Readers Reply

008

New Insight

The article by Professor Richardson, “Amos’s Four Visions—Of Judgment and Hope,” BR 05:02, gave me a new insight into the book and the prophet.

Saved from Error

Frederick T. Zugibe’s article, “Two Questions About Crucifixion,” BR 05:02, has kept me from perpetuating an error in a leaflet I am preparing.

In reviewing a draft of the leaflet, a noted editor insisted that the main cause of death of a crucified person would have been self-suffocation. Zugibe puts this notion to rest, and reconfirms my own feelings that it was not likely to have happened that way.

My text is being revised to reflect Zugibe’s findings and the article will be footnoted.

Has Zugibe Proved His Case?

Does Frederick T. Zugibe answer the “Two Questions About Crucifixion?” BR 05:02, I think not! First, his volunteers stayed on their crosses from five to 45 minutes, while Jesus, whose death was recorded as being rapid (see Mark 15:45), remained on his cross in his state of shock for about three hours (see Matthew 27:45–50; Mark 15:33–37; Luke 23:44–46). I have also seen references to the historian Josephus recording that crucified victims remained alive for several days. While Jesus’ death may have been hurried by his condition, Zugibe does not establish that it was not ultimately brought about by asphyxiation.

As to nails in the hand, it is probable that the soldiers who carried out crucifixions were untrained and placed the nails any place that would hold, without caring about precise location or even if they broke any bones doing it.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the work of Zugibe and others like him.

Authors, Grow Up

Dr. Zugibe may be correct in his contentions, but why can’t men of science such as Dr. Zugibe (and many others) simply refute the theories and postulations of others and graciously let it go at that? What, in the name of Yahweh, is the necessity for the waspish use of such terms as “ridiculous” and “absolute nonsense”? Is this scientific discussion or is it merely petulant putdown?

The sole connection between some of your contributors and the Bible seems to consist of a belief that they are God. Come on, fellows … grow up!

Freakish and of No Validity

The “experiment” of having men of this age allowing themselves to be hung from a cross [Frederick T. Zugibe, “Two Questions About Crucifixion,” BR 05:02], as Christ was not hung, is only of freakish interest and is of no validity.

Christ was not in a superficial physical position, but had been tortured, beaten and forced to carry the cross and given no rest or sufficient water or liquids, and no food. On receiving the horror of the hand-and feet-piercing and the loss of body fluids through blood, sweat, involuntary urination and defecation and the trauma of all the actual and psychological injuries, the real Christ would have had breathing difficulties your glib experimenters could not have tolerated.

Jesus’ Crucifixion Was Different

This whole “What did Jesus die from?” argument is ridiculous. Just please read the Bible. It says in Luke that Jesus’ spirit willingly exited his body. He had endured, not so much the physical, as the spiritual agony of paying for the sins of others.

The idea that we can or must understand the medical particulars of the crucifixion is foolish. The overall emphasis of 009the biblical account is that Jesus’ crucifixion was different.

Every mortal surrenders spirit/soul to God upon dissolution of the body. However, Jesus’ body “dissolved” after He exited his body.

Benjamin as “Son of the Right”

Regarding the question in Readers Reply, BR 05:02, “If Benjaminites were left-handed, why does their name mean ‘son of the right’?”

The Benjaminites were descendants of Benjamin: This name was given to him by his father, Jacob, not because he had any idea of Benjamin’s left- or right-handedness, but because it denoted one of two things:

1. Where he was born. Since the name also means “son of the south” (as Baruch Halpern notes in his reply to Reader Ickes’ letter), it could have been a distinction from the other sons born in the north.

2. “Son of the right-hand” also means “favored son,” symbolizing a favored position to Jacob, the son of Jacob’s right hand, a favored son to Jacob because of his love for his wife Rachel, who died in childbirth. The Bible indicates that the sons of Rachel were special—favored—over the sons of Leah. Benjamin became a favored son as he grew, especially after Joseph was in Egypt.

We happen to have a son Benjamin who turned out to be left-handed, but we picked this name because of the meaning symbolized by the right hand—a favored child—not that it means favored over another, but that it indicates a child looked upon with favor, with grace. I believe Jacob looked at his newborn son Benjamin with favor and grace despite his sorrow on the death of Rachel.

For Mathematicians Only

I do not understand what kind of “mathematical computations” in the article by Frederick T. Zugibe in your April issue (“Two Questions About Crucifixion,” BR 05:02) would indicate that in Barnet’s experiment there is a pull on each hand “greatly in excess of the weight.” Surely the pull depends on the angle that the arms make with the vertical. As a matter of fact, the pull on each hand will not exceed the total weight unless the angle is greater than 60°. The “formula” in the footnote does not make sense. How can me pull on each 010hand (a force) be equal to twice the cosine of an angle (a number)? If I understand the configuration correctly, the pull on each hand equals one-half of the total weight divided by the cosine of the angle that the arms make with the vertical, as any high school student can easily ascertain. For example, if the arms are suspended vertically then obviously the pull on each hand is equal to one-half of the total weight, not to 2 cos 0 = 2 (!?) as the “formula” indicates.

Frederick T. Zugibe replies:

Professor Minc is correct that the “formula” in the footnote does not make sense. Unfortunately, the end of the sentence in the footnote was left out, perhaps during editing, and should have read “Using the formula—the pull on each hand is equal to twice the cosine of the angle that the arms make with the vertical divided into the weight of the body.” The pull on the arms of a person suspended on the cross can be afforded by determining the force or tension (P) as a function of the angle the arms make with the vertical. In the diagram, P represents the pull or tension on the arm, W is the weight of the body, X is equilibrium and 0 is the angle the arms make with the vertical.

The formula for calculating the pull on each hand is

If an individual weighs 175 pounds and is suspended at an angle of 65° the calculation would be

Our experiments demonstrated that the angle of suspension varies in individuals from 60° to 70°. By plugging in the same formula for these angles, a pull of 175 and 256 lbs., respectively, would result. Note that at 60 the pull is equal to the weight of the body. It is obvious that when the arms are positioned directly overhead, each hand would bear one-half of the weight. Mathematically, the angle with the upright would be zero and the cosine of zero is 1.0. Therefore,

See the following chart for other angles.

For those who are not mathematically inclined, check for yourself by suspending a weight on two heavy-duty rubber bands placed side-to-side and measure the length of the rubber bands. Next put the entire Weight on one rubber band and measure the length. Note that the length of the one rubber band is longer than either of the two above as one would expect. Now, suspend the weight on the two rubber bands at an angle of 65 and measure the length of each. You will find that each rubber band stretches to a length longer than where the entire weight is suspended on one rubber band.