Forgot:
Neumann’s wounds remained when she died.
spoke-, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, either. It’s just that the historian in me is uneasy, relying too much on the exact wording of anything in translation from the original source.
Actually, I thought that by his own account, John the Evangelist (aka John the Beloved) was an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus. While on the cross, Jesus looks down on his mother Mary and the author (who usually refers to himself not by name but as “the disciple Jesus loved”) and enjoins them to take care of one another: “There is your mother; there is your son.”
So I’m not suggesting that John the Beloved/Evangelist didn’t know how it was done; in fact, his gospel might be the best first-hand account we have. I’m just wondering whether our translation of his original text accurately reflects what he described, or some later, confused idea of how crucifixion was done.
As to evidence for whether the Romans nailed the wrists, exclusively or otherwise: I don’t know if there is any one way or another. Clearly many historians lean towards the wrists in part because it is thought that nails through the palms could not support hanging body weight. But then, as Michie and PosterChild discussed earlier, it could be done with the hands rather than the wrists. The question then becomes: by which method was Jesus crucified?
Which brings us back to the Gospel of John.