OK, so we know from history that the Romans killed thousands of people by nailing them to crosses..?

Question

So, how come nails only come up in one Gospel, ie; John.

All the others just say he was "fixed to" the cross. Mathew, Mark, Luke, no mention. Only John.???

Answer 1

Keep in mind also that the Gospel of John was written somewhat later than the "synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and that it relied on different source material. Scholars of the New Testament are in general agreement that the synoptic gospels, of which Mark was the first to be written, shared a common source, which they call Q for lack of a better term. (Q stands for Quelle--which means "source" in German.) John's gospel emerges from a different community that used different source material. Since none of the gospels were likely to have been written until Christ was dead for 40 years or more, it is small wonder that the written and oral traditions codified in the gospels would differ.

Where John's gospel really diverges from the others is in emphasizing the divinity of Christ, whereas some of the social sermons of Christ, such as the sermon on the Mount, are not included. Oh, and the day of the crucifixion is different from the others by a day or so I think. I do not think the inclusion of the nails in John or exclusion in the synoptics is of tremendous importance, though to be sure by the Middle Ages, the "nails" played an important role in devotional devices known as the Arma Christi (weapons of Christ--not his weapons, but the ones used on him during his passion).

Answer 2

Crucifiction was pretty much only done in massive amounts (think Life of Brian) or one at a time.

The fact that the bible claims that this instance involved three people, and only one of them can be said to have committed a capital crime (sedition) makes the crucifiction as described in the Bible very unlikely.

Far more unlikely is the idea that someone who raised a crowd of 50,000 in the sticks of Judea would not rate a mention by Augustus, who wrote about far lesser stuff.

The lack of archaeological and contemporary evidence for this instance of crucifiction makes arguing about how it occured pointless. That it occured is still a matter of gross speculation with little evidence.

Ignore Jesus for a moment, since his crucifiction is important to so many, and try to find evidence for those hung up on the same day at the same place- that evidence isn't there either.

Please note, I don't think the fact that this might not have happened should affect anyone's Christianity, but I *DO* think there are questions that should be answered about the crucifiction if we are to treat it as a fact and discuss whether he was nailed or hung.

For the record, a seditious carpenter would probably get *nailed* to the cross, but that's because the Romans had a thing for irony- and that's assuming the crime of sedition, which is crucifiction-worthy, but would certainly also appear in the historic record....it does not appear in the contemporary records, only in records written later, and not by unbiased sources.

Answer 3

I think that the question you should be asking, is 'why wern't Jesus' bones 'fed to the dogs'? Seriously, the other people WERE nailed to crosses, so much so, that when one disciple was to be nailed to the cross (as was the punishment), he insisted he be nailed to the cross upside down, because he did not believe he deserved to die the 'same way' Jesus was. In those days, history tells us, the bones from those who had died on these crosses, were fed to the dogs. Gory, isn't it? But, not Jesus. His body was carried to a rich man's grave, as the man wanted him to lie in HIS grave, and NOT be 'fed to the dogs'. They were all nailed to the cross, history tells us. The Bible may not say the others were nailed to the cross.........but, history tells us that they were.

Answer 4

You have to recognize that the English bible that you are reading has been translated to English from Greek (Ancient Greek). So, there is likely a vocabulary issue as well as the perspective of the writer.

fixed to the cross means nailed to the cross.
in my opinion only

Answer 5

It's not really important, we know Romans used crucifixion as a form of capitol punishment. They sometimes tied victims, sometimes nailed their wrists. Probably Jesus was nailed in the wrist, not the palms of his hands, as the weight of his body would have caused a tear in the hand.

Answer 6

Talk about straining out the gnat.....!
Is there any problem here?
'Fixed to' and 'nailed to' are harmonious.
Why insist each writer provide every little detail?
Apparently, you and John have a fixation with detail.
Be happy.

Answer 7

Is the purpose of the Bible about educating the masses about the tools of the day and how they were used or to give instructions on how to live and relate to one another?

Answer 8

There must have been more than one way to secure someone to a cross.

Answer 9

no .. i think the romans were sweet little conservationists and just gently tied him to the cross .. or maybe they used their version of super glue ... cmon.

Answer 10

Mistranslations maybe?