(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...I have always said that people were crucified by being nailed through their *wrists* instead of their hands. I had heard that in college when I was maybe 18, and I’ve been saying it ever since. And I still say it because it’s apparently true. But I never knew how we knew. Was it simply common sense that a nail/stake through the hand would rip out, and needed to go between two strong bones? Or did we have some evidence? And if it’s true that the nail/stake went through the wrist, why do virtually *all* the artistic representations show the holes in the hands?
There are entire books on crucifixion in antiquity – I don’t mean books about the significant of Jesus’ death, but on what crucifixion actually involved. When I was in grad school I read Martin Hengel’s brief study; in more recent days John Granger Cook has written a massive tome, which I’ve looked at but haven’t read cover-to-cover (it’s amazing what I haven’t read….). I’m sure it is the drop -dead authoritative account. And he probably covers the topic. But it’s never been an issue pressing enough for me to read around about.
Until today, by complete serendipity.
Let me give a *bit* of background to set the stage, to deal with a couple of points that will immediately be raised in the minds of some of you.
This post is unusually interesting. Wanna read it? Join the blog. It doesn’t cost much, every penny goes to charity, and you’ll learn so much your friends and family won’t be able to *stand* it.
I don’t know if this is accurate, but I remember reading or hearing that if the feet were also nailed, then nailing through the hands was sufficient. Hands insufficient but hands plus feet sufficient. Did Barbet try more variations than just hands or wrists alone?
In any case, I don’t think you can expect the artists to get it right. Not their area of expertise. I’ve seen plenty of paintings with the chest wound on the wrong side. Unless the spear went in on the right to get to the heart on the left side. I always thought though the artist picked his left instead of Jesus’ left.
I don’t know!
The heart isn’t actually on the left side, it’s in the center of the chest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idkPch61aMw
But the Gospel of John (the only Gospel that reports the wound) don’t say the spear pierced his heart, only that it pierced his side.
Anatomically speaking, the heart is almost centered in the chest under the breastbone. So a spear could “get” at the heart from either side.
That must have been an interesting conversation.
– Excuse me Mam, can I crucify your dead husband?
– But why on Earth would you do that?
– FOR SCIENCE!
Yeah, I don’t think he was asking permission….
The good old days before Ethics Review Boards. :o)
‘As a scientist’ – not much of one, dead body is a dead weight a live body is not. ACTUALLY HISTORIC EVIDENCE IS DIFFERENT METHODS WERE USED. There is tying for a start which seems most common and the point isn’t supporting the weight of the body but breathing. The position restricts breathing when the muscles tire, people literally died of exhaustion. If you wanted to make that suffering greater then a nail through the wrist would do it and if you wanted to inflict the most pain then nails through the hand and median nerve would do it.
What makes you think it was most common?
Yes, a live body defies gravity.
Also possible that they tied his arms to the crossbar, then nailed the hands in order to increase the pain and additional security. The gospel writers then either were not aware of this or simply eliminated the ropes to make the story simpler.
Interesting. What would make you think so?
I tend to think no ropes were used. Otherwise, we’d have a lot of relics of rope. As far as I know, we don’t.
“Interesting, what makes you think so?”
Such a deft way of pointing out the obvious!
As a corollary observation it becomes clear that we humans easily become attached to our interpretations of reality… these then become so “self apparent” that we seldom return to examine the foundation of these ideas.
My goodness! I’ve never heard of even one instance of modern and semi-modern stigmata in which the bleeding came from the wrists! Those who believe in stigmata have some explaining to do. I’ve read about actual nail crucifixion being performed by some Catholics in modern times, as a kind of devotional act on religious holidays, and I believe they use the hands. But, judging by photos I’ve seen, the crosses have a platform for the feet, and the people volunteering for this, are not suspended for very long, obviously. In parochial school, priests and nuns would occasionally “entertain” us kids by describing crucifixion to us in very graphic terms and they always referenced a kind of slanted platform for the victim’s feet. How they got that detail I don’t know. Part of Catholic mythology? The victim would try to push up from the platform, supposedly, in an effort to take stress off of the hands and arms but since the platform was slanted, the effort only caused more discomfort. I have a feeling this was dreamed up by an imaginative inquisitor in medieval times. This sort of thing would have a lot of appeal to an inquisitor, unfortunately.
Yes. I remember that grade school “entertainment”. Even then I thought the whole idea of nailing a person to the cross was excessively gruesome. Later I learned that the Romans deliberately intended crucifixion to be gruesome. That it was designed to be a deterrent effect on Roman soldiers by making an example of their buddies who cut and run in battle and to keep the conquered hordes in check. Much later I became even more nauseated by this Christian celebration of the crucifixion of an innocent man when I understood that we were celebrating a bloody sacrifice so the believers could obtain eternal salvation for our immortal souls vicariously. My grade school was staffed by the Sisters of the Precious Blood. So much perverted interest in blood lust in Catholicism.
It’s also been suggested that the wrists would be more painful, since the median nerve runs through there, and torture was part of the goal. Off topic, but I know you teach a course on Jesus in cinema: last night TCM showed the original The Day The Earth Stood Still. Either intentionally or unintentionally it is a Christ parable: an advanced being comes to earth to tell us to straighten up or judgment is coming. He is feared rather than revered. For a while he lives as a human. He visits one of the leading scientists in secret, just like Jesus visiting Nicodemus. Eventually he is killed. Then he is resurrected, to once again warn humanity to shape up. Then he ascends into the heavens. I’m sure your course already has enough films to consider, though. (Do you include Life of Brian?)
