Little Evidence Jesus Died on a Cross, Says Scholar

pts

Hi guys,

Came across (no pun intended ) this article which you might find interesting.

TLDR; Swedish Pastor wrote a Thesis detailing arguments that Jesus might not have been crucified, but killed in another torturous way.

Little Evidence Jesus Died on a Cross, Says Scholar

The crucifix is the defining symbol of Christianity, a constant reminder to the faithful of the sacrifice and suffering endured by Jesus Christ for humanity. But an extensive study of ancient texts by a Swedish pastor and academic has revealed that Jesus may not have died on a cross, but instead been put to death on another gruesome execution device.

Gunnar Samuelsson -- a theologian at the University of Gothenburg and author of a 400-page thesis on crucifixion in antiquity -- doesn't doubt that Jesus died on Calvary hill. But he argues that the New Testament is in fact far more ambiguous about the exact method of the Messiah's execution than many Christians are aware.

"When the Gospels refer to the death of Jesus, they just say that he was forced to carry a "stauros" out to Calvary," he told AOL News. Many scholars have interpreted that ancient Greek noun as meaning "cross," and the verb derived from it, "anastauroun," as implying crucifixion. But during his three-and-a-half-year study of texts from around 800 BC to the end of the first century AD, Samuelsson realized the words had more than one defined meaning.

"'Stauros' is actually used to describe a lot of different poles and execution devices," he says. "So the device described in the Gospels could have been a cross, but it could also have been a spiked pole, or a tree trunk, or something entirely different." In turn, "anastauroun" was used to signify everything from the act of "raising hands to suspending a musical instrument."

The manner in which Jesus died is further thrown into question by Samuelsson's discovery that crucifixion may have been an unusual form of punishment in the Roman Empire. Descriptions of crucifixions contained in the thousands of Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek manuscripts he examined most commonly referred to dead prisoners being placed on some form of suspension device, or living captives skewered on stakes. The first century Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger, for example, wrote about seeing a great many prisoners of war on "crosses" after one campaign. But the scribe then describes how a large number of the dead had been impaled.

"If you search for ancient texts that specifically mention the act of crucifixion [as we understand it today]" he says, "you will end up with only two or three examples."

That revelation stands in stark contrast to claims that appear in many books on the historical Jesus, as well as more general surveys of life under Roman rule, which state that prisoners were routinely nailed to crosses. (The Encylopaedia Britannica, for example, says crucifixion was an "important method of capital punishment" in Rome.)

Of course, this lack of hard evidence doesn't mean that the Roman Empire was a crucifix-free zone. Samuelsson suspects that crucifixion was simply one of a great many methods of execution employed across the empire. He notes that Flavius Josephus -- a Jewish historian and adviser to three Roman emperors in the 1st century -- recorded how Roman soldiers were allowed to use their "wicked minds in various ways to execute" prisoners captured during a Jewish uprising. This suggests that the method of Jesus' execution may have been decided by legionnaires stationed at Calvary, and not by the state.

"If we put this on the table, and think that the execution of Jesus was the result of the wicked mind of the soldiers at that very point, we can't know how he could have been executed," Samuelsson says. "The executions of that day could have taken a completely different form from ones the day before."

The Swedish scholar isn't sure exactly why the crucifix went on to become the dominant Christian motif. But this symbol only seems to have become fixed in followers' minds long after Jesus' death, as the first T and X shaped crucifixes appear in Christian manuscripts around the 2nd century AD.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Samuelsson's thesis has caused something of an unheavenly row. While fellow theologians have complimented his highly detailed research, many critics in the blogosphere have claimed that he wants to undermine Christianity. Samuelsson -- who believes that "the man who walked this earth was the Son of God, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead" -- says this accusation is simply "stupid."

"I'm really just a boring, conservative pastor and I start every day reading the New Testament," he says. "But my suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is."

