A recent article in Christianity Today titled “Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?” has been raising some animated discussion on social media—not surprising, since the opening sentence argues, “The Bible doesn’t say Jesus was nailed to a cross.”
The article, written by Daniel Silliman, is based mainly on an interview of Jeffrey P. Arroyo García, a professor at Gordon College. García also wrote an article on this topic, “Nails or Knots: How was Jesus Crucified?,” published in Biblical Archeology Review.
Jeffrey P. Arroyo García’s Argument Against Nails
Here’s the thrust of García’s claims in the two articles: Early Roman accounts of crucifixions do not mention nails. The words related to crucifixion, in both Latin and Greek, do not necessarily imply nailing. The Latin verbs that are usually translated “nailed” in those accounts mean “attached,” and do not specify how the victims were attached.
The first accounts to mention nailing during crucifixions, García says, are in Josephus. Josephus used the Greek verb προσηλόω (prosēloō), “to nail,” in some of his descriptions of crucifixions. From this, García concludes that nailing during crucifixion was not likely widespread until the Jewish War (AD 66-70). Before then, victims were usually tied with ropes; they would still die from suffocation.
Now, García says he is not certain of this interpretation of history. But he says that if his view is correct, then the Gospel of John is probably not being historically correct when it describes Thomas saying “unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger into the mark of the nails…I will not believe” (John 20:25, 27).
Here is García’s explanation:
- John “was perhaps located in a region, such as Ephesus or elsewhere in Asia Minor, where nailing of the hands was well known.”
- “John might be creatively weaving together these elements” (from Luke 24:39).
- “this account may have come from a time after the revolt or somewhere in the Diaspora where nailing was more common, while John’s crucifixion story was adapted from his sources, likely the other Gospels.”
- “the point of the gospel passage, the Gordon professor points out, is that followers of the resurrected Christ shouldn’t actually need nail holes to affirm their faith.”
How does García deal with other New Testament passages about nailing during crucifixion? In Luke, Jesus tells his disciples to look at his hands and feet (Luke 24:39). García responds that this was to prove Jesus’ actual physical resurrection, not to show any wounds. Luke does not mention any nail holes.
Colossians 2:14 seems to describe nailing: God has canceled the “certificate of debt against us…having nailed it to the cross.” García responds (correctly, I think) that this passage is using the metaphor of a titulus, the criminal charges that are nailed to a cross (John 19:19-20), not a person who is nailed to a cross.
There are several problems with García’s claims. The most obvious is that the Bible indeed says that Jesus was crucified with nails. Thomas reasonably expected to see nail imprints on Jesus’ hands and feet, and Jesus showed them to Thomas: “look at my hands” (John 20:27). This scene is narrated in a gospel that claims to be based on an eyewitness account (John 19:35, 21:24).
García’s suggestion that the point of the passage is that “followers of the resurrected Christ shouldn’t actually need nail holes to affirm their faith” misses the point. Thomas wanted to see the nail marks, and Jesus showed him the nail marks (John 20:25, 27). Jesus’ blessing on belief is for those who come later and therefore cannot see what Thomas could see (John 20:29). The blessing is predicated on the actual events of the account being true.
