Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story, by Richard Carrier

It's interesting Richard, how your article brings to mind the phrase: " Thinking themselves wise, they became fools." In truth you have proven yourself a well -educated and learned scholar of history:- biblical and otherwise. However, in your zeal to heap scorn and conjecture on the bible accounts of Jesus' existence you have in fact added to the probability of it's validity.

For one specific example, you make the argument that if Jesus had in fact risen, his disciples would have recognized him right away if they had seen him. However, if the writer's of the gospel were either delusional, fanatical or purposefully deceptive, why would they go to the trouble of reporting that Jesus was not recognizable at first. If it had been a fabricated story or hallucination, wouldn't it have been easier to simply say that Jesus appeared in all his glory, and they all recognized him right away. The nuance of including that he was not recognizable to me adds an air of authenticity to these accounts. These men were relaying the truth as they new it. Ultimate truth sometimes does not fit into our humanistic little packages.

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback regarding Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

In the meantime, you might want to reconsider whether anything that Richard or anyone else might do could actually increase or decrease the probability of the existence of Jesus. You also might want to consider that, if "ultimate truth sometimes does not fit into our humanistic little packages," then it sometimes does not fit into your "humanistic little package." You also need to keep in mind that Richard's article is not really about the existence of Jesus but rather about his alleged resurrection.

If you would like to discuss your viewpoints further, you are invited to become a registered user and take part in our discussion forums.

---Don---

[Richard Carrier]

Originally posted by <Jeff>:
<STRONG>For one specific example, you make the argument that if Jesus had in fact risen, his disciples would have recognized him right away if they had seen him. However, if the writer's of the gospel were either delusional, fanatical or purposefully deceptive, why would they go to the trouble of reporting that Jesus was not recognizable at first.</STRONG>

Because it wasn't Jesus. These are redactions of what was once a spiritual encounter or vision that was later "interpreted." Since many people saw but "did not believe" this means that it wasn't Jesus but something else that had to be "recognized" as Jesus by the faithful, i.e. through interpretation. You will note that my entire use of the unrecognition material is to demonstrate that some spiritual, not physical, story underlay the final form of the Gospels, and I describe how the shift came about in my shorter lecture on Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection.

<STRONG>If it had been a fabricated story or hallucination, wouldn't it have been easier to simply say that Jesus appeared in all his glory, and they all recognized him right away.</STRONG>

Indeed, wouldn't it have been easier to do that if it were a physical Jesus? That is my entire point, as you will see if you read my entire essay. That it wasn't done means the earliest Christians, hence the earliest stories were not of a physical Jesus, nor of the hallucination of a physical Jesus, and the fact that the Gospels were created in an air of existing and conflicting stories, it had to "reinterpret" traditions in light of its physicalist agenda, hence explaining apparent anomalies when compared with other stories.

<STRONG>The nuance of including that he was not recognizable to me adds an air of authenticity to these accounts. These men were relaying the truth as they new it. Ultimate truth sometimes does not fit into our humanistic little packages.</STRONG>

Actually, I do not argue against this conclusion, at least with regard to the genuine eye-witness sources (which do not survive, apart from the letters of Paul). In fact, I agree entirely with it: Paul was sincerely reporting what he truly believed. But he never says he saw a physical Jesus, but a "vision," and not even a vision of a physical Jesus but an entirely mystical encounter. I discuss this at great length in my essay. That the Gospels, which were clearly written to attack the original doctrine and replace it with a physicalist one, had to create stories that would "explain" and thus "reinterpret" the original stories. Hence, we see hints of the original, mystical nature of visionary experiences in the Gospels, which take those details and "explain" them with a veneer of physicalist exegesis.

[Daniel B]

The explanational theories raised in this article are uninformed and have no real evidence. For instance section 2h reads...But even if we assume a guard, the gospel also depicts these guards as accepting a bribe to lie about theft, and thus it follows that the guards would be just as likely to accept a bribe to allow Yeshua to escape.There is no direct reference to where this idea that the guards could be bribed came from. Furthermore we're not talking about your average present-day bouncers, we're talking about the biggest, meanest, toughest, strongest soldiers ever to walk the earth. These guys loved their job.

To be honest, I can't see why there is any shadow of a doubt that Yeshua didn't die when he was crucified. Firstly, people did not survive crucifixion, there is not one story -ever- of a man (or woman, if women were also crucified) surviving crucifixion. I mean think about it logically, this guy survives crucifixion and is walking around town don't you think some of the patrons would say "hey he looks... familiar.. but unusual, I can't quite put my finger on it.... - oh THAT'S it! Those nail holes give the game away, that guy was hanging on a cross last time I saw him!"

And secondly Yeshua had been scorned, probably to within an inch of human life, prior to crucifixion. Now this was not a common practise. Despite the uninformed garbage you may read at http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm, crucifixion was justly viewed to be an extreme punishment and the victim did not deserve any further punishment. Section 2f reads that the spearing was probably invented. Then some very misleading medical information follows. When a person dies his blood is no longer circulating, thus it "separates". This is what flows out when a spear is jabbed up someone's side.

But even if we say that we cannot prove this to be the case, the fact is that John wrote his Gospel while crucifixions were still common practise, and you could readily view people being crucified. His Gospel would have been discredited then and there and probably burnt too. But let's continue onto my third point, which is that people continued to see the risen Christ for 40-odd days. I don't know about you, but I don't like to go 40 hours much less 40 days without food, water, shelter or clothes.

See, the fact is if Yeshua did live he would have had to stay somewhere. And why on earth is he carrying on a hoax? I mean this is a good guy, this is a big strong carpenter (well maybe not so big and strong and carpeting once he's been scorned almost to death and then crucified), but the fact is this guy did good things, served his followers and then died for them. Yeshua even washes the feet of his disciples. Now this is not a common practise either. Jews were not allowed to ask their slave to wash their feet. Can you imagine what it must have been like for the disciples? This is something that you could not even have a slave do.

Besides if Yeshua did survive, imagine how weak he'd be! He'd barely be able to crawl, let alone go all around town for 40 days carrying on conversations. Out of all the possible theories against the resurrection of Christ this has to be without a shadow of a doubt THE most ignorant. It's only a recent theory too, no one was "smart enough" to come up with it "back in the day", no one claimed that theory within living memory of crucifixion, nor for centuries and even a millennia later. But now some guy in the 20th century thinks he has the answer! Yeshua lives! No, wait - that IS the answer... I'm sorry, your answer would be "Yeshua survived crucifixion!" almost there, just not quite.

Still, I guess people can go ahead and believe in whatever nonsense they feel compelled to. But the mere fact someone would spend so much time and effort into writing this theory leaves me baffled! My head is spinning! How could anyone think that Yeshua survived crucifixion? Besides, the "stone" laid in front of the tomb itself weighed an estimated 1-2 tons. Now I don't care how much the bribe was, there is no way 11 disciples are going to be able to move it.

And why would they want to anyway? Yeshua told them this had to happen. But let's say they did, let's go along with this hair-brained theory... what then? The Greek words used to describe the location of the stone after it had been "rolled away" literally means to pick it up and toss it away. Now this happened on the Sunday. So even if he had survived the crucifixion, which he didn't, and even it the Romans had mistakenly thought he had died, which they wouldn't, and even if the 11 disciples had bribed the guards picked up the 1-2 ton stone and tossed it away, which they didn't, it would have taken one freaking hell of a miracle for Yeshua to have survived that long in the tomb without food, water, medication or warmth after being scorned and crucified.

And then there's still the unresolved issue of why he pulls a hoax, and how! I mean at this point he would surely be covered from head to toe in bandages to heal the wounds from the scorning, the crucifixion and the spear... I don't know about you, but I wouldn't find that a very convincing depiction of a resurrected body. Weak, fragile... no that's not how it was described.

Let me conclude by quoting:4a. The Two Lamest Arguments Ever Made
"You are wrong because the Bible is infallible." Yes, this is a direct quote from a critic of the original version of this essay, and he was not alone. This is the lamest argument in the universe, but it has been made so many times I must say something about it here.From what I believe to be the lamest argument ever against the reality of the resurrection.

-and-Not only does it fail by proposing absurd miracle accounts such as hoards of zombies walking in Jerusalem, three-hour-long eclipses, and massive rock-splitting earthquakesIsn't it amazing how things are deliberately thrown out of perspective and real evidence ignored? For instance it has been conclusively proven that a 3-hour eclipse did occur in the correct time-period fixing the crucifixion date at the 3rd of April 33AD. Then there's the issue of if you don't thing the Temple was destroyed by an earthquake then why is that the historical account, why is that what the Jews themselves believe?

Daniel

[gaijin]

Fantastic stuff Daniel, I've been debating the resurrection with a friend lately and it's good to have some more solid arguments there to help out.

It's funny because it sounds quite unlikely at first, but when you start thinking about it, it becomes the only explanation that makes sense! And what a happy conclusion that is to come to. :)

[Sven]

Sorry to step in, but this amazed me:
For instance it has been conclusively proven that a 3-hour eclipse did occur in the correct time-period fixing the crucifixion date at the 3rd of April 33AD. Then there's the issue of if you don't thing the Temple was destroyed by an earthquake then why is that the historical account, why is that what the Jews themselves believe?
Daniel
Do you have any evidence for these two claims? I never heard anything about this!

Your "rebuttal" also made me wonder if you even read the whole article. Carrier nowhere says that it happened this or that way, he only assigns (mostly low!) probabilities to his proposed scenarios. Are you creating a straw man here or did you simply misunderstand his argument?

[Amaleq13]

There is no direct reference to where this idea that the guards could be bribed came from.

It comes from the Bible. Specifically, Matthew 28:11-13 where the soldiers are bribed to claim that the disciples stole the body.

Firstly, people did not survive crucifixion, there is not one story -ever- of a man (or woman, if women were also crucified) surviving crucifixion.

I have to wonder if you actually read the entire article because Carrier specifically cites Josephus, Life of Flavius Josephus § 420-21, where he relates the story of one man out of a group of three surviving crucifixion.

And secondly Yeshua had been scorned, probably to within an inch of human life, prior to crucifixion. Now this was not a common practise.

If it was not common practice, the burden of proof is on any claim that is an exception. Aside from your faith in the reliability of the text, do you have any support for the claim?

For instance it has been conclusively proven that a 3-hour eclipse did occur in the correct time-period fixing the crucifixion date at the 3rd of April 33AD.

I don't think you have accurate information. According to the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and their World Atlas of Solar Eclipse Paths, the closest is a total eclipse northeast of Jerusalem on Nov. 24, 29AD, that would have appeared as a partial eclipse at Jerusalem.

Carrier is not arguing that Jesus did, in fact, survive the crucifixion. He is presenting a very sound argument that it is not anywhere near as "impossible" as apologetic Christians often claim.

