THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST FROM A MEDICAL POINT OF VIEW
C. Truman Davis, M.D., M.S.
In this paper, I shall discuss some of the physical aspects of the passion, or suffering, of Jesus Christ. We shall follow Him from Gethsemane, through His trial, His scourging, His path along the Via Dolorosa, to His last dying hours on the cross. I became interested in this about a year ago when I read an account of the crucifixion in Jim Bishop's book. "The Day Christ Died." I suddenly realized that I had taken the crucifixion more or less for granted all these years-that I had grown callous to its horror by a too easy familiarity with the grim details-and a too distant friendship with Him. It finally occurred to me that as a physician I didn't even know the actual immediate cause of death. The Gospel writers don't help us very much on this point, because crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetime that they undoubtedly considered a detailed description totally superfluous-so we have the concise words of the Evangelists: "Pilate, having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to them to be crucified-and they crucified Him." I am indebted to many who have studied this subject in the past and especially to a contemporary colleague. Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon who has done exhaustive historical and experimental research and has written extensively on the subject.
The infinite psychic and spiritual suffering of the Incarnate God in atonement of the sins of fallen man I have no competence to discuss; however, the physiological and anatomical aspects of our Lord's passion we can examine in some detail. What did the body of Jesus of Nazareth actually endure during those hours of torture?
This led me first to a study of the practice of crucifixion itself; that is, the torture and execution of a person by fixation to a cross. Apparently, the first known practice of crucifixion was by the Persians. Alexander and his generals brought it back to the Mediterranean world-to Egypt and to Carthage. The Romans apparently learned the practice from the Carthaginians and (as with almost everything the Romans did) rapidly developed a very high degree of efficiency and skill in carrying it out. A number of Romans authors (Livy, Cicerl, Tacitys) comment on it. Several innovations and modifications are described in the ancient literature. I'll mention only a few, which may have some bearing here. The upright portion of the cross (or stipes) could have the cross-arm (or patibulum) attached two or three feet below its top. This is what we commonly think of today as the classical form of the cross (the one which we have later named the Latin cross); However, the common form used in our Lord's day was the Tau cross (shaped like the Greek letter Tau or like our letter T). In this cross, the patibulum was placed in a notch at the top of the stipes. There is fairly overwhelming archeological evidence that it was on this type of cross that Jesus was crucified. The upright post or stipes, was generally fixed in the ground at the site of execution and the condemned man was forced to carry the patibulum, apparently weighing about 110 pounds, from the prison to the place of execution. Without any historical or biblical proof, medieval and Renaissance painters have given us our picture of Christ carrying the entire cross. Many of these painters and most of the sculptors of crucifixes today show the nails through the palms. Roman historical accounts and experimental work have shown that the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrist and not through the palms. Nails driven through the palm will strip out between the fingers when they support the weight of a human body. The misconception may have come through a misunderstanding of Jesus' words to Thomas, "Behold My hands." Anatomist, both modern and ancient have always considered the wrist as part of the hand. A titulus, or small sign, stating the victim's crime was usually carried at the front of the procession and later nailed to the cross above the head. This sign with its staff nailed to the top of the cross would have given it somewhat the characteristic form of the Latin cross.