There was a great Twilight Zone twist on that one (or was it Outer Limits?) where the advanced being convinces earthlings to get their act together in 24 hours (or a week?) or they will all be destroyed, and so peace treaties are rapidly signed to bring peace on earth. But when the alien returns he is exasperated and says they didn’t understand. His world needs the worth to be more *warlike*, and since they are so intent on peace, they will have to be annihilated….
Yup, I do Life of Brian in the class, definitely
Pierre Barbet’s work is oft cited in books about the Shroud of Turin (I think his own book is called A Doctor at Calvary). Apparently he undertook his investigations because of his interest in this relic since it appears to show nail prints in the wrists. The ‘Shroud’ research was needed to explain the wrist wounds in order to bolster claims that the Shroud is genuine. It was said any forger would obviously conform to the normal artistic site (the hands) for the imprints. Since the marks are in the wrist and that was demonstrated to be the only point which could permit the weight of the body to be supported then the Shroud must be genuine, it was argued.
Yup, I remember that!
Pierre Barbet was also instrumental in bringing about the modern popularity of the Shroud of Turin, which he thought confirmed his findings about crucifixion.
With all these historical mysteries I believe in asking myself ‘What would we do today?’ as I think human beings are human beings, now and then. So I am sure all your and Cook’s and Bryson’s and everyone’s research is valid – plus this: they would have done what was expedient and so it would have varied. Novices might have nailed through the hands and learnt not to; Nails may have been unobtainable in places and thus rope would have been used etc. Just as today: How do we kill people when for some crazy reason we think we should? In all sorts of different ways.
Great post. Funny – I’m readying Bryson’s new book as well, and your post from a couple of days ago on A Revelatory Moment made me think you might be reading it when you talked about killing the microbes when scratching. I’m a huge Bryson fan, but skipped The Mother Tongue which I’ll start after this one.
Ha! but yeah, I’ve thought about those poor microbes for years….
Unfortunately, the Alexamenos graffito doesn’t help with the hands issue, but it does further confirm what Epistle of Barnabas indicates about a T-shaped cross.
Great point!
I’m led to understand that the Greek word for ‘hand’ also included the wrist? Is this correct?
Mike
I actually wasn’t saying that, but was saying that it’s kind of like when you talk about your foot, and most people include the ankle. I think? But it’s a good question if Greek has a separate word for wrist. I can’t recall seeing it. But if someone points it out to me, I suppose I’ll say, Oh yeah, that’s it….
The greek word for wrist specifically is ‘καρπος’ (karpos).
Spelled the same as the for “fruit” but accented differently. And hence “carpal tunnel…. (But my point is that sometimes when someone says “foot” in English they include the “ankle” even though there is a different word for it)
What do you make of the Doubting Thomas tradition in John? (i.e. “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.”)
I think he’s thinking what we call the hand includes what we call the wrist.
Interesting read – Thanks for Sharing!
Since you mentioned “reading alot,” have you by chance read “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross” by John Marco Allegro? What an interesting book – I was really intrigued by the comparison of the sacred mushroom and the virgin birth since a mushroom does not require a ‘seed’ and does not have a root.
Ah, it’s a classic that convinced most scholars in the field that Allegro, a very fine scholar before, had himself been eating too many mushrooms….
About an inch or so from the distal pulse towards the elbow, the two large bones radial and ulnar tuberosity join the scaphoid process at the wrist joint. These 2 large bones are separated by a gap of about 5/16 to 1/2 an inch. Very strong at the apex ideal for hanging someone by spikes of one is so inclined. Any spike ( or projectile for that matter) forced through the palm area of the hand will shatter the process of small connecting bones and tendons. Don’t ask me how I know the latter.
For long reasons to count, more than 25 years ago I thoroughly studied the so-called Holy Shroud of Turin. I’ve even seen it in that city two or three times.
Curiously, on the Shroud of Turin, the marks that correspond to the nails are located in what appear to be Jesus’ wrist rather than the palm of his hand.
This argument has been one of the main ones used by the “synodologists” to affirm that it is a real relic.
However, dating by C14 demonstrates without a doubt that the Shroud of Turin is a painting dating from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390 (± 10 years).
However, it is curious to note how the painter who forged the Shroud placed the nails of Christ on the wrists and not on the palms of the hands.
Yup, I’ve wondered that too. But some people clearly did!
Aaaaaand of COURSE I only have the fifth edition of your NT textbook. Is this the image to which you refer? https://www.bmimages.com/preview.asp?image=00034960001
Yup, that’s it.
Headline from the satirical The Onion, March 29, 2006:
Controversial Christian Faction Believes Jesus Was Nailed To Two Parallel Pieces Of Wood
Right!
I got Cook’s book from the stacks, and it didn’t take long to learn there are multiple references there to the bodies of the crucified receiving burial. It doesn’t seem to have been uncommon, though he says many others rotted on the cross, and many bodies taken down would be thrown into a pit (that I tend to doubt was carefully guarded). Bodies might be withheld from families/friends if there was some desire to make the punishment more humiliating (one thinks of stories about the current Chinese government sending families of executed activists a bill for the bullet). But it was by no means an invariant practice, based on Cook’s research, for the body to stay up there indefinitely. Crosses were often re-used, timber being a prized commodity. So you might get evicted to make room for some new tenant.
I therefore see no compelling evidence that Dominick Crossan was right about the fate of Jesus’ body. He could have been left to rot on the cross. He could have been taken down and buried, and this wouldn’t have been any kind of break with Roman customs (unless he had been deemed a truly dangerous enemy of the state, which seems unlikely, given the general lack of response to his arrest). More than that is difficult to say. The failure to find remains of many crucified people is not proof of anything. We don’t find the remains of most poor people, and as Cook makes clear, crucifixion victims were usually at the very bottom of the social scale. So was Jesus.
