Many aspects of Jesus’ life are historically inaccurate – the mass culling of babies by Herod certainly never happened, the idea of a census is also highly questionable and the location of Jesus’ birthplace doesn’t appear to tie in with archaeological evidence. Even the Gospels themselves appear to contradict each other on key events like the time of the last supper and when he actually died. However the latest bit of research reveals that Jesus may not have even died on a cross at all.
In his doctoral thesis, newly graduated Swedish theologian Gunnar Samuelsson argues that the cross Jesus supposedly died on may not actually have been a cross. He explains in an interview with DRadio Wissen, a German station: “the New Testament said that Jesus died some way on something called a staurus … that’s a Greek name for a cross or a pole or something … I call it an execution device only to be [distinguished] from the common notion that it must be a cross, because it mustn’t be a cross–it could be a pole, for instance, or a tree trunk, or something else.”
Full article at The Atlantic Wire
"
Well, if he didn’t die on the cross, what the hell was he doing up there? Just hanging around?
If it was a pole instead of a cross, how did Jesus die exactly? Tripped and impaled himself? A foolhardy pole-vaulting attempt?
Does this mean that all Christians will now be forced to wear poles around their necks instead of crosses? And eat hot pole buns at Easter?
It doesn’t really matter what he died on… he went through a ot of pain dying for our religion… the passion of the christ really put his death in perspective to me… i bawled th whole way through..
Meh, I don’t think it matters whether he died on the cross or whether he was ‘the son of God’; he was just a really really nice guy
ahhh Jesus
I don’t think anything in the Bible should be taken literally, especially not anything to do with Jesus. Perhaps there was a man called Jesus once upon a time. And maybe he was a friendly guy and so he left quite an impression in the minds of some men who decided it would be a good idea to think up a new religion.
There is no evidence (people state that the Bible is evidence, but it is, in actual fact, just a book.) that Jesus ever even existed, never mind all the stories and artifacts that people suppose are his.
Even if Jesus had died on a cross, it probably wouldn’t have aroused any great interest, other than the execution of yet another criminal.
From The Crow:
ERIC: “Jesus Christ… stop me if you’ve heard this one. Jesus Christ walks into a hotel, he hands the innkeeper three nails and he asks, ‘Can you put me up for the night?’”
Well, he mustn’t have died on the cross, but it deservedly must have died on the cross!!!
Phillis, this isn’t a great argument. How did you get from “Staurus means execution device” to “Did Jesus even die on a cross”? That wasn’t Samuelsson’s point, judging from the quote.
Arguments like this, I think, devalue scepticism.
The Romans did have a tradition of crucifixion, and often used a cross of some sort, though sometimes they didn’t use a cross-piece. The cross was not specifically mentioned until about 100 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters in-law against their mothers-in-law.” Matthew 10, 34-35. Really, really nice guy?
As others have pointed out, if he did come back, I guess the last thing he would want to see would be a little replica of the instrument of his execution hanging around his followers’ necks.
So the when and where of his birth is questionable, the when and how of his death are up for debate and the middle bits are subject to scrutiny as well… Tell me, why do we even still believe this guy existed? Oh, that’s right – for the bible tells me so.
Amy, it is significant because it questions the validity of Chistianity’s symbol all around the world. If it wasn’t actually a cross, but a pole, people have been wearing and worshipping crosses when he didn’t actually die on one.
It’s also significant because it shows how in religion things can get twisted. I’m pretty sure most bibles in English will have ‘cross’ in them, but that is based on a guess of what was meant by ‘staurus’. It leaves the question, how do you know anything else in your religion isn’t based on misunderstandings or lies?
I Jesus was shot with an AK-47, would people wear a little gold AK-47 around their necks?
…guess he had a Johnny Neo ‘there is no cross’ moment, and now there isn’t! Bloody gods, changing the past and flip flopping reality with their merest thoughts, CUT IT OUT….!
Joshua – that’s one of the best comments of all time.
I think the issue is not what he died on, but whether he died at all. If it is true that he was definitely alive after his crucifixion, then surely the rational explanation is that he didn’t actually die, but was rather brought close to death so as to appear dead.
Or does it make more sense that he is actually the human incarnation of an omnipotent being who died and was then resurrected?
Wether or not he was nailed to a T shaped Cross or a pole, or tree trunk is irellevant – as he would’ve died exactly the same way. In fact, the romans were known for thinking up creative means of crucifying thier victims. peter was crucified upside down, andrew was crucfified differently also.
The cause of death would be shock and suffocation. There is a fantastic book on this by a forensic investigator who specialises in figuring out the cause of death (I forgot the word lol, it’s on the tip of my tongue!) It’s called the crucifixion of Christ.
