliest document in which we have reference to Josephus?

[jcr4runner]

The early references to Josephus are almost contemporaneous -- Suetonius, Tacitus and Melitus -- early second century.

The first Christian references are by Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus and Lactanius in the 2nd century.

Then: Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen at the beginning of the 3rd century.

Origen is the first to cite the shorter TF.

Eusebius is the first to cite the longer TF in the 4th century.

Then is becomes explosive.

[poisonapple16]

...wasn't Josephus proven a fraud?

[jcr4runner]

No, far from it. Josephus is a historian of the highest rank.

See our YouTube video: "Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?"

[jonathonbaur123]

no I don't think it was eaten by dogs he has risen if it disappeared he was alive in his body and risen to heaven not to get wrong people have opinions but its just my guess my opinion I might be wrong

[BreakinGuitarz33]

This guy makes some pretty good points, but to change an atheist's opinion, you cant take a quote out of the bible to provide proof of your statement..Good facts about Josephus's writing though

[loepower]

Crossan is an idiot. He Takes a purely scientific approach to something that's not scientific- History. History doesn't happen in some type of lock and step procedure, he acts as if the usual custom is always followed and never deviated from as if humans in ancient societies were robots who never changed course. Josephus proves the biblical account was not only accurate but absolutely possible and probable.the gospels were historical accounts but dismisses them because of a unbelievers bias.

[BrandonIngalsbe]

so was jesus burried or no?

[jcr4runner]

According to Josephus, crucified bodies were often taken down off the cross by Jews to be buried -- especially prior to feast days and Sabbaths so their presence would not defile a holy day.

Crossan's thesis that crucified bodies were ALWAYS left to rot is unfounded.

[dphuntsman]

First off, deal with the right time period. Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus may have been crucified. And Pilate was an unusually brutal procurator; so brutal, in fact, that he was removed by the Governor in Syria and sent to Rome for probable execution. Decades before Josephus wrote anything, one needs to have evidence of Pilate suddenly being that gracious. Of the many thousands crucified outside Jersul.'s walls over a few decades, only one body has ever been found buried - every.

[jcr4runner]

There are NO extant histories written during the time when Jesus was alive.

For the entire first century (besides the New Testament) there are only four extant historians who wrote anything about of the history of the Roman Empire -- and most of their work is lost: Tacitus, Suetonius, Livy and Josephus.

That's it. So what is your point?

We have evidence that crucified bodies were buried by the Jews, both testimonial and archaeological.

[shizelean]

Joseph of Arimathea was trying to humiliate Jesus???? Dude, you should read the Bible before you start talking.

[jcr4runner]

Shiz, you should LISTEN before you start talking.

J.P. Holding is saying that the Roman authorities were trying to humiliate Jesus -- not Joseph.

[shizelean]

jc- i must not be getting something. i really would like to understand his point. The Bible clearly describes JosephofA (not the Romans)burrying Jesus:

Matthew: As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.

[jcr4runner]

First, I don't think this has legs based on scriptural information alone, but it's a plausible idea.

This scholar thinks that the Romans would often bury Jews in a tomb of a family member other than their own because that would be een more humiliating than not being buried at all according to the cultural beliefs at that time.

He's NOT suggesting that it was Joseph's doing, since Joseph was most likely a disciple and had no reason to humiliate Jesus. He wanted only to bury him.

[jcr4runner]

This theory plausible only because scripture says that "Pilate ordered it." The scenario would then be that Josephus was trying to help, but Pilate decided to add insult to injury by ordering that Jesus be buried in another tomb.

I agree that this goes way beyond the scriptural account. It is plausible conjecture at best. But it refutes the idea that the Romans NEVER let crucified bodies be buried. They often did according to Flavius Josephus and other sources.

[shizelean]

Oh. It seems like a strange stretch to me. There's either the Biblical (JofA's honorable burial) view, or there's an historian's conjecture based on probability, which is what J.D. Crossan is doing--and he's NOT saying and never has said Jesus was DEFINATELY eaten by dogs, but rather speculating on likely fate of remains based on the fact that of 10s of thousands of crucifictions, we've only found remains of ONE crucifiction victim in all of history/archeology.

[shizelean]

It seems odd to me to BOTH doubt the Biblical record AND speculate on an undoccumented Roman way of humiliating Jesus. I don't see what about a non-family tomb theory refutes a dumped-on-the-ground theory. It rather just serves as another possible fate, not another likely fate.

[jcr4runner]

It's a hypothesis based on extrabiblical research. It's not a historcial account.

And you are right Crossan does the same thing. The only reason I use this is to show that Crossan's methods can be used to easily refute him.

The only place I disagree with you is that there is no CONTRADICTION between the Bible and this hypothesis.

If Pilate wished to further humilate Jesus, as Crossan maintains, then a non-traditional burial may have suited his desire.

