Scholars have suggested that when Jesus was crucified, that more than likely the nails were not placed into the palms of the hands of our Lord as the weight of His Body hanging on the cross would cause our Lord’s Hands to rip and come off the cross.
Thus they propose that the nails were hammered through our Lord’s wrists, providing a stronger support to keep our Lord’s Arms attached to the cross.
This discovery or theory was/is controversial since our Lord’s scars have always located the wounds on His palms not at the wrists. But I think this is a little “t” tradition, not a capital “T”.
At the Easter Vigil at Holy Family Church on Hilton Head Island, I baptized an adult Elect. This is the photo that was taken after the Vigil.
This has to be the largest crucifix I have ever seen inside any church. However, many traditional crucifixes have a stand at our Lord’s feet for them to rest upon. Scholars believe that this is historically accurate as those who crucified our Lord and others wanted to prolong the agony of the crucified person who could lift his sagging body up to help with breathing as the lungs filled with fluid. Without the support of a foot pedestal, the person crucified would die more quickly usually from fluid gathering in the lungs as the person sagged.
I had not paid attention to the “modern” placement of the nails into our Lord’s wrists. While that may be historically accurate, there is no foot stand for our Lord in Hoy Family’s crucifix. What do you think?
7 comments:
I don't remember where I heard this, but there is no word in Aramaic or Koine Greek for "wrist". So when using the word hand, it included the "wrist" portion as part of the hand.
The solution is simple. The right hand was nailed to the wrist, but when they could not stretch his left arm far enough, the left hand was nailed nearer the palm. It is all explained here:
https://divinefiat.blogspot.com/2023/04/jesus-is-nailed-to-cross.html
Thank you, Tito Edwards, as my recollection was same, and much dependent on local use of words to describe anatomy.
Nor am I aware of any scholarly crucifying going on to test assorted theories, while having personally witnessed the fact a single ringed finger is NOT capable of supporting a falling body... but that is a falling body and a single finger, while in another instance the finger did stay attached and support entire weight when hoisted, but it was ugly.
@Bob, Dr Pierre Barbet actually did 'crucify' cadavers to prove his contention that the nails would have been through the wrists and not the hands. His book, 'A Doctor at Calvary' makes great Lenten reading.You can view a picture of the Crucifix he had made based on his research here: https://www.madscientistblog.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/barbet-crucifix.png
Don't bother with the article it's in. It's in 'The Fortean Times', a crackpot mag from England.
It should be noted that we know Jesus was nailed to the cross because (big T) Tradition tells us so. Scripture does not say that Jesus was nailed to the cross at all.
John 20:25 refers to the "mark of the nails", but Jesus could have received nail marks from the scourging.
[Nota bene: It turns out that even Protestants rely on Catholic Tradition!]
Dr. Loye W. Young, OP, JD
Dominic, Texas
Could He have been tied to the cross by His wrists and then nails driven into His hands as extra torture? I read that tying the person's wrists to the cross was typical. If so, it may not have even been mentioned, whereas the additional nailing would have been noted.
The Shroud of Turin show the nails in the wrists...Blood flows show that it is likely the hands were flat on the cross and the arms twisted to accommodate
Post a Comment