“Emelie says: I don’t think anything in the Bible should be taken literally” — Anything? So there is no place called Egypt, there were no pharohs, in fact there is no jerusalem, no King Herod, no Pontious Pilate?
If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around their necks instead of crosses.
This is not new. It has always been a common belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Did a fictional character from a work of fiction – die on a cross or on a pole? Who cares!
if he was the King of the Jews, why did he have a Mexican name?
i think the point is that he wasn’t on a cross at all, that was an assumption based on a bad translation. If evidence to support these claims is verified the church will look very stupid indeed with their investments over commercialising the cross onto beads, churches and even people mantle places. Ha!
@Amy Kelly: That’s something I never quite got. Jesus is God right? How can a god go through pain? He is eternal, he just comes back to life straight away and I’m sure he wouldn’t have to feel an iota of suffering if he didn’t want to. He came to earth to die, it makes no sense for a god to have to do that.
This article is nothing new, I read a page back in 2004 saying the same thing: “Before its ‘Egyptianisation’ early Christianity used the symbols of the ‘fish’ and the ‘chi-rho.’ The Gospels in their original Greek did not refer to any crucifix but used the word “stauros” (Mark 18:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, John 19:17), meaning a stake or vertical pole.”
derren, you captcha system sucks, if you manage to make a mistake, which you most probably will, you lose your message FAIL
Msg from Abeo: The last one broke when wordpress was upgraded. Waiting for one that works with 3.0!
I know he didn’t die on a cross. Because he doesn’t exist, just like the Easter Bunny and Santa.
Sorry kids.
“It doesn’t really matter what he died on… he went through a ot of pain dying for our religion… the passion of the christ really put his death in perspective to me… i bawled th whole way through..”
So did I. It was so awful, as a scriptwriter and director I wept for my industry. But you are right, it did put his death in perspective. For me it made me reflect on just how irrelevant his death is to my existence.
I also think that it matters what he died on. What if he died on a mixture of vodka, painkillers and cocaine? That would definitely make an impact, at least on Christmas sermons.
Well in my personal opinion, the bible is just another book very much like Aesops fables. A book designed to teach children right from wrong. If there ever was a person called Jesus it wouldn’t surprise me if he was nailed to a tree, instead of a cross. Loads of olden times villages used to have a hanging tree etc. That way it was always there when needed and didn’t need someone to build it.
we really dunno fer sure…which is a good moneymaking opportunity fer guys like dan brown!
Jesus died on the cross for your sins and mines. Buried 3 Days and 3 Nights. Rose early Sunday morning to proclaim all power in his hands. It’s as simple as that. He fulfilled the prophecies in the Old testament of the sacrificial lamb. The evidence is enormous.
He never died…. he respawned 3 days later. What a lag…
Thats nothing new! Jehovah’s witnesses have been saying it for decades…
It can’t even be proved that he actually existed…
Background: I grew up in a christian home, and so I just took it all for granted really. However, my mind is wired to be extremely rational, so the last few years, when I’ve actually *thought* about all this stuff that christianity teaches, I’ve come very close to calling myself an atheist. Not 100% there yet, but close.
I must point out that *where* or *how* Jesus died is completely and utterly irrelevant and thus entirely uninteresting. The point is, in christianity, that Jesus died – and that he “defeated” death so that none of us has to die (in reference to our souls of course, not our physical bodies).
I truly hope Mr. Samuelsson had a LOT to say about other stuff too, otherwise he’s wasted years of his life researching something which truly doesn’t matter one way or the other.
There’s more evidence to support the existence of a man called Jesus Christ around 2000(ish) years ago than there is evidence for Napolien Bonaparte. Lewis Carrol said Christ was either a liar, insane, or the son of God, but never just a ‘good man’, as a good man would not claim to be God. However there were so many “messiahs” and “saviours” at the time that he may have actually believed he was the actual son of God, but just been extremely delusional. He may have been just a normal guy with some undiagnosable (at the time) mental health issues and a lot of charisma who honestly believed what he said, and due to the local culture of religion and prophets his beliefs rubbed off on others (mind over matter style). Whatever he was he has inspired individuals to be caring and compassionate, and nations to go to war and commit genocide. So if you add it all up Christ is not the best thing to happen to the world by a long shot.
“It doesn’t really matter what he died on… he went through a ot of pain dying for our religion”
The point is though, so many details of the bible are known the be untrue, what basis is there for assuming that him being martyred is also true, maybe he was killed for some other reason, or maybe he wasn’t murdered at all.
@val yes but he did die in pain and he didn’t save himself… like i know where ur coming from but hedidn’ save himself coz he knew christianity would arise from it….. i dunno maybe it’s just my way of thining but I like thinking about it that way….
