Sunday Times 2
Was Jesus really nailed to the Cross? – a response
View(s):My attention was drawn to the article captioned as above in the the Sunday Times of 20.03.16, page 20 – based on an article by Meredith Warren, a lecturer in Biblical and Religious Studies at University of Sheffield, which appeared in The Daily Mail, London. A careful reading of the article shows that it is not the crucifixion that the writer is questioning, but the manner of crucifixion – whether Jesus’ hands were nailed to the cross-bar, (patibulum as it is called), or tied with rope.
Members of the Italian community take part in a re-enactment of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on Good Friday in Bensheim, southwest of Frankfurt, April 18, 2014 (REUTERS)
Meredith Warren (MW) is not the first person to raise this question and try to cast doubt on the gospel accounts. A similar theory was propounded by J.W.Hewitt in Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932). He too theorized that rope, and not nails, were used in Jesus’ crucifixion.
Unfortunately, MW has made some misleading statements in the course of article, which is apt to cause some confusion in the minds of readers. It is on these that I would like to make a few comments on. To begin with, MW mentions “early gospels” and “canonical gospels” and “non-canonical gospels”.
The Canonical Gospels
It must be said that all Christians accept only the canonical Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John). The term “canon”, comes from a Greek word meaning “rule”, “norm” or “standard”. These canonical Gospels were accepted by the early Church Fathers (those Church leaders who came after disciples passed away). All the disciples, with the exception of St. John, died as martyrs, bearing witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In selecting these Gospels, the early church basically had three criteria – apostolic authority; whether they confirm to what is normally accepted by the church; continuous acceptance by the church at large. It must be understood that the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These books didn’t derive their authority from being selected; each was authoritative before being selected. The early church sensed that they were authoritative.
As Bishop John A.T.Robinson (1919-1983), author of Honest to God- 1963, observes, the New Testament must have been written prior to AD 70, which is the historically authenticated date for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This event is not mentioned in the NT as something that happened, but as an event that will occur in the future – (Redating the New Testament, 1976). So, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are the earliest gospels. All the other ‘Gospels’ (such as gospel of Thomas, Peter, mentioned by DM), are questionable documents which came later. The NT is composed of 23 other books, in addition to the canonical gospels, and authored by eight persons.
The Non-Canonical Gospels
The earliest converts to Christianity were Jews. As the religion spread to other races, some converts tried to introduce their original pagan ideas into Christianity. The Gnostics, were one such heretical sect who infiltrated into the early Church. It is not possible to go into details here regarding their beliefs. The Gnostics realized that the quickest way to have their teachings accepted was to attach the names of Apostles to their writings. Hence the Gnostic ‘Gospels’ were named after known Bible characters – Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary etc. They came much later than the accepted four Gospels. They were never accepted by the early Church Fathers. Thus Ireneaus (AD 140), a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, speaking of the four canonical gospels says, “So firm is the ground on which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these documents, each of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine.”
Against Heresies – Book 3.11.7)
How was Jesus crucified? – If one wants to get information on this, the valid source will be the canonical gospels. Mentioning the ‘Gospel’ of Peter in this context is not acceptable. So is the Gospel of Thomas, which contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus but no narrative of what he did, and seems to have been written in Greek in Syria about AD 140. It is however acceptable to very liberal minded scholars, like those of the Jesus Seminar. These people represent an extremely small number on the far, far, left wing of New Testament thinking.
That the Romans used nails in crucifixion is without question, though tying the hands was also used. As MW says, all four canonical gospels include the crucifixion in their own slightly different ways, as is to be expected when four people write about the same topic. MW says that only the Gospel of John (Jn.20: 27) mentions the wounds on the hands. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus appears to some of the disciples and shows them the wounds on His hands and feet (Lk. 24: 39, 40). The nailing of Christ to the cross is central to Christian theology from the time of the apostles. When one talks of Jesus’ Crucifixion, it has always been associated with nailing, not tying with rope.
There is an unprecedented number of New Testament manuscripts, (more than 5000 Greek MS have been catalogued), and they can be dated extremely close to the original writings. In addition, there are translations into other languages – Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, and Ethiopic – in various libraries. None of these mention about Jesus being tied with ropes to the cross.
The Romans had perfected the technique of crucifixion by nailing to the cross. Their ‘crucifixion squads’ were well trained. Also, nailing was done through the wrist, not the palm. They knew exactly where to place the long nail. The nail was driven through, what is known as, the Space of Destot, a small circular area in the carpus (between the capitate, lunate, triquetral and hamate). This causes no fracture and supports the weight of the body without tearing, as can happen if the palm is used. The nail damages the median nerve, which is close to the Space of Destot, causing severe pain when the victim slumps forward on the cross. The word excruciating literally means ‘out of the cross’. (David A. Ball MD, The Crucifixion and Death of a Man Called Jesus: From the Eyes of a Physician, 2010)
Archaeological Evidence – It has now been established that the use of nails is historical. In 1968 archaeologists in Jerusalem found the remains of about three dozen Jews who had died during the uprising against Rome around AD 70. One victim, whose name was apparently Yohannan, as engraved in the ossuary – (a container for bones of the dead), had been crucified. They found a seven-inch nail driven into his feet (calcanium or heel bone), with small pieces of olive wood from the cross still attached. This was excellent archaeological confirmation of a key detail in the gospel’s description of the Crucifixion – (Alexander Metherell MD. PhD, quoted in Lee Strobel, Case for Christ, 1998). It is indeed strange that Warren does not mention this.
Conclusion
There can be no doubt that Jesus was nailed to the cross. The canonical Gospels, the Epistles and the writings of the early Church Fathers fully support this. Nowhere in very early Christian literature do you find any suggestion that Jesus was tied to the cross. If it really was the truth, there is no reason why it should not have been admitted.
Finally, the over-all impression that one gets after reading the article, is that MW has only created doubts about the manner of Jesus’ crucifixion, without establishing anything. The artefacts mentioned, like the graffiti and gemstones, are irrelevant. On the other hand, the 1968 discovery of the heel bone with the nail impaled on it, from a crucifixion victim of the 1st century in Jerusalem, is not even mentioned. We can only conclude that Warren’s work is of the same genre as Nicolaus Notovich, Dan Browne, Michael Baigent, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy and others.
In concluding, may I say that Christians everywhere have become accustomed to having their religion attacked in the media and in books. Maybe, it has a salutary effect! It should make them question themselves as to why they believe what they believe.
The Word of God has withstood attacks from the 1st century. Truly, it can be said that just as the hammers in a blacksmith’s shop get worn out through years of beating, leaving the anvil unchanged, so has the ‘anvil’ of God’s Word prevailed against the ‘hammer’ blows of the sceptics. The hammers are gone, the anvil remains.
(Some of the facts mentioned in this article are from Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’, 1998)