quote:

---

Originally posted by richfed

Don't know all that much about the proper language [though I would think Latin appropriate for the time & place] nor the physical possibilities of a crucifixion via the hands & feet [though I thought I remembered the shroud of Turin bore that out] ... but, no matter.

This figures to be an outstanding work of art, as most labors of love are ... Mel must have a most special affinity for this subject to approach it in such a manner. Judging by those photos, it figures to have overwhelming impact. I greatly look forward to this!

Thanks for the heads up, CT!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lainey

What an interesting endeavour~
I'm anxious to see this one's completion.

Regarding language & accuracy; the use of Latin, incredibly highlighted by the use of Aramaic as well, speaks volumes about the integrity & desire for authenticity of this production. Aramaic, one of humanity's oldest languages, was the language spoken by the Hebrews of that time & place while Hebrew was used for the written word. Christ spoke in Aramaic. Scripture was written & read in Hebrew. No small detail - no small task to bring Aramaic to life here.
While Greek was previously a widely spoken tongue, an intended consequence of Hellinistic rule of Palestine, the subsequent rise of Rome brought Pax Romana and the language of Latin. Greek remained the standard form for written words for a long time. (The Chi Ro, for instance, is still used.)
As you said, CT, the original texts of the New Testament were primarily written in Greek, including the Epistles, Acts, & Apocrypha, though written over a span of time & not compiled into byblos, or the Bible, for generations afterward. It was the fourth century monk, St. Jerome, fluent in several languages including Latin, Greek, & Hebrew, who first compiled the ancient Hebrew texts of the Septuagint (Old Testament) & the Greek texts of the Gospels et al (New Testament) into one universal Latin version. (Ancient even in St. Jerome's day, these original manuscripts were lost to history.) A faithful, word-for-word translation, the work of St. Jerome brought together the various books into what amounts to a library of Sacred Scripture (Byblos), the Latin Vulgate of the Catholic Church (sole version of Christendom from 415-1444 & the first book off Gutenberg's printing press) - from which all later editions & renditions of Scripture stemmed, including the first English translation, the Douay-Rheims.
The usage of spoken Latin & spoken Aramaic in this depiction of Christ's Passion sans subtitles is both correct & wise.
(Latin & Greek are, to this day, reflected in Mass - its form & parts still known by their Latin/Greek names; Kyrie, Agnus Dei, etc.)

Regarding the crucifixion; the subject of much discussion & debate, the probable anatomical site for nails remains the palms. Despite the assumption that a nail through the palm would not hold the weight of a man on the cross, medical researchers now say the tendon that runs just along the thumb is far stronger than presumed & may be strong enough to support the weight of the hanging body. Also, though not mentioned often, crucifixions had variance depending on where they were done, and by whom. St. Peter was crucified in Rome - upside down. St. John was crucified & repeatedly dunked into hot oil. (He miraculously survived, recording the Gospel account after his ordeal.)There were small differences between the manner of crucifixions done in Judea & in far off Rome. Typically, the wrists of the condemned were first bound to the horizontal wood of the cross before nails were pounded into the flesh, making the issue of palm/wrist capability nearly irrelevant. The 1st century victim was not crucified in the same manner as Christ. He was impaled with one nail through his fleshy heels with legs faced sideways, one over the other. It is a reasonable assumption to say that 1)when the wrists were not bound they may have been the nail site, or 2)when bound, the palm was the nail site, or 3)at times, binding may have been the only manner of securing the condemned to the cross & no nails were present.
Roman historians, such as Josephus, don't definitely record this detail as the Latin word mano makes no distinction between palm & wrist. There is really no reason to presume there was a unified, standard protocol for nails/spikes during crucifixion.

On the other hand,

quote:

---

Lainey, thanks for your post. Once again, very well written. Although I have some minor friendly disagreements with some of what you wrote.

---

quote:

---

I pretty much agree with your statement that
"It is a reasonable assumption to say that 1)when the wrists were not bound they may have been the nail site, or 2)when bound, the palm was the nail site, or 3)at times, binding may have been the only manner of securing the condemned to the cross & no nails were present. Roman historians, such as Josephus, don't definitely record this detail as the Latin word mano makes no distinction between palm & wrist."

On this subject the only factual evidence is provided by archaeology. Anything else is speculation and assumption.

---

quote:

---

Many scholars believe the reamins of Yehohanan point to a nail through the wrist, although some even disagree with this. In the end what it boils down to, is that we simply can't be exactly sure how the Christ was crucified, and since the gospels aren't clear on the subject, it's probably not at all important.

---

quote:

---

In fact there is absolutely no reason to believe only 3 nails were used, for the gospels don't record this detail. Early church iconography depicting 3 crossed nails is most likely symbolic for the trinity. For my part it is a subject of interest, not importance. I lean toward the archaeological evidence.

---

quote:

---

As a f