[Richard Carrier]

The explanational theories raised in this article are uninformed and have no real evidence.

In actual truth, it is your rebuttal that is uninformed and has no real evidence. Indeed, as others have already pointed out, you ignore or even state falsely what I actually say, and the evidence I actually provide. Until you actually read what I wrote, and address that, I see no reason to respond to you.

But for the benefit of other readers whom you are shamelessly misleading I'll make a few remarks on those items that are not already plainly refuted or addressed by the Bible and my actual essay.


Then some very misleading medical information follows. When a person dies his blood is no longer circulating, thus it "separates". This is what flows out when a spear is jabbed up someone's side.

This is medical nonsense. Blood can only be separated from plasma by a centrifuge. Which I have actually seen done for blood extracted from a deceased person. Have you? I can assure you, the blood of the dead looks like blood, not water.


Besides, the "stone" laid in front of the tomb itself weighed an estimated 1-2 tons. Now I don't care how much the bribe was, there is no way 11 disciples are going to be able to move it.

Lay a 1 ton car on its side and even I can tip it over. It's called leverage. As Archimedes said, "give me a fulcrum and a lever of sufficient size and I can move the earth." He was right. This is basic physics. Jesus did not have to lift the stone, only push it over. Gravity would do all the work. Very little effort would be needed to get it going.


The Greek words used to describe the location of the stone after it had been "rolled away" literally means to pick it up and toss it away.

Oh? And what Greek word would that be, pray?


it has been conclusively proven that a 3-hour eclipse did occur in the correct time-period fixing the crucifixion date at the 3rd of April 33AD.

Now you are just lying. It is a wonder how Christians resort so readily to breaking their own precious ten commandments.

No eclipse took place anywhere near Jerusalem in 33 A.D. (nor any eclipse, anywhere, on 3 April, at any time between 26 and 36 A.D.).

The only eclipse reported in ancient records for 32 A.D. took place in Bithynia, too far even for a partial eclipse to appear in Jerusalem. See my essay on Thallus (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html). And scientific records make that Bithynian eclipse improbable anyway. The longest eclipse in the 1st century took place in May of the year 96 and lasted less than seven minutes, and was only visible below the equator--and in the New World! (see NASA Solar Eclipse Table for 1-100 A.D. (http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat/SE0001-0100.html)). The closest you can get is an eclipse on November 24 in 29 A.D. at about 9:30 AM, which lasted two minutes. Its maximum was achieved in Iran, and it would have petered out somewhere over Iraq. It is improbable anyone saw it in Jerusalem.


Then there's the issue of if you don't thing the Temple was destroyed by an earthquake then why is that the historical account, why is that what the Jews themselves believe?

It isn't. Indeed, not even the NT claims this, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Finally:

How could anyone think that Yeshua survived crucifixion?

That you think I believe this proves you did not read my essay. My essay concludes that he most probably did not survive.

[Chris Weimer]

There is no direct reference to where this idea that the guards could be bribed came from. Furthermore we're not talking about your average present-day bouncers, we're talking about the biggest, meanest, toughest, strongest soldiers ever to walk the earth. These guys loved their job.
Stationed in Judaea? The "biggest, meanest, toughest, strongest soldiers" were the ones fighting the barbarians in Gallia and Germania, the ones fighting hand to hand combat regularily, not some soldiers posted at a little occupied territory whose purpose was to keep the peace.

And secondly Yeshua had been scorned, probably to within an inch of human life, prior to crucifixion. Now this was not a common practise. Despite the uninformed garbage you may read at http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm, crucifixion was justly viewed to be an extreme punishment and the victim did not deserve any further punishment.Believe it or not, but that site is actually extremely accurate. In fact, Spartacus, the slave-leader, plus all the slaves that participated in the infamous slave revolt, along with their families, were all crucified, which must have accounted for quite a few people. Their bodies lined the Via Appia for many, many miles - thousands of bodies. It was actually quite common. Maybe you need to recheck your history before you criticize someone else's knowledge and assess whether or not you have the authority to make such claims.

it would have taken one freaking hell of a miracle for Yeshua to have survived that long in the tomb without food, water, medication or warmth after being scorned and crucified.I won't take the time to, unless you really want me to, but there have been countless amount of stories of people surviving for longer than just three days without food, water, etc... in worse conditions. There was this story of a man who survived the Saharan desert without water for I think something like two months. As for miracles, wasn't Yeshua also supposed to perform miracles? So wouldn't that mean he could survive because he's the Son of God?

Then there's the issue of if you don't thing the Temple was destroyed by an earthquake then why is that the historical account, why is that what the Jews themselves believe?Since you have already been cremated on the eclipse issue, I'll let that slide, and in defense of you, the temple really did suffer from an earthquake, but it wasn't destroyed. Also, about the zombies, think about burial. When the earthquake happened, isn't it likely that ground-shaking and splitting would have allowed some shallow-grave corpses to be pushed up toward the top? Just a thought.

[Ving Tsun]

i'm not understanding this arguement. either you believe Jesus was the son of God or you don't.

if you do, that in and of itself is the explaination for the resurrection. if the dude could perform miracles, it's not exactly going to be a stretch to rise from the dead and escape from the tomb.

if you don't believe, then you're wasting your time trying to figure out how it was done, because it really is a moot issue at that point.

[Richard Carrier]

...in defense of you, the temple really did suffer from an earthquake, but it wasn't destroyed. Also, about the zombies, think about burial. When the earthquake happened, isn't it likely that ground-shaking and splitting would have allowed some shallow-grave corpses to be pushed up toward the top? Just a thought.

Correct, I only said the NT does not claim "the Temple was destroyed by an earthquake," but I could add that I doubt there was any earthquake at all. No text mentions it, except Matthew--the one Gospel most prone to inventing the fantastic (just compare its empty tomb narrative with the others). All the other Gospels omit the detail (even Luke, the only Gospel actually purporting to be writing in the genre of history and actually following the characteristics of that genre), as do all secular records, including Jewish texts (Talmud, Josephus, etc.). There were theological reasons to associate an earthquake with the event--but more importantly, there was a popular myth in antiquity that earthquakes were associated with eclipses, and so they often came to be conflated, or one was invented to go with the other.

A classic example is the one I discuss in my essay on Thallus: Phlegon (and perhaps Thallus) reports that a total eclipse of the sun took place at noon in Bythinia and at the same time an earthquake struck there, all in 32 AD. However, no such eclipse took place--the only eclipse that fits is the 29 AD eclipse in Iran, which would indeed have took place at noon in Bythinia (given the 3 hour time difference), though it would not have actually been visible there (much less have been a total eclipse). Several scholars note that it was all too common for historians to record eclipses listed on astronomical tables without actually having any report of the eclipse being seen, and then to dramatize the eclipse as total--when we know for a fact it usually wasn't, nor would even a total eclipse have looked quite the way historians in antiquity were wont to describe them.

So what probably happened is, I suspect, this: an earthquake struck Bythinia in 32 AD, possibly at or around noon. This is in Turkey--hundreds of miles from Jerusalem. Indeed, the Bythinian region is a major fault zone where continental plates meet (exactly comparable to California's coast), and so devastating earthquakes have always been and still are relatively frequent there. Astronomical tables then showed an eclipse "took place" at noon there in 29 AD. That was not visible in Bythinia, but that didn't matter--the dates were fudged and the events were reported as happening together, and over-dramatized (conflating events like that was not an uncommon thing for ancient historians to do; so, too, for over-dramatizing events with made-up details). After all, it was expected by popular lore that earthquakes and eclipses were often correlated--and this certainly made for a better story.

The "coincidence" of the phantom noon eclipse falsely linked to an earthquake then came to be "conflated" by Christians with the Matthew account, even though the events were actually placed in Turkey, and the eclipse in question wasn't really visible even there. But, gullible Christians would think (as many reason about things even today), four coincidences is one too many: an earthquake matched with a noonday eclipse in the very year Jesus died? Obviously that has to be the same eclipse! Never mind that the location is wrong, both events did not take place in the same year, and the eclipse wasn't even visible where it was actually claimed to have been--much less in Jerusalem.

[-DM-]

... either you believe Jesus was the son of God or you don't.It is not necessarily an either/or situation. One could, for example, be unsure of what s/he believes about the alleged divinity of Jesus.

if you do, that in and of itself is the explaination for the resurrection.This is an obvious non sequitur. It just doesn't follow that if one believes that Jesus was the son of "God" that this explains the alleged Resurrection.

if the dude could perform miracles, it's not exactly going to be a stretch to rise from the dead and escape from the tomb.This is also a non sequitur. For example, the claim that one could perform miracles is made about other biblical characters, yet there is no good reason to believe that they could also rise from the dead. There is no necessary connection between the alleged ability to perform miracles and the alleged ability to rise from the dead.

if you don't believe, then you're wasting your time trying to figure out how it was done, because it really is a moot issue at that point.This is yet another non sequitur. To offer naturalistic explanations for alleged miracles can be anything BUT a waste of time. Many a charlatan has been exposed when a possible naturalistic explanation for their alleged miracle(s) has, upon investigation, turned out to be the correct explanation. Would that we could now conduct such an investigation into the alleged Empty Tomb and alleged Resurrection.

-DM-

P.S. Please read the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10). The Feedback Forum is a fully moderated forum. Your posts will not show up immediately upon posting inasmuch as they have to be approved by the Feedback Editor (me).

[Edited to correct typo. -DM-]

[Magdlyn]

I am confused. Poster Daniel said Jesus was "scorned." Yes, he was written to be mocked, spat at and have his beard pulled. But these activites are not life threatening.

I think you must mean, "scourged." Whipped to the point one's skin is flayed off. I am sorry, but I can not take your rebuttal seriously if you do not even understand the definitions of two English words.

The idea that an earthquake destroyed the Temple is ridiculous. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

Now I will take apart the account of the crucifixion in Mark, just a little bit. Matthew and Luke depend on Mark and plagiarize it for ther information. Mark's account is quite simple and terse. The others add to it for dramatic and theological effect.

15:33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

There is your spurious account of a non-existent 3 hour eclipse. I have been in a solar eclipse (northern Mass, early 90's). The land is not in "darkness" during an eclipse. It gets a little darker, but is still much brighter than dusk.

When has an eclipse ever lasted hours?

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Mar 15:35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Eli'jah."

Who would be saying this? Jews? Wouldn't they recognize Eloi means "God" in their native tongue of Aramaic, not "Elijah?" Greek speaking bystanders would not know the difference, or understand what he was saying, so wouldn't comment.

BTW, this saying was cribbed from Psalm 22 when this narrative was composed as midrash of Tanakh.

Mar 15:36 And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink,[b]

Why? Jesus did not ask for a drink. And what does a drink of vinegar have to do with what this "one" next says:

[b]..."Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to take him down."