When I was attending different churches, I recall the Mormon church being the only one preaching Jesus was definitely crucified at the wrists. As you mention, in the hands the weight of his body would of teared through his hands thus the wrists were used. Also, as one of your bloggers attested, the breathing may have been very much a crucial serious side-effect of the suffering, being nailed on the wrist would keep you up longer thus incurring more suffering. Nonetheless six hours was long. Good read!.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think this could be a piece of evidence in favor of the Shroud of Turin, which features the historically correct way of crucifixion, vs. a supposed forger from the Middle Ages who would have almost certainly had the nail marks in the hands? Also, they still never figured out what actually caused the Shroud image itself.
No, I definitely don’t think so, though I did entertain the possibility about 42 years ago! Some people probably did know about the wrist thing. Except for apologists (mostly Catholic? I think?), everyone agrees the Shroud is a medieval production.
The Shroud of Turin actually shows the nail holes through the hand not the wrist. This article explains how we know that:
https://medievalshroud.com/talk-to-the-hand/
The turin shroud, for those who are interested in it, also demonstrates that the nails were driven through the wrists. This is particularly interesting with regard to the debate whether the shroud is genuine or a medieval forgery. If it was a medieval forgery, how did the forger know that the nails should be in the wrists, when all pictures of his time showed the nails in the hands.
http://www.shroudresearch.net/gallery.html
I agree that the confusion has risen from the fact that the Greek word for hand (xeir), like Russian (ryka), includes the wrist, as is apparent from Acts 12:7, in which the chains fall off Peter’s “xeirwn”, which must certainly have referred to his wrists and not to what we would specify as his “hands” in English. The Vulgate follows the Greek in making the chains fall off Peter’s “manibus”. I wonder, however, if “manus” was used more distinctly for just the hand at the time and Jerome got this wrong, creating the tradition of the piercing of the hand. I don’t know 4th-century common Latin usage enough to say.
Ah, Acts 12:7. Nice reference! They weren’t chaining his index fingers!
This, right here, exemplifies why I like to browse the comment section, at least occasionally. There are some real hidden treasures. It’s not every day we get to watch a reader supply a reference that nails (um, so to speak) something that Bart was idly wondering about.
Dr. Ehrman,
We have the two graffiti images left behind to tell us about crucifixion, but I have couple questions about them. In the Alixamenos one, it looks like the donkey man (a mocking representation of Jesus?) is standing on another crossbeam, that I’d assume he has his feet nailed to, while in the other one, it appears the person is nailed through the heals on either side of the stauros. Is either one a more likely depiction of how Jesus was crucified? I gather there was a variety of ways (as Josephus points out, the sadistic Romans got imaginative during the Jewish-Roman war). Also, in the Puteoli one, are the stripes on his back supposed to be scourge marks? a link:https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/ancient-crucifixion-images/
The forensic scientists in Israel who examined the remains of Yehohanan decided he had been nailed with one foot on either side of the upright. As to Jesus — there’s no way of knowing. I don’t know about the stripes.
Plautus, for example, mentions a ‘suppedaneum’ for the feet, which is present in Alexamenos graffito and in most Byzantine images of crucifixion both ancient and modern. This considerably lessens the weight on the hands, and prolongs life – people seem to have stood for days rather than hours before dying.
Also, it must be remembered that the Shroud shows the back of the hand, not the palm. An artist marking the ‘centre’ of the hand, palm-side, marks the centre of the space between the base of the fingers and the creases of the wrist. If he marks the ‘centre’ of the hand, back-side, he marks the centre of the space between the knuckles and the wrist, although anatomically, these do not co-incide. This is what he did on the Shroud. The angle between the outside knuckles and the ‘nail-hole’ is well over 45 degrees. If the ‘nail-hole’ were truly among the wrist bones the angle would be much less than 45 degrees.
There may well have been many different ways of crucifying people, but to suppose that the position of the blood marks on the Shroud implies esoteric knowledge on the part of a medieval painter is unjustified.
A fascinating topic! I’ve always wondered how often nails were actually used in crucifixions. Nails would indeed be more painful, but I recall seeing documentaries about crucifixion where volunteers were affixed by straps, tying and gloves with hooks. The volunteers all reported that was extremely painful.
Following the slave revolt led by Spartacus, Crassus crucified 6000 along the Appian Way. That would have required an awful lot of nails.
I’ve also read that the differing “cross” shapes, (X Y T or single upright), determined how long a victim would stay alive.
I imagine Roman soldiers had different variations when it came to crucifixions.
The Turin shroud only shows the exit wound of the nail, which is indeed on the wrist. But perhaps the assumption that the nail has to go straight through is wrong, since it’s also possible for the nail to go through the hand/wrist at an angle.
In this article, http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/Barbet.htm ,
forensic pathologist F.T. Zugibe argues how the nail could have entered the upper part of the palm of the hand and exited at the wrist, showing why the artistic impressions through the ages may have been correct after all. At the same time he explains why Barbet’s asphyxiation theory is untenable.
All in all pretty gruesome reading, but it sure sounds like he hit the nail on the head, so to speak.
Dr. Ehrman,
Could I ask why were the paintings of the crucifixion abolished in the 4th century? Was it because of Constantine becoming emperor and the paintings were destroyed by his order or was there another reason?
Thanks
Were they? I thought that was when we *started* seeing artistic representations of the cruifixion.
Regarding the crucifixion of Peter: I’ve heard several claims as to him supposedly being crucified upside down. He felt he was unworthy to be crucified the same as Jesus. That it would have resulted in a quicker death, and that for Peter the world was upside down, and being crucified head down made the world right side up. ( I believe I heard the last from the late Marvin Meyer.)
Is there anything that suggests Peter’s inverted crucifixion was historical, or was it invented as a theological statement?
