lmbarre

What is the evidence for or against a Roman crucifixion of Jesus?

ApostateAbe

The crucifixion of Jesus is found in almost every early historical source that mentions Jesus, both Christian and non-Christian (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and so on), so it is multiply attested. It is a claim that is plausible, because Roman governors often crucified threats to the Roman state. And it is an ideologically awkward thing to claim about the Jewish messiah, who was expected to be a conquering military hero, which means it is an unlikely product of myth if the myth was not driven by a known reality. So I would say that the most certain thing about the historical Jesus is that he was Jewish, and the second-most certain thing is that he was crucified.

stephan huller

I have been thinking about this for a while now. A couple of observations on the popular tradition of what happened at the Passion:

1. the penalty of crucifixion seems way over blown for the crime of 'offending the Jews'
2. the speed at which the crucified one ended up dying seems also very strange. Especially considering point 3
3. the idea that Jesus was made to drag the whole damn cross through the streets of Jerusalem is unusual
4. the whole scenario where Pilate becomes an ancient game show host where he brings forward two 'contestants' and allow justice to be determined by who claps the loudest is utterly bizarre.

Something about the whole narrative isn't quite kosher. This is not history as much as it is highly embellished mythopoesis. On point 5 for instance, you're really comparing apples and oranges. 'Behind curtain A is a guy who has committed crimes against the Empire you hope will get wiped off the fact of the earth as soon as possible and then behind curtain B a guy you Jews have been wanting to kill for about a year now. Let's see a show of hands, Jewish people ...' Bizarre

aa5874

Again, Tacitus and Suetonius did NOT mention any character called Jesus. You seem to be spreading propaganda.

You appear to be making a deliberate attempt to provide erroneous information to "lurkers" and I find this extremely disturbing.

You claim or imply that your HJ was an apocalyptic preacher called Jesus and you very well know that there is NO apocalyptic preacher called Jesus in Tacitus and Suetionius.

And, again, once you claim your Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher NOT even the forgeries in Josephus mentioned an apocalyptic preacher.

And further, NOT even the Gospels mentioned an apocalyptic preacher.

There is NOT one credible source that there was a man called Jesus Christ, a Jewish Messiah, that was crucified under Pilate.

Now, in the NT, the story of the crucifixion of a character called Jesus is a Fiction story.

Examine the crucifixion story of Jesus in gMark 15 . The Judge does NOT know what Evil Jesus did but is CONTENT to have him MURDERED on behalf of the Jews.

What total BS.

And the crucifixion story gets worse, those crucified with Jesus begin to CURSE him and there was a 3-hour eclipse, a most fictitious event.

Mark 15 The crucifixion story of Jesus is NOT an historical account in the Earliest Jesus story, gMark and the other Gospels. It is utter Fiction and was invented to fulfill supposed prophecy.

Matthew 27:35 KJV

Huon

The earliest reference to Christianity by a Roman historian comes from Cornelius Tacitus, writing circa 110-117. It is in his annals.
Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.
This text is taken from a solitary manuscript from the eleventh century, the Second Medicean manuscript (M. II), presumably written at Monte Cassino.

Admitting that the text was never "improved", this shows that Tacitus knew in 117 CE that, according to the Christians, "Christus" was nailed to a cross.

Eusebius, who made a list of all the alleged Jewish and pagan references to Christianity, makes no mention of the passage, or of Tacitus himself! Let us remember that it is this same Eusebius to whom we are indebted for almost all we know of the history of Christianity down to the time of Constantine ... This passage was not quoted by any Christian writer before the fifteenth century.

Sheshbazzar

......Doesn't say a single word about this 'Christus' 'being nailed to (any) cross', and there is no mention at all there of anyone by the name Jeebus.

Huon

Lives of the Caesars. Claudius, 25,4. Claudius (41-54)

Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, uses the correct form, Christus, and states that he was executed in the reign of Tiberius (not Claudius).

Suetonius lived between c. 70 CE and c. 130 CE (date of death unknown).

la70119

Jesus crucified? Maybe not!

Nag Hammadi Codices, Letter of Peter to Philip VII, 3:81-82.

Now I know where the Muslims get their traditions from: heterodox Christian traditions!!! "They crucified him not, neither did they kill him, but it was made to appear it was so." Mohammed simply couldn't have made it from whole cloth.

sotto voce

The Jews of Judaea had obtained special dispensation to maintain their own religion, within certain limits. It was important for local administrators to keep the population satisfied or risk imperial disfavour. The eventual dismantling of the state of Judea was very expensive for Rome.

Not if the significance of the event was not physical, but spiritual death, as was claimed.

He wasn't made to do that. A whole cross was much too heavy. The practice was for condemned prisoners to carry to the place of execution the cross piece on which they were to hang, enduring, on their last journey, the jeers and mockery of the attendant crowd. (That is what is meant by 'carrying one's cross'.) Though the flogging that generally preceded this was quite severe enough.

The Romans didn't get where they got to by being nice.

mrsonic

"You just publicly declared that you don't consider him to be the King of the Jews; he has publicly declared he is not the King of the Jews; and I have officially, publicly declared that he has committed no Roman crime. The record is clear, fuck you."

"Then we shall riot!"

"Beside the fact that I already anticipated such a possibility on this day particularly, because I'm not a fucking idiot, you mean you're going to riot if I don't kill the completely innocent man that you all agree is not your 'King' even though you all supposedly love him so much that if you found out that your leaders had conspired to try and kill him (as I just told you was precisely what they did) you'd riot against them, but now, inexplicably are not going to, because you're all just so susceptible to 'office politics' that don't yet exist? Gee, I never thought of that possibility on this the most militarily prepared day of the year for such a contingency. GUARDS!"

mrsonic: sotto , have thought of the possibility that jesus was a terrorist and not an innocent lamb?