The Gospel of John Film and Crucifixion

Onesimus

Just bought this recently. It is a film that goes word for word from the Gospel of John from beginning to end. It uses the Good news translation in the film. I thought it was a fantastic film.

The only contention I had was this: During the crucifixion they show Jesus as being nailed through his ''wrists'' and not his ''hands'' as written in the Gospel, St.John makes it clear that he had holes in his ''hands'' and not his ''wrists''.

Also in the film he carries just the bar of the Cross through the streets and not the entire Cross itself. Was this indeed the way it happened? I dont think so. Great film bar these parts in which contradicted the Gospel word for word with the imagery/portrayal of events.

Onesimus

Fanny Cradock

Onesimus wrote: »

Just bought this recently. It is a film that goes word for word from the Gospel of John from beginning to end. It uses the Good news translation in the film. I thought it was a fantastic film.

The only contention I had was this: During the crucifixion they show Jesus as being nailed through his ''wrists'' and not his ''hands'' as written in the Gospel, St.John makes it clear that he had holes in his ''hands'' and not his ''wrists''.

Also in the film he carries just the bar of the Cross through the streets and not the entire Cross itself. Was this indeed the way it happened? I dont think so. Great film bar these parts in which contradicted the Gospel word for word with the imagery/portrayal of events.

Onesimus

There is some suggestion that the Greek for what we translate as hand can actually be used to describe both hand, wrist and arm. The nail could be hammered in between the radius and ulna bones without breaking any bones being broken. It is also suggested that nails inserted through the palms if combined with rope in around the upper arms would be sufficient to hold the victim in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Nail_placement

Onesimus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is some suggestion that the Greek for what we translate as hand can actually be used to describe both hand, wrist and arm. The nail could be hammered in between the radius and ulna bones without breaking any bones being broken. It is also suggested that nails inserted through the palms if combined with rope in around the upper arms would be sufficient to hold the victim in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Nail_placement

Cheers Fanny. I have a Greek dictionary so will double check it.

Whats your take on it?

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

Cheers Fanny. I have a Greek dictionary so will double check it.

Whats your take on it?

χείρ
cheir
khire
Perhaps from the base of G5494 in the sense of its congener the base of G5490 (through the idea of hollowness for grasping); the hand (literally or figuratively I]power[/I; especially [by Hebraism] a means or instrument): - hand.

according to my dictionary it just means ''hand'' and not ''wrist'' or ''arm''.

Fanny Cradock

Onesimus wrote: »

χείρ
cheir
khire
Perhaps from the base of G5494 in the sense of its congener the base of G5490 (through the idea of hollowness for grasping); the hand (literally or figuratively I]power[/I; especially [by Hebraism] a means or instrument): - hand.

according to my dictionary it just means ''hand'' and not ''wrist'' or ''arm''.

I'm going by what I have heard in the past and by the Wiki link. If you look at Luke 15:22 it would seem that some modern translations (NIV for example) use χείρ to mean finger. "Put a ring on his finger" as opposed to "put a ring on his hand". But I'm happy to bow to superior knowledge on this. If χείρ can't ever mean hand wrist and arm (forearm, I assume) then χείρ means hand.

Onesimus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm going by what I have heard in the past and by the Wiki link. If you look at Luke 15:22 it would seem that some modern translations (NIV for example) use χείρ to mean finger. "Put a ring on his finger" as opposed to "put a ring on his hand". But I'm happy to bow to superior knowledge on this. If χείρ can't ever mean hand wrist and arm (forearm, I assume) then χείρ means hand.

I can see though why they would translate it as ''finger'' for the greek ''chire'' at Luke:15:22. Because it is part of the hand. I've no idea but it still is a good enough translation as the finger is known to be part of the hand.

But hand is not part of the wrist, nor wrist part of the forearm. There is a definite distinction there. It would be interesting though to find out more as my knowledge upon it is very limited but glad I posted about the topic all the same. It would also be interesting to see if the Greek ''chire'' has ever been used elsewhere in the New Testament for ''arm'' or ''wrist''.

Onesimus

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Just bought this recently. It is a film that goes word for word from the Gospel of John from beginning to end. It uses the Good news translation in the film. I thought it was a fantastic film.

