A Christianity Today editor is apologizing for an article that sparked a social media firestorm for implying that nails may not have been used in Jesus’ crucifixion. The controversial article, Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?, was posted the Monday of Holy Week and quoted Gordon College professor Jeffrey P. Arroyo García as suggesting ropes -- not nails -- may have been used by Roman soldiers. Although García had made the same argument in the spring issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, the Christianity Today article received far more attention.

The Christianity Today article did cite counter-evidence, including the fact that Jewish writer Josephus described the use of nails in Roman crucifixions. Even so, it was widely criticized and even sparked a rebuttal. Gary Manning, a professor at Talbot School of Theology, wrote a column for Church Leaders, “Yes, Jesus Was Crucified With Nails.”

Manning and other critics cited as evidence the words of Thomas in John 20:25, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

On Tuesday, the author of the article, news editor Daniel Silliman, issued an apology.

“Like so many Christians, I spent a lot of time before Easter thinking about the Crucifixion: how it must have felt for Jesus to die that way, how God chose this particular device of Roman terror to accomplish our salvation, and how it worked practically to kill someone on a cross,” Silliman wrote.

“An article in Biblical Archaeology Review piqued my reporting curiosity. A Bible professor suggested it was possible that crucifixions at the time of Christ’s death used ropes rather than nails. That’s obviously an idiosyncratic view -- and almost certainly wrong, it seemed to me. But I thought it was interesting.

“My curiosity took me to the descriptions of Christ’s death and the details in those accounts. I didn’t think about John 20:25 and the implication of the idea that Thomas was mistaken to think the resurrected Jesus would have nail marks in his hands. Thomas clearly would not have said that if the Romans at that time used ropes.

“My article implicitly called into question the inerrancy of Scripture. In my eagerness to explore the historical context of Christ’s death, I missed that, and I’m sorry,” Silliman concluded.

Additionally, the original article has been updated to include this statement: “This article has been revised to clarify that Scripture, including the Gospel of John, indicates that Jesus was crucified with nails and that Christianity Today, along with Christian scholars and theologians throughout church history, affirms that account. CT’s theological positions can be found in our statement of faith. The author of this article has issued an apology.”

Silliman’s apology was widely applauded.

“I so appreciate this,” one person wrote. “Imagine a world where we all admitted when we messed up. Respect.”

Source