Five reasons to deny Jesus’ resurrection from the dead

Did Jesus rise from the dead? The debate continues. This section contains five reasons most commonly “raised” to argue against Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. I’m going to state each argument against. But I won’t refrain from stating my opinions. Here are the arguments against Jesus’ resurrection with my responses to each:

1. There are people who believe that there was no Jesus. He’s a fictional character around which a superstitious new religion called Christianity was created, they say. They hold that Jesus never existed. I don’t think this is an atheistic position necessarily, though some atheists I know (and whom I’ve read) do take this position.

So check out what physicist Albert Einstein—Jewish by birth, Catholic by upbringing, atheist as a young man, and deist as an adult!—had to say about the historical Jesus. His interviewer is German-American poet and writer George Viereck. The interview was published October 26, 1929 in the Saturday Evening Post:

Viereck: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

Viereck: “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

Einstein: “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.” (http://politicsandreligion.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/einstein-comments-on-jesus/)

Einstein’s argument is pretty subjective, though. It’s based on feel rather than fact. As he said, when you read the Gospels you get a feeling that Jesus was a real person. His personality comes through. He comes alive on the page in a way that mythical characters don’t. Therefore, Einstein argues that no one can deny—only from reading the Gospels—that Jesus existed, which is a valid argument.

Are there facts that corroborate the Scriptures concerning the existence of Jesus? For some, that “the Bible says so” is enough. But skeptics need more. So, is there extra-biblical historical evidence that Jesus was a real 1st Century human being? The answer is “Yes.” This “Yes” is the biggest hole in the Jesus-is-fiction argument. There are 1st and 2nd Century non-biblical sources that refer to Jesus, including the writings of Tacitus (an example coming up in the ten arguments for Jesus’ resurrection), Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Jewish Talmud, and more. Not only does the Bible insist on Jesus’ historicity, but other ancient sources insist on the same.

I am aware that some mistrust the provenance of these ancient non-biblical sources, particularly the famous quote about Jesus from Josephus’ “The Antiquities of the Jews.” This quote is considered by some to be in part an interpolation (words interjected later) by a pro-Christian copyist.

• Antiquities of the Jews 18:63-64   Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.  64 And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, {b} those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, {c} because the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the sect of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Yet some continue to hold that there are no trustworthy historical references to Jesus, period. For them, there is zero evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus. I consider this an extreme view. Tacitus’ quote (coming up) in particular is hard to dismiss.

2. The Bible is not a reliable source for historical information, some argue. Even if Jesus is a historical figure, the Gospel writers provide no more than a fictionalized account of his supposed life, teachings, and works. The Bible, they argue, is full of exaggeration and fabrication. Because it is a flawed human document, the Bible cannot be counted on for historical facts. Therefore, some conclude, no historical claim made by the Bible, perhaps especially the resurrection of Jesus, is trustworthy.

For historians and archaeologists, how accurate is the Bible in describing its settings—what the scholars call the “Sitz im Leben”? Well, books abound on the subject, so obviously I can’t unpack it all here. But my reading of the scholars is that they are generally impressed with the Bible’s accuracy. They will tell you that the Bible syncs pretty well with contemporaneous inscriptions, documents, and archaeological findings. Let me share a few. In a day when all archaeological findings and historical documents are suspected of forgery, however, I want to be as careful and fair as I can with the following descriptions: 

An 8th or 9th Century Aramaic inscription unearthed at Tel Dan (northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon) in 1993 refers to “the House of David.” [left] This is the only extra-biblical reference to King David ever found, and it has intensified a debate in the world of archaeology because a few scholars—sometimes called “Biblical Minimalists”—believe that David was ancient Israel’s version of King Arthur. They believe David was a myth. But the Tel Dan Inscription threw a big red monkey wrench into the working parts of their mythological conclusion. It appears that David may well have existed as a monarch of Israel, though a few minimalists are holding out that the inscription might be a fake. The find resides today in the Israel Museum, and there are few concerns about its authenticity.

A 1st Century monumental Latin inscription discovered in 1963 at Caesarea Maritima (a Herodian city on the Mediterranean coast of Israel) contains the following:

[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIEUM
[. . . . PO]NTIUS PILATUS
[. . .PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[. .FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]

It translates:

To the honorable gods (this) Tiberium
Pontius Pilate,
Prefect of Judea,
had dedicated

The so-called Pilate Inscription corroborates the historical existence of a biblical character and his title. Moreover, the Bible’s description of Pilate jibes pretty well with the 1st Century historian Flavius Josephus’ (and others’) descriptions of him. Also housed in the Israel Museum, the Pilate inscription from Caesarea has never been called a forgery.

Three Jewish burial boxes (for bones only) called ossuaries are significant for assessing the Bible’s historicity.

First, there is the bone box inscribed with the name Yehohanan found in North Jerusalem in 1968. This 1st Century Jewish male in his late twenties or early thirties was buried with a Roman crucifixion nail still piercing his heal [left]. His are the only crucified remains ever found because crucified people weren’t typically buried in the Roman Empire. Crucified persons remained on the cross to be eaten by scavengers. Their bones were scattered by hyenas, dogs, and vultures. But in Jerusalem allowances were made for Jewish religious sensibilities in the holy city of Jerusalem. Bodies were allowed to be taken down from the cross for Sabbaths and Holy Days. Studies on Jehohanan’s remains by Vassilios Tsafaris and Joe Zias and others have not only verified the Roman practice of crucifixion, but have verified it was in use in Jerusalem during Jesus’ lifetime. I’ve met Tsafaris and I’ve worked with Zias. They have taught the world a lot about Roman crucifixion. Their work, though around since the late 60s, is not widely known. I suspect that is because Jehohanan wasn’t crucified like Jesus is in medieval art and modern movies. In matters of tradition, facts do not necessarily prevail.

