Little Evidence Jesus Died on a Cross, Says Scholar

[formerlurker]

Little Evidence Jesus Died on a Cross, Says Scholar

Theunis Bates
Contributor
(June 27) -- 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.

Christophe Simon, AFP/Getty Images
This iconic image of Christ dying on the cross may be misleading, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson, who says crucifixion was more rare than commonly thought.

"'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."

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So what I'm taking away is: the debate centers on whether the Nazarene died with his hands over his head or bilaterally extended.

Flavius Josephus mentions the cross but it is unknown if his is an independent account or a recitation of what Christians of the day would have told him.

Tacitus only describes the execution as "the most extreme penalty."

Jehovah's Witnesses use the "stauros" as one of the many arguments as a foundation for rejecting the wearing of crosses or incorporating them in their symbologies; although, it would be silly to reject the stauros argument just because these loonies advance it.

Some research has suggested that crosses were economical IF the upright beam was a more permanent fixture. Then a condemned person need only carry the cross beam, as if would be shorter than the upright stake. Theoretically, you could crucify 2 people for the cost of a single tree rather using the cross-beam only method rather than just one tree per execution if you used a new upright stake.

Personally, I curious about the 2 thieves on either side of Jesus. Generally, crucifixion being very gruesome and expensive (particularly in arid climes), it was reserved for only those persons that challenged Rome's power. Think: Sparticus. Crucifixion seems excessive, even by Roman standards and considering Roman pragmatism, for mere petty criminals.

[vesta111]

So what I'm taking away is: the debate centers on whether the Nazarene died with his hands over his head or bilaterally extended.

Flavius Josephus mentions the cross but it is unknown if his is an independent account or a recitation of what Christians of the day would have told him.

Tacitus only describes the execution as "the most extreme penalty."

Jehovah's Witnesses use the "stauros" as one of the many arguments as a foundation for rejecting the wearing of crosses or incorporating them in their symbolises; although, it would be silly to reject the stauros argument just because these loonies advance it.

Some research has suggested that crosses were economical IF the upright beam was a more permanent fixture. Then a condemned person need only carry the cross beam, as if would be shorter than the upright stake. Theoretically, you could crucify 2 people for the cost of a single tree rather using the cross-beam only method rather than just one tree per execution if you used a new upright stake.

Personally, I curious about the 2 thieves on either side of Jesus. Generally, crucifixion being very gruesome and expensive (particularly in arid climes), it was reserved for only those persons that challenged Rome's power. Think: Sparticus. Crucifixion seems excessive, even by Roman standards and considering Roman pragmatism, for mere petty criminals.

 Yes, I was asked by a Jehovah's Wittiness if Jesus were shot by a gun would I wear a small gun around my neck.  This is a very disturbing question as the person asking it had no idea of the time Jesus lived in.  Had there been guns at that time, no need for the cross.  What is their problem with symbols and not wearing a fish as HE was a fisher of men.?

Humans need symbols, we are symbol oriented ,wedding ring,
The tattoo from day one for humans until now.

Clothing including scarfs to Rozalie hats for men.   Check out the medals on our upper Generals and Admirals , makes me wonder how they can walk about with all those ribbons and medals weighing them down.  Symbols of power.

The cross was a symbol of hard times and suffering for years before Jesus died.

Some how the story of Jesus having to carry the cross he was to die on came into the bible.---Interesting that one account has a pagan Vestal Virgin giving him water.

 Strange but the more I investigate the life and times of Jesus the more I am wondering if HE was not what he said HE was.

[MrsSmith]

I can't see that it would make any difference if the cross were not cross-shaped.  The facts are enough...He was brutally tortured to death, and rose on the third day.  The symbol is, after all, just a symbol...not the faith.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I can't see that it would make any difference if the cross were not cross-shaped.  The facts are enough...He was brutally tortured to death, and rose on the third day.  The symbol is, after all, just a symbol...not the faith.

Because for those emotionally tormented by the idea of God any effort to undermine tradition undermines the church and if the church can be undermined any message it carries--including the message of God even existing--may be disregarded.

Of course many Christians dwell on trivial or nonsensical crap doing much to undermine themselves.

Some days I feel like I'm watching a tennis match watching the ball-of-asinine-assertions being volleyed back and forth...without the benefit of short tennis skirts to hold my attention.

[formerlurker]

Because for those emotionally tormented by the idea of God any effort to undermine tradition undermines the church and if the church can be undermined any message it carries--including the message of God even existing--may be disregarded.

Of course many Christians dwell on trivial or nonsensical crap doing much to undermine themselves.

Some days I feel like I'm watching a tennis match watching the ball-of-asinine-assertions being volleyed back and forth...without the benefit of short tennis skirts to hold my attention.

Actually being raised in a home of a man who while he believed in God, did not believe in organized religion (grew up a Protestant, who had a philosophy degree from a Jesuit college no less), I  know there are those who look at Jesus as nothing more than a benevolent philosopher.   

I don't see their view of history as nothing more than a quest for accuracy.  Weighing information such as this is fascinating.   Not an attempt to disprove a religion.

[MrsSmith]

Actually being raised in a home of a man who while he believed in God, did not believe in organized religion (grew up a Protestant, who had a philosophy degree from a Jesuit college no less), I  know there are those who look at Jesus as nothing more than a benevolent philosopher.   

