grip_daddy

Assuming that Jesus was never crucified, what would be the advantage of adopting Roman Crucifixion instead of any other death penalty method e.g. Hebrew's stoning as the mode by which Jesus was executed?

Were there any dangers the gospel writers could have encountered if their suggested mode of execution was fictitious?

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I figure that stoning would be a less embarrassing way for Jesus to go. Some of the primary religious rivals to Jesus were the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and their preferred method of execution would be stoning, per Jewish law, which Jesus attempted to modernize. Crucifixion, on the other hand, was designed to be embarrassing, as seen in the writing of the poet Pseudo-Manetho:

Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate;
they are fastened (and) nailed to it in the most bitter torment, evil
food for birds of prey and grim pickings for dogs.

And it is reflected in the writing of Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:23:

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

It was not at all expected that the Messiah would be put to death. On the contrary, he was expected to lead a military to conquer the world for God and the Jews. On the plus side, Christians made it work, with enough spin. Psalm 22:16 was a big help, no doubt:

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

So, it is not impossible that the crucifixion account was arbitrarily invented by Christian myth, but I think it would take exceptional creative talent and foresight. It is a huge gambit.

semiopen

Keeping in mind that the historicity of the crucifixion is not clear.

Crucifixion was not clearly a unique Roman punishment. Based on Josephus, this could have been done by the Jews. The argument that the mode of death proves that Jews weren't involved seems questionable to me. The valid methods of execution is Talmudic which was written after the time in question.

For example:

http://helektov.wordpress.com/2009/0...portant-notes/

Toto

Crucifixion was a symbolic extreme punishment. It could have symbolized what happened to the Jewish nation in the war that ended in the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, or the many who were crucified. It makes the resurrection that much more glorious.

What "danger" did you have in mind? An investigation from the Roman skeptics into the archives to show that no such person was ever crucified? I don't think anyone operated that way in the Roman Empire.

aa5874

The Messiah that was supposed to be a military leader was NOT EXPECTED at around the 15th year of Tiberius, and was not expected to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

The entity that was taken from Isaiah 7.14 was not expected to be a Messiah by the Jews.

A Jewish Messiah was expected by Jews at around 70 CE. Please see Wars of the Jews 6.5.4.

The Hocus-Pocus Messiah stories found in the Canon cannot even be properly dated. The Church provided bogus information about the dating, authorship and chronology of their magical Messiah stories.

Minimalist

As with so many ideas, the Romans borrowed the idea of crucifixion rather than inventing it and institutionalized it for rebels and slaves.

Doug Shaver

I doubt there was any historical Jesus. I don't rule out the possibility entirely, although I would insist that if there was one, we know almost nothing about him -- emphasis on "almost." I see no sense in calling anyone who was not crucified "the historical Jesus."

But then, I also see no sense in referring to any early Medieval English warlord who happened to be named Arthur "the historical King Arthur," either.

grip_daddy

For instance, accusing the ruling power of an atrocity they never committed could have hampered the growth of the religion being invented.

It could also have given the Roman authority more reasons to fiercely persecute the Christians.

Toto

The gospels blame the Jews.

Besides, Pilate was ancient history by the time the new religion started to spread.