Why the BBC thinks Christ did not die this way

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.

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.

I'm glad you brought this up, because the skeleton in question does not validate the claims very well. First, the evidence from the forearm bones indicates that, while the nails in this instance were, in fact, driven through the arms, they were a lot closer to the wrist than the elbow. Further, the wear marks on the arm bones indicate that the man's arms were stretched out horizontally, in a similar, if not identical, position as Christ's arms are generally portrayed. Finally, it is impossible from the evidence of the nail through the heel bone to conclude definitively that the legs were in the tucked position alleged. They could have been, but it is equally likely that the legs were relatively straight, though canted 90 degrees so they could be nailed to the upright beam through the heels.

As for the "evidence" that Christ was crucified in the manner they allege, there is not a shred of testimony to back this up. The Gospel accounts clearly state that the "hands" were nailed. This could include the wrist, but it definitely does not include the forearm proper! Thus, the "scholarship" of these people takes the only direct accounts of the event of Christ's crucifixion and then proceeds to completely ignore them! Evidence? What evidence can they have about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ but the Gospels? There is no "new evidence" in the details of Jesus' crucifixion! What utter nonsense it is to claim otherwise! To ignore the Gospel accounts completely like this is a certain betrayal of nefarious motives!

Further, the evidence of contemporary graffiti referencing crucifixion in general in the Roman Empire, and one specific graffito of Christ's crucifixion in particular (found, as memory serves, in Rome itself), seems to indicate clearly that the "standard" method of crucifixion is quite along the lines of the tradition portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion. Sure, the soldiers were allowed to indulge their whims sometimes, but there were actual methodologies taught to them about crucifixion, and these norms were generally followed.

There is no evidence, based on alleged "scholarship" or otherwise, that can demonstrate that crucifixion was not normally carried out in the way we're all familiar with as depicted in renderings of Christ's own crucifixion. As usual around Christmas and Easter, the materialists and atheists in the MSM have attempted yet again to cast novel forms of doubt on the reality of the Gospel accounts. This time, the BBC has taken its turn at the wheel. Here in the US, Time, Newsweek and US News and World report assault us in turn in similar fashion. But the result is always the same: poorly researched, breathlessly overwrought trumpetings of modern "scholarship" that are as thoroughly unconvincing in their theses as they are transparent in their motives!

As the Brits themselves might say: "This is a horse that won't run!"

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.