Second, the ornate ossuary of a priest named Caiaphas was found in 1990 in Jerusalem’s Peace Forest. Some debate continues, but not about the ossuary’s authenticity. It is a 1st Century Jewish bone box—an exceptionally elaborate one. The inscription is authentic too. But there is some debate about whether the Caiaphas in the box is the same one in the Bible. Most scholarly authors I’ve read believe that they’re almost certainly one and the same. If so, this is another archaeological verification of a biblical character. At the very least it proves that there was a 1st Century Jerusalem priest named Caiaphas.

Third, the debate rages today (as well as criminal charges and law suits) over an ossuary bearing the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”  [left] The Bible says that Jesus’ father was named Joseph, and Jesus had a brother named James. After Jesus’ death and reported resurrection, James became the first leader of the Jerusalem church. Is this his ossuary? The names Jesus, James, and Joseph were common in that day. But it was uncommon to mention a brother on an ossuary inscription. A typical box would have read “James son of Joseph” only. The scholars wonder, Why mention a brother unless the brother is important?
 

The Israeli Antiquities Authority to date, however, is calling the ossuary authentic, but part of the inscription (the “brother of Jesus” part) a modern forgery. The Biblical Archaeology Society is calling the whole thing authentic using its own group of experts. It is also calling for a new independent study. If authentic, this is the only 1st Century inscription bearing Jesus’ name ever found, and a confirmation of no less than three Biblical personalities. If a forgery, it’s a nice 1st Century artifact marred by a modern inscription.

There are more city ruins, stele, tablets, inscriptions, bulae, and documents that corroborate biblical texts. I encourage you to explore this fascinating subject on your own (since it’s too much material to cover here).

One more mention, however, just to give you a broader example pairing archaeology and the Bible: the ancient Canaanite cities of Jericho and Hazor. Ruins of 13th Century B.C. Jericho have never been found. There are ruins there from before and after the conquest of the Israelites under Joshua. Remember the spiritual? Joshua fit de battle of Jericho, and the walls came a tumblin' down. Well, no one can find those walls. Have the archaeologists just been looking in the wrong place for 13th Century Jericho, or did in never exist? No one knows. By contrast, the 13th Century destruction level of Canaanite Hazor dates exactly to biblical Joshua.

• Joshua 11:13 But Israel burned none of the towns that stood on mounds except Hazor, which Joshua did burn. 

Is there evidence that 13th Century Hazor [left] was burned? You bet. Though there are no findings to corroborate Jericho’s destruction yet, Hazor’s destruction by fire lines up quite nicely with the biblical description and date.

Do biblical minimalists still hold to their view of the Bible as an unreliable source of historical information? Yes. I’ve read several of their papers this year. My sense is that, like those who trust no evidence for the historical Jesus, their view is extreme.

3. Miracles have never occurred, some say. Miracles, by definition, must violate the laws of nature. Some claim that this has never been successfully proven to have ever happened. Therefore, the raising of Jesus never occurred, because by definition, the supernatural resurrection of a man from the dead is a miracle. And there is no such thing as miracles, they contend.

The group of liberal biblical scholars called the “Jesus Seminar” takes this stance. They jettison anything miraculous. Their historical critical methods seek to eliminate those elements from the gospels that they suspect do not go back to the historical Jesus, but are in their opinion the creation of the early church—like miracles. They vote one verse at a time using colored beads (color code pictured below) to indicate their level of certainty.

Colored beads were used by Jesus Seminar to vote on statements made by Jesus in the Gospels:

red:        Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like it.

pink:      Jesus probably said something like this.

gray:      Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.

black:    Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective of a later writer

The most famous authors on the Seminar are John Dominick Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Robert Funk. To them the divine Jesus of Scripture is not tenable. Funk, the convener of the Seminar, said this:

• “We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus' divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God. The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.” (http://markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/unmaskingthejesus.htm)

This quote gives you a feel for the work of the “Jesus Seminar.” They’re using modern historical/literary critical methods in search of “the real Jesus” behind the church’s theology—or they might say mythology. To them, the Jesus of the Gospels “as is” won’t do. Their job is to find the true historical Jesus who was 100% human, 0% divine. They believe they are getting at the man Jesus by a sort of excavation of the ancient biblical texts. They remove and discard what they see as the church’s deification of the man. They believe they are producing a picture of the historical Jesus beneath the four Gospels’ theological propaganda.

I disagree with them. I think the only Jesus we can see is the one that the gospels give us. The Jesus of Scripture is the only Jesus we can know, personal revelation aside. Scholars don’t have to buy the biblical picture, but to claim that they are producing a more accurate picture of Jesus than the New Testament Gospels is at best arrogant.

And by the way, the Gospels do not give us an “old theistic way of thinking about God,” as Funk insists. They give us a Trinitarian vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—a vision that was offensive to the Jewish “theists” of the day.

As a pretty empirical guy, I understand those who are skeptical of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. If you didn’t have questions about it, I’d be suspicious that you weren’t being completely forthcoming. But are there people today who hold that there never has been and there never will be real miracles? Of course there are. For a time, I was one of them.

4. There are natural explanations for all so-called miracles, some claim. The miracle of Jesus’ resurrection is no exception. The following are five (a. – e.) proposed naturalistic explanations of his “rising” from the dead:

a. The women went to the wrong tomb that Sunday morning and jumped to the conclusion that Jesus had risen from the dead. They were mistaken, but their rumor was believed and spread.