JimiTime

Couple of points on this. Jehovahs Witnesses have been arguing this for decades, and it is used to show how wrong the churches of Christendom actually are. I used to think, 'yeah, it was a steak, not a cross. Hey you, catholic, it was a steak not a cross, rabble rabble'. But you know what, one day I thought, 'Actually, what does it matter?' If it was a cross, it was a cross, if it was a upright beam of wood, it was an upright beam of wood. Its actually of no consaquence at all.

Also, the fish was the symbol for christianity early on, not a cross.

pts

JimiTime wrote: »

Couple of points on this. Jehovahs Witnesses have been arguing this for decades, and it is used to show how wrong the churches of Christendom actually are. I used to think, 'yeah, it was a steak, not a cross. Hey you, catholic, it was a steak not a cross, rabble rabble'. But you know what, one day I thought, 'Actually, what does it matter?' If it was a cross, it was a cross, if it was a upright beam of wood, it was an upright beam of wood. Its actually of no consaquence at all.

Also, the fish was the symbol for christianity early on, not a cross.

Which is fair enough, if I was Christian I'm sure this article wouldn't change much in my mind either. I just thought I'd post it as I found it interesting. I do believe (and the end of the article seems to elude to it too) that some Christians will not like pastor Samuelsson hypothesis though. To some it is vital that their idea of God is not presented with contradicting evidence.

crotalus667

Whilst I doubt there ever was a jesus , the likely hood is that if he was crucified it was on an upper case letter T as apposed to a cross the cross was not widly used untill far later than the 1st century (and it was far less pratical)

JimiTime

pts wrote: »

Which is fair enough, if I was Christian I'm sure this article wouldn't change much in my mind either. I just thought I'd post it as I found it interesting.

I appreciate that. i wasn't having a go if thats what you thought.

I do believe (and the end of the article seems to elude to it too) that some Christians will not like pastor Samuelsson hypothesis though. To some it is vital that their idea of God is not presented with contradicting evidence.

Unfortunately I agree. Having seen, and been involved in heated arguements about such things (Its embarassing in hindsight), I know how people can get worked up over these things that matter not.

pts

JimiTime wrote: »

I appreciate that. i wasn't having a go if thats what you thought.

Not at all, I've found you to be very reasonable (most of the time ) in the past. As I said just found it a curious article, especially since the cross has become such an big symbol in Christianity.

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately I agree. Having seen, and been involved in heated arguements about such things (Its embarassing in hindsight), I know how people can get worked up over these things that matter not.

No one is perfect..

JimiTime

pts wrote: »

Not at all, I've found you to be very reasonable in the past.

Well its obvious you don't know me very well:)

No one is perfect..

Once agin, its obvious you don't know me very well;):)

pts

JimiTime wrote: »

Once agin, its obvious you don't know me very well;):)

:D

hivizman

Whenever there's something about the death of Jesus, I turn immediately to Raymond E. Brown's two-volume The Death of the Messiah (Doubleday Anchor Bible Library, 1993). Brown mentions (page 824, footnote 4) that: "The basic NT verb for crucifixion is stauroun, a denominative from stauros ("stake"): Josephus normally uses anastauroun . . . The root idea is to put someone on a stake, and P.-E. Guillet [reference to article published in 1974] tries to interpret Josephus as referring to impalement. Now, however, we know from contemporary documents that some Jews did contemplate hanging certain types of condemned criminals alive, and that makes stronger the probability that crucifixion was meant, rather than a shaft going up vertically through the body which would most likely kill the victim."

On page 945, Brown observes: "The English term "cross" prejudices our understanding, for it gives the image of two lines crossing each other. Neither the Greek stauros nor the Latin crux necessarily has that meaning; they both refer to a stake to which people could be attached in various ways: impaling, hanging, nailing, and tying. Using a stake to impale would normally kill the victim instantly or quickly. Using a stake or pole to crucify would normally effect a slow death since no vital organ woud be pierced."

Brown goes on at great length to discuss the comparative lack of detail in ancient sources about what anastauroun involved - he suggests that, because the Romans regarded this as a particularly shameful form of execution, their writers did not feel it appropriate to go into sordid detail. He also discusses what shape the stauros could have taken, noting that early Church Fathers differed as to whether the cross was "T" shaped or "+" shaped.