I don't see their view of history as nothing more than a quest for accuracy.  Weighing information such as this is fascinating.   Not an attempt to disprove a religion.

That might make some sense...if the "accuracy" had any bearing on the truth.  As it is, though...the "accuracy" is frequently nothing more than an attempt to undermine the details, and therefore the whole.  To someone who knows Christ, it really doesn't matter what shape the cross was...but to someone looking for reason to disbelieve (and there are millions that actively search for reasons to disbelieve), a foolish detail like this is just "one more reason it's all wrong."

By the same token, those that believe Christ was nothing more than a benevolent philosopher or a great teacher have obviously ignored a great deal of what He said.  Even if you read nothing in the New Testament except Christ's words, He makes that view impossible.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Actually being raised in a home of a man who while he believed in God, did not believe in organized religion (grew up a Protestant, who had a philosophy degree from a Jesuit college no less), I  know there are those who look at Jesus as nothing more than a benevolent philosopher.   

I don't see their view of history as nothing more than a quest for accuracy.  Weighing information such as this is fascinating.   Not an attempt to disprove a religion.

And no doubt there are many such ases.

Admittedly what I am about to say is anecdotal but...

...my BIL was so enamored by "The DaVinci Code" (he's also a troofer, so take that for what it is worth) he spent a few hundred dollars on books to see if the descriptions of items in the Louvre have the characteristics described by Dan Brown.

He yammered at me ad nauseam about some asinine story of what if Jesus and Mohammed had been born siamese-twin brothers.

And on and on it goes.

I can think of plenty of other indiviuals of similar bent...the recently departed TNO among them.

Fact is: some people WANT God to be only a myth. They want nothing to do with him. OK, fine. I'm sure their hearts desire will, one way or another, be born out in the end. But many of these same souls don't want God to be real for anybody else either and that is why, even if the research is solid, the propogation of such stories (and I do NOT mean you or your OP) leaving me viewing such things somewhat askance.

That might make some sense...if the "accuracy" had any bearing on the truth.  As it is, though...the "accuracy" is frequently nothing more than an attempt to undermine the details, and therefore the whole.  To someone who knows Christ, it really doesn't matter what shape the cross was...but to someone looking for reason to disbelieve (and there are millions that actively search for reasons to disbelieve), a foolish detail like this is just "one more reason it's all wrong."

By the same token, those that believe Christ was nothing more than a benevolent philosopher or a great teacher have obviously ignored a great deal of what He said.  Even if you read nothing in the New Testament except Christ's words, He makes that view impossible.

Maybe plenty of Christians can dispense with arguments over the shape of the cross.

Others? Not so much.

Example: There are brands of Christianity that insist only the Old King James translation is acceptable. Obviously they are looking for accuracy but they are wide off the beam in their conclusions. Moreover, their exchanging preferences for dogmas undermines the very thing they profess to love most. I think they're idiots and insufferably so but then I wonder if their idiocy would disqualify their salvation. I doubt upon getting to Heaven St. Peter says, "OK, everybody take out your No. 2 pencils and remove all your books from your desk."

[Wineslob]

Typical of the "theologians", they miss the entire point. While the cross, or most likely, post, was used as the typical form of torture/killing method of the day, it was the suffering that Jesus endured for mankind and subsequent rise from the dead that mattered.



Morans.

[formerlurker]

Fact is: some people WANT God to be only a myth.

Really doesn't have anything to do with that -- my Dad for instance believed in God.  He did not believe Jesus was anything more than a man.   He never looked at these type of articles as anything more than information.  He wasn't by any means on some quest to search for facts to support his beliefs, or discount other's beliefs. 

Some people may indeed be that pathetic, but others are honestly just considering research others have done.

I read this articles with passing interest.   My mother was a Catholic fundamentalist (good times in my household growing up let me tell you).   I am a cradle to grave Catholic and believe in the trinity.   

[thundley4]

Really doesn't have anything to do with that -- my Dad for instance believed in God.  He did not believe Jesus was anything more than a man.   He never looked at these type of articles as anything more than information.  He wasn't by any means on some quest to search for facts to support his beliefs, or discount other's beliefs. 

Some people may indeed be that pathetic, but others are honestly just considering research others have done.

I read this articles with passing interest.   My mother was a Catholic fundamentalist (good times in my household growing up let me tell you).   I am a cradle to grave Catholic and believe in the trinity.   

I'm not a "religious" person, but it irritates me when the atheists and secularists try to remove all mention of God and Jesus from public view.  I watch many of the shows dealing with Biblical archaeology. I keep hoping they'll find "proof" that will finally silence those trying to silence the believers.

[Hawkgirl]

I'm not a "religious" person, but it irritates me when the atheists and secularists try to remove all mention of God and Jesus from public view.  I watch many of the shows dealing with Biblical archaeology. I keep hoping they'll find "proof" that will finally silence those trying to silence the believers.

I've had "proof" in my life...I don't really care to even engage some of these athiests.  My issue isn't even with athiests who go on with their lives ...it's those that try to impose their lack of belief in God on ME.  It's like they're on a quest to disprove that God exists. 

[thundley4]

I've had "proof" in my life...I don't really care to even engage some of these athiests.  My issue isn't even with athiests who go on with their lives ...it's those that try to impose their lack of belief in God on ME.  It's like they're on a quest to disprove that God exists. 

It truly seems that societies ills have gotten worse with rise of atheists/secularists using the courts to get God out of society.