Problems with this explanation are that, 1) nothing in the accounts suggests that the women went to the wrong tomb, and 2) surely other followers of Jesus, including the man who owned the tomb (Joseph of Aramathea), would have caught the women’s alleged mistake and checked on the correct tomb.

This “wrong tomb theory” doesn’t explain appearance accounts either. Even if they went to the wrong tomb, believers still claimed that they saw the risen Christ that day.

Furthermore, if Jesus wasn’t raised, and if they went to the wrong tomb, then logically Jesus’ body could have (and would have) been found in the correct tomb once they realized their mistake, right? And if under those circumstances the disciples hadn’t found his body, I assure you the Romans or the Jewish authorities would have “trotted it out real quick like” (pardon my Southernese) to dispel any resurrection rumors. But there is no record of that happening.

Finally, the theory that the women went to the wrong tomb must stand up against this:

• Mark 15:47   Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body (soma in Greek means body or corpse) was laid. (italics mine)

And this:

• Matthew 27:58-61   [Joseph of Aramathea] went to Pilate and asked for the body (or the corpse) of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.  59 So Joseph took the body (or the corpse) and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth  60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.  61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. (italics mine)

And this:

• Luke 23:55  The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body (or his corpse) was laid. (italics mine)

The Gospels say that the women sat there and watched them put him in the tomb. Perhaps, you might argue, that in the early morning light (Easter Sunday) they could have made a mistake and gone to the wrong tomb. You might further argue that in their grief they got confused, and perhaps tears in their eyes did not allow them to see which tomb was which.

To me it’s still not a valid argument. In the Gospels, it’s not the women but the men who more often make the mistakes. The women “get it” sometimes even when the twelve don’t. The Scriptures say that they watched Joseph put Jesus in the tomb. And after everyone was gone, they sat and stayed for a while outside the tomb. No matter poor lighting or welling eyes, I don’t think these women could have gone to the wrong place by accident. And I don’t think they would have gone away spreading a false rumor of his resurrection without double-checking that they were at the right tomb. Even if they hadn’t double-checked, John and Peter and others would have, and did:

• Luke 24:12   But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.

• John 20:2-7   So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."  3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb.  4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.  5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in.  6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there,  7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.

b. The disciples experienced a hallucination, some say. It’s argued that they saw what they wanted to see, and out of wishful thinking, they believed they saw something that they told others was the resurrected Jesus.

The biggest problem here is that mass hallucination just doesn’t happen. Two people having the exact same hallucination would be very strange. Besides, to make a mass hallucination work, you have to have everybody all having the same experience in the same time and place. But that’s not what happened according to Scripture.

The risen Jesus met with individuals, pairs, small groups, and a crowd of 500 in a wide variety of locations—like walking on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, on a mountain in Galilee, in a locked room in Jerusalem, and elsewhere. These appearances, by all accounts, are very different in content, witnesses, and location. There is no uniform experience, much less a uniform hallucination.

c. The “swoon theory” claims that Jesus survived the crucifixion; he was nearly dead and those who examined him only believed him to be dead. But he was merely in a swoon, proponents of this theory say, and he resuscitated later and left the tomb under his own power.

The swoon theory surfaced only in modern times. It’s reported to be the idea of Herrmann Reimarus in the early 19th Century. The theory, however, is full of holes (that I won’t elaborate here). A colleague of mine said, “The Romans were not always original, but they were very efficient [in their duties, including crucifixion detail]. I can’t believe anyone ever gave the swoon theory any credence.” Even David Strauss, arch opponent of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, argues that the swoon theory is utter nonsense. It contradicts Scripture more than any other attempt to explain away Jesus’ resurrection. Why? The Gospels are emphatic that Jesus was dead:

• Mark 15:37   Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. (see also Matthew 27:50 and Luke 23:46) (bold and italics mine)

• Mark 15:43   Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body (or the corpse) of Jesus. (see also Matthew 27:57-58 and Luke 23:52) (bold and italics mine)

• Mark 15:44-46   Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.  45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body (or the corpse) to Joseph.  46 Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body (or the corpse), wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. (see also Matthew 27:59-60 and Luke 23:53) (bold and italics mine)

• John 19:30   When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (bold and italics mine)

• John 19:31-33  Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies (or the corpses) left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed.  32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.  33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. (bold and italics mine)

• John 19:34-35  Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.  35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.) (bold and italics mine)

In the biblical accounts Jesus was unquestionably dead. The four Gospels all say so. Given what happened to him, no wonder. He was beaten about the head with a reed and with fists. Then his skin was cut to ribbons by scourging. (The Romans used a flagrum—a “cat-o-nine-tails” with bits of metal and/or bone attached to leather strips.) He was too wounded and weakened to carry his own crossbeam. They hung him on the cross by actually nailing him to it. He hung there bleeding for six hours. And after he died, to make sure he was dead, a soldier shoved a spear into his chest cavity. He was just in a swoon? Hardly.

With humor, Strauss asserted that if the swoon theory were true, the disciples would have called for a doctor rather than proclaim him the risen Lord. (The Historical Jesus, Habermas: http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm)

d. Jesus' resurrection was a fraud, a scheme cooked up by his disciples, some say. After his death and entombment, his followers came by night and stole the body and spread the lie that he'd been resurrected.

