B
BoomerangToo
Guest
This new fashion is casting doubt on history and the Biblical account. Stop it!
- Status
V
victrolatim
Guest
Most likely because one would slip right off the cross if just nailed through the hands without any other support. Through the wrist would support the nail in a gap between the ulna and radius bones. It does make more sense if Our Lord was nailed through the hands that there was a rope tied around his forearm as well to support His weight.
This is hardly a new fashion. The wrist is the most effective and painful spot for the nails as it supports the body weight and hits the carpal nerve.
The location is borne out by the image of the Shroud.
And further, the Greek word is not limited to the palm but includes the forearm.
This is not a hill to die on. Pick another battle.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Then why are the stimatas in their palms?
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Spoiler alert: Renaissance Art =/= Reality
The Greek word χείρ can mean hand or wrist. It’s historically more plausible Jesus was nailed through the wrists due to the fact that if he had been nailed through the hands, his body weight would have caused the nails to rip right through, causing him to fall of the cross - that and nailing through the wrists is much more painful than simply through the palm of the hands which the Romans would have loved to take advantage of.
The Greek word χείρ can mean hand or wrist. It’s historically more plausible Jesus was nailed through the wrists due to the fact that if he had been nailed through the hands, his body weight would have caused the nails to rip right through, causing him to fall of the cross - that and nailing through the wrists is much more painful than simply through the palm of the hands which the Romans would have loved to take advantage of.
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
Crucifixion victims had other supports. Ropes around the arms, crossbars to stand on, seats to sit on. The victims don’t have to hang the full weight of their bodies from their hands.
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
Because that’s where the nails were. They were not in the arms. These modern depictions are a fallacy.
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
The wrist is in the hand, not the arm.
This is a perfectly good battle to pick. If the Biblical account is wrong, then what else is wrong? Maybe there was no resurrection, hmmm? Let’s not go there.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Me too!!!
A body can’t be supported by being crucified in the palms unless they were also tied in the arms by a rope.
ALSO, I think the Shroud has it in the wrists.
A body can’t be supported by being crucified in the palms unless they were also tied in the arms by a rope.
ALSO, I think the Shroud has it in the wrists.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
There is an ongoing controversy over whether the practice was to nail through the hands or wrists, and/or whether ropes would have been also used. There have been past threads on CAF about this.
I remember reading that it had been proven by some research team that you could nail somebody through the hands and have them stay up on the cross, or that there was someway you could put the nail through the palm and have it come out the wrist in the back and the person would stay up.
I remember reading that it had been proven by some research team that you could nail somebody through the hands and have them stay up on the cross, or that there was someway you could put the nail through the palm and have it come out the wrist in the back and the person would stay up.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
If you look at the Gospels you will see that they just say Jesus was crucified. They don’t say where the nails went. To show that they went through his hands is just a fiction, just like the modern harmless portrayals of his appearance (which originate with 19th center German artists), though the Gospels don’t say at all what he looked like.
However, if the nails were put through his palms, as others have already pointed out here, the nails would not have supported his weight, and his hands would have been ripped off the cross.
I don’t know why the stigmata of others, like Padre Pio, are in their hands. Perhaps out of condensation to people’s conceptions?
—However, I see that someone here said that there there are claims that his hands were tied to the cross. Perhaps it would be good to have a link to two to such a claim here?
However, if the nails were put through his palms, as others have already pointed out here, the nails would not have supported his weight, and his hands would have been ripped off the cross.
I don’t know why the stigmata of others, like Padre Pio, are in their hands. Perhaps out of condensation to people’s conceptions?
—However, I see that someone here said that there there are claims that his hands were tied to the cross. Perhaps it would be good to have a link to two to such a claim here?
Last edited:
Then you must be seeing other things because there are no other depictions of the nails other than wrists or palms. If you agree that the wrist is part of the hand then there is no issue. Even your three example pictures show the nails through the wrists.porthos11:
The wrist is in the hand, not the arm.
This is a perfectly good battle to pick. If the Biblical account is wrong, then what else is wrong? Maybe there was no resurrection, hmmm? Let’s not go there.
Again non issue here. Pick another battle.
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
There is when you include all the stigmatas in their palms. In another thread it says there were about 500 stigmatas, with only one having it in his wrists.
Last edited:
H
Hereiam
Guest
Ah, an other example of confusion of reading scripture “literally”, and reading scripture in the “literal sense”.
I’m celebrating the resurrection today, not losing sleep over the precise details of the Passion.
The more important facts are he died, he rose on the third day, he ascended, and he will come again.
Pax et bonum!
I’m celebrating the resurrection today, not losing sleep over the precise details of the Passion.
The more important facts are he died, he rose on the third day, he ascended, and he will come again.
Pax et bonum!
Last edited:
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
A nice brief article written by Father Kenneth Doyle and published in the Arlington Catholic Herald entitled Nailed Through Wrists or Hands ? which appears to integrate most of what has been posted thus far on the thread (precluding any personal propensities or idiosyncrasies)
P
PetraG
Guest
Not only is art=/= reality,
Not only does the original language not distinguish between hand and wrist but
Everyone who had actually seen a crucifixion was dead for roughly 100 years before graphic depictions were considered acceptable. Not even graffiti of the time depicts crucifixions in anatomically explicit terms.
Not only does the original language not distinguish between hand and wrist but
Everyone who had actually seen a crucifixion was dead for roughly 100 years before graphic depictions were considered acceptable. Not even graffiti of the time depicts crucifixions in anatomically explicit terms.
P
PetraG
Guest
Artists can take license without being heretics or inviting heresy or skepticism.
How many different racial appearances have Our Lord and Our Lady had in popular art? They had a literal skin color, but giving them an unlikely skin color does not reduce them to Santa Claus or unicorn figures.
How many different racial appearances have Our Lord and Our Lady had in popular art? They had a literal skin color, but giving them an unlikely skin color does not reduce them to Santa Claus or unicorn figures.
Last edited:
M
MrsK
Guest
Well, I think that he was nailed through the palms but the angle of the nail pointed directly to and into the wrist so as to lodge the palm and the wrist all in one fell swoop of the nail. This would hold the body, this would cause great pain, this also explains the stigmata of Padre Pio.
H
Hope1960
Guest
That makes sense.
- Status