In this article it discusses how the Romans have been executing prisoners in the form of crucifixion .New evidence seems to show that the victim was not really nailed but rather tied down to and of course die to Asphyxiation.Now could Jesus had been cruficied this way? Not that the way matters but im curious if the biblical authors have used yet again some kind of overdramatic story for the reader instead of the actual event to make it sound more brutal maybe?
There have also been skeletons with nail holes in their heels. In the upper extremity, the nails may well have been between the distal radius and ulna, it would be unusual to see nail holes there.
In any case, I am sure they used whatever was at hand, and see no reason for the writers to exaggerate. At that time, it was a shameful capital punishment for criminals, so bad enough either way.
Anyway, been a while, hope you are doing well.
5 Likes
Yeah the article does classify that the heels were beign nailed.As for the hands though it seems that they were simply tied.
Would this be because of the bone structure there?Im not really sure why would be impossible ,if you can specify.
Indeed. However i think the authors exaggerated some stories particulary the numbers involved so i though that this here might be the case
what I read somewhere said that nail in the hands lacked strength to support the body, so they most likely nailed just below the wrist between the bones of the forearm, where the wrist ligaments were stronger. Since not piercing the bone, would leave little evidence. If they used spikes, I suspect they were usually removed and reused, as no doubt pretty valuable in that day.
3 Likes
From my understanding it depended on a couple of things: how severe was the crime, how many prisoners were being executed, and the price of nails.
Okay, the third one is mostly humor, but it does make the point that whereas we can just go down to a supply store and buy whatever nails we need, nails then were made laboriously by smiths and thus were not cheap. If the need was to crucify several dozen or more prisoners, the price of nails could actually be a factor.
And it may have depended on the whims of the officer in charge of the punishment detail, with one exception: sedition. Crucifixion for sedition wasn’t just a punishment of the prisoner, it was a drama played out to emphasize the power of Rome, and as such it was orchestrated to pound home the point that to Rome subjects were so much meat.
As I learned it, crucifixion for sedition could begin at the prisoner’s own house or business: the crosspiece that would be carried by the prisoner had to come from somewhere, and it the prisoner was someone with property the first point in the drama lesson consisted of pulling out the beam over the entryway to a building owned by the prisoner. Once a crossbeam had been acquired, the next lesson came via scourging, a task undertaken by professionals who faced severe punishment themselves if they messed it up: the prisoner was to suffer, but he was to be left with enough strength to carry his crossbeam, yet not to carry it all the way to the execution site; he was supposed to collapse under the weight at some point along the way so the soldiers could deliver the lesson that any subject of Rome could be put into service at any time, this by choosing some bystander to help the prisoner carry the crossbeam the rest of the way [the skill required for this is mind-boggling]. So the prisoner was tied to the crossbeam and driven along the street, following a route meant to allow as many people as possible to watch the drama unfold, and along the way someone would be conscripted to help him with the burden.
At the execution site there were two methods, and I;ve never found anything indicating whether one was to be preferred or if it was just a matter of resources – lumber also being somewhat spendy depending on location. One method was to lower the upright – that stood where people going in and out of the city could see it and be reminded of the power of life or death that Rome held – and fasten the crosspiece to it, then nail the prisoner to both crossbeam and upright, finally raising the upright to the vertical position and dropping it into the waiting hole it had come from. The other was to nail the prisoner to the upright and then hoist it and him up to the waiting position where it could be lashed in place, then nail the feet to the upright. It’s at this point that another professional was called on: if the first method was used, the nails had to be placed carefully so when the cross was dropped into its hole the flesh and bones would not give way and ruin the program; for this reason it wasn’t uncommon to leave the original ties binding the prisoner to the cross beam in place to help support the prisoner’s weight against that drop into the hole. Yet if the other method was chosen, it still needed a professional because those nails had to be placed so there would be bleeding but also be capable of supporting the prisoner’s weight – and not too much bleeding; the dying was supposed to take days.