Matthew records that the chief priests and Pharisees requested that Pilate post guards at Jesus' tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing his corpse to fake a resurrection (27:62-66). Then Matthew records that once the body was gone, the soldiers were paid hush money. They were instructed to falsify their report saying, "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep." Matthew concludes this episode by writing that the soldiers took the money, spread the lie about the body being stolen, and their story "is still told . . . to this day." (28:11-15)

It is notable, however, that the Jews (the Judean authorities) went to great lengths to get rid of Jesus. It follows that if they would go to all the trouble to plot against him, arrest and charge him, try him themselves, try him again before Pilate, convict and crucify him, then certainly they would have kept up with his corpse to discredit the claims of resurrection. Imagine it. If the authorities could have produced Jesus' corpse, there would never have been what we call a church. Not one. Jesus' resurrection became the catalyst for Christian preaching and mission. Without it, Christianity would have never been born. The Apostle Paul wrote, ". . . if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain." (1 Cor 15:13-14).

Scholars have long noted that Matthew, more than the other Gospels, makes an effort to defend the resurrection as a historical occurrence. Matthew does this by making sure that the story of a stolen body is acknowledged and addressed, but also by dismissing it as a fabrication. By doing this, however, for some scholars Matthew raises the possibility that the disciples may have, in fact, faked the resurrection by taking his body. Is that possible? Would the disciples have done such a thing? More to the point, in their state of mind, scattered and afraid, could they have quickly reformed and plotted together to steal the corpse, then hide it or dispose of it so that it was never found? Could they have spread a false rumor that he rose from the dead? Would they have risked their lives everyday thereafter in growing numbers to proclaim the lie publicly, even in the Jerusalem Temple itself where they were forbidden to do so? It seems most implausible, since the disciples’ actions can only be seen as extraordinarily courageous and dangerous stand-making or exceedingly stupid and pointless fakery.

e. Jesus did live and then die on a cross, some say, but his resurrection was merely a literary legend created by his early followers to express that his death was not the end. Jesus lived on in the memories of his followers, so they honored his eternal teachings by granting him an honorable resurrection in writing.

Could the resurrection story of Jesus have been a writer’s metaphor for the way in which the memory of Jesus "lived on" in his disciples? Resurrection was an accepted theological concept among the Pharisees and probably most of the Jewish people. (Zeitlin, p. 163-167) Therefore, some have suggested, the gospel writers honored Jesus' memory by granting him a resurrection ‑‑ a worthy, literary device creating a triumphant conclusion to his story. As such, these resurrection stories represent not an actual occurrence, but rather the reawakening of Jesus' life and teachings in the memories of his followers. Is this possible?

Zeitlin undercuts entirely a mythological/metaphorical interpretation by insisting that there appears to be no Jewish expectation in the 1st Century of a resurrection within history. They—the Pharisees in particular—thought of resurrection in the last days, at the end of history. That being the case, it is impossible that all four gospel writers might have honored Jesus' memory by granting him a literary resurrection. To honor him in this way, and thereby providing a triumphant ending to his story, presumes that 1st Century Judaism had some expectation that the messiah would rise from the dead within history. Such is not the case. If anything, a resurrection within history was a shock, unprecedented and completely unexpected, even to Jesus’ disciples in spite of Jesus’ predictions that it would be so, predictions that they did not understand. (Mark 9:9-10 & 31-32; Luke 18:33; Luke 24:44-46; John 20:8-9)

Furthermore, in Acts 5, the disciples take a dangerous stand in the temple before the Jewish authorities. They were thrown in prison. But they escaped and went back up to the temple proclaiming Jesus’ messiahship and death and resurrection again. They were arrested again, this time whipped, then ordered not to speak of Jesus ever again. The authorities wanted to kill the disciples, but a rabbi named Gamaliel talked them into releasing them. Still, the disciples went right back up to the temple and proclaimed Jesus’ again, not only that day, but every day thereafter.

• Acts 5:40-42   [W]hen they had called in the apostles, they had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.  41 As they left the council, they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.  42 And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. (italics mine)

According to early Christian records, of Jesus’ twelve apostles, ten were executed. James, the brother of Jesus? Also executed. The Apostle Paul? Executed. They wouldn’t back down, they wouldn’t recant, they wouldn’t shut up, and they wouldn’t stop. Were these men willing to die for a hoax, myth, legend, or lie?

There’s no doubt in my mind that people will continue to look for naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Their search for resurrection proofs will parallel searches for the lost Ark of the Covenant, the Dead Sea Scrolls’ treasure, and the Holy Grail.

5. All written testimony in the Bible concerning Jesus' resurrection is hearsay, some argue (lawyers perhaps). The Gospels are probably not firsthand accounts, meaning not written by eyewitnesses. The scholarly argument that they were all written in the last third of the 1st Century A.D., some 35-65 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, is convincing to me. Remember how the author of the Third Gospel put it:

• Luke 1:1-4  Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us,  2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,  3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,  4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (italics mine)

The author of Luke’s Gospel, for one, affirms he was no eyewitness: “. . . events . . . handed on to us by . . . eyewitnesses . . .” There were many gospels written by the time “Luke” wrote his, he claims, and he “investigated everything,” meaning he interviewed eyewitnesses and researched written sources intending to write an accurate and complete account. Yes, some scholarship still maintains that the authors assigned to the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are accurate. Yet no ancient copies of these Gospels name an author. All are written anonymously. The authors’ names were assigned in the late 2nd Century. I agree with scholars who say that the anonymous author of Luke’s Gospel, for example, wrote in the 80s A.D.—50 years after Jesus’ death. That opens the door for the “hearsay objection.” In a court of law, so to speak, Luke’s account (and all Gospel accounts for that matter) would be inadmissible.

