HOW WAS CHRIST CRUCIFIED? -- JOHN 20:24-29

 

How was Jesus Crucified? – John 20:24-29

In a recent issue of Biblical Archaeology magazine, Jeffrey Arroyo Garcia discusses whether Jesus was nailed or tied to the cross. His conclusion is that he was tied to the cross despite what John's Gospel says. What follows is a brief presentation of his evidence followed by critiques on that position from various scholars.

Archeological and Literary Evidence

The most famous discovery relating to this issue was made in Jerusalem in 1968. From an ossuary (box containing bones of a deceased person) dating roughly from the 1^st centuries BC to AD, a calcified heel bone containing a 5” nail was recovered. There was a similar find in England dating to the Roman occupation of that land.

Bruce provides more details concerning the 1968 find: “It was dated to about the beginning of the 1^st century A.D. One nail had been driven through each of his forearms, and a third, which was still in situ, through both his ankles together. His legs had been broken like those of Jesus' two companions in John 19:32.”

In addition, the historian Josephus definitely refers to the nailing of Jewish rebels to crosses by the Roman forces. He also mentions that a Roman procurator of Judea nailed some of Judah's citizens to the cross during 64-66 AD. But due to the sparseness of any more hard archeological evidence coupled with the fact that almost all literary evidence for this form of crucifixion dates from a later time period, Garcia somehow concludes that the Romans must have changed their standard method of crucifixion from tying to nailing sometime after Christ's crucifixion.

Green notes that “it is clear that no standard form of crucifixion was uniformly practiced...Josephus reports even among the Romans the method of crucifixion was subject to the whims of military leaders.”

Unfortunately, the two Greek verbs used in the New Testament to describe crucifixion – stauroo and kremannymi – simply mean “to hang,” without at all defining the method of hanging.

“Nailing is testified to only in isolated instances [such as in Herodotus]. It is uncertain whether this was done to the feet as well as the hands...It must be remembered that the secular writers of the period did not deign to provide a detailed description of this disgraceful and cruel form of execution. Many questions must be left open.” (Brandenburger)

“Some have suggested that the detail is unhistorical, urging that nails would not support the weight of a body and that ropes must have been used in crucifixion. J.A. Baily, however, cites O. Zockler as showing that the hardness of the nails used in crucifixions was proverbial, and that Xenophon of Ephesus mentions the use of ropes in crucifixions in Egypt as though this was unusual...It seems clear that the detail is historical.” (Morris)

Biblical Evidence

John 20:24-29

Concerning what the New Testament has to say on the subject, Garcia limits the majority of his comments to the sole Gospel specifically mentioning nailing – John 20:24-29. In that passage, Jesus invites Thomas to investigate the marks and holes in His hand and feet caused by the nails. He attempts to dispose of this evidence in the following way:

“First, the author (or his audience) was perhaps located in a region, such as Ephesus or elsewhere in Asia Minor, where nailing of the hands was well known. Second, there are aspects of John's crucifixion and resurrection accounts that are unique. John alone describes the piercing of Jesus's side (19:34) and views it as a fulfillment of prophecy, namely, 'they will look on the one whom they have pierced' (19:37; cf. Zechariah 12:10). John also appears to be rewriting Luke 24:36-43, where the disciples are directed to 'touch' and 'see' Jesus's hands and feet. Of course, it is clear in Luke (v. 39) that Jesus's hands and feet are intended to prove the resurrection of his body and not to demonstrate the nail wounds. Therefore, John might be creatively weaving together these elements, portraying the crucifixion as real, even a fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, for a community who had to believe without seeing.” His conclusion is that “this account may have come from a time after the revolt or somewhere in the Diaspora where nailing was more common, while John's crucifixion story was adapted from his sources, likely the other Gospels.” Note his use of the weasel words “perhaps,” “appears to be,” and “might” which together reveal that he is just hazarding a guess.

