Truth About The Crucifixion — Page 240
of modem theological and historical authorities) there are many probable reasons for assuming that most of the facts presented in the Gospels concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus are essentially reliable. He gains support from the works of Bousset, Harnack and Fries. Toll is not blind to the contradictions between the Gospels, but he regards these rather as evidence, if only indirect, of the authenticity of the accounts. It is clear, he says, that at least there is no conspiracy in the presentation. And he continues: To prove beyond doubt the correctness of the given facts is naturally impossible in most cases, and any conclusions based upon them will therefore always be uncertain. But when there is nothing to contradict a related fact, then arguments of probability have to prevail. The accounts are simple and ingenuous and show no signs at all of being "improved. " And clearly there was no need to invent incidents. The ones at hand were sufficiently full of significance to form a basis for the faith of the disciples - which for the world of that time was highly explicable, but which now seems fantastic. Just as we can well understand now bow the first Christians could draw their conclusions from the related events, so do we at present do nothing more than to make a different interpretation, and draw other conclusions from the same premises. Toll then makes a reconstruction of the violence to which Jesus was subjected, to his scourge and crucifixion, supported by available information on the procedures used by the Romans in these forms of punishment, and on the nature of the cross, etc. He claims that the wounds and other injuries inflicted on the victims would not necessarily cause death. According to Eusebius, who had occasion to make observations on such violence during Diocletian persecutions, it was usual in crucifixion for death not to occur until several days later, resulting from exhaustion, hunger, 232