Given that Jesus was executed for sedition, the above is how things would have happened, all to display how Rome’s displeasure at defiance could be carried out, that Rome held the power of life or death over its subjects, that rebels wouldn’t be punished alone but their families and/or business partners would also suffer, that anyone could be pressed into service at any time. That the prisoner was supposed to take days to die wasn’t just cruelty; the longer the prisoner lasted the more the lesson(s) would be kept in the view of the populace.
There was one variation that as far as I can tell was just a choice by the executioners: sometimes there was a footrest sticking out from the upright that the feet could be either nailed to, rest on while the feet were nailed to the upright, or rest on and the ankles be tied to the upright. This may have been a way of saving wood; having big Roman nails driven into roughly the same area on an upright pole would have weakened it over time, but having a footrest that could be replaced as needed would be much cheaper to replace as needed.
This all comes from literature, though I couldn’t remember sources no matter how hard I might try. Having actual physical evidence is sort of awesome in a gruesome kind of way. Having it all described vividly – more vividly than I even tried for – has sent more than one person grabbing for a container to throw up into. I can’t even begin to imagine what sort of person would want to learn the professional parts of the job or especially to take pride in getting it right, but then to us every individual is a person whereas to Rome non-citizens were little more than useful animals, and the culture one grows up in is important.
Just as a sort of footnote, there is also evidence that when wood was not abundant the crosspiece could be skipped or actual trees be used. Also one historian I read suggested that crucifixion was not a Roman invention but was learned from the empire to their east; there it supposedly began as impalement, but impalement is harder to get right – tied or nailed to a pole allowed the lesson to continue longer. I don’t know if the crosspiece was a Roman invention or not.
There is also evidence that for crimes less severe than sedition the execution crews could get creative, nailing a prisoner sideways or with the arms not symmetrically, and that out of bizarre “mercy” they might even ask the prisoner how he wanted to be nailed/tied. Along with that some evidence suggests that the soldiers made bets on all sort of things – which way the prisoner would want to be nailed up, how long it would be before he got thirsty, how long he would last, and even over his final possessions (though that would most likely not have happened at the execution site).
Something I’d love to know is if Pilate honoring local custom to allow Jesus to be verified dead and taken down early was common, and if so what other customs might have been involved in different parts of the empire. Some have claimed it is an invented detail, but Rome did go out of their way not to too badly offend conquered peoples (legionnaires being expensive to train) so as not to set off revolts.
3 Likes
There was an article a few years back that examined this and concluded that it depended on the hand in question. Apparently a hand with strong muscles could hold together with a nail properly placed through the palm, so if it was a laborer or soldier who relied on hand strength for his work the palm might have been used (I can imagine the members of an execution squad asking the victim to decide, and of course betting on which choice would be made).
That might depend on how long the victim survived. Roman nails were square and up to a half-centimeter across, and if the victim used arms to pull so he could breathe there would be rotation that – given that Roman nails weren’t polished – should cause striations.
The question of where the nails went is also one of language: in Greek “hand” included what we would call the wrist, but the Latin term just indicated what we call a hand today.
Definitely not cheap. I once knew how long it took a skilled smith to make one nail but don’t remember even a ballpark figure. In places where nails were in high demand, making them was probably taught to an apprentice or two as making them was fairly straightforward and would serve to build up muscles for hammering.
And I once read that nails have been found that show the marks of having been forged more than once, which indicates they were valouable enough to salvage if bent (though that doesn’t mean much; the relative value of nails v labor was such in the early 1970s that one of the first tasks I was given at the county fairgrounds was pulling nails from old lumber and pounding them straight enough to be re-used; there was even a special tool designed to pull nails straight out if used well.
2 Likes
As I understand it the usual practice was to break the legs to force death. The jabbing of a spear was unprecedented. Of course, broken legs would have caused more serous problems for the resurrection, but not insurmountable.
