Tradition says that Jesus was crucified by driving nails into his hands and feet. Jesus’ legs weren’t broken, as were the legs of his unfortunate companions, probably because of the long-standing belief that resurrection was only possible for someone whose bones had not been broken. Jesus was not left on the cross, but taken down after a few hours.
To consider the evidence, we have to examine a number of issues: (1) Did the normal mode of crucifixion involve nailing hands and feet? (2) Is it possible to secure someone to a cross by driving nails through their hands? (3) If not through their hands, through their wrists or forearms? (4) And how likely is it that Jesus was treated in this way?
Overview of Crucifixion
According to Cicero (106-43 B.C.), crucifixion was “the worst and cruelest” form of torture (Contra Verres, II, 5-14). It was intended to inflict pain as well as serve as a deterrent to others, and hence was usually carried out in a public place. The victim was attached to two pieces of wood (usually shaped in a T, called a tau or Saint Anthony’s cross), by nails or ropes [], and left to hang. Death was by suffocation, which could be delayed by pressing one’s feet against a titled ledge (sedula in Latin, pegma in Greek) midway down the post, if available. If the victim survived too long, their legs were broken, preventing them from pressing their feet for support, and rushing on the eventual suffocation. However, this was rarely done since the idea was to extend the punishment as long as possible, not only for the sake of the pain, for also the public deterrent. Typically, victims were left on the cross as food for wild beasts and birds of prey (Hengel, 1977), so the cross was just high enough off the ground to let animals feed; and typically “the agony of the crucified never ended in less than two days (Craveri, 1967, p. 418).”
Did the normal mode of crucifixion involve nailing through the hands and feet?
To determine the “normal mode” we can look at three sources of information: anthropological, graphic, and textual. Anthropological is obviously the most powerful form, for no matter what pictures we have and no matter what the texts tell us, nothing is as persuasive as a good corpse.
Anthropological: We have only one corpse from this era who shows the effects of crucifixion. He was 1 of 35 individuals discovered in 1968 at Giv’at ha Mivtar, in northeastern Jerusalem. The adult male had been 5’5” tall. His arms had been hung to the cross, not nailed, and his feet had been crossed and nailed to a small olive wood plaque set behind his heel. His legs had not been broken. So, the anthropological evidence suggests tying the hands but nailing the feet.
Graphic: The earliest artifacts show people being hung from the cross, not nailed. Sometimes their feet were nailed, sometimes not. A brown jasper gem, dated from 200 A.D., shows the victim hung by his wrists. Neither his hands nor his feet were nailed. An equally ancient artifact, scribbled on the walls of the Imperial Palace in Palatine Hill in Rome between 193 and 235 A.D., shows a crucified figure also hung, not nailed (Morton, 1977). A ring seal amulet dating from the Third Century depicting Dionysus crucified also omits any signs of being nailed (Freke & Gandy, 1999). So graphic evidence from the earliest artifacts supports the anthropological evidence.
Textual: There is very little textual evidence for the method of affixing people to crosses. Most accounts simply state that people were crucified without mentioning exactly how, although Josephus in the Jewish Wars (V) specifically says that they were nailed. However, he was writing about events in 70 C.E., and the situation involved the mass execution of thousands of Jews. Moreover, the avowed goal of crucifixion was to provide an extended death, not only as a punishment but also for the purposes of demonstrating to the public. From that perspective, a long slow death was preferred, and this suggests tying, not nailing, since nailing a person to the cross could bring on sudden death from severing an artery.
Look at this description from the martyrdom of Andrew as described in this 2nd Century text:
"...Then he sent him [Andrew] off to be crucified and commanded the executioners not to impale him with nails but to stretch him out tied up with ropes [and] to leave his knees uncut, supposing that by doing so he would punish Andrew more severely... (Acts of Andrew, 51.1)."
In summary, while textual evidence suggests that nails were used (at least with regard to mass executions), based on the only corpse ever found and all the earliest graphic evidence, it appears that, in general, individuals were crucified by being tied, not nailed to the cross. Surely some people were nailed, and especially in the case of mass crucifixions or when a rapid death was desirable, but it’s impossible to know what proportion were nailed vs. what proportion were tied. It seems most likely that individuals were tied, not only because this is supported by the anthropological and graphic evidence, but also because it holds true to one of the main goals of crucifixion – a long and painful death.
Is it Possible to Secure Someone to a Cross by Driving Nails Through their Hands?
While it was not uncommon for someone to be nailed to the cross, nailing through the hands was rarely done because the composition of the hands was not sufficient to support a person’s body weight. Thus, nailing through the hands would result in a person’s hands splitting and the person would fall to the ground.
If not through their hands, through their wrists or forearms?
If nailed, a person was nailed between the bones of the forearm or the wrist. The executioner had to be careful not to sever an artery, but when done successfully, a person could be suspended in this manner, assuming there was support from a sedula. Despite this being the only way to nail someone to a cross, most graphic depictions of Jesus’ death still show the nails being driven through his hands.
How Likely is it that Jesus Would be Nailed to the Cross?
