. This doesn't explain circumcision, however, which seems to be a glaring exception.

My understanding is that this is an even older religious practice of the royal houses of Egypt, adopted by the Hebrews as they developed their own belief system under Moses, who himself (if he existed) would have been an Egyptian, and not a Hebrew. Royal Egyptian males were differentiated from foreign and lower "beasts" by having their sheathes cut away.

I've also heard this excuse before, and it makes no sense. If the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore, then why the hell is it still there? Some argue that it provides context for the New Testament, but then why does it still contain all these cruel and ridiculously complicated laws that have supposedly been "canceled out?" If we're just concerned with a historical context, then why weren't they EDITED out? The historical part could easily have been written without all the awful details and still be comprehensible. A lot MORE comprehensible, in fact.

Also, why was there a change in the first place? An infallible God would not say, "Whoops, forget all that stuff I said before; THIS is the REAL religion!"

Of course, apologists only insist that "the bad stuff" has been "canceled out," and their definition of "the bad stuff" is apparently "whatever is being criticized."

I didn't know about the ankles rather than the feet, but it seems to make sense for a similar reason to the wrist-hand thing physiologically

I don't have any textual support for this, but its how I've always seen it portrayed (as a lapsed catholic, I've been exposed to my share of crucifixes).

Apparently its not entirely clear what the historical preferences were. Wikipedia has a subsection of an article entitled nail placement in crucifixion which has a rundown of the possibilities.

I love how these instructions are so precise and well-defined.

I don't know how many times I read the crucifixion story, even knew that the nails were driven through Jesus' wrists rather than his hands (I didn't know about the ankles rather than the feet, but it seems to make sense for a similar reason to the wrist-hand thing physiologically), and never caught the contradiction with the "not one of his bones was broken" crap. That's why I come to sites like this, rather than Christian ones, to learn about the Bible. I also like reading Jewish commentaries on the OT and love when they point out how Christians usually misread and distort the OT.

...the author goes to some pains to explain why none of his bones were broken on the cross (paralleling the Paschal lamb).

I'd be interested to know how one can drive a nail through both of one's ankles without breaking any bones.

Also, Jesus wasn't without blemish when he was sacrificed, not when he had been scourged. So he wasn't a proper sacrifice at all.

What a fantastic observation, CailinBan! This would probably be the point where an apologist claims that the meaning has shifted, from physical perfection to spiritual perfection... but we can point out that the Gospel of John, at least, was still obsessed with Jesus' physical state, since the author goes to some pains to explain why none of his bones were broken on the cross (paralleling the Paschal lamb).