The story goes back to a book called the Acts of Peter (the “Quo Vadis” incident). But Marvin Meyer (a terrific scholar, and great fellow — a real loss to us) was right: in the account it is not because he felt unworthy or that he would die faster (although those are the modern myths; probably from Hollywood): it’s because the world has been topsy-turvey, literally, since Adam and to see it correctly one needs to reverse how it is understood normally, since it is all, now, upside down.
Thank you, I only read the Acts of Peter once when I was still attending seminary, ( I dropped out, telling people you’re a seminary drop out is a sure fire conversation stopper btw), I’ll have to reread it. I was not fortunate enough to have met Marvin Meyer, but I’ve read his work and always enjoyed his appearances on various documentaries. His passing was a great loss for knowledge and understanding.
Dear Bart,
Are you familiar with Frederick T. Zugibe, Ph.D., M.D. and his book on Crucifixion? He, in fact, disproves many of Dr. Pierre Barbet’s work on crucifixion, especially the asphyxiation hypothesis.
http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/crucifixion.htm
Dr. Zugibe suspended volunteers on a cross to test the respiration and physical symptoms of the crucified subjects and published his findings. I will not go into it here.
Now Dr. Israel Hershkovitz has taken over the current studies for crucifixion, there have been hand bones found with nails still attached to them, it appears that the nails were driven through the back of the hand and through the metacarpal hand bones.
https://jamestabor.com/crucifixion-nails-our-latest-evidence/
There has also been a finding of a supposed crucifixion skeleton found in Italy.
Do you mean he nailed them to crosses? Wow — that would be quite an experiment! But no, I don’t believe we have hands with nails still in them. We do have a number of nails that were *used* to crucify people; if you’ll look up “nails” in the search box, you’ll see my discussion of it.
I had forgotten about this incident until my wife reminded me. I live in Albuquerque New Mexico, in May of 2017 a man was found nailed to a tree through his hands. The nails had been driven through his palms but his feet had been left free and he was able to stand. When found he was conscious and able to speak but in considerable pain. The lapel camera video from the APD officer who responded can be found on YouTube for those who are curious. The video isn’t graphic, ( otherwise I would not have mentioned it), but it is unsettling.
Ugh….
I agree completely. The only reason I mentioned it is their has been so much speculation about nails tearing through the palms.
For what it’s worth…. In Acts 12:7 “Luke” reports that “the chains fell off of Peter’s cheirōn.” A handful (sorry!) of translations, including the NRSV, render cheirōn as “wrist,” probably because that’s a more accurate description of the event, right? Not because they think the word for hand includes the wrist? (Unfortunately, a separate word for “wrist” doesn’t seem to appear in the NT.)
Does etymology count for anything? The English word “carpal” traces back to Greek “karpos” (“fruit”), from which Latin derived “carpus” (“wrist”).
Acts 3:7 distinguishes between the hands (baseis) and ankles (sphydra).
Not sure what you’re askig about etypmology. The Greek word for hand is not etymologically related to the word for fruit…. Not sure why Latin got wrist out of fruit! Never thought about it!
Quite interesting. Well, is it true that a crucified person, would have died in a couple of days, not in 3 hours like Jesus?
Yes indeed. Unless they were on death’s door already.
It is my understanding that crucifixion was reserved for crimes against the state, such as insurrection. It was designed to inflict the most pain and suffering as a deterrent to anyone who would challenge Rome. While it is true that people were left to rot on the cross, it is my belief that this was done in the country, such as along the road to Rome when the followers of Spartacus were crucified. It is also my belief that permanent places of execution, such as Golgotha, would remove the bodies so as to make a place for another condemned. While there are reports that crucifixion could take days for a person to die, there are also reports of Romans breaking the legs of people on the cross so as to prevent them from being able to push up and breathe. Crucifixion has also been done by nailing someone to a tree; to tying them to a pole; nailed to a cross; nailed to a T; and nailed or tied to an X. I’m saying this to show that there was no one way to crucify someone.
Having said this, I believe that certain things can be inferred about Jesus’ crucifixion. First, the Gospels tell us that Jesus was made to carry his cross to Golgotha. I believe that is more realistic to believe that he carried the cross member and not the whole cross. Second, he was nailed to the cross by his hands and feet. There is no reason to doubt this. He could have been nailed through his wrist, but he could just as likely been nailed though the palms of his hands and then tied to the cross member to keep the nails from ripping out. Just because the Gospels do not mention him being tied, does not mean that it did not happen. Third, he was speared in his side and fluids ran clear. I believe that this shows he was not speared through the heart. If he was, the fluids would have been blood and would have ran red. Last, he died before the end on the day. When you consider the fact that he was scourged before being nailed to the cross, it is reasonable to believe that his body would have been weakened and he died as quickly as said in the Gospels..
Dr Ehrman –
re: “We have the remains of only *one* crucified victim from antiquity”
I have read numerous articles of another crucifixion victim discovered in Italy. According to the Newsweek article (posted below) “the burial manner of the remains, as well as the stature of the skeleton, suggest he was a slave”. [ Other articles say materially the same thing ]
Good thing the Romans allowed burial of crucifixion victims (like Yohannan, in Judea), else, we’d never have any evidence at all about the practice.
articles:
https://www.newsweek.com/crucified-skeleton-remains-italy-were-likely-nailed-cross-967191
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2019/12/23/heel-bone-from-italy-is-only-second-example-of-crucifixion-ever-found/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/extremely-rare-archaeological-evidence-of-roman-crucifixion-uncovered-in-italy/
thanks. I’ll have to look into it!
