Skeptics often accuse the Church of trying to manipulate the data surrounding the historical Jesus to better fit the narrative of his supposed resurrection. They claim we have falsified historical details about Jesus in order to make him the divine figure we so desperately desire.

Psalm 22: Pierced or Something Else?

One such example involves a prophecy mentioned in Psalm 22 written nearly a thousand years before Jesus’ crucifixion. By the way, it’s believed that crucifixion hadn’t even become a method of punishment yet, which was eventually developed by the Persians a few centuries later.

Psalm 22 provides some details of the future suffering that Jesus would endure on the cross. Verse 16 says, “They have pierced my hands and feet” (Ps. 22:16).

This is obviously a big problem for the non-Christians who want to deny that prophecy is possible. If this was written centuries before Jesus’ crucifixion and before crucifixion became a common practice, then how could these details have been provided by the psalmist unless God revealed it to him? 

Some scholars have claimed that the word “pierced” could be translated as “lion,” “hacked off” or “dug through.” The reason being is that the Hebrew words and the literary forms used for these words and terms are very similar.

Distinguished Old Testament scholar Derek Kidner believes it should be “pierced,” reminding us that the Septuagint, i.e., LXX (the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) uses the word “pierced.” This is an important piece of information. Kidner says,

“A strong argument in its favour is that the LXX, compiled two centuries before the crucifixion, and therefore an unbiased witness, understood it so…. The chief alternatives (e.g. ‘bound’ or ‘hacked off’) solve no linguistic difficulties which ‘pierced’ does not solve, but avoid the apparent prediction of the cross by exchanging a common Hebrew verb (dig, bore, pierce) for hypothetical ones, attested only in Akkadian, Syriac and Arabic, not in biblical Hebrew.”[1]

In other words, not only does “pierced” make more sense when it’s read in context, but you have the alternative words being used in different languages which are not the original language in which this psalm was written: Hebrew.

As for biblical Hebrew, the Masoretic texts (standardized Hebrew Scriptures) which use the word “lion” instead of “pierced,” are written nearly 1,000 years after the Septuagint!

The Septuagint was the Scripture that was being used during the life of Jesus and the very one the New Testament authors quoted from a majority of the time. Manuscripts of these Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures were found among what is called the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947.[2] Biblical scholar Conrad Gren explains

“Here [Dead Sea Scrolls] we have a Hebrew text over 1,000 years older than the oldest known copy of the standard Hebrew Masoretic text, which supports the reading found in the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate. No longer can Hebrew scholars claim that the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate are here faulty reflections of the original Hebrew…. Thus, the original Hebrew likely read ‘pierced.’”[3]

The only difference between “pierced” and “lion” is a tiny stroke of the last character which could easily be changed accidentally by a scribe. However, when it’s read in context it makes more sense to understand the word as “pierced.” Which sounds more sensible: “like a lion my hands and my feet” or “they pierced my hands and my feet”?

Furthermore, because this biblical Hebrew text (Septuagint, i.e., LXX) was written 1,000 years before the Masoretic Hebrew texts, we can be confident in how this word should be translated.

But let’s suppose that the translation really should be “dug through.” This really doesn’t change the circumstance and is still consistent with Jesus’ crucifixion. His hands and feet were “dug through” with nails.

Or what about “like a lion”? This still wouldn’t nullify or change the prophetic details given by the psalmist. Suppose it made sense to translate it as, “like a lion they mauled my hands and feet.” Undoubtedly, in a figurative sense, these ferocious lion-like Roman soldiers did maul his hands and feet. If you’ve ever had 5-7 inch-long spikes driven through your hands and feet, you would agree that they were indeed mauled.

So, although we have good reasons to believe the word is “pierced,” the other translations are entirely compatible with Psalm 22’s prophetic description of what happened to Jesus on the cross.

Archaeology Matches Psalm 22

Some skeptical scholars in the last century have claimed that Jesus was probably never even nailed to the cross in the way that we have normally envisioned, attempting to discredit the Psalm 22 passage about the Messiah being pierced.

