The traditional Christ on the cross, performed at an Easter Passion parade Posted on 03/16/2008 11:29:16 AM PDT by BGHater
With his arms outstretched, his legs straight and his hands nailed to the cross, it is the image of Jesus's crucifixion held dear by Christians for centuries.
But now the producers of a BBC drama about Christ's final days have challenged the traditional representation, saying they believe Jesus probably did not die that way.
Instead of portraying Christ with his arms out wide and his legs straight down, The Passion will show him nailed to the cross in a foetal position, with his arms above his head and nails through his arms - the way, the producers claim, he may well have been crucified by the Romans.
Leading theologians accused the BBC of "misleading" the public and said it was ignoring the Biblical account of the crucifixion. But the makers of The Passion insist their ideas are based on new historical evidence.
Simon Elliott, the production designer, claimed that they had tried to make the drama as "historically accurate" as possible.
"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."
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.
"It is a minefield, as everyone has such strong feelings about it. Our portrayal is based on lengthy research." In particular, he said they had been influenced by the discovery of a crucified skeleton, which was found near Jerusalem in 1968 and is the only such archaeological find.
This led them to believe that Christ could well have been crucified on a T-shaped gibbet, with his arms above his head and his legs tucked up and under him so that his chest was crushed and he died of asphyxiation. Instead of having nails through his hands, they could have been driven through his arms.
The Passion has already proved controversial for appearing to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate for their roles in the Christ's death.
But Mark Goodacre, associate professor of religion at Duke University, who advised the producers, defended the decision to put forward an alternative representation of the crucifixion. "The Romans used a number of ways to crucify people and this was one of the most common and effective methods," he said.
"The makers wanted something that wasn't the typical image that would surprise the viewers. This is not an attempt to be iconoclastic, but to get people to look again at the events surrounding his death." He added that he thought the Bible did not actually explain in any detail the form of crucifixion employed.
Paula Gooder, a New Testament scholar, said that the traditional image had become important to Christians in understanding what the crucifixion was about.
"They have clearly decided to go for this option because it's unusual and will jolt viewers and challenge them about their assumptions," she said.
"Their portrayal causes a problem as it seems to ignore what the Bible says."
In the Book of John, Jesus says to Thomas: "Put your finger here; see my hands."
Dr Gooder, canon theologian at Birmingham Cathedral, said that the BBC's version would change the image of Jesus "throwing his arms out in a symbol of love".
She added: "There's a lot of significance attached to the traditional image that has been lost in this version and is likely to upset those who don't like a move away from what they're used to."
The Reverend George Curry, who is the chairman of the Church Society, said: "They are misleading people by distorting the facts.
"That's a serious and dangerous thing to do, but sadly utterly predictable and regrettable. Jesus's nails went through his hands, not his forearms. We should be true to history and the events that occurred."
The Passion begins tonight on BBC1. The programme is to be broadcast in four episodes, culminating on Easter Sunday with the Resurrection.
The traditional Christ on the cross, performed at an Easter Passion parade
The BBC's alternative crucifixion position
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.
This is an excellent book -
Josh McDowell’s book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.
Josh started out as an ATHEIST and wanted to prove the bible wrong and became an ardent BELIEVER - because the Bible is true.
All this idiotic nit picking won’t make it false - to those who KNOW.
Are the exact body position and nail placement described in the Bible?
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.
Frankly,
“Are the exact body position and nail placement described in the Bible?”
Does it matter?
Isn't it more miraculous that He overcame death?
Or don't you believe that either/
I could care less where the nails were placed - it's moot!
Why don't YOU look it up if this silly detail is so critical to YOU?
Imagery I could do without on this Sunday. But you're right.
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
Thanks for the info.
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.
John should know, he was the only disciple who witnessed the crucifixion. Matter of fact this is the only gospel (RC) read during the Vigil of Easter.
"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 makers wanted something that wasn't the typical image that would surprise the viewers. This is not an attempt to be iconoclastic, but to get people to look again at the events surrounding his death." He added that he thought the Bible did not actually explain in any detail the form of crucifixion employed.
I think you should apply for a professorship at Duke. :)
WOW
:)
I just knew the scripture...
If you read Psalm 22 through, the discription of what happened to Jesus on the cross is there...
Yes, the manner of crucifixion was important, because it occurred in order to fulfill prophecy.
The Passion has already proved controversial for appearing to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate for their roles in the Christ's death.
This is also leftist sabotage of the Gospel, because Jesus said that "evil must come, but woe to him by which it comes." Judas and Pilate were guilty as...as sin.
I don't get why it's being one way or the other is supposed to be upsetting to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.