Would the Romans actually nail every person to the cross? It seems like doing this would be very costly and time consuming. If they scourged the majority of the criminals prior to the cross, then they would already be half dead by the time they were crucified. Why waste materials and time on nailing them to it. It wasn’t like the Romans had a factory that could put out nails and wood like we could do with today’s technology.
They did it because it was humiliating and horribly painful torture done in public in order to demonstrate that opposing Roman rule is a rather bad idea, unless you want to be helplessly left to the elements and the birds and a slow unbelievably horrible death in front of the entire world. It was all about proving Roman power.
Dr. Ehrman I love your work.
Nick here (Νικόλας) I am Greek and prefer to look at the sources for some answers.
So … I thought of an answer than can merge many unexplained together. Sorry for my fellow English-speaking friends that I will write in Greek sometimes.
Σταυρός in ancient (and κοινή) Greek means stick, pole, long piece of wood. Only in Christian writings you see it as a “T”.
http://www.greek-language.gr/digitalResources/ancient_greek/tools/liddell-scott/search.html?lq=%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%85%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%82
One can see it in Homer: Οδύσσεια ξ’ 11: … σταυροὺς δ᾿ ἐκτὸς ἔλασσε διαμπερὲς ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα … where homer describes how odysseys made a fence with sticking poles in the ground. http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/arts/tributes/omhros/od14.htm
Let’s assume a villain was nailed on a long pole of wood (σταυρός) and his hands where nailed together with even one nail at the back of the pole – maybe in the very top – while his body was in front, and his legs where nailed in front too (probably), I could say that the friction of the body in that position will keep it from sliding down the pole, in both cases: a) nail in the wrists or b) nail in hands.
The ancients had a word for wrist, it is the same word we use today καρπός (second meaning is fruit). In the lexicon below it refers Homer again to look it up (I haven’t, I trust it).
http://www.greek-language.gr/digitalResources/ancient_greek/tools/liddell-scott/search.html?lq=%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%82
Now, if the Greek writers, wanted to say wrist, they would have said καρπός, right? But they wrote χείρας (John 20:20).
I looked at Barnabas and Justin Martyr writings (the Barnabas i read it in Greek) and they don’t say that his hands where nailed there, they just mention the shape of the cross was like that. In Barnabas the number T = 300 and in Justin he describes how humans differ from animals and they have their hands extended, “like” the shape of the cross.
So, assuming a Jesus was nailed to a pole, how can it be a “T”? Then I remembered something that a Jesus in the middle of two other crosses would have different, a distinction ….
Scripture Jesus had a sign, a text (Jesus Christ king of the Jews) written in 3! languages. Now… that’s a big sign. John 19:19-20: ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ· ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον· Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ….. καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον ἑβραϊστί, ἑλληνιστί, ῥωμαϊστί.
What shape would a vertical pole with a horizontal big sign have?
How many people were crucified in a year ,in a certain region ,during peace time (no wars or rebellion)?
Oh boy we wish we had some way of knowing that….
Dear Bart,
Can you tell me what´s the historical view of the Shroud of Turin? Does it trace back to Jesus lifetime?
Thanks a lot!
Gustavo
No, it’s a medieval forgery.
Dr Bart ..
Would be appropriate ( Philologically ) to call a person * a Crucified * if that person was put on the Cross and after a while that person got descended from that cross *Alive* ?
Yes, crucifixion means being nailed to a cross; it does not mean having died as a result. (Just like being “shot” doesn’t mean being “shot to death”)
I found your analysis on crucifixion spot on. Part of the punishment of crucifixion was to leave the corpse on the cross for the scavengers. What is odd is that no one in the New Testament contradicted the story that Jesus was taken down from the cross after he died. The people who would know that Jesus was left to rot on the cross would most certainly be his mother Mary and most importantly Jesus’ brother James. Yet James seemed to be a Christian disciple along with the rest. What gives?
I think Matthew is right that the followers of Jesus fled town and returned to Galilee. None of them woudl have known what happened to the body. And later story tellers *had* to have him buried in a tomb right away; otherwise he could not have left the tomb on the third day.
If people attempting a suicide cut the veins in their wrist, wouldn’t the thought process be this is a quick death? Wouldn’t the use of nails be expensive and limited? I believe one of your books mentioned the Romans crucifying by the hundreds around the time the temple was destroyed the second time. Are you thinking the spikes would be more efficient since they could be reused? A rope would seem to be far more agonizing, increase the duration of the death, and vastly more available. My imagination has someone bleeding out quickly with a spike through the wrist. Have you writing about the Shroud, I have read your comments above, but would love to read your long-form explanation of the forgery.
They possibly did use ropes too. we just don’t know. We do know they used big nails because a bunch of them have been found. Not very expensive, and the death was slow and painful, public torture that often took days (unlike slicing the wrists)
I am not used to Blogs, so this is a new thing for me.
I skimmed many of the blogs although I think the ones about a rest for the foot was interesting. I am sure that whatever was most uncomfortable would have sufficed. I think too, that if it existed, the pushing up would be more to relieve the pressure on the diaphragm from the rib cage.
My question is how high off the ground were people crucified . If dogs could feed from the carcass, it must have been lower than usually portrayed.
Yes, it was almost certainly low to the ground. Less lumber and much less effort required, for the same result.
There are serious problems with the “crucified through the wrists” theory. The first time anyone thought of such a detail of the crucifixion seems to coincide with the study of the Shroud of Turin.True, the stains on the arms of the figure in the Shroud are closer to the wrists than the middle of the hands. But bear in mind that the shroud shows the *backs* of the hands of the crucified figure. Someone speaking of Jesus being nailed through the wrists presumably means that the nail pierced the front of the wrist, then travelled straight back through, perpendicular to the axis of the arm, existing the wrist near the back of the hand. This assumption lies silently beneath much of the discussion about Jesus’s wounds. But could not the nail have been angled, entering the palm of the hand and existing nearer the wrist? That possibility would also accord with the image on the Shroud.