It seems that the normal way to fix Jesus to the cross would have been to tie him, not nail him. Yet the traditional view is that he was nailed. Where did this come from? Neither the Gospels of Mark nor Matthew nor Luke mention anything about Jesus being nailed to the cross. John’s description of the crucifixion also omits any reference to being nailed to the cross, but the Gospel of John does say that Jesus “…showed them his hands and his side (20:20).” It is only when Thomas says: “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 (20:25).” Later (20:27) Jesus replies - "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Thus, only from John 20:20-27 comes the tradition.
What can we infer from this? Why is the issue of Jesus being nailed to the cross absent from the first three gospels, and only present in the Gospel of John? And why does the Gospel of John claim that Jesus is nailed through the hands, when we know this is not physically possible, and if he were nailed at all, it would be through the wrists?
One possibility for the fact that only the Gospel of John mentions that Jesus was nailed is that by the time the Gospel of John was written (more than 100 years after Jesus’ death), critics of the Jesus story [] had pointed out that if Jesus had only been on the cross for a few hours, then it was unlikely that he would have died. For example, the two Zealots crucified alongside him were still alive and their legs had to be broken to hasten their death, and it was well known that death by crucifixion could take days (see Josephus). By the time the Gospel of John was written in the Second Century, there were rumors that Jesus had not died on the cross, and so the addition of the nails and the spear may be an apologist strategy to explain why he died so suddenly. We see a similar apologist strategy in the Gospel of Matthew (28:12-15) which sought to answer the criticisms of the empty tomb theory by positing a “plausible” alternate theory []. In fact, some scholars maintain that “doubting Thomas” is specifically inserted into the Gospel of John to deal with the broader issues of doubt about the Gospel’s authenticity throughout the Roman world. Thomas, for example, is not a doubter in any of the earlier gospels, and certainly not a doubter in his own gospel. Yet in the Gospel of John, Thomas’s skepticism is mentioned more than once (e.g., 14:5; 20:27).
A second possibility for the story’s inclusion is the OT prophesy about a pierced Messiah []. Large parts of the Gospels were written not because they reported historical fact, but because they referred back to OT prophecies (Ehrman, 2006). Indeed, Professor Gerd Ludemann’s (2001) extensive analysis of the New Testament has this to say about John 20:27 – “…the narrative is a creation of the evangelist, who in it makes concrete the motif of doubt also known from other resurrection stories. The historical value is nil…(p. 582).”
Finally, it must be noted that John 20:27 invites Thomas to put his finger in Jesus’ hands and side. Can Jesus be touched? The Gospel of John contradicts itself in 20:17 when it has Jesus say to Mary, earlier that day – “…Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” How then can he now be asking Thomas to touch him?
Thus, there are good reasons why the story may not be historically accurate and probably an invention of the writers of the Gospel of John or taken from the oral stories told by others that the writers of John put down.
An additional reason to believe the story may not be historically accurate is the simple fact that nailing through the hands was not physically possible. To counter this claim, some historians have argued that the Greek word used for hand(s) (xeipa, xeipac) could also apply to a person’s wrists (xepiou), so that when the Gospel of John claims that Jesus showed Thomas his “hands” (20:27) it really meant “wrists”. These apologists point to one verse in Acts (12:7) in which chains fall from Peter’s wrists, and indeed, in some translations of Acts, xepiou is translated as hands (e.g., King James, American Standard). However, in other versions it is translated as wrists (e.g., New Revised Standard, New International), so the analogy doesn’t necessarily apply. In any event, Acts and the Gospel of John were written at different times by different people who used different forms of Greek, so it’s not valid to compare the wording in one book as a proof of the meaning in another book.
More importantly, in Greek there are separate words for wrists and hands (just as there are in English), so one has to assume that when the Gospel of John refers to hands they are talking about hands and not wrists. For example, when the Gospel of John refers to fingers (20:25, 20:27) or being slapped with hands (19:3) different words were used, so had the Gospel writers intended to use the word for wrists, surely they would have used it.
Against the single testimony of the Gospel of John, which requires us to translate the word “hands” as “wrists”, we have numerous descriptions of the death of Jesus which specifically refer to him being hung, not nailed. Here are some examples…
· “The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus whom you had killed by hanging…” (Acts 5:30. See also Acts 10:39 and 13:29).
· “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu.” (Sanhedrin 43a)
· "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' (Galatians 3:13).”
· “He himself carried up our sins in his body to the tree…” (1 Peter 2:24)
· “One hanged was I, and yet not hanged (Acts of John, 101).”
In summary – while textual evidence suggests that being nailed to the cross was common for mass executions, the only surviving corpse of a crucified person was tied, not nailed to the cross. Moreover, all early graphic representations of crucifixion show individuals being tied, not nailed. What evidence is there, then, that Jesus was nailed? Only the report in the Gospel of John. No other gospel makes this claim. Moreover, the claim is presented in a contradictory position, asking a disciple to touch his hands while earlier telling a disciple that he could not be touched until he had ascended. And the claim in the Gospel of John is that Jesus was nailed through his hands, a possibility that almost all scholars dismiss. Moreover, there were good reasons for the writers of the Gospel of John to invent this story, and many leading scholars believe it has no historical basis.
When you look at the evidence as a whole, it seems far more likely that Jesus was tied to the cross, not nailed.
10/03/2006
“And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.”
|