Consider it sought for..

The only contention I had was this: During the crucifixion they show Jesus as being nailed through his ''wrists'' and not his ''hands'' as written in the Gospel, St.John makes it clear that he had holes in his ''hands'' and not his ''wrists''.

Consider the base of the hand/top of the wrist. Pierced by a nail, you would strike through at a point which would provide enough structural support to sustain the weight body. A nail through the soft tissue/delicate bone structure in the center of the hand would see the victim rip loose.

A nail through the wrist/hand divide would also see the nerve bundle located in the carpal tunnel (and serving the hand) pierced. This would inflict excruciating pain on the victim.

Could you call the base of the hand, the hand?

Also in the film he carries just the bar of the Cross through the streets and not the entire Cross itself. Was this indeed the way it happened? I dont think so. Great film bar these parts in which contradicted the Gospel word for word with the imagery/portrayal of events.

Onesimus

Who knows. I can't see even a healthy man carrying a "Passion of the Christ" sized piece of lumber for any length of time.

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider it sought for..




Consider the base of the hand/top of the wrist. Pierced by a nail, you would strike through at a point which would provide enough structural support to sustain the weight body. A nail through the soft tissue/delicate bone structure in the center of the hand would see the victim rip loose.

A nail through the wrist/hand divide would also see the nerve bundle located in the carpal tunnel (and serving the hand) pierced. This would inflict excruciating pain on the victim.

Could you call the base of the hand, the hand?





Who knows. I can't see even a healthy man carrying a "Passion of the Christ" sized piece of lumbar for any length of time.

Thanks antiskeptic. What you say looks like it makes perfect sense. But lets give this some thought. The nail in the palm of the hand would not rip loose considering they placed a lump of wood beneath his fit to keep him from ''hanging'' thus the nail ripping right through the whole hand and Jesus becoming loose from the cross.

So it makes perfect sense that he was nailed through the ''hand'' and not the ''wrist''. Without the foot rest though I could see how the wrist idea would work from your point of view.

Where in the Bible are we told that Jesus carried just ''the bar'' and not the entire ''Cross''?

Onesimus

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Thanks antiskeptic. What you say looks like it makes perfect sense. But lets give this some thought. The nail in the palm of the hand would not rip loose considering they placed a lump of wood beneath his fit to keep him from ''hanging'' thus the nail ripping right through the whole hand and Jesus becoming loose from the cross.

Perhaps we should leave technical discussion of the likes of our Lords suffering be?

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps we should leave technical discussion of the likes of our Lords suffering be?

Why?

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Why?

It just seems unseemly to me... dissecting precisely how it was he might have physically suffered.

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

It just seems unseemly to me... dissecting precisely how it was he might have physically suffered.

But shouldnt it seem important to us both to understand precisely how that suffering occured seeing as he is Our Lord and that the Crucifixion is indeed what set us free?

I would like to think so...

I recall a buddist monk who visited our local redemptorist Church from tibet kept going around the monastery and every time he saw a crucifix he would simply bow his head in disbelief and shy away from it. He couldnt believe that human beings could do such a thing. Yet we did. Yet as Christians we look at it in both sorrow and with joy, knowing that Christ has set us free from sin on the cross restoring the grace that Adam through his disobedience had lost.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

The only contention I had was this: During the crucifixion they show Jesus as being nailed through his ''wrists'' and not his ''hands'' as written in the Gospel, St.John makes it clear that he had holes in his ''hands'' and not his ''wrists''.

As far as I know χερι can be anything from shoulder to phalanges. It's also interesting if you look at Eastern iconography of Crucifixion that it's the Christ's palms that nailed to the cross. This is something that cannot be true but it it's canonical in iconography.

Also in the film he carries just the bar of the Cross through the streets and not the entire Cross itself. Was this indeed the way it happened? I dont think so. Great film bar these parts in which contradicted the Gospel word for word with the imagery/portrayal of events.

It was a common custom that the sentenced to death carried the bar of the cross and then the cross assembled at the place of execution. The whole cross is heavy anyway for a beaten person to carry. Also Greek 'σταυρος' does not have the same meaning as English 'cross', i.e. it does not have to be two bars crossed. It only means wood.