[johnb838]

In Gibsons portrayal of the Crucifixion, he both nailed and tied. I think this is probably correct. If you tied only, an arm could wriggle out. If you nailed only, an arm could rip out. No, the best way is to do both.

[shroudie]

You may be right. If nails or spikes were driven through the palms they would rip out if the arms were not tied.

However, if spikes were driven through the wrists, they would hold. That the Romans did, in fact, crucify victims by driving large nails through the wrist area of the forearm was confirmed by the 1968 archeological discovery of a crucifixion victim, named Johanan ben Ha-galgol, found near Jerusalem at Giv’at ha-Mivtar.

On the Shroud, in the hand wounds, we see that the nails were through the wrists and not the palms. This is evidenced by both the images and the bloodstains. That was contrary to all known artistic depictions of the crucifixion since the earliest carvings of the crucifixion on 5th century coffins. It was certainly the norm during the Middle Ages to depict Jesus as nailed through his palms. The wrists, however, are more archeologically and medically plausible. It was not before the first part of the 20th century, that medical experts first realized that nails driven through a man’s palms would not support his weight, even if his feet were nailed or supported. The nails would tear out.

Shroudie