Richard
All that you described sounds very much like “A Doctor at Calvary” by Dr Pierre Barbet, who was a surgeon
Another great book on the subject that I read was “Crucifixion” by Martin Hengel.
Do these sound familiar?
2 Likes
Pretty hard to rewrite as Christs words to Thomas as recorded by the Apostle John are very specific. If John was wrong, other writers would have challenged his witness, however we find the opposite occurs. Luke documents the nailing of Christ to the cross in the book of Acts.
John 20: 24Now Thomas called Didymus,d one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.”
…
27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Luke corroborating Johns statement in the book of Acts…
2: 23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.
Paul also makes reference to it in his letter to Colossians 2:
New International Version
14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
Just a general comment here, you want to argue using English translations. Translations that no one (except for a KJVonlyist) would consider inspired/inerrant (take your pick). And you tend to stake your belief on the English words chosen for the translation.
Tell me Adam. DO you know the derivation of
“Dropping a Clanger?”
Do you also know how the phrase is used?
The usage does not reflect the true derivation.
The terms “Nailing to the Cross” has as much to do with “Nailing your colours to the mast” as it does to the precise method of Crucifixion.
It matters not how Christ was hung, only the significance of the Cross in terms of theology
Richard
What am I missing? Other translations are the same.
NRSV: 24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin[d]), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side.
NIV: But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
ESV: Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” 26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus obliges Thomas in providing exactly what he asks for.
Why would any Christian, whose leader had just died the most shameful death imaginable, at the hands of their enemies, be taking “nailed to the cross” as anything other than a crystal clear reference to the crucifixion of Jesus and nails being driven through his body?
Some of it does matter because when all the Gospel details about Jesus’ resurrection start being made up, some Christians wonder if they haven’t been duped by a legend? The whole scene is about alleviating doubt and it may be fictional but that would be very ironic to me because made up resurrection stories and appearances engender doubt instead of alleviating it.
It’s not just GJohn that has Jesus nailed. Col, Acts and Epistle Apostolorum as well. Raymond Brown, who doesn’t think Thomas actually touched Jesus, (the sight, invitation and presence of Jesus was enough): wrote:
While the evangelist was satisfied with making it clear that Jesus’ body could be touched, a later generation of Christian writing lost sight of the fineness of John’s distinction between what was good and what was bad in seeing the miraculous. Consequently there developed a tradition that Thomas or the disciples actually touched Jesus. Ignatius, Smyrnaeans iii 2, says that Jesus came to those who were with Peter and invited them to handle him and see that he was not a phan- tom: “And they immediately touched him and believed.” In the 2nd-century Epistula Apostolorum, 11-12, Peter is said to have touched the nail marks in the hands, Thomas to have touched the lance wound in the side, and Andrew to have looked at the footprints that Jesus left. Incidentally, we may observe that there is no support for this misinterpretation of John in the words of I John i 1 which speaks of “what we looked at and felt with our own hands.” There the reference is to the reality of incarnate eternal life or what the Gospel Prologue would call the Word become flesh; the passage has nothing to do with touching the risen Jesus.
At any rate, the Epistula Apostolorum has Jesus’ hands being nailed. This is the text:
Epistula Apostolorum ca 150 CE: 11 Then said the Lord unto Mary and her sisters: Let us go unto them. And he came and found us within (sitting veiled or fishing, Eth.), and called us out; but we thought that it was a phantom and believed not that it was the Lord. Then said he unto us: Come, fear ye not. I am your master, even he, O Peter, whom thou didst deny thrice; and dost thou now deny again? And we came unto him, doubting in our hearts whether it were he. Then said he unto us: Wherefore doubt ye still, and are unbelieving? I am he that spake unto you of my flesh and my death and my resurrection. But that ye may know that I am he, do thou, Peter, put thy finger into the print of the nails in mine hands, and thou also, Thomas, put thy finger into the wound of the spear in my side; but thou, Andrew, look on my feet and see whether they press the earth; for it is written in the prophet: A phantom of a devil maketh no footprint on the earth. 12 And we touched him, that we might learn of a truth whether he were risen in the flesh; and we fell on our faces (and worshipped him) confessing our sin, that we had been unbelieving. Then said our Lord and Saviour unto us: Rise up, and I will reveal unto you that which is above the heaven and in the heaven, and your rest which is in the kingdom of heaven. For my Father hath given me power (sent me, Eth.) to take you up thither, and them also that believe on me.