“There’s more evidence to support the existence of a man called Jesus Christ around 2000(ish) years ago than there is evidence for Napolien Bonaparte.”
No, I think what you’ll find here is that you are completely and utterly 100% wrong.
Anyway, there was no Joseph Christ. It is very likely that there was a man of some race called Jesus, just as it’s very likely that there is a man who existed around 1900 called John…..and probably a William too. Nobody bothered to write fanciful stories about such men with these names though.
“Jesus died on the cross for your sins and mines. Buried 3 Days and 3 Nights. Rose early Sunday morning to proclaim all power in his hands. It’s as simple as that. He fulfilled the prophecies in the Old testament of the sacrificial lamb. The evidence is enormous.”
Isaac, could you direct me towards some of this evidence?
Actually, @Seb is right…ish. There is just as much written evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus as there is of someone like, say, Alexander the Great (The only reason we know of Alexander’s existence is because – similar to Jesus – of some written accounts from people who knew him, and, in some cases, accounts only based on the lost accounts of people who knew him.) But its unlikely that Jesus was any more special than the hundreds of other wandering religious teachers around at that time, who preached very similar messages. What Jesus did wasn’t ‘radical’, he was part of a common movement. And I don’t believe for a second that he was the ‘Son of God’. His particular name only survived because some of his disciples were well educated, and were good publicists.
An interesting take on the whole crucifixtion thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ksa5FNQLrA
As it is with all stories .. they change over time … at times .. the end result is pretty different from the original version ..
I think there probably was a fairly charismatic cult leader named Jesus/Josue with some followers that were very good at PR, as Jess said.
Too bad they weren’t too good at creating a logically consistent story. I mean, come on.
We have an omniscient God, who creates two beings with curiosity and a mind of their own, then creates a garden with a booby trap (aka the Tree) that he KNOWS (omniscient, anyone?) they’ll fall into. Aha, Catholic dogma says, but now we know the reason! He did that so that a few millennia later, their children’s children’s children (ad infinitum) could be redeemed by his son (who was really another aspect of him, like a God in a human suit). Then they’d see how great he was!
Uh, yeah, overly complicated much? That’s bad writing if I ever saw it…
There is a story about a man who we can argue over his place of birth, pronounciation of forename, (and what was his surname?) skin colour, age at death and even cause. People are asked for money and some happy to have questions unanswered. Some written words made years after the apparent death by people who didn’t know him is not proof. Until I have physical evidence (archaeological for example) I doubt his existence. Surprised nobody has mentioned Brian yet. Be funny to see folk worshipping poles.
And what is with the artist having nails through palms and feet not wrists and ankles and what made similar marks on the back?
My 84-year old father is a Professor Emeritus of Latin and Ancient Greek. He reads Hebrew, too.
Anyway, he has told me for years that there is no evidence that Jesus died on a Cross. None whatsoever.
It really is hard to distinguish the historical from religious, especially if you focus on the fact that
Jesus was born, raised, and died a Jew. All of the “Christian Stuff” was created loooooong
after his death.
Keith
PS And the person who bawled over “The Passion” needs to realize that it was very
inaccurate. Moving, sure … but a representation of … ahem.
-=-=-=-
Any unbiased researcher will find there is no evidence to support Christianity’s rather unique claim that their god actually walked this earth. Rather, historical records demonstrate clearly how the ‘Messiah’ in the Bible is just the latest and most successful of a long line of practically identical ‘savoirs’ – with almost identical stories, often times down to the finest details.
The simple explanation is that the story of Christ is the culmination of thousands of years of astrological sun worship. Born on the winter solstace, dies on the spring equenox and is ‘resurrected’ as the sun appears to be reborn three days later. These are not coincidences, but evidence of how immensly important the solar sycle was to primitive humans. Jesus is basically a modernized sun-god.
Sadly, such simple truths are not widely known. Otherwise we might not have wasted so much of our energy on this nice but ultimately irrelevant fairytale.
I read the first 3 comments …. credulous, credulous & asinine.
I think this article is misleading and is a false dichotomy. Instead of trying to find evidence of the device that was used to kill Jesus – shouldn’t they at first get evidence of the existence of Jesus, then attempt to obtain evidence that he was executed, and then go from there? I mean, it’s like trying to investigate what type of food was in the banquet the invisible unicorns ate last Tuesday, without establishing the existence of invisible unicorn first.
Christians trying to find reasoning in their religion make me facepalm. If gays are unnatural then how do they explain talking snakes, a man walking on water, a virgin giving birth and a bearded man who lives in a cloud?