Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar

[WestVirginiaRebel]

UK Telegraph:

Jesus may not have died nailed to the cross because there is no evidence that the Romans crucified prisoners two thousand years ago, a scholar has claimed.

The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.

He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".

Mr Samuelsson, who has written a 400-page thesis after studying the original texts, said: "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature.

"The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything."

The ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew literature from Homer to the first century AD describe an arsenal of suspension punishments but none mention "crosses" or "crucifixion."

Mr Samuelsson, of Gothenburg University, said: "Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged.

"And what's even more challenging is the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe."

Any evidence that Jesus was left to die after being nailed to a cross is strikingly sparse - both in the ancient pre-Christian and extra-Biblical literature as well as The Bible.

Mr Samuelsson, a committed Christian himself, admitted his claims are so close to the heart of his faith that it is easy to react emotionally instead of logically.

Mr Samuelsson said the actual execution texts do not describe how Christ was attached to the execution device.

He said: "This is the heart of the problem. The text of the passion narratives is not that exact and information loaded, as we Christians sometimes want it to be."

Mr Samuelsson said: "If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any beside the Gospels."

A lot of contemporary literature all use the same vague terminology - including the Latin accounts.

Nor does the Latin word crux automatically refer to a cross while patibulum refer to the cross-beam. Both words are used in a wider sense that that.

Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.

"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.

"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."
________

This may be upsetting to some people, but from a historical perspective he may have a point-the image of Christ on the cross didn't become ingrained into our culture until hundreds of years after Christ's death, and was passed down through official church theology. We are always better served by our history when we can be honest about it. At any rate, it doesn't diminish Christ's work IMO. After all, isn't why he died ultimately more important than how?

[righteousmomma]

OH Give ME A BREAK!! Go throw away 2000 years of "church history" because of one author??!!

Same old same old. Satan knocking at your door.

[Sanguine]

 

This may be upsetting to some people, but from a historical perspective he may have a point-the image of Christ on the cross didn't become ingrained into our culture until hundreds of years after Christ's death, and was passed down through official church theology. We are always better served by our history when we can be honest about it. At any rate, it doesn't diminish Christ's work IMO. After all, isn't why he died ultimately more important than how?

 

Could be, but I can't see how it could possibly affect my faith. In this case, these details don't matter.

[Al_Simmons]

Funny, but the Roman Historian Tacitus wrote thusly in one of his greatest works (not disputed by scholars)- the paragraph deals with Nero's desire to quench the persistent rumor that he had the great fire of Rome started to make room for his planned palace and other new buildings:

 

 

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

 

 

Josephus, the great Jewish Historian and general of the 1st Century, wrote the following (the quoted text is considered to be genuine, having come from a 10th century Arabic translation, without the probable later Christian additions found in the Greek texts):

 

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"

[Al_Simmons]

Seems to me that Tacitus and Josephus, the first and also possibly the second of whom had access to the annals of Rome (Josephus eventually changed sides in the Jewish revolt), are a more reliable source on the execution of Jesus than this guy.

[SrWoodchuck]

I believe that the history of a slave revolt, led by a gladiator named Spartacus, was marked by the mass cruxification of the followers [6,000]of Spartacus, and having their bodies, on crosses, line the Appian way from Rome to Capua. This was done in the year 72-73 B.C., by the Roman Consul Pompey.

 

Reading about Julius Caesar, I came across comments about another mass crucification, and that they were forced to stop, because they ran out of wood for crosses.

 

Either way, how many books would this guy sell with Jesus dying on the cross.

[Al_Simmons]

I believe that the history of a slave revolt, led by a gladiator named Spartacus, was marked by the mass cruxification of the followers [6,000]of Spartacus, and having their bodies, on crosses, line the Appian way from Rome to Capua. This was done in the year 72-73 B.C., by the Roman Consul Pompey.

 

Reading about Julius Caesar, I came across comments about another mass crucification, and that thay were forced to stop, because they ran out of wood for crosses.

 

Either way, how many books would this guy sell with Jesus dying on the cross.

 

Excellent points. I had nearly forgotten that story about the Romans lining the Appian Way with the crucified slaves. I remember my Dad (Ancient History Prof) telling me that story when I was a boy!