In the Pillar commentary Moo writes of the nailing to the cross (Col 2:14):
The imagery probably has nothing to do with any ancient means of canceling debts but arises
from the actual nature of Christ’s crucifixion. In causing him to be nailed to the cross, God (the subject of the verb) has provided for the full cancellation of the debt of obedience that we had incurred.
I am not sure why people who lived through the reality of crucifixion and actually witnessed them would be getting this type of incidental stuff wrong, even if there are legendary elaborations. I see no indication or apologetic they think Jesus was a special case. Nor is it unlikely ropes and nails could both be used.
Vinnie
3 Likes
@adamjedgar 's point is: Why would Jesus ask Thomas to look at his hands if there weren’t any scars?
That doesn’t depend on a particular translation.
Exactly. The Greek uses the plural, so it is “nails”.
1 Like
I took a dozen or so pages to be certain I hadn’t read that previously. It has some elements I was not aware of, such as that Rome likely got the practice from the Carthaginians and that the crosspiece seemingly began as a furca, an inverted V used to set the draw-shaft of a two-wheeled cart or wagon on when the wagon was not in use. I also had not encountered the phrase “place the cross on the slave”, a description that is revealing. He seems to be far more facile in Latin, whereas what I know focused on sources in Greek; and the Latin sources have information I hadn’t encountered (such as the sedile, a (very uncomfortable!) seat that protruded forward from the upright. The presence of such a seat would have made raising the full cross and dropping it into a hole much less likely to rip the wrist or palm from the nails. I was also surprised to read that the existence of the foot-rest is doubtful!
I also hadn’t been aware that the titulus, the announcement of the condemned’s name and crime, was carried in procession ahead of the condemned carrying the crosspiece. That would explain why the Jewish leadership was so incensed by Pilate’s titulus: it wasn’t just those who happened to go out and watch the crucifixion itself but the whole of the throngs along the route through the city! Another bit I hadn’t known was that the law stated that if the crucified person was surrendered to family or friends for burial then the body must be “pierced”, a reference not to the nails but to a spear or lance thrust up under the ribs and into the heart; that tells us that the spear-thrust made on Jesus was customary (I remember once reading a claim that this was invented in order to make a match with prophecy).
Hengel is familiar to me, but not that particular book. I’m reading it now and might get through it today.
2 Likes
Yes all the translations are the same, not inspired and fallible.
I said this was a general comment to Adam, not a comment on this specific topic.
It does if the original language used a word that included more than just the hand and all of the English translations failed to indicate this in their translation.
1 Like
Oh I see, forgive me for missing your point. Yeah, it would be good if translations would add a footnote.
1 Like
There were also word nailed to His cross, but those nails did not pierce His body.
I am not claiming that Christ was not nailed to the cross, but i am claiming that the text you used does not prove it. IOW you are misusing the text. It does not have to mean what you claim.
Having made that mistake the rest of your sermon is irrelevant.
Richard
Epistula Apostolorum is considered apocrypha though which means to me that its doubtfull.
That could have been the case
Regardless of what hearsay you choose to accept or reject, the Epistula Apostolorum serves as a second century historical witness to the belief that Jesus was nailed to the Cross in a time when crucifixions (very public executions) happened.
You are using the wrong word. No one can prove anything from interpretations of 2,000 year old texts. It’s about what is most probable and Jesus being nailed is mentioned unapologetically by multiple sources who live in a world familiar with (very public) crucifixions. Not to mention, reading Paul as referring to anything other than crucifixion here, whether logically possible or not, is just plain silly.
Vinnie
1 Like