Luke 24:39-40

Note how quickly Garcia attempts to dispose of Luke's version of the post-resurrection appearance. He states that Jesus was merely trying to prove to the Apostles that he was flesh and bone, and not a ghost. But if that was all Jesus had in mind, then why did He specifically point to his hands and feet and not to any other part of His body? Garcia is clearly off-base here as confirmed by other commentators quoted below.

Fitzmyer: “His [Jesus'] challenge to the disciples to look and touch is aimed at establishing his identity; but his challenge reveals the incredulity that still besets them. Luke presupposes here details of the crucifixion that he did not recount, e.g. the use of nails.”

Craddock: “Even Paul, whose letters make few references to the life of the historical Jesus, insisted on joining crucifixion with resurrection. He proclaimed Christ crucified (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:11); the risen Lord of the church had nail scars in his hands. This is Luke's point here: 'See my hands and feet' (v. 39).”

Martin: “Not only did He stand in their presence so they could see Him and His wounds (vv. 39-40), but He also ate food...before them to show He was not a ghost.”

Marshall: “It was really He Himself, and He showed them His physical body with its flesh and bones, and His hands and feet with the nailprints in them.”

Mark 16:14

To demonstrate the historical inaccuracy of John's version, Garcia notes that Mark 16:14 specifically says that the eleven apostles were present at the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus. Since Judas was already been eliminated by that time, it implies that all the remaining apostles, including Thomas, were there, in stark contradiction to John's report that Thomas was missing at that time.

I am frankly surprised that any scholar would try to utilize this apocryphal ending to Mark's Gospel to prove a point. Horsely rightly labels Mark 16:9-20 as “two attempts to provide a more satisfactory ending to the Gospel of Mark.” He dates these additions to “the early second century and appended to the Gospel later in the second century. These sentences borrow some motifs from the other Gospels and contain several unusual apocryphal elements. To this conclusion, practically all Bible scholars today would agree.

Colossians 2:14

This verse refers to nailing at the crucifixion, but it doesn't, according to Garcia, refer to Jesus being nailed to the cross, only to the placard affixed over his head. Other scholars are not nearly so sure:

Melik: “Interpreters differ as to the exact meaning Paul had in mind. Most likely it referred to the indictment hung over the prisoner's head when he was crucified.”

“Cancelling the certificate of independence and nailing it to the cross go together, though it is not certain how the latter action referring to the historical crucifixion of Jesus bears upon the wiping out of the charge...Dibelius-Greever suggest that the bond is like the titulus or sentence of condemnation which was posted over the criminal's head as he died on the gibbet (Jn 19:20).” (Martin)

N.T. Wright: “The images are so overlaid here that it is hard to see how they are to be related to one another.” Nevertheless, he concludes that it referred to the sign “The King of the Jews” nailed to the cross, not to Jesus.

Dunn, however, sees it as a metaphor: “The thought is rather of the indictment itself being destroyed by means of crucifixion, as though it was the indictment which was itself nailed to the cross” (i.e. just as Christ was nailed to the cross).

Seitz: “'God made him to be sin in whom there was no sin' (2 Cor. 5:21), so that in killing this Son of God, the note of death is killed, cancelled, and rendered null and void.” He sees problems with the interpretation that it was the law which was nailed to the tree.

Barth and Blanke discuss this difficult verse at length, but do conclude that it appears that “This 'document of guilt against us' is our body and flesh which Christ took up and which is nailed to the cross” so that it is a “curious imagery of the crucifixion of a document of guilt.” And for that metaphor to work, the phrase must refer back to a physical crucifixion also involving nails.

Geisler: “Jesus 'took ...away' this criminal charge, this certificate of indebtedness, by His death. It is as if He were 'nailing it to the cross with Him, showing He paid the debt.”

Green points to this verse as well as Luke 24:39; John 20:25; Acts 2:23; and Gos. Pet. 6.21 as indicating that Jesus was nailed to the cross.

“An unstated premise seems to stand behind this text. It was Christ's body that was nailed (proseloo, Col 2:14) to the cross, metaphorically portrayed as a 'hand written document' (cheirographon)...” (Reid)

In short, there is no reason at all to jettison John's account of Christ's crucifixion as unhistorical.