I was watching a program which portrayed a Catholic Priest who has (or had – it’s unclear if he is still alive) displayed the stigmata of the Crucifixion for nearly 50 years or more. He bears the holes in his hands.
OK.
Why? Didn’t they prove years ago that there was no way Christ could have been nailed through the palms of His hands, but would have been nailed through His wrists? Apparently that is how Romans crucified people they disliked because the hands, being weaker because of smaller bones and tendons, would have allowed the nails to tear out.
So why, when some Catholic people display stigmata, do the marks show up in the hands?
Of all the stigmata specials I’ve caught on TLC, I think the victims never showed blood on the top of their hands. What’s the deal? I assume that when they nailed Jesus to the cross the nails made an exit wound as well.
If you consider the amount literature and artwork depcting Jesus being nailed through the hands, it’s no wonder that these people would reproduce those wounds rather than the more modern, anotomically correct version that anyone who watches the Discover Channel knows about.
I figure that when this new ‘Discovery Channel’ generation resches the appropriate age that we’ll see a rash of more historically accurate sympathy inguries.
I was reading somewhere that apparently the debate as to whether the nails would have gone through the palms or wrists is still open; the argument for nails always through the wrist is based on the assumption that the entire body weight would have to be supported by the two nails, but this assumption may be false - there may have been ropes involved (as far as I understand it, the nails were not just to keep a person up there, but were to inflict pain and injury).