theory of the faked crucifixion of Jesus

the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln has an interesting (and pretty wild, maybe) consipiracy theory about how the whole crucifixion of Jesus might have been faked. Other books have referred to some parts of the story from the Gospels that just don't add up to anything remotely close to a typical Roman execution of an enemy of Rome (which is precisely what this form of execution was used for - not common crimes).

The points the authors make that are most compelling about how fishy this story is that I found most believable:
1) dead bodies were never removed from the crosses - they were left to rot and be picked over by the birds; burials were refused as part of the punishment
2) people rarely died quickly and sometimes didn't die at all (so, there were some escapes?) unless they had not been provided with support for their feet - that was considered a more merciful death
3) the Jewish leaders who supposedly asked Pilate to assist or order the crucifiction were said to have met at times that were specifically prohibited by Jewish law - this seems just really clumsy story-telling on the part of the Gospels; plus, these leaders were perfectly within their authority to execute Jesus on their own without involving Roman authorities
4) there was a private tomb near the site of this crucifixion ? really? no way!

OK, I am now prepared to have you all tell me how preposterous all of this is and, indeed, it may be. I'm not saying I believe all of it. But, I can't find any info that refutes it other than the Gospels themselves and writers who say that whatever is in the Gospels must be believed in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Fire away!

Here's a decent on-line book (free) I just read all of today. (It's short.)

Chapter 4 of Know Why You Believe is Did Christ Rise from the Dead?

It's a pro-empty tomb argument anyone interested in the discussion might enjoy.

The book as a whole, is one Christians in particular should read before debating. It does it better than most laymen.

[edit on 12-3-2005 by RANT]

I read it. Good stuff and worth considering but not completely convincing because it relies totally on the idea that there was no conspiracy, prior planning, staging of the whole thing...now, I'm still not convinced either way because the other writers have their theory based on the idea that the whole thing was set up well in advance. That may seem silly on the surface but, on the other hand, Jesus really need to get out of Dodge City after the ruckus he had created in the Temple with their ancient ATM machines.

So far, this is just circular: if it was faked it had to have been set up in advance with Jesus and several people. the other side is that it couldn't have been faked because it would have had to be planned in advance and Jesus wouldn't be doing something like that. Stalemate at this point.

(I'd like to start another thread about the whole Temple incident sometime - that's also totally unbelievable if you know anything at all about the Temple but, that's another thread for another day.)

[edit on 12-3-2005 by Al Davison]

there is also the description that says the crucifiction took place in or ajacent to
a private garden in which was a tomb and that the people were kept at a distance, (viewed from afar).

Well I'm not convinced by it either, but it is the best they've got.

Actually if you want to get technical in the Orginal Hebrew Bibles it never said Jesus was hung on a Cross. It said he was Hung on a TORTURE STEAK or in other words a lim from a TREE. Never Cross, that never came in existence untill the Catholic religion added it in their own words basically they made the whole Cross thing up, and that right their misguided many people. Also it is known even in Encyclopedias (correct my spelling) even stated that the Catholic Religion took out many words of the Bible and added their own.

For one the Torture Steak was turned into CROSS. Second Gods Name in Hebrew and even Jewish bibles was JEHOVAH. Once again the Catholics turned that name into Lord or exchanged it with God. Gods name was really Yeh Weh(cant spell) but translated in english Jehovah. To me the people that made those books were just people to throw people off once again in religion. Anyways good topic!

Originally posted by SinCity702... untill the Catholic religion added it in their own words basically they made the whole Cross thing up, and that right their misguided many people. Also it is known even in Encyclopedias (correct my spelling) even stated that the Catholic Religion took out many words of the Bible and added their own.

Not only did the Catholic church change words they left out whole books about Adam and Eve, Mary's birth and even Yashua's childhood. LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

I also wrote about this today in another thread.

okay, lets just say Jesus was crucified on the cross and placed in the tomb. I do not see how he would have survived for 3 days. The rest of this post I really can not comment on, however I do believe that he died and rose again. But back to my statement. I do not see how Jesus would have survived for 3 days w/o food or water locked in a tomb bleeding to death. That is the point that I think is rather moot.