 

But it was not Pompei the Great who lined the Appian Way with crucified slaves. It was Marcus Crassus, who had actually put down the revolt.

 

From Wiki:

 

The rebellion of the Third Servile War had been annihilated by Crassus.

 

Pompey's forces did not directly engage Spartacus' forces at any time, but his legions moving in from the north were able to capture some 5,000 rebels fleeing the battle, "all of whom he slew".[50] Because of this, Pompey sent a dispatch to the Senate, saying that while Crassus certainly had conquered the slaves in open battle, he himself had ended the war, thus claiming a large portion of the credit and earning the enmity of Crassus.[51]

 

While most of the rebel slaves had been killed on the battlefield, some 6,000 survivors had been captured by the legions of Crassus. All 6,000 were crucified along the Appian Way from Rome to Capua.[52]

 

Pompey and Crassus reaped political benefit for having put down the rebellion. Both Crassus and Pompey returned to Rome with their legions and refused to disband them, instead encamping them outside Rome.[14] Both men stood for the consulship of 70 BC, even though Pompey was ineligible because of his youth, and lack of service as praetor or quaestor.[53] Nonetheless, both men were elected consul for 70 BC,[54] partly due to the implied threat of their armed legions encamped outside the city.[55]

[righteousmomma]

 

In his doctoral thesis, newly graduated Swedish theologian Gunnar Samuelsson argues that the cross Jesus supposedly died on may not actually have been a cross. He explains in an interview with DRadio Wissen, a German station: "the New Testament said that Jesus died some way on something called a staurus ... that's a Greek name for a cross or a pole or something ... I call it an execution device only to be [distinguished] from the common notion that it must be a cross, because it mustn't be a cross--it could be a pole, for instance, or a tree trunk, or something else."

 

A "tree" is what it was called in prophecy. A "cross" whether in pole shape or nicely chiseled square shape was made from a tree.

There is abundant historical archeological evidence (and nails and whips with bones found) that show Roman executions as you all have mentioned. Tacitus, Seneca and even the orator Cicero spoke of the horrendous spectacle.

 

Some of the crucified were tied to the cross and some were nailed.

 

 

The point is though the Gospels and the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul, James and John were all written by contemporaries to the events and people. Luke was a superb historian with the details.

They all proclaim Jesus Christ crucified, dead, buried and RESURRECTED. As Paul said if Jesus were not dead and resurrected then our faith is useless and we are without hope.

 

 

The same author also said:

Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.

 

"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.

"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."

 

I know unique ideas for Doctorates have to be thought of but I think he should have taken his own advice and "not added anything to the Bible" by causing idle intellectual speculation.

[SrWoodchuck]

The history of Rome was one of extreme brutality, to all it's transgressors. All punishment was an object lesson, to be shared among those that were watching, on the periphery. Many could not survive the minor punishment of scourging, with the flagellum. Crucifixion was not death by exposure, but a death that came from the position of the body, with arms outstretched, and the knees slightly bent. In other words, it was a formula, and ritual of brutality, that left the victims unable to draw a breath, and in agony.

 

As proof of ritual, a full-sized wax image of the recently murdered, Gaius Julius Caesar, with all the dagger wounds; was paraded through Rome on a cross, before burning in a funeral ceremonial pyre before the people of Rome. It was not tied to the cross,"like a common criminal" but had the vertical horizontal bar under the armpits & the arms & hands bound tight to the body. This was in 44 B.C., and it's highly unlikely that a ceremonial crucifixion [which Jesus' death certainly was, in place of the criminal Barrabas] would not have the same vertical horizontal bar.

Edited June 28, 2010 by SrWoodchuck

[Argyle58]

I have a problem with calling Mr. Samuelsson a "scholar", because his thesis is obviously poorly researched. While there may not be much in the way of written accounts from the period, there are some. But, there is plenty of archealogical evidence supporting crucifixion. Several bodies from the first century (both b.c. and a.d.) have been excavated which show the physical characteristics unique to victims of crucifixion. Further, crucifixion scenes have been found on period buildings in graffitic renderings.

 

One would think that a SCHOLAR would not be so one dimentional in their research before making such an outlandish conclusion based on written documents alone when the vast majority of the population at the time were illiterate.