We aren’t talking about a legal matter, however. We’re talking about history. Anyone who writes history does so with the aid of sources, especially if that writer is an eyewitness. An honest eyewitness knows he can be wrong. People in law enforcement will tell you that eyewitnesses often are wrong. That’s why history requires all available voices, because if only an eyewitness can write legitimate history, most histories must be discarded, not just the Gospels. Moreover, if hearsay is inadmissible in histories, then that means no one will be allowed to write a biography about someone that they didn’t know personally. And if a biographer knew a subject personally, he would not be allowed to write anything about that person that he did not witness directly. No hearsay means no hearsay. It would be the end of history-writing as we know it. It would be the end of anthropology and archaeology, period. What would be the point?

Do historians make mistakes? Certainly. Do I think that Luke got every historical detail right? Certainly not. A comparison of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John shows variations in the story of Jesus. The question you may fairly ask, however, is, given that our four biblical Gospels are probably written by second generation Christians (not eyewitnesses) and given that they don’t agree in all the details, how reliable are they? Do they show us the life and teaching of a 1st Century Jewish rabbi from Nazareth named Jesus that lines up with non-biblical documents, ancient inscriptions, and archeological evidence? I say they do. The best way to fairly explore this question is to become a student of these Gospels. Agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman wrote of Jesus, “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence.”^⁠ (Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God--why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. Reprint ed. Bravo Ltd, 2012: p. 285)

To some, I’m sure that the biblical accounts of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead remain objectionable. Hearsay. In the court of my own mind, that objection is overruled.

Read the companion blog to this one: Ten Arguments Supporting the Resurrection of Jesus.

For a discussion of Roman crucifixion, see my blog entry: Was Jesus Crucified in the Manner Shown in Paintings and Movies?

Was Jesus Crucified in the Manner Shown in Paintings and Movies?

Roman Crucifixion Methodology 

Was Jesus crucified in the manner shown in paintings and movies?                     

In a word, No.

 

 

Please allow me to show you why he couldn’t have been crucified as portrayed in art and in the media, and allow me to show you how he was likely crucified based on real historical and archaeological evidence.

Notice how that in traditional art and film Jesus is nailed to the front of the cross. This introduces a physically impossibility. A person nailed to the front of the cross could not rest his back against it. He would be forced forward, leaning out away from the cross. Have you noticed how in movies and paintings Jesus is usually upright with his back and buttocks touching the cross upright? Impossible. It’s only possible to simulate that position (his back and buttocks touching the front of the cross) by having your "Jesus" standing with all of his weight on a foot-platform. If you don’t do that, you’ll have to use a harness hidden beneath his loin cloth to literally strap his buttocks to the upright (as they did in what was actually an otherwise great movie—The Gospel of John), because without it "Jesus" will lean out away from the cross dramatically. They discovered this accidentally in the making of the movie. They must have been surprised when the Jesus character leaned outward. They filmed him like this, as is shown in the companion DVD. But in the movie,  they wrapped a strap beneath his loin cloth to keep his buttocks against the cross "fix" this, as you can see in the photo from the film (pictured below). I wonder if the filmmakers realize that they stumbled across the problem I’m addressing here, that Jesus couldn’t have been crucified like in old paintings and movies. Nailed to the front of the cross, a crucified man’s pelvis and chest will lunge forward away from the vertical post.

from the movie, "The Gospel of John"

Herein lies a new problem. Leaning out like that puts a lot of pressure on those nails through the flesh of the palms and tops of the feet. The result? A person nailed to the front of a cross like this would pretty quickly tear free and fall off.

Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D.,  Chief Medical Examiner in Rockland County, N.Y. and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology Columbia University College of Physician’s and Surgeons, N.Y. "crucified" both fresh cadavers (or body parts) and living students (using only straps, we hope) to test and study the practice of crucifixion. He proved with cadavers that if a man was nailed to the front of a cross (nailed in the palms and the top of the feet as in paintings and movies), the nail tore through the skin with only about 45 pounds of pressure. A man crucified in this manner could pull free of the cross from sheer body weight alone. But remember a living man could use gravity plus his own strength to pull loose. (I’m not a body builder. I’m a 50-year-old man in good general health. The other day at the gym I arm curled fifty pounds twenty times. Young athletes can do more than twice that. Pulling free from the cross if nailed to the front of it would be easy.) If you nail a man in a couple of places in the wrist instead of the palm, however, it’s more secure. Why? Because if the nail is in the palm, it’s in unsupported flesh that can tear. But a nail through a couple of easy to find spots in the wrist could more securely anchor it in place. This, however, still leaves three problems. 1) Where do you nail the feet so that they don’t pull free, 2) how do you stop a person nailed to the front of a cross from lurching dramatically forward, and 3), given that the head of crucifixion nails is small, how would you stop a man from yanking and causing the nail to pass clean through even his wrists as he tries to escape?

Based on the above evidence alone, it seems to me, the artists and movie makers who show Jesus nailed to the front of the cross are wrong. Their method just won’t work. You can’t nail the full weight of a man to the front of a cross without his body weight and his own muscle strength easily pulling him free. But, just in case you need it, there’s more evidence discovered in the laboratory that show Jesus couldn’t (and wouldn’t) have been nailed to the front of the cross. Zugibe (pictured above in his lab) found that his students "crucified" (with straps) in this manner began having serious difficulties almost immediately. When they lurched forward, as in Zugibe’s lab photo, their chests, shoulders, and arms began cramping in ten to twenty minutes. Only his strongest student was able to stand it for forty-five minutes. Death would come quickly crucified like this, if you didn’t pull free and fall off first! That’s the problem. Roman records indicate that people survived for days on the cross. These victims must have been in a different position, a more comfortable position (relatively speaking), in order to survive that long. But what position did they use?