So, like many apparently controversial reinterpretations of Christian history, what appears at first sight to be novel turns out to have been addressed already by theologians and church historians. The key point, I think, is that Christian doctrine is based around the idea that Jesus actually suffered on the "cross", so the form of execution would have had to be one that did not lead to immediate death or even immediate unconsciousness.

smurfhousing

JimiTime wrote: »

Couple of points on this. Jehovahs Witnesses have been arguing this for decades, and it is used to show how wrong the churches of Christendom actually are. I used to think, 'yeah, it was a steak, not a cross. Hey you, catholic, it was a steak not a cross, rabble rabble'. But you know what, one day I thought, 'Actually, what does it matter?' If it was a cross, it was a cross, if it was a upright beam of wood, it was an upright beam of wood. Its actually of no consaquence at all.

Also, the fish was the symbol for christianity early on, not a cross.

Steak does sound much better than cross...:p

Fish info: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06083a.htm

Plus, if the Lord was not crucified on a cross, then why would there be marks in His hands and feet? Why use nails? Surely a bit of rope or one nail would have been used on a post. The guy obviously hasn't paid too close attention to the Gospels themselves, cos his findings are a lot of nonsense.

JimiTime

smurfhousing wrote: »

Steak does sound much better than cross...:p

ha ha. oops:o

hinault

smurfhousing wrote: »

Steak does sound much better than cross...:p

Fish info: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06083a.htm

Plus, if the Lord was not crucified on a cross, then why would there be marks in His hands and feet? Why use nails? Surely a bit of rope or one nail would have been used on a post. The guy obviously hasn't paid too close attention to the Gospels themselves, cos his findings are a lot of nonsense.

Good point.

The fact that the Gospels refer throughout to the use of nails suggests that Jesus was crucified on a patibulum.
In fact, Thomas was invited by Jesus to place his hands in His wounds so that Thomas could be persuaded that Jesus had indeed be nailed to a Cross and had died on that cross.
And three days later He arose from the dead.

Would a victim be nailed to a stake?

ISAW

crotalus667 wrote: »

Whilst I doubt there ever was a jesus ,

And you also doubt there never was an Alexander the Great or a Socrates?

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Couple of points on this. Jehovahs Witnesses have been arguing this for decades, and it is used to show how wrong the churches of Christendom actually are. I used to think, 'yeah, it was a steak, not a cross. Hey you, catholic, it was a steak not a cross, rabble rabble'. But you know what, one day I thought, 'Actually, what does it matter?' If it was a cross, it was a cross, if it was a upright beam of wood, it was an upright beam of wood. Its actually of no consaquence at all.

Also, the fish was the symbol for christianity early on, not a cross.

Exactly. The requirement to fulfil the Biblical prophecy was that He be hanged on a tree, with His hands and feet pierced. What shape the tree took was immaterial.
_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),

lmaopml

Yes, I don't doubt that the shape is immaterial to salvation, as much as personal philosophy is immaterial....but it does represent whether there is truth in history..

..rather than readily agree with JW's perhaps look at some evidence..In the early church it was the T shaped version that was understood rather than a large stake, with hands tied overhead...

..for information google the ossuary from burial caves at Giv'at ha Mivtar..

or the earliest graffiti...of the Palatine crucifix where Jesus is made fun of and shows in visual the early understanding, and even albeit from people who were unfriendly to portray from their own viewpoint who had no need to draw anything other than they understood took place....

The Passion narratives in the NT are simple and direct. They don't dwell on physical details, the early church didn't dwell on them either....they were details the people of the day were aquainted with all too well...

The prisoners were driven through the city streets, and out to the place of execution. There were variants in some cases depending on the capriciousness of the executioners. The crowning of thorns was such a variant.

A cross or a vertical stake?

......the question is? What does it signify to us today?