Mar 15:37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.

What follows seems to be a later redaction. It must have been added later. It interrupts the account of the scene at the cross.

Mar 15:38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.

This is your only account of some kind of trouble at the Temple. No earthquake here either. Did Mark, the earliest evangelist, just forget to record it? No, later accounts added it for dramatic effect. My opinion is, the tearing of the curtain (a heavy tapestry) was added later for theological symbolism. It was not an actual supernatural event, or even part of the original narrative.

Back to the cross:

Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

That's it. No earthquake, no dead rising, no people running around madly because the Temple was destroyed just before sundown on Passover! :rolleyes:

Later in the chapter, it says Joseph of Arimathea rolled the stone in front of the tomb. By himself.

[tazthedog]

Why does everyone assume that the crucifixion was meant to cause death? How do we know that Jesus wasn't simply sentenced to 3 or so hours on the cross as humiliation and punishment and then taken down?

[-DM-]

Why does everyone assume that the crucifixion was meant to cause death? How do we know that Jesus wasn't simply sentenced to 3 or so hours on the cross as humiliation and punishment and then taken down?The answer is rather simple. What we know of Jesus' alleged crucifixion comes from the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that he died:

MT 27.50: Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.
MK 15.37: Then Jesus gave a loug cry and breathed his last.
LK 23.46: ... breathed his last.
JN 19.20: ... gave up his spirit.

In other words, it would be rather selective to believe the Bible that he was, in fact, crucified but yet did not die.

-DM-

[tazthedog]

Sounds to me like he fainted. Seriously, "breathed his last" is not a very clear way to say died. If you add together all the inconsistencies including that Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours, he was really not a very serious threat to Rome or major criminal, he was seen alive later, he was scourged first which is unusual in capital crucifixions... it seems to me that a logical conclusion is that Jesus was not intended to die but was only hung on the cross by Pilate as a punishment, much like a stockade. I'm not at all an expert, but I wonder why I haven't seen anyone discuss this possibility which seems to fit the facts??

[-DM-]

That Jesus was simply hung on the cross as a punishment (short of death) and that he merely fainted does not fit the "facts" as we know them. For example:
1) One does not stop breathing when one faints.
2) Subsequent to a person's last breath, that person is dead.
3) We do not normally entomb someone who has merely fainted.
4) Further, "gave up his spirit" is synonymous with "died."
5) And finally, MK 15.44-45 specifically tells us that Jesus had been pronounced dead by a centurion.

The "swoon theory" has nevertheless been advanced by some. Though not original with him, this theory was given new life by Hugh Schonfield in his best-selling book, The Passover Plot (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1852308362/InternetInfidels). Also, some of our past visitors have suggested that the swoon theory should be given more credence.

As Jeffery Jay Lowder pointed out in responding to feedback, December 1999 (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1999/december.html), however...


My main objection to the Swoon theory is that it presupposes the fundamental reliability of the New Testament accounts of the Resurrection. It assumes the historicity of the empty tomb and of the post-Resurrection appearances. I don't hold either of those assumptions. Moreover, I would respond to your specific points as follows:

1) ... One need not posit a historical resurrection or the swoon theory to explain this.

2) It is certainly possible that Jesus wasn't really dead when his body was removed from the cross, but there is no reason to believe that event was probable. If we accept that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, it does seem rather odd that they would have botched the job.

3) Again, it is certainly possible that Jesus learned how to change his vital signs, but this is pure speculation. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

4) ... you presuppose the fundamental reliability of the appearance accounts. Someone who does not share that presupposition would have no need to explain the appearances by appeal to the Swoon theory, the resurrection, etc.

5) ... what you describe is possible. There's no just no evidence to show that it probably happened that way.In other words, a major problem with the swoon theory is that it concedes the basic accuracy of the crucifixion-burial-Resurrection scenario as presented in the Gospels when the fact is that there is no historical evidence outside of the Gospels to corroborate any of it; in addition, the probability that the swoon theory accurately describes what happened is likely much lower than other possibilities.

-DM-

[KeithHarwood]

That Jesus was simply hung on the cross as a punishment (short of death)

-DM-

I have never heard of this. I was under the impression that crucifixion was always a death sentence, that you hung there until dead and long after. I was further under the impression that crucifixion could only be used on slaves and army deserters, and certainly not ordinary criminals. And Judea was a client kingdom, not a Roman province at the time. So what were the Romans doing, using an illegal form of execution on someone who wasn't a Roman citizen, in the country where he was a citizen?

[-DM-]

... I was under the impression that crucifixion was always a death sentence, that you hung there until dead and long after.Yes, that's the way that I understand it.

I was further under the impression that crucifixion could only be used on slaves and army deserters, and certainly not ordinary criminals.I have read a number of books which cover the [alleged] trial and crucifixion of Jesus; all of them emphasized that crucifixion was a Roman death but none of them mentioned that crucifixion was restricted to other than ordinary criminals [note that the Gospels depict the crucifixion of two more-or-less ordinary criminals along with Jesus].

And Judea was a client kingdom, not a Roman province at the time. So what were the Romans doing, using an illegal form of execution on someone who wasn't a Roman citizen, in the country where he was a citizen?So far as I know, Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, was authorized to order the crucifixion of anyone considered to be a threat to the government, and it is fairly often advanced that Pilate might have considered Jesus to be an insurrectionist.

I am no expert on this, however.

-DM-

[KeithHarwood]

Yes, that's the way that I understand it.

I have read a number of books which cover the [alleged] trial and crucifixion of Jesus; all of them emphasized that crucifixion was a Roman death but none of them mentioned that crucifixion was restricted to other than ordinary criminals [note that the Gospels depict the crucifixion of two more-or-less ordinary criminals along with Jesus].

So far as I know, Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea, was authorized to order the crucifixion of anyone considered to be a threat to the government, and it is fairly often advanced that Pilate might have considered Jesus to be an insurrectionist.

I am no expert on this, however.

-DM-

Nor am I.

It seems I mis-remembered the entry in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Hammond and Scullard, 2nd Edition, P. 300. The relevant bit reads:

It was normally confined to slaves (servile supplicium) and later in the Empire to humiliores; it was not applied to soldiers, except in cases of desertion.

My El-Cheapo Latin dictionary suggests that humiliores means persons of low estate, the poor. Whether 30ish AD counts as later in the Empire it doesn't say. The entry continues with some gruesome details which lend a modicum of support for Mel Gibson's snuff movie.

[tazthedog]

I may be beating a dead horse here, but it seems nobody is responding to my idea which is that maybe the Romans didn't intend to kill Jesus. This idea may not be brilliant, but it does solve the main problem with Jesus not dying, namely: "If we accept that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, it does seem rather odd that they would have botched the job." It does seem odd for the Romans to intend to kill someone and not do so, but not if there was no intent to kill. Why does nobody consider this possibility, that Jesus was simply hung a few hours as a punishment, when this solves so many problems such as why he didn't die, but yet allows for the gospels to be correct in almost every detail. One of the gospels even says that the Romans came to break the legs of the two thieves who were being crucified because they were going to release them but didn't break the legs of Jesus because he was still alive, clearly showing that the other two were going to be released. This just seems a logical solution for those who don't believe that Jesus died and came back, but believe that he was seen alive after the crucifixion and find it hard to believe that the Romans would "botch the job."

[-DM-]

I may be beating a dead horse here, but it seems nobody is responding to my idea which is that maybe the Romans didn't intend to kill Jesus. ... Why does nobody consider this possibility, that Jesus was simply hung a few hours as a punishment....?Two people have addressed your suggestion...

I have never heard of this. I was under the impression that crucifixion was always a death sentence, that you hung there until dead and long after.

Yes, that's the way that I understand it.

I have read a number of books which cover the [alleged] trial and crucifixion of Jesus; all of them emphasized that crucifixion was a Roman death....(emphasis added)If you want more, standby for more. I'll see if I can get someone with more expertise in this area to comment here.

--

One of the gospels even says that the Romans came to break the legs of the two thieves who were being crucified because they were going to release them but didn't break the legs of Jesus because he was still alive, clearly showing that the other two were going to be released.It "clearly shows" nothing of the kind. Breaking the legs of those who were crucified was allegedly done to hasten death. They did not need to break the legs of Jesus because "he was already dead" (JN 19.33).

What more do you need?

-DM-

[Richard Carrier]

Two points:

(1) That the guards accepted bribes is in Mt. 27:12-15. I also discuss in my essay somewhere the evidence that they were probably not Roman legionaries, but more probably auxiliary troops or Jewish guardsmen.

(2) To my knowledge there was no legal practice of using "crucifixion" to punish without killing, and I am not aware of any cases in the sources of such a practice. The Romans were legally inventive, especially when it came to assigning punishment (by and large the holder of imperium--in this case, Pilate--could do almost anything he wanted), and it is certainly not beyond possibility that they might have gone against convention and used the crucifixion in an unorthodox way like that. But there is no actual evidence that this was the case here, and it would have been very improbable (not least because he was condemned by a Jewish court on a capital crime--I see no reason in evidence as to why the Romans would commute his sentence to a mere thrashing up, rather than simply giving the Jews what they wanted, since it was no skin off their backs to comply, and if he really was accused of treason--as the inscription on the cross entails--it would have been unimaginable of a Roman not to make sure he was dead).

The "evidence" adduced (e.g. rapid removal, avoidance of leg-breaking, etc.) could only be evidence of a true story of a commuted sentence if the Gospels were deliberately rewriting history to erase the true causes and outright invent false ones (e.g. Pilate acts surprised at early death, soldiers don't break legs only because already dead, etc.). But if they were already doing that, why keep the other details at all? The other Gospels had no scruple about "leaving out" the not-leg-breaking thing--and John's only reason for including it is purely theological, and thus historically suspect. Likewise, why have Jesus on the cross for only so many hours, if you are already taking liberties with the story to conceal exactly that? Since the actual time of his death corresponds exactly with the actual time of the Temple Atonement, the timing of his death is also more probably a theological invention and not a historical fact.

It is antecedently more likely that Jesus was hung days earlier and died as evening approached, and the Gospel authors "cleaned up" this messy story with the theologically meaningful placement of his execution on Passover and his death shortly after at the Hour of Atonement. That is, if you are going to allow such rampant doctoring of the facts as would be required to turn a mere punishment into an execution, that same premise sooner entails that Jesus was not killed on Passover at all, much less died at that hour.

Personally, I think it is more likely that the Gospel authors had very little actual information, and most of what they wrote was merely symbolic or chosen because it was meaningful, not because they had reliable historical sources for any of those details.

