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.
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.
.....only f rom 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).....
read more here: http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=15