Let’s start from scratch. I think that I’ve demonstrated that the movies and paintings are probably wrong. Where can we find clues to how it was done? Where can we get information about Roman crucifixion in Jesus’ day? While the Bible offers some details involved in crucifixion, as you will see, it offers us nothing about the shape of the cross or the method the soldiers used to attach Jesus to it, other than they used nails to pierced his hands and feet. Fortunately, we have two additional sources. One is Roman literature from that time. Then, most fortunately, there is the one and only crucified remains ever found. Let’s take a quick look at the literature first.

The sentence of death was described by Romans as sitting on the cross. They attached a peg or seat called a sedile (meaning seat) to the upright post (called the stipes), that the victim could sit on. (Forget the suppedaneum--a foot platform to stand on as pictured--at the bottom of the upright post which helps in passion plays, but was not used by the Romans.)

The peg (sedile) solves a lot of logistical problems. Sitting on the peg makes you more comfortable, so you will suffer longer. That was, after all, the point of crucifixion: prolong death so as to suffer for as long as possible. Roman records refer to a man who was taken off the cross after three days and recuperated. Another man lasted a full week before he died—seven days alive and suffering on the cross. Using a peg for the victim to sit on would make these scenarios possible. And another thing: sitting on a peg would prevent you from lurching forward. The seat would enable you to rest your weight on it, killing gravity’s pull forward away from the cross.

The Roman literature also shows that the crucified weren’t buried. That was part of the horror of it. When they crucified you, you knew up front that you were going to suffer for a long time, eventually dying, and that your body would hang there until it was eaten and your bones scattered by crows, vultures, hyenas, and dogs. The dignity of burial was disallowed everywhere but one place, however. You guessed it. Jerusalem. Because of the Jews religious sensibilities concerning corpses and defilement, the Romans in Jerusalem made exceptions to the rules. Jews would not tolerate dying men or corpses on crosses during Sabbaths and other holy festivals like Passover. This explains two important details from the biblical description of Jesus’ execution: 1) leg-breaking and spearing, and 2) removal and burial.

Leg-breaking and spearing: At about 3:00 p.m. they began breaking the three victims legs. Why? It hastened death. Why did they want to hasten death when the point of crucifixion was to prolong suffering and death? Because it was the eve of both the Jewish Sabbath (Friday) and the annual Passover. They wanted them dead and off the crosses by sunset (about 6 p.m.) that Friday. This is the way John put it:

John 19:31-34   31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed.  32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.  33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.

Breaking the legs of victims to hasten death would have only been done on the eve of a holiday in Jerusalem, and nowhere else. Spearing the torso of a victim to confirm his death would have only been done in Jerusalem, and nowhere else. How do we know? Because only in Jerusalem are you going to take a man off the cross. Scavengers removed men from crosses everywhere else in the Roman world. And since the soldiers had to take Jesus off the cross, they had to make doubly sure he was dead first. How did they know he was already dead? A dead man on a cross would look very different from a struggling, suffering man. He’s collapsed, limp, and motionless. No breathing. Eyes are fixed and lifeless. His color very different. So, if it’s your job make sure he’s dead, then what’s the quickest and easiest way to make doubly sure? It’s what John records that a soldier did. He ran Jesus through with his spear.

Removal and burial: Pilate approved the removal of Jesus’ body from the cross for burial, a practice done in Jerusalem, and nowhere else.

Matthew 27:57-60   57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.  58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.  59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth  60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. (See also Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50-54, and John 19:38-40)

So breaking the legs and spearing of crucified men was not common practice anywhere but in Jerusalem, because the removal of the bodies from the cross for burial was not common practice anywhere but Jerusalem. This brings us to the archaeological evidence of crucifixion.

ossuary (bone box) of Jehohanan

Let’s go back before 1968. After all the thousands of people the Romans crucified, no crucified remains were ever found—for the obvious reason that the bodies were torn apart by scavengers and never buried. But in 1968 something miraculous happened. A first century Jewish tomb was discovered in Jerusalem. The model foot pictured (below, left) demonstrates the actual heelbone of Jehohanan (below, right). In a first century Jewish tomb that contained a first century Jewish bone box (called and ossuary, above), archaeologists found the remains of a first century Jewish crucified man. As was the custom in that day, the victim’s name was scratched on the back side of the box. His name was Jehohanan. He was in his twenties. And he was not crucified like the traditional paintings and movies. By a sheer stroke of good fortune (for us today), his executioners apparently had a hard time getting Jehohanan off of the cross. How do we know? Because the crucifixion nail was still lodged in his heel bone. That’s right, I said his heel.

The man’s feet were not nailed to the front of the cross with a single nail. His heels were attached to the outsides of the post (stipes) with two nails. (See drawings) He was straddling the upright post, his heels nailed to the left and right sides of the cross. But there’s more.

Look at the picture of Jehohanan’s heel bone, the model of his foot, and the drawing of his legs straddling the cross-post.

The nail passed first through a plaque of wood. How do we know? A bit of the plaque was still attached between Jehohanan’s heel and the nail head. What kind of wood was it? Tests showed it was from the Olive Tree. What was the plaque for? It acted like a washer. It broadened the head of the nail. Why? So the victim couldn’t pull free. The heel was secured (tightly sandwiched) between the plaque and the post. After hammering the nail through the plaque of wood it was hammered through the heel bone. Why the heel bone? Because you could tear your skin loose if the nail doesn’t go through bone. The heel bone is the strongest place in the foot to secure the nail. So the nail goes through the plaque/washer, then through the sturdy heel bone, and then into the cross’ upright post.

