Flagellation at the hands of the Romans is mentioned in three of the four canonical Gospels. Also remember that he wore a crown of thorns, which, one assumes, also caused injury. As he was being marched to the place of execution Jesus was whipped until he collapsed. Jesus also had a spear thrust in his side and nails piercing his limbs. Doubting Thomas was able, days later, to feel the piercings in his hands (!) and place his hand in the opening in the side of Jesus (small cut?). Even if the blood had stopped flowing, he would obviously have been covered with sticky blood and I suspect the floor below the cross would have been pretty messy too; blood mixed with the mud that had been trampled on by the team of Romans. I wonder why they drew lots and divided his dirty, blood stained clothes ? It all seems rather implausible. Given all the time and effort required for the treatment leading up to and including the crucifixion of the three "criminals", I can't imagined the Romans would have been too keen to get anybody down again for any reason, let alone to allow some Jewish guy to do it, who just happened to turn up a couple of hours later. The point of crucifixion, as opposed to any simple method, such as beheading, was to humiliate the criminal and terrify on-lookers for days and weeks later. Taking him down a couple of hours after putting him up would defeat the main purpose of the method and what would be the point? I know the story tellers give reasons, but are they credible? Did the Romans respect the religious notions of the defeated locals ? The Romans had their own religion and thought the Jews were pagans. The only reason Jesus was taken down ( in the story) is that he had to come back to life and walk around. He couldn't do that whilst nailed to the cross. The only person who knew that he was going to come back to life was the first author of the myth (Paul ?). I know there were several authors later, but they used the first story when composing their own. There are no contemporary sources of the events in the life of Jesus, so historians, generally do not think the contradictory gospels are reliable sources. We also know that "Mark", the first full account, was modified by Christians to include the post crucifixion events. The later gospel writers, none of whom ever met Jesus, embellished the yarn further, for example to include invented genealogies.