Finally, perhaps it is possible that Jesus was merely chastised, and that somehow his followers were unaware of this, and assumed he had been executed--this would get a boost in probability given that a mere chastisement would have been so improbable that no one would expect it. But though there are many things I can imagine the followers being ignorant of or perceiving incorrectly, I find this to be among the least likely. Unless the Romans were going out of their way to hide what they were really doing. But why would they?

Even at best, this is all pure speculation. And since a deliberate early removal would be no different in odds of killing Jesus than an accidental one (the amount of injury and suffering is identical), I don't see this speculation having any effect on my estimation of the odds of survival (an estimation that is already very, very low).

[vcc]

You say the Gospel writers had no reliable historical sources for what they wrote...they were there! They wrote what they witnessed! And of course they will each emphasize and focus on different details as we all do to events we witness...those do not qualify as inconsistencies.

[-DM-]

You say the Gospel writers had no reliable historical sources for what they wrote...they were there!You do realize, I hope, that not a one of the Gospels is thought by biblical scholars to have been written by an actual eyewitness to the life and "ministry" of Jesus.

They wrote what they witnessed! And of course they will each emphasize and focus on different details as we all do to events we witness...those do not qualify as inconsistencies.In my opinion, and that of many others, these differences in detail are sufficiently inconsistent to qualify as genuine "inconsistencies." They become even more significant when one considers that the Bible was allegedly inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God," a "God" who could have, should have, and likely would have seen to it that the Gospel writers got the details straight such that there would be no need for an army of apologists to offer ad hoc "explanations" for these inconsistencies and other biblical problems.

-DM-

[Richard Carrier]

You say the Gospel writers had no reliable historical sources for what they wrote...they were there! They wrote what they witnessed! And of course they will each emphasize and focus on different details as we all do to events we witness...those do not qualify as inconsistencies.

Don is right. Few scholars believe any Gospel was written by an eyewitness.

Indeed, Luke outright says he was not an eyewitness, and claims to be recording passed-down tradition. Mark and Matthew say nothing either way. Earliest Christian tradition (indeed, based on the least reliable of sources--Papias--which in fact we don't even have except by quotation) held that Mark was not a witness, but that Matthew was, yet Matthew's Gospel is the least credible of the four. And though John alone claims to be relying on an unnamed eyewitness, that is held in great suspicion (and rightly so), since it appears only in a second ending (see end of 20 vs. end of 21) that appears to have been added later (instead of where such a claim would have been placed--the introduction to the book--if the attribution was original), and involves an event placed before the death of Jesus by Luke (and there is no way any witness can "honestly" confuse a major event that happened before Jesus died as having happened after! That is beyond reasonable doubt a bona fide "contradiction" and cannot be chalked up to "difference of perspective"), and doesn't name the witness, and the witness is not the one who claims to be writing the book (an unnamed "we" appears to be doing that).

But even excluding all debate over what is the case, the theoretical possibilities are as follows:

1. The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who told the truth accurately
2. The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who told the truth inaccurately
3. The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who lied
4. The Gospels were written by nonwitnesses who told the truth accurately
5. The Gospels were written by nonwitnesses who told the truth inaccurately
6. The Gospels were written by nonwitnesses who lied

The "chastisement" theory, besides being unprovable in any case and a priori improbable, is incompatible with 1 and 4, and improbable on 3 and 6 because lying would not have kept the telltale signs adduced in its favor, improbable on 2 because eyewitnesses would not likely make such an enormous mistake unless they were being deliberately deceived by the Romans which is itself improbable and baseless, and impossible on 5 because that would entail that it was known that Jesus wasn't killed, even by his first disciples, in which case the Gospels would never have come to be written at all, or at least would never have incorporated a claim that he died (since that would not have become a Christian doctrine).

[tazthedog]

It seems to me that my theory that Jesus was punished deliberately not killed requires very little change in the gospels, simply a few words. Most of the time the word crucifixion is used, not killed, and everybody assumes crucifixion means killed, but it doesn't necessarily. To change the time the crucifixion began would require a major rewrite, and to assume that the gospels are completely invented is also very extreme. My theory makes so much sense to me because the factors mentioned before (the few hours spent on the cross - not enough to die, the broken legs), and because I don't think it meant nothing to the Romans to kill a complete innocent, they were not so totally barbaric and backwards. Of course it is possible, but not logical that such a great civilization was so primitive legally as to kill someone for no reason. For me it is also really impossible to believe that the Romans would fail to kill someone they intended to kill, much like I can't imagine someone today sentenced to death who survives. I really don't think that Jesus rose from the dead, and it is such a minor rewrite of the gospels to say that Jesus fainted and was taken down instead of died and was taken down...

[-DM-]

It seems to me that my theory that Jesus was punished deliberately not killed requires very little change in the gospels, simply a few words.And how, exactly, do you propose to change those few words in the Gospels? How, exactly, do you plan to get around these alleged facts:

1) One does not stop breathing (breathe his last) when one faints.
2) Subsequent to a person's last breath, that person is dead.
3) A person who has merely fainted would not likely be entombed.
4) "Gave up his spirit" is synonymous with "died."
5) MK 15.44-45 specifically tells us that Jesus had been pronounced dead by a centurion.

Most of the time the word crucifixion is used, not killed, and everybody assumes crucifixion means killed, but it doesn't necessarily.1) At least once, Jesus is pronounced dead.
2) Provide the evidence that crucifixion by the Romans at the time of Jesus ever meant something other than death and your assertion would carry some weight. Without such evidence, it sounds to me like wishful thinking.

To change the time the crucifixion began would require a major rewrite, and to assume that the gospels are completely invented is also very extreme.To change the clear meaning of "breathed his last" and of the statement given in MK 15.44-45 that Jesus had been pronounced dead by the centurion is also quite extreme.

My theory makes so much sense to me because the factors mentioned before (the few hours spent on the cross - not enough to die, the broken legs)...How many hours on the cross does it take to die when one has previously been scourged? Do you know? If not, then you cannot state with any certainty that there was not "enough time" in this case.

and because I don't think it meant nothing to the Romans to kill a complete innocent, they were not so totally barbaric and backwards.This statement does not accord with what I have read of the Romans under Pilate.

Of course it is possible, but not logical that such a great civilization was so primitive legally as to kill someone for no reason.Various articles and books that I have read over the years place the responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion squarely on the Romans. Several of those books and articles offer rather convincing reasons that the Gospel writers likely whitewashed the Roman's involvement in the death of Jesus, placing the responsibility on the Jews instead of squarely on the Romans:

Israelis, Jews, and Jesus, Pinchas Lapide
Jesus Son of Man, Rudolf Augstein
The Death of Jesus, Joel Carmichael
The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, S.G.F. Brandon
Who Crucified Jesus?, Solomon Zeitlan
"Who Really Killed Jesus?" Newsweek, February 16, 2004

-DM-

[Corrected typos. -DM-]

[tazthedog]

Still makes sense to me. If one accepts that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion, as witnesses report, the alternatives are: 1) Jesus is the son of God and came back to life. I eliminate this possibility as illogical and extremely improbable, 2) The Romans "botched the job." I also eliminate this as illogical and extremely improbable. THE ONLY REMAINING POSSIBILITY IS that the Romans didn't intend to kill Jesus, just punish him. "When you eliminate all impossibilities, what remains, however improbable, is the truth." If this were also impossible I would discard it as well, but it seems that "giving up the ghost" could have been misinterpreted (deliberately or otherwise) as died when it really meant fainted. Add that to the fact that Jesus was only crucified a few hours. And that there was no reason for Jesus to have been killed, he did nothing wrong. And that according to at least one Gospel the other two men crucified with Jesus were brought down alive, etc. Also, at the time of the Romans there were no jails (except to hold people for execution) so a form of medium punishment makes sense and why not use a cross? It seems to me that this possibility deserves at least some discussion, which I have not seen until this time!

[-DM-]

Still makes sense to me. If one accepts that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion, as witnesses report, the alternatives are: 1) Jesus is the son of God and came back to life.Not so fast. If jesus were alive after the alleged Crucifixion, it doesn't necessarily mean that he "is the son of God and that he came back to life."

1) He might never have been dead (as you suggest).
2) He might have "come back to life" but NOT be the son of God--but even this is based on the assumption that the alleged "witness reports" are accurate.

I eliminate this possibility as illogical and extremely improbable, 2) The Romans "botched the job." I also eliminate this as illogical and extremely improbable.
THE ONLY REMAINING POSSIBILITY IS that the Romans didn't intend to kill Jesus, just punish him.Hardly. There are other possibilities (and these likely do not comprise an exhaustive list):
1) The so-called witnesses could have been mistaken about what they saw, or think they saw.
2) Jesus might have been in a state other than "alive" as we know it. (After all, he allegedly walked into a room where the doors were closed following the alleged Resurrection and certainly that would not reflect a resurrection to bodily life. Further, his alleged appearance to Paul was in the form of a vision and/or a voice, only.)
3) The alleged post-Resurrection appearances could be fiction. (Note that the post-Resurrection appearances are listed in five different places in the Bible, and no two of them agree exactly. Note also that the original ending of Mark, most likely the earliest of the four Gospels, is at 16:8, in other words without the post-Resurrection "account." And note that the empty tomb stories are unique to the Gospels; they do not appear in Paul's epistles or in Acts. Thus, it seems quite logical to me that the alleged post-Resurrection appearances as stated in the Gospels could well be an editorial development--i.e., fiction.)

"When you eliminate all impossibilities, what remains, however improbable, is the truth." If this were also impossible I would discard it as well, but it seems that "giving up the ghost" could have been misinterpreted (deliberately or otherwise) as died when it really meant fainted.Focus on "breathed his last," and "he learned from the centurion that he [Jesus] was dead" and it puts "gave up the ghost" in a different light than you seem to want to put it in.

Add that to the fact that Jesus was only crucified a few hours.He had allegedly been scourged. If such a scourging were anything like what was shown in Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of Jesus the Christ, then it would be easy to believe that Jesus died in a relatively short time on the cross.

And that there was no reason for Jesus to have been killed, he did nothing wrong.Whether Jesus had personally done anything wrong that deserved death on a cross is not necessarily relevant. After all, this was allegedly the plan of an omnipotent God, a plan that could hardly be thwarted. Further, it is believed by some that Jesus was likely considered by Pilate to be an insurrectionist. And finally, it is also believed by some that Pilate wanted to avoid a confrontation with the Jewish authorities and Jews who were allegedly calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. (It is stated that "a riot was beginning.")

And that according to at least one Gospel the other two men crucified with Jesus were brought down alive,What Gospel is this? (Chapter and verse, please.) And don't forget that Jesus allegedly told one of them, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Also, at the time of the Romans there were no jails (except to hold people for execution) so a form of medium punishment makes sense and why not use a cross? It seems to me that this possibility deserves at least some discussion, which I have not seen until this time!My take on this is that there would already have been a discussion of this possibility if scholars, historians--people with expertise in this area--thought there were any merit to the possibility. You need not agree, of course.

