If I was gonna crucify someone - I'd go through the hands and bound their wrists with rope for extra support... that's what every crucifiction I've ever seen looks like... besides - they won't bleed to death as quickly as if I spiked em through the wrists. Plus, a spike through the wrist isn't gonna support a body - especially if they can flop their hands around and wiggle loose. Some of you people don't understand torture of the human body very well. -rolleyes-

Pretty sure that's: "Eloi! Eloi!"

Matthew 27:46 - About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" -- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



-

Exactly. They clearly show there are ropes supporting the limbs here. Just like in Jesus of Nazareth. And you forget that they were also nailed thru the feet. A very small platform is juts out from the body of the cross and that's where the feet go. He wasn't really hanging by the palms you know. And as one poster has said, there really IS no historical document saying that where he was nailed thru anyway.

That being said, being a devout Catholic, I think this is going to be hard to watch.

Watch the crucifixion documentary on the Last Temptation of Christ DVD.

Hey Jepthah I'm pretty sure hes saying *Eloi Eloi* meaning the same thing which is *My Lord, My Lord* or My God. That part where he says it in aramaic gives me goosebumps.

Is there an estimated release date for this movie yet???

I don't have to. There's differing accounts as to how he was nailed. Some religious scholars will say the wrists, others will say the palms. Scholars have argued this for decades. Either way, nobody knows. I also said factual accounts. No disrespect, but the documentary from the Last Temptation of Christ is a far cry from proof.

All I'm saying is you can't cry foul over this issue because we don't know. If

The last that I heard Mel Gibson wanted this out in time for Easter '04.

Watch it. There are interviews with actual historicans and they discuss the actual facts and the actual evidence about crucifixions at the time. The main evidence comes from the well-preserved corpse of an actual victim of crucifixion.

... from the banana republic of Histo Rica?

:D

I second, third, fourth, whatever, what anyone has to say in praise of the TLTOC doc.

Speaking of DVD docs, I imagine Mel will be putting together quite a set to rope in the more enlightened DVD buyers - at least an informative commentary. If we could get Caviezel in on that too - I'd love to hear how he handled playing someone with whom you either nail the performance (no pun intended) or be laughable.

That's not even in the same league. Hyperbole aside, if you want to get your panties in knot, why not tackle the larger issues: did Jesus exist and if so, was he the son of God? A minor detail, about which scholars disagree, isn't worth debating--unless, of course, you're an academic.

Some people just get feel that every detail must be examined for it to be a Perfect, Historically accurate, exact, flawless movie. Bringing up Samuel Jackson Playing our first president wearing a leather jacket as a comparison to whether Jesus was staked at the palms or wrists. LOL. come on bro give Mel Gibson a break dam bro. Your name Groucho sure does fit your comparison style.

If you want to read a medical examinator's take on the crucifixion, try this website:
http://www.cga94.com/contributors/stuff/crucifixion/

The article is well done, and althought could be speculated on things, it's a well thought out medical analysis.

BTW - in the times of Jesus, the area known as the "wrist" was basically the forearm. When they talk about nailing between the wrist, they are (probably) talking about putting the nail between the two bones found in the forearm.

Everyone (and by everyone, I mean Groucho ;) ) is dwelling on the age-old palm/wrist controversy, but what was a glaring inaccuracy to me was Christ hauling the COMPLETE cross down the street. I thought it was fairly well established that he was only required to carry the crossbeam, which was then attached to the upright, which was already in place.

In any case, the Bible doesn't clearly state the details of the crucifixion which we are arguing about here, so it doesn't really matter. I beleive Mel was striving for his film to be BIBLICALLY accurate, not "historically" accurate, particularly since history bears no recording of the details either. The Bible uses the Hebrew word for "hands", which means everything including palm AND wrist, so either location is Biblically accurate, since we don't know which particular part.

Also, I'd venture to guess that almost every crucifixion was unique and dependent upon how the particular commander wanted it to be carried out. Evidence of one victim being crucified one way carries little weight with determining that ALL victims died exactly the same way.

Agreed. Using anything from the last temptation as historical/theolgoical proof is like using anything From Hell to use as historical antidote for the real Whitechapel murders.

The thing of the nails through the wrists has been deemed as evidence from skeletons and corpses found crucified by the Romans.

With a little study of history, one will find the Romans were experts at death, torture, and killing. They knew how to kill people, many people in gruesome/effienint means.