Jehohanan was nailed to a wooden post. How do we know? When they crucified him, the nail hit a knot in the wood that bent the nail inward creating a hooked tip. (See drawing above) They (Tsafaris, Zias, and others) tested the wood still clinging to the hooked nail-point. It was wood, of course, but the amount was insufficient to determine what kind.

You may be wondering, Why did they leave the nail in Jehohanan’s heel for burial? Apparently they couldn’t get it out! How do we know? After the man died, the soldiers began removing the nails to take him off of the cross for burial. (He, like Jesus and the two who died with him, must have been crucified on the eve of a holy day, since they allowed him to be taken off the cross and buried.) But when they got to the nail in his right heel, they couldn’t get it out. It was hooked in the stubborn knot. So they yanked him free. When they did, the whole apparatus—including a hunk of the knot—came loose with him. There in the bone box, undisturbed for almost two thousand years, archaeologists found a fragment of the hard knot from the post, the nail that had hooked into it, the man’s heel-bone, and the plaque of Olivewood, all still attached (though the wood had decayed significantly) and intact. It was like finding the Holy Grail for those interested in how Jesus died (or how Roman crucifixion was done).

How could Jesus have been nailed through the wrist when the Bible specifically says hands? In the ancient world, the hand begins at the forearm and includes the wrist. In the New Testament, the Greek word for hand is cei,r cheir {pronounced khire}.

Acts 12:7   He struck Peter on the side and woke him up, saying, "Get up quickly!" And the chains fell off Peter’s wrists (cheir*). (italics mine)

*tn Grk "the hands," but the wrist was considered a part of the hand

As the notes of the New English Version confirm, the wrist is a part of the hand in New Testament Greek. The verse literally says, "and his chains fell from off his hands." But you don’t chain people’s hands (as we define hands in English). The shackles go on the wrists. But this isn’t a problem since cheir can mean hands, wrist, or forearm. Therefore, the nails could have gone through Jesus’ forearms, wrists, or palms, linguistically speaking. We’ve ruled out the palms because they couldn’t support a man’s body weight without tearing and causing him to fall off the cross. That leaves the forearm and wrist. If the forearm, then you would nail it between the two bones of the forearm, the radius and the ulna. If the wrist, then two spots present themselves, one in particular is easy to find. Press your finger in the indentation in the back of your wrist. Now I’ll show you why Jesus was probably nailed through the back of his wrist instead of the front.

The question to ask when considering the crucifixion is: What’s the easiest and most efficient way to crucify someone? Or, put it like this: What was the standard method that best secured the man yet maximally prolonged his death?

1. You have a short post (the stipes) in the ground. The victim carries only the patibulum (the horizontal crossbeam) to the location of the stipes (the upright post). There the crossbeam is attached to the post at approximately eyelevel. Both the post and the crossbeam are notched so as to fit together. They secure them with nails.

2. Then the victim can be hoisted onto the peg or seat (the sedile) by two men. His waist and chest are roped to keep him from struggling free. Then his arms and legs are roped in place for nailing: His arms are thrown over the top and behind the crossbeam. His legs straddle the post.

3. They start nails through four small plaques of wood. Two of them are held to the backs of the victim’s wrists on the back side of the crossbeam. The soldier finds the dip in the back of his wrist with his finger. He drives the nail through the plaque, through the back of the wrist, and into the backside of the crossbeam. He does the same with his other wrist. Another soldier meanwhile takes the other two plaques with nails piercing them and holds them over the heel bone, and he drives the nail through the plaque, through the heal, and into the post.

4. Now they remove all the ropes, though removing them isn’t necessary, and they sit down and eat, talk, taunt the victim, gamble for his belongings, and guard him until he dies. It’s necessary that they stay until he’s dead because it would be easy enough to quickly take him off the cross and escape.

Notice that they crucified men eyeball to eyeball with the soldiers and passersby, not up in the sky. It’s about efficiency and ease. Why go to all the trouble and expense to hoist Jesus way up into the air? Typically Jesus’ feet are at least at eye level to those standing by in paintings. In the movie, "Jesus of Nazareth," he’s hoisted up with ropes and pullies on a giant scaffolding. But there’s no point to it. Only two soldiers are needed to sit him on the peg to be tied, then nailed. This all begs the question Why? Why in art and movies is he way up in the air? You won’t believe this:

There is only one reason I can think of for a super tall cross. The biblical record says that when Jesus said he was thirsty, a soldier put a sponge on a stick, dipped it in sour wine, and put it to his lips. Artists assumed that the reason that they had to put the sponge on a stick was because he was crucified up high and out of reach. Why else would the soldier have needed a stick but to extend his reach to get the sponge to Jesus’ mouth? But there is a very good reason why this is wrong, and it’s not pleasant. Several studies have proved, I think, beyond doubt how Romans relieved themselves and cleaned themselves afterward. Look at this photo of a typical public toilet found in every Roman city. 

Notice that the men in the drawings are holding sponges on sticks, and note the channel of running water for rinsing the sponge. 

Notice that the rim is not only open on the top where you sit, but the opening is extended to the front as well. And notice the shallow channel running at the foot of the bench. The channel ran with clean water. Lacking toilet paper in those days, persons used a sponge on a short stick (used as a handle). It was called a xylospongium (xylo- meaning a stick of wood, and -spongium meaning a sea sponge). You wet it, pass it through to opening, clean yourself, rinse in the channel, and repeat as needed.