-DM-

[Amaleq13]

1) The so-called witnesses could have been mistaken about what they saw, or think they saw.

The Gospels provide ample evidence for this one.

Some of the disciples doubted even after seeing the allegedly risen Jesus:

"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Mt 28:16-17)

Some of the disciples did not recognize the allegedly risen Jesus:

"And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him." (Lk 24:15-16)

Even Mary didn't recognize the man who was eventually declared the risen Jesus:

"And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus." (Jn 20:14)

[tazthedog]

As I said, ASSUMING the witnesses were right that Jesus was still alive after the crucifixion. Of course the witnesses could be wrong. Maybe Jesus never even lived. But ASSUMING the witnesses are right, for which there seems to be a lot of evidence, there are only three possibilities: 1) Jesus came back to life, 2) the Romans botched the job, and 3) Jesus was deliberately not killed. I think the first two possibilities are impossible. People simply don't come back to life, and I cannot accept that the centurions were incompetent in following simple orders (kill). The third possibility seems to me logical for many reasons: because Jesus was only hung a few hours on the cross, because it makes sense to me that the Romans wouldn't kill a complete innocent, they were not barbarians (The Passion of the Christ is a movie not a documentary), because I don't think it is so hard to imagine that someone could be hung on a cross for a few hours as a punishment (the Romans were smart enough to see this possibility), because this interpretation only requires a few words of change in the gospels which many people would be highly motivated to do (to prove that Jesus was the son of God), because one Gospel at least says that the other criminals hung with Jesus were taken down alive. I'm not a scholar, but I think scholars should look into this possibility because it solves a very big problem!

[-DM-]

tazthedog:

We both seem to be going around in circles, repeating essentially the same points over and over again. Thus, I'm going to comment once more, then allow you to have the last word (if you feel so inclined).

Your hypothesis seems to rest, at least in part, on the following:
1) Jesus did exist.
2) He was "a complete innocent," therefore the Romans wouldn't have executed him. (This is in spite of the fact that there is a considerable body of expert opinion which explains why it is that the Gospel writers would have white-washed the Romans responsibility in the death of Jesus, making PIlate contend that Jesus was "innocent.")
3) Jesus was crucified, but the intent was punishment rather than death. (This is in spite of the fact that the Gospels make it clear that he was crucified until dead, that a centurion--whom you otherwise seem to consider competent--actually pronounced Jesus dead, and that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that Roman crucifixion even meant anything other than death.)

--

You are being quite selective in what you choose to believe, accepting some of what the Gospels say to the point of putting quite a bit of faith in specifics, but yet rejecting contrary specifics. And you do so without bringing in any outside, expert opinion on the details of the alleged Trial and Crucifixion.

Further, I previously asked you for book, chapter and verse to support your contention that "one Gospel at least says that the other criminals hung with Jesus were taken down alive." Even though you repeated the claim, you have yet to supply that reference.

Finally, considering all the various hypotheses that have been offered by skeptics to "explain" the alleged Resurrection, it seems to me that were there much of a likelihood that yours was a viable explanation, it would have been offered long ago.

Thus, your point of view seems quite unconvincing to me as compared, for example, to the hypothesis that the alleged Resurrection was a late editorial development--i.e., fiction.

-DM-

[tazthedog]

I was referring to John 19:31-33: “Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.� To me the easiest interpretation of this is that the other two were not dead and that instead of killing them they broke their legs and took them away. I know there are other interpretations that breaking their legs was a way to kill them but that seems tortured, why not say they were killed. I think my perspective on this is a little different from others because I believe that Jesus was a healer, since I do believe that is possible, but not the son of God and not able to rise from the dead. This leads me to believe much of the Gospels, but to question the resurrection. I think my interpretation of the crucifixion allows Jesus to be a healer, and allows the Gospels to be essentially true, without sillyness like a return from the dead, which we all know is impossible.

[Thomas B]

The only eclipse reported in ancient records for 32 A.D. took place in Bithynia, too far even for a partial eclipse to appear in Jerusalem. etc....Someone once told me that the Passover always happens during a Full Moon, and as we know, a solar eclipse CANNOT happen during a full moon. And, as someone else pointed out, it cannot last 3 hours!

[Richard Carrier]

It seems to me that my theory that Jesus was punished deliberately not killed requires very little change in the gospels, simply a few words. Most of the time the word crucifixion is used, not killed, and everybody assumes crucifixion means killed, but it doesn't necessarily.

Certainly, if one ignores every relevant fact of history, you can get any text to say anything you want simply by exploiting assumptions the author made and ambiguities in his language. The Bible Thumpers are masters at that shell game. And it is just that: a game. The truth cannot be determined out of context. Put the Gospels in their historical context, and your theory will not hold water. Granted, it is "possible," in the loose sense that it is possible Jesus' death was faked by Pilate in order to set a deviously-planned chain of events in motion that would bring about the Jewish War so as to permit the safe escape from earth of a band of alien astronauts. Possible, sure. But not even remotely probable. So, too, for your idea: yes, "to staurify" doesn't literally mean "kill," but neither does "electrocute" or "hang" or "shoot" either--yet if a modern text said "and he got the chair" or "he was hung" or "he was shot at dawn" no one would claim this didn't mean he was dead, much less would anyone claim that killing him wasn't the intention.

Now, Jesus surviving the cross unexpectedly is another story, more probable perhaps, but that's a completely different theory with its own problems. Otherwise, Romans only staurified men they intended to kill--just as we only shoot, hang, and give the chair to men we intend to kill.



My theory makes so much sense to me because the factors mentioned before (the few hours spent on the cross - not enough to die, the broken legs)

In my longer Resurrection Story essay I already analyze these facts, in context, and conclude that the odds are less than 1 in 700 that they portend that Jesus survived. Those are still odds within the realm of possibility, but hardly the most probable theory going. As to whether his survival was intended by the Romans, however, that's far less likely--almost up there with Pilate rescuing the space aliens. Okay, that's exaggerating. But still, pretty darned low in odds.



because I don't think it meant nothing to the Romans to kill a complete innocent, they were not so totally barbaric and backwards.

Dear me. You need to read Tacitus. Let me give you an example. The Romans once executed a little girl because her family spoke out against a tyrannical emperor. Not the little girl. Her family. And what they said wasn't criminal anyway. So this little girl was definitely twice innocent--far more innocent than a Jesus who went on an illegal violent rampage in a public market and stole a mule (never mind that he was convicted of a capital crime--blasphemy--by due process of his own people's law). Yet Roman law held that a virgin could not be executed. Guess what the "not so totally barbaric and backwards" Romans did then. Why, they raped her on the chopping block. Problem solved. And off went her head. Executing an adult rioter who was convicted of a capital crime by a court with full jurisdiction over him is hardly out of scope here.

Don't get me wrong. I am passionately in love with Roman genius and culture, especially their greatest achievements, even in ethics and law. But these were not, by and large, nice guys. There were nice guys among them. But as in all eras of history (even today, in far too many places on earth) the good raged against a largely evil machine. And Pilate, by all accounts, was one of the worst cogs in it.



Of course it is possible, but not logical that such a great civilization was so primitive legally as to kill someone for no reason.

Er...ever hear of gladiators?



For me it is also really impossible to believe that the Romans would fail to kill someone they intended to kill, much like I can't imagine someone today sentenced to death who survives.

Believe me, a Roman failure to properly diagnose death is well within the realm of possibility, and so was killing innocent people. Hell, I'd sooner believe bribery than what you are proposing. There is plenty of evidence that legionaries were corruptible--especially in the outer provinces. None whatsoever that crucifixion was ever intentionally used as a mere chastisement.

[chuckrightmire]

I’m confused by this discussion. To start with, the “knowledgeable� nuns in my grade school always told us and I thought it said in the Bible that Jesus was “nailed� to the cross, not tied up with rope as I understood was the usual case and supposedly done with the allegorical good and bad thieves. Hanging from nails through the hands and feet would be a severe trauma by itself. In fact the location of the nail holes in the hands is one refutation I have seen in skeptical magazines for the Shroud of Turin. In addition, the use of nails rather than rope would seem to me to be a sign that the Romans did not intend to ever bring him down. According to the “knowledgeable� nuns, he was scourged, crowned with thorns and made to drag a heavy cross through the streets of a city and he was so weak he fell. Even without the extra burdens put on as Mel Gibson used the fantasies of the French nun, I would think he could have died very quickly. (Those same “knowledgeable nuns used to suggest to doubters about his agony that they try to hold their arms out in the same position his would have been on the cross; one reason that I was quick to buy the notion that the Iraqi prisoners in the photographs were being tortured.) The story of the resurrection could have been caused by a number of things: hynogogic visions, mass hysteria, mental disorders triggered by grief, holograms by visitors from the future, whatever. The point to me is that the entire argument is moot. While it would be nice to have some convincing proof that it could not have happened, given the mysticism of believers and their faith in a God who can do anything, they would believe any of the “miracles� in the gospels, even if you could prove them impossible. Believers would probably respond “not by men,� and that would make the gospel stories just more “miraculous� to them. It might convince some doubters, but not believers. In most logic it seems to be impossible to prove a negative; yet that seems to be what you are doing. Remember there is nothing outside the gospels that says anything at all about Jesus except one comment in Josephus that I’ve been led to believe in my readings is considered a forgery. So, since they consider the gospels as fact, ask them to prove the positive: that Jesus existed and his story his true. By questioning their answers, you won’t change any minds, but you will have a lot of fun running a tautological conversation. I think it would be far more important to find ways to encourage people to accept that gods are created by men (and women) to fulfill certain genetic needs and there is a better way of doing this if we can but talk about it.

[Richard Carrier]

I thought it said in the Bible that Jesus was “nailed� to the cross, not tied up with rope as I understood was the usual case and supposedly done with the allegorical good and bad thieves. Hanging from nails through the hands and feet would be a severe trauma by itself.

His ankles would almost certainly have been nailed to the crux. Whether his hands/wrists were tied or nailed to the patibulum is less certain--it isn't even certain what was usual in that regard, and there might have been no standard practice. Of course, mutilation was a common form of judicial punishment in ancient near-eastern cultures, though not so much in Roman law, but from what I know from stories from Sumerian and Babylonian eras the idea of nailing hands and feet or wrists and ankles is at least logically compatible with the idea of mere punishment rather than execution. But that's as far as one can go with that reasoning. The Romans didn't do that as far as I know.



In fact the location of the nail holes in the hands is one refutation I have seen in skeptical magazines for the Shroud of Turin.