Isn’t it strange to use the Shroud, which appears to be a medieval fake, to learn about execution practices of the first century?
I don’t believe anyone thinks that victims must have been crucified through the wrists based on the Shroud of Turin.
It seems in ancient times, torture was always the best form of punishment or in some cases, a way to insight fear into the masses. Vlad the Impaler comes to mind; imagine seeing the bodies of friends and others impaled by a stake!- I’ll leave the details out as it’s close to dinner time. -I’ve always wondered if by using the wrist, if that would cause unwanted blood to be let out speeding up the death process. it does seem logical that the hand would be nailed and the wrist and arms tied, since the ability to move the wrist would cause unending pain until the victim would pass out or die. It seems logical for any argument, and I guess Monty Pythons Life Of Brian doesn’t help out.Joking aside, this is good food for thought. I’ve always been fascinated with the ways torture was used to control a population or as a war time psychological tool. It’s morbid, for sure, and I am sane.- unless I’m working 14 hours a day! -. The methods used were meant to truly embarrass, hurt and destroy the person inflicted. And it served as a warning to others.
At the crucifixion when Jesus says ” my God my God, why have you forsaken me ” is this him crying out in shame and devastation that the massive world transformation that he had been preaching would come instead ended in total failure and his own death?
In Mark’s Gospel it appears to mean that he does not understand why God has abandoned him to his suffering.
Dr.Ehrman,
I really enjoy reading your points of view because of the thorough research and honesty you put into them. But on the subject of the shroud, given the importance of this specific artifact, i am surprised to not find a post that details some of your main arguments as to why you dismiss it as a fake. You will certainly point to the Carbon 14 test. But the Carbon14 done is recently under heavy review. What do you make of the really, really odd findings on so many aspects of this cloth? ( Ex: it seems that no image outline is found beneath the blood stains on the fabric…which doesn’t make sense: who on earth would draw an image after applying the stains first ? A 14 ft. long cloth ? Who does that ? And on it is the whole front AND whole back of the deceased. Weird. Also who would draw something barely visible ? The list just goes on and on).
Someone said that if this is a forgery, it’s off the charts in terms of ingenuity.
Thanks in advance for your response!
We live in an age where evidence doesn’t much matter! But if we look at the actual evidence, yes, it’s a forgery. Some forgeries are really quite amazing.
Then i assume that you took a somewhat in-depth look into this amazing forgery as you say. Sorry to repeat myself but can you please give some details about let’s say your top 3 or 4 evidence ? And also do you have a likely explanation as to how the image was put there?
The Carbon-14 dating is decisive. I’m not sure how it got put on there. Then again, even if it is Jesus’ resurrection garment, I’m not sure how it would have been put on there. Do people who get resurrected leave that kind of imprint on the cloth they are wrapped in? That seems to be the assumption people have, but, uh, why do they think that exactly? Because that’s what always happens?
People think that because of its’ unique character. That’s precisely why this cloth is so intriguing. In the 15th century, our understanding and opinion of it was one thing, but with modern knowledge, a new depth of unparalleled precision is there for us to marvel at. More importantly still, no one is able to reproduce it with all the same characteristics. That’s just mind boggling. In my opinion, that this cloth continues to draw such interest after the assault of high-tech scrutiny is nothing short of remarkable, and therefore should, at very least, strike some fascination and humility in any honest observer.
I dare say Bart has better things to do than concentrate on the Shroud for very long, but yes, some of us have taken a very long in-depth look into this amazing forgery.
1) It is reliably carbon dated to the Middle Ages.
2) Although as far as I know it is unique to its time, its weave is characteristic of the painting canvas of 15th century and later artists.
3) Its depiction of the body is generic with the late Middle Ages (particularly north Italian) artistic depictions of dead bodies, including that of Christ.
4) It was denounced as a forgery soon after its first public display as such, denounced again when it was redisplayed 30 years or so later, described as a reproduction when it was taken into ‘safe’ custody in 1418, and not described as authentic until it was well clear of Lirey, when it began to be hawked around Europe.
The image was probably made using something like an iron acetate dye, such as an oak gall ink, imprinted from a double sided bas relief of the dead Christ, for use as an antependium during the masses of Easter Sunday and/or Corpus Christi, at the conclusion of the Quem Quaeritis rite.
Thanks!
M. Hughfarey, ( 1st of 2 )
Many others also took a very in-depth look into it and came to another conclusion. As for your introduction, I am wary of anyone’s credibility and honesty if when talking about the Shroud, they suggest that it’s beneath serious consideration. There is simply too much data on this one for that kind of contempt.
Despite that, i would say this about your 4 points:
1) The carbon 14 test used in 1988 is in a ever increasing scrutiny since Ray Rogers of the STURP chemistry team published some of his conclusions pointing to a contamination of the sample that was used for the dating. More recently (2019 )the raw data used by the 3 labs that conducted the carbon test were finally released,
permitting questions related to some irregularities with the dating results. So for the time being, it is certainly wise to wait for a new review before deeming it reliable and conclusive.
2) The Shroud is not only unique to its time, it is unique, period. Of the many attempts to copy the Shroud, how many resulted in a successful match with its numerous unique properties ? : 0
df.)
M.Hughfarey, (2nd / 2)
3) Generic ? You mean it was somewhat common to depict a gory close-up of both sides of a full length tortured body, using real blood on it? Really?
4) The suggestion of a forgery was there since the start, up to this day. But it was one thing to call it a forgery in the 1400’s, it’s a completely different kettle of fish to call it that today.
