Jesus crucified or hanged?

Here is the simple truth about Jesus and his crucifixion from an unbiaised witness of those times. The historian Josephus. There is debate as to whether Jesus carried the whole cross or just the crossbeam. It was customary for the convicted to carry their own cross beam to the place of cricifixion. It was also customary for the upright part of the cross to be a fixed beam.

Josephus was a historian who lived from 37 A.D. to about 100 A.D. He was a member of the priestly aristocracy of the Jews, and was taken hostage by the Roman Empire in the great Jewish revolt of 66-70 A.D. Josephus spent the rest of his life in or around Rome as an advisor and historian to three emperors, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. For centuries, the works of Josephus were more widely read in Europe than any book other than the Bible. They are invaluable sources of eyewitness testimony to the development of Western civilization, including the foundation and growth of Christianity in the 1st Century.

Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more �favorable� portions of this text):

�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. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.�

As for who compiled and chose the writings for the new Testament it would be Pope Clement the First not Constantine. According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv).

One of the changes that Clement made to the Bible was any reference to reincarnation. He felt that if people knew they had more than one chance of reaching "enlightenment" they would squander there lives on earthly pleasures.

Originally posted by SOTERION 5
Christians don't have a problem with these little things, it's the proactive non-believers that like to pick everything apart and then say there is no God or if there is a God he contradicts himself all the time.

Not true. Only Orthodox Christians have no problem. I believe in Christ, yet I believe that the Bible has been altered in many places and that there is much more to Jesus' story than we are told. I do believe that Jesus was crucified, but there is no way I can swallow the Biblical version whole as there are far too many problems with it. God doesn't contradict himself. The work of the Bible is the work of man and man contradicts himself.

As for the last poster who quotes Josephus as a neutral observer? That is hardly the case. Apart from the fact that his allusions to Christ are thought to be forgeries, we know for a fact that he was a Roman Jew - a traitor to his people and to his country. Hardly an unbiased character.

Its amazing that the authenticity of Josephus' writings about Jesus should be the part of his work that is questioned, not the part about the Essenes at Qumran. There was this man in Israel who spawned the biggest religion ever, who had a huge following, a new cult, and yet a historian of jewish descent would not have written about him? hmmmmmm

Originally posted by Leveller

Not true. Only Orthodox Christians have no problem. I believe in Christ, yet I believe that the Bible has been altered in many places and that there is much more to Jesus' story than we are told. I do believe that Jesus was crucified, but there is no way I can swallow the Biblical version whole as there are far too many problems with it. God doesn't contradict himself. The work of the Bible is the work of man and man contradicts himself.


I am not an 'orthodox' christian, but the 'hanged' or 'nailed' debate is a bit petty. I know that there are books that are not in our Bible that should be there, like Enoch, Esdras, Macabbees, Jasher, Jubilees, the list goes on. I find no contradictions in the bible other that James. Yes, the translation into english loses alot of the meaning that the apostles stated in the Greek. The OT has very, very, few changes...the Dead Sea scrolls have proven that. There is much more about Jesus' life than what we find in our Bibles...not because they don't want it in there but because the Apostles never put it in writing or if they did they were lost.



[edit on 18-6-2004 by SOTERION 5]

Sorry Leveller, in the previous post I tried to put your quote in the box and then respond to it but managed to get the whole thing in the quote box...duh !

Hello Mynaeris:

REF YOUR QUOTE from the TESTIMONIUM FLAVIUM of Jospehus (AD 90)

"Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more �favorable� portions of this text): "

Here is some background on that curiously wrought section of his Antiquities, whose Greek syntax, grammar, outlook, vocabulary or overall writing style does NOT match the rest of the book (clue #1)

REF: the Socalled Testimonium Flavium of Josephus.

It is clear that the present text of the Antiquities of the Jews from which this quote was taken has been doctored over by later Christians in the middle ages in the copying process:

But even with all the Interpolations, one can STILL see a vestige of the original Josephus underneath, and what sections the "additions" are simply by examining the interruptive grammar and syntax of those pesky Christian copyists.

Here is what the Christianized (doctored) Christian text of Jospehus says today on the page:

�Now there came about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful deeds, 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. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.�

Here IN CAPS are some of the OBVIOUS CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATIONS from the Christian Scibes who later handled Josephu's Greek Text: Notice if you remove them, the syntax of the Greek runs much more smoothly (i.e. they are "foreign"interruptions to the original text of the Flavium)

IF ONE COULD EVEN CALL HIM A MAN...
WHO RECEIVED THE TRUTH...
HE WAS THE CHRIST...
HE APPEARED AGAIN TO THEM ALIVE ON THE THIRD DAY ...
AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD...
THESE AND TEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM...

Here is AN APPROXIMATE RECONSTRUCTION of what the text original Text would have originally read (i.e. without the added Christian INTERPOLATIONS. There are various versions of Josphus on record in different copies of the MSS floating around over the past 2000 years which have different versions of THESE INTERPOLATIONS in the Testimonium Flavium section (so named, because the historian "Josephus, although a Jew by birth" changed his name to Flavius Josephus after the ruliung house of the Caesars who later supported him, i.e. after he turn-coated to the Roman side during the Jewish War in 70 AD).

These differences/variations in the MSS between the texts (some Greek, some Latin, some Russian, some Coptic etc.) only occur in the "added sections" (capital letters above) which means those sections were not part of the original text.

HERE IS A PLAUSABLE RECONSTRUCTION (as you must know, Josephus was NOT a Christian and elsewhere visciously derides any Messianic pretenders in his writings)

"Around this time arose a man named [Yeshua], a Rabbi [teacher]who surrounded himself with people who were eager for miracles. He gathered into his following both Judaeans and Greek God-fearers, who held him to be the Christ. When Pilate, and the instigation of many of the highest ranking people among us, condemned him to the cross [i.e. the punishment for armed sedition], those who followed him with devotion from the beginning still cherished his memory, claiming many miraculous deeds had been worked by his hand, and that Tribe of Christians, as they are called, has not died out completely even unto this day."

Notice how the cleaned up version tallies a little more with the kind of historian's tone when we compare it with say the writings of Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, senator, consul and governor of the province of Asia.

Concerning "Iesous" and his followers, Tacitus wrote,

"Nero�punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where this mischief had started) but even in Rome"
(The Annals of Imperial Rome, XV, 44).

In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as �the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ� (20.9.1).

So you are right about Josephus writing about "Jeeezuzz" but what he wrote originally was different from what the Catholic Copyists put down on paper in his name.