It is correct that Jesus could not have been suspended that way, but he could have been tied by the wrists or arms and his hands nailed merely to be vicious or to prevent escaping the bonds (Romans usually placed guards on the crucified for days, to prevent family from rescuing the victim alive or their corpse for burial--nails in the hands would hinder such attempts, should the guards not work). There are many other aspects of the Shroud image that make it clearly bogus, though.



In addition, the use of nails rather than rope would seem to me to be a sign that the Romans did not intend to ever bring him down.

Alive, yes, that would be implied. Dead, they'd just rip the flesh away. Still, it is at least "theoretically" possible to remove nails while keeping a victim alive (provided they are strong enough to endure all this). But that would be a lot of bother, and as I've said there is no evidence Romans did this as a kind of nonlethal punishment.



According to the “knowledgeable� nuns, he was scourged, crowned with thorns and made to drag a heavy cross through the streets of a city and he was so weak he fell.

So the Gospel story goes. The scourging did not necessarily go as far as Gibson's sick fantasies, and a crown of thorns would hurt but only cause superficial wounds (that would look worse than they are, given how much scalp wounds bleed, but rarely so much as to cause shock or death). It was typical of the crucified to be nailed/tied to the patibulum and then have to carry it to the place of hanging, where the patibulum would be raised onto the standing crux. Romans were too efficient to pull cruces out of the ground and re-lay foundations for them every time--they just left the crux pole in place, probably cemented, and took patibula up and down as needed, usually seating it on top, hence making a T-shape, not a cross in Christian imagination. This, again, shows that Gibson's vision is ahistorical--it also shows that Jesus could not have actually "dropped" the cross (he would have been attached to it), but could at best have fallen and needed someone to support him.

The Romans did use certain kinds of punishment like beating and whipping and sometimes got exotic about it, and all the above can be thought of as piling on less severe punishments onto an execution. But the whole event of crucifixion was always intended to be fatal, as far as I know--though it was intended to take a long time to kill (usually days).



Even without the extra burdens put on as Mel Gibson used the fantasies of the French nun, I would think he could have died very quickly.

Could have. But he probably would have survived a day or two, as was typical. One should note that in antiquity, wimps usually died before maturity. If you made it to adulthood, you were almost certainly, by today's standards, in possession of remarkable health and constitution (though disease and injury would usually still kill you before fifty anyway). For more, see: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=88

[Chuck Rightmire]

I read the comments and your earlier essay linked to it and I quite agree with what you say. However, one of the criticisms that I have of this kind of discussion is that we tend to go rather far afield. You and I both, for instance, have not mentioned the little block that traditional catholic crucifixes seem to always have under the figure's feet. They might add strength to your comments on the possibility of survival if there is any chance they reflect any reality. But I think what concerns me is the changing of the rules, as it were, by eliminating traditional items—I hate to say it, like the nails—from calculations. I have found when trying to respond to believers in this way, you have to use the story as it is without substituting the idea that maybe it wasn't done this way. For instance, I found what you said on how the Romans used the crosses to be enlightening and making more sense than the traditional way of depicting the story. But make a change like that from the story and the believer will be in denial before you get done with the explanation. I know we spend our time thinking about things like this because it seems important to have an answer for the unbelievers. Yet, it seems to me that we need to focus on something more, something that is not just denial, but is a positive approach to what even Richard Dawkins (in Free Inquiry) seems to think has a genetic basis. I don't know what the answer is, but I would like to see it discussed.

[Richard Carrier]

I read the comments and your earlier essay linked to it and I quite agree with what you say. However, one of the criticisms that I have of this kind of discussion is that we tend to go rather far afield. You and I both, for instance, have not mentioned the little block that traditional catholic crucifixes seem to always have under the figure's feet. They might add strength to your comments on the possibility of survival if there is any chance they reflect any reality. But I think what concerns me is the changing of the rules, as it were, by eliminating traditional items—I hate to say it, like the nails—from calculations.

A platform is attested in early pagan graffiti, but probably wasn't standard (the Romans probably had no fixed method). But the nails are a confirmed fact: we have recovered the legs of a crucified man with a nail binding both ankles to the wood of the crux (a piece of the actual wood was even attached), and countless sources attest to the value of "crucifixion nails" in black magic, which entails that nails were used to crucify (and their value came from having been in contact with the corpse of a criminal, so we know criminals were nailed somehow).



I have found when trying to respond to believers in this way, you have to use the story as it is without substituting the idea that maybe it wasn't done this way. For instance, I found what you said on how the Romans used the crosses to be enlightening and making more sense than the traditional way of depicting the story. But make a change like that from the story and the believer will be in denial before you get done with the explanation.

Not all believers. In fact, most believers are entirely receptive to corrections like this. Only about 25% of the U.S. population (and far less elsewhere in the first world) stakes its worldview on biblical literalism, and I'd say probably only half of them can't see a way to reinterpret the text to fit any change in historical facts. That leaves the vast majority of Christians even in this crazy country, never mind more liberal nations.

But the problem is not with Christians denying what the facts of crucifixion were. The problem is with claiming that the Romans ever used crucifixion non-lethally. That is the pseudohistory here, not what the Gospels say (whether they get the facts of crucifixion wrong is a different issue).



I know we spend our time thinking about things like this because it seems important to have an answer for the unbelievers. Yet, it seems to me that we need to focus on something more, something that is not just denial, but is a positive approach to what even Richard Dawkins (in Free Inquiry) seems to think has a genetic basis. I don't know what the answer is, but I would like to see it discussed.

I already offer such an "out" to the believer. See the final paragraph to my Yale lecture:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html#conception

Many other scholars have already done the same, in many different ways. As just one example, Sheehan's reinterpretation of the meaning of Easter:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/firstcoming/

[Chris Turner]

Dear Sirs;

I am very interested in the articles that you have written about Jesus; from Richard C Carrier;

I would just be grateful if he or some one from the team who wrote these articles would Clarify the following for me;

If Jesus was a con man and he wasn't the son of God and he didn't didnot really die on the Cross;

a point that doesn't seem to have been addressed is the Following;

If Jesus was a normal man; Why would he have gone around teaching; Why would he have let himself be crucified; from a Human perspective if I knew people where going to try and Kill me I would be more inclined to Run;

If Jesus was not meant to die for us; Why did he not just run; It's illogical to think that he would willingly let all that happen to him and go through all that for know Good reason, if he wasn't following the will of God

I would love some to clarify if this point has been addressed please could you highlight that for me

Kind Regards

Chris Turner

[chris turner]

Hi Everyone;

I was reading Mr Richard Carrers Book; Why I don't by the resurection story, I was just interested to ask the following question,

Putting Science and Logic to one side Can people address 2 questions I have,

If Jesus was not the Son of God and it was not fortold that he would have to die to save the sins of the world; Why would he intentionally put himself through all that suffering, ?

If we as mere mortals know we are in danger of losing our lives we would try to Run and Hide surely

If Jesus was merely and insignifcant mortal; and not doing anything? Why did the Pharasees want to kill him? Why would they waist breath

That seems illogical to me

I am sorry if I am overlookign something that was already explained; I would just like some one to clarify that for me?

Thanks

Chris

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback regarding articles about Jesus by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.shtml). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response from him following this post. In the meantime, a few comments.

Following are some of the possibilities (there may be other possibilities, as well) which pertain to your questions:
1) Jesus was actually who it is is claimed that he said he was (i.e., the "Son of God," etc.).
2) Jesus was a liar.
3) Jesus was a lunatic.
4) Jesus was both Lord and a liar.
5) Jesus was both Lord and a lunatic.
6) Jesus was both a liar and a lunatic.
7) Jesus was Lord, as well as a liar and a lunatic.
8) Jesus was neither Lord, liar, nor lunatic--or any combination thereof; he was simply mistaken about himself.
9) His "biographers" lied.
10) His "biographers" were lunatics.
11) His "biographers" were lunatics who lied.
12) His "biographers" neither lied, nor were they lunatics. They were simply mistaken in what they wrote--or embellished the facts.

As to which is most probable, we know with a good deal of certainty that the Gospels are not accurate biographical accounts. Thus, we cannot take the Gospel accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus as unadulterated fact--except on the basis of faith (and faith is not a reliable road to truth inasmuch as almost anything can be believed on the basis of faith). Further, we can conclude--if Jesus was anything like what the Gospels portray him to be--that he was certainly not "normal" in the sense of "average." And finally, there have been whole books written about the trial and crucifixion of Jesus; the consensus of current thinking seems to be that Jesus was crucified by the Romans on the basis that he was an insurrectionist of sorts, a threat to the stability of the ruling authority.

-DM-

[Slotty]

I have to wonder if you actually read the entire article because Carrier specifically cites Josephus, Life of Flavius Josephus § 420-21, where he relates the story of one man out of a group of three surviving crucifixion.


I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa, to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.

So Christ who was dumped in a tomb for 2 nights scourged and crucified given no medical attention until after sabbath. Now If you say Christ was all mirrors and smoke then there's no way he would have recovered to be walking around all fine and well within 40 days of being crucified. Hanging on a cross with nails through ones hands and feet and thorns on ones head sounds like it would damage you quite a bit.

[Amaleq13]

Slotty,

My comment was specifically in response to this clearly false assertion:

Firstly, people did not survive crucifixion, there is not one story -ever- of a man (or woman, if women were also crucified) surviving crucifixion.

[fatpie42]

I hope you don't find my comments here misplaced since it would be a bad start for me in this forum having my first post deleted....

Anyway I just wanted to point out that if you don't believe in the resurrection in the Bible why should you believe ANY of it? There are plenty of amazing things in the Bible other than the resurrection and there are more of these in other religions all over the place.

In Buddhism, Buddha is meant to have asked the world to tribute to his virtue and it makes a huge noise, he is also meant to have stopped an army (of spirits I think) with meditation alone. He is meant to have been born from his mother's side. There are many stories told of both his physical and intellectual abilities (i think he was meant to be able to uproot a tree). Other buddhas have been capable of such abilities as teleportation.

Since I don't believe in Buddhism I have no problem simply denying the whole mythology. Why must deniers of Christianity try to break Christianity into real life? Certainly there were real people involved but that doesn't mean you can't just dismiss the mythology. The Christian story isn't that different from many other religious scriptures. Apparently the Christian story of death and resurrection is remarkably similar to an egyptian myth about the God Isis.

The Christian gospels DEFINITELY say that Jesus was resurrected. There's no doubt about it! If you don't believe in Christianity why should you care?

P.S. Just though of something. Is this a debate concerning Islam vs. Christianity? I don't know much about Islam but I realise that the resurrection and the godliness of Christ is a sticking point between the two religions. Sorry for being irrelevant to that debate.

[Mathetes]

Minor nitpick...

Some of the disciples doubted even after seeing the allegedly risen Jesus:

"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Mt 28:16-17)

This is badly translated. The "some" does not appear in the Greek Matthew, that only says οἱ δὲ �δίστασαν, "but they doubted".

