Here’s a useful webpage on the gruesome practice. Here’s another. Most scholars seem to think that victims were commonly tied to crosses; and that if they were nailed, they were nailed through the wrists, not the hands. Another reader says the jury is still out:
I have followed the debate over the nail entry points with some interest.
There are two schools of thought – each with some archeological support. The first is that the nails would have had to enter the wrists and ankles to support the weight of the victim. The newer theory holds that indeed the hands and feet were entry points, but that wooden washers made from the cut trunk of young trees were used for additional support.
I don’t think there is a consensus.
Interesting. The trailer also shows that rope was used – which may make nails in the palms more plausible. Then there’s this:
You should also note the apparent inaccuracy of showing Our Lord carrying a complete cross, i.e., with the horizontal beam affixed to the vertical beam.- As far as I know, this is not how it was done.- Victims had the horizontal beam tied across their shoulders (as depicted in the 1977 mini-series “Jesus of Nazareth,”-a very Catholic depiction of Our Lord)-which they would then carry some 600 yards to Calvary.–After having the wrists nailed to the beam, they would be lifted by means of ropes through over a scaffolding that was permanently planted into the hill for the purpose of crucifixions.- Once the horizontal beam was dropped into a slot, one foot (or one heel) was placed over the other, with a single nail driven through.- Constructing-complete crosses for victims would seem to be more expensive, inefficient and clumsy.
I suggest we keep an open mind as to why Gibson is depicting the Passion with these traditional yet apparently unhistorical details.- It would seem that a traditional Catholic should have no fear of depicting things accurately, even if they conflict with traditional (small “T”) artistic interpretations.- But I’ll be waiting for an explanation.
I doubt we’ll get one. I also noticed that the Latin pronunciation is more Catholic 14th Century than Roman First Century. If my own years of Latin lessons hold up, the Romans pronounced, “Ecce Homo” “Ekke Homo” not “Eche Homo.” Oh well. I’ll wait for the movie.
UPDATE: Josh Claybourn has more details.
The Dish 