[shizelean]

The contradiction I see is between the Bible's proactive and explicit portrayal of an honorable Joseph of Aramethea burial (wrapped in spices and in accordance with Jewish custom and with Pilate's consent according to John), and J.P.H.'s portrayal of a Roman burial intent on further humiliation.

[123dsj123]

Today, April 13, 2009, CNN is reporting that an 8 years old child is asking for a divorce from her 47 years old Muslim husband; but a Muslim judge in Saudi Arabia is refusing to grant the divorce decree. Now, how is the so-called evil Western Media to be blamed for this story? Is this not what the Quran deems as holy—a child performing her marital duties night after night for her husband, which is a holy act in Islam that was set forth by 50 plus years old Muhammad and 6 years old Ayesha?

[orlando098]

@shizelean

Yes, this guy's thesis that Jesus being buried by rich Jesus follower Joseph of Arimathea in his own rock tomb was somehow meant to be a humiliation, seems to have even less factual basis to it than Crossan's claim he was eaten by dogs. By the way I never quite got the dogs thing - is he imagining them leaping up and taking bites, or what? As I understand it some other scholars of a liberal persuasion suggest Jesus was probably simply buried in some unmarked grave.

[jcr4runner]

Google this if you want to see McCane's hypothesis in more detail:

Roll Back the Stone: Death and Burial in the World of Jesus

By Byron R. McCane

Trinity Press International (2003)

[jcr4runner]

BTW: Byron McCane is a liberal like Crossan so I don't agree with his basic presuppositions. But McCane is used here to show that a liberal like Crossan can easily be refuted by another liberal.

[dphuntsman]

What does 'liberal like Crossan' mean? Those words are thrown about by 'believers', often against real historians whose analysis contradicts their faith. (The definition of faith being, belief without evidence).

As Stephen Colbert said, standing two feet from George Bush: "People say the facts have proven us wrong about going into Iraq. But every person in this room knows the facts have a known liberal bias....."

[jcr4runner]

"Liberal theology" is a real term that has been around since the 1800s.

It is not a derogatory term. It has nothing to do with politics, but only theology. A conservative Republican might be a liberal Christian.

Essentially anyone who denies the resurrection, the miracles of the bible and the inerrancy of scripture in favor of a "historical critical" approach is a liberal.

[dphuntsman]

So when real historians find out which part of 'the bible' simply aren't true somehow those are 'liberals'? I thought those were historians.

When blind religious faith is found to be wrong by investigation, it's the faith that must change - or, be abandoned. I don't believe Apollo pulls the sun across the sky; ancient greek beliefs like that were wrong. If it is found that there was no Christ, or Jesus didn't rise.....then the religion is wrong; not the historians 'liberal'.

[jcr4runner]

Liberal here refers to "liberal theology" not to history.

[dphuntsman]

And that's still where the problem is: Christianity, not Islam, like Judaism, is a historical religion; many religions aren't.. Christianity asserts that real people existed who said such and such things, at such and such times, and such and such miracles etc really did occur. If they didn't really occur - eg, like Zeus, and Apollo, and Shiva, etc. - they are mythologies, than the religion - like those religions - are simply false. Whether Jesus died and rose requires a historical answer.

[firebirdhome]

Uh, HELLOOOOO doubters of crucified people not receiving burial. First that 'expert' at the beginning is a real whack! I've seen MANY documentaries with him in it, he's nuts. Anyway the ONLY physical proof of a crucifixion was found in a TOMB containing a heel bone with the bent nail stuck in it! (because it hit a knot in the wood) Physical proof crucified people were buried on occassion!! Disproves this quack, so dismiss him.

[Kabane52]

I used the Josephus quote to refute an atheist, and he responded brilliantly:

The bible is full of bs and everyone knows that.

I suppose some people are beyond help.

[jcr4runner]

Did you see the video URL I sent you?

The video that says: "Justin Martyr never quoted the Gospels."

I posted six quotes of Justin's where he quotes the Gospels. The Jesus Mythist responded by deleting them.

Then I looked for the video again and got:

"This video has been removed by the user."

Keep debating. Sometimes we win just by pointing out where the Jesus Mythists are categorically wrong.

[jcr4runner]

I find I ironic that biblical archaeologists use this artifact to corroborate the biblical account of the crucifixion. Somehow you twist it to say the opposite.

I can barely follow your logic.

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying that this is not proof that Jesus could have been buried after His crucifixion because "it is not enough proof."

Am I right in that assessment of your argument?

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

That's exactly what I am saying. If you had EVERY Jew that was crucified was also buried, there should be more tombs containing bodies with evidence of crucifixion since you also say that there were thousands of crucified Jews. It was only 2000 years ago.