That "some" is entirely imaginary. The original says that they (implicitly all) doubted. Surprisingly (or maybe not really), all the translations of the Bible I have looked at (KJV, NIV, NASB) have the spurious "some".

[Amaleq13]

This is badly translated. The "some" does not appear in the Greek Matthew, that only says ?? ?? ?????????, "but they doubted".

That "some" is entirely imaginary. The original says that they (implicitly all) doubted. Surprisingly (or maybe not really), all the translations of the Bible I have looked at (KJV, NIV, NASB) have the spurious "some".

That is very interesting and bizarre. Even YLT has "some". Given that they all worshipped, what could they all be doubting?

[-DM-]

That is very interesting and bizarre. Even YLT has "some".Yes, I noticed that too. I checked about a dozen different translations and they all include "some" (although it isn't always "doubted" but might be "hesitated" or "wavered"). Strong's seems to indicate that "some" is there: G3588.

-DM-

[Mathetes]

Yes, I noticed that too. I checked about a dozen different translations and they all include "some" (although it isn't always "doubted" but might be "hesitated" or "wavered"). Strong's seems to indicate that "some" is there: G3588.

You can look in the online Greek Bible (http://www.greekbible.com/index.php) and in Project Perseus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155:book=Matthew:chapter=28:verse=1). No "some". The only way out is trying to argue that the article/relative οἱ works as some kind of partitive, or something. That's pretty desperate, but even if you do not know Greek, just take a look a couple of verses before, verse 15:

οἱ δὲ λαβόντες á¼€Ï?γύÏ?ια...

Same exact words, only different verb. Can you find any Bible that says "some of the soldiers took the money..."?

Of course not, because there is no "some". It comes out of the translator's imagination.

I looked a bit more, and have found it correctly in the NAB. For some reason, Catholics seem less reluctant than Protestants to admit the obvious.

[Solo]

i'm not understanding this arguement. either you believe Jesus was the son of God or you don't.

if you do, that in and of itself is the explaination for the resurrection. if the dude could perform miracles, it's not exactly going to be a stretch to rise from the dead and escape from the tomb.

if you don't believe, then you're wasting your time trying to figure out how it was done, because it really is a moot issue at that point.

I like your approach. The problem is that while JC seemed to performing miracles objectively only some would believe them. With Lazarus e.g., everyone who was there saw it but only some believed. The rest went to complain to the authorities that this man 'does great miracles' and the authorotities decided to get rid of him because the Romans would get nasty.

Of course the question is this: if the report to the authorities was of a man performing miracles would not the authorities be afraid to move against him ? Would he not have the power to turn them to a heap of stones ?
Besides, if I was sitting in the Sanhedrin I would want to have those reports thoroughly tested and assure myself this guy's special powers may not be used to a good purpose, like turning the Roman legions into heaps of stones.....right ? :cool:

In other words: the resurrection story is a koan ! It cannot be taken literally except by the intellectually destitute.

[ZiprHead]

Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

Something I've never heard talked about but occured to me is that the centurian's quote could have been spoken sarcastically. The Bible does not give the context of the statement.

You've got Jesus claiming to be the son of god, lots of followers around that believed the same. The guy gets scourged, pinned up on the cross, suffers terribly, asks for help from his father/god, yet receives no help at all.

I can see it in my mind, the soldiers standing around watching and mocking, "Yup, that dude was the son of god all right. Not! (guffaw, guffaw)"

[Plush Colin]

i think that jesus was not killed. i read so much about the unusual circumstances of his 'death'... for instance on some site it said that it was not common to be nailed to the cross with one's arms streched out. this position greatly increases the chance of survival (has to do with the respiration not collapsing). also it is strange that the guy who thrusted the lance into jesus was supposed to have been a professional. when one considers the greek verb used in the original bible (sorry, don't speak greek, maybe i manage to find the link in my bookmarks) it simply means to scratch at the side. a professional would have hit his belly button if desired. another aspect is the timing. it seems that his cruzification was a rush job, the reason being that on sabbath noone was allowed to hang at the cross. so they nailed him to the cross so that he would just have to spend a couple of hours there. that was on purpose, arranged by pilate, who was supposed to have been a secret follower of jesus. apart from that there was a lot of vinegar present and spices too, which was unusual. all that stuff probably was needed for medical reasons, to ward off infections etc.
i read that on the philippines it is still common to have oneself cruzified nowadays. it is forbidden by law, but who cares :rolleyes: anyway, the most radical xtians there spend a few days (!) at the cross and after that a few days in the hospital. the whole affair is finished off in a law suit and a fine. on the philippines being cruzified is like the trip to mekka for muslims or to disneyland for americans :thumbs:

[norma98026]

I think you raised a good point, Colin. In view of the fact that there are people in the Philippines today who survive crucifixion, is it possible that Jesus did not really die on the cross but was instead, like Wesley in “The Princess Bride�, just mostly dead?

Those who were present at Jesus’ crucifixion, his enemies as well as his followers, made sure he was dead before they buried him. Jesus had previously refused the vinegar solution and did not take it or any other potions that might have aided his recovery. After he said his last words, he gave up his spirit just as any ordinary human being does, and died. The Roman soldier who went around to the three crucified men did not break Jesus’ legs to speed up the process of dying because he found him to be already lifeless. That’s why his followers were so despondent. They huddled together, wondering why he hadn’t saved himself and what had happened to their hopes of a new regime headed by Jesus, the one supposedly sent by God. But then, on the third day after his burial, just as the scriptures predicted, Jesus showed up alive, and their lives were turned upside down. Peter, the one who betrayed Jesus by saying he never knew him (much less followed him), immediately proclaimed to a huge crowd what he had seen and heard. Eventually he and many of the other followers were tortured and executed for their radical claims.

If Jesus did not really die or arise from the dead, what else could have changed his followers from people who were hopeless, confused, and disillusioned to people who were convinced, fearless, and resolute?

One thing for sure – no other person in history has stirred up so much controversy, or else why would people still be discussing this after 2000 years? : )
Thanks for reading my posting. - Norma

[Actarus3]

The crucifixion found place at the end of the 14e Nissan/Abib at 31 AD April 25.
There it is always Full Moon at the 14e of the mouth is an eclipse impossible.

But God can change the pad of the moon (what explain the earthquake)
And you need only clouds to make it dark.

Matthew 12
39 But He answered and said to them, " An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

From "Good" Friday to Sunday morning is NOT 3 days AND 3 Nights.
This is a sign that Jesus is the messiah.

The truth is that the crucifixion takes place at Wednesday afternoon and the resurrection at Saterday night. (The Jewish/Biblical day start at sunset and end at sunset.)
In morning of the first day (Sunday morning) was the tomb already empty.

Sorry for the bad grammar *Is a Belgian*
Are the rules strict on grammar in these boards?

[Richard Carrier]

Of course it is possible, but not logical that such a great civilization was so primitive legally as to kill someone for no reason.

That's a bit naive.



For me it is also really impossible to believe that the Romans would fail to kill someone they intended to kill, much like I can't imagine someone today sentenced to death who survives.

Because we are forbidden to use "cruel and unusual punishment," we only employ methods that are certain to kill (firing squad, etc.). Comparable to that, a member of the upper class executed in Rome was beheaded--no chance of surviving that by accident!

Nevertheless, there is no evidence Romans ever used crucifixion not intending it to kill (though they could change their minds--see below). It was definitely meant to kill, just over a long period of time.

An analogy would be if we electrocuted someone in the chair and then a guard (not a doctor) pronounced the convict dead and, for religious reasons, had the body buried early without embalming or autopsy. The electric chair is often survived, hence doctors attend the body, and if they detect life signs, the convict is electrocuted again--often numerous times until the convict finally dies, which is why the method has been challenged as unconstitutionally "cruel" and is therefore not much used anymore, if at all (similar objections were raised against hanging, which could also be survived, though I am pretty sure hanging is still on the books in some states). At any rate, simply because electrocution can be survived, and a guard will sometimes err in pronouncing death, you could not conclude that the state did not intend to kill the convict--since there is no evidence the state has ever used the electric chair to merely "punish" someone. See the point?

However, we do have evidence the Romans could be persuaded to change their minds--Josephus persuaded Titus to rescue some of his friends from the cross--though they were intended to die, since the method takes so long, they could be saved by a general's clemency. There is no evidence that did or would have happened in the case of Jesus.




I really don't think that Jesus rose from the dead, and it is such a minor rewrite of the gospels to say that Jesus fainted and was taken down instead of died and was taken down...

Except that this entails all the burial narratives were fabricated en toto, which is not a minor rewrite at all. You can't claim a man released on clemency would be buried alive. And, indeed, earliest tradition is against you: Paul says in no uncertain terms that Jesus "died and was buried." So it is not just the Gospels you have to rewrite.

[Richard Carrier]

Don pretty much covered all the obvious possibilities. I'll just say what I think is most probable, given my extensive study of the evidence and scholarship.



If Jesus was a con man

I would not label him a con man even if he knew he was lying about anything he said in order to get his social movement of moral reform started. In collectivist cultures like the one he lived in, it would be acceptable to lie if it served the common good--and the only way to push through moral reforms was to claim it was ordered by God through prophetic revelation, and to be a prophet was to be possessed by the Spirit of God. Thus, as a prophet, Jesus would have been possessed by God, according to standard Jewish understanding. There was nothing unusual about that--Israel had countless prophets of equal standing.

If Jesus was a real man, of course. And there are good arguments he wasn't (not decisive arguments, though, so I am agnostic about that--as you should know if you read all my relevant articles, including my review of Doherty). But even if he wasn't the same point goes for those who claimed to have seen him: early Christianity was a movement to try and bring Israel back to a functioning, just society. Many a compassionate person would be willing to sacrifice themselves--even lie--to bring such a good to the world. This is pretty much what is argued, and quite excellently I might add, in: Bruce Malina, The Social Gospel of Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800632478/internetinfidels).



and he wasn't the son of God

In Jewish terminology, every king, including David, was a son of God, and in Christian terminology, every Christian was called a son of God. Thus, it is most probable that Jesus only became an actual "God" after Gentiles started taking over the Church and lost contact with the original Jewish concept. Before that, Jesus was only Son of God by virtue of being anointed, i.e. adopted by God as Israel's lord and savior, just as David had been. It is debatable whether even Jesus claimed such a thing, but he could have--for the very reason explored above--and even if he didn't, his followers would have every reason to label him such, again for the very reason explored above.



and he didn't didnot really die on the Cross

This sentence is unintelligible. But if you read my online work on this question, you should know I find survival to be the least probable natural explanation (I calculate odds were less than 1 in 1000 that Jesus survived the cross).