For your final comment, in the STURP team conclusion report, no dye, ink, paint, or scorching was used in the making of the Shroud image. The surprising conclusion is that there is no certainty on what it is, but there is definitive certainty on what it’s NOT.
*P.s. Though pretty technical, here is an interesting read about the formation of the image on the Shroud and what it’s not, about the carbon 14 test and other questions: ( https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf.)
I don’t think it accurate to say that those who consider the Shroud to be medieval “dismiss it as a fake.” On contrary, they appreciate it as a unique contribution to the late medieval understanding of the passion of Christ. The Carbon 14 test is subject to some review, but nothing that demonstrates that it is inaccurate, and although the double image is a unique example of a front-and-back imprint of a bas relief of the dead Christ, there is nothing inexplicable about it. Imprints, for example, do not have outlines. As for the often claimed idea that there is no image under the bloodstains, this is derived from some observations of a few fibres lifted from the Shroud by sticky tape that do not justify the conclusion. The list of “odd findings” does not go on and on, and it is far from “off the charts” in terms of its ingenuity.
Just a few comments on this thread. I have not read all the comments, just scanned, so some of this might be covered.
Regarding wrists or hands I also taught for 30 years–because I had heard this was the latest view, that the nails went through the wrists not the hands for the reasons mentioned–that the hands will not hold. However, Tel Aviv anthropologist Hershkovitz has now argued, based on shorter crucifixion nails that were in Nicu Haas’s lab at Hadassah when he died, were used in the hands–NOT to support the body, but kind of like hooks, two or three put in the hands, with the body weight supported by ropes, so that the nails in the hands were to prevent moving about as the ropes would loosen. See my blog post for photos of these nails and a bit of that discussion: https://jamestabor.com/crucifixion-that-most-wretched-of-deaths-what-do-we-know/
I would add here, however, that there was never ONE method of crucifixion, lots of variation.
Second, my colleague Shimon Gibson, whose opinion I value when it comes to archaeology, says the Italian claim is invalid and those holes were definitely not from crucifixion. Don’t have a reference but it has been discussed. Those are drill holes.
Regarding the Shroud of Turin, you might be interested to know that the ONLY first century burial shroud ever found in Jerusalem was discovered by accident by Gibson, me, and our UNC Charlotte students hiking in the Hinnom valley in 2000 and coming across a freshly robbed first century tomb. We also have from this individual the first male hair as well as the first case of Hanson’s disease, showing leprosy existed among the population in the first century, not just some “skin rash.” It has been Carbon dated as early 1st century, was in situ, so no chance of fakery here, and we have published it including DNA profiles of the folks in the tomb. Here is my overview as well as the link to the academic paper. So we can say that the ONLY first century CE burial shroud we know of in terms of material evidence is nothing like the Turin shroud. BTW, I had the C-14 test done at the AZ lab and Donahue was the one who did them both! In his call to me, and followup letter he remarked, “I am sure our Turin shroud folks would have loved to have had these results.” https://jamestabor.com/the-only-ancient-jewish-male-hair-ever-found-dna-and-the-tomb-of-the-shroud/
I also want to add that there are some examples of Christian art from the Middle Ages that have the nails in the wrists, so the objection that the shroud must be authentic because who would have known to put them in the wrist at that time is invalid. The most famous one is on one of the bridges in Prague…but there are about a dozen or so scattered throughout Europe.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
as you know in 1968 archaeologists discovered at Giv’at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem, the remains of a man, Yehohanan, who had been crucified in the 1st century. The remains included a heel bone with a nail driven through it from the side.
Until now that skeleton is considered the only confirmed example of ancient crucifixion in the archaeological record.
BUT…
– In 2007 another possible case of crucified body, with a round hole in a heel bone, possibly caused by a nail, was discovered in Rovigo, northern Italy. The remains were dated to the Roman era.
– In 2017 the skeleton of a man, which dates from the 3rd or 4th century, was found with a nail through his heel in Fenstanton (Cambridgeshire, England).
Are these the only sets of remains for which we have any suggestion of crucifixion?
Do you think that these two discoveries are the second and the third evidence for crucifixion in the ancient world?
Thanks
I’m not sure about the Rovigo discovery, but the Cambridgeshire one, absolutely!
About the Italian discovery: It is true that no nail was found in the right heel bone (the only one preserved), in fact there was only a round hole, but everything seems to indicate that there was one. The hole itself is round, passing from the inside of the foot to the outside, and there is evidence that it was inflicted around the time of death.
So, why are you not sure about the Rovigo discovery?
Thanks
Just because I haven’t studied it. I have no problems with it being a crucified victim at all. For me it’s pretty remarkable that there are so few. But I’ll have to look into it.
Is it likely the historical Jesus was hung on a T-shaped cross using ropes (Alexamenos graffito)? None of the earliest written accounts of the crucifixion and none of the Pauline letters mention nails. Jesus’ post-appearance story in the Gospel of Luke does not mention any type of wounds (nails or spear). At some point, the idea that nails were used became part of tradition by the time the Gospel of John is written, changing the post-appearance story to “Doubting Thomas.” Even the crown of thorns was sensationalized in Christian tradition. Written accounts say nothing of long thorns piercing Jesus’ skin, or the blood they may have produced. Pilate openly and publicly defended Jesus against a Jewish mob demanding his crucifixion until a “riot was forming.” And in the first three Gospels, no form of physical violence was performed on Jesus during his six hours on the cross. A centurion called Jesus “a son of God.” What if a staged crucifixion was of Roman design (Jesus did not die on the cross) and he really did appear live afterwards to perpetuate the perversion of Judaism in the hopes of changing a religion to be more conducive to Roman rule and control?
