IIRC, the wrist was considered part of the hand in those days.
Josh McDowell's book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" deals with the crucifixion pretty well.
But I do note this: it's not so much the issue where the nails were driven, it's the issue of His bodily resurrection 3 days later.
Paul preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus not nail placement.
The BBC doesn't believe in God.
The Judeo Christian God VIOLATES their beliefs which of course are NOT Christian.
There. Got it?
Did the BBC have a man at Calvary? I must have missed that small detail.
Can't we just take God's Word for what happened?
Must we always resort to fallible man and elevate that over God? Must we? In this house, we don't. It's God's Word that supersedes man's fallible word.
I saw a documentary a few years ago on this subject. A medical researchers used cadavers to demonstrate how the crucifixion was carried out. He said the nails were driven through the heel of the hands—the lower part of the palm at a downward angle. He showed that this method would support a body without the nails ripping through the flesh. BBC is managed by aging gay, British Bolsheviks.
they pierced my hands and my feet. Psalms 22:16b
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. John 20:24, 25
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. John 20:27
They’re coming out a little late this year...
I believe the "skeleton" in question consists merely of an ankle bone with a nail throught it. This in no way indicates Jesus was crucified in the position they claim.
"The Victorian image of Jesus doesn't tie in with the historical evidence," he said.
The "Victorian image"? Apparently the early Fathers who wrote about the Crucifixion were simply relying on Victorian art. Who knew? /sarc
While acknowledging that his ideas are likely to upset Christians, Mr Elliott argued that the position so familiar to churchgoers was only one of a range of methods used by the Romans in crucifixions.
Which also means that Mr. Elliott's claimed "historically accurate" method was also "only one of a range of methods used by the Romans in crucifixions." It is not his "ideas" that are irksome, but his ignorance of history and the basic laws of logic, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't accompanied by the air of certainty with which he makes his claims.
"The Victorian image of Jesus doesn't tie in with the historical evidence," he said."He was probably put on a crude wooden gibbet and made to stand in a loose, foetal position. It was fiendishly designed."
The Easter Silly Season is upon us.
"Victorian"? They must not have ever heard of the Alexamenos graffito.
Oh the truth comes out. It is not about accuracy, it is about creating controversy and thus free publicity.