People were known to have lived longer than 3 days while still nailed to a Roman cross in the manner described by the NT Gospels. That method of execution was designed to be very slow and cruelly painful. Then, the bodies we're left to decompose and be picked over by carrion eaters as a further terror tactic. Crucifixion was unspeakably brutal.

there are several "what ifs" to add to this. What if, he was drugged to appear
dead to hasten his removal from the cross (granted that was nt a regular practice but Pilate seems tohave been open to monetary persuasion).

What if arrangements had been made for a healer to be waiting inside for him?

What if as do many holes in the groun this particular one (maybe selected for this reason) had a "back door."

what if the events talkied of took place not outside Jerusalem but outside
Qumran? There was a "tomb" located adjcent to a burial ground (place of the skull) that fits this scenerio.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
there are several "what ifs" to add to this. What if, he was drugged to appear
dead to hasten his removal from the cross (granted that was nt a regular practice but Pilate seems tohave been open to monetary persuasion).

What if arrangements had been made for a healer to be waiting inside for him?

What if as do many holes in the groun this particular one (maybe selected for this reason) had a "back door."

what if the events talkied of took place not outside Jerusalem but outside
Qumran? There was a "tomb" located adjcent to a burial ground (place of the skull) that fits this scenerio.

or better yet, and this is the best what if, everything that is said in the gospels is true? and Christians are right, Jesus is part of the holy trinity?

Well, I still hold open the possibility that the NT accounts depict true events but are just poorly reported. I don't immediately discount anything at this point.

But, the NT accounts are one of the least plausible and most suspicious in the form that we have in common use today (such as the various versions of Christian bibles).

As I've said before, this is not a discussion of faith - this is a discussion an historical event and the conspiracy angle here is whether there was a willful and deliberate attempt to make false claims in order to bolster a religious institution. One cannot make the leap to a consipiracy until there is an honest evaluation of the evidence.

Step 1: is it true?
if yes, we're Done!
if no, proceed to Step 2

Step 2: was the falsification an honest mistake?
if yes, correct the false information and we're Done!
if no, proceed to Step 3

Step 3: (where we are with this discussion?)
examine motives
assess damages
expose / chastise the guilty
take steps to prevent this in the future

OK, so maybe this isn't a universally accepted methodology - it's just how I evaluate pretty much everything in life.

Step 3: (where we are with this discussion?)
examine motives
assess damages
expose / chastise the guilty
take steps to prevent this in the future

motives, lets see. from this group of writings was built an organization that
even the modern Mafia cannot hold a candle to.
in the name of their good and merciful god they have over the centuries:
either directly or indirectly killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of people.
built the largest and richest business in the world.
protect criminals of the worst kind.
cover up banking fraud that runs into billions.
interfers in legitimate research.
and has their own country with no extradition treaties.
hows that for motive?

well you forget one thing... they weren't that powerful when they started out, yet they all were risking their lives for their beliefs in Jesus day in and day out. So now we must question why risk your life for something that isn't true?

to answer your question:

because they believed it to be true.

belief is not fact-based. people believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe for how many hundreds of years? The Vatican was one of the main enforcers of this belief - it was heresy, with all the accompanying earthly punishments and promises of going straight to hell for anyone to say differently. So, whatever the Vatican says is truth? Not to me!

Originally posted by Al Davison
to answer your question:

because they believed it to be true.

belief is not fact-based. people believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe for how many hundreds of years? The Vatican was one of the main enforcers of this belief - it was heresy, with all the accompanying earthly punishments and promises of going straight to hell for anyone to say differently. So, whatever the Vatican says is truth? Not to me!

I am talking about way before the Vatican or catholicism ever existed. I am talking about the apostles, the disciples, and the ones who began to believe. They risked their life preaching the word, especially the apostles.

we really do not know what they believed or preached prior to constantine.
It does appear that before the Council of Nicea the beliefs were varied with
little consensus.