It is almost certainly a T shaped cross, not an upright. Nails were commonly used — we know this becaase a bunch of crucifixion nails ahve been discovered, one of them still embedded in an ankle of a crucifixion victim in Israel! — thought rope may well have been sometimes used at all. Nothing about early Christianity appears to be conducive to Roman rule and control. At least Romans didn’t think so! That’s clear from persecutions under Nero, Trajan, and so on. You might be interested in reading Robert Wilken’s book Christians as the Romans Saw Them.
I understand the Romans viewed early Christians as uneducated and backward, but that was decades after its beginning in Judea. I think an important and revealing point is that the movement migrated so quickly to Rome (a few decades). Did this occur due to the “western” nature of its philosophy and teachings (i.e., its evangelical nature, a common Roman and Greek usage, not Jewish, but present in the first three Gospels), or did a Jewish-based movement spread quickly and then adapt western ideals? Pontius Pilate wouldn’t have cared about the Jewish religion and wouldn’t have had an issue manipulating ideals held sacred to the Jews (staged miracles, John the Baptist baptizing tax collectors and soldiers). Epiphanius even wrote that Pilate informed Tiberius of the resurrection, requesting a formal declaration of Jesus as a God (maybe to solidify the legitimacy of his modification in the eyes of Jewish subjects), but the Senate rejected it. Did Pilate’s attempt to soften the resistance and attitudes of the Jewish people eventually change into something far beyond his imagination? Is it possible the true nature of Christianity’s beginnings was lost with the death of Pilate and/or even Tiberius around 37 CE before its spread?
Our later informatoin about Pilate is all entirely legendary. We don’t have any sources from his day. By the time Epiphanius was writing in the fourth century, apart from the Gospels all there were were legends. But they were *great* legends. If you’d like to see the oldest surviving ones, see my book The Other Gospels (where I translate them all. My sense is that Christianity reached Rome the same way it reached major urban areas in the first century: Christian travellers who happened to go there and while there converted some people. I talk about that a bit in my book The Triumph of Christianity.
Thank you. The two books you mention sound like great and valuable references. I look forward to reading them.
If you were Pontius Pilate and wanted to provide relief of strain on Jesus’ arms on the cross (yes, even with just ropes), a ledge for his feet would work (the Alexamenos graffito). In the first three Gospels, all his acquaintances and women saw these things from a distance, kept back by Roman soldiers. A “secret” disciple (Joseph of Arimathea) took Jesus’ supposed dead body from the cross. Pilate involved in assigning soldiers at the tomb. A quick summary of Jesus teachings supporting Roman rule and control of the Jews; increase collection of taxes (give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, Jesus was “a friend of tax collectors”, one of his disciples was a noted tax collector, instructs Peter to pay the half-shekel tax and not offend the tax collector, the faithful tax collector, Zacchaeus), submissiveness to oppression (turn the other cheek, love your enemies, blessed are the meek, the peacemakers), acceptance of gentiles, Jesus quoting a centurion as having the greatest faith in all Israel. In contrast, Jesus openly criticized those preserving Jewish dogma; Pharisees, scribes, Mosaic lawyers. Jewish religious resistance considered the Roman presence an abomination to their Holy Land, even to the point of mass suicide (Masada).
Dear Dr Ehrman,
In Mendes Harbor (Egypt) archaeologists found a set of human bones belonging to an individual who had apparently been crucified. The lower legs of two males showed evidence for crurifragium and one male also had evidence for nails being put through his feet as there were penetrating injuries to the body of the calcanei left ankle joint and right femur.
Only three other examples of the remains of possible crucifixion victims have been identified:
– Giv’at ha-Mivtar (Jerusalem)
– Fenstanton, Cambridgeshire (UK)
– and maybe Gavello (Italy)
Is the Egyptian one another example of crucifixion?
Thanks in advance
It’s not ringing a bell for me. Where have you read about this?
I read about the Egyptian case in:
“Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World”
by John Granger Cook
(The Mendes Harbor: Skeletal Remains)
Have you read it?
Yup.
So, if you have read it… what’s your take on this?
(I am referring to the 2nd extended edition 2018 page 472-474)
Thanks in advance
Ah, I read it years ago and so don’t remember. But if you want to summarize what he says I’ll be happy to respond.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
I read in:
“Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World” by John Granger (The Mendes Harbor: Skeletal Remains 2nd extended edition 2018 page 472-474)
that during the 1995 field season at the Mendes Site in Egypt, skeletal remains of two individuals from the Roman Occupation area were analyzed by the archaeologists. Perforations and fractures were observed on several of the bones. The arm and leg bones had been broken intentionally (crurifragium?), probably by a sharp rap with some blunt instrument.
Large spike holes in the ankles came into alignment when the ankles were overlapped.
Redford, D.B. and C. Lang, Crucified!, The Akhenaten Temple Project Newsletter (University of Toronto, Canada) (1996 Nr. 1) 1–2
I have tried to summarize it.
What do you think about that?
Is the Egyptian case another example of crucifixion?
Thanks in advance
I’d have to look into it and see what others have said about the claims. I’m afraid I’m not familiar with it (or the reactions). Do you know of others who have discussed this? That’s usually my first move when trying to assess a claim that seems peculiar (e.g., because it’s not widespread even though it would be critically important.) Has Joe Zias said anything about it, e.g.?
I don’t know whether Joe Zias said something about it. I know he is a leading expert in his field.
Unfortunately I don’t have access to anthropological or archeological reports. Very technical stuff. Surely you can get hold of those reports written by experts and evaluate them… let me know.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was executed on a simple upright stake and not on a cross?
Thanks
I’m not sure why, or why it’s such a big issue for them (well, with many of them, at least ones who have broached it with me). But it is!