After the fall of Jerusalem, one of the first tasks of the 10th Roman Legion was to transform the seats of the destroyed theater into toilet seats for their latrine. Graffiti on an ancient bathroom wall in Ostia, Italy refers to using the xylospongium; archaeologists found bits of sponge in the ancient latrine. Classical scholar Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow referred to the sponge on a stick as a "curious devise of daily Roman life." In the Roman poet Martial's Epigrams, he wrote of the "sponge of the damned rod of wood." The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote of a gladiator committing suicide by xylospongium: 

• . . .there was lately in a training-school for wild-beast gladiators a German, who was making ready for the morning exhibition; he withdrew in order to relieve himself, – the only thing which he was allowed to do in secret and without the presence of a guard. While so engaged, he seized the stick of wood, tipped with a sponge, which was devoted to the vilest uses, and stuffed it, just as it was, down his throat; thus he blocked up his windpipe, and choked the breath from his body. That was truly to insult death!

"To insult death," brings us back to the crucifixion. Reasonably, the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus might have on hand a xylospongium, an everyday implement. The sponge on a stick was the equivalent of first century toilet paper. So, even though the stick was short, since Jesus was crucified at eye level, the soldiers would have had no trouble reaching his mouth. I’m sorry for the picture I’m painting because it isn’t pretty. But when Jesus said, "I thirst," one of the soldiers dipped his personal bathroom sponge in sour wine and put it to Jesus’ lips, and it was likely one of several ways mentioned in the Bible that the soldiers mocked and mistreated Jesus. They made sport of him as he died, too: "to insult death." But even more remarkable is that Jesus received the drink without complaint. John says he took it and died. It was the final insult:

• John 19:28-30  28 After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), "I thirst."  29 A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth.  30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 

The most accurate sketch I can find of how Jesus was probably crucified is this one by Charles Pickard. Turn his hands around and use nails instead of ropes and it’s perfect. Notice he’s seated on a peg (sedile).

Am I saying that this is certainly the way Jesus was crucified? No. There are still uncertainties. Was the cross +-shaped or T-shaped? Was the upright a post or a tree trunk?

So what’s certain? It is certain, given the biblical record, that Jesus was not crucified "on a hill far away," not if by "on a hill far away" you mean atop a hill some distance from the city of Jerusalem. Romans crucified victims on main roads just outside city gates. They wanted people coming in and going out to witness who is in charge, and demonstrate what can happen to you if you intend to make trouble. Is there biblical evidence that Jesus was crucified right outside of a Jerusalem city gate? Absolutely.

That there were passersby indicates that he was crucified at roadside, as was the Roman practice.

Mark 15:29   Those who passed by derided him . . .

Moreover, John specifically records that many passed by as he was crucified near the city.

John 19:19-20   Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."  20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city;

Do we know the exact spot? I think so, though the evidence isn’t conclusive. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher today is inside the present walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.

But in Jesus’ day, the site of the church is just outside the wall at a main gate, and on a main road. Adjacent to that road (north) is an abandoned stone quarry. It had been abandoned because the quarrymen ran out of usable limestone. What was left was a pit of soft limestone. The area was the site for two things in the first century:

     1.      An abandoned quarry outside the city is a good place for a cemetery. The soft limestone, of no use for building, can easily be carved out for burial caves of a kind specific to first century, Palestine, Judaism. And that is precisely what is there within the walls of the present-day church. Mere feet behind the shrine locating the spot of Jesus’ burial, in the Syrian Chapel, is a first century Jewish tomb (seen in diagram and picture left), proving that the abandoned quarry was turned into a cemetery by Jews of Jesus’ day. Mere feet from the spot venerated as Jesus' sepulchre, this is the tomb next door, and his would have been similar before they razed it to build the shrine.

      2.      There is also in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher a tall outcropping of soft limestone atop which is a chapel marking the traditional site of Jesus’ crucifixion. In Jesus’ day, the tall outcropping of white rock must have resembled a skull—thus the nickname for the spot: The Place of the Skull. Today all that is left is a tall sliver of this "hill". But were Jesus and two other men crucified atop this white outcropping? Not likely. It was roadside at city gates that crucifixions were conspicuously displayed as a warning to troublemakers, perhaps where the red X marks the spot in the photos, or somewhere along one of the roads pictured that entered the city gate. The Romans valued ease and efficiency, and therefore would not likely go to all the trouble of hauling themselves and their equipment and their prisoners up the steep slope of "the skull" to squeeze three crucifixions into a tiny area on top. But the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus was crucified on a hill, or on a white, skull-like outcropping of soft limestone. What it does say is that Jesus was crucified at "the Place of the Skull". Think of Jesus being crucified at roadside in front of the abandoned quarry containing a skull-like outcropping, a garden, and tombs. He wasn't likely on top of the outcropping but in front of it--at the place of the skull. The outcropping in the quarry was the backdrop of his crucifixion at roadside. (The photo shows a model of the quarry beside the main western road into Jerusalem, likely the Place of the Skull and the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial.)

I’ve written too much already for one web log, so I’ll stop here. Maybe I’ll do a Part Two so that I can address who was eligible for crucifixion, what crucified victims wore, what drinks might have been provided, the cause of death, what happens to your family when you have a relative crucified, what Jesus said from the cross and what he meant, other details in the biblical accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul’s theology of the cross, what the non-canonical Gospel of Peter says, why the Garden Tomb is not the spot, the history of the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the best resources on this subject, and more. It’s a broad subject once you start digging.

Let me leave you with a question that haunts me. If we’ve known about how Jehohanan was crucified since 1968—that’s 45 years ago—, then why haven’t you ever heard anything about this before? I’m afraid it’s true that sometimes traditions don’t want to yield to facts.

For more on the subject of Jesus' crucifixion see my blog Good Friday: Messiah Damned.

Bert Gary is an adjunct faculty member at the Society for Biblical Studies. He is the author of Jesus Unplugged, and his next book is entitled "Heaven for Skeptics."