Hey SinCity702:

You mentioned the "original Hebrew Bibles" quoting the NT crucifixion pericopes, but the 4 canonical gospels are clearly GREEK literary productions, not Hebrew ones, at least in their present written form.

So what exactly are you talking about?

If there was an Aramaic-Hebrew original content-format to the Greek gospel crucifixion narratives (e.g. for dramitco-liturgical purposes tto be acted out at Passover every year among the earliest Christians for example) it would most likely have been derived from "oral" not written Hebrew since the earliest ccommunity was very loathe to write anything down, believing it "killed the spirit".

At any rate the crucifixion narratives are hardly sober prose history, but liturgical documents (notice the 3's in Mark's gospel e.g. the careful divisons (surely not actually "purely historical") into the 3rd hour, the 6th hour and the 9th hour etc. which sounds like liturgy at any rate) heavilly influenced by Hagaddic Midrash (i.e. the specific act of taking specific Old Testament/Apocryphal prophecy verses and making stories out of them from a few BARE FACTS, in order to fill out the narrative--common in 2nd Temple Judaeism

e.g. The Wisdom of Solomon (from around 165 BC, found at Qumran) see: chapter 1 which states: "Sorrowfuil unto death is the man to whom his best friend hath betrayed..."

And in the crucifixion pericope we read: "and Iesous said, Behold, the Son of Man is Sorrowful unto Death..." which dialogue seems to havee derived from the Wisdom of Solomon, given the context of being betrayed by one of his own (i.e. R. Yehuda bar Shimeon Ish Keryiota, aka Judas Iscarioth).

The narratives seemed to have been guided by haggadic middrash from many old testament type verses (e.g. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53) even though "historically" R. Yehoshua seems to have been abandoned by his disciples at the arrest after the initial skirmish with a sword where an ear went missing.

Pilate's modus operandi in cases of armed sedition-insurrection at any rate would have been to arrest only the leaders and let the others go (as with other Roman experiences with Jewish revolutionaries before the big Revolt of AD 66).

Haggadic Midrash (or "legendary embellishments of facts") is a 1st century "Nazorean Christian" way of filling in factual blanks that were not really known "in history" in order to point out moral or ethical teaching (deriving from the Heb: D-R-SH meaning "to seek out the inner meaning of something")

That is, all that seems to have been known for sure was that the Teacher was arrested late at nightdduring some confusion, and hurriedly tried/convicted by Roman authorities and whipped/crucified-hung as a common criminal ("This is Yeshua the Nazir, King of the Judaeans") for armed sedition against Rome, in breach of LEX MAIESTATIS (the so-called "no king but Caesar" law) during a violent Insurrection against Roman Occupation, the nth since BC 63 (Mark 14 mentions: "Now Barabbas was a seditionist...and he had been arrested "during the Insurrection" but no details of how organized that was...) sometime around Passover of AD 36 (or therabouts).

Just some thoughts off the top of my head today.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
okay, lets just say Jesus was crucified on the cross and placed in the tomb. I do not see how he would have survived for 3 days. The rest of this post I really can not comment on, however I do believe that he died and rose again. But back to my statement. I do not see how Jesus would have survived for 3 days w/o food or water locked in a tomb bleeding to death. That is the point that I think is rather moot.

Okay, he was 'allegedly' put into the tomb Friday night, the night he was pronounced dead, 'Good Friday'. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James show up early Sunday morning. My math skills may not be what they used to, but I count 1 1/2 days if he left the tomb just before they arrived. He could have been gone Saturday morning for all we know, which would mean he'd have to survive ten hours or so without nourishment. Being God and all, that should not have been too hard.

Actually if you read Hebrew 5:7-8 it contradicts the crucifixion.

Also the disciples were not present at the crucifixion ( Matthew 26:55-56)

"At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

(Mark 14:49-50)

"Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." Then everyone deserted him and fled.

The absence of Jesus' disciples during the time of crucifixion does raise some serious questions and doubts about the reliability of what's written in the Bible about the entire event.