Jesus as recorded in history through the Gospels, and through other historians I.E. Josephus, was not the only Jew ever crucified by the Romans. While the wrist shot would keep the body haning longer, they did need to thrust a spear into some people (as they did Jesus) to be sure they were dead.

We don't know the exact method used on Jesus, I'm sure while the Romans were master butchers, they improvised.

Doesn't do anything to deter me from seeing Mel's much anticpated movie.

Yeah, just like the JESUS SEMINAR are actual "theologians" as well. Anybody involved with the Last Tempation is uncredible IMO and many others.

No, it's not. The documentary on TLTOC (which most people here are talking about) is lauded, and seen as an authority. Is there a good documentary on the FH disc that handles the Whitechapel murders without fluffing the subject?

Not to mention Alan Moore's appendix in his trade paperback, where he goes on about where he got his information and what he learned.

No-one is suggesting a very fine Scorsese film is the end-all authority on a state punishment unseen by civillization for over a thousand years.

I think we're getting off the subject here, so let's not argue over a subject that isn't worth debating. Any feature film based on a true story is exactly that, BASED on a true story, and shouldn't be taken as a history lesson. Was Jesus crucified through the wrists? We don't know. Was Jesus WHITE? We don't know. Was Mary Magdalene a smokin' hot Italian babe? Maybe, we'll never know.

We do know the documentary on TLTOC is a wealth of information.

We do know The Passion looks interesting.

I do know I'll be there opening day.

I do know I'll wallop anyone who nitpicks the crucifixion out loud during the film. ;)

What's laughable are the Jewish anti-defamation groups who are crying that this movie depicts Jews in a poor light (never mind the fact that they haven't seen the movie yet, but since when do facts apply to people who get offended if the wind blows the wrong way?). I suppose since the only way to make over-sensitive, spineless minority groups happy is to make bad guys neo-Nazis (like in The Sum of All Fears; perhaps a movie about Al-Qaida would require someone with blue eyes and blond hair to play bin Laden), then in this movie it should be neo-Nazis who crucify Christ.

There are scholars and then there are "Groucho scholars." And if you don't believe everything the latter tells you, you'll be shot to death in your own home. :)

I already know what the next DVDTALK scholar will nitpick about!!!

Why are there mostly White actors when they should all be middle eastern looking and dark skinned? Its the same thing as casting Tom Hanks as Saddam Hussein Wearing a T shirt saying dvdtalk!

Heh.. Some people can never be pleased unless its utterly perfect and Flawless

I stand corrected. It was hard to hear above the loud music and I hardly know the Gospels at all.

Great looking trailer. Am very interested in seeing this movie.

I'm a little anxious however, seeing that pale looking chick that is apparantly Satan. I am aware of the story in Mark (or was it Matthew?) of Satan trying to tempt Christ. But I still never saw Satan having any involvment in everyone turning against Christ and having him cruxcified. Wasn't the point of the story supposed to be that this guy did so much for people who acted like dick towards him? Having the devil floating around in the background of the movie would seem to suggest that Judas, the preists or whoever were just a pack of Flip Wilsons. "The Devil made me do it!"

I don't no what the status is on the subtitles or lack there of anymore. I hope they leave them out. I can't see subtitles adding much.

Thank you. People are so scared of anything associated with that movie that they are missing a very informative piece. The documentary should be seen, even if one chooses to boycott the movie itself. It's great.Normally, I'd agree. The issue here is that Gibson has been shooting his mouth off about how accurate the movie is, the closest you can get to a documentary without going back in time and shooting the real thing. I'm just calling him out on those remarks...just as I called out The Matrix Reloaded over the whole "uncopyable fx" thing.Seriously, what's this supposed to mean?Gibson brought it on himself by overhyping the movie's historical accuracy. If he hadn't made all those overblown comments, I wouldn't even be commenting.There's another thread from a few weeks ago I started. Gibson backslid on the subtitles, and decided to add them in.

As far as wrists or palms.
On the Shroud of Turin where are the nail marks?
Since this is believed to be Christ's image when he came back to life.

Its on the wrists coming from the info on the Shroud of Turin.

Interesting, Groucho, that YOU of all people in the history of the world absolutely KNOW how the nails were driven in. Doing a little Google research, it is clear that there is no consensus as to definitely wrist or palm. IMO, Gibson had a 50/50 choice and he went with the most commonly regarded (amongst believers) choice. It isn't right or wrong, because we don't know for sure where the nails were placed. Either choice is correct, since they are both possible (see the link in my previous posts about the cadaver study).