For example, scholar Joseph William Hewitt believes that although Jesus’ hands may have been nailed to the cross, he most likely had his hands tied with ropes as many crucified victims did, but he never had his feet pierced.[4] Hewitt believed this was simply invented by the Church so that Jesus could fulfill messianic prophecies as recorded in Psalm 22: “They pierced my hands and my feet” (Ps. 22:16). Hewitt claims,

“There is astonishingly little evidence that the feet of a crucified person were ever pierced by nails. The strength of the tradition to that effect is due chiefly to the attempt to fulfil in detail a supposed messianic prophecy.”[5]

Could this be true? Did the Church invent details about Jesus’ resurrection to match prophecies laid out in the Hebrew Scriptures? Hewitt and other skeptics often speak too soon. Biblical archaeology has refuted loads of skeptical claims like this over the years.

For example, a few decades after Hewitt wrote this, the remains of a crucified Jew were discovered in an ossuary (bone burial box) in 1968,^[6] dating back to the late 20s AD which was during the time of Pilate’s administration.[7] This victim’s heel bone had a large nail through it with a piece of wood still affixed to its end.

If this nail had not gotten stuck in the precise location of the wood where a knot was—the nail would have been removed—meaning, there could be several other skeletal remains of buried crucified victims that we aren’t aware of due to the removal of nails. Israeli anthropologist Joseph Zias and Medical Doctor Eliezer Sekeles point out,

“The condemned man’s family would now find it impossible to remove the bent nail without completely destroying the heel bone. This reluctance to inflict further damage to the heel led to the eventual discovery of the crucifixion.”[8]

You would think we’d still be able to identify a heel bone that had a nail removed from it; however, as archaeologist and scholar in early Judaism, Jodi Magness, points out, “The means by which victims were affixed to crosses usually leave no discernible traces in physical remains or archaeological record.”[9]

Nevertheless, due to modern discoveries, Hewitt’s writing on this topic in The Harvard Theological Review is now falsified and downright useless pertaining to this specific matter. Magness says, “I believe that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence.”[10]

I guess you could say this discovery was the “Achilles heel” for the skeptic. I know, that was a lame dad joke but I’m still proud of it. Thanks for reading.

Blessings,

Andrew Drinkard

[1] Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 125.

[2] For an in-depth look at the discovery and information pertaining to the Dead Sea Scrolls, see James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006). 

[3] Conrad R. Gren, “Piercing the Ambiguities of Psalm 22:16 and the Messiah’s Mission.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 2 (2005), 288-292.

[4] See “Roman Procedure and the Gospels” in John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 424-425; Cook provides ancient sources confirming that hands of crucified victims would be nailed to the patibulum (horizontal beam), while the feet would be nailed to the crux (vertical pole/beam). He reminds us that the ancient writer Artemidorus says “one who is a about to be nailed to a stauros [cruciform or “T” shape of cross] first carries it.” The ancient playwriter Plautus also says, “I will give a talent to the person who will run to the cross, but on the condition that his feet and hands are double nailed.” Hence, Cook states, “Ropes or nails (or perhaps both) could be used to fix the criminals to their crosses.” (424-425).

[5] Joseph William Hewitt, “The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion.” The Harvard Theological Review 25, no. 1 (1932): 29-45. Accessed May 27, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1507688.

[6] Approximately 900 limestone burial boxes have been discovered in and around Jerusalem. The remains of Caiaphas, the high priest of the Sanhedrin who sentenced Jesus to death, were discovered in 1990; see Eddy and Boyd (2007), 295. A fuller treatment can be found in Jodi Magness, “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 121-154.

[7] See Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles E. Hill and Chris Tilling, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014), 83-85 for more details.

[8] Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles, “The Crucified Man from Giv’at Ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal.” Israel Exploration Journal 35, no. 1 (1985): 22-27. Accessed June 2, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27925968.

[9] Jodi Magness, “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 145.

[10] Magness, “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James,” 148.