Pompey Magnus

One of the earliest references to the shape of the cross comes from the Epistle of Barnabas (a misleading title on two counts as it was probably originally a sermon and not an epistle and secondly it wasnt written by Barnabas), this was written in the early 2nd century so relatively speaking is quite close to the event, in this the author not only claims that Jesus was crucified on a T shaped cross, for this early Christian author and his community (unlike Christians today) this fact is an absolutely critical detail as it fulfilled scripture.

The author refers to Abraham circumcising 318 of his household, 318 in the Greek alphabet is T I E. IE are the first two letters of Jesus' name in Greek IESUS and T was the shape of the cross, thus the crucifixion of Jesus on a T shaped cross was predicted in the actions of Abraham.

wolfsbane

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

One of the earliest references to the shape of the cross comes from the Epistle of Barnabas (a misleading title on two counts as it was probably originally a sermon and not an epistle and secondly it wasnt written by Barnabas), this was written in the early 2nd century so relatively speaking is quite close to the event, in this the author not only claims that Jesus was crucified on a T shaped cross, for this early Christian author and his community (unlike Christians today) this fact is an absolutely critical detail as it fulfilled scripture.

The author refers to Abraham circumcising 318 of his household, 318 in the Greek alphabet is T I E. IE are the first two letters of Jesus' name in Greek IESUS and T was the shape of the cross, thus the crucifixion of Jesus on a T shaped cross was predicted in the actions of Abraham.

That's not Biblical insight, just a vivid imagination.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:7 But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's not Biblical insight, just a vivid imagination.

There were significant figures among the early church fathers who would have disagreed with you, including Clement and Origen as well as those who created the Codex Sinaiticus, all of whom supported the text as being canonical.

Why in your opinion is Barnabas' interpretation that the passage of Abraham's circumcision of his slaves relates to Jesus' crucifixion a vivid imagination whilst the accepted Christian interpretation that the suffering servant found in Isaiah refers to Jesus' passion is genuine Biblical insight? Please differentiate between the two. What makes you so sure that both aren't products of vivid Christian imaginations?

Slav

I guess the reason why that 318 calculation is not taken seriously can be summarised as: poor exegesis and poor knowledge of scriptures.

First of all, 318 is also שיח in Hebrew and CCCXVIII in Latin and many other interesting letter combinations in different languages. And there are plenty of other numbers one can find in Old Testament. Should we try to interpret them as well in the light of the Cross? OK, I guess some kabbalists might have an interpretation of that 318 = Shin-Yod-Het in Hebrew which at least would be understandable, but Greek?.. And speaking of Greek, at the time when Torah was created 318 was ΗΗΗΔΠΙΙΙ, not ΤΙΗ.

Second, it looks like the author did not know Old Testament books very well (which is not very surprising as his was probably under some Gnostic influence). Otherwise he would pick up a more obvious mentioning of Tau, for example Ezekiel 9:4 like did more educated Tertulian:

And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

"Set a mark" is literally "scrabble Tav". However it's unlikely that Ezekiel had Greek Tau in mind and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew (as well as in Phoenician and all related alphabets) looked like a perfectly canonical Christian Cross.

Slav

Actually we have already had a thread recently about crosses, nooses, anchors, etc:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855653

wolfsbane

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

There were significant figures among the early church fathers who would have disagreed with you, including Clement and Origen as well as those who created the Codex Sinaiticus, all of whom supported the text as being canonical.

Why in your opinion is Barnabas' interpretation that the passage of Abraham's circumcision of his slaves relates to Jesus' crucifixion a vivid imagination whilst the accepted Christian interpretation that the suffering servant found in Isaiah refers to Jesus' passion is genuine Biblical insight? Please differentiate between the two. What makes you so sure that both aren't products of vivid Christian imaginations?

Because one is Scripture and the other not. One is God speaking though His servant, the other a mere man's opinion.

But the Tau thing is the most basic of Bible Code drivel, as Slav points out. Were some of the Church Fathers given to such fantasy? Sure. They were uninspired men, like the rest of us. They held some good things, and some rubbish.