If Jesus was a normal man; Why would he have gone around teaching; Why would he have let himself be crucified; from a Human perspective if I knew people where going to try and Kill me I would be more inclined to Run

(1) Why did Gandhi, Buddha, Socrates, and so on, go around teaching, even to their deaths? Because they cared. To be merely human is not to be craven. True human nature is to love and help.

(2) If Jesus was human, he did not "let" himself be crucified--he had no power to prevent it. As a mere human, his capture was just a matter of time.

(3) Read the Gospels: Jesus did avoid the authorities quite a lot, and hid from them by surrounding himself with sympathetic crowds, and so on. It wasn't until his own right hand man betrayed him that he was finally caught. Regardless of how the Gospels "spin" this, the fact of the matter is that bribing Judas makes no sense unless the authorities couldn't catch Jesus without him. Of course, Judas may simply be a fictional character--his name means literally Judaea and thus he could merely be a symbol of Israel betraying its own savior (and thus a symbol of the Jewish elite turning against the values of society they were supposed to uphold, and which Jesus embodied and thus represented). But either way, there is nothing inexplicable about the story as we have it. It pretty much fits the way things typically turn out for any popular movement that opposes an entrenched and immoral elite.



It's illogical to think that he would willingly let all that happen to him and go through all that for know Good reason, if he wasn't following the will of God.

(1) It is doubtful whether it was willingly (see above--remember, the Gospels have every reason to "rewrite" history to make it seem like Jesus planned his end all along--and since they were probably written after the witnesses were dead, they could pretty much get away with whatever they wanted).

(2) Yet Jesus would have a reason to submit to death: for the greater good. The OT prophecies predicted a messiah who would be humiliated and executed by the state. To get his moral reforms through, therefore, for the good of his own people, Jesus may have seen the opportunity to depict himself as that messiah--if enough people bought it, then they would adopt his moral program believing it came from God and would secure their salvation, and society would in fact be saved (by becoming good). This was, in fact, the only way to get moral reforms widely backed by the people of that time. It may have been a gamble, but the odds were not long.



If Jesus was not the Son of God and it was not fortold that he would have to die to save the sins of the world; Why would he intentionally put himself through all that suffering?

Apart from the answers above, you raise another issue here: the role of Jesus as an atonement ritual that cancels the need for and authority of the Jewish Temple Cult. He had a very good reason to do that: that Temple cult was corrupted by the Jewish and Roman elite (and the merchants, etc.), and was actually causing more anguish than it solved, by becoming the focus of violent revolutionary groups who were certain to bring destruction upon the Jews. To remove the Temple cult was an obvious solution to both problems, and the only way to do that (within Jewish theology) was to provide a final and permanent atonement sacrifice. That is why Jesus is executed at exactly the same day and time as the Atonement ritual in the Temple, which procured Atonement for all the sins of Israel for that year--he is sacrificing himself for the common good, by fixing what he (or his followers) perceived was a fundamental flaw in the Israelite social system. Read Hebrews for more on the reasoning here. You should already know much of this if you read my essays on the resurrection, because I discuss it when analyzing the visions of Paul. But I give a more formal and thorough account in a forthcoming article for the Journal of Higher Criticism entitled "Whence Christianity? A Meta-Theory for the Origins of Christianity," (in issue 11.1, Spring 2004).



If we as mere mortals know we are in danger of losing our lives we would try to Run and Hide surely

History refutes you. Millions of Marxists died in the October Revolution--willingly--yet all believed there was no afterlife, and hence no reward, beyond the good of their fellow men. And that's the reality: countless people in history have willingly sacrificed themselves for the common good. Maybe you are a craven, selfish man. But if so, you are the worse sort of man--not the typical sort of man, least of all the best. Jesus, Gandhi, Socrates, these are the best sorts of men.



If Jesus was merely and insignifcant mortal; and not doing anything? Why did the Pharasees want to kill him? Why would they waist breath

Read Malina's book, recommended above, and you will have your answer. The elite were doing what elites have done throughout history: attempting to protect a cushy, corrupt regime against a popular uprising against their authority. Jesus was, after all, usurping their authority by telling the people to reform, and publicly denouncing the elites as corrupt. In every corrupt regime in history that has always been a recipe for assassination.

[chris turner]

Dear Mr Carrier and Don,

Thankyou very much for your answers to my questions things are alot clearer know to me; so I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to clarify things,

The only things I am still not clear on and I can't find in any of your essays you've written

I understand more clearly why you say that the probability of the resurection was unlikely.

Would either of you mind to clarify one thing,

If Jesus did not rise from the Dead.

Where is his body know? The Tomb that is regarded as his official tomb is empty and I have heard other theories that Jesus was nursed back to health by Mary Magdelene and they formed a Part of the French Royal Family,

I think what I am trying to ask sir if you don't mind is that if he didn't rise some where the would be a body? Where is it? I feel with all the technology and things that science can do today. it would have been found by know? even if its just bones ?

I believe it would be impossible to hide a body for so many years; because don't they say that Liars always get found out? if the church was trying to hide the body is is not improbable that they would be able to constantly hide it for ever, Look at Sadam Husein for an example he hid for many years and did terrible things to people but eventually he was discovered,

If either of you don't mind to clarify that for me I would be grateful; I am lot clearer on the other thigns so I thankyou very much for that I would appreciate if either of you don't mind to clarify this for me and then I will be totally clear on everything,

Thankyou very much for all you've explained so far

Kind Regards

and greetings from Sunny Spain

Chris Turner

[-DM-]

Hola, Chris:

¿Ud. puede hablar español, verdad?

Puedo hablar un poco español también, pero es más facil hablar inglés porque hace más de cuarenta y cinco años que estudié español en la universidad y he olvidado mucho.

--

If Jesus did not rise from the Dead.
Where is his body know?Where is his body now? No one knows. No one even knows where his tomb is/was located (and this is in spite of any tourist attractions that claim that a specific tomb was that of Jesus).

Keep in mind that even shortly after the earthly existence of Jesus, Paul seemed not to know the location of the tomb; it seems almost certain that if he had known the location of the tomb, he would have said so. It also seems likely that--given the fact that Jesus was allegedly the resurrected "Son of God"--that the tomb would have been venerated, its location certain even today, yet such is not the case. No one knows its location.

In this regard, note that in in Acts 2:29 it is specifically stated by Peter with regard to David: "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." That I know of, no similar statement is made anywhere in the New Testament with regard to the tomb of Jesus. Thus, asking the question "Where is his body now?" is little more than an appeal to ignorance, meaning that this in no way provides evidence for a physical resurrection in the same way that the presence of his body would provide evidence against a physical resurrection.

The Tomb that is regarded as his official tomb is empty and I have heard other theories that Jesus was nursed back to health by Mary Magdelene and they formed a Part of the French Royal FamilyThis sounds as if the source might have been Holy Blood, Holy Grail (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440136482/InternetInfidels/), or a similar source. I wouldn't put much trust in such sources or in such speculation.

I feel with all the technology and things that science can do today. it would have been found by know? even if its just bones ?The technology didn't exist at the time of Jesus, therefore it wouldn't do much for us now in being able to identify bones as those of Jesus. No one has DNA samples from Jesus, for example.

I believe it would be impossible to hide a body for so many years;If the exact location of the body were known in the very beginning and if we could be certain that the body had not been moved, then the empty tomb story would be more convincing. Unfortunately, the truth of the story needs to be taken on faith given the discrepancies in the details provided (see Easter Quiz (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=282)), given that there were no witnesses to the alleged Resurrection as it actually took place, given that the guard that was allegedly placed at the tomb (only reported in Matthew, by the way) was not put into place until the day after the alleged entombment (after the body could have been moved), and given the unhistorical aspect of other elements of the story (earthquake, tearing of the Temple curtain, rising of the saints, etc.), And, of course, faith is not a reliable path to truth.

don't they say that Liars always get found out?The truth of this cliche is obviously dubious, obviously unlikely. There would be no way to know with certainty that "liars always get found out"--unless one were omniscient. In any case, there is no need to believe that a lie, a purposeful deceit, is necessarily involved here. Strong belief can lead to error.

if the church was trying to hide the body is is not improbable that they would be able to constantly hide it for ever,There was no Church at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Look at Sadam Husein for an example he hid for many years and did terrible things to people but eventually he was discovered,He was discovered because he was alive, known to be in hiding, and because we were looking for him using sophisticated techniques that were unheard of in the time of Jesus.

But let's use Saddam Hussein as an example. If he had been reported killed, declared dead, entombed, a guard allegedly placed at the tomb the day following, the tomb later found empty, and now a handful of his followers and admirers claimed to have seen him alive--yet they couldn't get their stories straight--would you believe them?

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. Assuming that Jesus really was resurrected, that he really was a member of the Godhead, then I say that it was irresponsible and reprehensible of him to have appeared post-Resurrection almost exclusively to his friends and followers. The way that I see it, it would have been his responsibility to appear to people whose word could be taken as reliable: Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin, a contemporary historian, the very large crowd that allegedly had greeted Jesus during his so-called Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, etc.

[Richard Carrier]

If Jesus did not rise from the Dead. Where is his body now?

Probably jumbled bones in a tomb or bonebox somewhere along with dozens of other forgotten dead, or scattered into the dirt. We don't know where hardly any of the bodies are of famous people of that era, especially in Judaea. So it is folly to expect an answer.

But in the case of Jesus, the two Jewish Wars destroyed the city utterly and an entirely new one was built on top of it, including over many of the old graveyards. In fact, in the 4th century when a "miracle" led to the "rediscovery" of Christ's tomb (the one now claimed to be the one), it was found buried beneath a Temple of Venus. It is most probable any bones left in that tomb (and there is no credible reason to believe it is the correct tomb anyway--it was not located according to any sound historical method) would have been tossed out into the dirt by the Romans to make way for construction, or relocated--by Jewish tradition, unclaimed bones could be gathered into boxes, dozens of bodies mixed together at the same time in a single box (they figured God could sort them out).

We have lots of examples of that--and no idea whose bones we have. We might even have the bones of Jesus and not know it. It is unlikely the current tomb was the actual tomb, not only because there is no way (nor any evidence) anyone kept track of its location in the centuries between the Wars and the "Rediscovery," but especially since by law Jesus would have been buried in a public graveyard reserved for criminals (see my article on the burial), which would have been a large tomb complex capable of housing dozens of bodies--and Jesus may have gotten lost in the shuffle. But wherever Jesus was buried, the fate of his bones would be the same: scattered into the dirt by callous Romans to make way for new construction, or relocated into anonymous boneboxes. Either way, lost and forgotten forever.



I have heard other theories that Jesus was nursed back to health by Mary Magdelene and they formed a Part of the French Royal Family

I heard tell he was a space alien, too. Hey, there are a zillion whacky theories out there. That doesn't mean they are cr