It's funny to me that one is enough evidence for this, but the discovery of three Tiktaalik fossils 365,000,000 years old would probably not be enough evidence of a transitional species, proving evolution for you.

Am I right?

[jcr4runner]

The way I understand the passage by Josephus (see: about this video) is that the Jews would take down SOME bodies prior to the Sabbath. Others were discarded.

According to the Gospel account, Joseph of Arimathea had to get permission from Pilate. Since he was a council member, he was able to do it.

The ONE man whose crucified bone was found in Jerusalem proves it happened. Josephus give an eyewitness account. And the Gospel accounts are in harmony with what we know used to happen sometimes.

[jcr4runner]

Isn't the Tiktaalik the transitional from between the (not so extinct) Coelacanth and the Clarias batrachus (walking catfish) of Florida?

But let's not go there. This is a Josephus' crucifixion account video for crying out loud!

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

Yeah, the Florida walking catfish that walked it's way to the Canadian Artic! The oversimplification of Tiktaalik's anatomical structure of it's ARM (not fin used to walk) makes it crystal clear that there is no REAL scientific argument against it supporting evolution. The Bible is supposed to be inerrant in matters of justice, history, and science. All that is left for you to hang on to is history that can be easily distorted. As far as science go I think it's wise for you to "not go there".

[jcr4runner]

That they said that about the coelacanth, the archaeopteryx, "Homo erectus" and so on.

This was a fact.

Then Asian fisherman caught a few coelacanths. Bird fossils older than the archaeopteryx were found. Two versions of Homo erectus were discovered to be hoaxes -- others were proven to be either apes or humans.

Some transitional forms are not only missing but unexplainable -- between scales and feathers, cold blooded and warm blooded.

These "transitions" don't exist and can't exist.

[Glorthac]

This is going into my research.

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

Are you kidding me? Holding believes that being buried in the tomb of a non-family member is MORE humiliating then allowing your body to be eaten by scavenger animals. If that is the case, was Joseph of Arimathea trying to humiliate Jesus even more by taking his body from the cross? Furthermore, if the Roman authorities were concerned enough to place guards at the tomb so no resurrection could be staged, wouldn't they have been more inclined to leave him in plain view on the cross?

[RolfLarsson]

That's not the point. The point is that these people are just trying to come up with well-it-COULD'VE-happened's to trick people into thinking that it's somehow more likely for everything in the New Testament to be true, than for it to be false.

[jcr4runner]

No, the point is to demonstrate that Josephus corroborates the historical account of Jesus being taken down off the cross before the Sabbath.

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

JP also attempts to make burial sound more probable with his "more humiliating" theory. However, weighing Josephus's account of Jewish burial of the crucified (if not an interpolation) against archeological evidence of such practice still leaves us skeptics on the side of probability. In 1968 Vassilios Tzaferis of the Israel Antiquities Authority excavated a man named Yehochanan, in Givat Hamivtar, who had a nail and hard olive wood attached to his ankle. No other crucified body EVER found!

[jcr4runner]

You are saying crucifixion wasn't as common as Josephus suggest. I don't get your point?

A body taken off a cross of prepared for burial wouldn't have a piece of wood and a nail attached to it. This is likely a carelessly discarded body.

But I don't see how this is an argument against the biblical account.

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

On the contrary, it was a common, but the mention burial of all the Jewish crucified is highly unlikely, given the archeological evidence or lack of.

In fact, the body was found in an ossuary, in a rock-hewn family tomb, within some burial caves northeast of Jerusalem (not carelessly discarded).

My point is that if so many crucified Jews WERE buried where are their bodies? In 1968 ONE was found. Nothing before or since!

[jcr4runner]

How would you know if a body was crucified from just looking at the bones?

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

Well, unless all Jews that were crucified and buried were tied to the wooden structure used, one would expect to find (as they did with Yehochanan) the hole or fracture caused by a nail going through the ankles, wrists, or hands. They nailed Jesus to the cross. Surely more than one body would have been found. In any event, its pretty safe to assume that the Roman authorities didn't have any special affection for the Jews to allow them to avoid the final humiliation inflicted by crucifixion.

[jcr4runner]

You are actually arguing that one is not enough?

We have Josephus' account that the Jews used to take down bodies prior to the Sabbath. We have the four Gospels saying exactly the same thing.

"A small piece of wood had been placed between his heel and the head of the nail, to prevent him from tearing his leg off while hanging on the stake or cross. 'His arms had been tied, not nailed...' -- a common technique of the Roman Army at the time."

Many crucified bodies would escape detection then.

[GodIsGreat4Ever]

Are you seriously saying that placing a piece of wood between the head of the nail and the heel (like a washer between the head of a screw and the material it is fastening) would miraculously prevent the nail, that would continue through the bone and into the wood at the other side, from creating a hole or fracture in that bone?

Orthopedic surgeons should be made aware of this technique!