You are here

“The Crucified Man from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal,” Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 35, No. 1 (1985), pp. 22–27.

Zias and Sekeles also note a number of other errors in Haas’s report:

1. The victim’s legs were not broken as a final coup de grâce. The break so identified by Haas was postmortem.

2. The victim did not have a cleft palate. The upper right canine was not missing, despite Haas’s report to the contrary.

3. The wood from which the plaque under the nail head was made was olive wood, not acacia or pistacia, as Hans suggested.

4. The wood fragments attached to the end of the nail were too minute to be analyzed. Haas suggested the vertical shaft of the cross was olive wood. This is possible, but unlikely.

Join the BAS Library!

Already a library member? Log in here.

Institution user? Log in with your IP address.